Il 03/09/22 06:36, Demi Marie Obenour ha scritto:
> On 9/2/22 13:49, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
>> Here we go again: thunderbird 102 update was submitted to F36.
>>
>> This new version was known to bring incompatible changes to several
>> addons, yet it has been submitted to a stable Fedora rele
Am 20.08.22 um 18:00 schrieb Julian Sikorski:
Am 14.08.22 um 13:08 schrieb Mamoru TASAKA:
Julian Sikorski wrote on 2022/08/14 19:06:
Am 14.08.22 um 11:24 schrieb Julian Sikorski:
Dear maintainers,
I have updated Fedora asio package from the current 1.16.1 to
1.24.0. I have rebuilt the seven
On 9/2/22 13:49, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
> Here we go again: thunderbird 102 update was submitted to F36.
>
> This new version was known to bring incompatible changes to several
> addons, yet it has been submitted to a stable Fedora release with
> autopush enable and just a karma threshold o
On 9/2/22 22:06, Ian Chapman wrote:
> On 03/09/2022 01:49, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
>> Here we go again: thunderbird 102 update was submitted to F36.
>>
>> This new version was known to bring incompatible changes to several
>> addons, yet it has been submitted to a stable Fedora release with
>
I have a naive question...
I wonder if the folks who do a lot of zuul-ci (eg. opendev.org or
https://www.softwarefactory-project.io ) have methods to determine which
gating criteria to automate?
-Blaise
On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 10:39 AM Kalev Lember wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 3:16 PM Ben Cot
On 03/09/2022 01:49, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
Here we go again: thunderbird 102 update was submitted to F36.
This new version was known to bring incompatible changes to several
addons, yet it has been submitted to a stable Fedora release with
autopush enable and just a karma threshold of 2.
On 2022-09-02 10:49 a.m., Mattia Verga via devel
wrote:
Here we go again: thunderbird 102 update was submitted to F36.
This new version was known to bring incompatible changes to several
addons, yet it has been submitted to a stable Fedora release with
autopush enable and just a karma thresh
On Fri, 2022-09-02 at 22:43 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 8:02 PM Demi Marie Obenour
> wrote:
> >
> > On 9/1/22 13:47, Jaroslav Mracek wrote:
> > > With loading or not loading file list it is not so easy or in general -
> > > performance optimization is allways a trade
On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 8:02 PM Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
>
> On 9/1/22 13:47, Jaroslav Mracek wrote:
> > With loading or not loading file list it is not so easy or in general -
> > performance optimization is allways a trade one resource for another one or
> > for some features. DNF5 will provid
On Friday, September 2, 2022 Dusty Mabe wrote:
> > Side note: I have asked for co-maintainers for those packages a couple
> > times, but so far, I have not found any. Perhaps one of the CoreOS people
> > would be interested? It seems those packages are used a lot there based
> > on the bug reports
On 9/2/22 10:20, Maxwell G via devel wrote:
>
> Sep 2, 2022 5:36:41 AM Fabio Valentini :
>
>> Does anybody know whether olem still wants to maintain their Fedora
>> packages?
> I'm fairly sure that they no longer wish to maintain Fedora packages. I
> reached out to them about moby-engine and c
On Fri, 2 Sep 2022, Neal H. Walfield wrote:
Note: Sequoia currently uses Nettle on Fedora, but there is ongoing
work to port it to Sequoia to OpenSSL:
I think this should be considered a blocker for changing gpg backends.
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2041#issuecomm
On 9/2/22 5:07 AM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 1:43 PM Richard Shaw wrote:
>>
>>> If looking at a single package in isolation it may look wasteful, but from
>>> the POV of the distro as a whole packages with potential mingw sub-RPMs
>>> are a small subset of what goes through k
Here we go again: thunderbird 102 update was submitted to F36.
This new version was known to bring incompatible changes to several
addons, yet it has been submitted to a stable Fedora release with
autopush enable and just a karma threshold of 2. It took less than 5
hours from the time the update w
On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 11:22:13AM +, Fedora Rawhide Report wrote:
> OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20220901.n.0
> NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20220902.n.0
>
> = SUMMARY =
> Added images:0
> Dropped images: 7
> Added packages: 6
> Dropped packages:6
&
The Go/No-Go meeting for the early F37 Beta target date is Thursday.
Action summary
Proposed blockers
-
1. gnome-initial-setup — Unable to set up enterprise account with
gnome-initial-setup due to missing buttons — NEW
ACTION: Upstream to diagnose and fix iss
On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 3:16 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 12:00 PM Adam Williamson
> wrote:
>
> > So, one of the implicit questions here is, is it OK to keep twinning
> > these two sets of consequences, or should we split them up?
>
> Yes, it's okay to keep two sets of consequen
Hi all,
rpm 4.18 is on the horizon and includes a new OpenPGP backend based on
Sequoia PGP.
https://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.18.0
https://sequoia-pgp.org/
Thanks to Fabio Valentini (decathorpe) for packaging not only
rpm-sequoia, but all of the Sequoia packages for Fedora.
https://copr.fe
Sep 2, 2022 5:36:41 AM Fabio Valentini :
Does anybody know whether olem still wants to maintain their Fedora
packages?
I'm fairly sure that they no longer wish to maintain Fedora packages. I
reached out to them about moby-engine and containerd at the end of May,
and they said they no longer h
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 12:00 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> So, one of the implicit questions here is, is it OK to keep twinning
> these two sets of consequences, or should we split them up?
Yes, it's okay to keep two sets of consequences together. In fact,
it's preferable. One critpath to rule th
OLD: Fedora-37-20220901.n.0
NEW: Fedora-37-20220902.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:6
Upgraded packages: 0
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:6.54 MiB
Size of
On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 1:43 PM Richard Shaw wrote:
>
>> If looking at a single package in isolation it may look wasteful, but from
>> the POV of the distro as a whole packages with potential mingw sub-RPMs
>> are a small subset of what goes through koji every day.
>
>
> Perhaps, but the engineer i
Hi everyone, This is a weekly report from the CPE (Community Platform
Engineering) Team.
The report could be found at
https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/cpe-weekly-update---week-35-2022/cpe-weekly-update---week-35-2022/.
If you want to receive weekly reports by emails in the future, please
s
On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 3:45 AM Daniel P. Berrangé
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 04:25:28PM -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 12:38 PM Sandro Mani
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On 01.09.22 17:18, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > > > I'd like to unify fltk but there are a couple of things
Hi all,
This is the "Week 0" email to the devel list according to the
"Non-responsive maintainer policy" for "olem" / Olivier Lemasle.
Non-responsive maintainer bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123691
Their packages are in various states of disrepair, with me maintaining
any Rus
Hi Everyone,
This is an email to bring everyone up to speed with the Fedora Messaging
Notifications (FMN) Replacement initiative.
*What is FMN?*
FMN is a service which allows users to create filters on messages sent via
the message bus in Fedora Infrastructure. Users can then forward these
notifi
On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 04:25:28PM -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 12:38 PM Sandro Mani wrote:
>
> >
> > On 01.09.22 17:18, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > > I'd like to unify fltk but there are a couple of things I'm still
> > > unclear about...
> > >
> > > 1. If I build the x86_64 p
On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 05:47:21PM -, Jaroslav Mracek wrote:
> With loading or not loading file list it is not so easy or in general -
> performance optimization is allways a trade one resource for another one or
> for some features. DNF5 will provide a setting to not load file list, as well
On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 04:57:52PM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 9/1/22 4:25 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > Let me rephrase, is the mingw package going to be built on ALL arches
> > with the expectation that they are the same (like -data packages)? If
> > so, that seems like a huge waste of r
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 08:59:49AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-08-31 at 12:43 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 12:10:00PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2022-08-30 at 09:14 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > > > From my perspective, anyth
30 matches
Mail list logo
