Retirement in effect with
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/glusterfs-coreutils/c/9b9b5240c2305cfa6dbeb9be7dbccc4b389939a7?branch=rawhide
Anoop C S.
On Thu, 2025-01-23 at 10:27 +0530, Anoop C S via devel wrote:
> On Fri, 2025-01-10 at 16:44 +0530, Anoop C S wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
On Fri, 2025-01-10 at 16:44 +0530, Anoop C S wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Following the announcement[1] on intention to retire main GlusterFS
> package from Fedora 42 I thought it wouldn't make sense to have
> glusterfs-coreutils package as it is heavily dependent on glusterfs.
ore I intend to retire glusterfs-coreutils in Fedora 42 unless
someone steps up to take over as next package owner.
[1]
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/D4QN2OFKQWN66HVKUG4CG4XPRW5ON62Z/
[2] https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs-coreutils
Anoo
On Fri, 2022-01-21 at 15:41 +0530, Anoop C S via devel wrote:
> On Fri, 2022-01-21 at 10:32 +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 02:31:57PM +0530, Anoop C S wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2022-01-20 at 09:57 +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > &
On Fri, 2022-01-21 at 10:32 +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 02:31:57PM +0530, Anoop C S wrote:
> > On Thu, 2022-01-20 at 09:57 +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > > Good Morning Everyone,
> > >
> > > The packagers listed he
nally gonna happen.
If not, how important it is to match both(FAS and bugzilla) email
addresses at this point? Or is it a requirement now to have same email
address to get the work completed? Sorry, I am little confused.
Regards,
Anoop C S.
[1] https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/104
On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 15:46 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> Fedora package maintainers,
>
> FESCo approved an updated policy for packages which fail to build from
> source during mass rebuilds (FTBFS) [1].
>
> The updated policy is still at
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fails_to_b
On Tue, 2016-11-15 at 18:42 +, Samuel Rakitničan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Something I stumbled upon today is that there is no convenient way by default
> to make some custom
> script accessible via sudo without specifying full path.
What about -E option?
> Found out that sudo have limited set of pa
On Wed, 2016-06-22 at 16:40 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> Dne 22.6.2016 v 16:21 Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a):
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 03:03:09PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > >
> > > It seems there was unannounced soname bump in userspace-rcu. Not
> > > sure
> > > what everything needs t
