Dne 03. 01. 22 v 22:57 Steven A. Falco napsal(a):
On 1/3/22 04:38 PM, Elliott Sales de Andrade wrote:
Here are direct links to the chroots:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/stevenfalco/kicad/fedora-34-x86_64/03123050-kicad/
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/
On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 1:28 AM Igor Raits wrote:
> Will all of them be installed by default or depending on langpacks selection?
Yes. Basically upgrading will be done by langpacks package update.
> Is it safe to delete DejaVu fonts assuming they are not used by any known app?
It would be suppo
On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 2:44 AM Ian McInerney via devel
wrote:
>>
>> Did you run the build for lxqt-wallet? I see that there is a commit in
>> distgit that bumps the version to 1.0.0, but I can't find an associated
>> build in Koji for that version. I actually think that commit to lxqt-wallet
>>
On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 1:55 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> Does anyone know what /var/lib/rpm-state/gconf is used for? Owning
> package is GConf2-3.2.6-31.fc35.x86_64
>
OK nevermind. GConf2 is dead upstream, and the only thing I have
dragging it in is pdfmod.
--
Chris Murphy
_
On Mon, Jan 03, 2022 at 11:37:53AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Kevin Fenzi:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 10:07:25PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> * Kevin Fenzi:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 09:54:39AM +0900, Mamoru TASAKA wrote:
> >> >> Hello:
> >> >>
> >> >> Looks like glibc-2.
On 1/3/22 04:38 PM, Elliott Sales de Andrade wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 at 16:25, Steven A. Falco wrote:
I ran the following build on Copr:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/stevenfalco/kicad/build/3123050/
There are three chroots, one for F34, F35, and rawhide (all x86_64).
All report
On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 at 16:25, Steven A. Falco wrote:
>
> I ran the following build on Copr:
>
> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/stevenfalco/kicad/build/3123050/
>
> There are three chroots, one for F34, F35, and rawhide (all x86_64).
>
> All report "success", but there are no resulting rpm
Hi Steve,
It looks like you had some (browser?) caching issue, all the rpms in
all the chroots are there.
Best regards,
A.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedor
Hello,
I still think smaller changes might be better propagated using bodhi
system. I know severity is used usually for security updates. But can we
make more user-friendly summaries of enhancement updates? I think it
might be sorted by severity and list only enhancement or newpackage type
updates
I ran the following build on Copr:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/stevenfalco/kicad/build/3123050/
There are three chroots, one for F34, F35, and rawhide (all x86_64).
All report "success", but there are no resulting rpm packages in the F35 area.
The F34 and rawhide areas look correc
Does anyone know what /var/lib/rpm-state/gconf is used for? Owning
package is GConf2-3.2.6-31.fc35.x86_64
On my Fedora 35 Workstation installation, it's empty. So no obvious
conflict with the change proposal, but I'd like to make sure it's not
something that if used is going to get mad if there's
> From: Lennart Poettering [mailto:mzerq...@0pointer.de]
> Sent: Monday, January 3, 2022 1:33 PM
> On Do, 30.12.21 13:04, Fedora Development ML (devel@lists.fedoraproject.org)
> wrote:
>
> > > From: Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek [mailto:zbys...@in.waw.pl]
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2021 1:02
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 11:37 AM Ian McInerney
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 10:39 AM Zamir SUN wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm updating the whole LXQt desktop to 1.0.0 in rawhide, and I've built
>> the packages in the side tag f36-build-side-49104.
>
>
> Did you run the build for lxqt-wallet? I se
Apparently there were soname bumps in other lxqt packages that were updated
other than just those two. The qtermwidget package appears to have had an
soname bump from libqtermwidget5.so.0 to libqtermwidget5.so.1, breaking at
least TexStudio in Rawhide. I did a build for it, and it has been pushed t
On 03. 01. 22 19:16, Sérgio Basto wrote:
Testing rpm-specs/hibernate-jpa-2.0-api.spec
No terminal defined for 'E' at line 1 col 2
EPL and BSD
What is the problem with this one ?
There is no EPL in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses
-- just EPL-1.0 and EPL-2.0.
--
On Sat, 2022-01-01 at 11:11 +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> I am processing results of license-validate audit, but it takes
> longer...
> So I am providing raw results of what I have. If you are maintainer one
> of these packages you may expect either BZ report or Pagure PR for your
> package in upc
Hi Matthew. Thanks for the warm welcome!
___
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/
Lis
On Mon, Jan 03, 2022 at 07:11:24PM +0200, Christopher Crouse wrote:
> I’m Christopher, everyone just calls me Chris. I’m a 25 year old, Full Stack
> Developer from Cape Town, South Africa. I have made a few minor open-source
> contributions over the years, and will continue to do so in the future
On Mon, Jan 03, 2022 at 01:26:33PM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> The License tag was never formally defined. If we agree that there can be
> anything, then let it be.
The Pending PR here updates that to: SPDX License identifier or expression
(from our "Good" list).
https://pagure.io/packaging-co
Hi everyone,
I would like to introduce myself.
I’m Christopher, everyone just calls me Chris. I’m a 25 year old, Full Stack
Developer from Cape Town, South Africa. I have made a few minor open-source
contributions over the years, and will continue to do so in the future.
I started using Fedora L
Hey!
Will be attending today
On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 5:18 AM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> # Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting
> # Date: 2022-01-03
> # Time: 16:00 UTC
> (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto)
> # Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.libera.chat
>
> Greetings testers, and
On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 12:47:43 PM EST Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 12/29/21 07:26, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > On 29/12/2021 16:01, Ben Cotton wrote:
> >> Currently, the RPM databases is located in `/var`. Let's move it to
> >> `/usr`. The move is already under way in rpm-ostree-bas
On 1/3/22 15:36, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mo, 03.01.22 14:15, Florian Weimer (fwei...@redhat.com) wrote:
* Lennart Poettering:
Can you provide an example for such feature requests? i.e. where the
rpmdb should be writable even though /usr is assumed to be immutable?
Maybe if RPM is used
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: 104/228 (x86_64), 71/159 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not faile
For the record, I obviously support this change. Responding to a few threads:
On Wed, Dec 29, 2021, at 10:16 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> How does this work on RO /usr files systems? I thought data in /usr
> was supposed to be static/ It works for rpm-ostree because it's
> updated at tree creatio
On 12/29/21 17:01, Ben Cotton wrote:
Upstream RPM accept the change, but institutionally don't like the
loss or weakening of a
[http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-ecosystem/2021-December/000781.html
very well known location] for the database, and
[http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-ecosystem/202
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the
FESCo meeting Monday at 19:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on
irc.libera.chat.
To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto
or run:
date -d '2021-02-03 19:00 UTC'
Links to all issues to be dis
Dne 03. 01. 22 v 14:21 Konrad Kleine napsal(a):
Right now I do all my work in a fork of the official LLVM repos (e.g. clang, lld, etc.). That is a bit annoying and
now that the snapshots have evolved quite a bit I'd like to be able to integrate my "snapshot-build" branches as a
branches in offic
On Mon, Jan 03, 2022 at 01:26:33PM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 02. 01. 22 v 17:19 Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a):
>
> Testing rpm-specs/ipxe.spec
> No terminal defined for 'w' at line 1 col 8
>
> GPLv2 with additional permissions and BSD
>^
>
>
On Monday, January 3, 2022 11:30:42 AM CET Tomas Tomecek wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 3:35 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> >
> >-
> >
> >Statistics:
> >-
> >
> > Copr run 2,900,000 builds.
> > -
> >
> > People created 15 731 new projects.
> >
> >
> Whaaat! The whole
> From: Lennart Poettering [mailto:mzerq...@0pointer.de]
> Sent: Monday, January 3, 2022 2:34 PM
> On Mo, 03.01.22 13:07, Roberto Sassu (roberto.sa...@huawei.com) wrote:
>
> > That would work if all digest lists are supported by the kernel.
> > The first version worked that way, I developed a simp
On 1/3/22 14:57, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mo, 03.01.22 11:57, Panu Matilainen (pmati...@redhat.com) wrote:
On 12/30/21 09:02, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 8:19 AM Tom Hughes via devel
wrote:
I don't see how this is FHS compliant, which in turn would make
it non-compliant
On Mo, 03.01.22 14:15, Florian Weimer (fwei...@redhat.com) wrote:
> * Lennart Poettering:
>
> > Can you provide an example for such feature requests? i.e. where the
> > rpmdb should be writable even though /usr is assumed to be immutable?
>
> Maybe if RPM is used to install software under /opt?
I
On Mo, 03.01.22 13:07, Roberto Sassu (roberto.sa...@huawei.com) wrote:
> That would work if all digest lists are supported by the kernel.
> The first version worked that way, I developed a simple parser
> of RPM headers, so that the kernel could process then without
> having an additional user spa
Hi there and Happy New Year!
I'm working on the daily snapshot builds of LLVM for Fedora (I'm the
maintainer of them):
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/fedora-llvm-team/llvm-snapshots/monitor/
I'm also part of the fedora-llvm-team group (
https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/group/fedora-
* Lennart Poettering:
> Can you provide an example for such feature requests? i.e. where the
> rpmdb should be writable even though /usr is assumed to be immutable?
Maybe if RPM is used to install software under /opt?
Thanks,
Florian
___
devel mailing
On Mo, 03.01.22 11:57, Panu Matilainen (pmati...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On 12/30/21 09:02, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 8:19 AM Tom Hughes via devel
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't see how this is FHS compliant, which in turn would make
> > > it non-compliant with Fedora Packaging
On Do, 30.12.21 07:05, Fedora Development ML (devel@lists.fedoraproject.org)
wrote:
> As I demonstrated later in my email the contents of /var/lib/rpm
> do change at other times though.
Note that there are other things in /usr that are similar to the RPM
db in the "mostly-read-only-but-not-quite
On Do, 30.12.21 13:04, Fedora Development ML (devel@lists.fedoraproject.org)
wrote:
> > From: Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek [mailto:zbys...@in.waw.pl]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2021 1:02 PM
> > The gist of the proposal is described thus:
> > > The new feature behaves as follows. A modified k
Hello and apologies for the delayed response; I have been out of
office for a couple of weeks.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 8:00 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 5:45 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Keylime_subpackaging_and_agent_alternatives
> >
>
Dne 02. 01. 22 v 17:19 Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a):
Testing rpm-specs/ipxe.spec
No terminal defined for 'w' at line 1 col 8
GPLv2 with additional permissions and BSD
^
Expecting: {'AND', 'OR'}
The license does appear to be accurate in the sense that it reflects
the somewhat unusual
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20220102.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20220103.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 23
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size
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
* Kevin Fenzi:
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 10:07:25PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Kevin Fenzi:
>>
>> > On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 09:54:39AM +0900, Mamoru TASAKA wrote:
>> >> Hello:
>> >>
>> >> Looks like glibc-2.34.9000-33.fc36 was tagged into f36 buildroot on
>> >> 2021-12-18,
>> >> but very
On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 3:35 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
>-
>
>Statistics:
>-
>
> Copr run 2,900,000 builds.
> -
>
> People created 15 731 new projects.
>
>
Whaaat! The whole list of things you have achieved is mega impressive but
this one totally caught my eye: doing
On 12/30/21 09:02, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 8:19 AM Tom Hughes via devel
wrote:
I don't see how this is FHS compliant, which in turn would make
it non-compliant with Fedora Packaging Guidelines, namely:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_filesystem
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-34-20220102.0):
ID: 1094722 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-35-20220102.0):
ID: 1094706 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
> From: Neal Gompa [mailto:ngomp...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 1, 2022 3:47 PM
> On Sat, Jan 1, 2022 at 5:51 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
> wrote:
> >
> > On 31/12/2021 20:03, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> > > Sounds like, if this is enabled, they'll need a GPG key associated
> > > with thei
49 matches
Mail list logo
