No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64), 1/7 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-33-20210220.0):
ID: 784629 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> Debian is apparently switching to plocate as the the default
> locate/mlocate provider [0], a bit faster and more disk-efficient.
> Would it make sense to do the same in Fedora?
I think it makes sense (why default to the older, slower implementation?),
but jus
On Wed, 2021-02-17 at 07:35 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 16:17:12 +1000,
> David Airlie wrote:
> > Has anyone got a backtrace they could put in a bug? I'm not seeing
> > a
> > crash with X.org here in my test VMs.
>
> I have only had problems with wine so far. But I u
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> [0] https://lwn.net/Articles/846405/
For those who actually want to be able to read that article, a search engine
found me this:
https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/846405/7a173db2f6aedfd8/
Kevin Kofler
___
devel
It looks good to maintain.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1931141
Mosaab
من: Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
تم الإرسال: 08/رجب/1442 05:06 م
إلى: Development discussions related to Fedora
الموضوع: plocate?
Debian is apparently switching to plocate
Hi Erich,
I have been trying out Fedora Jam and brushing up on how Fedora works
recently after spending a long time on other distros. I apologize in
advance that I am not yet well-versed in how the Fedora project operates
but I would like to learn and help.
Can you link to the bug you mentio
On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 08:32:34PM +, José Abílio Matos wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2021 12:13:05 PM WET Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> > Looks OK. It is allowed for packages to be downgraded, if that's
> > what you meant as a bug.
> >
> > Zbyszek
>
> No the bug was that it wo
On Saturday, February 20, 2021 12:13:05 PM WET Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> Looks OK. It is allowed for packages to be downgraded, if that's
> what you meant as a bug.
>
> Zbyszek
No the bug was that it worked. :-)
Since there were no failures that went against my expectation and thus th
On 2/19/21 3:47 PM, Tom Seewald wrote:
Well, the idea would be for us to put it into Rawhide and do a series
of test days/weeks to get feedback and close any remaining gaps. If it
doesn't manage to pull through by beta freeze, then we would revert
and push it back to Fedora 35.
Did these test d
Thank you Guido for adopting nagios* rpm.
I will RTFM on the subject of Fedora EPEL packaging.
Regards
tj
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 1:20 PM Guido Aulisi wrote:
>
>
> > Il giorno 19 feb 2021, alle ore 09:14, T.J. Yang
> ha scritto:
> >
> > Hi Martin and Stephen
> >
> > Thank you for maintainin
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 11:45 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> That sounds great.
Okay, I will try to get all of these builds done prior to beta freeze.
> This is weird, but while it will require a smallish change to our spec
> (like removing rpm-devel), I don't think it should affect anything
> e
❯ sudo dnf --releasever=34 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f34 \
--enablerepo=updates-testing --enablerepo=updates-testing-modular \
distro-sync --allowerasing
All fine, but few packages wants to downgrade:
conmon x8
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 19/183 (x86_64), 17/124 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-34-20210219.n.0):
ID: 784047 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_lvm_ext4
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/784047
ID: 784048 Test: x86_64 Server-dv
On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 02:57:19PM +0100, chedi toueiti wrote:
> Error:
> Problem: package cutter-re-1.11.0-3.fc34.x86_64 requires
> libr_anal.so.4.5.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> - package cutter-re-1.11.0-3.fc34.x86_64 requires
> libr_asm.so.4.5.0()(64bit), but none
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 1/16 (x86_64), 2/15 (aarch64)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-34-20210219.0):
ID: 784350 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso base_services_start
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/784350
ID: 784355 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd
Debian is apparently switching to plocate as the the default
locate/mlocate provider [0], a bit faster and more disk-efficient.
Would it make sense to do the same in Fedora?
I prepared a package [1, 2]. The code seems nice and clean enough.
I'd be happy to take it through review, but I'm not parti
Error:
Problem: package cutter-re-1.11.0-3.fc34.x86_64 requires
libr_anal.so.4.5.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
- package cutter-re-1.11.0-3.fc34.x86_64 requires
libr_asm.so.4.5.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
- package cutter-re-1.11.0-3.fc34.x86
OLD: Fedora-34-20210219.n.0
NEW: Fedora-34-20210220.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:2
Dropped images: 10
Added packages: 13
Dropped packages:9
Upgraded packages: 144
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 43.42 MiB
Size of dropped packages:52.55 MiB
On 20/2/21 09:19, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 08:45:58AM -0300, Pablo Sebastián Greco wrote:
On 20/2/21 06:49, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
sudo dnf --releasever=34 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f34 \
--enablerepo=updates-testing --enablerepo=updates-test
On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 08:45:58AM -0300, Pablo Sebastián Greco wrote:
> On 20/2/21 06:49, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > sudo dnf --releasever=34 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f34 \
> > --enablerepo=updates-testing --enablerepo=updates-testing-modular \
> > distro-sync
> >
> Can we add --
On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 10:05:53AM +, José Abílio Matos wrote:
> On Saturday, February 20, 2021 9:49:12 AM WET Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > If you get this prompt:
> >
> >...
> >Total download size: XXX M
> >Is this ok [y/N]:
> >
> > you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to t
Apart from the rdma-core.i686 issue, just four package downgrades:
- abrt-java-connector - from 1.2.0-5.fc33 to 1.2.0-2.fc34
- clang9.0-libs - from 9.0.1-9.fc33 to 9.0.1-5.fc32
- fuse-overlayfs - from 1.4.0-1.fc33 to 1.4+dev-2.dev.gitee8ce2e.fc34
- gnome-abrt - from 1.3.6-5.fc33 to 1.3.6-2.fc34
cl
On 20/2/21 06:49, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Do you want to make Fedora 34 better? Please spend 1 minute of your
time and try to run:
# Run this only if you use default Fedora modules
# next time you run any DNF command default modules will be enabled
again
sudo dnf module reset '*'
sudo
Missing expected images:
Xfce raw-xz armhfp
Minimal raw-xz armhfp
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
1 of 43 required tests failed
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
below
Failed openQA tests: 24/183 (x86_64), 16/124 (aarch64)
New failures (sa
On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 11:19 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 20. 02. 21 10:49, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > Do you want to make Fedora 34 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time
> > and try
> > to run:
> >
> ># Run this only if you use default Fedora modules
> ># next time you run any DNF
On 20. 02. 21 10:49, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Do you want to make Fedora 34 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and try
to run:
# Run this only if you use default Fedora modules
# next time you run any DNF command default modules will be enabled again
sudo dnf module reset '*'
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 12:00 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> This topic was brought up several times already, but I don't think there has
> been a satisfactory answer to it yet. So let's try again.
>
> We have recently updated python-elementpath-2.1.1-2.fc34 and
> python-xmlschema-1.4.1-1.fc34 -- it r
On Saturday, February 20, 2021 9:49:12 AM WET Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> If you get this prompt:
>
>...
>Total download size: XXX M
>Is this ok [y/N]:
>
> you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the actual upgrade.
Oops, I got this.
...
Transaction Summary
===
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20210219.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20210220.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 10
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 160
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 219.42 MiB
Size of dropped packages
Do you want to make Fedora 34 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and
try to run:
# Run this only if you use default Fedora modules
# next time you run any DNF command default modules will be enabled again
sudo dnf module reset '*'
sudo dnf --releasever=34 --setopt=module_platfor
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64), 1/7 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-32-20210218.0):
ID: 784011 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64), 1/7 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-33-20210219.0):
ID: 783690 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
32 matches
Mail list logo
