Re: Self introduction: Benji Wiebe

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:53:51AM -0500, Benji Wiebe wrote: > I'm pretty new to open-source so I don't have an impressive list of > contributions I've made, but I have made some minor contributions > to > shellinabox and a bugfix for boinc

Re: [GSoC] Help with GSoC CommOps

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 03/15/2016 02:19 PM, Sachin Kamath wrote: > Hi, > > > I am Sachin S Kamath (IRC : skamath). As I had mentioned earlier, I am interested in working with Fedora this year for GSoC and would really appreciate if you can guide me with the same. I a

Re: GNOME 3.19.92 megaupdate

Using a side tag seems like a great idea. When folks are brave enough to test rawhide for us, we should try to avoid breaking their computers. :) A few arbitrary answers: On Tue, 2016-03-15 at 15:29 +, Richard Hughes wrote: > * Which packages should use this side tag? Let's start by includin

Re: review swaps

Hi, Corey. On Tuesday, 15 March 2016 at 15:39, Corey Sheldon wrote: > On 03/15/2016 09:19 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > Hi! > > > > I'm looking for reviewers for a couple of new packages: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082825 > Dominik, > > > While I'm not a pac

Re: GNOME 3.19.92 megaupdate

On 15 March 2016 at 16:59, Peter Robinson wrote: > The same packaging and process as is being used for the 3.19.92 mega > update in the f24-gnome side tag. We only use side tags for the later updates (.90, .91, .92, and .0) which are supposed to be API stable. Richard -- devel mailing list devel

Re: GNOME 3.19.92 megaupdate

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Richard Hughes wrote: > On 15 March 2016 at 15:09, Jared K. Smith wrote: >> Would you be willing to at least try it for a couple of iterations >> and see how it goes? > > Three questions: > > * Which packages should use this side tag? > * When *exactly* would we

Re: GNOME 3.19.92 megaupdate

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote: > On Tue, 2016-03-15 at 13:06 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> So do you see any solution/improvement for this issue? I repeatedly >> reported the breakages, I made some proposals (as simple as "send an >> email"), which IMO should improve the si

Re: GNOME 3.19.92 megaupdate

On Tue, 2016-03-15 at 13:06 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: > So do you see any solution/improvement for this issue? I repeatedly > reported the breakages, I made some proposals (as simple as "send an > email"), which IMO should improve the situation, but it seems that > you > prefer to keep status quo.

Self introduction: Benji Wiebe

I'm pretty new to open-source so I don't have an impressive list of contributions I've made, but I have made some minor contributions to shellinabox and a bugfix for boinc. Now I'd like to get PiAware and its dependencies into Fedora. I've

Fedora 24-20160315.n.0 compose check report

Missing expected images: Cloud raw-xz i386 Atomic raw-xz x86_64 Cloud raw-xz x86_64 Images in this compose but not 24-20160314.n.0: Kde raw-xz armhfp No images in 24-20160314.n.0 but not this. Failed openQA tests: 22 of 78 ID: 9267Test: i386 Workstation-live-iso default_install URL: h

Re: GNOME 3.19.92 megaupdate

Dne 15.3.2016 v 16:17 Debarshi Ray napsal(a): > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:20:51AM +0100, V?t Ondruch wrote: >> IOW some of Gnome developers don't care about sonames, "because it is >> just development version". > I find your repeated use of phrases like "don't care" to be insulting. Sorry, I di

Re: GNOME 3.19.92 megaupdate

On 15 March 2016 at 15:09, Jared K. Smith wrote: > Would you be willing to at least try it for a couple of iterations > and see how it goes? Three questions: * Which packages should use this side tag? * When *exactly* would we do the push from the side-tag to rawhide? * Who would test rawhide+s

Re: GNOME 3.19.92 megaupdate

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:20:51AM +0100, V?t Ondruch wrote: > IOW some of Gnome developers don't care about sonames, "because it is > just development version". I find your repeated use of phrases like "don't care" to be insulting. Cheers, Rishi pgpEt91WTzy99.pgp Description: PGP signature -- d

Re: GNOME 3.19.92 megaupdate

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 6:18 AM, Richard Hughes wrote: > I think that would be even more confusing for projects that are not > quite core GNOME, e.g. NetworkManager needing a new glib. We'd have to > get any project depending on the core GNOME stuff to also build in the > side tag for the duratio

Re: review swaps

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 03/15/2016 09:19 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > Hi! > > I'm looking for reviewers for a couple of new packages: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082825 > mozilla-lightbeam - An add-on for visualizing HTTP requests betwe

Re: review swaps

On 03/15/2016 09:19 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > Hi! > > I'm looking for reviewers for a couple of new packages: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082825 Dominik, While I'm not a packager, I am surely game for testing out some stuff for you (partly to get myself famil

Re: Fedora Rawhide-20160315.n.0 compose check report

Tests are still failing because of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315494 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: yum-compatible rich dependencies

Rex Dieter wrote: > Rex Dieter wrote: > >> Orion Poplawski wrote: >> >>> koschei is now reporting: >>> >>> Dependency problems nothing provides (sni-qt(x86-64) if >>> plasma-workspace) needed by qt-x11-1:4.8.7-11.fc25.x86_64 >> ... >>> Is this a dnf/koschei issue or with the above condi

Re: review swaps

On Tuesday, 15 March 2016 at 14:32, Antonio Trande wrote: > On Tue, 2016-03-15 at 14:19 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski > wrote: > >  > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292040 > > tng - Trajectory Next Generation binary format manipulation library > > > > > > tng is already u

Re: review swaps

On Tue, 2016-03-15 at 14:19 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: >  > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292040 > tng - Trajectory Next Generation binary format manipulation library > > tng is already under review. > Regards, > Dominik --  --- Antonio Trande mailto: sagitte

review swaps

Hi! I'm looking for reviewers for a couple of new packages: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082825 mozilla-lightbeam - An add-on for visualizing HTTP requests between websites in real time https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1154750 mozilla-privacy-badger - Protects your priv

Fedora 24 compose report: 20160315.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-24-20160314.n.0 NEW: Fedora-24-20160315.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added packages: 0 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 0 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 0.00 B Size of dropped packages:0.00 B Size of upgraded packages: 0.00 B Size of downgraded

Fedora Rawhide-20160315.n.0 compose check report

Missing expected images: Atomic raw-xz x86_64 Kde raw-xz armhfp Images in this compose but not Rawhide-20160314.n.0: Security live x86_64 Kde live i386 Robotics live i386 Workstation raw-xz armhfp Xfce live x86_64 Scientific_kde live x86_64 Kde live x86_64 Xfce live i386 Cloud raw-xz i386 Astron

Re: iproute package update policy

On 2016-03-14 21:42, Phil Sutter wrote: ... So I will stick to my former plan of not rebasing iproute in stable releases (unless there's good reason) but become open for feature requests if there is valid need for it, a backport is feasible and it doesn't interfere with core functionality. ACK

Re: libcue soname bump

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 13:23:34 +0100, Peter Lemenkov wrote: > Hello All! > I'm going to upgrade libcue. Unfortunately this requires a soname > bump. Fortunately only recompilation is necessary. This could have gone better. Apparently, the same SONAME bump has been released to F24 too, and broken de

Re: GNOME 3.19.92 megaupdate

So do you see any solution/improvement for this issue? I repeatedly reported the breakages, I made some proposals (as simple as "send an email"), which IMO should improve the situation, but it seems that you prefer to keep status quo. Vít Dne 15.3.2016 v 11:18 Richard Hughes napsal(a): > On 15

Re: SLA of Copr and changes in future

Miroslav Suchy venit, vidit, dixit 14.03.2016 23:01: > There is ongoing discussion on Fedora Infrastructure mailing list, that > only fully supported services should remain in fedoraproject.org domain. > All experimental services should be moved to fedorainfracloud.org. > Recently there was suggest

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20160315.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20160314.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20160315.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added packages: 6 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 172 Downgraded packages: 1 Size of added packages: 179.59 MiB Size of dropped packages:0.00 B Size of upgraded packages: 2.07 GiB

Re: GNOME 3.19.92 megaupdate

On 15 March 2016 at 10:00, Vít Ondruch wrote: > So lets say I am using Gnome 3.19.90. The 3.19.91 is released and you > start build, which takes some time (12h? 24h? 2 days? Have no idea). Building all the components in mclazy takes a couple of hours. The issue is that not all GNOME modules relea

Re: GNOME 3.19.92 megaupdate

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Richard Hughes wrote: > On 15 March 2016 at 09:17, Vít Ondruch wrote: >>> I'm somewhat confused where the problem is. >> This is the problem: >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/CI57RU5TGQZFGVTUJKM6S6WU2NU4VION/ >

Re: GNOME 3.19.92 megaupdate

Dne 15.3.2016 v 10:24 Richard Hughes napsal(a): > On 15 March 2016 at 09:17, Vít Ondruch wrote: >>> I'm somewhat confused where the problem is. >> This is the problem: >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/CI57RU5TGQZFGVTUJKM6S6WU2NU4VION/ > This

Re: GNOME 3.19.92 megaupdate

On 15 March 2016 at 09:17, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> I'm somewhat confused where the problem is. > This is the problem: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/CI57RU5TGQZFGVTUJKM6S6WU2NU4VION/ This isn't anything to do with the gnome-shell version being

Re: GNOME 3.19.92 megaupdate

Dne 15.3.2016 v 10:13 Richard Hughes napsal(a): > On 15 March 2016 at 09:06, Tom Hughes wrote: >> If bodhi is in use then you can bundle all the builds into one bodhi update >> to ensure that nobody gets a broken tree. > Why would people get a broken tree if there are no soname bumps? Because

Re: GNOME 3.19.92 megaupdate

Dne 15.3.2016 v 10:03 Richard Hughes napsal(a): > On 15 March 2016 at 08:53, Peter Robinson wrote: >> so it would be little extra effort for you to do that same for f25/rawhide. > I'm a bit confused where the problem is, at least my workflow is: > > * build latest release for rawhide This shoul

Re: GNOME 3.19.92 megaupdate

On 15/03/16 09:13, Richard Hughes wrote: On 15 March 2016 at 09:06, Tom Hughes wrote: If bodhi is in use then you can bundle all the builds into one bodhi update to ensure that nobody gets a broken tree. Why would people get a broken tree if there are no soname bumps? If there is a soname bu

Re: GNOME 3.19.92 megaupdate

On 15 March 2016 at 09:06, Tom Hughes wrote: > If bodhi is in use then you can bundle all the builds into one bodhi update > to ensure that nobody gets a broken tree. Why would people get a broken tree if there are no soname bumps? If there is a soname bump mclazy won't touch it with a bargepole

Re: GNOME 3.19.92 megaupdate

On 15/03/16 09:03, Richard Hughes wrote: I'm a bit confused where the problem is, at least my workflow is: * build latest release for rawhide * if gnome-3.19.*, cherry-pick to f24 * if we're using bohdi, build for f24-gnome, else build for f24 That last step is backwards surely? If bodhi is

Re: GNOME 3.19.92 megaupdate

On 15 March 2016 at 08:53, Peter Robinson wrote: > so it would be little extra effort for you to do that same for f25/rawhide. I'm a bit confused where the problem is, at least my workflow is: * build latest release for rawhide * if gnome-3.19.*, cherry-pick to f24 * if we're using bohdi, build

Re: GNOME 3.19.92 megaupdate

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Richard Hughes wrote: > On 15 March 2016 at 08:04, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> So will it be 3rd time in 3 months you are going to broke my >> Rawhide? > > I think using the F25 packages when F24 alpha hasn't even been > released is probably asking for trouble. Are we s

Re: GNOME 3.19.92 megaupdate

On 15 March 2016 at 08:04, Vít Ondruch wrote: > So will it be 3rd time in 3 months you are going to broke my > Rawhide? I think using the F25 packages when F24 alpha hasn't even been released is probably asking for trouble. Are we supposed to be maintaining F22, F23, F24, *and* F25 at this point?

Re: GNOME 3.19.92 megaupdate

Dne 14.3.2016 v 08:34 Kalev Lember napsal(a): > Hi all, > > It's GNOME 3.19.92 release this week. As we are deep in the Alpha freeze > in Fedora, this will stay in updates-testing for a while until the > freeze is lifted and floodgates open a again. > > We have koji side tag to collect all the bu