On 1 April 2017 at 02:09, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Nonsense. Nobody is going to mark up each and every use of a smart pointer
> with some warning pragma, that just does not make sense.
>
> Warnings are optional by design, you cannot dictate a distribution-wide
> policy for them.
>
What I wrote was
Tomasz Kloczko wrote:
> As you perfectly know such precise point-and-click suppression can be
> added straight in source code around each such case. Again. Level up on
> processing source resources by distribution build infrastructure such
> suppression on whole package even layer should be forbidd
# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting
# Date: 2017-04-03
# Time: 15:00 UTC
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto)
# Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net
Greetings testers!
We haven't met for a couple of weeks, so let's get together and see
what's happening.
If anyone has
On 03/31/2017 02:55 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> This appears in journal after some of last updates. Did anyone
> experience such problem?
>
> Also logs are full of things like:
> org.gnome.SettingsDaemon.Power.desktop[1836]: Error executing command
> as another user: Not authorized
> org.gnome.Sett
Missing expected images:
Cloud_base qcow2 x86_64
Cloud_base raw-xz x86_64
Failed openQA tests: 8/108 (x86_64), 1/18 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test did not fail in 26-20170330.n.0):
ID: 73905 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_role_deploy_domain_controller
URL: https://openqa.fe
Hello,
I am Bart Kessels and I'm a developer from the Netherlands.
Right now I'm still in college studying computer science and I'd
like to experience the open source development world. I've only
worked for closed source companies so I can't link to any of the
project I've worked on but I'd like t
On 31 March 2017 at 20:56, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Now repeat the same with a set of packages where the Obsoletes tag
> remains in one of the packages
>
OK so it is exactly like trying to fix the C code issue with left some
parts of last changes iteration which should be fixed by deleted such
On 2017-03-31 4:04 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 15:16:22 -0400, Fernando Nasser wrote:
A few issues I remember caused by unversioned Obsoletes (before they
were banished to Hell) were:
- Not being able, ever again, to provide the thing being obsoleted. And
believe me, thing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
This appears in journal after some of last updates. Did anyone
experience such problem?
Also logs are full of things like:
org.gnome.SettingsDaemon.Power.desktop[1836]: Error executing command
as another user: Not authorized
org.gnome.SettingsDaemon
On 31 March 2017 at 20:05, Rex Dieter wrote:
> If you think versioned Obsoletes are bad or unwise, it shows some naivety
> or
> inexperience: Ever had to fix/recover from erroneous Obsoletes or had to
> deal with undo/revert of them (without resorting to introducing epoch)?
>
> I suggest you pla
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 15:16:22 -0400, Fernando Nasser wrote:
> A few issues I remember caused by unversioned Obsoletes (before they
> were banished to Hell) were:
>
> - Not being able, ever again, to provide the thing being obsoleted. And
> believe me, things change ;-)
>
> - The Obsoletes affe
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 19:41:30 +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> OK. Could you please show me example?
Any non-versioned Obsoletes tag in the repo metadata hides the obsolete
package from the depsolver's view during updates, and depending on the
implementation even during first installs.
> It is yet
A few issues I remember caused by unversioned Obsoletes (before they
were banished to Hell) were:
- Not being able, ever again, to provide the thing being obsoleted. And
believe me, things change ;-)
- The Obsoletes affects other channels as well, not only the content of
the channel that co
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Fri, 2017-03-31 at 19:41 +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> On 31 March 2017 at 17:57, Michael Schwendt
> wrote:
>
> > No, it's based on common experience several packagers have made
> > over a
> > period of several years. You seem to have missed th
Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> I see that you and other people proposing versioned Obsoletes rules never
> ever analysed step by step whole scenario(s)
If you think versioned Obsoletes are bad or unwise, it shows some naivety or
inexperience: Ever had to fix/recover from erroneous Obsoletes or had to
On 31 March 2017 at 17:57, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> No, it's based on common experience several packagers have made over a
> period of several years. You seem to have missed that period. Non-versioned
> Obsoletes have caused problems before.
>
OK. Could you please show me example? Best if it wi
Missing expected images:
Cloud_base qcow2 x86_64
Atomic qcow2 x86_64
Kde live x86_64
Cloud_base raw-xz x86_64
Xfce raw-xz armhfp
Atomic raw-xz x86_64
Minimal raw-xz armhfp
Kde live i386
Failed openQA tests: 23/96 (x86_64), 5/17 (i386)
ID: 73792 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_role_deplo
Rex Dieter wrote:
> Mostly fyi/heads-up,
>
> kde-sig members imported Qt 5.8 into git over the weekend (kudos to
> heliocastro for initial packaging/copr and kkofler for merging import),
> and
> bootstrap builds are under way.
OK, I think we've got most builds either done or currently-underway.
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 17:32:09 +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> I see that you and other people proposing versioned Obsoletes rules never
> ever analysed step by step whole scenario(s) or done kind of 10 min POC to
> prove correctness/incorrectness of this. Looks like again .. it is result
> of using
On 31 March 2017 at 12:00, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> When you refer to removing a package "permanently", that is a fallacy.
> You cannot predict whether you may want to reintroduce a package some day.
> Even for a foo-static package there may be a reason why to build such a
> package again. Block
On Qui, 2017-03-23 at 12:46 +, James Hogarth wrote:
> On 23 March 2017 at 12:12, Robert Marcano
> wrote:
> >
> > Greetings. Is https://github.com/fedora-selinux/selinux-policy-cont
> > rib the
> > right place to contribute to the Fedora SELinux policy?
> >
> > I added a pull request for a sm
On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 19:05:54 +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> I see more and more issues related to FPG. And most discouraging is not
> what is inside FPG because I can agree with most of the advices in this
> document
> Seem some packagers are using it almost blindly. And we are not talking
> about
Dne 30.3.2017 v 18:00 Stephen John Smoogen napsal(a):
>
> 4) There is a difference between rules written down and rules in
> action. While the rule has been this should be done, the fact that so
> many packages have never done so and no one has pulled them for that..
> says the real rule is it is
And fix this small issue please:
= DOWNGRADED PACKAGES =
Package: qt5-5.8.0-1.fc27
Old package: qt5-5.8.0-2.fc26
Summary: Qt5 meta package
RPMs: qt5 qt5-devel qt5-rpm-macros qt5-srpm-macros
Size: 33768 bytes
Size change: -584 bytes
Vít
Dne 31.3.2017 v 08:5
Please update qt5-qtquick1 to 5.8.
ср, 29 мар. 2017 г. в 14:23, Rex Dieter :
> Rex Dieter wrote:
>
> > Rex Dieter wrote:
> >
> >> Mostly fyi/heads-up,
> >>
> >> kde-sig members imported Qt 5.8 into git over the weekend (kudos to
> >> heliocastro for initial packaging/copr and kkofler for merging
25 matches
Mail list logo
