Missing expected images:
Workstation live i386
Server boot i386
Kde live i386
Failed openQA tests: 50/137 (x86_64), 2/18 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20170830.n.1):
ID: 136631 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso base_services_start
URL: https://openqa.fedorapro
Missing expected images:
Workstation live i386
Server boot i386
Kde live i386
Failed openQA tests: 46/128 (x86_64), 2/18 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
Old failures (same test failed in 27-20170901.n.1):
ID: 136784 Test: x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/
The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they
are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure
that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life
Note: If y
Am 01.09.2017 um 23:32 schrieb Björn 'besser82' Esser:
Am 28.08.2017 um 22:28 schrieb Björn 'besser82' Esser:
Hello folks,
I'm planning to update jsoncpp on Rawhide and fc27 during the next
days. After the builds have landed, I'll take care of rebuilding all
consumers against the new so name
There will be a meeting in #fedora-meeting-2 on 1900 UTC (1500 EDT for
US timezones) to go over the setup of the x86 group
#startmeeting x86
#meetingname x86
#chair smooge jbackus
#topic Roll Call
#topic What does FESCO want
#info People who know how to advocate to upstreams
#info Advocating does
On 09/02/2017 03:24 AM, Kaleb Keithley wrote:
>
> Einstein's advice about insanity not withstanding, I tried building again –
> the third time was successful.
>
> (Expecting the same on f27 now. :-/ )
So, it happens I was looking at cron emails and saw something that might
be related to this.
On Sat, 2017-09-02 at 14:10 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On Sep 2, 2017 11:36 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > So I'm gonna start working on the 6.9.9 downgrade in F27, and I'm
> > tempted to just downgrade Rawhide at the same time, and if we actually
> > do decide to try 7 again, we can st
On Sep 2, 2017 11:36 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:So I'm gonna start working on the 6.9.9 downgrade in F27, and I'm
tempted to just downgrade Rawhide at the same time, and if we actually
do decide to try 7 again, we can start over at that time. Do you agree
with that plan? Thanks! (It doesn't chan
Anything depending on Audacious libaudcore will need a rebuild due to a
SONAME change from libaudcore.so.4 to libaudcore.so.5 that has been
introduced with the upgrade to Audacious 3.9 in Rawhide.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
On Sat, 2017-09-02 at 10:19 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 09/02/2017 10:06 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Well, the easy option is just to revert to 6.9.9 and not update to 7 at
> > all. It's not incumbent upon us to do so at least until upstream starts
> > making noises about killing the
Hi Zbyszek,
> ...
> python-gear-0.5.9-7.fc28 pkg_resources.ContextualVersionConflict: (extras
> 0.0.3 (/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages), Requirement.parse('extras>=1.0.0'),
> set(['testtools']))
I created bug [1] and have raised pull request [2] which should fix the issue
of python-gear packa
On 09/02/2017 10:06 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Well, the easy option is just to revert to 6.9.9 and not update to 7 at
all. It's not incumbent upon us to do so at least until upstream starts
making noises about killing the 6 series, and there doesn't seem to be
any particularly strong*reason* to
On Sat, 2017-09-02 at 10:34 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 02, 2017 at 09:05:02AM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> > > Would we be keeping these separate for a long time? Alternatives
> > > are
> > > really pretty ugly and I'd hate to see that introduced just for
> > > one
> > > rele
On Sat, 2017-09-02 at 09:59 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 09/02/2017 09:34 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > Ugh. How many of these are using the library and how many are shelling
> > out? Could we just tack a 6 on the end of all of the older binaries?
> >
>
> The rebuilds were for library l
On Sat, 2017-09-02 at 10:34 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 02, 2017 at 09:05:02AM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> > > Would we be keeping these separate for a long time? Alternatives are
> > > really pretty ugly and I'd hate to see that introduced just for one
> > > release.
> >
>
On 09/02/2017 09:34 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
Ugh. How many of these are using the library and how many are shelling
out? Could we just tack a 6 on the end of all of the older binaries?
The rebuilds were for library linked packages. I have not touched any packages that
shell out. A reqpoquery
On Sat, Sep 02, 2017 at 09:05:02AM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> >Would we be keeping these separate for a long time? Alternatives are
> >really pretty ugly and I'd hate to see that introduced just for one
> >release.
> After handling all the rebuilds for version 7, it is pretty rare for
> an
On Sep 1, 2017 4:54 PM, "Kai Bojens" wrote:
On Friday, 1 September 2017 21:30:44 CEST Matthew Miller wrote:
> RPM specfile changelogs are often of interest to systems
> administrators.
Agreed. Before I update a huge number of hosts I'd like to check the
changelogs for any possible trouble. This
On 09/02/2017 08:10 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
Would we be keeping these separate for a long time? Alternatives are
really pretty ugly and I'd hate to see that introduced just for one
release.
After handling all the rebuilds for version 7, it is pretty rare for an upstream to
support version 7
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Igor Gnatenko
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> So I think F28/F29 would be best time for retiring YUM. Right now DNF
> should be already stable and provide same capabilities (or documented
> that something will not be supported).
>
> Ho
On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:14:17PM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> >FESCo decided at today's meeting that 7 should not go to F27 (unless it
> >can be made parallel installable and not used by anything release-
> >blocking by default), and to go into F28 there must be a system-wide
> >Change:
>
Einstein's advice about insanity not withstanding, I tried building again – the
third time was successful.
(Expecting the same on f27 now. :-/ )
- Original Message -
> From: "Kaleb Keithley"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Friday, September 1, 2017 8:17:1
Hello,
While reviewing a package, I encountered an issue during the
installatiion phase of the review:
>Error: Transaction check error:
> file /usr/lib/.build-id/5d/1c3c62276031587a6ac333785ee12f62218a86
>conflicts between attempted installs of wsjtx-1.8.0-0.1.rc1.fc28.x86_64
> and hamlib-
Hi all.
As co-maintainer of 'hdf5', i worked since some days on upgrade of this
package. It's currently on stable repositories with the release 1.8.12,
new release will be the 1.10.1
(https://support.hdfgroup.org/HDF5/docNewFeatures/).
Any objection about?
Changes in hdf5-1.10.1:
1. Compilation
I agree, 15MB is too much for a server instance, especially for a
container. I think AppStream data as is is more appropriate for
desktop. No sure if possible, but maybe an option; don't make it a
hard dependency.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fed
25 matches
Mail list logo
