Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2017-03-09 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.freenode.net.
Local time information (via. rktime):
2017-03-09 09:00 Thu US/Pacific PST
2017-03-09 12:00 Thu US/Eastern EST
2017-03-09 1
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 7:12 AM, Ding Yi Chen wrote:
> As we merge our repositories into zanata-platform [1].
> so the new versions of Zanata client will be supplied by zanata-platform.
>
> The following repositories are depreciated:
>
> zanata-parent
> zanata-api
> zanata-common
> zanata-clie
On Qua, 2017-03-08 at 22:26 -0500, Christopher Meng wrote:
> On 3/8/17, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > What do you mean by 'using SHA-1' and 'drop SHA-1', exactly? You're
> > not
> > giving enough context. Not all uses of hashing algorithms have
> > security
> > consequences.
>
> Checksum.
>
>
On 3/8/17, Adam Williamson wrote:
> What do you mean by 'using SHA-1' and 'drop SHA-1', exactly? You're not
> giving enough context. Not all uses of hashing algorithms have security
> consequences.
Checksum.
fedora-review -k.
--
Yours sincerely,
Christopher Meng
http://awk.io
On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 21:48 -0500, Christopher Meng wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> Per some old news[1], I believe SHA-1 is not secure anymore. But after
> checking fedora-review(1), I still see possibility of using SHA-1.
>
> Is it the time to drop SHA-1?
What do you mean by 'using SHA-1' and 'drop SHA-
Hi list,
Per some old news[1], I believe SHA-1 is not secure anymore. But after
checking fedora-review(1), I still see possibility of using SHA-1.
Is it the time to drop SHA-1?
Thanks.
[1]---http://shattered.io
--
Yours sincerely,
Christopher Meng
_
As we merge our repositories into zanata-platform [1].
so the new versions of Zanata client will be supplied by zanata-platform.
The following repositories are depreciated:
zanata-parent
zanata-api
zanata-common
zanata-client
Thus corresponding Fedora main packages are orphaned.
Regards,
[1]
Missing expected images:
Atomic qcow2 x86_64
Server dvd i386
Server boot i386
Atomic raw-xz x86_64
Failed openQA tests: 44/107 (x86_64), 1/2 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test did not fail in 26-20170307.n.0):
ID: 61002 Test: x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https:/
Missing expected images:
Server dvd i386
Server boot i386
Failed openQA tests: 53/107 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20170307.n.0):
ID: 60895 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso base_service_manipulation
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/60895
ID: 60
Hi,
I retired dissy on master the other day (since it depends on an old
unmaintained webkit version that will disappear in f27) and while pkgdb
shows the correct status of in all releases except devel, it seems to
have ended up in 24, 25 and 27 but not 26 according to
https://apps.fedoraproject.or
Is there someone that can help review the two packages I have in bugzilla
(1424854 and 1428629)
1424854 - new package request - comedi - drivers for data acquisition - should
be a cool adder
1428629 - bug request - comedilib - this is just a package to bring the code
up to date with the proje
Hello everyone,
I just sposored Olivier Lemasle in the packager group. He is helping me
package a few Go dependencies for a static webpage generator. His fas
name is olem.
Welcome, Olivier.
--
Athos Ribeiro
http://www.ime.usp.br/~athoscr
___
devel ma
On 07/03/17 13:41 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"JW" == Jonathan Wakely writes:
JW> The template at
JW>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#SPEC_templates_and_examples
JW> still shows %install cleaning the buildroot as the first step,
JW> should that be corrected?
> "JW" == Jonathan Wakely writes:
JW> Sure. I was checking whether I should make the change myself, not
JW> complaining it hadn't been done.
You are of course welcome to change any page that isn't in one of the
protected hierarchies (Packaging:, Legal:). We certainly need more
people willin
On 03/08/2017 07:00 AM, Christian Dersch wrote:
> Just build your depending package. But be sure that your override made it to
> the
> buildroot by using "|koji wait-repo epel7-build --build=sundials-2.7.0-10.el7"
>
It's also useful that if you have a strict build dependency on a particular
vers
Just build your depending package. But be sure that your override made
it to the buildroot by using "|koji wait-repo epel7-build
--build=sundials-2.7.0-10.el7"
Greetings,
Christian
|
On 03/08/2017 12:46 PM, Antonio Trande wrote:
Hi all.
I have created a buildroot-override for sundials-2.7.0
As soon as the suggested '$ koji wait-repo epel7-build
--build=sundials-2.7.0-10.el7' command passes, you can submit the build
the same way as always, e.g. `fedpkg build`. You can double check the
buildroot.log to be sure the right sundials version was installed.
Vít
Dne 8.3.2017 v 12:46 Antoni
Hi all.
I have created a buildroot-override for sundials-2.7.0 on epel7
(https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/overrides/sundials-2.7.0-10.el7).
How can i build other dependent package with this new update?
Regards.
--
---
Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitter 'at' fedoraproject 'dot' org
https://fedorapro
18 matches
Mail list logo
