Version 3.3 of NetworkX was released a few weeks ago. It needs pydot
>= 2.0.0. I have opened
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pydot/pull-request/4.
Also, if we are going to continue generating documentation for
python-networkx [1], then I need some package reviews. I am willing
to swap review
Hey folks.
hiredis 1.2.0 has been out a long while now, and with some prodding I am
finally looking at updating rawhide to it.
A interested user ran a mass prebuild:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/v02460/hiredis-1.2.0/packages/
Everything rebuilt fine.
ccache
collectd
coturn
gawk-redi
On Wed, 1 May 2024 12:49:32 -0500, W. Michael Petullo wrote:
> This clean up process has been going on since Fedora 1.
FWIW, my mass-filings of "unowned directory" bugzilla tickets has had poor
responses by packagers eventually and therefore has been discontinued.
Instead, a section has been inc
Dne 01. 05. 24 v 7:20 odp. Christoph Karl via devel napsal(a):
*) Removal or Upgrade of RPMs/distribution should not left files behind.
Two cases where files are intentionaly left behind:
1) configuration files
This can be handled by:
rpmconf --all --conf
2) %ghost files - usually log fil
Hi!
Am 01.05.24 um 19:58 schrieb Jens-Ulrik Petersen:
On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 1:21 AM Christoph Karl via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
I tried to find out which files on my upgraded fc40 installation are not
installed via dnf/rpm.
The list is surprisingly long.
Perhaps you co
On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 1:21 AM Christoph Karl via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> I tried to find out which files on my upgraded fc40 installation are not
> installed via dnf/rpm.
> The list is surprisingly long.
>
Perhaps you could upload the list to fedorapeople or somewhere?
Ma
Hi everyone,
I'm looking for help with my review request [1] for php-psr-http-client [2] as
part of the process to un-retire [3] the package.
It's a dependency of my work to update php-guzzlehttp-guzzle [4] to v7.x [5].
Which is required to keep php-aws-sdk3 [6] alive and up-to-date.
Thanks in
> I tried to find out which files on my upgraded fc40 installation are not
> installed via dnf/rpm.
> The list is surprisingly long.
> Main reasons are symlinks and directories not defined in the spec file.
> A quick check shows that this is also the case with a fresh installation.
>
> I see three
Minutes:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting-1_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2024-05-01/fedora-coreos-meeting.2024-05-01-16.30.html
Minutes (text):
https://meetbot-raw.fedoraproject.org//meeting-1_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2024-05-01/fedora-coreos-meeting.2024-05-01-16.30.txt
Log:
https://meetbot.
Hi!
I tried to find out which files on my upgraded fc40 installation are not
installed via dnf/rpm.
The list is surprisingly long.
Main reasons are symlinks and directories not defined in the spec file.
A quick check shows that this is also the case with a fresh installation.
I see three reason
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20240430.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20240501.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:29
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 3
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 77
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 17.02 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0
Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event
for Fedora 41 Rawhide 20240501.n.0. Please help run some tests for this
nightly compose if you have time. For more information on nightly
release validation testing, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki
12 matches
Mail list logo
