No missing expected images.
Passed openQA tests: 1/1 (x86_64)
--
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedorap
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 10:13:25PM +0200, clime wrote:
> On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 20:05, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > I'm a bit late to the party, but here's my 2¢.
> >
> > On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 05:05:02PM +0200, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
> > > In the packit project, we work in s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Sat, 2020-05-09 at 00:32 +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
> Hello
>
> By bad, I had intended to kick off the rebuilds straight away but
> then
> got sidetracked by other business.
Please use side tags for SONAME bumps and updates which require build
o
# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting
# Date: 2020-05-11
# Time: 15:00 UTC
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto)
# Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net
Greetings testers!
We STILL didn't get through the whole agenda last week, so let's
continue this week again!
If anyone
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20200507.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20200508.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 4
Added packages: 10
Dropped packages:3
Upgraded packages: 83
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 477.53 MiB
Size of dropped packages
Hello
By bad, I had intended to kick off the rebuilds straight away but then
got sidetracked by other business.
Apologies
Sandro
On 08.05.20 13:36, Igor Raits wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hello,
I guess that people think that only first digit goes to SONAME, but
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 04:28:37PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 4:25 PM Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:55 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 03:12:15PM -0400, David Cantrell wrote:
> > WHAT I WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO:
> >
> > * V
On 08/05/2020 21:18, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 6:26 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 01. 05. 20 22:21, Ben Cotton wrote:
* Proposal owners:
The packages are already built for Fedora 33 in a non-default module
stream. On June 14th, 2020, the nodejs-14.x packages will become the
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 10:23:45PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:55 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 03:12:15PM -0400, David Cantrell wrote:
> WHAT I WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO:
>
> * View Fedora's dist-git repos as authoritative for packages bu
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 07:54:11PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 03:12:15PM -0400, David Cantrell wrote:
WHAT I WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO:
* View Fedora's dist-git repos as authoritative for packages built for
Fedora. That is, I want to see a package on my Fed
On Fri, 2020-05-08 at 22:08 +0200, Igor Raits wrote:
>
> I would guess that some ip_forward or something like this is not set.
> I'd report this against firewalld component on
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com.
>
Thanks Igor,
In attempting to file the bug I found that a bug has been filed
alread
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 10:19 PM Jerry James wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 10:43 AM Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > I pushed maven-javadoc-plugin-3.2.0 to rawhide today, which should fix
> > OpenJDK 11 related issues according to its release notes.
> > Please verify that this doesn't fix your probl
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 4:25 PM Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:55 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 03:12:15PM -0400, David Cantrell wrote:
> > > WHAT I WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO:
> > >
> > > * View Fedora's dist-git repos as authoritative for
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:55 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 03:12:15PM -0400, David Cantrell wrote:
> > WHAT I WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO:
> >
> > * View Fedora's dist-git repos as authoritative for packages built for
> > Fedora. That is, I want to see a package on
On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 6:26 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 01. 05. 20 22:21, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > * Proposal owners:
> > The packages are already built for Fedora 33 in a non-default module
> > stream. On June 14th, 2020, the nodejs-14.x packages will become the
> > default in Fedora 33 (either by
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 10:43 AM Fabio Valentini wrote:
> I pushed maven-javadoc-plugin-3.2.0 to rawhide today, which should fix
> OpenJDK 11 related issues according to its release notes.
> Please verify that this doesn't fix your problems before working on
> any workarounds :)
So far this update
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 8:03 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 01. 05. 20 22:21, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > == Detailed Description ==
> > Fedora 33 will ship with the latest LTS version of Node.js by default.
> > This will either be the `nodejs:14` module stream or else replicated
> > to the non-modular re
On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 20:05, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I'm a bit late to the party, but here's my 2¢.
>
> On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 05:05:02PM +0200, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
> > In the packit project, we work in source-git repositories. These are
> > pretty much upstream repositories
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Fri, 2020-05-08 at 13:34 -0600, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I upgraded to F32 Beta, and then final when it came out. In the
> last
> few days I've got an issue that I'm 99% sure I'm not the cause of but
> I
> don't know what compone
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 03:12:15PM -0400, David Cantrell wrote:
> WHAT I WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO:
>
> * View Fedora's dist-git repos as authoritative for packages built for
> Fedora. That is, I want to see a package on my Fedora system and be able to
> visit its dist-git repo to see how it's pa
Missing expected images:
Iot dvd aarch64
Iot dvd x86_64
Failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-IoT-33-20200507.0):
ID: 594575 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso release_identification
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/594575
Passed openQA tes
Hello,
I upgraded to F32 Beta, and then final when it came out. In the last
few days I've got an issue that I'm 99% sure I'm not the cause of but I
don't know what component to report it on.
I've had this workstation for years and it has a number of VMs that I
manage with virt-manager/libvirt
On 5/8/20 7:24 AM, Richard Shaw wrote:
There were a bunch of python2 packages that needed to be removed which
necessitated --allowerasing which I've never had to do before.
I install lots of extra things and I'm surprised when I don't need to
add that option.
_
On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 05:05:02PM +0200, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
Let’s talk about dist-git, as a place where we work. For us,
packagers, it’s a well-known place. Yet for newcomers, it may take a
while to learn all the details. Even though we operate with projects
in a dist-git repository, the layou
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 06:11:32PM +0100, J. Randall Owens wrote:
On 08/05/2020 17:33, David Cantrell wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 03:41:36AM +0530, Purusharth Saxena wrote:
Hi folks,
I'm packaging tpcclib
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832562)
and as per the review, I wanted
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 06:58:51PM +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2020 18:11:32 +0100, J. Randall Owens wrote:
On 08/05/2020 17:33, David Cantrell wrote:
Thank you for both your replies.
We know the breakdown of the licenses in the different files
(`licensecheck` provides us with i
Hi,
I'm a bit late to the party, but here's my 2¢.
On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 05:05:02PM +0200, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
> In the packit project, we work in source-git repositories. These are
> pretty much upstream repositories combined with Fedora downstream
> packaging files.
I think source-git would
On Fri, May 08, 2020 18:11:32 +0100, J. Randall Owens wrote:
> On 08/05/2020 17:33, David Cantrell wrote:
Thank you for both your replies.
We know the breakdown of the licenses in the different files
(`licensecheck` provides us with it, and is run as part of Fedora
review). The query primarily is
On 08/05/2020 17:33, David Cantrell wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 03:41:36AM +0530, Purusharth Saxena wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I'm packaging tpcclib
>> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832562)
>> and as per the review, I wanted to confirm the licence for tpcclib (
>> https://gitlab
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 12:54 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 12:39:04PM -0400, Dan Book wrote:
> > On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 12:05 PM Scott Talbert wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 8 May 2020, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > >
> > > >> That is kind of what I
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 12:39:04PM -0400, Dan Book wrote:
> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 12:05 PM Scott Talbert wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 8 May 2020, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> >
> > >> That is kind of what I figured. BTW, I used the GUI method to upgrade.
> > >
> > > Yeah me too. And my fedora-obsolete-pa
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 12:05 PM Scott Talbert wrote:
> On Fri, 8 May 2020, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>
> >> That is kind of what I figured. BTW, I used the GUI method to upgrade.
> >
> > Yeah me too. And my fedora-obsolete-packages is also gone.
> >
> > It cannot be installed, either. I wonder: a
On Thu, 7 May 2020 at 20:50, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 06:46:48PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> ...snip...
> >
> > The latest tag for a source package name wins for the Koji-generatged
> > repository. I don't know what happens if different source packages
> > build subpackag
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 03:41:36AM +0530, Purusharth Saxena wrote:
Hi folks,
I'm packaging tpcclib (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832562)
and as per the review, I wanted to confirm the licence for tpcclib (
https://gitlab.utu.fi/vesoik/tpcclib/-/blob/master/license.md)
Should it b
On Fri, 8 May 2020, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
That is kind of what I figured. BTW, I used the GUI method to upgrade.
Yeah me too. And my fedora-obsolete-packages is also gone.
It cannot be installed, either. I wonder: am I misunderstanding how this is
supposed to work? Or has something impro
On 08.05.2020 16:55, Scott Talbert wrote:
> Speaking of fedora-obsolete-packages, that package got removed from my
> system on upgrade from F31->F32. Is that expected?
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-obsolete-packages/pull-request/23
fedora-obsolete-packages is no longer required.
--
On Fri, 2020-05-08 at 10:47 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 11:08 am, Scott Talbert wrote:
> > That is kind of what I figured. BTW, I used the GUI method to
> > upgrade.
>
> Yeah me too. And my fedora-obsolete-packages is also gone.
>
> It cannot be installed, either.
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 11:08 am, Scott Talbert wrote:
That is kind of what I figured. BTW, I used the GUI method to
upgrade.
Yeah me too. And my fedora-obsolete-packages is also gone.
It cannot be installed, either. I wonder: am I misunderstanding how
this is supposed to work? Or has someth
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 2:24 PM Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> Well, a way to allow force pushes would be to have a git hook that
> branches the tree before the force push. (creating a branch named
> something like audit-force-push-)
In Ceph we do this at a slightly different point of time. We use
"rdopkg
On Fri, 8 May 2020, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
Speaking of fedora-obsolete-packages, that package got removed from my
system on upgrade from F31->F32. Is that expected?
Without fedora-obsolete-packages installed, maintaining an upgrade path
becomes impossible. So that sounds bad. Probably it s
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 10:55 am, Scott Talbert wrote:
Speaking of fedora-obsolete-packages, that package got removed from
my system on upgrade from F31->F32. Is that expected?
Without fedora-obsolete-packages installed, maintaining an upgrade path
becomes impossible. So that sounds bad. Prob
On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 11:41:37AM +0200, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
> I'm actually not a fan of the term "source-git" honestly - I'd love to
> call it "upstream git" since that's what we are trying to do - use the
> repository layout which is well-known in the upstream community.
The problem with that
On Fri, 8 May 2020, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
Not that it's a huge deal for me but I wouldn't call the upgrade smooth.
There were a bunch of python2 packages that needed to be removed which
necessitated --allowerasing which I've never had to do before.
This should not be the case. If
On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 11:56:12AM +0200, Hunor Csomortáni wrote:
> I'm working at Red Hat and I've been a member of the Packit team since
> February. This means I'm going to spend more time in Fedora-space than
> before.
Welcome! Glad to hear it.
> Previously I was doing automation and testing i
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 09:24:14AM -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> Not that it's a huge deal for me but I wouldn't call the upgrade smooth.
>
> There were a bunch of python2 packages that needed to be removed which
> necessitated --allowerasing which I've never had to do before.
This should not be t
On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 16:22, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
> On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 09:59, clime wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 7 May 2020 at 20:58, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 08:39:19PM +0200, clime wrote:
> > > ...snip... please folks... please trim your posts? :)
> > >
> >
Not that it's a huge deal for me but I wouldn't call the upgrade smooth.
There were a bunch of python2 packages that needed to be removed which
necessitated --allowerasing which I've never had to do before.
Now this, which I'm guessing is a packaging issue which a user shouldn't
have to deal with
On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 09:59, clime wrote:
>
> On Thu, 7 May 2020 at 20:58, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 08:39:19PM +0200, clime wrote:
> > ...snip... please folks... please trim your posts? :)
> >
> > > These are some great stats!
> > >
> > > But I would like to note that ex
On Thu, 7 May 2020 at 22:53, clime wrote:
>
>
>
> > In the rare occasion that I need to make downstream-only changes with
> > patches, I usually just explode the upstream tarball, run "git init",
> > then "git add .", "git commit -m import", apply my changes, and then
> > do "git diff --patch > .
On Thu, 7 May 2020 at 20:58, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 08:39:19PM +0200, clime wrote:
> ...snip... please folks... please trim your posts? :)
>
> > These are some great stats!
> >
> > But I would like to note that exploded repos (or source-git repos)
> > have at least two othe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hello,
I guess that people think that only first digit goes to SONAME, but
that is not true and needs to be checked carefully.
Broken packages are:
* [gmsh](https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1833305)
* [paraview](https://bugzilla.redhat.c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the
FESCo meeting Monday at 15:00UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.freenode.net.
To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto
or run:
date -d '2
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 11:54:07AM +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'm hitting the following error (and other similar ones) with this
> qt-creator build [1] on armv7hl and armv7hl only:
Code snippets like that aren't useful for analyzing what's going on, as they
can't be compiled. Please send
Hi
I'm hitting the following error (and other similar ones) with this
qt-creator build [1] on armv7hl and armv7hl only:
/usr/include/clang/AST/Type.h: In member function 'clang::QualType
clang::TypeSourceInfo::getType() const':
/usr/include/clang/AST/Type.h:6238:37: error: invalid use of non-
On Thu, May 07, 2020 02:58:38 +0530, Purusharth Saxena wrote:
> Hi folks,
Hi Purusharth!
>
> Hope you all are doing well. Nice to meet ya'll. I'm Purusharth. I've been
> using Fedora for 3-4 good years now.I'm working at a project in IITB (FOSSEE-
> Free and Open Source software for education),
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/1 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
ID: 594394 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/594394
--
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.i
56 matches
Mail list logo
