[389-devel] Re: Updated commit message format

2019-04-04 Thread Lukas Slebodnik
On (04/04/19 13:52), Matus Honek wrote: >Hello, > >I would like to bring to your attention a recent change in our >Contribution Guide [1]. We have updated the recommended commit message >format. In particular, the "Fixes " string prefixing the URL which >will make our lives easier in case of pull r

Re: Are partial upgrades expected to work in rawhide?

2017-01-05 Thread Lukas Slebodnik
> On 01/05/2017 08:19 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: > > Even if we had this capability, I'm not sure if we would use it in > rawhide. It could considerably increase the size of the dependency > information. > You would remove "temporary versions" with official r

Re: Are partial upgrades expected to work in rawhide?

2017-01-05 Thread Lukas Slebodnik
I think that we need to wait for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1320954 But I think it still would be good to to at least rebuild images. LS ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...

Re: Are partial upgrades expected to work in rawhide?

2017-01-03 Thread Lukas Slebodnik
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 08:08:32AM -0000, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: > > But there is nothing that can be done about it. The symbol versions come > from upstream, every release that adds new symbols adds new symbol version, > and we do want to test glibc before it is released, we

Re: Are partial upgrades expected to work in rawhide?

2017-01-03 Thread Lukas Slebodnik
> It has nothing to do with rawhide. It is a best practice how to use > map symbols/version script and to have stable API/ABI > https://www.akkadia.org/drepper/dsohowto.pdf > > quote: > > I know it is not a high critical issue and therefore I suggested (in BZ) to > to automatically rebuild doc

Re: Are partial upgrades expected to work in rawhide?

2017-01-03 Thread Lukas Slebodnik
> On Mon, 2017-01-02 at 20:43 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > ...but to expand on that, that's for stable releases. So far as Rawhide > is concerned, historically my understanding has been the same as > Florian's, we haven't ever claimed that dependencies will be so > comprehensive that you can

Re: Are partial upgrades expected to work in rawhide?

2017-01-02 Thread Lukas Slebodnik
> On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 02:29:47PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > > I think officially, we don't "support" anything but all-or-nothing > upgrades in *all* branches. That is, if you cherry-pick an update from > updates (or even updates-testing) and it also needs some other package > to be upgrade

Re: Are partial upgrades expected to work in rawhide?

2017-01-02 Thread Lukas Slebodnik
> On 01/02/2017 05:22 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: > The bug is in the user-supplied container build scripts. Recommended > practice is to run “dnf update” (or “yum update”) as part of the build > process. Could you provide some link where it is recommended? Because most of pages

Re: Are partial upgrades expected to work in rawhide?

2017-01-02 Thread Lukas Slebodnik
> On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 02:29:47PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > > This is rawhide, if it breaks, people should keep the pieces. > We shouldn't > change what we do with symbol versions just because of it. > It has nothing to do with rawhide. It is a best practice how to use map symbols/versi

[389-devel] please review: Ticket 47440 - Fix compilation warnings

2013-07-22 Thread Lukas Slebodnik
https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/47440 https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/47440/0001-Fix-compilation-warnings.patch https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/47440/0002-Use-right-prototype-for-auxprop_lookup-in-sasl-plugi.patch https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/474