# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting
# Date: 2015-10-19
# Time: 15:00 UTC
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto)
# Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net
Greetings testers!
It's QA meeting time again! One of these days I promise I'll get back
to doing these things on Friday
On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Marcin Zajączkowski wrote:
> Thanks for your responses, guys!
>
> On 2015-10-18 16:57, Christopher wrote:
> > To support this, I try to keep a mirror in GitHub for my packages... But
> > it's hard to stay in sync sometimes and nobody really knows it's there.
> > I
Marcin Zajączkowski wrote:
> I would like to propose a minor (yet important) change in one of the
> Fedora packages configuration (a SPEC file and/or a patch). Is it
> possible to create (something like) a pull request which could be
> reviewed by the maintainer in some convenient way (*) and optio
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Well, we don't know for sure that those updates lost autokarma
> (Although it seems likely). It might be the maintainers pushed them
> with autokarma disabled.
And they should have, in any case, because autokarma is just broken by
design. Who is more qualified to decide when
Dusty Mabe wrote:
> Does anyone have a good solution for this? Obviously it would be nice
> if ansible went to python3 but I think they have stated clearly that
> they are sticking with python2 for backwards compat with systems that
> still need 2.4.
I don't understand why still nobody has forked
Bastien Nocera wrote:
> That's a problem for OUR users because when they use Fedora, they want to
> be able to make a tarball of their software for their friend on Ubuntu to
> test. Here, you're making Fedora a bad choice for developers that want to
> target more than just Fedora.
This already doe
On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Kevin Kofler
wrote:
> drago01 wrote:
> > They might compile something and send it to someone that happens to
> > use a different distro ...
>
> … which 99% of the time will not work anyway no matter what we do because
> glibc has only one-way compatibility and our
drago01 wrote:
> They might compile something and send it to someone that happens to
> use a different distro ...
… which 99% of the time will not work anyway no matter what we do because
glibc has only one-way compatibility and our glibc is newer than almost any
other distro's. So trying to sup
# F23 Blocker Review meeting
# Date: 2015-10-19
# Time: 1600 UTC
# Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net
Last week we did an out-of-sync blocker review because bugs were
stacking up and Go/No-Go is coming up. Even though we cleaned out the
list, we're already back up to 6 proposed b
No missing expected images.
No images in this compose but not 23 Branched 20151017
Images in 23 Branched 20151017 but not this:
Cloud docker x86_64
--
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedora-qa.git/tree/check-compose
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedorapro
No missing expected images.
Images in this compose but not Rawhide 20151017:
Kde disk raw armhfp
No images in Rawhide 20151017 but not this.
--
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedora-qa.git/tree/check-compose
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.or
> Nb. did bodhi2 stopped sending „your update reached 7 days in testing
> and can be pushed to stable” emails?
https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/298
Regards,
Richard
--
Richard Fearn
richardfe...@gmail.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproj
On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 21:14:25 +0200
Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> That is a Bug of Bodhi, the URLs should be more descriptive.
> (I have not filed it.)
I thought it was filed, but I can't seem to find it now. ;(
If you could file one that would be great, or I can if you wish.
kevin
pgpSt_geGmJHN
On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 21:41:41 +0200
Alec Leamas wrote:
> Perhaps OT, but I cannot resist: Have you discussed the overall
> workflow here? Cloning package, unpack sources, create patches, make
> a build, revise patches, finalize the spec, perhaps upstream to
> package owner...
Nope. As I said this
On 18/10/15 18:46, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 15:36:24 +0200
> Marcin Zajączkowski wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to propose a minor (yet important) change in one of the
>> Fedora packages configuration (a SPEC file and/or a patch). Is it
>> possible to create (something like) a
Thanks for your responses, guys!
On 2015-10-18 16:57, Christopher wrote:
> To support this, I try to keep a mirror in GitHub for my packages... But
> it's hard to stay in sync sometimes and nobody really knows it's there.
> It'd be nice if this were supported directly, perhaps by automatically
> m
Nb. did bodhi2 stopped sending „your update reached 7 days in testing
and can be pushed to stable” emails?
--
Tomasz Torcz ,,If you try to upissue this patchset I shall be
seeking
xmpp: zdzich...@chrome.pl an IP-routable hand grenade.'' -- Andrew Morton
(LKML)
--
devel mailin
On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 14:56:11 +0200, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 10/15/2015 06:49 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-11787
> > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-4638
[...]
> > https
2015-10-02 21:20 GMT+02:00 Gerard Ryan :
> On 10/02/2015 07:11 PM, Andreas Tunek wrote:
>> 2015-09-26 0:10 GMT+02:00 Thomas Daede :
>>> On 09/25/2015 02:18 PM, Andreas Tunek wrote:
>>>
Removed librtmp (what could go wrong?), now I get the following error:
Sep 25 23:14:39 iMacLinux dn
On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 15:36:24 +0200
Marcin Zajączkowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to propose a minor (yet important) change in one of the
> Fedora packages configuration (a SPEC file and/or a patch). Is it
> possible to create (something like) a pull request which could be
> reviewed by the m
On Sun, 2015-10-18 at 15:36 +0200, Marcin Zajączkowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to propose a minor (yet important) change in one of the
> Fedora packages configuration (a SPEC file and/or a patch). Is it
> possible to create (something like) a pull request which could be
> reviewed by the mai
To support this, I try to keep a mirror in GitHub for my packages... But
it's hard to stay in sync sometimes and nobody really knows it's there.
It'd be nice if this were supported directly, perhaps by automatically
mirroring all packages in GitHub, like the ASF does, and emailing
maintainers when
Hi,
I would like to propose a minor (yet important) change in one of the
Fedora packages configuration (a SPEC file and/or a patch). Is it
possible to create (something like) a pull request which could be
reviewed by the maintainer in some convenient way (*) and optionally
merged? Or the only way
Compose started at Sun Oct 18 07:15:03 UTC 2015
Broken deps for armhfp
--
[openstack-swift]
openstack-swift-2.3.0-2.fc23.noarch requires python-pyeclib
Broken deps for i386
--
Compose started at Sun Oct 18 05:15:03 UTC 2015
Broken deps for i386
--
[IQmol]
IQmol-2.3.0-9.fc24.i686 requires libboost_serialization.so.1.58.0
IQmol-2.3.0-9.fc24.i686 requires libboost_iostreams.so.1.58.0
IQmol-2.3.0
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi all,
tktable package is newly under review; can someone clarify to me how
to identify its license? (license file attached)
In particular, i have a doubt about these "special notes":
*
26 matches
Mail list logo
