On 22/11/2021 03:51, Orion Poplawski wrote:
i686:
virtual memory exhausted: Operation not permitted
Memory limit of the 32-bit address space (2 GB) has been reached. Try
reducing the debuginfo level.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
_
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-33-2028.0):
ID: 1067998 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
On 21/11/2021 13:11, Stephen Snow wrote:
And I login with my FAS ID and cannot "Take" the package since I am not
a packager.
So I ask again what steps am I missing here? I want to take over
packaging something that is about to be removed from Fedora Linux since
it has been orphaned, I have sign
On 21/11/2021 15:01, Stephen Snow wrote:
But actually I think the old wiki version is much more useful
in explaining how things work, especially if you're not coming
at it from the position of submitting a new package:
And it tells me to read a document that doesn't apparently exist
anymore.
On 2021-11-21 18:51, Orion Poplawski wrote:
On 11/21/21 19:23, devel@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
Just noting that I had a strange one-time s390x and x86_64 build
failure.
More:
s390x:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=79143231
libtool: link: /usr/bin/gcc-ranlib libocta
On 11/21/21 19:23, devel@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
Just noting that I had a strange one-time s390x and x86_64 build failure.
More:
s390x:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=79143231
libtool: link: /usr/bin/gcc-ranlib liboctave/array/.libs/libarray.a
/usr/bin/ranlib: una
Just noting that I had a strange one-time s390x and x86_64 build failure.
s390x:
/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -m64 -march=zEC12 -mtune=z13
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -DH5_USE_110_API
-Wl,-z,relro -Wl,--as-needed -Wl,-z,now
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-h
Am Sonntag, dem 21.11.2021 um 15:40 -0500 schrieb Scott Talbert:
> Hi @eclipseo,
>
> Looks like jpegxl soname was bumped, breaking a bunch of stuff:
>
> 2021-11-21 20:20:51
> Package resolution failed
>
> Problem: package gd-2.3.3-3.fc36.x86_64 requires
> libavif.so.12()(64bit), but none o
yikes
On Sun, 21 Nov 2021, 20:40 Scott Talbert, wrote:
> Hi @eclipseo,
>
> Looks like jpegxl soname was bumped, breaking a bunch of stuff:
>
> 2021-11-21 20:20:51
> Package resolution failed
>
> Problem: package gd-2.3.3-3.fc36.x86_64 requires
> libavif.so.12()(64bit), but none of the provi
Matthew Miller kirjoitti 21.11.2021 klo 18.18:
On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 08:11:19AM -0500, Stephen Snow wrote:
So I am back here to ask again if I can take a package on that is
currently orphaned as per
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/5FC
Hi @eclipseo,
Looks like jpegxl soname was bumped, breaking a bunch of stuff:
2021-11-21 20:20:51
Package resolution failed
Problem: package gd-2.3.3-3.fc36.x86_64 requires
libavif.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
- package graphviz-2.49.3-2.fc36.x86_64 requir
On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 1:49 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 09:45:57AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > Hello., is not precisely my idea but anyone can build a script, which can
> > > be included in fedora live cd image for solving/troubleshoting this
> > > issues, at le
On Sun, 2021-11-21 at 11:18 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
-snip-
>
> I don't think we have a good process for the situation you're in. If
> the
> package you were interested in were entirely new, or if you were
> reinstating
> a package which wsa retired (the step beyond "orphan"), you'd file
> and
On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 09:45:57AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Hello., is not precisely my idea but anyone can build a script, which can
> > be included in fedora live cd image for solving/troubleshoting this issues,
> > at least for a fedora default instalation, if is a custom install ther
On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 04:27:18PM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
> >That page seems substantially (if not completely?) identical to the current
> >doc at
> >https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/How_to_Get_Sponsored_into_the_Packager_Group/
>
> Ah you're quite right. That was a goog
On Sun, 2021-11-21 at 15:08 +, Tom Hughes wrote:
>
> That's why I gave a link to the old version from the wiki history
> before it was replaced by a pointer to the new page.
>
It did help for some info. Thank you.
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=How_to_get_sponsored_into_th
On Sun, 2021-11-21 at 15:25 +, Héctor H. Louzao P. wrote:
> This is my First time here, so Glad to be here:
>
> Hello., is not precisely my idea but anyone can build a script, which can be
> included in fedora live cd image for solving/troubleshoting this issues, at
> least for a fedora defa
On 21/11/2021 16:06, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 10:01:00AM -0500, Stephen Snow wrote:
Thanks read that back then.
But actually I think the old wiki version is much more useful
in explaining how things work, especially if you're not coming
at it from the position of submittin
On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 08:11:19AM -0500, Stephen Snow wrote:
> So I am back here to ask again if I can take a package on that is
> currently orphaned as per
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/5FCP5OSV6XXFCAXN5KPKQFBCDLGJSRB6/
>
> And I lo
On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 10:01:00AM -0500, Stephen Snow wrote:
> Thanks read that back then.
>
> > But actually I think the old wiki version is much more useful
> > in explaining how things work, especially if you're not coming
> > at it from the position of submitting a new package:
> >
> And it
This is my First time here, so Glad to be here:
Hello., is not precisely my idea but anyone can build a script, which can be
included in fedora live cd image for solving/troubleshoting this issues, at
least for a fedora default instalation, if is a custom install there is nothing
we can do abou
Would anyone be wiling to review this package? I think that it might be
straightforward given that it was orphaned after F34 and the package seems to
build without any issues.
The BZ review request is here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025138
Would be happy to review in return
On Sun, 2021-11-21 at 13:55 +, Tom Hughes wrote:
-snip-
> You say you have "asked to become a packager" but what exactly
> do you mean by that?
>
I've asked to be sponsored before.
> The official documentation on becoming a packager is here:
>
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-
No missing expected images.
Compose PASSES proposed Rawhide gating check!
All required tests passed
Failed openQA tests: 5/208 (x86_64), 10/142 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20211120.n.1):
ID: 1067602 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_login
URL: http
Hello,
So I am back here to ask again if I can take a package on that is
currently orphaned as per
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/5FCP5OSV6XXFCAXN5KPKQFBCDLGJSRB6/
And I login with my FAS ID and cannot "Take" the package since I am not
a
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20211120.n.1
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20211121.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 11
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size
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-35-2028.0):
ID: 1067514 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
27 matches
Mail list logo
