On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 5:54 PM Michael Catanzaro
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 9:36 am, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 8:54 AM Mikhail Gavrilov
> > wrote:
> >> # authselect apply-changes
> >> [error] [/etc/authselect/nsswitch.conf] has unexpected content!
> >> [error]
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 8:44 AM Petr Pisar wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 09:59:05PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > For Maven packaging the appeal of Modularity is clearly the privatization of
> > the dependency tree, which obviously undercuts the ecosystem of packages.
> >
>
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 9:59 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 01:50:55PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> > maintain the non-modular packages. We are not going to promise to
> > commit time and resources to maintain the non-modular packages.
>
> Joe, here's a part I hope you can
On Thursday, September 10, 2020 10:38:51 PM MST Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 06:37:56PM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, September 10, 2020 4:42:24 AM MST Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> >
wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 01:27:30PM
Hello everyone,
I would like to start a discussion about moving unversioned *.so files back
to unixODBC-devel package, as they are currently in the main package. The
reason for this discussion is primary have things in order according to
future rhel-9.
There will potentially be a change of
>From my point of view, it's a good idea to move them into the *-devel
package.
It's more effective and ordered for future development.
Because if someone only needs a few libraries, they don't have to require
the whole main package and can just require a devel package, which is the
way we want
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 12:32 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> This exchange summarizes the situation nicely.
>
> Modularity can be considered an over-complicated hyped-through-the-roof
> bundling mechanism.
>
> For a long time Fedora has very strongly discouraged bundling in the sense of
On Thursday, September 10, 2020 11:56:25 PM MST alcir...@posteo.net wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-09-10 at 18:33 -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
>
> >
> > Why in the world would systemd have anything to do with NTP? We still
> > use
>
>
> It has to do with NTP in the same degree it has to do with
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-32-20200910.0):
ID: 662135 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 09:59:05PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> For Maven packaging the appeal of Modularity is clearly the privatization of
> the dependency tree, which obviously undercuts the ecosystem of packages.
>
You are right that bundling is one of the features of
On Thu, 2020-09-10 at 18:33 -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
>
> Why in the world would systemd have anything to do with NTP? We still
> use
It has to do with NTP in the same degree it has to do with DNS.
Sure, we use chronyd. But, if I'm not wrong, if a user disables chronyd
and enable
Hi,
First of all a big thank you to everyone involved in the
discussion for the constructive discussion.
I agree that the situation around java packaging is quite
worrying and I'm happy to see that people are trying to
come up with a pragmatic solution to the current deadlock
situation.
On
Thank you for describing the entire story from your pov, I think it's very
helpful!
On 11. 09. 20 9:34, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
I can't drop my
packages and move back to co-maintaining ursine packages as it would
mean losing 2 years of my work and the features I developed.
I guess there are
Dne 11. 09. 20 v 8:43 Petr Pisar napsal(a):
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 09:59:05PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>> For Maven packaging the appeal of Modularity is clearly the privatization of
>> the dependency tree, which obviously undercuts the ecosystem of packages.
>>
> You are
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 9:15 AM Lukas Javorsky wrote:
> From my point of view, it's a good idea to move them into the *-devel
> package.
>
> It's more effective and ordered for future development.
> Because if someone only needs a few libraries, they don't have to require
> the whole main
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 10:16:02AM +0200, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> You get a side tag in Koji where you can have private build-only
> dependencies that are discarded (filtered) once they are no longer
> needed, after module build is done. For build-only packages most of
> security vulnerabilities
On 11/09/2020 07:13, Ondrej Dubaj wrote:
There seemed to be no big reason for moving the libraries to the main
package in the past, so I consider f34 as a good candidate for such a
change. It would be great, if you share your opinions and concerns for
this topic.
Tom Lane has explained the
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 09:54, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 10:16:02AM +0200, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> > You get a side tag in Koji where you can have private build-only
> > dependencies that are discarded (filtered) once they are no longer
> > needed, after module build is
* Tom Hughes via devel:
> On 11/09/2020 07:13, Ondrej Dubaj wrote:
>
>> There seemed to be no big reason for moving the libraries to the
>> main package in the past, so I consider f34 as a good candidate for
>> such a change. It would be great, if you share your opinions and
>> concerns for this
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 11:01 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> Thank you for describing the entire story from your pov, I think it's very
> helpful!
>
> On 11. 09. 20 9:34, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> > I can't drop my
> > packages and move back to co-maintaining ursine packages as it would
> > mean
No missing expected images.
Compose PASSES proposed Rawhide gating check!
All required tests passed
Failed openQA tests: 4/170 (x86_64)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20200910.n.0):
ID: 662184 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_update_graphical
URL:
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20200910.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20200911.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 6
Added packages: 75
Dropped packages:4
Upgraded packages: 73
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 91.43 MiB
Size of dropped packages
Dne 11. 09. 20 v 9:48 Florian Weimer napsal(a):
> * Tom Hughes via devel:
>
>> On 11/09/2020 07:13, Ondrej Dubaj wrote:
>>
>>> There seemed to be no big reason for moving the libraries to the
>>> main package in the past, so I consider f34 as a good candidate for
>>> such a change. It would be
Dne 11. 09. 20 v 11:03 Hans de Goede napsal(a):
>
>
> On 9/11/20 10:16 AM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
>
>> Another, more concrete example: core Ant doesn't have any dependencies
>> beyond JDK. It is easy to build and maintain, yet very functional. On
>> the other hand, full Ant with all the optional
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020, 9:16 AM Kaleb Keithley wrote:
> I confess I'm a bit ignorant about how the ELN builds are going to be
> used. Especially the ELN builds of glusterfs and ceph.
>
> That aside—
>
> Red Hat ships GlusterFS and Ceph (RHGS and RHCS respectively) as products,
> and generally
Missing expected images:
Iot dvd aarch64
Iot dvd x86_64
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/16 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-IoT-34-20200907.0):
ID: 662306 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis
URL:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 11:54 AM Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 10:16:02AM +0200, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> > You get a side tag in Koji where you can have private build-only
> > dependencies that are discarded (filtered) once they are no longer
> > needed, after module build is
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 10:54 AM Tomasz Torcz wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 10:16:02AM +0200, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> > You get a side tag in Koji where you can have private build-only
> > dependencies that are discarded (filtered) once they are no longer
> > needed, after module build is
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 01:55:54AM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> On Thursday, September 10, 2020 10:38:51 PM MST Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 06:37:56PM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> >
> > > On Thursday, September 10, 2020 4:42:24 AM MST Zbigniew
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 11:04 AM Hans de Goede wrote:
> So for this tomcat needed for testing problem, I'm thinking that we
> might solve this in a very non Fedora way. Why not bundle the old
> tomcat-sources with the sources which need it for their test-suite
> (and build it before running the
John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> On Thursday, September 10, 2020 11:56:25 PM MST alcir...@posteo.net wrote:
> > But systemd in Fedora is built to use
> > FallbackNTPServers=0.fedora.pool.ntp.org 1.fedora.pool.ntp.org
> > 2.fedora.pool.ntp.org 3.fedora.pool.ntp.org
>
> Sounds like a good change,
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 3/181 (x86_64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-33-20200910.n.0):
ID: 662424 Test: x86_64 universal install_sata@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/662424
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-33-20200910.n.0):
Dne 10. 09. 20 v 17:32 Michael Catanzaro napsal(a):
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 9:24 am, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> Could you please provide more details? This is content of my
>> nsswitch.conf:
>>
>>
>> ~~~
>>
>> $ grep mdns4_minimal /etc/authselect/user-nsswitch.conf
>> hosts:
Hi,
On 9/11/20 12:47 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 11. 09. 20 v 11:03 Hans de Goede napsal(a):
On 9/11/20 10:16 AM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
Another, more concrete example: core Ant doesn't have any dependencies
beyond JDK. It is easy to build and maintain, yet very functional. On
the other
OLD: Fedora-33-20200910.n.0
NEW: Fedora-33-20200911.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 4
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:22.41 KiB
Size
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 8:08 AM Scott Talbert wrote:
> Unfortunately, it appears that package has been retired for some time due
> to having failed to build. It will require a new maintainer to step up
> and the package will have to go through a re-review.
Yann, are you interested in
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 06:30:05PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 04:03:46PM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 02:35:13PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 01:50:55PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
>
> > 4. The benefit we want to
The php-email-address-validation package [1] has been built using code fetched
from the now-defunct Google Code, which dated back to 2009. The package
received no updates since then. I plan to switch the package to build from a
forked version of the library [2], which is still maintained (last
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 5:52 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 11:03:39AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > An other more generic approach which has been brought up once or
> > twice, but which not really has been discussed in much detail yet
> > I believe is
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020, ycollette.nos...@free.fr wrote:
Just a mail to say I fixed the seq24 spec file.
It works fine on Fedora 31 / 32 for now.
Here is the bug report where I put the links to the fixed spec file:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1675986#c14
Hi,
Unfortunately, it
Yes, I am really interested :)
- Mail original -
De: "Jerry James"
À: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
Cc: "ycollette nospam"
Envoyé: Vendredi 11 Septembre 2020 16:18:40
Objet: Re: Package fixed: seq24
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 8:08 AM Scott Talbert wrote:
> Unfortunately,
On Thu, 2020-09-10 at 10:28 +, Mikhail Gavrilov wrote:
> From here https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1863041#c46 I
> have expected what newly-created connection would work properly
> without manually changing ipv4.dns-search to ~. on the specific VPN
> connection.
Hi,
I think you
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 11:03:39AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> An other more generic approach which has been brought up once or
> twice, but which not really has been discussed in much detail yet
> I believe is creating a fedora-builddep repository.
>
> ATM a normal user has 3 ursine Fedora
I have already 2 packages in review:
lv2lint: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844120
jamulus: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1840865
- Mail original -
De: "ycollette nospam"
À: "Jerry James"
Cc: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
Envoyé: Vendredi 11
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 01:36:38PM +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
> So where is a global pool of volunteer-provided DNS resolvers similar
> to pool.ntp.org? I've never heard of one, and I suspect it's not
> advisable to do that with DNS.
There is currently no such thing that I know of, but lacking
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 1:06 PM Hans de Goede wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 9/11/20 12:47 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >
> > Dne 11. 09. 20 v 11:03 Hans de Goede napsal(a):
> >>
> >>
> >> On 9/11/20 10:16 AM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> >>
> >>> Another, more concrete example: core Ant doesn't have any
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 07:27, Mario Torre wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 11:04 AM Hans de Goede
> wrote:
>
> > So for this tomcat needed for testing problem, I'm thinking that we
> > might solve this in a very non Fedora way. Why not bundle the old
> > tomcat-sources with the sources which
Hello,
Just a mail to say I fixed the seq24 spec file.
It works fine on Fedora 31 / 32 for now.
Here is the bug report where I put the links to the fixed spec file:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1675986#c14
Best regards,
Yann
___
devel
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 9:38 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
>
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-3f6760cc65
>
> I'm confused about what state this update it is. "Pending" - pending
> what exactly? What we really want to know is how long before it ends
> up in F33 and Jerry
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 9:38 PM Richard W.M. Jones
wrote:
>
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-3f6760cc65
>
> I'm confused about what state this update it is. "Pending" - pending
> what exactly? What we really want to know is how long before it ends
> up in F33 and Jerry can
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 12:10 PM Robbie Harwood wrote:
>
> Michel Alexandre Salim writes:
>
> > * Have an expedited flow where this SIG can request EPEL branches and
> > admin access to packages if there are no response from package
> > maintainers for a set period (3 days? 1 week?)
> > *
On Fri, 2020-09-11 at 20:37 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-3f6760cc65
>
> I'm confused about what state this update it is. "Pending" - pending
> what exactly? What we really want to know is how long before it ends
> up in F33 and Jerry can
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 08:57:20PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 09:41:09PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 9:38 PM Richard W.M. Jones
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-3f6760cc65
> > >
> > >
On Fri, 2020-09-11 at 20:57 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 09:41:09PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 9:38 PM Richard W.M. Jones
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-3f6760cc65
> > >
> > > I'm
Hello,
dozens of my packages suddenly fail to resolve build dependencies with things
like the ones below.
Is there a Qt5 rebuild in progress?
This build seem to be tagged in a side tag and also in f34:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1608618
Is that on purpose?
On Fri, 2020-09-11 at 15:50 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> Accepted blockers
> -
> 1. libreport — https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860616 — ON_QA
> abrt-server errors when processing zstd compressed core dumps produced
> by systemd-246~rc1-1.fc33
>
>
On Fri, 2020-09-11 at 15:44 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 3:10 PM Robbie Harwood
> wrote:
> > Michel Alexandre Salim writes:
> >
> > > * Have an expedited flow where this SIG can request EPEL branches
> > > and
> > > admin access to packages if there are no response from
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 10:21 am, Kamil Paral wrote:
I did edit /etc/nsswitch.conf manually, because obviously I needed a
working system :) The confusing part here is that the error message
claims that **/etc/authselect/nsswitch.conf** has unexpected content.
So this doesn't seem to be
on
grep PRETTY /etc/os-release
PRETTY_NAME="Fedora 32 (Server Edition)"
uname -rm
5.8.7-200.fc32.x86_64 x86_64
with
rpm -qa | grep xen
xen-4.13.1-4.fc32.x86_64
xen-hypervisor-4.13.1-4.fc32.x86_64
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-3f6760cc65
I'm confused about what state this update it is. "Pending" - pending
what exactly? What we really want to know is how long before it ends
up in F33 and Jerry can build more OCaml packages against it.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones,
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 3:10 PM Robbie Harwood wrote:
>
> Michel Alexandre Salim writes:
>
> > * Have an expedited flow where this SIG can request EPEL branches and
> > admin access to packages if there are no response from package
> > maintainers for a set period (3 days? 1 week?)
> > *
Fedora 33 Beta was no-go by default due to outstanding blockers. Let's
try again this week!
Action summary
Accepted blockers
-
1. libreport — abrt-server errors when processing zstd compressed core
dumps produced by systemd-246~rc1-1.fc33 — ON_QA
ACTION:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 09:41:09PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 9:38 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >
> >
> > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-3f6760cc65
> >
> > I'm confused about what state this update it is. "Pending" - pending
> > what exactly?
On 11. 09. 20 22:01, Adam Williamson wrote:
When you hit edit, it shows the builds in the update already, and there
*should* be a button to remove each, but indeed I don't see it on that
update. Not sure why not.
https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/4122
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone:
On 11. 09. 20 21:57, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I built libnbd against the side tag (libnbd-1.4.1-1.fc33.1) but can't
work out how to add it to the update. There seems to be no way to
edit the list of packages AFAICT.
That is https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/4122
Using the CLI
Hi,
On 9/11/20 6:08 PM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 1:06 PM Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 9/11/20 12:47 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 11. 09. 20 v 11:03 Hans de Goede napsal(a):
On 9/11/20 10:16 AM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
Another, more concrete example: core Ant
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 10:03:11PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 11. 09. 20 21:57, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >I built libnbd against the side tag (libnbd-1.4.1-1.fc33.1) but can't
> >work out how to add it to the update. There seems to be no way to
> >edit the list of packages AFAICT.
>
>
On Fri, 2020-09-11 at 22:04 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 11. 09. 20 22:01, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > When you hit edit, it shows the builds in the update already, and there
> > *should* be a button to remove each, but indeed I don't see it on that
> > update. Not sure why not.
>
>
On 11. 09. 20 22:11, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 10:03:11PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 11. 09. 20 21:57, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I built libnbd against the side tag (libnbd-1.4.1-1.fc33.1) but can't
work out how to add it to the update. There seems to be no way to
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 10:15:06PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 11. 09. 20 22:11, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 10:03:11PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >>On 11. 09. 20 21:57, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >>>I built libnbd against the side tag (libnbd-1.4.1-1.fc33.1) but
Neal Gompa writes:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 3:10 PM Robbie Harwood wrote:
>>
>> Michel Alexandre Salim writes:
>>
>> > * Have an expedited flow where this SIG can request EPEL branches and
>> > admin access to packages if there are no response from package
>> > maintainers for a set period (3
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 11:10 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 10. 09. 20 16:53, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > I think FESCo should completely forbid modules without packaged
> > non-modular versions.
>
> It did.
Hi,
Can you share the ticket/issue for this restriction with me?
Thank you,
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 06:01:11PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 5:52 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 11:03:39AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > An other more generic approach which has been brought up once or
> > > twice, but
Hello all,
Following up from last week's EPEL Steering Committee meeting, I'm
presenting a proposal to create a dedicated SIG to make it easier to
get Fedora packages into EPEL and keep them maintained.
Using the Fedora Changes Process template for this to help structure
the proposal, though
Michel Alexandre Salim writes:
> * Have an expedited flow where this SIG can request EPEL branches and
> admin access to packages if there are no response from package
> maintainers for a set period (3 days? 1 week?)
> * whether it should be full admin access or whether such access
> should be
What Fabio just mentioned was that the current use case for a
build-time only package is invalid. A lot of packages Mikolaj is
trying to get build-time only (via modules) are still maintained by
the Java Maintenance SIG because they're required by other packages.
Allowing them to be build-time
On Fri, 2020-09-11 at 12:44 +0300, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 11:54 AM Tomasz Torcz wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 10:16:02AM +0200, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> > > You get a side tag in Koji where you can have private build-only
> > > dependencies that are
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 2:02 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2020-09-11 at 12:44 +0300, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 11:54 AM Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 10:16:02AM +0200, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> > > > You get a side tag in Koji where
On Fri, 2020-09-11 at 23:13 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-09-11 at 14:40 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Just figured a heads-up here might help people. If you recently
> > updated
> > your system and got a whole bunch (~90, depending on how many were
> > already installed) of
# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting
# Date: 2020-09-14
# Time: 15:00 UTC
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto)
# Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net
Greetings testers!
We didn't meet for a few weeks, so let's get together and check in.
If anyone has any other items
# F33 Blocker Review meeting
# Date: 2020-09-14
# Time: 16:00 UTC
# Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net
Hi folks! We have 11 proposed Beta freeze exceptions and 3 proposed
Final blockers to review, so let's have a Fedora 33 blocker review
meeting on Monday! Above numbers are
Just figured a heads-up here might help people. If you recently updated
your system and got a whole bunch (~90, depending on how many were
already installed) of packages pulled in by...something - including
scala, vtk and a bunch of other odd things - I can tell you why: it was
caused by a change
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 04:35:03PM -0500, Tony Asleson wrote:
> This release:
>
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-4da598e74b
>
> has been stuck waiting to get moved to stable. Is some error going on
> that isn't evident?
We are in Beta freeze. Only packages that fix
On Fri, 2020-09-11 at 14:40 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Just figured a heads-up here might help people. If you recently
> updated
> your system and got a whole bunch (~90, depending on how many were
> already installed) of packages pulled in by...something - including
> scala, vtk and a bunch
On 11. 09. 20 22:55, Jie Kang wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 11:10 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 10. 09. 20 16:53, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
I think FESCo should completely forbid modules without packaged
non-modular versions.
It did.
Hi,
Can you share the ticket/issue for this
This release:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-4da598e74b
has been stuck waiting to get moved to stable. Is some error going on
that isn't evident?
This was a release that I did to hopefully correct what is discussed here:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 2:19 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 10:15:06PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > This worked (and pushed the update to testing automatically).
>
> Ah great, thanks Miro!
Just to set Richard's mind at ease: I'm not going to do any OCaml
builds for F33
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 10:56 PM Jie Kang wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 11:10 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >
> > On 10. 09. 20 16:53, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > > I think FESCo should completely forbid modules without packaged
> > > non-modular versions.
> >
> > It did.
>
> Hi,
>
> Can
We discussed the proposal a bit at today's EPEL SC meeting; here's a
revised proposal taking into account the suggestions from the meeting
and earlier in this list.
## The SIG
- bstinson pointed out that epel-wranglers was started to address the
same issue, we can resurrect that
- we want to
Hi team,
so everything is an order and ready.
Today at 3 pm EDT we disable Pagure notifications and I start the migration
process.
On Saturday, after I clone all of the issues and PRs and close Pagure
issues, I'll put 389-ds-base issue tracker on 'read-only' mode.
And during Saturday-Sunday I'll
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878142
Bug ID: 1878142
Summary: perl-Catalyst-Runtime-5.90128 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Catalyst-Runtime
Keywords:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 3:10 PM Robbie Harwood wrote:
>
> Michel Alexandre Salim writes:
>
> > * Have an expedited flow where this SIG can request EPEL branches and
> > admin access to packages if there are no response from package
> > maintainers for a set period (3 days? 1 week?)
> > *
On Fri, 2020-09-11 at 15:44 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 3:10 PM Robbie Harwood
> wrote:
> > Michel Alexandre Salim writes:
> >
> > > * Have an expedited flow where this SIG can request EPEL branches
> > > and
> > > admin access to packages if there are no response from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1802607
Upstream Release Monitoring
changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|perl-Net-DNS-1.26 is|perl-Net-DNS-1.27 is
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1802607
--- Comment #15 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
the-new-hotness/release-monitoring.org's scratch build of
perl-Net-DNS-1.27-1.fc32.src.rpm for rawhide completed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=51245495
--
You are
Hello all,
Following up from last week's EPEL Steering Committee meeting, I'm
presenting a proposal to create a dedicated SIG to make it easier to
get Fedora packages into EPEL and keep them maintained.
Using the Fedora Changes Process template for this to help structure
the proposal, though
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2020/09/12/report-389-ds-base-1.4.4.4-20200911gitf9638bb.fc32.x86_64.html
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
We discussed the proposal a bit at today's EPEL SC meeting; here's a
revised proposal taking into account the suggestions from the meeting
and earlier in this list.
## The SIG
- bstinson pointed out that epel-wranglers was started to address the
same issue, we can resurrect that
- we want to
98 matches
Mail list logo
