Hi folks! I'm proposing we cancel the QA meeting on Monday. I don't
have anything urgent for this week, and it'd probably be more useful to
have one next week after some of the things currently in discussion
move forward a bit.
If you're aware of anything it would be useful to discuss this week,
p
So, the last of these emails I sent was eight years ago, time flies,
huh? :)
Sudhir suggested bringing these back, and it seemed like a fine idea,
so I did! I've created a Fedora 35 Retrospective page:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_35_QA_Retrospective
In the past we would've created thi
On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 9:23 PM Antonio T. sagitter
wrote:
>
> On 10/24/21 15:11, Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
> > Hello Antonio,
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 3:05 PM Antonio T. sagitter
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> We are ready to push openbabel3 in Rawhide
> >
> > Will it be just Rawhide? Will you ple
On 10/24/21 15:11, Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
Hello Antonio,
On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 3:05 PM Antonio T. sagitter
wrote:
We are ready to push openbabel3 in Rawhide
Will it be just Rawhide? Will you please let us know when the build is
done in order to rebuild dependent packages?
Within 24
On Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 06:51:23PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Aleksei Bavshin:
On 11/4/21 09:17, Florian Weimer wrote:
Why is this VERIFY? The patch was generated as if by “git show”, and I
do not see anything wrong with it.
rpminspect thinks that the patch is suspiciously large and ask
On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 at 17:41, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 10:24:22AM -0700, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> > What I'm asking is whether Fedora, as an organization, is interested
> > in working with prominent vendors to determine whether there are
> > barriers to publishing software f
On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 at 13:25, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>
> On 11/4/21 17:23, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> > I don't know if that's of interest to Fedora, as an organization, but
> > on the off-chance that it is: Is anyone in a position to ask someone
> > at Slack about that decision? And whether there's a
On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 10:24:22AM -0700, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> What I'm asking is whether Fedora, as an organization, is interested
> in working with prominent vendors to determine whether there are
> barriers to publishing software for Fedora, or whether they perceive
> insufficient value in do
On 11/4/21 17:23, Gordon Messmer wrote:
I don't know if that's of interest to Fedora, as an organization, but
on the off-chance that it is: Is anyone in a position to ask someone
at Slack about that decision? And whether there's anything that
Fedora can do to make publishing that package more
===
#fedora-meeting: ELN SIG 2021-11-05
===
Meeting started by StephenGallagher at 16:00:19 UTC. The full logs are
available at
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2021-11-05/eln.2021-11-05-16.00.log.html
.
Meeting su
Dne 05. 11. 21 v 15:43 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
On 05. 11. 21 15:35, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 05. 11. 21 v 15:12 Ankur Sinha napsal(a):
On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 14:51:44 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 05. 11. 21 14:13, Ankur Sinha wrote:
Hi folks,
I've been working with a few Outreachy candidates
On 05. 11. 21 15:35, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 05. 11. 21 v 15:12 Ankur Sinha napsal(a):
On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 14:51:44 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 05. 11. 21 14:13, Ankur Sinha wrote:
Hi folks,
I've been working with a few Outreachy candidates to help them learn
packaging. We're using `fedpk
Dne 05. 11. 21 v 15:12 Ankur Sinha napsal(a):
On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 14:51:44 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 05. 11. 21 14:13, Ankur Sinha wrote:
Hi folks,
I've been working with a few Outreachy candidates to help them learn
packaging. We're using `fedpkg` as much as we can, since it's what we
On 05. 11. 21 15:12, Ankur Sinha wrote:
On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 14:51:44 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 05. 11. 21 14:13, Ankur Sinha wrote:
Hi folks,
I've been working with a few Outreachy candidates to help them learn
packaging. We're using `fedpkg` as much as we can, since it's what we
use to
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: 68/141 (aarch64), 108/206 (x86_64)
New failures (same test not faile
On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 14:51:44 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 05. 11. 21 14:13, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I've been working with a few Outreachy candidates to help them learn
> > packaging. We're using `fedpkg` as much as we can, since it's what we
> > use to work with all packages
On 05. 11. 21 14:13, Ankur Sinha wrote:
Hi folks,
I've been working with a few Outreachy candidates to help them learn
packaging. We're using `fedpkg` as much as we can, since it's what we
use to work with all packages after they're imported into Fedora.
So, we first create git repo to work in
Planned Outage - build systems ( koji, osbs, mbs, src, pdc, kojipkgs, odcs,
registriy) - 2021-11-09 17:00 UTC
There will be an outage starting at 2021-11-09 17:00 UTC,
which will last approximately 4 hours.
To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastru
Planned Outage - bodhi.fedoraproject.org - 2021-11-08 10:00 UTC
There will be an outage starting on monday at 2021-11-08 10:00 UTC,
which will last approximately 2 hours.
To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto
or run:
date -d '2021
Hi folks,
I've been working with a few Outreachy candidates to help them learn
packaging. We're using `fedpkg` as much as we can, since it's what we
use to work with all packages after they're imported into Fedora.
So, we first create git repo to work in, and after we write the spec,
we iterativ
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20211104.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20211105.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 4
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 116
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 2.74 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 5:47 AM Timm Bäder wrote:
>
> > If this change is implemented, manual removal in packages becomes
> unnecessary.
> > Will you do a 'mass change' sweep to drop those removals?
>
> I've already looked at all the packages I listed, so looking at them again
> shouldn't be
> a p
On 05/11/2021 07:04, Joe Doss wrote:
Thanks for the suggestion but I prefer the official client for work.
You can also use the official Web version in any modern web browser
(Firefox or Chromium).
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
On 05/11/2021 01:23, Gordon Messmer wrote:
I don't know if that's of interest to Fedora, as an organization, but on
the off-chance that it is: Is anyone in a position to ask someone at
Slack about that decision? And whether there's anything that Fedora can
do to make publishing that package mo
> If this change is implemented, manual removal in packages becomes unnecessary.
> Will you do a 'mass change' sweep to drop those removals?
I've already looked at all the packages I listed, so looking at them again
shouldn't be
a problem.
But that's just the list of packages that currently ship
> This looks like it risks deleting more files than intended. If some
> package uses country codes or domain names in filenames, then this
> change could silently delete files specific to Laos.
None of the packages I inspected looked like they would do this, but I opened
https://github.com/rpm-sof
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-34-20211104.0):
ID: 1053178 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)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-35-20211104.0):
ID: 1053162 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
Hi everyone,
This is a weekly report from the CPE (Community Platform Engineering)
Team. If you have any questions or feedback, please respond to this
report or contact us on #redhat-cpe channel on libera.chat
(https://libera.chat/).
If you wish to read this in rendered markdown, check the post o
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-33-20211104.0):
ID: 1053143 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
30 matches
Mail list logo
