Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2022-09-22 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.libera.chat.
Local time information (via. uitime):
= Day: Thursday ==
2022-09-22 09:00 PDT US/Pacific
2022-09-22 12
On Fri Sep 2, 2022, 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 Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 02:47:21AM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/JdkInTreeLibsAndStdclibStatic
> > was submitted as an Fedora 37 update after it was deferred to Fedora
> > 38. We need to decide what to do. (mhr
On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 6:02 PM Kamil Paral wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 10:30 AM Kalev Lember
> wrote:
>
>> This is the GNOME version that's we'll be shipping F37 Final with, so
>> please make sure to test it and file issues for things that would need
>> fixing before F37 GA. I'd suggest st
On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 10:30 AM Kalev Lember wrote:
> This is the GNOME version that's we'll be shipping F37 Final with, so
> please make sure to test it and file issues for things that would need
> fixing before F37 GA. I'd suggest starting upstream at gitlab.gnome.org
> for most issues, and th
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/swig410
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved
by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee.
== S
On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 10:22 AM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> Bugzilla does not allow you to use the DUPLICATE status without giving a
> concrete Bugzilla bug ID of which the bug is allegedly a duplicate,
Good point. I'll use another closure type then. The point is: I'll go
through the exist
Ben Cotton wrote:
> I'll close ones that already exist in Pagure as DUPLICATE
Bugzilla does not allow you to use the DUPLICATE status without giving a
concrete Bugzilla bug ID of which the bug is allegedly a duplicate, so you
cannot use it for bugs that are duplicated on external bug trackers.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 12:49 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> Amusingly I think we in the past discussed closing the pagure project to
> issues and using bugzilla only. ;)
I'd entertain arguments for doing that. But I think the "have the
issues with the 'code'" aspect is more valuable in this particula
Dne 21. 09. 22 v 12:59 Kalev Lember napsal(a):
On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 12:42 PM Vít Ondruch wrote:
I have just reported this against mutter:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2128660
This was reported upstream a while ago upstream and there are fixes
since yesterday
OLD: Fedora-37-20220920.n.0
NEW: Fedora-37-20220921.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 25
Dropped packages:7
Upgraded packages: 70
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 2.29 MiB
Size of dropped packages:275.27 KiB
On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 1:14 AM Stephen Gallagher
wrote:
> As I'm implementing this, I'm realizing that it probably only makes
> sense to have the default version of Node.js on each Fedora release
> provide the unversioned-command. Otherwise it becomes really hard to
> ensure that the RPM macros
On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 12:42 PM Vít Ondruch wrote:
> I have just reported this against mutter:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2128660
>
> This was reported upstream a while ago upstream and there are fixes
> since yesterday. Not sure if it qualifies as a blocker and how to mark
I have just reported this against mutter:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2128660
This was reported upstream a while ago upstream and there are fixes
since yesterday. Not sure if it qualifies as a blocker and how to mark
it for a review ...
Vít
Dne 21. 09. 22 v 10:30 Kalev Lem
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20220920.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20220921.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 8
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 175
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 9.86 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Hi Vit,
On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 11:03 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Kalev,
>
> Could you please look at [1] which was addressed in F36 but never for
> Rawhide, i.e. F37 ATM.
>
> However I see that there is GDM 43 now. I should probably give it a try
> (while the upstream ticket comments [2, 3] don't m
Am 20.09.22 um 22:53 schrieb Tommy Nguyen:
DNF5 is ridiculously fast. The new text output using the C++ fmt
library is also a bonus.
Yes, it's fast, which is a great improvement \o/ The new output format
is ... debateable. It has advantages with "screen -x"-sessions with
different resolutions
Hi, Petr.
I use firejail every now and then, and glancing at the commits,
the package doesn't require much maintenance, so I adopted it.
A.FI.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fed
Kalev,
Could you please look at [1] which was addressed in F36 but never for
Rawhide, i.e. F37 ATM.
However I see that there is GDM 43 now. I should probably give it a try
(while the upstream ticket comments [2, 3] don't make me overly optimistic).
Vít
[1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/s
On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 4:30 AM Kalev Lember wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Just a quick heads up that the GNOME 43.0 final release megaupdate is
> now in F37 updates-testing:
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-0bd68bbb43
>
> This is the GNOME version that's we'll be shipping F37 Fina
Hi all,
Just a quick heads up that the GNOME 43.0 final release megaupdate is
now in F37 updates-testing:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-0bd68bbb43
This is the GNOME version that's we'll be shipping F37 Final with, so
please make sure to test it and file issues for things t
On 21-09-2022 09:33, Sandro wrote:
As of recent, memory usage might be of a larger concern. Of which your
data shows a very welcome 40% reduction. I'll gladly take the speed
improvement as a bonus.
I wrote that before morning coffee. It's a 60% reduction. DNF5 is using
only 40% of what DNF use
On 21-09-2022 03:11, Tommy Nguyen wrote:
On Wed, 2022-09-21 at 02:53 +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
Tommy Nguyen wrote:
DNF5 is ridiculously fast.
It is faster, but "ridiculously"? In the metric that matters
(elapsed wallclock time), your benchmark shows the update taking
30% less time.
23 matches
Mail list logo
