> Sure Hyperkitty has drawbacks. Pipermail had drawbacks you complained
> about too. You seem to win either way because you can complain if we
> don't change stuff, and you can complain if we do change things. It is
> really extremely tiring trying to deal with your constant
> negativity... so I am
I forgot to say, it was between the hours 15-16 of 2 march (in local time) that
I sent two e-mails to mentioned threads, but nor my e-mails and others e-mails
was visible until 3 march 13:30-14:00. so it is actually 22-23 hours delay.
___
devel mailing
On Sat, 2018-03-03 at 18:30 +0100, Timotheus Pokorra wrote:
> Hello Farhad,
>
> > https://www.spinics.net/lists/fedora-devel/threads.html#241887
> >
> > Please do something for this problem, it is really bad situation
> > you
> > are waiting for e-mails and check the web page several times but
>
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 10:09 AM, Igor Gnatenko
wrote:
> If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing packages in list
> or anything else -- please let me know.
Fixed: abc, gnofract4d, libedit, lrslib.
The abe package does not actually need a C++ compiler for building on
Linux.
On Sat, 3 Mar 2018 23:24:07 + (UTC)
Philip Kovacs wrote:
> Alright I got around the catch-22 of dnf needing the f29 keys in
> order to install the f29 keys with: dnf install --nogpgcheck
> fedora-gpg-keys-29-0.1
>
> That cleared the road for me.
The latest fedora-gpg-keys package for F28 h
Alright I got around the catch-22 of dnf needing the f29 keys in order to
install the f29 keys with:
dnf install --nogpgcheck fedora-gpg-keys-29-0.1
That cleared the road for me.
On Saturday, March 3, 2018 5:41 PM, Philip Kovacs wrote:
Yeah I'm living in the chaos of going from f28 raw
Yeah I'm living in the chaos of going from f28 rawhide to f29 rawhide.
Thanks for the tips.
On Saturday, March 3, 2018 5:26 PM, stan
wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2018 21:15:22 + (UTC)
Philip Kovacs wrote:
> I would settle for knowledge of where the f29/rawhide gpg keys are
> hidden so
On Sat, 3 Mar 2018 21:15:22 + (UTC)
Philip Kovacs wrote:
> I would settle for knowledge of where the f29/rawhide gpg keys are
> hidden so I import them. The "To Rawhide" instructions below are
> outdated as they direct you to a page where the f29/rawhideare not
> presented. Upgrading Fedora u
On samedi 3 mars 2018 23:09:56 CET Martin Gansser wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
> i made the mentioned changes, i hope it's correct.
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/FreeSOLID/blob/master/f/FreeSOLID.spec
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.o
> No. Please just remove the "Requires: qhull" from the .pc file in
> FreeSOLID-2.1.1-pkgconfig.patch entirely. There is already "@QHULL_LIBS@" in
> "Libs:" that links to the qhull libraries.
>
> You can add a "Requires: qhull-devel" to the RPM specfile (NOT the .pc file)
> instead.
>
> You ca
On 3 March 2018 at 14:00, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> That is correct. They are just one of many archivers on the internet
>> that get emails from Fedora and redisplay them. [This is one of the
>> reasons why people who ask us to remove their emails from the archives
>> ar
I would settle for knowledge of where the f29/rawhide gpg keys are hidden so I
import them.
The "To Rawhide" instructions below are outdated as they direct you to a page
where the f29/rawhideare not presented.
Upgrading Fedora using package manager - Fedora Project Wiki
|
| |
Upgrading
Hello folks,
I'm out of luck in the last times... I just realised I'm likely to be
offline at 16:00 this Monday as I'll be flying in the afternoon. So
maybe I can attend later, or maybe not.
I'm sorry for the inconvenience. The storm has thrown everything into chaos.
Kind regards,
Silvia
FAS:
Added qpdf to the ABI tracker: https://abi-laboratory.pro/tracker/timeline/qpdf/
27.02.2018, 21:16, "Adam Williamson" :
> qpdf was updated from 7.1.1-4 to 8.0.0-1 in Rawhide on 2018-02-26.
> This update bumped the soname from libqpdf.so.18 to libqpdf.so.21 .
> This soname bump was not announced, a
Hi all.
This mail is part of the "orphaning" procedure for 'rubygem-review'
package [1].
Feel free to adopt it if interested.
[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-review
--
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x5E212EE1D35568BE
GPG key
Hi everyone,
I've been talking with other people and apparently is quite common to
have issues with HP laptops. F25 works but F27 doesn't, with an
extreme case of not booting at all.
In my case I suspect of Wayland, provided other desktops/spins did
work. But maybe I'm wrong or it's not the only
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> That is correct. They are just one of many archivers on the internet
> that get emails from Fedora and redisplay them. [This is one of the
> reasons why people who ask us to remove their emails from the archives
> are asking an impossible task.. there are hundreds of w
Martin Gansser wrote:
> i changed now the line Requires: qhull to Requires: qhull-devel in patch
> FreeSOLID-2.1.1-pkgconfig.patch:
[snip]
> +Requires: qhull-devel
[snip]
> an then it requires the following packges, is this correct ?
[snip]
> pkgconfig(qhull-devel)
No. Please just remove the "Requ
PS:
I wrote:
> Richard Hughes wrote:
>> 64x64 is a very low bar indeed, compared to all of the other
>> platforms, e.g. Windows Store or the Apple AppStore.
>
> All that's going to happen with such a requirement is that specfiles are
> going to run the icon through scale2x or hq2x if you're luck
Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> data as well as the original repodata. In My Honest Opinion, this is
> not going away until the whole "let's keep this all in one database"
> approach is discarded and individual small metadata files for each
> RPM, which can be surveyed and updated individually, replace
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> * It means things will likely be broken longer as there is less urgency
> to fix them quickly.
This means less stress for maintainers who are usually not working full time
on Fedora.
I don't see why a broken dependency in some leaf application that happens to
be included on
> Try this:
>
> BuildRequires: python3-devel
> # bytecompile with Python 3
> %global __python %{__python3}
>
> in your specfile to force it to bytecompile your Python code with Python 3.
>
> Kevin Kofler
Thanks for your feedback and solution, compiles/works fine now.
Martin
___
> On samedi 3 mars 2018 17:30:30 CET Martin Gansser wrote:
>
> Didn't you see the reply I made to your other thread?
>
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/
> message/YIAXJASDD5J6NMJHTON5PK5CRB4FUDQA/
>
> I explained how to get rid of that Requires.
Sorr
On 3 March 2018 at 12:30, Timotheus Pokorra
wrote:
> Hello Farhad,
>
>> https://www.spinics.net/lists/fedora-devel/threads.html#241887
>>
>> Please do something for this problem, it is really bad situation you
>> are waiting for e-mails and check the web page several times but you
>> don't see any
Hello Farhad,
https://www.spinics.net/lists/fedora-devel/threads.html#241887
Please do something for this problem, it is really bad situation you
are waiting for e-mails and check the web page several times but you
don't see anything! |:
I don't think that spinics.net is the official archive
On samedi 3 mars 2018 17:30:30 CET Martin Gansser wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > try qhull-devel instead of pkgconfig(qhull), afaik there was a change in
> > qhull package some days ago.
>
>
> but there is no pkgconfig(qhull) in the spec file ?
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/FreeSOLID/blob/master/
> Hi,
>
> try qhull-devel instead of pkgconfig(qhull), afaik there was a change in
> qhull package some days ago.
but there is no pkgconfig(qhull) in the spec file ?
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/FreeSOLID/blob/master/f/FreeSOLID.spec
___
devel mai
Hello,
The "Test Gating" mechanism is preventing two updates from being pushed.
* F27 Wine 3.3
- "The update can not be pushed: no test results found"
- https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-fa6f017315
* F26 Wine 3.3
- "The update can not be pushed: 1 of 2 required tests n
# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting
# Date: 2018-03-05
# Time: 16:00 UTC
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto)
# Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net
Greetings testers!
It's been a couple of weeks since we had a meeting, and we've
had exciting times in release engineeri
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 07:22:42PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le mardi 27 février 2018 à 18:34 +0100, Robert-André Mauchin a écrit :
> >
> >
> > How do we test this? I installedtho go-srpm-macros from Rawhide but it
> > doesn't seem to have the required macros?
>
> Yes in rawhide go-compile
On Fri, 02 Mar 2018 16:11:23 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Richard Hughes wrote:
> > 64x64 is a very low bar indeed, compared to all of the other
> > platforms, e.g. Windows Store or the Apple AppStore.
>
> All that's going to happen with such a requirement is that specfiles are
> going to run
I forgot to say, it was between the hours 15-16 of yesterday (in local
time) that I sent two e-mails to mentioned threads, but nor my e-mail
and others e-mails was visible until today 13:30-14:00. so it is
actually 22-23 hours delay.
___
devel mailing lis
I forgot to say, it was between the hours 15-16 of yesterday (in local
time) that I sent two e-mails to mentioned threads, but nor my e-mail
and others e-mails was visible until today 13:30-14:00. so it is
actually 22-23 hours delay.
___
devel mailing lis
Oh, right, that was just mentioned on list some days ago…
On 03/03/2018 12:32 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/03/2018 12:19 PM, Christian Dersch wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> try qhull-devel instead of pkgconfig(qhull), afaik there was a change in
>> qhull package some days ago.
>
> No. The change you are
On 03/03/2018 12:19 PM, Christian Dersch wrote:
Hi,
try qhull-devel instead of pkgconfig(qhull), afaik there was a change in
qhull package some days ago.
No. The change you are referring to happened in April 2016!
Ralf (Fedora qhull packager)
___
de
At few days ago I did open two threads:
1: "Fedora 26 & 27 are unable to boot with normal graphic mode on this
PC with AMD/ATI RS740 [Radeon 2100] GPU" in "Users"
https://www.spinics.net/linux/fedora/fedora-users/threads.html#481765
2. "Why size of repositories metadata is too high in Fedora?" i
Hi,
try qhull-devel instead of pkgconfig(qhull), afaik there was a change in
qhull package some days ago.
Greetings,
Christian
On 03/03/2018 11:16 AM, Martin Gansser wrote:
> Hi,
>
> how can i solve this dependencies ?
>
> FreeSOLID has broken dependencies in the F-28 tree:
> On x86_64:
>
Hi,
how can i solve this dependencies ?
FreeSOLID has broken dependencies in the F-28 tree:
On x86_64:
FreeSOLID-devel-2.1.1-29.fc28.x86_64 requires pkgconfig(qhull)
On armhfp:
FreeSOLID-devel-2.1.1-29.fc28.armv7hl requires pkgconfig(qhull)
On ppc64le:
FreeSOLID-devel-2.1.
38 matches
Mail list logo
