On Mon, 2021-01-11 at 00:46 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 10. 01. 21 23:25, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 02:20:04PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > All this does is making it again harder to issue bug fixes for the very
> > > > packages where it matters the most.
> > >
Works for me on f32: http://ix.io/2LCc
On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 at 08:38, Marius Schwarz wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> it's impossible to install Shotcut, not as 20.11.28 nor 20.04.12 :
>
>
> $ sudo dnf install shotcut
> [sudo] Passwort für X:
> Letzte Prüfung auf abgelaufene Metadaten: vor 0:01:11 am S
On 1/10/21 5:47 PM, Jerry James wrote:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 4:41 PM Samuel Sieb wrote:
I have no problem with it on F33 or F32. I suspect the actual problem
is in one of those other packages that are mentioned. The dnf messages
are really hard to figure out, but it looks like there's a lon
Ref: https://github.com/ReimuNotMoe/ydotool
The author has changed from MIT to AGPLv3 which is on the 'good' list
but I am required to post the change here for comment.
The author has also declared an intention to apply for a copyright in
China. Does that change anything? I'm guessing not.
Comme
On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 4:41 PM Samuel Sieb wrote:
> I have no problem with it on F33 or F32. I suspect the actual problem
> is in one of those other packages that are mentioned. The dnf messages
> are really hard to figure out, but it looks like there's a long
> dependency chain possibly ending
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 12:46:04AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> I believe we should gate on installability first.
> See https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2343
That also seems to be a useful thing to gate on, but from
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2343#comment-626780, it doesn't seem
straightforward. S
On 10. 01. 21 23:25, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 02:20:04PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
All this does is making it again harder to issue bug fixes for the very
packages where it matters the most.
But...if the tests pass it doesn't, and I already said that the tests
pretty m
On 1/10/21 2:38 PM, Marius Schwarz wrote:
it's impossible to install Shotcut, not as 20.11.28 nor 20.04.12 :
I have no problem with it on F33 or F32. I suspect the actual problem
is in one of those other packages that are mentioned. The dnf messages
are really hard to figure out, but it loo
Hi,
it's impossible to install Shotcut, not as 20.11.28 nor 20.04.12 :
$ sudo dnf install shotcut
[sudo] Passwort für X:
Letzte Prüfung auf abgelaufene Metadaten: vor 0:01:11 am So 10 Jan 2021
23:23:40 CET.
Fehler:
Problem: conflicting requests
- package shotcut-20.11.28-1.fc32.x86
On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 02:20:04PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > All this does is making it again harder to issue bug fixes for the very
> > packages where it matters the most.
>
> But...if the tests pass it doesn't, and I already said that the tests
> pretty much always pass and I actively w
On Sun, 2021-01-10 at 19:25 +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > This is basically what this thread is asking. If we make a test mandatory,
> > no updates will be pushed when this test fails unless the failure is
> > waived.
> >
> > So it seems we are all in agreeme
On Sun, 2021-01-10 at 12:44 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 12:32 PM Adam Williamson
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 2021-01-09 at 12:27 +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > > On 08.01.2021 23:24, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > > > I think we should get to the point where it blocks m
Hi there,
I apologize for the lack of response. I've been unable to contribute lately
for personal reasons. I'll attempt to pass or orphan packages I can't
support any more.
@Michel Alexandre Salim: I gave you the requested rights. Please get in
touch with me per e-mail directly if need anything (
Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> This is basically what this thread is asking. If we make a test mandatory,
> no updates will be pushed when this test fails unless the failure is
> waived.
>
> So it seems we are all in agreement!
Not all. I am still opposed to this. We already have too many mandatory
On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 12:44:42PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> Sure, but perhaps we should establish a means to evaluate the
> usefulness of tests on a regular cadence. Tests *can* provide value,
> let's not kid ourselves, but if we just turn them on and train people
> to ignore and waive them, then
On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 12:32 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2021-01-09 at 12:27 +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > On 08.01.2021 23:24, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > > I think we should get to the point where it blocks manual pushes (without
> > > the failure being waved). If the test
Hi folks! I'm proposing we cancel the QA meeting tomorrow. I don't
have anything urgent this week.
If you're aware of anything important we have to discuss this week,
please do reply to this mail and we can go ahead and run the meeting.
Thanks!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA
IRC: adamw | Twitter:
On Sat, 2021-01-09 at 12:27 +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 08.01.2021 23:24, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > I think we should get to the point where it blocks manual pushes (without
> > the failure being waved). If the test is broken, fix the test.
>
> Some tests are permanently broken. Fo
On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 05:24:11PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 09:34:29PM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> > > So if anything, I think this change is in line with your views here.
> >
> > Well, if (and as long as) the gating only blocks the autopush and does not
>
Missing expected images:
Xfce raw-xz armhfp
Minimal raw-xz armhfp
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
2 of 43 required tests failed
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
below
Failed openQA tests: 10/180 (x86_64), 14/122 (aarch64)
New failures (sa
On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 5:20 AM Leigh Scott wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 4:31 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
> > >
> >
> > There's a tentative fix being tested upstream. While I can reproduce
> > the problem, it's a pretty narrow workload (e.g. untar firefox
> > source). Launch, boot, updates
On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 11:55 PM Bojan Smojver via devel
wrote:
>
> Yeah, I'm aware of alternative testing mechanisms and I already participated
> in the testing of kernel 5.10. That's not the problem.
>
> Kernel 5.9 is EOL. 5.10.5 fixes CVE-2020-36158, for example. There is no
> choice but to go
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20210109.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20210110.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 3
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 94
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2021 at 4:31 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
>
>
> There's a tentative fix being tested upstream. While I can reproduce
> the problem, it's a pretty narrow workload (e.g. untar firefox
> source). Launch, boot, updates, seem normal or faster compared to 5.9.
> The effect is worse on
24 matches
Mail list logo
