It's been a few months since I've seen any mention of this.
Has there been any change in the legal status of bring ZFS to official
fedora repos?
Regards,
Zach
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct:
On 10/16/2015 11:40 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>
>
> On 10/16/2015 12:21 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> As scheduled [1], Fedora 23 Final Test Compose 10 (TC10) and TC11 are
>> now available for testing. Please help us complete all the validation
>> testing!
>>
>
> Hey Adam/Cloud list,
>
> Does
On Sex, 2015-10-16 at 09:00 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 23:49:22 +0100
> Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > We detect migration problem from bodhi 1 to 2 [1]
> >
> > Can someone workaround and push to stable, because they reached the
> > stable karma
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Zach Villers wrote:
> It's been a few months since I've seen any mention of this.
>
> Has there been any change in the legal status of bring ZFS to official
> fedora repos?
No.
josh
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 10/16/2015 12:21 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
As scheduled [1], Fedora 23 Final Test Compose 10 (TC10) and TC11 are
now available for testing. Please help us complete all the validation
testing!
Hey Adam/Cloud list,
Does anyone know what happened between TC9 / TC10 / TC11 with regards to
On 10/16/2015 02:24 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
On 10/16/2015 11:40 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
On 10/16/2015 12:21 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
As scheduled [1], Fedora 23 Final Test Compose 10 (TC10) and TC11 are
now available for testing. Please help us complete all the validation
testing!
Hey
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Zach Villers
wrote:
> It's been a few months since I've seen any mention of this.
>
> Has there been any change in the legal status of bring ZFS to official
> fedora repos?
>
>
Has the license changed? I thought that was the reason it
Various packages now install files into /usr/lib/rpm/fileattrs for use when
building rpms. Currently that directory is owned by:
rpm-build-4.13.0-0.rc1.4.fc23.x86_64
javapackages-tools-4.6.0-6.fc23.noarch
Of the various packages on my machine that install files there:
Have you already tried their Fedora repository?
http://zfsonlinux.org/fedora.html
Richard
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
No missing expected images.
No images in this compose but not 23 Branched 20151015
No images in 23 Branched 20151015 but not this.
Failed openQA tests: 7 of 52
ID: 6237Test: x86_64 universal server_simple_free_space@uefi
ID: 6153Test: i386 workstation_live default_install
ID:
No missing expected images.
No images in this compose but not Rawhide 20151015
Images in Rawhide 20151015 but not this:
Mate disk raw armhfp
Failed openQA tests: 8 of 52
ID: 6245Test: x86_64 universal server_simple_free_space@uefi
ID: 6208Test: x86_64 kde_live default_install
On Fri, 2015-10-16 at 09:44 +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
> On 10/12/2015 12:04 PM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > It's GNOME 3.18.1 release this week and I'll be wrangling the
> > builds for
> > Fedora. Same drill as with previous megaupdates: if you are helping
> > with
> > builds, please
On Fri, 2015-10-16 at 14:33 -0400, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>
> On 10/16/2015 02:24 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> > On 10/16/2015 11:40 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
> > >
> > > On 10/16/2015 12:21 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > As scheduled [1], Fedora 23 Final Test Compose 10 (TC10) and
> > > > TC11 are
>
Dne 16.10.2015 v 10:13 Alexander Ploumistos napsal(a):
> Btw, what about upstream links to the keys in the spec file?
I did not use SourceX in spec file, because my source is tar.gz file created
from github.
This make the maintenance more easier.
However - good idea - I will create some
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Right now at least two projects (mock and fedora-upgrade) contains and use
> those keys.
> So once this get into Fedora (and Epel) I can remove those keys from
> fedora-upgrade and mock and use this common package.
>
>
Dne 15.10.2015 v 18:27 Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a):
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:59:56AM -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>>> It is my pleasure to announce new version of Copr.
>>> https://copr.fedoraproject.org/
>>
>> Seems that the new version broke sorting
Dne 15.10.2015 v 16:24 Michael Cronenworth napsal(a):
> I would suggest adding PlayOnLinux to RPMFusion. Downloading binaries this
> way was frowned[1] upon before.
>
> [1] https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1331
However POL does not download the games. And as stated before it is useful for
On 10/12/2015 12:04 PM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It's GNOME 3.18.1 release this week and I'll be wrangling the builds for
> Fedora. Same drill as with previous megaupdates: if you are helping with
> builds, please use f23-gnome build target.
>
> $ fedpkg build --target f23-gnome
>
>
Dne 15.10.2015 v 23:23 Alexander Ploumistos napsal(a):
> Hello,
>
> Please forgive my ignorance, but how is this supposed to be used? I
> guess it's handy to keep track of all the current keys, but unlike,
> say rpmfusion-free-release, the keys are not placed or linked in
> /etc/pki/, nor are
Compose started at Fri Oct 16 05:15:03 UTC 2015
Broken deps for i386
--
[IQmol]
IQmol-2.3.0-9.fc24.i686 requires libboost_serialization.so.1.58.0
IQmol-2.3.0-9.fc24.i686 requires libboost_iostreams.so.1.58.0
I've had an updated SwiftMailer spec in my back pocket for a while
that I have been meaning to submit. I'll submit the review request
for it soon.
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Remi Collet wrote:
> Le 15/10/2015 18:20, notificati...@fedoraproject.org a écrit :
>> +rm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/15/2015 06:49 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Hi, We detect migration problem from bodhi 1 to 2 [1]
>
> Can someone workaround and push to stable, because they reached
> the stable karma threshold:
>
>
Compose started at Fri Oct 16 07:15:03 UTC 2015
Broken deps for armhfp
--
[openstack-swift]
openstack-swift-2.3.0-2.fc23.noarch requires python-pyeclib
[python-fiat]
python-fiat-1.5.0-2.fc23.noarch requires ScientificPython
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 15.10.2015 v 23:23 Alexander Ploumistos napsal(a):
> > Hello,
> >
> > Please forgive my ignorance, but how is this supposed to be used? I
> > guess it's handy to keep track of all the current keys, but unlike,
> >
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 23:49:22 +0100
Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Hi,
> We detect migration problem from bodhi 1 to 2 [1]
>
> Can someone workaround and push to stable, because they reached the
> stable karma threshold:
>
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-11787
>
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 09:00:29AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> I'd suggest all maintainers should periodically check:
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?user==testing
> For their updates that are in testing.
Noting here that there's an easy link to that url from your Bodhi
profile page
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 03:06:01PM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> Various packages now install files into /usr/lib/rpm/fileattrs for use when
> building rpms. Currently that directory is owned by:
>
> rpm-build-4.13.0-0.rc1.4.fc23.x86_64
> javapackages-tools-4.6.0-6.fc23.noarch
>
> Of the
fedora-repos should have all the keys needed for upgrade. So the only thing
needing the keys is mock. However I'm not sure you should include rpmfusion
keys in Fedora.
Dennis
On October 16, 2015 2:26:16 AM CDT, "Miroslav Suchý" wrote:
>Dne 15.10.2015 v 23:23 Alexander
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 07:37:15PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> fedora-repos should have all the keys needed for upgrade. So the only thing
> needing the keys is mock. However I'm not sure you should include rpmfusion
> keys in Fedora.
On a related note, something that I thought about when
I have tried it. I don't like messing with dkms during upgrades. I remembered
MM saying something about their being conversations about the license issue
that were encouraging during an interview after the F22 release and wondered if
there was any follow up.
*apologies to MM if my recollection
On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 2:46 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 07:37:15PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>> fedora-repos should have all the keys needed for upgrade. So the only thing
>> needing the keys is mock. However I'm not sure you should
On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 03:05:42AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 2:46 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 07:37:15PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> >> fedora-repos should have all the keys needed for upgrade. So the only
As scheduled [1], Fedora 23 Final Test Compose 10 (TC10) and TC11 are
now available for testing. Please help us complete all the validation
testing!
As discussed at yesterday's blocker review meeting, we requested two
TCs at the same time because of the GNOME 3.18.1 mega-update. The two
TCs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272278
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
On 10/16/2015 02:54 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> soon will be a while. There needs to be testing and possible changes
> to koji to support the issue of dealing with one build root coming
> from one source (RHEL) and another one coming from another (CentOS).
> The build infrastructure is under
From 3f932958f8f21034f530aad2fa84f06802ff74a2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Adam Williamson
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 00:00:27 -0700
Subject: disable a test on https://github.com/koorchik/Mojolicious-Plugin-RenderFile/commit/0dfa997
+%if 0%{?fedora} < 23
+rm
From 3f932958f8f21034f530aad2fa84f06802ff74a2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Adam Williamson
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 00:00:27 -0700
Subject: disable a test on https://github.com/koorchik/Mojolicious-Plugin-RenderFile/commit/0dfa997
+%if 0%{?fedora} < 23
+rm
From 3f932958f8f21034f530aad2fa84f06802ff74a2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Adam Williamson
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 00:00:27 -0700
Subject: disable a test on https://github.com/koorchik/Mojolicious-Plugin-RenderFile/commit/0dfa997
+%if 0%{?fedora} < 23
+rm
On 10/16/2015 07:19 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> [smooge@batcave01 epel]$ du -shc ./5 ./6 ./7
> 22G ./5
> 50G ./6
> 32G ./7
> 103G total
>
> That is several (hundred) cdroms of data.
Just out of curiosity, what is the space for 7/x86_64 ? I'm guessing
this would be small enough to fit onto
From 6ccefea60dbf2d8e9051d765624d969656ff4cf1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dennis Gilmore
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 04:37:03 +
Subject: - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_23_Mass_Rebuild
---
perl-Mojolicious-Plugin-RenderFile.spec | 5 -
1 file changed,
From 10f73c05d5222ed6f473879b46e318912defaebd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jitka Plesnikova
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 17:05:45 +0200
Subject: Perl 5.22 rebuild
---
perl-Mojolicious-Plugin-RenderFile.spec | 5 -
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git
From 296c15599783dc55d55db5bd3c57fdf7dab7d3c4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Petr=20P=C3=ADsa=C5=99?=
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 10:56:35 +0200
Subject: 0.9156 bump
---
.gitignore | 1 +
perl-CPANPLUS.spec | 9 ++---
sources| 2 +-
3 files
From a9274bd360676dbb0add683fb8553489772f92f1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Petr=20P=C3=ADsa=C5=99?=
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 10:56:35 +0200
Subject: 0.9156 bump
---
.gitignore | 1 +
perl-CPANPLUS.spec | 9 ++---
sources| 2 +-
3 files
99134c27de949d2734278c4b121e5b3f CPANPLUS-0.9156.tar.gz
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/lookaside/pkgs/perl-CPANPLUS/CPANPLUS-0.9156.tar.gz/md5/99134c27de949d2734278c4b121e5b3f/CPANPLUS-0.9156.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel
From eb22720467aff5bcea24bad9ae031f35a9431a9b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Petr=20P=C3=ADsa=C5=99?=
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 10:56:35 +0200
Subject: 0.9156 bump
---
.gitignore | 1 +
perl-CPANPLUS.spec | 9 ++---
sources| 2 +-
3 files
From eb22720467aff5bcea24bad9ae031f35a9431a9b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Petr=20P=C3=ADsa=C5=99?=
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 10:56:35 +0200
Subject: 0.9156 bump
---
.gitignore | 1 +
perl-CPANPLUS.spec | 9 ++---
sources| 2 +-
3 files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272278
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-CPANPLUS-0.91.56-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-1f4ef443bd
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272278
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-CPANPLUS-0.91.56-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 21.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-6a7ef4da1f
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272278
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272278
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-CPANPLUS-0.91.56-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-31feb7c697
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272440
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
Created attachment 1083619
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1083619=edit
[patch] Update to 4.22 (#1272440)
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272440
Bug ID: 1272440
Summary: perl-CGI-4.22 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-CGI
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee: jples...@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1272440
--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
Scratch build completed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11473726
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
jplesnik changed psabata's 'commit' permission on perl-Roman (f23) to 'Approved'
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/perl-Roman/
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
jplesnik changed psabata's 'approveacls' permission on perl-Roman (f23) to
'Approved'
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/perl-Roman/
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
b1f80c9463f7b535d3d3c5738f29dbb4 Roman-1.24.tar.gz
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/lookaside/pkgs/perl-Roman/Roman-1.24.tar.gz/md5/b1f80c9463f7b535d3d3c5738f29dbb4/Roman-1.24.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
jplesnik changed perl-sig's 'watchbugzilla' permission on perl-Roman (master)
to 'Approved'
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/perl-Roman/
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
From b79cfd1bd70b8f21ba96c9017b13ec59d9ba4da8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jitka Plesnikova
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 16:06:22 +0200
Subject: Initial import
---
.gitignore | 1 +
perl-Roman.spec | 51 +++
sources
jplesnik set the koschei monitoring flag of perl-Roman to True
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
jplesnik changed psabata's 'approveacls' permission on perl-Roman (master) to
'Approved'
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/perl-Roman/
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
jplesnik changed psabata's 'commit' permission on perl-Roman (master) to
'Approved'
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/perl-Roman/
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
jplesnik changed ppisar's 'commit' permission on perl-Roman (master) to
'Approved'
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/perl-Roman/
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
jplesnik changed ppisar's 'approveacls' permission on perl-Roman (f23) to
'Approved'
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/perl-Roman/
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
jplesnik changed ppisar's 'approveacls' permission on perl-Roman (master) to
'Approved'
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/perl-Roman/
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
jplesnik changed ppisar's 'commit' permission on perl-Roman (f23) to 'Approved'
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/perl-Roman/
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
The following Fedora EPEL 5 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
726 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-11893
libguestfs-1.20.12-1.el5
491 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2014-1626
puppet-2.7.26-1.el5
340
jplesnik changed perl-sig's 'watchcommits' permission on perl-Roman (master) to
'Approved'
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/perl-Roman/
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
jplesnik changed perl-sig's 'watchbugzilla' permission on perl-Roman (f23) to
'Approved'
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/perl-Roman/
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
jplesnik changed perl-sig's 'watchcommits' permission on perl-Roman (f23) to
'Approved'
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/perl-Roman/
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 10/15/2015 09:24 PM, Christopher Meng wrote:
Hi,
Redis in EPEL6 is pretty dated, I'd like to update it to the latest
2.x version but somehow I haven't done major update like this.
Is it allowed to update the package from 2.4 to 2.8 for new RHEL 6.x
like 6.8 release?
ppisar changed ppisar's 'watchbugzilla' permission on perl-Roman (f23) to
'Obsolete'
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/perl-Roman/
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
ppisar changed ppisar's 'watchbugzilla' permission on perl-Roman (master) to
'Obsolete'
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/perl-Roman/
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
ppisar created the branch 'f22' for the package 'perl-Roman'
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/perl-Roman/
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
From fc43292893eded9a01df72b3a5f02d87ad8a28e6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jitka Plesnikova
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 16:47:18 +0200
Subject: Specify all dependencies
---
perl-HTML-Toc.spec | 30 --
1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 10
ppisar changed ppisar's 'watchcommits' permission on perl-Roman (master) to
'Obsolete'
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/perl-Roman/
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
ppisar changed ppisar's 'watchcommits' permission on perl-Roman (f23) to
'Obsolete'
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/perl-Roman/
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
From c90961b5d353ac2c0e765e25e4817cef2dcc9e67 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jitka Plesnikova
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 16:06:22 +0200
Subject: Initial import
---
.gitignore | 1 +
perl-Roman.spec | 51 +++
sources
On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 19:13:22 +1300
Peter wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, what is the space for 7/x86_64 ? I'm guessing
> this would be small enough to fit onto a double-layer DVD. If you
> then donk the debug tree from there you could probably fit the rest
> onto a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/17/2015 03:44 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> We provide a handy way to answer this sort of question:
>
> http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/DIRECTORY_SIZES.txt
Oh cool, I had no idea about that.
> 15G /pub/epel/7/x86_64 8.7G /pub/epel/7/x86_64/debug
https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/47978/0001-Ticket-47978-Deadlock-between-two-MODs-on-the-same-e.patch
https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/47978
It exists a FreeIPA CI test that reproduce the hang (almost
systematically): test_vault.py
--
389-devel mailing list
80 matches
Mail list logo