On Wed, 2017-08-09 at 01:28 -0400, James Antill wrote:
> Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
> meeting Thursday at 2017-08-09 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-3 on
> irc.freenode.net.
Note that this should be #fedora-meeting-2 as that is free.
> Local time information
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2017-08-09 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-3 on
irc.freenode.net.
Local time information (via. uitime):
= Day: Wednesday =
2017-08-09 10:00 PDT US/Pacific
2017-08-09 1
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 04:24:16PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Is there any chance of running that at, say,
> > https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs-nextrelease/ instead of a
> > local instance?
> I mean, in *theory* we could for sure, it's just yet another
> maintenance task for someone,
Hello and thank you.
What is the best direction to get started with doing reviews and or helping
out triaging/fixing bugs.
Just find something in bugzilla to work on ?
Regards
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:39 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 09:
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 09:01:59PM -0400, djb djb wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am just starting out with fedora packaging. My background is mostly
> working in NOCs, infrastructure support roles and working as sys admin.
>
> Look for forward to learning as much as possible with the hopes of getting
> sp
Hello,
I am just starting out with fedora packaging. My background is mostly
working in NOCs, infrastructure support roles and working as sys admin.
Look for forward to learning as much as possible with the hopes of getting
sponsored.
Regards,
David J Battaglia
_
On Fri, 2017-08-04 at 00:38 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 08:50:09PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > Will the blockerbugs app start showing F28 blockers at the F27 branch
> > > point? Or sometime later? From my point of view, the sooner the better.
> >
> > It tends to
Hello Fedora Python package maintainers!
This is an announcement of a mass package renaming:
Python 2 binary packages will be renamed to python2-*.
This will happen soon after the F27 branching on August 15th.
Currently ~1330 source packages already generate a binary package with
the python2- p
On Tue, 2017-08-08 at 13:39 -0400, Ralph Bean wrote:
> ## Solution: "Input" Modulemd Syntax Changes
>
> We’re going to extend the modulemd syntax to allow specifying multiple
> dependencies in an "input" modulemd (the one that packagers modify). When
> submitted to the build system, the module-bu
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 03:11:38PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 09:04:40PM +0200, Petr Šabata wrote:
> > dependencies:
> > buildrequires: &deps
> > platform: [f28, f27, f26]
> > shared-userspace: [fancy, nonfancy]
> > requires: *deps
> >
> > Another
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 09:04:40PM +0200, Petr Šabata wrote:
> dependencies:
> buildrequires: &deps
> platform: [f28, f27, f26]
> shared-userspace: [fancy, nonfancy]
> requires: *deps
>
> Another point that came up later -- instead of shared-userspace,
> imagine different str
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 01:39:45PM -0400, Ralph Bean wrote:
> This is a writeup on a problem we’re facing with modularity, and some ideas on
> how to resolve it.
>
> # The "Problem"
>
> Imagine I have an **httpd module**. To simplify things, let’s say that this
> module has only one stream: **2.
As of the 8th of August 2017, Fedora 24 has reached its end of life
for updates and support. No further updates, including security updates,
will be available for Fedora 24. A previous reminder was sent on 21st of
July 2017 [0]. Fedora 25 will continue to receive updates until
approximately one m
This is a writeup on a problem we’re facing with modularity, and some ideas on
how to resolve it.
# The "Problem"
Imagine I have an **httpd module**. To simplify things, let’s say that this
module has only one stream: **2.4**. Today, in the modulemd for this module, I
declare build and runtime d
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 03:26:04PM +0200, Petr Šabata wrote:
> > Hm. I agree entirely with you, but when reading this I thought of
> > another possibility. I think modularity gives people the option for a
> > rolling release, where we don't have to make release == "collection of
> > specific modu
On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 07:58:35PM +, Langdon White wrote:
> We haven't documented this yet because we have been working through the
> details of the how it should work. Basically, we need to provide a way, on
> the system, to define:
> a) what the "release" is. In other words, what did the Edi
On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 11:48:53PM +, Langdon White wrote:
> I guess I am not sure how this is different with modules than with Fedora
> today. We promise a 13 month lifecycle on openssl (and everything else)
> already. I think the difference here is only that the "position" is
> explicit. Howe
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 10:38:15AM -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> >Yeah, that would get crazy fast. The 6 month granularity proposal
> >should help*some*, and we should probably go into this carefully.
>
> Technically, the SL for the module could have the narrow meaning
> referring to the modul
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 02:13:38PM -, Ralph Bean wrote:
> Thanks for starting this. I'm not aware of a ticket or a responsible
> party at this point. +1 to working towards formalizing this.
I'll make one if no one else has. Should we start at a rel-eng ticket,
get a proposal worked out, and t
=
#fedora-meeting-3: Meeting of the Modularity Working Group (once every two
weeks)
=
Meeting started by nils at 14:00:21 UTC.
Minutes:
On 08/07/2017 03:58 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 02:10:23PM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
I still don't see how this is going to work with a tree of Service Levels
and Lifetimes. Any module can not give a SL greater than the lowest SL and
the shortest lifetime that any
> Is there an active plan on figuring out these Service Levels? Is there
> a ticket? Is there a specific person who owns this? I think we need at
> least a preliminary understanding of what goes here for the F27 beta
> (freeze on Sept. 9th, so... I guess by then?)
Thanks for starting this. I'm no
On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 07:33:21AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Matthew Miller
> wrote:
> > Our Change process has the basic assumption that if a Change isn't
> > working, we will be able to back out. But, in practice, when there are
> > problems, we often find it th
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 01:33:31PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >
> > I built this one 3½ hours ago:
> >
> > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=953201
> >
> > A whole series of builds depend on this but I'm still w
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> I built this one 3½ hours ago:
>
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=953201
>
> A whole series of builds depend on this but I'm still waiting for it
> to get into the buildroot ... Can something be done to speed
I built this one 3½ hours ago:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=953201
A whole series of builds depend on this but I'm still waiting for it
to get into the buildroot ... Can something be done to speed this up?
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http:
Hi,
How can one request new package for multiple repoes at once like it was
possible with pkgdb, is this possible with this new tool?
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject
27 matches
Mail list logo
