On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 6:31 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> On my Fedora 29-ish machine, I just tried:
>
> # dnf update --best --releasever=30
You're better off doing:
dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=deltarpm=false distro-sync
But it does have issues with modules atm so a work around is:
dnf --r
Dne 04. 03. 19 v 7:30 Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a):
> Bonus question: Are "Problem 1" (etc) in each section of the error
> message supposed to relate to each other in some way? Or is the
> second list a new list of problems?
You mean this error:
- nothing provides module(platform:f30) needed b
I have several Go packages in need of a review for the latest Rclone version.
I'm available for any review in exchange.
- golang-github-anacrolix-dms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684956
I would review it, but i am not in the packager group 8-(
All i can offer is a unofficial
Dne 04. 03. 19 v 7:36 Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a):
> Why is the --setopt parameter needed? Couldn't that be based on
> $releasever?
For the record - we are speaking about:
--setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30
I spoke to DNF team and:
* there is no definition of platform_id
* while i
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:22:51AM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and
> try to run:
>
> sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
Why is the --setopt par
On my Fedora 29-ish machine, I just tried:
# dnf update --best --releasever=30
However it fails with pages of errors which seem to be related to
modules. Is this supposed to work? It certainly worked fine in
previous Fedora releases.
Bonus question: Are "Problem 1" (etc) in each section of the
W dniu 01.03.2019 o 13:28, Miroslav Suchý pisze:
> Dne 01. 03. 19 v 12:59 Marcin Juszkiewicz napsal(a):
>> My system was Fedora 19 when first time I installed Fedora. Now I
>> have packages from each release from F20 to F29 ;d
>
> In fedora-upgrade(8) I run
>
> package-cleanup --orphans | grep -v
Hello,
I have several Go packages in need of a review for the latest Rclone version.
I'm available for any review in exchange.
- golang-github-anacrolix-dms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684956
- golang-github-anacrolix-ffprobe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?
On lundi 4 mars 2019 00:16:02 CET Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 6:14 PM Felix Schwarz
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> >
> > I am wondering about the state of the "fedora-review" package. It seems to
> > be
a pretty important package to ensure new stuff adhers to the latest
> > Fed
On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 6:14 PM Felix Schwarz wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am wondering about the state of the "fedora-review" package. It seems to be
> a pretty important package to ensure new stuff adhers to the latest Fedora
> packaging policy.
>
> When I ran "fedora-review" I noticed that it was clearl
On Sun, 2019-03-03 at 15:24 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Richard Shaw wrote:
>
> > Was qt 5.12.x supposed to be done in a side tag
>
> That was the original plan, but I gave up on that with the beta
> freeze
> quickly approaching. My apologies.
ATM buildroot seems to be fixed .
> -- Rex
>
Hi,
I am wondering about the state of the "fedora-review" package. It seems to be
a pretty important package to ensure new stuff adhers to the latest Fedora
packaging policy.
When I ran "fedora-review" I noticed that it was clearly not updated for some
time: There where outdated points about bund
On Sun, 2019-03-03 at 15:24 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Richard Shaw wrote:
>
> > Was qt 5.12.x supposed to be done in a side tag
>
> That was the original plan, but I gave up on that with the beta
> freeze
> quickly approaching. My apologies.
Buildroot seems be fixed now .
> -- Rex
> ___
Richard Shaw wrote:
> Was qt 5.12.x supposed to be done in a side tag
That was the original plan, but I gave up on that with the beta freeze
quickly approaching. My apologies.
-- Rex
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscr
Can someone wake me once beta is released, the time between branching and beta
isn't enough to do anything!
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct
Was qt 5.12.x supposed to be done in a side tag? I was trying to build klog
but ran into this:
DEBUG util.py:490: BUILDSTDERR: Error:
DEBUG util.py:490: BUILDSTDERR: Problem: package
qt5-devel-5.12.1-1.fc31.noarch requires qt5-qtwebkit-devel, but none of the
providers can be installed
DEBUG uti
Hi all,
I run a script to close F30/rawhide FTBFS [1] bugs in the cases where
a build exists because maintainers sometimes forget to close the bug
after a successful build. About 20 bugs were closed this times. There
might be some false positives. If I closed a bug inadvertently, please
just reop
On 01. 03. 19 22:19, Ben Cotton wrote:
'''The CI system, the tests and the decision on which tests are used
to gate upon are out of scope for the present document.'''
This is both good (specifying explicitly what is this change about and what it
is not about) and bad...
Since the CI system i
On 02. 03. 19 20:16, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
Problem 6: package python2-ipaclient-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch requires
freeipa-client-common = 4.7.2-1.1.fc29, but none of the providers can be
installed
- freeipa-client-common-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a
distupgrade repository
- pro
19 matches
Mail list logo
