On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 09:46:14PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 9:41 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 4:30 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
> > >
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CompressKernelFirmware
> > >
> > > == Summary ==
> > > Compress Kernel F
Hi,
To help users choose their native language anaconda tries to evaluate priority
languages based on geolocation and place them first in the list. Proposal[1] is
to broad this scope by appending major/common speaking languages as well. This
may cater to the use case where a major/common langua
On 10/20/20 11:01 PM, Mamoru TASAKA wrote:
Orion Poplawski wrote on 2020/10/21 11:19:
What am I doing wrong? This is on my rawhide VM.
$ sudo dnf --enablerepo=*-debuginfo install python3.9-debuginfo
Last metadata expiration check: 0:06:06 ago on Tue 20 Oct 2020
08:08:20 PM MDT.
No match for
On 10/20/20 9:36 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 10/20/20 7:19 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
What am I doing wrong? This is on my rawhide VM.
$ sudo dnf --enablerepo=*-debuginfo install python3.9-debuginfo
Last metadata expiration check: 0:06:06 ago on Tue 20 Oct 2020
08:08:20 PM MDT.
No match for ar
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 7:45 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 10/21/20 10:10 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 3:00 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >> 1) Why is breezy not in the ELN compose, but is in the Koji buildroot?
> >
> > It's defined as a buildroot only package:
> > https://github.
On 10/21/20 10:10 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 3:00 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
1) Why is breezy not in the ELN compose, but is in the Koji buildroot?
It's defined as a buildroot only package:
https://github.com/minimization/content-resolver-input/blob/master/configs/eln-buildroot
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 3:00 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I've realized recently that the Python 3.9.0 final build failed in ELN:
>
> python3.9-3.9.0-1.eln104:
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1620970
>
> The build failure was:
>File
> "/tmp/tmpip_uvs06/pip-20.1
Hello,
I've realized recently that the Python 3.9.0 final build failed in ELN:
python3.9-3.9.0-1.eln104:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1620970
The build failure was:
File
"/tmp/tmpip_uvs06/pip-20.1.1-py2.py3-none-any.whl/pip/_vendor/toml/decoder.py",
line 47
TIM
=
#fedora-meeting-2: FESCo (2020-10-21)
=
Meeting started by decathorpe at 14:00:31 UTC. The full logs are
available at
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2020-10-21/fesco.2020-10-21-14.00.log.html
Meeting sum
> ankursinha nest python-PyLEMS python-bids-validator python-brian2 python-dipy
> python-fsleyes python-fsleyes-props python-fsleyes-widgets python-fslpy
> python-grabbit python-lazyarray python-mpd2 python-nilearn python-nistats
> python-petlink python-pybids python-pyemd python-pyfim python-pylat
Hello everyone,
with the upcoming Python 3.10 update we need to update Python 3 version
globs in Fedora specfiles. The reason is simple, Python version will be one
character longer so the currently omnipresent ?.? glob won't work anymore.
We did this change a few months ago (see:
https://lists.fed
No missing expected images.
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
24 of 43 required tests failed, 17 results missing
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
below
Failed openQA tests: 99/181 (x86_64)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-Rawhide-202
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20201020.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20201021.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 11
Dropped packages:3
Upgraded packages: 141
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 36.10 MiB
Size of dropped packages
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 10/181 (x86_64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-33-20201020.n.0):
ID: 703161 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso support_server
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/703161
ID: 703170 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_reposi
If you haven't seen the Community Blog post[1], the DevConf.CZ Call
for Proposals is open. DevConf.CZ will be a virtual event this time
and held in February. Like in years past, there is a dedicated Fedora
track, as well as tracks for other technical areas.
If you have something you are working on
Aiming to orphan this package soon, any concerns ?
Thanks.
Ondrej
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 10:26 AM Ondrej Dubaj wrote:
> Proposed upstream change:
>
> https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/pull/1930
>
> Downstream change will be done during this day.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ondrej
>
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2020
OLD: Fedora-33-20201020.n.0
NEW: Fedora-33-20201021.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 0
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of upgraded
* Siddhesh Poyarekar:
>> See
>> https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/ocaml-dune?collection=f34
>> Can the change be reverted until we can figure out exactly which
>> packages will have to be rebuilt?
>
> I've got a build going with that and a couple of other patches
> reverted. -12.f34 shoul
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
Hi,
I noticed that the image available at [1] has been stuck at the
20201004 version for quite some time now. AFACIT, it used to be
updated approx. every day before. Does anyone know what happened? I
understand that the rawhide content might not be 100% reliable, but 17
days without updating the i
> It's going to come back because its removal breaks compatibility with
> the 2001 POSIX standard. But I expect there will be plenty of
> deprecation warnings around it.
It should be back now in -12.fc34, which is currently building.
Siddhesh
___
devel
> See https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/ocaml-dune?collection=f34
> Can the change be reverted until we can figure out exactly which
> packages will have to be rebuilt?
I've got a build going with that and a couple of other patches reverted.
-12.f34 should unbreak this.
This really shou
There is a need to fix OpenCV FTBFS and update it to the current
version which will require to rebuild opencv dependencies.
This rebuilt went fine in copr:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/kwizart/opencv4/packages/
So the plan is to use a side-tag.
Because few packages are affected by the
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-32-20201020.0):
ID: 703096 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproj
It is first time I see struggle to open Postscript file.
Can confirm, that fully updated F32 ( Cinnamon Spin) doesn't open PS files
at the moment normally.
man -t man > man.ps && xdg-open man.ps turns in:
** (xreader:4091): WARNING **: 13:48:31.381: Error rendering thumbnail
Unable to open the
* Jeff Law:
> Perhaps. In the immediate term, can someone untag the latest glibc
> build (big sigh)?
This will definitely make things worse. Please don't do that.
Thanks,
Florian
--
Red Hat GmbH, https://de.redhat.com/ , Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, H
* Vít Ondruch:
> I think that fedora-review is using Mock and Mock is using mirrors by
> default to offload Koji. There is mirrored just composed content
> AFAIK. And I don't see this going to be changed. So how to ensure that
> the compose is consistent and working, unless side-tags are used for
* Fabio Valentini:
> Ahh, this looks like a bug in fedora-review to me: it needs to use
> buildroot packages for rawhide, not the (potentially lagging) compose.
>
> That's not the problem either. I was using it with the "--enablerepo
> local" flag for mock.
But fedora-review only installs the r
Dne 21. 10. 20 v 9:36 Florian Weimer napsal(a):
* Fabio Valentini:
I'm pretty sure this is the result of *not* updating glibc. Did you
attempt a partial upgrade of rawhide, restricting the package set during
an update?
I cannot reproduce this: In the current compose and buildroot,
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020, 09:36 Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Fabio Valentini:
>
> >> I'm pretty sure this is the result of *not* updating glibc. Did you
> >> attempt a partial upgrade of rawhide, restricting the package set
> during
> >> an update?
> >>
> >> I cannot reproduce this: In the current
* Fabio Valentini:
>> I'm pretty sure this is the result of *not* updating glibc. Did you
>> attempt a partial upgrade of rawhide, restricting the package set during
>> an update?
>>
>> I cannot reproduce this: In the current compose and buildroot,
>> libglib-2.0.so.0 and libc.so.6 are consi
31 matches
Mail list logo
