Great job.
___
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/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedorapr
Hi all,
Neal Gompa and I have been reviving the effort to get our mailing list
server infrastructure (currently running on RHEL 7 with missing packages
provided in an unofficial repo) hostable on RHEL 9 + EPEL.
Pagure issue: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8455
Bugzilla tracker: htt
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 05:50:46PM -0500, Elliott Sales de Andrade wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 at 17:32, Michel Alexandre Salim
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Neal Gompa and I have been reviving the effort to get our mailing list
> > server infrastructure (currently running on RHEL 7 with missi
Hi folks! I'm proposing we cancel the next couple of QA meetings, as
it's the holiday season and folks both RHer and non-RHer will likely be
busy. There's nothing urgent that needs addressing, so far as I know.
We'll reconvene in the New Year, on January 3rd 2022. Happy holidays
everyone!
--
Adam
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 at 17:32, Michel Alexandre Salim
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Neal Gompa and I have been reviving the effort to get our mailing list
> server infrastructure (currently running on RHEL 7 with missing packages
> provided in an unofficial repo) hostable on RHEL 9 + EPEL.
>
> Pagure issu
Carlos O'Donell wrote on Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 11:07:42AM -0500:
> > So I guess we're just chasing after artifacts from the allocator, and
> > it'll be hard to tell which it is when I happen to see pipewire-pulse
> > with high memory later on...
>
> It can be difficult to tell the difference betwee
fair enough, will this be also the case for EPEL9?
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 10:47 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-12-14 at 22:24 +0100, chedi toueiti wrote:
> > I noticed that pyproject-rpm-macros is not listed as a Bugzilla component
> > in the EPEL product. Is there a specific reason
On 12/14/21 12:37, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> A sosreport contains a tonne of useful info, but for any single bug
> the vast majority is irrelevant. So it is much harder to argue that
> requesting this sos report info is proportionate for solving bugs
> from Fedora users, especially when attachmen
On Tue, 2021-12-14 at 22:24 +0100, chedi toueiti wrote:
> I noticed that pyproject-rpm-macros is not listed as a Bugzilla component
> in the EPEL product. Is there a specific reason for that? If not can
> someone add it or direct me to the adequate procedure to request it.
It's 'missing' because t
I noticed that pyproject-rpm-macros is not listed as a Bugzilla component
in the EPEL product. Is there a specific reason for that? If not can
someone add it or direct me to the adequate procedure to request it.
--
*Chedi Toueiti*
* Due to the constant fluctuation in customer personalities, we
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 08:08:19PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 1:45 AM Davide Cavalca via devel
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2021-12-13 at 16:00 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > > Would it be possible to document the editing of protected file in the
> > > change proposal, prob
Hello,
beginning with version 2.5.0, the license for the package scummvm has been
changed to
"GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and GPLv3+ and BSD and OFL and MIT and ISC"
Best regards,
Christian
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 1:45 AM Davide Cavalca via devel
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2021-12-13 at 16:00 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > Would it be possible to document the editing of protected file in the
> > change proposal, probably including example of the best way to do it
> > (is
> > it possible to re
I don't believe we systematically tested this. We will collect that along with
the detailed size increase data.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Con
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 09:48:58AM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> The Fedora SOS reports are ~30MiB today, and this exceeds the
> Bugzilla attachment limit of 19.5MiB.
Rather than going straight to raising BZ limits, I think we have
some more basic questions that should be considered first
First
Tom,
Per Omair Majid’s request[1], I have sponsored you to the packager group
via the co-maintainer path. Welcome to Fedora, and happy packaging!
– Ben Beasley
https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/issue/504
On 12/14/21 10:42, Tom Deseyn wrote:
Hi everyone!
My name is Tom. I work on .NET and
Most Bugzilla attachments are highly-compressible text. Are they
currently stored in compressed form, and if not, would that be practical
to implement?
If feasible and not already implemented, this would vastly reduce
long-term storage requirements, at a CPU cost that could be made as low
as
On 12/14/21 10:16, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> Carlos O'Donell writes:
>
>> - Life-cycle management (delete attachments).
>
> Please don't delete attachments. It severely reduces the usefulness of
> keeping old bugzillas around - if we're going to do that, we might as
> well delete the old bugzilla
On a related note - could we increase the size limit for FTBFS tickets?
Currently, the when FTBFS bugs are filed, the attachments are limited to 32KiB,
which is often too small to fit the whole build log.
The whole point of attaching these to the bugzilla ticket is that koji deletes
logs after so
On 12/14/21 07:08, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> I've double-checked with traces in load_spa_handle/unref_handle and it
> is all free()d as soon as the client disconnects, so there's no reason
> the memory would still be used... And I think we're just looking at some
> malloc optimisation not releasi
Hi everyone!
My name is Tom. I work on .NET and try to make it work well/better on Linux.
I maintain a few .NET libraries for interacting with D-Bus, systemd.
I'm joining the list because I'd like to help Omair Majid maintain
Fedora's .NET packages.
Thanks. Tom
_
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 16:52:59 -0500,
Ben Cotton wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/PostgreSQL_14
== Summary ==
Update of PostgreSQL (`postgresql` and `libpq` components) in Fedora
from version 13 to version 14 in the non-modular (main) builds.
== Feedback ==
I'm all for it. I
Carlos O'Donell writes:
> - Life-cycle management (delete attachments).
Please don't delete attachments. It severely reduces the usefulness of
keeping old bugzillas around - if we're going to do that, we might as
well delete the old bugzilla entries as well, and I don't think anyone
wants that.
The Fedora SOS reports are ~30MiB today, and this exceeds the
Bugzilla attachment limit of 19.5MiB.
Do we have the option to raise the attachment size to something
that could accommodate the average SOS report limit for Fedora
uses? I've had users report SOS tarballs that are ~60MiB in size
which
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 6:00 AM wrote:
>
> You are kindly invited to the meeting:
>Prioritized bugs and issues on 2021-12-15 from 11:00:00 to 12:00:00
> America/Indiana/Indianapolis
>At fedora-meetin...@libera.chat
>
> More information available at:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US
On 12/14/21 07:50 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Mon, 2021-12-13 at 08:53 -0500, Steven A. Falco wrote:
On 12/12/21 06:21 PM, Scott Talbert wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2021, Steven A. Falco wrote:
I also noticed that python3-wxpython4 appears to require the 3.0
branch, so that might be what is causing
On Mon, 2021-12-13 at 08:53 -0500, Steven A. Falco wrote:
> On 12/12/21 06:21 PM, Scott Talbert wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 Dec 2021, Steven A. Falco wrote:
> >
> > > I also noticed that python3-wxpython4 appears to require the 3.0
> > > branch, so that might be what is causing both 3.0 and 3.1 of wxGTK
Wim Taymans wrote on Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 09:09:30AM +0100:
> I can get it as high as that too but then it stays there and doesn't really
> grow anymore so it does not seem like
> it's leaking. Maybe it's the way things are done, there is a lot of ldopen
> and memfd/mmap.
Right, I've had a look wi
Hi
I'll be updating to tesseract-5.0.0 in rawhide, I'll be rebuilding the
following packages in the f36-build-side-48784 side-tag:
gimagereader
mupdf
opencv
python-PyMuPDF
R-tesseract
vapoursynth
zathura-pdf-mupdf
I already performed the rebuilds for testing in this copr repo [1].
Thanks
San
Anitya doesn't removing versions on it's own. This needs to be done by
admin. The filter is just for the new versions that are retrieved by
Anitya. This should be fixed in the future when The New Hotness will
learn to work with pre-releases. I also plan to add new option to
src.fedoraproject.or
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 09:09:30AM +0100, Wim Taymans wrote:
> I can get it as high as that too but then it stays there and doesn't really
> grow anymore so it does not seem like
> it's leaking. Maybe it's the way things are done, there is a lot of ldopen
> and memfd/mmap.
This doesn't sound right
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-34-20211212.0):
ID: 1086038 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-35-20211213.0):
ID: 1086022 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
I can get it as high as that too but then it stays there and doesn't really
grow anymore so it does not seem like
it's leaking. Maybe it's the way things are done, there is a lot of ldopen
and memfd/mmap.
Wim
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 11:42 PM Dominique Martinet
wrote:
> Wim Taymans wrote on Mon,
34 matches
Mail list logo
