Re: Anyone working on Xen on F29
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018, Aaron Gray wrote: > Hi, > > I am trying to get Xen working properly on rawhide / F29 Beta. > > I had one instillation on F29 that worked straight away with :- > > sudo yum groupinstall 'Virtualization' sudo yum install xen > > I cannot seem to reproduce this now though :( > > And am getting the following :- > ~~~ > Loading xen 4.11.0 > error: ../../grub-core/fs/fshelp.c:258:file > `/EFI/fedora/x86_64-efi/module2.mod' not found. > error: ../../grub-core/fs/fshelp.c:258:file > `/EFI/fedora/x86_64-efi/multiboot2.mod' not found. > Loading Linux 4.18.5-300.fc29.x86_64 ... > error: ../../grub-core/script/function.c:109@can't file command `module2'. > Loading initial ramdisk ... > error: ../../grub-core/fs/fshelp.c:258:file > `/EFI/fedora/x86_64-efi/module2.mod' not found. > error: ../../grub-core/script/function.c:109@can't file command `module2'. > ~~~ Grub doesn't get the EFI confguration for xen right. I suggest you try creating the directory /boot/efi/EFI/fedora/x86_64-efi/ if it doesn't exist and copying into it the multiboot2.mod and relocator.mod files from /usr/lib/grub/x86_64-efi (from the grub2-efi-x64-modules package if you don't have it installed already). That should boot with warnings and you can get rid of them by editing /boot/efi/EFI/fedora/grub.cfg and removing the insmod module2 lines. Michael Young___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Redis 5.0 in testing
Hi all, Quick note to mention the Redis 5.0 release builds are available in testing now for all current Fedora versions. This release is backward compatible with the 4.x series and adds a series of new features: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/antirez/redis/5.0/00-RELEASENOTES I've been running the release candidate snapshots for several months and all is well here - let us know if you run into any issues though. cheers. -- Nathan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Test-Announce] Issues with Google Chrome, PyCharm, Steam and other third-party repos in Fedora 29 prereleases
It was discovered[1] a short while ago that, due to a packaging mistake in the fedora-workstation-repos package, upgrades from Fedora 28->Fedora 29 would replace the /etc/yum.repos.d/*.repo files provided from that package with their default configuration. What this meant in practice is that anyone who was using those repositories in Fedora 28 would find them silently disabled in Fedora 29. In particular, this would mean that they might not notice that they were not receiving updates, particularly (in the case of Chrome) security updates. This has been fixed for F29 Final, but if you have upgraded from F28->F29 prior to today (such as at the Beta release), you should check and verify that your expected repos are correctly enabled. You can verify which repositories on your system are enabled or disabled by running the command: `dnf repolist --all` If you discover that any of your expected repos have been disabled, they can be re-enabled with: `dnf config-manager --set-enabled ` [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1640626 ___ test-announce mailing list -- test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: bumping fmt to 5.2.1
On Friday, 26 October 2018 at 07:24, Kefu Chai wrote: > hey guys, > > i am pushing fmt 5.2.1 to rawhive (f30)[1]. and plan to push this > updated change to fc29 and then fc28. as fmt-static is no longer > packaged in fmt-5.2.1, kodi package will need to dynamically linked > against libfmt at runtime in future. currently it's statically linked > against libfmt.a. Please refrain from pushing this without coordinating with maintainers of affected dependent packages first. Send a patch if necessary, but don't cause existing packages to start failing to build. Regards, Dominik -- Fedora https://getfedora.org | RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and oppression to develop psychic muscles. -- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Issues with Google Chrome, PyCharm, Steam and other third-party repos in Fedora 29 prereleases
Hello all, This didn't happen to me with the last version (F28) but I didn't install Workstation, I installed KDE Spin. So now my question is: Does this affect to all Fedoras, including Spins and Labs, or is it an issue that for some reason affects Workstation only? Kind regards. Silvia FAS: Lailah On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 21:01, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 3:06 PM Till Hofmann > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 10/25/18 4:02 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > It was discovered[1] a short while ago that, due to a packaging > > > mistake in the fedora-workstation-repos package, upgrades from Fedora > > > 28->Fedora 29 would replace the /etc/yum.repos.d/*.repo files provided > > > from that package with their default configuration. > > > > > > What this meant in practice is that anyone who was using those > > > repositories in Fedora 28 would find them silently disabled in Fedora > > > 29. In particular, this would mean that they might not notice that > > > they were not receiving updates, particularly (in the case of Chrome) > > > security updates. > > > > > > This has been fixed for F29 Final, but if you have upgraded from > > > F28->F29 prior to today (such as at the Beta release), you should > > > check and verify that your expected repos are correctly enabled. > > > > > > > Is it possible that this also happened on F28? I haven't upgraded to F29 > > yet, but surprisingly my google-chrome repo is disabled and I'm using > > Chrome 68.0.3440.84 from 2 months ago. I'm pretty sure I never disabled > > the repo manually. > > > > If there was a post-release update to the fedora-workstation-repos > package in F28, it's entirely possible, yes. It would have had the > same issue. > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Should we also list "Trivial" review tickets on Easyfix?
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 14:43:21 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > "AS" == Ankur Sinha writes: > > AS> The package review process suggests the use of "Trivial" on the > AS> Whiteboard for simpler tickets to aid new-comers. So, they seem to > AS> serve the same purpose as EasyFix. Would it be OK to also list these > AS> tickets on the EasyFix page? > > I don't see why not. > > Fedora has been using "Trivial" for this purpose since before the > Core/Extras merge but there's no particular reason for it (other than > the dictionary meaning of the word matching up with the usage). It > could certainly be changed if it makes something easier. I don't think a change is warranted. It's trivial enough to include these tickets too. I'll go work on it. -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Time zone: Europe/London signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Issues with Google Chrome, PyCharm, Steam and other third-party repos in Fedora 29 prereleases
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 5:11 AM Silvia Sánchez wrote: > > Hello all, > > This didn't happen to me with the last version (F28) but I didn't > install Workstation, I installed KDE Spin. So now my question is: Does > this affect to all Fedoras, including Spins and Labs, or is it an issue > that for some reason affects Workstation only? > > Kind regards. > Silvia > FAS: Lailah > > It affects anyone who has installed the fedora-workstation-repos package, which is installed by default only on Fedora Workstation (as it really doesn’t do anything useful except in the context of GNOME Software). > On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 21:01, Stephen Gallagher > wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 3:06 PM Till Hofmann >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On 10/25/18 4:02 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> > > It was discovered[1] a short while ago that, due to a packaging >> > > mistake in the fedora-workstation-repos package, upgrades from Fedora >> > > 28->Fedora 29 would replace the /etc/yum.repos.d/*.repo files provided >> > > from that package with their default configuration. >> > > >> > > What this meant in practice is that anyone who was using those >> > > repositories in Fedora 28 would find them silently disabled in Fedora >> > > 29. In particular, this would mean that they might not notice that >> > > they were not receiving updates, particularly (in the case of Chrome) >> > > security updates. >> > > >> > > This has been fixed for F29 Final, but if you have upgraded from >> > > F28->F29 prior to today (such as at the Beta release), you should >> > > check and verify that your expected repos are correctly enabled. >> > > >> > >> > Is it possible that this also happened on F28? I haven't upgraded to F29 >> > yet, but surprisingly my google-chrome repo is disabled and I'm using >> > Chrome 68.0.3440.84 from 2 months ago. I'm pretty sure I never disabled >> > the repo manually. >> > >> >> If there was a post-release update to the fedora-workstation-repos >> package in F28, it's entirely possible, yes. It would have had the >> same issue. >> ___ >> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org >> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html >> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines >> List Archives: >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >> > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 29 Final is GO
On 25/10/2018 20:58, Ben Cotton wrote: The Fedora 29 Final RC1.2 compose [1] is GO and will to be shipped live on Tuesday, October 30, 2018. For more information please check the Go/No-Go meeting minutes [2] or logs [3]. Thank you to everyone who has worked on this release. [1] http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_RC-1.2/ [2] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2018-10-25/f29-final-go_no_go-meeting.2018-10-25-17.03.html [3] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2018-10-25/f29-final-go_no_go-meeting.2018-10-25-17.03.log.html Is there any reason why https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30445005 has been canceled? I don't see any obvious reason in the logs and I really want the Astronomy Spin to be shipped… Normally that spin builds fine, see latest daily build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30453015 In addition I want to note that we have many broken spins like the Python Classroom and Design. I'm not sure whether it is a good idea to ignore this, also for marketing reasons :( Greetings, Christian ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Issues with Google Chrome, PyCharm, Steam and other third-party repos in Fedora 29 prereleases
Ah, okay. Thanks. On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 11:33, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 5:11 AM Silvia Sánchez wrote: > >> >> Hello all, >> >> This didn't happen to me with the last version (F28) but I didn't >> install Workstation, I installed KDE Spin. So now my question is: Does >> this affect to all Fedoras, including Spins and Labs, or is it an issue >> that for some reason affects Workstation only? >> >> Kind regards. >> Silvia >> FAS: Lailah >> >> > It affects anyone who has installed the fedora-workstation-repos package, > which is installed by default only on Fedora Workstation (as it really > doesn’t do anything useful except in the context of GNOME Software). > > > >> On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 21:01, Stephen Gallagher >> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 3:06 PM Till Hofmann >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On 10/25/18 4:02 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >>> > > It was discovered[1] a short while ago that, due to a packaging >>> > > mistake in the fedora-workstation-repos package, upgrades from Fedora >>> > > 28->Fedora 29 would replace the /etc/yum.repos.d/*.repo files >>> provided >>> > > from that package with their default configuration. >>> > > >>> > > What this meant in practice is that anyone who was using those >>> > > repositories in Fedora 28 would find them silently disabled in Fedora >>> > > 29. In particular, this would mean that they might not notice that >>> > > they were not receiving updates, particularly (in the case of Chrome) >>> > > security updates. >>> > > >>> > > This has been fixed for F29 Final, but if you have upgraded from >>> > > F28->F29 prior to today (such as at the Beta release), you should >>> > > check and verify that your expected repos are correctly enabled. >>> > > >>> > >>> > Is it possible that this also happened on F28? I haven't upgraded to >>> F29 >>> > yet, but surprisingly my google-chrome repo is disabled and I'm using >>> > Chrome 68.0.3440.84 from 2 months ago. I'm pretty sure I never disabled >>> > the repo manually. >>> > >>> >>> If there was a post-release update to the fedora-workstation-repos >>> package in F28, it's entirely possible, yes. It would have had the >>> same issue. >>> ___ >>> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >>> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org >>> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html >>> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines >>> List Archives: >>> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >>> >> ___ >> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org >> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html >> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines >> List Archives: >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >> > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 29 Final is GO
> On 25/10/2018 20:58, Ben Cotton wrote: > > The Fedora 29 Final RC1.2 compose [1] is GO and will to be shipped > > live on Tuesday, October 30, 2018. > > > > For more information please check the Go/No-Go meeting minutes [2] or logs > > [3]. > > > > Thank you to everyone who has worked on this release. > > > > [1] http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_RC-1.2/ > > [2] > > https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2018-10-25/f29-final-go_no_go-meeting.2018-10-25-17.03.html > > [3] > > https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2018-10-25/f29-final-go_no_go-meeting.2018-10-25-17.03.log.html > > > > Is there any reason why > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30445005 has been > canceled? I don't see any obvious reason in the logs and I really want > the Astronomy Spin to be shipped… Normally that spin builds fine, see > latest daily build: > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30453015 > > In addition I want to note that we have many broken spins like the > Python Classroom and Design. I'm not sure whether it is a good idea to > ignore this, also for marketing reasons :( Yes, I agree, I am at a loss as to why it was signed off as well, there was blockers like "Be able to apply updates using the desktop mechanism" that were seemingly ignored with broken gnome-software, plus numerous other issues. I don't feel it was ready but clearly someone had some agenda to ram it on through despite the issues. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
No Xfce LIve iso in RC 1.2
Hello, there is no Xfce live iso in RC-1.2: https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_RC-1.2/Spins/x86_64/iso/ It has been available in beta-1.5: https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_Beta-1.5/Spins/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Xfce-Live-x86_64-29_Beta-1.5.iso It is also available in rawhide: https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/development/rawhide/Spins/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Xfce-Live-x86_64-Rawhide-20181025.n.0.iso The LXQT live iso is also missing in RC-1.2. Regards, Thomas ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: No Xfce LIve iso in RC 1.2
Thomas Woerner wrote on 2018/10/26 21:23: Hello, there is no Xfce live iso in RC-1.2: https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_RC-1.2/Spins/x86_64/iso/ It has been available in beta-1.5: https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_Beta-1.5/Spins/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Xfce-Live-x86_64-29_Beta-1.5.iso It is also available in rawhide: https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/development/rawhide/Spins/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Xfce-Live-x86_64-Rawhide-20181025.n.0.iso The LXQT live iso is also missing in RC-1.2. Xfce live creation fails due to broken dependency: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30473241 see root.log LXQt live creation seems to be now proceeding, however it will probably fail like 20181025 due to broken dependency: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30453180 see root.log Probably spin owner should watch these carefully... Regards, Thomas Regards, Mamoru ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 29 Final is GO
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 8:23 AM Peter Robinson wrote: > Yes, I agree, I am at a loss as to why it was signed off as well, > there was blockers like "Be able to apply updates using the desktop > mechanism" that were seemingly ignored with broken gnome-software, > plus numerous other issues. I don't feel it was ready but clearly > someone had some agenda to ram it on through despite the issues. Just the opposite, actually. mattdm and I were both in favor of waiting another week to release on the 15th anniversary of the Fedora Core 1 release. The bugs you refer to were all reviewed according to our normal blocker review procedure. You can look in the minutes or the log for the reasoning, but it generally came down to being unable to reproduce them. Of course, you still have the right to say "I told you so" if they blow up. I can't say for sure that nobody had an "agenda to ram it on through", but if they did, they didn't invite me to join the conspiracy. The discussion around the blockers and the release in general was reasoned and informed by folks arguing on both sides, as I would expect from the Fedora community. We can always stand to improve the process, and I'm happy to hear suggestions you have. But conspiratorial accusations are not constructive. -- Ben Cotton Fedora Program Manager TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Rawhide-20181026.n.0 compose check report
No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 72/133 (x86_64), 19/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20181025.n.0): ID: 301443 Test: i386 Everything-boot-iso install_default URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301443 ID: 301502 Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_software_raid@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301502 ID: 301503 Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_lvmthin@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301503 ID: 301551 Test: x86_64 universal install_multi@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301551 Old failures (same test failed in Rawhide-20181025.n.0): ID: 301412 Test: x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301412 ID: 301413 Test: x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301413 ID: 301415 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_repository_nfs_variation URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301415 ID: 301416 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_repository_nfs_graphical URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301416 ID: 301417 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_default_upload URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301417 ID: 301439 Test: i386 Server-boot-iso install_default URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301439 ID: 301441 Test: x86_64 Everything-boot-iso install_default URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301441 ID: 301442 Test: x86_64 Everything-boot-iso install_default@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301442 ID: 301444 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default_upload URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301444 ID: 301445 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301445 ID: 301450 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_notifications_live URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301450 ID: 301456 Test: x86_64 Workstation-boot-iso install_default URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301456 ID: 301457 Test: x86_64 Workstation-boot-iso memory_check URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301457 ID: 301458 Test: x86_64 Workstation-boot-iso memory_check@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301458 ID: 301459 Test: x86_64 Workstation-boot-iso install_default@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301459 ID: 301460 Test: i386 Workstation-live-iso install_default URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301460 ID: 301461 Test: i386 Workstation-boot-iso memory_check URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301461 ID: 301462 Test: i386 Workstation-boot-iso install_default URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301462 ID: 301463 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default_upload URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301463 ID: 301464 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301464 ID: 301466 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_no_user URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301466 ID: 301469 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_live URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301469 ID: 301476 Test: i386 KDE-live-iso install_default URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301476 ID: 301477 Test: arm Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz install_arm_image_deployment_upload URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301477 ID: 301479 Test: x86_64 AtomicHost-dvd_ostree-iso install_default URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301479 ID: 301480 Test: x86_64 AtomicHost-dvd_ostree-iso install_default@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301480 ID: 301481 Test: x86_64 universal install_software_raid URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301481 ID: 301482 Test: x86_64 universal install_multi_empty@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301482 ID: 301483 Test: x86_64 universal install_delete_partial URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301483 ID: 301484 Test: x86_64 universal install_btrfs URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301484 ID: 301485 Test: x86_64 universal install_ext3 URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301485 ID: 301488 Test: x86_64 universal install_repository_http_variation URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301488 ID: 301489 Test: x86_64 universal install_repository_http_graphical URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301489 ID: 301490 Test: x86_64 universal install_mirrorlist_graphical URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301490 ID: 301491 Test: x86_64 universal install_xfs URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301491 ID: 301492 Test: x86_64 universal install_no_swap URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301492 ID: 301494 Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_btrfs URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/3014
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 29 Final is GO
Hello, On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 8:37 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 8:23 AM Peter Robinson wrote: > > > Yes, I agree, I am at a loss as to why it was signed off as well, > > there was blockers like "Be able to apply updates using the desktop > > mechanism" that were seemingly ignored with broken gnome-software, > > plus numerous other issues. I don't feel it was ready but clearly > > someone had some agenda to ram it on through despite the issues. > > Just the opposite, actually. mattdm and I were both in favor of > waiting another week to release on the 15th anniversary of the Fedora > Core 1 release. The bugs you refer to were all reviewed according to > our normal blocker review procedure. You can look in the minutes or > the log for the reasoning, but it generally came down to being unable > to reproduce them. Of course, you still have the right to say "I told > you so" if they blow up. > > I can't say for sure that nobody had an "agenda to ram it on through", > but if they did, they didn't invite me to join the conspiracy. The > discussion around the blockers and the release in general was reasoned > and informed by folks arguing on both sides, as I would expect from > the Fedora community. We can always stand to improve the process, and > I'm happy to hear suggestions you have. But conspiratorial accusations > are not constructive. Just a query, Does XFCE Fedora 29 spin is removed? It is not visible here https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_RC-1.2/Spins/x86_64/iso/ Thanks, Chandan Kumar ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora rawhide compose report: 20181026.n.0 changes
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20181025.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20181026.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:3 Dropped images: 4 Added packages: 5 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 55 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 9.34 MiB Size of dropped packages:0 B Size of upgraded packages: 2.39 GiB Size of downgraded packages: 0 B Size change of upgraded packages: -200.11 MiB Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B = ADDED IMAGES = Image: Container_Base docker x86_64 Path: Container/x86_64/images/Fedora-Container-Base-Rawhide-20181026.n.0.x86_64.tar.xz Image: Container_Base docker ppc64le Path: Container/ppc64le/images/Fedora-Container-Base-Rawhide-20181026.n.0.ppc64le.tar.xz Image: Container_Base docker s390x Path: Container/s390x/images/Fedora-Container-Base-Rawhide-20181026.n.0.s390x.tar.xz = DROPPED IMAGES = Image: Cloud_Base qcow2 ppc64le Path: Cloud/ppc64le/images/Fedora-Cloud-Base-Rawhide-20181025.n.0.ppc64le.qcow2 Image: Cloud_Base qcow2 s390x Path: Cloud/s390x/images/Fedora-Cloud-Base-Rawhide-20181025.n.0.s390x.qcow2 Image: Cloud_Base raw-xz s390x Path: Cloud/s390x/images/Fedora-Cloud-Base-Rawhide-20181025.n.0.s390x.raw.xz Image: Cloud_Base raw-xz ppc64le Path: Cloud/ppc64le/images/Fedora-Cloud-Base-Rawhide-20181025.n.0.ppc64le.raw.xz = ADDED PACKAGES = Package: fedora-toolbox-0.0.1-1.fc30 Summary: Toolbox containers & images for hacking on OSTree-based Fedoras RPMs:fedora-toolbox Size:14.45 KiB Package: libneurosim-0-1.20181025.git7d074da.fc30 Summary: Common interfaces for neuronal simulators RPMs:libneurosim libneurosim-common libneurosim-devel libneurosim-mpich libneurosim-mpich-devel libneurosim-openmpi libneurosim-openmpi-devel python3-libneurosim python3-libneurosim-mpich python3-libneurosim-openmpi Size:1.02 MiB Package: perl-Convert-Base32-0.06-2.fc30 Summary: Encoding and decoding of base32 strings RPMs:perl-Convert-Base32 Size:12.10 KiB Package: rclone-browser-1.2-1.fc30 Summary: Simple cross platform GUI for rclone RPMs:rclone-browser Size:1.05 MiB Package: traverso-0.49.5-1.fc30 Summary: Multitrack Audio Recording and Editing Suite RPMs:traverso Size:7.25 MiB = DROPPED PACKAGES = = UPGRADED PACKAGES = Package: ansible-lint-3.4.23-7.fc30 Old package: ansible-lint-3.4.23-6.fc30 Summary: Best practices checker for Ansible RPMs: python3-ansible-lint Size: 55.68 KiB Size change: 172 B Changelog: * Thu Oct 25 2018 Parag Nemade - 3.4.23-7 - Add back Provides: ansible-lint Package: appcenter-3.0.1-1.fc30 Old package: appcenter-3.0-2.fc30 Summary: Software Center from elementary RPMs: appcenter appcenter-gnome-shell-search-provider Size: 2.21 MiB Size change: 253.04 KiB Changelog: * Thu Oct 25 2018 Fabio Valentini - 3.0.1-1 - Update to version 3.0.1. Package: beakerlib-1.17-19.fc30 Old package: beakerlib-1.17-16.fc29 Summary: A shell-level integration testing library RPMs: beakerlib beakerlib-vim-syntax Size: 163.93 KiB Size change: 732 B Changelog: * Thu Oct 25 2018 Dalibor Pospisil - 1.17-19 - fixed meta file generation - follow url redirection when using curl - fixed checking for python interpreter - weak dependency on python3 - handling of missing python - fixed srpm fetching - fallback to curl if wget is not available - changed requirements structure Package: containerd-1.2.0-1.fc30 Old package: containerd-1.1.2-1.fc29 Summary: An industry-standard container runtime RPMs: containerd Size: 135.42 MiB Size change: 9.03 MiB Changelog: * Thu Oct 25 2018 Carl George - 1.2.0-1 - Latest upstream Package: dnsmasq-2.80-1.fc30 Old package: dnsmasq-2.79-7.fc29 Summary: A lightweight DHCP/caching DNS server RPMs: dnsmasq dnsmasq-utils Size: 1.97 MiB Size change: 41.14 KiB Changelog: * Thu Aug 09 2018 Petr Menk - 2.79-8 - Better randomize ports * Mon Aug 20 2018 Petr Menk - 2.80-1 - Update to 2.80 Package: fmt-5.2.1-1.fc30 Old package: fmt-3.0.2-7.fc30 Summary: Small, safe and fast formatting library for C++ RPMs: fmt fmt-devel fmt-doc Dropped RPMs: fmt-static Size: 1.16 MiB Size change: 239.79 KiB Changelog: * Thu Oct 11 2018 Kefu Chai - 5.2.1-1 - Update to 5.2.1 - Build using python3 packages on fedora - Remove links in document accessing network - Package ChangeLog.rst and README.rst - Drop fmt-static package Package: fonttools-3.31.0-1.fc30 Old package: fonttools-3.29.0-1.fc29 Summary: Tools to manipulate font files RPMs: fonttools python2-fonttools python3-fonttools Size: 2.43 MiB Size change: 208.01 KiB Changelog: * Thu Oct 25 2018 Parag Nemade - 3.31.0-1 - Update to 3.31.0 version (#1642082) Package: gasnet-1.32.0-2.fc30 Old package: gasnet-1.30.0-7.fc29 Summary: A Port
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 29 Final is GO
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 12:09 PM chandan kumar wrote: > Just a query, Does XFCE Fedora 29 spin is removed? > It is not visible here > https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_RC-1.2/Spins/x86_64/iso/ > See https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/MWR6OULSXFL6WF4RF4CLVFDVVRN73PKV/ -- Ben Cotton Fedora Program Manager TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 29 Final is GO
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 12:59:24PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > > Just a query, Does XFCE Fedora 29 spin is removed? > > It is not visible here > > https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_RC-1.2/Spins/x86_64/iso/ > See > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/MWR6OULSXFL6WF4RF4CLVFDVVRN73PKV/ We've got to fix this so that non-blocking deliverables like this can be delivered independent of the main compose. -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora 29 compose report: 20181026.n.0 changes
OLD: Fedora-29-20181025.n.0 NEW: Fedora-29-20181026.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:1 Dropped images: 5 Added packages: 0 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 0 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 0 B Size of dropped packages:0 B Size of upgraded packages: 0 B Size of downgraded packages: 0 B Size change of upgraded packages: 0 B Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B = ADDED IMAGES = Image: Container_Minimal_Base docker ppc64le Path: Container/ppc64le/images/Fedora-Container-Minimal-Base-29-20181026.n.0.ppc64le.tar.xz = DROPPED IMAGES = Image: AtomicHost qcow2 ppc64le Path: AtomicHost/ppc64le/images/Fedora-AtomicHost-29-20181025.n.0.ppc64le.qcow2 Image: Cloud_Base qcow2 s390x Path: Cloud/s390x/images/Fedora-Cloud-Base-29-20181025.n.0.s390x.qcow2 Image: Container_Minimal_Base docker s390x Path: Container/s390x/images/Fedora-Container-Minimal-Base-29-20181025.n.0.s390x.tar.xz Image: Cloud_Base raw-xz s390x Path: Cloud/s390x/images/Fedora-Cloud-Base-29-20181025.n.0.s390x.raw.xz Image: AtomicHost raw-xz ppc64le Path: AtomicHost/ppc64le/images/Fedora-AtomicHost-29-20181025.n.0.ppc64le.raw.xz = ADDED PACKAGES = = DROPPED PACKAGES = = UPGRADED PACKAGES = = DOWNGRADED PACKAGES = ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 29 Final is GO
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 12:25 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 12:59:24PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: >> > Just a query, Does XFCE Fedora 29 spin is removed? >> > It is not visible here >> > https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_RC-1.2/Spins/x86_64/iso/ >> See >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/MWR6OULSXFL6WF4RF4CLVFDVVRN73PKV/ > > > We've got to fix this so that non-blocking deliverables like this can be > delivered independent of the main compose. Or even if each image can be made independent. Chris Murphy ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 29 Final is GO
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 3:16 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 12:59:24PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > > > Just a query, Does XFCE Fedora 29 spin is removed? > > > It is not visible here > > > https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_RC-1.2/Spins/x86_64/iso/ > > See > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/MWR6OULSXFL6WF4RF4CLVFDVVRN73PKV/ > > > We've got to fix this so that non-blocking deliverables like this can be > delivered independent of the main compose. > Maybe this is a bit radical, but perhaps we shouldn't *have* a super-large compose in itself? If we decouple most of the deliverable production from the "release tree" creation, then there's no reason that ISOs couldn't be spun over and over without forcing the regeneration of *all the things*. Nearly all the deliverables use the same base tree anyway, and some of the ISO issues are related to incorrect kickstart definitions that need some simple fixes. That said, the other thing that's a problem here is that broken composes don't notify the SIGs specifically that their stuff needs fixing. We have(ish) this process for packages (once spam-o-matic emails are sent again..), but we've never had something like this for all the images we produce. This makes it hard for SIG folks to know there's a problem that needs fixing until it's too late. Also, this most recent class of issues are related to packaging problems or package selection issues for kickstarts. The former issue is that some packages need simple rebuilds for soname bumps. Since we apparently can't have auto-rebuild + submit for such trivial things, we really need at least spam-o-matic mails getting sent when these get detected. The latter issue is also interesting, do we have an equivalent for testing the resolvability of package selections in %packages sections for kickstarts? If not, that might be a good idea to have so that we can validate them before going through the expensive process of producing ISOs. That could even be a CI test on the fedora-kickstarts repo! -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 29 Final is GO
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 4:43 AM, Christian Dersch wrote: > On 25/10/2018 20:58, Ben Cotton wrote: >> >> The Fedora 29 Final RC1.2 compose [1] is GO and will to be shipped >> live on Tuesday, October 30, 2018. >> >> For more information please check the Go/No-Go meeting minutes [2] or logs >> [3]. >> >> Thank you to everyone who has worked on this release. >> >> [1] http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_RC-1.2/ >> [2] >> https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2018-10-25/f29-final-go_no_go-meeting.2018-10-25-17.03.html >> [3] >> https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2018-10-25/f29-final-go_no_go-meeting.2018-10-25-17.03.log.html >> > > Is there any reason why > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30445005 has been > canceled? I don't see any obvious reason in the logs and I really want the > Astronomy Spin to be shipped… Normally that spin builds fine, see latest > daily build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30453015 > > In addition I want to note that we have many broken spins like the Python > Classroom and Design. I'm not sure whether it is a good idea to ignore this, > also for marketing reasons :( I understand the complaint in isolation, but in relation to the existing processes and release criteria I do not follow. What solution do you propose? Right now release criteria explicitly does not block the release even if all the spins (as they are not release blocking images) fail to compose. A criterion that says if three or more spins fail to compose, we block on? Well what if it's only Astronomy? Or what if it's just our top two most popular spins? It's really not that granular, and it's also not fair. And as a consequence, blocking means another compose must be ordered up, which replaces all the images even the ones that previously tested good. And the compose process has just enough non-determinism in it, that we have to do sanity testing on all the images. It's easily a dozen man hours. There needs to be a recruitment drive to get releng the resources it needs to decouple the compose outputs. I haven't looked, but was the RC the first failure for these spins? Were they succeeding as nightlies and just failed suddenly as RC? There might be a valid way to carve up a release criterion that says if there's an RC specific failure to output images that didn't cause nightlies to fail, then we have to find out what's going on. Something that acknowledges, hey pretty much all the nightlies had working spins but then suddenly the RC blew things up, why? -- Chris Murphy ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 29 Final is GO
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 15:16, Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 12:59:24PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > > > Just a query, Does XFCE Fedora 29 spin is removed? > > > It is not visible here > > > https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_RC-1.2/Spins/x86_64/iso/ > > See > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/MWR6OULSXFL6WF4RF4CLVFDVVRN73PKV/ > > > We've got to fix this so that non-blocking deliverables like this can be > delivered independent of the main compose. > I think we have been saying that for multiple releases. What does it take to move this to the top of the queue versus where it sits? -- Stephen J Smoogen. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 29 Final is GO
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 6:22 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: >> On 25/10/2018 20:58, Ben Cotton wrote: >> > The Fedora 29 Final RC1.2 compose [1] is GO and will to be shipped >> > live on Tuesday, October 30, 2018. >> > >> > For more information please check the Go/No-Go meeting minutes [2] or logs >> > [3]. >> > >> > Thank you to everyone who has worked on this release. >> > >> > [1] http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_RC-1.2/ >> > [2] >> > https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2018-10-25/f29-final-go_no_go-meeting.2018-10-25-17.03.html >> > [3] >> > https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2018-10-25/f29-final-go_no_go-meeting.2018-10-25-17.03.log.html >> > >> >> Is there any reason why >> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30445005 has been >> canceled? I don't see any obvious reason in the logs and I really want >> the Astronomy Spin to be shipped… Normally that spin builds fine, see >> latest daily build: >> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30453015 >> >> In addition I want to note that we have many broken spins like the >> Python Classroom and Design. I'm not sure whether it is a good idea to >> ignore this, also for marketing reasons :( > > Yes, I agree, I am at a loss as to why it was signed off as well, > there was blockers like "Be able to apply updates using the desktop > mechanism" that were seemingly ignored with broken gnome-software, > plus numerous other issues. I don't feel it was ready but clearly > someone had some agenda to ram it on through despite the issues. I read the minutes and my take away is almost 180 degrees from your conclusion. The process was rational and logical, and reached a reasonable conclusion objectively. There were valid subjective reasons to postpone. There was a gnome-software bug proposed as a blocker. It was determined not to be a blocker. So it's not correct to say it was a blocker and that it was ignored. And that there were numerous other issues (?) that were also not blockers, isn't something I can parse. On what process basis, including release criteria, whether existing now or one you'd like to propose, should this release have been held up? Chris Murphy ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: No Xfce LIve iso in RC 1.2
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 6:23 AM, Thomas Woerner wrote: > Hello, > > there is no Xfce live iso in RC-1.2: > > https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_RC-1.2/Spins/x86_64/iso/ Isn't Xfce a release blocking desktop for ARM or something? -- Chris Murphy ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: No Xfce LIve iso in RC 1.2
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:09 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 6:23 AM, Thomas Woerner wrote: >> Hello, >> >> there is no Xfce live iso in RC-1.2: >> >> https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_RC-1.2/Spins/x86_64/iso/ > > Isn't Xfce a release blocking desktop for ARM or something? It is release blocking for this image: Spins/armhfp/images/Fedora-Xfce-armhfp-_RELEASE_MILESTONE_-sda.raw.xz And that did build: https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_RC-1.2/Spins/armhfp/images/Fedora-Xfce-armhfp-29-1.2-sda.raw.xz But it is not release blocking for Live. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/29/ReleaseBlocking -- Chris Murphy ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: No Xfce LIve iso in RC 1.2
The Xfce image built for aarch64, but not for x86_64 so that's how we got here. Geoff Marr IRC: coremodule On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:10 PM Chris Murphy wrote: > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 6:23 AM, Thomas Woerner > wrote: > > Hello, > > > > there is no Xfce live iso in RC-1.2: > > > > https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_RC-1.2/Spins/x86_64/iso/ > > Isn't Xfce a release blocking desktop for ARM or something? > > > -- > Chris Murphy > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora 29-20181026.n.0 compose check report
No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 4/133 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm) ID: 301579 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso modularity_tests URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301579 ID: 301636 Test: arm Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz install_arm_image_deployment_upload URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301636 ID: 301668 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_kde_64bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301668 ID: 301675 Test: x86_64 universal install_european_language URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301675 ID: 301708 Test: x86_64 universal install_asian_language URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301708 Soft failed openQA tests: 3/133 (x86_64), 2/24 (i386) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) ID: 301598 Test: i386 Server-boot-iso install_default URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301598 ID: 301599 Test: i386 Server-dvd-iso install_default URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301599 ID: 301604 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301604 ID: 301623 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301623 ID: 301695 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_server_domain_controller URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301695 Passed openQA tests: 126/133 (x86_64), 22/24 (i386) Skipped openQA tests: 1 of 159 -- Mail generated by check-compose: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 29 Final is GO
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 4:43 AM, Christian Dersch > > I understand the complaint in isolation, but in relation to the > existing processes and release criteria I do not follow. What solution > do you propose? > > Right now release criteria explicitly does not block the release even > if all the spins (as they are not release blocking images) fail to > compose. A criterion that says if three or more spins fail to compose, > we block on? Well what if it's only Astronomy? Or what if it's just > our top two most popular spins? It's really not that granular, and > it's also not fair. And as a consequence, blocking means another > compose must be ordered up, which replaces all the images even the > ones that previously tested good. And the compose process has just > enough non-determinism in it, that we have to do sanity testing on all > the images. It's easily a dozen man hours. > > There needs to be a recruitment drive to get releng the resources it > needs to decouple the compose outputs. > > I haven't looked, but was the RC the first failure for these spins? > Were they succeeding as nightlies and just failed suddenly as RC? > There might be a valid way to carve up a release criterion that says > if there's an RC specific failure to output images that didn't cause > nightlies to fail, then we have to find out what's going on. Something > that acknowledges, hey pretty much all the nightlies had working spins > but then suddenly the RC blew things up, why? In case of Astronomy all nightlies built fine, the RC one has been canceled for some reason for x86_64, even the i686 one went fine. The other spins seem to be failing for at least some days also in nightly. So IMHO two different cases (of couse with same result), in case of Astronomy the compose itself has an issue, for the other spins there are dependency issues as it seems. Having that criterion " if there's an RC specific failure to output images that didn't cause nightlies to fail, then we have to find out what's going on." would be really nice. Greetings, Christian ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
VTK 8.1.1 coming to rawhide
Building now. I'll be rebuilding dependent packages when it completes tomorrow. Some packages (InsightToolkit, DiffusionKurtosisFit, and petpvc) are failing to build due to an issue with vxl and C++11. I've filed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1637255 -- Orion Poplawski Manager of NWRA Technical Systems 720-772-5637 NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane or...@nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 https://www.nwra.com/ ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: VTK 8.1.1 coming to rawhide
On Fri, 2018-10-26 at 19:39 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: > Building now. I'll be rebuilding dependent packages when it > completes > tomorrow. > > Some packages (InsightToolkit, DiffusionKurtosisFit, and petpvc) are > failing to build due to an issue with vxl and C++11. I've filed > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1637255 Hi, BTW on opencv we have VTK support disabled. Incompatible combination: OpenCV + Qt5 and VTK ver.7.1.1 + Qt4. If you update VTK for Qt5 please let me know. Thanks > -- > Orion Poplawski > Manager of NWRA Technical Systems 720-772-5637 > NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702 > 3380 Mitchell Lane or...@nwra.com > Boulder, CO 80301 https://www.nwra.com/ > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelin > es > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@li > sts.fedoraproject.org -- Sérgio M. B. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: VTK 8.1.1 coming to rawhide
On 10/26/2018 07:47 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote: On Fri, 2018-10-26 at 19:39 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: Building now. I'll be rebuilding dependent packages when it completes tomorrow. Some packages (InsightToolkit, DiffusionKurtosisFit, and petpvc) are failing to build due to an issue with vxl and C++11. I've filed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1637255 Hi, BTW on opencv we have VTK support disabled. Incompatible combination: OpenCV + Qt5 and VTK ver.7.1.1 + Qt4. If you update VTK for Qt5 please let me know. I forgot to mention that the build also switches to Qt 5 and python 3. -- Orion Poplawski Manager of NWRA Technical Systems 720-772-5637 NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane or...@nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 https://www.nwra.com/ ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
python?-sip-api is no longer available, breaking python-wxpython4
Hi all,
I am attempting to build the latest matplotlib but it is failing to
install python3-wxpython4 [1]:
- nothing provides python3-sip-api(12)(x86-64) = 12.5 needed by
python3-wxpython4-4.0.1-9.fc29.x86_64
I attempted to rebuild python-wxpython4 [2], but that did not help. It
was then that I found out that python?-sip-api was removed on purpose
[3], meaning python?-wxpython4 can no longer be installed.
Is this an oversight? Should python?-sip-api be Provided by a
different subpackage? Should python?-wxpython4 Require on something
else? Should the %{no_namespace} change be reverted?
[1] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30484915
[2] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30485980
[3]
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sip/c/c17e1e6b4925f017028076ed90153ebb03f1a5c4?branch=master
--
Elliott
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
