On 06/02/2017 06:02 PM, Ralph Bean wrote:
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 12:41:57PM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>> Dne 26.5.2017 v 21:42 Ralph Bean napsal(a):
>>> Any feedback before that would be
>>> greatly appreciated.
>>
>> PkgDB handles Koschei and upstream monitoring settings too. How I can do
>
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> With the deprecation of pkgdb2, pagure will make it even easier to give
> someone
> access to a package, if someone wants to help you maintain a package, you can
> just grant them access to the project on pagure. They will only
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 10:16:16PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > As we're moving things, can we do something in Pagure to cover this, so
> > the FPCA isn't needed here?
> Note that pagure running at pagure.io no longer requires FPCA, I was here
> speaking about the pagure instance running on
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 04:07:15PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > (Note: pagure can and will enforce the FPCA for dist-git)
>
> I know Richard Fontana has expressed some interest in reducing the need
> for FPCA. Maybe this is
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
>> (Note: pagure can and will enforce the FPCA for dist-git)
>
> I know Richard Fontana has expressed some interest in reducing the need
> for FPCA. Maybe this is an opportun
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> (Note: pagure can and will enforce the FPCA for dist-git)
I know Richard Fontana has expressed some interest in reducing the need
for FPCA. Maybe this is an opportunity to move in that direction? I
know Spot has said that "Licen
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> Good Morning Everyone,
>
> With pagure becoming a front-end to dist-git, I have been wondering about the
> future of the packager group.
>
> The packager group is currently used for a few things:
> - tracking purpose, it's one
Good Morning Everyone,
With pagure becoming a front-end to dist-git, I have been wondering about the
future of the packager group.
The packager group is currently used for a few things:
- tracking purpose, it's one of our biggest groups and also one of the most
active
- members of the packager g
I just wanted to call out in particular this bit from Jan's note:
> This slip of the F26 release does not have any impact on F27 schedule [3].
> [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/27/Schedule
This means that system-wide changes for Fedora 27 should be submitted
to FESCo *before* the Fed
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 03:42:25PM -0400, Ralph Bean wrote:
> The main motivation behind this is to enable functionality required by
> Modularity[3] and to ultimately reduce some package maintenance
> burden. For some packages, it makes sense to have only a single branch
> that feeds into multiple
Does anyone know of a mailing list/forum/etc. for DNF Python API
questions?
--
Ian Pilcher arequip...@gmail.com
"I grew up before Mark Zuckerberg invented friendship"
Hey all,
I've got a package I need reviewed[0]. Is anyone interested in doing a
review swap?
[0] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418396
--
Jeremy Cline
XMPP: jer...@jcline.org
IRC: jcline
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2017-06-02)
===
Meeting started by jforbes at 16:00:27 UTC. The full logs are available
at
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2017-06-02/fesco.2017-06-02-16.00.log.html
.
Meeting summary
-
Release status of the Fedora 26 Beta is NO-GO.
After 23 hours long Go/No-Go meeting for F26 Beta 1.4 compose [1] we
have decided to slip the whole F26 release for one week [2]. The main
concern for not releasing this compose [1] as GOLD is unclear
resolution of bug #1397087, which is still causing
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 12:41:57PM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 26.5.2017 v 21:42 Ralph Bean napsal(a):
> > Any feedback before that would be
> > greatly appreciated.
>
> PkgDB handles Koschei and upstream monitoring settings too. How I can do that
> after the migration?
The Koschei devs ha
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 10:22:35AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> I hate the "self contained" vs "system wide" distinction, but since we
> have it, shouldn't this be "system wide" change?
Yeah, because:
> > == Scope ==
> > Proposal owners:
> > - Update nodejs
> > - Rebuild all binary modules, apply
Done. Thank you, Zbyszek!
Roman
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
What was deciding factor for us was "Complex system wide changes involve
system-wide defaults" in Changes/Policy. Also I consider system logging
facility system-wide important. And as another Bjorn replies below, there may
be packages dependent on current format.
Best regards
Roman
___
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the
FESCo meeting Friday at 16:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on
irc.freenode.net.
To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto
or run:
date -d '2017-05-26 16:00 UTC'
Links to all issues below ca
Dne 2.6.2017 v 13:03 Michael Schwendt napsal(a):
> On Thu, 01 Jun 2017 02:29:53 +, Christopher wrote:
>
>> Do you have a link to an explanation of the automated fedora-review
>> process, and/or some of these step-by-step checklists you mention?
> fedora-review is a tool and a package with the
On Thu, 01 Jun 2017 02:29:53 +, Christopher wrote:
> Do you have a link to an explanation of the automated fedora-review
> process, and/or some of these step-by-step checklists you mention?
fedora-review is a tool and a package with the same name. You simply point
it at a bugzilla ticket numb
Yesterday I have update my fedora 25 and after reboot VPN l2tp+ipsec do
not work anymore.
The connection happens without problem, the routing are set correctly,
the DNS (UDP protocol) and ping (ICMP protocol) to remote host work.
Only the access to some server, like ssh or smb:// (TCP protocol) d
I hate the "self contained" vs "system wide" distinction, but since we
have it, shouldn't this be "system wide" change?
V.
Dne 1.6.2017 v 20:43 Jan Kurik napsal(a):
> = Proposed Self Contained Change: Node.js 8.x =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NodeJS8x
>
> Change owner(s):
> * Zuzan
I plan to update kpmcore in the weekend, so there will be a soname bump
to libkpmcore.so.5
I will take care of rebuilding affected packages I'm aware of
(kde-partitionmanager and calamares).
Mattia
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject
24 matches
Mail list logo
