Missing expected images:
Cloud_base raw-xz x86_64
Cloud_base raw-xz i386
Atomic raw-xz x86_64
Kde raw-xz armhfp
Images in this compose but not Rawhide-20160322.n.0:
Xfce live x86_64
Workstation live i386
Xfce live i386
Astronomy_kde live x86_64
Astronomy_kde live i386
Workstation live x86_64
Im
On Wed, 2016-03-23 at 16:01 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
> I went straight upstream to file because I found the problem on both Fedora
> and Tumbleweed:
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94403
>
> Later I filed an openSUSE bug referring to it, which has been very busy:
> https://bugzill
Missing expected images:
Workstation live i386
Atomic raw-xz x86_64
Kde raw-xz armhfp
Workstation live x86_64
Images in this compose but not Rawhide-20160321.n.0:
Scientific_kde live x86_64
Lxde live i386
Scientific_kde live i386
Lxde live x86_64
Images in Rawhide-20160321.n.0 but not this:
Xf
I went straight upstream to file because I found the problem on both Fedora
and Tumbleweed:
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94403
Later I filed an openSUSE bug referring to it, which has been very busy:
https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=971885
I don't see the issue beco
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Martin Ueding wrote:
> If you also have an X220, this seems like I have an hardware issue. As
> there are new kernels every week and I boot my machine once a day, the
> chance of booting with a new kernel is not that small.
>
> In the UEFI I noticed that I cannot s
If you also have an X220, this seems like I have an hardware issue. As
there are new kernels every week and I boot my machine once a day, the
chance of booting with a new kernel is not that small.
In the UEFI I noticed that I cannot save anything any more. Therefore I
fear that the UEFI chip has s
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20160321.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20160322.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added packages: 8
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 102
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 341.35 KiB
Size of dropped packages:0.00 B
Size of upgraded packages: 1.13 GiB
Siz
At the second Fedora 24 Alpha Go/No-Go Meeting [1][2] that just ended,
has been agreed by QA, Release Engineering and Development to go live
with the Fedora 24 Alpha.
Fedora 24 Alpha will be publicly available on March 29, 2016. The
official release time has been agreed on F24 Alpha Readiness meet
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:45:59PM +0100, Björn Persson wrote:
> I suppose so, at least if the key is specified as only a filename. What
> will it do if a URL to the key is provided, and the key at that location
> has been modified? Will it replace the key with the modified one in the
> scratch bu
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Remi Collet wrote:
> Feel free to take it.
>
>
I've taken it on, but I'm happy to have co-maintainers as well, and
would indeed prefer to have them if anyone is interested.
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedorap
Missing expected images:
Kde live i386
Kde live x86_64
Cloud_base raw-xz x86_64
Cloud_base raw-xz i386
Atomic raw-xz x86_64
Images in this compose but not 24-20160322.n.0:
Jam_kde live x86_64
Cinnamon live i386
Jam_kde live i386
Soas live x86_64
Cinnamon live x86_64
Soas live i386
Images in 24-
Feel free to take it.
Remi
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Next week, I plan to upgrade Node.js from the 4.x LTS branch to the 5.x stable
branch in Rawhide. This upgrade does break backwards-compatibility and thus will
need re-testing of modules. Also, all native NPMs (those that are built with
architecture-specific packages rather than noarch) will need t
After rebasing perl-Qt from abandoned CPAN upstream to functional KDE upstream,
the perl-Qt-devel subpackage changed license in F25 and F24 from
GPLv2+ and (GPL+ or Artistic) and (LGPLv2+ with exceptions or GPLv3+)
to
GPLv2+ and (GPL+ or Artistic) and (LGPLv2+ with exceptions or GPLv3+) and
(LG
- Original Message -
> From: "Jan Kratochvil"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Cc: "Tomas Hozza"
> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 6:19:16 PM
> Subject: Re: IPv6 application test suite – call for participation
>
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 14:29:06 +0100, Pavel Simerda wrot
OLD: Fedora-24-20160322.n.0
NEW: Fedora-24-20160323.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:3
Upgraded packages: 0
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0.00 B
Size of dropped packages:945.32 KiB
Size of upgraded packages: 0.00 B
Size of
On 03/22/2016 01:29 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:46:58PM +0100, Kalev Lember wrote:
On 03/21/2016 07:28 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
This time it was easy. They didn't break anything. Should I build it in
f24-gnome? Because libgit2-glib requires it and itself it required
On 23 March 2016 at 05:14, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-03-22 at 21:23 -0700, Dave Johansen wrote:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1313796
>> This request to include a Python 3 subpackage for breathe made me realize
>> that I probably should have named the package python-br
On Tue, 2016-03-22 at 18:29 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> I already meant to file this feature request after discussing this with
> Werner Koch, so here it is and hopefully it will really be implemented:
> https://bugs.gnupg.org/gnupg/issue2290
Excellent; thank you. And in the meantime it's possible j
On Tue, 2016-03-22 at 22:45 +0100, Björn Persson wrote:
>
> I suppose so, at least if the key is specified as only a filename. What
> will it do if a URL to the key is provided, and the key at that location
> has been modified? Will it replace the key with the modified one in the
> scratch build,
Exactly this I wanted to say.
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016, 1:30 PM Pierre-Yves Chibon
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:46:58PM +0100, Kalev Lember wrote:
> > On 03/21/2016 07:28 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> > >This time it was easy. They didn't break anything. Should I build it in
> > >f24-gnome? Beca
21 matches
Mail list logo
