On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> On 08/05/2013 04:35 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>>
>> There is a large number of failures[1] that need to be
>> addressed.
>>
>> Dennis
>
>
> Do you have also numbers how many FTBFS we had in F19 and F20? It might be
> good for post mortem
On 08/05/2013 04:35 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
There is a large number of failures[1] that need to be
addressed.
Dennis
Do you have also numbers how many FTBFS we had in F19 and F20? It might
be good for post mortem of Fedora rebuilds.
I thought the rebuild should start after all tasks wer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 4 Aug 2013 22:39:55 -0600
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 11:56:06 +0800
> Christopher Meng wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Due to f20 mass rebuild[1], I've found that this macro is not
> > presented in armv7 arch.
> >
> > When will this
Thanks.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 11:56:06 +0800
Christopher Meng wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Due to f20 mass rebuild[1], I've found that this macro is not
> presented in armv7 arch.
>
> When will this macro be available?
This macro is defined in /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.systemd which is
provided by the 'systemd' p
Hi,
Due to f20 mass rebuild[1], I've found that this macro is not
presented in armv7 arch.
When will this macro be available?
Thanks.
[1]--http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9145/5709145/build.log
Yours sincerely,
Christopher Meng
Always playing in Fedora Project
http://cicku.
Many Perl packages has wrong Requires of 5.16, and because of this I
cannot update installed perl on my system to 5.18.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thanks to the addition of arm and its 48 builders the releng pass
though on the mass rebuild is done.
for a comparison to f19
f19:
Feb 13: 1096
Feb 14: 1445
Feb 15: 1548
Feb 16: 2175
Feb 17: 1168
Feb 18: 1476
Feb 19: 2
f20:
Aug 02:1261
Aug 03:70
Il 03/08/2013 07:07, Dennis Gilmore ha scritto:
Hi all,
I have merged perl info f20 and started the mass rebuild.
You can see the current list of failures[1] and list to be built[2].
Both lists are updated every 5 minutes. at the end of the initial run
though we will file bugs for all FTBFS. Pl
All my peel packages are failed because of the magic Requires is for 5.16,
not 5.18.
Don't know why.
Sent from S3
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On Sun, 2013-08-04 at 13:16 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> I noticed this:
>
> $ rpm -qf /usr/etc
> filesystem-3.2-12.fc19.x86_64
A quick git annotate shows it originates from:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/filesystem.git/commit/?id=cd01d2d6d54f59ef8e177d0391bc734fba470ef4
With no comm
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> The guideline should be to ask upstream to fix the meta data. In case of
> missing license text (e.g. source code with a GPL header but no copy of
> the GPL itself), it is also upstream's task to fix it and the packager's
> to ask for it. And if u
On Sun, 4 Aug 2013 17:47:53 -0400
Josh Boyer wrote:
> Do you have logs showing a failure? Send them my way if so. I'll
> look when I get in front of a computer again. Thanks.
I've added what I found to the bug.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@
On Aug 4, 2013 5:20 PM, "Kevin Fenzi" wrote:
>
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2013 16:16:01 +0100
> "Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
>
> >
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991808
> >
> > Don't install kernel-3.11.0-0.rc3.git4.1.fc20. The
> > /boot/vmlinuz-3.11.0-0.rc3.git4.1.fc20.x86_64 file is 0 byt
On Sun, 4 Aug 2013 16:16:01 +0100
"Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991808
>
> Don't install kernel-3.11.0-0.rc3.git4.1.fc20. The
> /boot/vmlinuz-3.11.0-0.rc3.git4.1.fc20.x86_64 file is 0 bytes long.
I'm pretty sure this is due to a failure to sign th
On Sun, 4 Aug 2013 21:06:58 +0100
Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Paul Howarth
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 16:28:00 +0100
> > Sérgio Basto wrote:
> >
> >> On Dom, 2013-08-04 at 13:03 +, Fedora Rawhide Report wrote:
> >> > Compose started at Sun Aug 4 08:15:02 U
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 16:28:00 +0100
> Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
>> On Dom, 2013-08-04 at 13:03 +, Fedora Rawhide Report wrote:
>> > Compose started at Sun Aug 4 08:15:02 UTC 2013
>>
>> DEBUG util.py:264: Error: Package: po4a-0.44-10.fc20.noar
On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 16:28:00 +0100
Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Dom, 2013-08-04 at 13:03 +, Fedora Rawhide Report wrote:
> > Compose started at Sun Aug 4 08:15:02 UTC 2013
>
> DEBUG util.py:264: Error: Package: po4a-0.44-10.fc20.noarch (build)
> DEBUG util.py:264: Requires: perl(:
Hi
Hydra license has changed from 'GPLv3 with exceptions' to 'AGPLv3 with
exceptions'.
Thanks.
-- Athmane
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On Dom, 2013-08-04 at 13:03 +, Fedora Rawhide Report wrote:
> Compose started at Sun Aug 4 08:15:02 UTC 2013
DEBUG util.py:264: Error: Package: po4a-0.44-10.fc20.noarch (build)
DEBUG util.py:264: Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.3)
DEBUG util.py:264: Error: Package: perl-Qt-0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991808
Don't install kernel-3.11.0-0.rc3.git4.1.fc20. The
/boot/vmlinuz-3.11.0-0.rc3.git4.1.fc20.x86_64 file is 0 bytes long.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming blog: http://rwm
On 08/04/2013 01:16 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
I noticed this:
$ rpm -qf /usr/etc
filesystem-3.2-12.fc19.x86_64
$ repoquery --whatprovides '/usr/etc/*'
mirall-common-0:1.3.0-1.fc19.x86_64
mirall-common-0:1.3.0-1.fc19.i686
Since when do we have /usr/etc, and what is it for?
Maybe I am the o
2013/8/4 Lennart Poettering
> I noticed this:
>
> $ rpm -qf /usr/etc
> filesystem-3.2-12.fc19.x86_64
>
> $ repoquery --whatprovides '/usr/etc/*'
> mirall-common-0:1.3.0-1.fc19.x86_64
> mirall-common-0:1.3.0-1.fc19.i686
>
> Since when do we have /usr/etc, and what is it for?
>
> Maybe I am the onl
I noticed this:
$ rpm -qf /usr/etc
filesystem-3.2-12.fc19.x86_64
$ repoquery --whatprovides '/usr/etc/*'
mirall-common-0:1.3.0-1.fc19.x86_64
mirall-common-0:1.3.0-1.fc19.i686
Since when do we have /usr/etc, and what is it for?
Maybe I am the only one but I see very little benefit in introducing
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:22:10PM +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
> > On 07/16/2013 12:54 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > > = Proposed System Wide Change: Web Assets =
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Web_Assets
> >
> > Can we please use a different name, like "webd
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 07:54:38PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
> Le Mar 23 juillet 2013 19:26, T.C. Hollingsworth a écrit :
> > AFAICS it shouldn't be too hard to script up something so this would
> > as easy as `fixfontmd --copyright "$(head -n3 LICENSE)" --licensedesc
> > "$(cat LICENSE)" -
26 matches
Mail list logo
