OLD: Fedora-41-20240822.n.0
NEW: Fedora-41-20240823.n.1
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 9
Dropped packages:34
Upgraded packages: 106
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 129.61 MiB
Size of dropped packages:76.48 MiB
Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event
for Fedora 41 Branched 20240823.n.1. 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
Hi,
I have a package review, which is needed since a package I maintain
broke and now depends on python-reflink.
The ticket is: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2307642
Could one of you please review this package?
-Neel
--
___
devel mail
I’ve been asked[1] to get this update into F41 before the Beta Freeze so
that uv 0.3 can appear on the beta ISOs, since uv is now among the
packages in the Python Classroom Lab group. Together with the fact that
uv has only been in Fedora for a few weeks anyway (and almost nothing
relies on it)
Try again. I've had the same issue today and it worked on a yhird attempt
(after 15 minutes or so).
пт, 23 авг. 2024 г., 20:14 Sergio Pascual :
> Hello, I have requested a repo for a package recently approved
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213588
>
> and the releng-bot is closin
On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 08:13:13PM GMT, Sergio Pascual wrote:
> Hello, I have requested a repo for a package recently approved
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213588
>
> and the releng-bot is closing the issue with "The Bugzilla review bug
> creator could not be found in FAS. Mak
On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 2:14 PM Sergio Pascual wrote:
>
> Any idea of what is happening?
It doesn't look like you have the RHBZ field set on your account:
https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/user/sergiopr/
If the bot is looking for that field, then that's probably the issue.
--
Ben Cotton (he/h
Hello, I have requested a repo for a package recently approved
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213588
and the releng-bot is closing the issue with "The Bugzilla review bug
creator could not be found in FAS. Make sure your FAS email address is
the same as in Bugzilla."
For example, t
Hello everyone,
I am reaching out to request your valuable review of a recently submitted
package on the Fedora Bugzilla: "clash-meta," which is designed as an essential
network proxy tool for accessing websites like GitHub in certain regions where
direct access may be restricted or limited by
In one week, 2024-08-30, I plan to update the Python package manager uv
from 0.2.37 to 0.3.x (currently 0.3.2)[1]:
- in Fedora 42/Rawhide,
- in Fedora 41/Branched (where availability will be delayed by the
Beta Freeze),
- and – if approved by FESCo[2] – in Fedora 40 and Fedora 39
Thanks David. I'll press on with it then.
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 at 19:19, David Bold wrote:
>
> EPEL10 is currently in rawhide mode, thus updates get created automatically:
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-bcaca74032
>
> If you want to prevent this, you have to use a side-
EPEL10 is currently in rawhide mode, thus updates get created automatically:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-bcaca74032
If you want to prevent this, you have to use a side-tag.
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproj
Can some kind soul point me at the doco for building for EPEL. I seem
to remember there's an extra step for EPEL but it escapes me (and
google). https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-packaging-examples/
doesn't seem to get me over the hump...
I've been able to get a branch for EPEL10, mer
Jan Grulich wrote:
> The reason for this is that qt5-qtwebengine copies over re2 header files,
> but that doesn't mean it links against the system version, it still uses
> the bundled one anyway.
The way it was SUPPOSED to work was that the header hack was supposed to be
applied together with an
14 matches
Mail list logo
