Hello,
I hope to update octave to 7.1 sometime next week. Builds will be
done in a side tag. I've been building deps here:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/orion/octave7.1/packages/
and we're in pretty good shape. Issues have been filed for the build
failures.
Orion
--
Orion P
Just as a short incentive from my side: I currently try to solve the
issue Stephen is talking about.
Feel free to have a look on:
https://ask.fedoraproject.org/t/not-boot-not-disks/21992
My point is that the complexity we are able to tackle and the complexity
some users are able to tackle di
On 5/25/22 13:49, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> The rename will really not help.
If it is not possible to ship an uncertified version then OpenJDK is
not free software and Fedora should not have it at all, in which
case the whole discussion is moot. Otherwise, it is possible
to ship a compatible version wi
Thank you Sergio,
This is a very useful file.
Stephen
On Wed, 2022-05-25 at 21:49 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> https://www.serjux.com/freedos_boot/Create-a-bootable-rescue.txt
>
> On Wed, 2022-05-25 at 16:40 -0400, Stephen Snow wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I was doing my usual round of reading com
Thanks Adam I'll get that info to the user. And I thought it was still
there and working, just haven't needed to use it in a vry long
time.
Stephen
On Wed, 2022-05-25 at 14:02 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-05-25 at 16:40 -0400, Stephen Snow wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I was doing my
On Wed, 2022-05-25 at 16:40 -0400, Stephen Snow wrote:
> Hello,
> I was doing my usual round of reading comments on ask.fp.o and came
> across an individual having difficulty getting their system (?back?) up
> and running, after update?
> This prompted me to open a discussion at
> https://discussi
On ۱۴۰۱/۳/۴ ۳:۰۷ بعدازظهر, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote:
I am also curious how the Vazirmatn font compares with Noto Naskh
Arabic, and also the old Dejavu coverage?
If you are referring to the coverage of unicode code points, I've no
idea. Although the author claims to support 9 languages, all o
https://www.serjux.com/freedos_boot/Create-a-bootable-rescue.txt
On Wed, 2022-05-25 at 16:40 -0400, Stephen Snow wrote:
> Hello,
> I was doing my usual round of reading comments on ask.fp.o and came
> across an individual having difficulty getting their system (?back?)
> up
> and running, after u
Hello,
I was doing my usual round of reading comments on ask.fp.o and came
across an individual having difficulty getting their system (?back?) up
and running, after update?
This prompted me to open a discussion at
https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/we-really-do-need-to-have-a-working-rescue-o
The rename will really not help.
On 5/25/22 18:01, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
On 25/05/2022 15:03, Jiri Vanek wrote:
We can not ship uncerified JDK. Sooner or later a swarm of lawyers would appear.
Let's rename it to icedtea then.
--
Jiri Vanek Mgr.
Principal QA Software Engineer
Red
On 25/05/2022 15:34, Jiri Vanek wrote:
When we were shipping icedtea6 and later icedtea7, it still required
TCK, so iced tea is not an option.
Easy fix: java-XX-openjdk -> coffee-named-language-XX.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
_
On 25/05/2022 15:03, Jiri Vanek wrote:
We can not ship uncerified JDK. Sooner or later a swarm of lawyers would
appear.
Let's rename it to icedtea then.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedo
Dne 25. 05. 22 v 14:38 Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a):
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 07:27:51AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Gary Buhrmaster said:
The follow up suggested that the license
field be differently formatted.
I disagree with such explanatory
prefixes, as it requires yet mor
Missing expected images:
Minimal raw-xz armhfp
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
2 of 43 required tests failed, 4 results missing
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
below
Failed openQA tests: 23/231 (x86_64), 26/161 (aarch64)
New failures (sa
As there are no topics and no attendees, the meeting is cancelled. See
you next time!
Tomas
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 10:35 AM Robbie Harwood wrote:
>
> Neal Gompa writes:
>
> > I think people assume we do more with the License tag than we actually
> > do.
>
> I think this is correct.
>
> > We have no active automated auditing or validation of package license
> > tags at this time.
>
> An
Neal Gompa writes:
> I think people assume we do more with the License tag than we actually
> do.
I think this is correct.
> We have no active automated auditing or validation of package license
> tags at this time.
And this is not.
rpminspect is run on every bodhi update. It contains a chec
Neal Gompa kirjoitti 25.5.2022 klo 16.49:
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 9:34 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 09:25:01AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 8:40 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 10:49:15AM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 25.
BTW, I noticed that despite java-17-openjdk being the default system
JDK on Fedora 36, it wasn't installed instead of java-11-openjdk when
I upgraded from Fedora 35. That sounds like the change proposal
wasn't
That sounds like super severe bug. I had tried it manytimes, in testing
environemt
On Wed, 2022-05-25 at 15:40 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 3:17 PM Jiri Vanek wrote:
> >
> > On 5/24/22 22:02, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > > Is this based on user requests, or is this only what you *think*
> > > users
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean - from above - wha
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 9:34 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 09:25:01AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 8:40 AM Daniel P. Berrangé
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 10:49:15AM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > > > Dne 25. 05. 22 v 2:44 Mi
In one week (2022-06-01), or slightly later, I will update the usd
package to version 22.05a[1] in Rawhide. This package has downstream .so
versioning and does not maintain ABI compatibility across releases in
general, so this will come with an .so version bump. The only dependent
package is bl
On Wed, 25 May 2022 at 09:34, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>
>
> On 5/25/22 15:19, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 25 May 2022 at 09:04, Jiri Vanek jva...@redhat.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5/24/22 21:41, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > > On 24/05/2022 21:00, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 9:38 AM Jiri Vanek wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/25/22 15:28, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 9:17 AM Jiri Vanek wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 5/24/22 22:02, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> >>> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 5:03 PM Jiri Vanek wrote:
> I replied it already in
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 3:17 PM Jiri Vanek wrote:
>
> On 5/24/22 22:02, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > Is this based on user requests, or is this only what you *think* users
>
> I'm not sure what you mean - from above - what is based on mine/wider
> thinking
> Generally waht I wrote here it is based
Hi!
This was old bug 9see th eancient versions) which was already fixed, but we had
not cleaned old direcotries. Please remove them. Te new garbage shoudl not
reapear.
Sorry!
On 9/24/21 18:19, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
Hello.
I have a lot of unremoved directories and files in /usr/li
On 5/25/22 15:28, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 9:17 AM Jiri Vanek wrote:
On 5/24/22 22:02, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 5:03 PM Jiri Vanek wrote:
I replied it already in that thread, but happy to repeat:
It will help, but less then it seems so.
Now we can
On Wed, 2022-05-25 at 15:03 +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>
>
> On 5/24/22 21:41, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > On 24/05/2022 21:00, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> > > I repeat what was told several times.We really do no t like this
> > > change, especially in its full sound of one static build repacked
>
On 5/25/22 15:19, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2022 at 09:04, Jiri Vanek mailto:jva...@redhat.com>> wrote:
On 5/24/22 21:41, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 24/05/2022 21:00, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>> I repeat what was told several times.We really do no t like this
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 09:25:01AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 8:40 AM Daniel P. Berrangé
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 10:49:15AM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > > Dne 25. 05. 22 v 2:44 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> > > > 2) There are tags that might mean slightly
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 9:17 AM Jiri Vanek wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/24/22 22:02, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 5:03 PM Jiri Vanek wrote:
> >> I replied it already in that thread, but happy to repeat:
> >> It will help, but less then it seems so.
> >> Now we can drop 8. Soem legacy
On 5/24/22 22:14, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 04:57:54PM +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote:
We are testing also upstream. note that RH is maintainer of ojdk 11 and 8,
so we have to. But that is much easier, as the usptream is static within
intree libraries. And we have to run also for 1
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 8:40 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 10:49:15AM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > Dne 25. 05. 22 v 2:44 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> > > 2) There are tags that might mean slightly different things in each
> > > notation. E.g. MIT. Is this package licens
On Wed, 25 May 2022 at 09:04, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>
>
> On 5/24/22 21:41, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > On 24/05/2022 21:00, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> >> I repeat what was told several times.We really do no t like this
> change, especially in its full sound of one static build repacked to all
> ive
On 5/24/22 22:02, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 5:03 PM Jiri Vanek wrote:
I replied it already in that thread, but happy to repeat:
It will help, but less then it seems so.
Now we can drop 8. Soem legacy applciations will be unhappy, as EOL of jdk8 is
in some 4 years, so fed
On 5/24/22 21:41, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
On 24/05/2022 21:00, Jiri Vanek wrote:
I repeat what was told several times.We really do no t like this change,
especially in its full sound of one static build repacked to all ive fedoras,
but we have nto found a better way.
1. Stop doing
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 10:49:15AM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 25. 05. 22 v 2:44 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> > 2) There are tags that might mean slightly different things in each
> > notation. E.g. MIT. Is this package licensed with the SPDX MIT? Or is it
> > a old-style MIT that might mean di
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 07:27:51AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Gary Buhrmaster said:
> > The follow up suggested that the license
> > field be differently formatted.
> >
> > I disagree with such explanatory
> > prefixes, as it requires yet more apps
> > to parse/support various
Once upon a time, Gary Buhrmaster said:
> The follow up suggested that the license
> field be differently formatted.
>
> I disagree with such explanatory
> prefixes, as it requires yet more apps
> to parse/support various prefixes.
No, my suggestion of using "License: SPDX:" would not require an
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 8:49 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> I think that we can assume that if
>
> git log --pretty=oneline
>
> contains `spdx` or similar string, than the spec file use the new notation.
That might work only if one required (enforced?)
that the changelog regarding any spdx change
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20220524.n.1
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20220525.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 4
Dropped packages:2
Upgraded packages: 60
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 402.49 KiB
Size of dropped packages
I am also curious how the Vazirmatn font compares with Noto Naskh Arabic,
and also the old Dejavu coverage?
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
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-34-20220524.0):
ID: 1278375 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
On 5/25/22 08:58, Adam Williamson wrote:
and what I think is some kind of odd regression in Firefox 100 which
makes typing into some text entry boxes in the Cockpit and FreeIPA web
UIs not work reliably (this affects realmd_join_cockpit and
upgrade_realmd_client).
It's a good idea to file a bug
Dne 25. 05. 22 v 2:44 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
2) There are tags that might mean slightly different things in each notation. E.g. MIT. Is this package licensed with
the SPDX MIT? Or is it a old-style MIT that might mean different SPDX notation? Note that the old-style MIT seems to
be a superset o
V Tue, May 24, 2022 at 01:16:44PM +0200, Michal Schorm napsal(a):
> Beside that, the
> | fedpkg request-branch -h
> doesn't explain what will be the content of the newly created branch.
>
It belive that it behaves the same as requesting a branch for a non-modular
content. E.g. when requesting an E
Dne 25. 05. 22 v 6:28 Gary Buhrmaster napsal(a):
I interpreted the proposal as adding a
new stanza SPDX: in addition to License:
which requires changing the definition
Nope. No new tag. We will use the old License tag.
Just instead of
License: $short_name
will be
License: $spdx
And rpm
V Tue, May 24, 2022 at 01:16:44PM +0200, Michal Schorm napsal(a):
> I want to create a new module stream.
> All the RPMs repos and the Module repo exist. I just need new branches
> in all of them.
>
> However I've run into a deadlock.
> Non-release branches require SL to be defined. And SL before
On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 10:11:39PM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> As reaction to
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
>
> there were two similar feedbacks:
>
> * maintainer of package wants to use SPDX in both new and old branches
> (including f36, epel7...)
>
> *
49 matches
Mail list logo
