> I've just orphaned pykka (https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package
> /rpms/pykka/) as I'm no longer using it.
Hi Jonathan,
what do you use instead?
Regards, Raphael
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an ema
> Sorry but I have no idea about pykka. Frankly I don't even know what it is.
Upstream obvioulsy uses pykka to connect to spotify with mopidy (currently not
packaged). That's a valuable reason for me to look deeper into those packages.
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7986
I'd say BFQ on devices that are not multi-queue, and either none or
mq-deadline on devices that are. This is detectable through sysfs.
[root@flap ~]# cat /sys/block/nvme0n1/queue/scheduler
[none] mq-deadline
[root@flap ~]# grep SCSI_MQ /boot/config-4.20.0-0.rc5.git2.1.fc30.x86_64
# CONFIG_SCSI_MQ_
On Tue, 2018-12-11 at 16:36 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:30 AM Sérgio Basto
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Any news ?
> >
> > "But I guess nothing's getting released, for some reason? fedora-
> > review has been on version 0.6.1 since May 2016; all package
> > activity si
Dne 11. 12. 18 v 11:29 Raphael Groner napsal(a):
2. PkgDB was recently deprecated. For now, you will need to submit a ticket to
the Release Engineering team, stating which package you want to claim.
Miro, that isn't worth the effort to maintain pykka. Is there any active
upstream?
Sorry but
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:30 AM Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Any news ?
>
> "But I guess nothing's getting released, for some reason? fedora-review has
> been on version 0.6.1 since May 2016; all package activity since then has
> been housekeeping rebuilds. "
>
> may you add me as admin to F
On Tue, 2018-12-11 at 16:06 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> you are right. I am thinking this, too. Would you maybe be interested
> in
> making this a Community Objective[0] such as "Packaging Contribution
> Experience"?
I support this.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message par
On Tue, 2018-12-11 at 11:42 +0100, Ben Rosser wrote:
> I guess what bothers me here is that it's been a year since I filed
> my
> ticket against pagure, and nine months since you filed yours against
> fedpkg, and it seems like nothing has been done to fix this. I know
> it's only a minor annoyance,
Greetings!
I have planned an IRC meeting for Bodhi stakeholders for Tuesday 2018-
12-18 at 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting on Freenode:
https://apps.fedoraproject.org/calendar/infrastructure/2018/12/17/#m9429
Feel free to drop by and say hi!
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed m
On Tue, 2018-12-11 at 13:29 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-12-10 at 09:23 +, Samuel Rakitničan wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Got an e-mail from Koschei [1] with a notice that camotics package
> > is
> > starting to fail to build. The reason for this seems to be that
> > something that used
On Mon, 2018-12-10 at 09:23 +, Samuel Rakitničan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Got an e-mail from Koschei [1] with a notice that camotics package is
> starting to fail to build. The reason for this seems to be that
> something that used to pull mesa-libEGL-devel doesn't do so anymore.
>
> /usr/include/GL/
On 12/11/18 11:59 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> No, it didn't. BUT I believe that the problem is here:
>
> /bin/sh ../../libtool --tag=CC --mode=link gcc -pipe -Wall
> -Wextra -Werror=strict-prototypes -Werror=missing-prototypes
> -Werror=missing-declarations -Werror=format=2 -Werror=undef
On 12/11/18 11:59 AM, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 11/12/2018 16:46, Steve Dickson wrote:
>
>> I'm getting a bunch of xml routines undefined
>>
>> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=31408933&volume=DEFAULT&name=build.log&offset=-4000
>>
>> on my rawhide build... everything builds just
No, it didn't. BUT I believe that the problem is here:
/bin/sh ../../libtool --tag=CC --mode=link gcc -pipe -Wall
-Wextra -Werror=strict-prototypes -Werror=missing-prototypes
-Werror=missing-declarations -Werror=format=2 -Werror=undef
-Werror=missing-include-dirs -Werror=strict-aliasing=2
On 11/12/2018 16:46, Steve Dickson wrote:
I'm getting a bunch of xml routines undefined
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=31408933&volume=DEFAULT&name=build.log&offset=-4000
on my rawhide build... everything builds just fine on f29...
and I have BuildRequires: libxml2-devel
I
No missing expected images.
Compose PASSES proposed Rawhide gating check!
all required tests passed
Failed openQA tests: 17/131 (x86_64), 3/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test not failed in Rawhide-20181210.n.0):
ID: 317896 Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_btrfs@uefi
URL: htt
Hello,
I'm getting a bunch of xml routines undefined
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=31408933&volume=DEFAULT&name=build.log&offset=-4000
on my rawhide build... everything builds just fine on f29...
and I have BuildRequires: libxml2-devel
Is there something more I have Build
Here's an extra early reminder due to the holidays coming up. Several
Change proposal deadlines for Fedora 30 are approaching:
* 2019-01-02 — Changes requiring infrastructure changes
* 2019-01-08 — Changes requiring mass rebuild
* 2019-01-08 — System-Wide changes
* 2019-01-29 — Self-Contained chan
Chris Adams píše v Po 10. 12. 2018 v 12:52 -0600:
> Once upon a time, Richard Shaw said:
> > Has anyone approached the parent company with a specific lists of
> > concerns
> > such that they could have the opportunity to update the verbiage of
> > the
> > license prior to removing it from Fedora?
Hi,
Any news ?
"But I guess nothing's getting released, for some reason? fedora-review
has been on version 0.6.1 since May 2016; all package activity since
then has been housekeeping rebuilds. "
may you add me as admin to Fedora-review package ? to release a new
version .
Thanks
On Sat, 2018-08-
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20181210.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20181211.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:3
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 3
Dropped packages:3
Upgraded packages: 137
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 8.79 MiB
Size of dropped packages
Hi Ben,
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 11:42:51AM +0100, Ben Rosser wrote:
> I don't know. I feel like we could do a lot to improve the experience
> of packaging by investing time into fixing these sorts of minor
> annoyances. (But here I am complaining on the devel list and not
> actually doing anythin
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 12:52 PM Pete Walter wrote:
>
>
>
> 11.12.2018, 10:29, "Fabio Valentini" :
> > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 11:05 AM Pete Walter wrote:
> >> Huh, better to conflict? That's just not true. Conflicting packages are a
> >> major hurdle that we should try to avoid if at all possi
11.12.2018, 10:29, "Fabio Valentini" :
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 11:05 AM Pete Walter wrote:
>> Huh, better to conflict? That's just not true. Conflicting packages are a
>> major hurdle that we should try to avoid if at all possible. If it's still
>> possible to still change the design of the
On 11/12/2018 10:57, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 11/12/2018 10:31, J. Scheurich wrote:
I have reviewed it, but with the name "white_dune":
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1653481
Should i add a review request with the name "wdune" ?
You used "white_dune" in the bug title but the actua
On 11/12/2018 10:31, J. Scheurich wrote:
$ fedpkg --name wdune-0.99-1.pl1216 request-repo 31403246
Could not execute request_repo: A Bugzilla bug is required on new
repository requests
What bug is needed ?
The review bug that you created when getting the package reviewed:
https://fedorapr
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 6:58 PM Randy Barlow
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2018-12-10 at 17:20 +0100, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > From time to time I have to submit a ticket with 'fedpkg request-
> > repo' or
> > 'fedpkg request-branch', and I have feeling that I have to regenerate
> > the API
> > key very ofte
Hi Eduardo,
thanks for your interest and the help.
> I have claimed ownership of jp2a. Co-maintainers are welcome.
How did you do that?
Still I've several issues with pagure, it does not seem to like me. Anyways, I
assign admin role to you. Feel free and enjoy.
Regards, Raphael
$ fedpkg --name wdune-0.99-1.pl1216 request-repo 31403246
Could not execute request_repo: A Bugzilla bug is required on new
repository requests
What bug is needed ?
The review bug that you created when getting the package reviewed:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection
> 2. PkgDB was recently deprecated. For now, you will need to submit a ticket
> to the Release Engineering team, stating which package you want to claim.
Miro, that isn't worth the effort to maintain pykka. Is there any active
upstream?
___
devel maili
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 11:05 AM Pete Walter wrote:
>
> 10.12.2018, 19:22, "Neal Gompa" :
> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 2:06 PM Kalev Lember wrote:
> >> On 12/10/2018 07:30 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >> > It is versioned, actually. The 1.x API is `pkconfig(modulemd)` and 2.x
> >> > is `pkgco
10.12.2018, 19:22, "Neal Gompa" :
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 2:06 PM Kalev Lember wrote:
>> On 12/10/2018 07:30 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> > It is versioned, actually. The 1.x API is `pkconfig(modulemd)` and 2.x
>> > is `pkgconfig(modulemd-2.0)`. The source of the conflict between the
>> >
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_gu
On 11/12/2018 09:24, J. Scheurich wrote:
I need help:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Add_Package_to_Source_Code_Management_.28SCM.29_system_and_Set_Owner
I tried:
$ fedpkg --release f29 build --scratch --srpm
rpmbuild/SRPMS/wdune-0.99-1.pl1216.fc29.
Hi,
I need help:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Add_Package_to_Source_Code_Management_.28SCM.29_system_and_Set_Owner
I tried:
$ fedpkg --release f29 build --scratch --srpm
rpmbuild/SRPMS/wdune-0.99-1.pl1216.fc29.src.rpm
.
Created task: 31403246
...
35 matches
Mail list logo
