On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 02:16:11AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Matthew Miller wrote:
> > I mean, some of y'all like to maintain and keep obscure dependency
> > packages up to date just for their own sake, and that's *awesome* -- but
> > we just can't hold everyone to that standard. At least, not i
I will do a protobuf update in rawhide which comes, as always, with a
new SO version.
Before starting the builds in rawhide I will try it out first in COPR
and once that is done I will do the builds in rawhide in a side tag.
repoquery gives me a list of 53 dependent packages I have to rebuild.
Matthew Miller wrote:
> I mean, some of y'all like to maintain and keep obscure dependency
> packages up to date just for their own sake, and that's *awesome* -- but
> we just can't hold everyone to that standard. At least, not if we want
> more than a few dozen packagers.
That is a pretty strong
On Thu, 2020-09-17 at 13:30 -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 12:53, Matthew Miller
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 11:01:00AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > If one of the issues here can be stated as "we want buildroot-only
> > > packages because we don't wa
On 18/9/20 03:43, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 01:30:26PM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> 'its broke'
>> 'yes I know its broke.. I just need the header files'
>> 'well I need it to work' 'well fix it yourself'
>> 'no that is your job.. it says you OWN THE PACKAGE'.
>> 'I ju
Dne 17. 09. 20 v 18:29 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 12:39:28PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> Looking at rubygem-sinatra-rabbit [1], I wonder if we should not have
>> process for removing "zombie" packages.
>>
>> The issue with this package is that while it keeps building, it is
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 01:30:26PM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> 'its broke'
> 'yes I know its broke.. I just need the header files'
> 'well I need it to work' 'well fix it yourself'
> 'no that is your job.. it says you OWN THE PACKAGE'.
> 'I just own it to build foobar'
> 'too bad.. i am ta
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/16 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-IoT-33-20200916.1):
ID: 669541 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/te
On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 12:53, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 11:01:00AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > If one of the issues here can be stated as "we want buildroot-only
> > packages because we don't want to maintain those packages to a high
> > standard", it is demonstrably a
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 03:57:42PM -, Ernestas Kulik wrote:
> You can contact me via the email address you’re spamming, I’m ignoring only
> those automated warnings, not everything.
The email we're sending is coming from ad...@fedoraproject.org which will reach
the Fedora admins if you reply
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 11:01:00AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> If one of the issues here can be stated as "we want buildroot-only
> packages because we don't want to maintain those packages to a high
> standard", it is demonstrably a viable choice within Fedora to just
> *not maintain those pac
No missing expected images.
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
3 of 43 required tests failed
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
below
Failed openQA tests: 18/181 (x86_64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20200911.n.0):
ID:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 05:08:08PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 05:26:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > Good Morning Everyone,
> >
> > Since September 5th, we have been emailing daily the following users to
> > notify
> > that the email they have set in FAS d
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 02:19:33PM -, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> ... this or build root overrides, but what about rawhide?
rawhide can use side tags as well... is that the question?
sidetags are in general much better than buildroot overrides (IMHO).
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP si
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 12:39:28PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Looking at rubygem-sinatra-rabbit [1], I wonder if we should not have
> process for removing "zombie" packages.
>
> The issue with this package is that while it keeps building, it is very
> likely not working. The `%check` suite is dis
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:57 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Should be fixed now.
Thank you for the fast action, Miro.
--
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 05:26:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> Good Morning Everyone,
>
> Since September 5th, we have been emailing daily the following users to notify
> that the email they have set in FAS does not correspond to a valid bugzilla
> account.
> This is a requirement for Fedor
You can contact me via the email address you’re spamming, I’m ignoring only
those automated warnings, not everything.
As I’ve told you privately, I have the Bugzilla address set to the
fedoraproject.org alias. I’m not going to use the same address for both.
__
On 17. 09. 20 17:49, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 17. 09. 20 17:45, Jerry James wrote:
F33 builds are currently failing:
DEBUG util.py:621: Error:
DEBUG util.py:621: Problem 1: conflicting requests
DEBUG util.py:621: - nothing provides lua-srpm-macros needed by
redhat-rpm-config-172-1.fc33.noar
On 17. 09. 20 17:45, Jerry James wrote:
F33 builds are currently failing:
DEBUG util.py:621: Error:
DEBUG util.py:621: Problem 1: conflicting requests
DEBUG util.py:621:- nothing provides lua-srpm-macros needed by
redhat-rpm-config-172-1.fc33.noarch
DEBUG util.py:621: Problem 2: package
F33 builds are currently failing:
DEBUG util.py:621: Error:
DEBUG util.py:621: Problem 1: conflicting requests
DEBUG util.py:621:- nothing provides lua-srpm-macros needed by
redhat-rpm-config-172-1.fc33.noarch
DEBUG util.py:621: Problem 2: package
rpm-build-4.16.0-0.beta3.2.fc33.3.i686 re
... this or build root overrides, but what about rawhide?
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/cod
There is a new version of jbig2dec which the new version of ghostscript
requires. Given how previous updates went I intend to try a side-tag now. If
you think your package is affected then please follow the discussion at:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877889
Also, if there are be
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 11/181 (x86_64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-33-20200916.n.0):
ID: 669122 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_freeipa_replication_master
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/669122
ID: 669126 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/16 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-IoT-34-20200916.2):
ID: 669431 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/te
OLD: Fedora-33-20200916.n.0
NEW: Fedora-33-20200917.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 1
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 2
Downgraded packages: 1
Size of added packages: 325.59 KiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of
Hello,
The Python based "bokeh" software has a JavaScript component[1].
Building the JS component requires nodejs and lots of nodejs libraries, and
is not tractable[2,3]. Fortunately, upstream includes a built version of
the necessary JS components in the PyPi release and these are installed
in th
No missing expected images.
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
3 of 43 required tests failed
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
below
Failed openQA tests: 20/181 (x86_64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20200916.n.0):
ID:
I found this on google search [1] "build fails with >=bison-3.7 "
[1] https://gitmemory.com/issue/GoldenCheetah/GoldenCheetah/3586/688148166
Regards
Martin
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le.
HI,
when compiling GoldenCheetah on rawhide (fc34) i get this error message [1]:
DataFilter.tab.c:152:10: fatal error: DataFilter.tab.h: No such file or
directory
[1] https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/608/51650608/build.log
How can i solve this issue that only happens on rawhide ?
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 04:07:11PM +0200, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 6:05 PM Robbie Harwood wrote:
> >
> > Ondrej Mosnacek writes:
> >
> > > James Cassell wrote:
> > >> Ben Cotton wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_Support_For_SELinux_Runtime
Looking at rubygem-sinatra-rabbit [1], I wonder if we should not have
process for removing "zombie" packages.
The issue with this package is that while it keeps building, it is very
likely not working. The `%check` suite is disable for ages already.
Upstream is dead. I know I could open BZ questio
No missing expected images.
Passed openQA tests: 7/7 (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
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20200916.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20200917.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 2
Added packages: 3
Dropped packages:6
Upgraded packages: 84
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 2.82 MiB
Size of dropped packages
Hi,
I have orphaned rubygem-erubis. It is dead upstream for almost 10 years
and it is FTBFS with every major version of Ruby. There is available
rubygem-erubi, which is properly maintained and most of the projects
already switched. The only remaining dependency in Fedora is
rubygem-asciidoctor, wh
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-32-20200916.0):
ID: 668763 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproj
olyso...@redhat.com (Ondřej Lysoněk) writes:
> - some of the packages (libreswan, perl-Event-Lib, sems) fail to build
> for unrelated reasons. Unless these are fixed, they'll become
> uninstallable. I've notified their owners.
Thanks to Petr Písař, perl-Event-Lib now builds, event with the ne
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 01:24:26AM -0400, Elliott Sales de Andrade wrote:
> When using Fedora's containers, LTO appears to be broken. I'm not sure
> who to report this to, the container builder or gcc.
>
> $ podman run --pull=always --rm -it registry.fedoraproject.org/fedora:rawhide
> # dnf install
38 matches
Mail list logo
