We often deal with upstream developers that bundle libraries in their
code, so to make a package we have to debundle them, etc.
This time, an upstream dev. asked me what he could do to make easier
the work of packagers.
In this case the software is python-netjsongraph [1] that bundles
javascript-d3
Hi All,
We are wanting to write to you all about an important date coming up. On the
12th of December 2016 we will be making some important changes that will
require changes on every developers machine. In this case developers means
every one that interacts with koji using authentication
looka
According to the schedule [1], Fedora 25 Candidate RC-20161119.3 is now
available for testing. Please help us complete all the validation
testing! For more information on release validation testing, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan
Test coverage information for t
On 11/18/2016 02:12 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
protobuf 3.1.0 is currently building. When the arm build finally completes
I'll start rebuilding the dependent packages.
Rebuilds are mostly done (waiting for arm), with some failures:
clementine - moc-qt4 is choking on glib header
https://bugzil
On Nov 19, 2016 7:26 PM, "Dan Horák" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 11:16:17 -0700
> Orion Poplawski wrote:
>
> > I just noticed this in a root.log for a koji rawhide build that
> > didn't error out doing the install:
>
> afaik these are weak dependencies, that are not installed (by policy),
> dn
On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 11:16:17 -0700
Orion Poplawski wrote:
> I just noticed this in a root.log for a koji rawhide build that
> didn't error out doing the install:
afaik these are weak dependencies, that are not installed (by policy),
dnf 2.0 reports them without the confusing "conflicts"
I just noticed this in a root.log for a koji rawhide build that didn't
error out doing the install:
DEBUG util.py:421: Skipping packages with conflicts:
DEBUG util.py:421: (add '--best --allowerasing' to command line to
force their upgrade):
DEBUG util.py:421: acl x
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
Workstation live x86_64
Kde live i386
Failed openQA tests: 56/79 (x86_64), 14/15 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
ID: 49119 Test: x86_64 Everything-boot
On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Though $SUBJECT says Regression, this is not a new/recent problem.
Technically true, but up to F24, the only time a user would see the
"wrong" file manager was when they might access the File→Open/Save
dialog in Firefox and a few more programs.
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20161118.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20161119.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 4
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 56
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 1.70 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0.00
Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
> TL;DR: There is a conflict when a user opts to install more than one
> desktop environments that come with a FileManager1 (and probably any
> other identical) D-Bus service provider
Though $SUBJECT says Regression, this is not a new/recent problem.
-- Rex
__
On 19/11/16 08:56, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
I think I've proposed at least once that we make Obsoletes: for retired
packages mandatory. My last proposal currently seems to be assigned to
tibbs.
IMHO, forcefully removing packages that still work is a major disservice to
our u
12 matches
Mail list logo
