På Sat, 30 Oct 2021 17:59:15 +0200
Adrian Reber skrev:
> Just after the protobuf update to 3.18.1 last week finished protobuf
> 3.19.0 was released and a request to update to that version was made.
>
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/protobuf/pull-request/7
>
> At first I was 'not again', but
On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 4:52 PM Björn 'besser82' Esser
wrote:
>
> Am Samstag, dem 30.10.2021 um 22:00 +0200 schrieb Alexander Ploumistos:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm wondering if there's an "elegant" and "rpm" way to do the
> > following, without calling an external tool (and maybe adding another
> > d
Am Samstag, dem 30.10.2021 um 23:09 +0200 schrieb Alexander Ploumistos:
> Thanks a lot Björn, this is very helpful!
You're welcome, Alexander! =)
> All the best,
> A.
Best wishes in return!
Björn
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Thanks a lot Björn, this is very helpful!
All the best,
A.
___
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/c
Am Samstag, dem 30.10.2021 um 22:00 +0200 schrieb Alexander Ploumistos:
> Hello,
>
> I'm wondering if there's an "elegant" and "rpm" way to do the
> following, without calling an external tool (and maybe adding another
> dependency to a package):
>
> Project "foo" tracks the development of projec
Hello,
I'm wondering if there's an "elegant" and "rpm" way to do the
following, without calling an external tool (and maybe adding another
dependency to a package):
Project "foo" tracks the development of project "bar" and both use
basic semantic versioning, X.Y.Z. Project "bar" rarely increments
Just after the protobuf update to 3.18.1 last week finished protobuf
3.19.0 was released and a request to update to that version was made.
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/protobuf/pull-request/7
At first I was 'not again', but as I still remember all the necessary
commands I agreed to rebuild
Missing expected images:
Xfce raw-xz armhfp
Compose PASSES proposed Rawhide gating check!
All required tests passed
Failed openQA tests: 4/206 (x86_64), 10/141 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20211029.n.0):
ID: 1047138 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso gedit
On Fr, 29.10.21 16:37, Neal Gompa (ngomp...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > {
> > …
> > "originatingBuildSystem" : "koji.fedoraproject.org",
> > …
> > }
> >
> > With such a simple field we could easily distinguish builds from
> > Fedora from those people might have rebuilt elsewhere,
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20211029.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20211030.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 107
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size
On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 6:56 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 10:06:36AM -, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > > On 10/29/21 3:53 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > >
> > > Does there need to be any parsing at all? WireGuard avoids the problem
> > > by only using fixed-s
On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 10:06:36AM -, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> > On 10/29/21 3:53 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >
> > Does there need to be any parsing at all? WireGuard avoids the problem
> > by only using fixed-size fields, so one only needs to check that the
> > field is of the correct len
> On 10/29/21 3:53 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>
> Does there need to be any parsing at all? WireGuard avoids the problem
> by only using fixed-size fields, so one only needs to check that the
> field is of the correct length. Qubes OS uses the same solution in
> at least its GUI protocol.
>
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-34-20211029.0):
ID: 1047052 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
ID: 1047036 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1047036
ID: 1047037 Test: aarch64 Cloud_B
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-33-20211029.0):
ID: 1047020 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
16 matches
Mail list logo
