On Qui, 2016-10-27 at 21:23 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-10-28 at 04:53 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Adam Williamson wrote today in reply of one question (made by me)
> > :
> > "Hmm, actually, maybe it currently doesn't, but it definitely has
> > before:
> >
On Fri, 2016-10-28 at 04:53 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Adam Williamson wrote today in reply of one question (made by me) :
> "Hmm, actually, maybe it currently doesn't, but it definitely has
> before:
>
> http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/updates/testing/20/x86_64/comps.xm
Hello,
Adam Williamson wrote today in reply of one question (made by me) :
"Hmm, actually, maybe it currently doesn't, but it definitely has
before:
http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/updates/testing/20/x86_64/comps.xml
But basically, any repo can have comps data and dnf will respect i
> >
> > DP-3-1 connected primary 1920x1200+0+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y
> > axis) 518mm x 324mm
> >
> > Not sure what you think is hiding it, sounds like KDE is just broken.
>
> Well, no, that's not fair - X allows you to query the display size, and
> it used to return whatever the d
On Thu, 2016-10-27 at 20:29 -0400, David Airlie wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Kevin Kofler"
> > To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > Sent: Friday, 28 October, 2016 7:50:48 AM
> > Subject: Re: F25 workstation, and (almost) hidpi displays
> >
> > nicolas.mail...@laposte.net w
- Original Message -
> From: "Kevin Kofler"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Friday, 28 October, 2016 7:50:48 AM
> Subject: Re: F25 workstation, and (almost) hidpi displays
>
> nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
> > But, GTK core maintainers have always insisted those didn't
On Fri, 2016-10-28 at 00:17 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> * One of the nice things which Bodhi does is running several check, such
> > as depcheck, rpmlint (actually question if we are using rpmlint for
> > Fedora builds was what triggered this email), etc. On one hand, I'd love
> > to see these ch
On Thu, 2016-10-27 at 23:50 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
> > But, GTK core maintainers have always insisted those didn't exist (just
> > like they insisted on hardcoding 96 dpi, on the eve of Apple showing the
> > world it was arbitrary and obsolete).
>
> The wor
Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Many thanks by your reply, yes or creterepo could use appdata directly,
> makes sense improve createrepo with appdata, btw I noticie, apper (kde
> software manager) on Fedora 24 fails on search groups with:
> "SearchGroups not supported by backend" , what tools we have to read
Vít Ondruch wrote:
> I am thinking, why we don't have enabled Bodhi for Rawhide? I know that
> you might think now that I went nut and it is bureaucracy, but let me
> explain.
>
> If I understand it correctly, during several past years, our build
> process was more streamlined and we are trying to
On 27 October 2016 at 17:50, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
>> But, GTK core maintainers have always insisted those didn't exist (just
>> like they insisted on hardcoding 96 dpi, on the eve of Apple showing the
>> world it was arbitrary and obsolete).
>
> The worst is tha
nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
> But, GTK core maintainers have always insisted those didn't exist (just
> like they insisted on hardcoding 96 dpi, on the eve of Apple showing the
> world it was arbitrary and obsolete).
The worst is that this mentality has infected the core X11 as well, also
Hi folks! The Fedora 25 Final freeze is fast approaching (it's 2016-11-
01), so it's time for a blocker status mail. As there's only five
blockers, I'll skip the tl;dr summary, the mail is quite short anyhow.
Bug-by-bug detail
=
1. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 05:17:59PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Why Koji functionality? If there was Bodhi for Rawhide enabled, then
> this is probably fedpkg extension. E.g. "fedpkg build" knows when the
> build succeeds, then it can immediately follow with "fedpkg update" and
> if all the automate
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 08:15:21AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > My concern would be further diluting and already thin QA community
> > > with yet another thing to test.
> > What if updates to Bikeshed which pass all the automated tests were
> > pushed automatically in batches every, say, wee
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:48:24AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> My concern isn't "how do we get Bikeshed tested". It's "how do we
> make sure Rawhide continues to be tested if Bikeshed exists and
> promises to be somehow a more stable rawhide".
Simple: it probably wouldn't.
> Rawhide testing today
On Qui, 2016-10-27 at 14:07 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> On jueves, 27 de octubre de 2016 5:39:20 PM CDT Sérgio Basto wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Qui, 2016-10-27 at 09:30 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2016-10-27 at 17:24 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
On 27/10/16 17:09, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> On Thursday, October 27, 2016 3:23:25 PM CEST Pádraig Brady wrote:
>> On 24/10/16 17:35, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> I recall some reports that configure scripts are really slow in recent
>>> Fedora versions due to pervasive use of BIND_NOW.
>>>
>>> Has anyo
On jueves, 27 de octubre de 2016 5:39:20 PM CDT Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Qui, 2016-10-27 at 09:30 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-10-27 at 17:24 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > Hello, I'd like understand how groups of package are now detect ,
> > > specially in 3rd repo pa
On 10/27/2016 08:05 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:53:27PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
* And probably last think, why the Rawhide should be really exception?
Why we should not use Bodhi if we are using it anywhere else?
Lets use Bodhi for Rawhide, where the submitted update w
On 10/27/2016 07:01 PM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
On Monday, October 24, 2016 6:35:36 PM CEST Florian Weimer wrote:
I recall some reports that configure scripts are really slow in recent
Fedora versions due to pervasive use of BIND_NOW.
Based on BIND_NOW, you are talking about builds in Koji. Righ
On Monday, October 24, 2016 6:35:36 PM CEST Florian Weimer wrote:
> I recall some reports that configure scripts are really slow in recent
> Fedora versions due to pervasive use of BIND_NOW.
Based on BIND_NOW, you are talking about builds in Koji. Right?
To build from source (repeated ./configu
On Thu, 2016-10-27 at 17:39 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Qui, 2016-10-27 at 09:30 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-10-27 at 17:24 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello, I'd like understand how groups of package are now detect ,
> > > specially in 3rd repo packages
Hi,
On Qui, 2016-10-27 at 09:30 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-10-27 at 17:24 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> >
> > Hello, I'd like understand how groups of package are now detect ,
> > specially in 3rd repo packages which can't use comps.xml.
> Sure they can. Third party repos can
On Thu, 2016-10-27 at 17:24 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Hello, I'd like understand how groups of package are now detect ,
> specially in 3rd repo packages which can't use comps.xml.
Sure they can. Third party repos can provide comps, and all Fedora
packaging tools will use it. RPMFusion, for in
Hello, I'd like understand how groups of package are now detect ,
specially in 3rd repo packages which can't use comps.xml.
Thanks !
Forwarded Message
From: Sérgio Basto
To: packag...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Subject: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: why the Group tag is obsolete ?
On Thursday, October 27, 2016 3:23:25 PM CEST Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 24/10/16 17:35, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > I recall some reports that configure scripts are really slow in recent
> > Fedora versions due to pervasive use of BIND_NOW.
> >
> > Has anyone investigated this further? Is there a
On Thu, 2016-10-27 at 13:57 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 08:40:04 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > That's pretty much the exact *opposite* of what I put in the changelog,
> > FWIW.
>
> It is no news that in recent years some people have pushed their own
> agenda about w
On Thu, 2016-10-27 at 10:37 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:12:09AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > What if we leave Rawhide as it is, but create the new
> > > somewhat-better-than-Rawhide repo that Dennis Gilmore was talking about
> > > last year, and enable Bodhi on that?
Dne 27.10.2016 v 16:45 Matthew Miller napsal(a):
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 04:35:17PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> This means to go to some unexplored lands. I am not sure I am fan of
>> this idea.
>>> It might be nice for the "fedpkg build" command line to take the
>>> "--type bugfix|enhancement
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 04:35:17PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> This means to go to some unexplored lands. I am not sure I am fan of
> this idea.
> > It might be nice for the "fedpkg build" command line to take the
> > "--type bugfix|enhancement|security" option so that could be passed on
> > in som
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:12:09AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> > What if we leave Rawhide as it is, but create the new
>> > somewhat-better-than-Rawhide repo that Dennis Gilmore was talking about
>> > last year, and enable Bodhi on that? (T
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:12:09AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > What if we leave Rawhide as it is, but create the new
> > somewhat-better-than-Rawhide repo that Dennis Gilmore was talking about
> > last year, and enable Bodhi on that? (The thing that I very desperately
> > want to be named "Fedora
Dne 27.10.2016 v 16:05 Matthew Miller napsal(a):
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:53:27PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> * And probably last think, why the Rawhide should be really exception?
>> Why we should not use Bodhi if we are using it anywhere else?
>> Lets use Bodhi for Rawhide, where the submi
On 24/10/16 17:35, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I recall some reports that configure scripts are really slow in recent
> Fedora versions due to pervasive use of BIND_NOW.
>
> Has anyone investigated this further? Is there a bug report somewhere?
Related to this I was wondering if there was any thoug
On 10/27/2016 11:11 AM, Michael J Gruber wrote:
Martin Stransky venit, vidit, dixit 26.10.2016 11:42:
Thanks for pointing it here, I miss that minor update. Btw. a new #BZ at
bugzilla.redhat.com would work even better.
There are two security bugs marked as "High" which means "Moderate" in
Fedor
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:53:27PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> * And probably last think, why the Rawhide should be really exception?
>> Why we should not use Bodhi if we are using it anywhere else?
>> Lets use Bodhi for Rawhide, where the
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:53:27PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> * And probably last think, why the Rawhide should be really exception?
> Why we should not use Bodhi if we are using it anywhere else?
> Lets use Bodhi for Rawhide, where the submitted update would immediately
> go into Rawhide, unless
Missing expected images:
Cloud_base qcow2 x86_64
Atomic qcow2 x86_64
Workstation live i386
Kde live x86_64
Cloud_base raw-xz x86_64
Atomic raw-xz x86_64
Kde raw-xz armhfp
Minimal raw-xz armhfp
Workstation live x86_64
Kde live i386
Failed openQA tests: 8/79 (x86_64), 2/15 (i386)
New failures (sam
Dne 27.10.2016 v 14:12 Pavel Raiskup napsal(a):
> On Thursday, October 27, 2016 12:53:27 PM CEST Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> * And probably last think, why the Rawhide should be really exception?
>> Why we should not use Bodhi if we are using it anywhere else?
> The reason for exception might be that b
Dne 27.10.2016 v 13:42 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am thinking, why we don't have enabled Bodhi for Rawhide? I know that
>> you might think now that I went nut and it is bureaucracy, but let me
>> explain.
>>
>> If I understand i
On Thursday, October 27, 2016 12:53:27 PM CEST Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am thinking, why we don't have enabled Bodhi for Rawhide? I know that
> you might think now that I went nut and it is bureaucracy,
Not at all to me.
> but let me
> explain.
>
> If I understand it correctly, during
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 08:40:04 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> That's pretty much the exact *opposite* of what I put in the changelog,
> FWIW.
It is no news that in recent years some people have pushed their own
agenda about what to put into which changelog. I can't do anything about
that.
> For m
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am thinking, why we don't have enabled Bodhi for Rawhide? I know that
> you might think now that I went nut and it is bureaucracy, but let me
> explain.
>
> If I understand it correctly, during several past years, our build
> proc
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20161026.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20161027.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 38
Added packages: 7
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 59
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 766.44 KiB
Size of dropped packages
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 07:37:48AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > simpel problem. It'd be nice if we could reduce that turn-around time
> > to hours, if not minutes.
> If it takes several goes to get right it's clearly not a simple
> problem!
I don't think that's so clear -- there's lots of cas
Hi all,
I am thinking, why we don't have enabled Bodhi for Rawhide? I know that
you might think now that I went nut and it is bureaucracy, but let me
explain.
If I understand it correctly, during several past years, our build
process was more streamlined and we are trying to do the Rawhide
compos
Martin Stransky venit, vidit, dixit 26.10.2016 11:42:
> Thanks for pointing it here, I miss that minor update. Btw. a new #BZ at
> bugzilla.redhat.com would work even better.
>
> There are two security bugs marked as "High" which means "Moderate" in
> Fedora terms. The big ones has "Critical" ra
On to, 27 loka 2016, Jan Kurik wrote:
I am not very familiar with the Fedora Infrastructure, I am just
curios whether the kerberos is going to be somehow synchronized with
FAS ?
In short: yes.
However, please wait for official announcement by Fedora Infrastructure
for the actual details.
--
/
I am not very familiar with the Fedora Infrastructure, I am just
curios whether the kerberos is going to be somehow synchronized with
FAS ?
Jan
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Charalampos Stratakis
wrote:
> kerberos support for Fedora infra would be an amazing step forward.
>
> Charalampos Stra
50 matches
Mail list logo
