Kevin Fenzi writes:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FESCo_meeting_process
>
> "Make sure to check with and invite stakeholders who may not be CC'd in
> the issue. Consider deferring issue if stakeholders have not had
> adequate notice and are not available for discussion."
>
> Perhaps it should
On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 at 17:15, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 06:21:08PM +0200, Petr Menšík wrote:
> > What would be considered sufficient research about usage of guile? If
> > package provides it as optional feature among many other features, how
> > should package o
On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 at 16:26, przemek klosowski via devel
wrote:
>
> We had several discussions recently that could use some real-world data
> on e.g.:
>
> - x86_64-v2 prevalence
>
> - GUILE usage in make/gdb
>
> - count of systems with UEFI/GPT vs BIOS/MBR
>
> - debugd server usage
>
> - etc
>
> T
On 7/7/21 2:14 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 06:21:08PM +0200, Petr Menšík wrote:
What would be considered sufficient research about usage of guile? If
package provides it as optional feature among many other features, how
should package owner test one feature is
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 1:42 PM Richard Shaw wrote:
> That's what I was afraid of. I'm doing my best to make sure I notice
> dependency chains like this but it's completely manual and could be error
> prone. There seem to be a lot of kde 4 related dependencies, some of them
> seem to build with
On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 06:21:08PM +0200, Petr Menšík wrote:
> What would be considered sufficient research about usage of guile? If
> package provides it as optional feature among many other features, how
> should package owner test one feature is still demanded? Do we have any
> best practice? Is
On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 02:27:39PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Fabio Valentini:
>
> > If it turns out that really actually nobody uses this, why not drop it
> > upstream, and have the guile support removal come with the next GNU
> > toolchain Change for Fedora?
>
> Guile support in GNU packa
Hello, I'm Didik Supriadi from Agam, Indonesia.
My FAS username is didiksupriadi41. I've been using fedora since release
f26 and it's almost 10 fedora(s) until upcoming f35.
I created this review request:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1980117
please take a look. ^
Didik S.
__
We had several discussions recently that could use some real-world data
on e.g.:
- x86_64-v2 prevalence
- GUILE usage in make/gdb
- count of systems with UEFI/GPT vs BIOS/MBR
- debugd server usage
- etc
The common thread is that some sort of measurement would help figuring
out the best tec
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 2:36 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 3:32 PM Richard Shaw wrote:
> >
> > I had a hard time trying to describe what I'm talking about, perhaps
> there's actually a term for it, but as I go through all the dependencies of
> OpenEXR I wanted to know if this is a
On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 03:31:21PM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Ben Cotton writes:
>
> > [...] I agree that enabling it for the fesco project would be
> > good. It's probably insufficient, though. When the meeting chair sends
> > the agenda, adding the owners on cc or bcc so that they get re
Thanks for the quick response! I've submitted a new build to rawhide
that fixes this.
Marty
On 7/7/21 12:46 PM, Paweł Marciniak wrote:
but do I also need to obsolete older versions of the
vim-syntastic-rnc subpackage?
Yes, you have to. See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-gu
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 3:32 PM Richard Shaw wrote:
>
> I had a hard time trying to describe what I'm talking about, perhaps there's
> actually a term for it, but as I go through all the dependencies of OpenEXR I
> wanted to know if this is a problem or not which I think is best shown by
> examp
I had a hard time trying to describe what I'm talking about, perhaps
there's actually a term for it, but as I go through all the dependencies of
OpenEXR I wanted to know if this is a problem or not which I think is best
shown by example:
So part of the dependency chain for blender is:
Blender
--->
Ben Cotton writes:
> [...] I agree that enabling it for the fesco project would be
> good. It's probably insufficient, though. When the meeting chair sends
> the agenda, adding the owners on cc or bcc so that they get reminded
> of time/location/etc is important.
Since this gets overlooked with
On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 4:39 PM Mark Otaris wrote:
>
> I don’t agree with this change, as it seems obvious that many users who do
> not want proprietary software installed do not want repositories with
> proprietary software in them installed either (whether or not these
> repositories are enabl
On 07. 07. 21 17:01, Neal Gompa wrote:
Is there scope for having self-contained changes implicitly
approved 2 weeks after being posted to Fedora devel list
in absence of controversy ? In that 2 week period, if someone
raises an objection that does not get a satisfactorily resolved
through discuss
PS. rnc subpackage is still built.
You should remove this line "#%add_subpackage -n rnc rnv" or replace with this
line "#%%add_subpackage -n rnc rnv"
Please note the additional percent sign.
You should also remove unnecessary files. e.g. "rm -r syntax_checkers/rnc"
And of course add obsoletes (se
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 1:39 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 2:29 PM Richard Shaw wrote:
> >
> > NOTE: This is part of the ongoing saga that is the OpenEXR project. As
> of 2.5.5 IlmBase was absorbed into the main OpenEXR library, and then with
> 3.x imath was split out as a standal
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 2:29 PM Richard Shaw wrote:
>
> NOTE: This is part of the ongoing saga that is the OpenEXR project. As of
> 2.5.5 IlmBase was absorbed into the main OpenEXR library, and then with 3.x
> imath was split out as a standalone library.
>
> I've built openexr2 since many package
On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 6:14 PM Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 10:26 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Filtered_Flathub_Applications
> >
> > == Summary ==
> > Enabling third-party repositories will now create a Flathub remote
> > that is a filt
NOTE: This is part of the ongoing saga that is the OpenEXR project. As of
2.5.5 IlmBase was absorbed into the main OpenEXR library, and then with 3.x
imath was split out as a standalone library.
I've built openexr2 since many packages don't support openexr 3.x. I also
set openexr2-devel to conflic
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2021-07-08 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.libera.chat.
Local time information (via. uitime):
= Day: Thursday ==
2021-07-08 09:00 PDT US/Pacific
2021-07-08 12
On 6/26/21 2:52 PM, Aleksei Bavshin wrote:
Rawhide update ETA is in a week from this message or when all the
required builds are complete.
Wlroots 0.14 and new versions of dependent packages are now available in
rawhide. Thanks to everyone for your help with this update!
sway:rolling modul
> but do I also need to obsolete older versions of the
> vim-syntastic-rnc subpackage?
Yes, you have to. See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-replacing-existing-packages
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedo
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 12:42 PM Martin Jackson wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I use and like vim-syntastic, so I took it from the orphan list.
>
> There is an open bug on it that led to its retirement, that the rnc
> subpackage fails to install because rnv is no longer available.
>
> It's straightforward e
Hi all,
I am claiming qtpass [0] which is currently orphaned.
Kind regards,
Arthur
[0]: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qtpass
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.o
Hello,
I use and like vim-syntastic, so I took it from the orphan list.
There is an open bug on it that led to its retirement, that the rnc
subpackage fails to install because rnv is no longer available.
It's straightforward enough to stop building the -rnc subpackage for
vim-syntastic, but
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 8:23 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 06/07/2021 23:27, Christian Stadelmann wrote:
> > In other words: I think it is too early to drop non-(U)EFI BIOS support.
>
> Btw, the upcoming Windows 11 will require full UEFI support, enabled
> UEFI Secure Boot and TPM 2.0.
On 7/7/21 2:21 PM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 1:38 PM Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 7/7/21 1:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> * Neal Gompa:
>>>
Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
>>> We have a mandate from Fesco that the core toolchain must depend on
>>> Guile. N
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 2:00 AM Daniel P. Berrangé
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 02:30:42PM -0400, Michael Jeanson wrote:
> > I have started the process to update userspace-rcu to 0.13 in rawhide
> which
> > implies a soname bump to 8.
> >
> > From what I understand, the following packages will
* Stephen John Smoogen:
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 at 11:45, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>
>> * Stephen John Smoogen:
>>
>> > C) This proposal was reviewed and pushed again for F35 even if it is
>> > 'too late' because well this just doesn't sit well.
>>
>> This doesn't make sense to me—what is “this propos
Notes from the meeting:
https://pagure.io/fedora-source-git/sig/blob/main/f/meeting-minutes/2021-07-07.md
On 7/6/21 4:30 PM, cs...@redhat.com wrote:
Dear all,
You are kindly invited to the meeting:
Fedora Source-git SIG on 2021-07-07 from 14:30:00 to 15:30:00 GMT
At meet.google.com/mi
On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 at 11:45, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Stephen John Smoogen:
>
> > C) This proposal was reviewed and pushed again for F35 even if it is
> > 'too late' because well this just doesn't sit well.
>
> This doesn't make sense to me—what is “this proposal”, and how it was
> “pushed agai
Hi fedorans, I am in the process to unretired rust-nalgebra as I need it for
other package. I have made it produce a package by disabling tests and
packaging some of its dependency.
Here the Bugzilla:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1980025
Here the pagure request:
https://pagure.io/
* Stephen John Smoogen:
> C) This proposal was reviewed and pushed again for F35 even if it is
> 'too late' because well this just doesn't sit well.
This doesn't make sense to me—what is “this proposal”, and how it was
“pushed again”?
Thanks,
Florian
_
On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 at 08:54, Hans de Goede wrote:
>
> Hi,
> > [1]:
> > https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/fesco/fesco.2021-02-03-15.00.log.html
>
> Maybe if the GNU Toolchain developers did not show up and there
> was no majority, then the right thing to do for Fesco would have
> been to po
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 10:46 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 09:56:43AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 9:38 AM Daniel P. Berrangé
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm far less convinced FESCo formally voting is beneficial
> > > for (uncontroversial) self-conta
On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 09:56:43AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 9:38 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> >
> > I'm far less convinced FESCo formally voting is beneficial
> > for (uncontroversial) self-contained changes, where the goal
> > of the maintainer is largely just to make s
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 10:25 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 10:23 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 10:20 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
> > >
> > > Does Pagure send notification email on label changes? Could that be a
> > > way to notice an upcoming meeting?
> > >
i updated your Wikipage with a link to Libera for this your irc channel
instead of Freenode hope that was fine
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 4:14 PM Luna Jernberg wrote:
> Hello!
>
> i will guest your meeting this week :)
>
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 4:30 PM wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> You are kindly in
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 10:22 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 9:38 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> >
> > I wonder if the process we're following (as it is defined today)
> > is actually beneficial for self-contained changes ? Did having a
> > vote which rejected the change actually
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 10:23 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 10:20 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
> >
> > Does Pagure send notification email on label changes? Could that be a
> > way to notice an upcoming meeting?
> >
>
> It can be configured to do so on a per-project basis. We probab
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 10:20 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Ben Cotton:
>
> > It wouldn't have even come up in a meeting except there were a couple
> > of FESCo members opposed to it. If we're going to change processes,
> > perhaps the better change is to explicitly invite people to the
> > meetin
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 9:38 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>
> I wonder if the process we're following (as it is defined today)
> is actually beneficial for self-contained changes ? Did having a
> vote which rejected the change actually improve Fedora, or was
> it just busy work that is better elimi
* Ben Cotton:
> It wouldn't have even come up in a meeting except there were a couple
> of FESCo members opposed to it. If we're going to change processes,
> perhaps the better change is to explicitly invite people to the
> meeting when their Change proposal is on the agenda.
It probably would ha
I too was having the error about overlapping regions. Adding "-bios none"
solved the problem. Thanks!
I wanted to use virt-install to set up my VM, and it turns out I could get the
same effect by adding --qemu-commandline='-bios none' to that command line:
virt-install --qemu-commandline='-b
Hello!
i will guest your meeting this week :)
On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 4:30 PM wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> You are kindly invited to the meeting:
>Fedora Source-git SIG on 2021-07-07 from 14:30:00 to 15:30:00 GMT
>At meet.google.com/mic-otnv-kse
>
> The meeting will be about:
> Bi-weekly meeti
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 9:38 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 03:09:47PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 7/7/21 2:14 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > * Hans de Goede:
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> On 7/7/21 1:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > >>> * Neal Gompa:
On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 02:06:16PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> * The guile maintainers don't want guile to be a dependency of the
> core toolchain either.
It was pointed out to me off list that this statement isn't accurate -
I confused a toolchain maintainer with a guile maintainer.
Ric
On 07. 07. 21 15:26, Peter Robinson wrote:
sugar-view-slidescallkalpa, chimosky, pbrobinson, tuxbrewr Fedora 31
I believe the sugar people are working on that now.
As said last week:
"""
Fails to install, fails to build since Fedora 32, was exempted from this policy
last time with a pr
On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 03:09:47PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 7/7/21 2:14 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Hans de Goede:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 7/7/21 1:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>> * Neal Gompa:
> >>>
> Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
> >>>
> >>> We have a mandate
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 9:45 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> Dear maintainers.
>
> Based on the current fail to build from source policy, the following packages
> will be retired from Fedora 35 approximately one week before branching (August
> 2021).
>
> Policy:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fe
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 7:40 AM Luna Jernberg wrote:
>
> So no Meeting today ?
>
Prioritized Bugs meetings happen every two weeks. See
https://calendar.fedoraproject.org/meeting/9964/
--
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Fedora Program Manager
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
_
Hi,
On 7/7/21 2:14 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Hans de Goede:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 7/7/21 1:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> * Neal Gompa:
>>>
Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
>>>
>>> We have a mandate from Fesco that the core toolchain must depend on
>>> Guile. Naturally that makes update
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 9:06 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
>
> I hope a reasonable summary is:
>
> * The core toolchain maintainers don't want guile to be a requirement.
>
> * The guile maintainers don't want guile to be a dependency of the
> core toolchain either.
>
> * With a small adjustment,
I hope a reasonable summary is:
* The core toolchain maintainers don't want guile to be a requirement.
* The guile maintainers don't want guile to be a dependency of the
core toolchain either.
* With a small adjustment, Makefiles which use guile can be changed
even if make itelf doesn't sup
Hi,
On 7/7/21 1:53 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 7:38 AM Hans de Goede wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 7/7/21 1:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> * Neal Gompa:
>>>
Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
>>>
>>> We have a mandate from Fesco that the core toolchain must depend on
>>> Gui
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 8:14 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Hans de Goede:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 7/7/21 1:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> * Neal Gompa:
> >>
> >>> Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
> >>
> >> We have a mandate from Fesco that the core toolchain must depend on
> >> Guile. Naturally
* Daniel P. Berrangé:
> What's notable to me is that, generally speaking, maintainers use
> their own discretion as to which optional features they enable
> or disable with a package built in Fedora. I'd expect that in most
> cases similar to this a maintainer will just disable the feature,
> do a
* Fabio Valentini:
> If it turns out that really actually nobody uses this, why not drop it
> upstream, and have the guile support removal come with the next GNU
> toolchain Change for Fedora?
Guile support in GNU packages is a goal of the GNU project, I think.
Where Guile is used as a scripting
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 1:38 PM Hans de Goede wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 7/7/21 1:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Neal Gompa:
> >
> >> Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
> >
> > We have a mandate from Fesco that the core toolchain must depend on
> > Guile. Naturally that makes updates rather difficu
* Hans de Goede:
> Hi,
>
> On 7/7/21 1:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Neal Gompa:
>>
>>> Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
>>
>> We have a mandate from Fesco that the core toolchain must depend on
>> Guile. Naturally that makes updates rather difficult.
>
> So I've gone and checked the Fesc
On 07. 07. 21 13:38, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 7/7/21 1:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Neal Gompa:
Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
We have a mandate from Fesco that the core toolchain must depend on
Guile. Naturally that makes updates rather difficult.
So I've gone and checked the F
On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 01:38:18PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 7/7/21 1:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Neal Gompa:
> >
> >> Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
> >
> > We have a mandate from Fesco that the core toolchain must depend on
> > Guile. Naturally that makes updates rat
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 7:38 AM Hans de Goede wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 7/7/21 1:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Neal Gompa:
> >
> >> Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
> >
> > We have a mandate from Fesco that the core toolchain must depend on
> > Guile. Naturally that makes updates rather difficu
Hi,
On 7/7/21 1:33 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 7:18 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>>
>> * Neal Gompa:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 7:08 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
* Neal Gompa:
> Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
We have a mandate from Fesco that the co
So no Meeting today ?
On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 1:53 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 7:00 AM wrote:
> >
> > You are kindly invited to the meeting:
> >Prioritized bugs and issues on 2021-06-30 from 11:00:00 to 12:00:00
> America/Indiana/Indianapolis
> >At fedora-meetin...@li
Hi,
On 7/7/21 1:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Neal Gompa:
>
>> Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
>
> We have a mandate from Fesco that the core toolchain must depend on
> Guile. Naturally that makes updates rather difficult.
So I've gone and checked the Fesco issue where dropping guile
sup
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 7:18 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Neal Gompa:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 7:08 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>
> >> * Neal Gompa:
> >>
> >> > Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
> >>
> >> We have a mandate from Fesco that the core toolchain must depend on
> >> Guile. Natur
On Wednesday, 7 July 2021 11.59.18 WEST Chuck Anderson wrote:
> I'm not listed as a (co)maintainer, so I'm not sure how I ended up on
> this list.
By a transitive dependency relation... :-)
Basically one of your packages depends on another package that depends on
guile22.
--
José Abílio___
* Neal Gompa:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 7:08 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>>
>> * Neal Gompa:
>>
>> > Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
>>
>> We have a mandate from Fesco that the core toolchain must depend on
>> Guile. Naturally that makes updates rather difficult.
>
> Are you telling me that GNU M
On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 06:59:18 -0400
Chuck Anderson wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 11:18:04AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > cra: guile22
>
> I'm not listed as a (co)maintainer, so I'm not sure how I ended up on
> this list.
because a package you maintain depends (even indirectly) on guile22, se
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 7:08 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Neal Gompa:
>
> > Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
>
> We have a mandate from Fesco that the core toolchain must depend on
> Guile. Naturally that makes updates rather difficult.
>
Are you telling me that GNU Make doesn't support GNU G
* Neal Gompa:
> Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
We have a mandate from Fesco that the core toolchain must depend on
Guile. Naturally that makes updates rather difficult.
Thanks,
Florian
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To uns
On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 11:18:04AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> cra: guile22
I'm not listed as a (co)maintainer, so I'm not sure how I ended up on
this list.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-l
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 6:08 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 11:18:04AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > guile22 mlichvar, orphan 1 weeks
> > ago
>
> There's a dependency chain going from guile22 -> gnutls-devel -> lots
> of virtuali
On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 11:18:04AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> guile22 mlichvar, orphan 1 weeks ago
There's a dependency chain going from guile22 -> gnutls-devel -> lots
of virtualization packages.
This dependency provides gnutls bindings for guile progr
Hi,
On 7/7/21 11:18 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they
> are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure
> that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wi
The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they
are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure
that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life
Note: If
On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 02:30:42PM -0400, Michael Jeanson wrote:
> I have started the process to update userspace-rcu to 0.13 in rawhide which
> implies a soname bump to 8.
>
> From what I understand, the following packages will need to be rebuilt:
>
> device-mapper-multipath
> glusterfs
> knot
>
Dear maintainers.
Based on the current fail to build from source policy, the following packages
will be retired from Fedora 35 approximately one week before branching (August
2021).
Policy:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/
The packages
On 06/07/2021 23:27, Christian Stadelmann wrote:
In other words: I think it is too early to drop non-(U)EFI BIOS support.
Btw, the upcoming Windows 11 will require full UEFI support, enabled
UEFI Secure Boot and TPM 2.0.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
83 matches
Mail list logo
