Fedora 42 Beta Freeze and Bodhi updates-testing activation point

Hi all, Today's an important day on the Fedora Linux 42 schedule [1], with several significant cut-offs. First of all, today is the Bodhi updates-testing activation point [2]. That means that from now all Fedora Linux 42 packages must be submitted to updates-testing and pass the rel

Re: New bodhi struggling with composes

These two options always confuse me, but it should be the former (the other one applies to main only), so the option is correct. Ignore me - it probably has nothing to do with invocation. -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To un

Re: New bodhi struggling with composes

Is it skip_if_unavalable or skip_unavailable? -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-con

Re: New bodhi struggling with composes

Il 07/12/24 05:48, Kevin Fenzi ha scritto: > On Fri, Dec 06, 2024 at 08:30:15PM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 07, 2024 at 03:03:04AM +, Bojan Smojver via devel wrote: >>> Looks like bodhi upgrade may have caused composes to go haywire today: >>> http

Re: New bodhi struggling with composes

On Fri, Dec 06, 2024 at 08:30:15PM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Sat, Dec 07, 2024 at 03:03:04AM +, Bojan Smojver via devel wrote: > > Looks like bodhi upgrade may have caused composes to go haywire today: > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/composes/ > > > > It

Re: New bodhi struggling with composes

On Sat, Dec 07, 2024 at 03:03:04AM +, Bojan Smojver via devel wrote: > Looks like bodhi upgrade may have caused composes to go haywire today: > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/composes/ > > It could be just a coincidence, of course. Anyhow, just FYI if anyone > managing

New bodhi struggling with composes

Looks like bodhi upgrade may have caused composes to go haywire today: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/composes/ It could be just a coincidence, of course. Anyhow, just FYI if anyone managing that is around. -- Bojan -- ___ devel mailing list

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

I blame the Golgafrinchans. On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 at 10:30, Leslie Satenstein via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > I use 3 languages in human speech, and I have in-house three cultures. > When we talk of a person and his actions, we say he has good karma. > Karma is a feeling. Karma

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

I use 3 languages in human speech, and I have in-house three cultures.When we talk of a person and his actions, we say he has good karma.Karma is a feeling. Karma may be applied to groups, like a troup of boy scouts. I feel that, as was noted, karma is a cold or warm fuzzy feeling. I prefer jus

Re: Bodhi 8.2 in production: changes to karma requirements

On Mon, 2024-11-18 at 17:32 +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > Il 18/11/24 16:34, Adam Williamson ha scritto: > > On Mon, 2024-11-18 at 11:49 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > If there is something that the policy text says that is stronger than > > > w

Re: Bodhi 8.2 in production: changes to karma requirements

Il 18/11/24 16:34, Adam Williamson ha scritto: > On Mon, 2024-11-18 at 11:49 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: >> If there is something that the policy text says that is stronger than >> what Bodhi requires, then we should update the policy text immediately. > As o

Re: Bodhi 8.2 in production: changes to karma requirements

On Mon, 2024-11-18 at 11:49 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > If there is something that the policy text says that is stronger than > what Bodhi requires, then we should update the policy text immediately. As of now there is not, because in 8.2 I made the tool to implement

Re: Bodhi 8.2 in production: changes to karma requirements

On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 10:12:58AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Sun, 2024-11-17 at 18:35 +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > > PS: I suspect the documentation was actually just an attempt to document > > > the previous broken

Re: Bodhi 8.2 in production: changes to karma requirements

Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > PS: I suspect the documentation was actually just an attempt to document > the previous broken Bodhi policy implementation. (See > https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/772 and > https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/1033 – both got close

Re: Bodhi 8.2 in production: changes to karma requirements

This* is the point at which a minimum of +2 was introduced for non- > > critpath updates (after Beta freeze). The commit message does not > > reference any FESCo decision. It says "This matches what bodhi seems to > > implement and the text before my changes said", but

Re: Bodhi 8.2 in production: changes to karma requirements

On Sun, 2024-11-17 at 10:12 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > So on the whole, I think you have a good point here, thanks for raising > it. I will file a FESCo ticket and ask for them to consider the history > here and decide if they want to make any changes based on this > evaluation. Filed http

Re: Bodhi 8.2 in production: changes to karma requirements

e). The commit message does not > reference any FESCo decision. It says "This matches what bodhi seems to > implement and the text before my changes said", but I don't believe > either of those things is accurate: it does not really match what the > text before his changes said

Re: Bodhi 8.2 in production: changes to karma requirements

On Sun, 2024-11-17 at 18:35 +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > PS: I suspect the documentation was actually just an attempt to document > > the previous broken Bodhi policy implementation. (See > > https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/iss

Re: Bodhi 8.2 in production: changes to karma requirements

Co decision for that? PS: I suspect the documentation was actually just an attempt to document the previous broken Bodhi policy implementation. (See https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/772 and https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/1033 – both got closed, but the issue was never

Re: Bodhi 8.2 in production: changes to karma requirements

e cases where the best thing to do would actually be to send them directly to stable, which Bodhi has not allowed for years now.) It is hard enough to get even 1 karma for Fedora n-1 releases, let alone 2. Kevin Kofler -- ___ devel mai

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 9:12 AM Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > After seeing the poll results, I've decided to stop the renaming process > and revert back those changes already made to Bodhi. The "karma" term > will remain in place. > > Thanks all for expressing y

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

Il 14/11/24 09:13, Mattia Verga via devel ha scritto: > Il 13/11/24 19:32, Mattia Verga via devel ha scritto: >> Il 10/11/24 16:18, Mattia Verga via devel ha scritto: >>> I have started to move away Bodhi from using the term "karma" >> Ok, so... we have conclu

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

Marius Schwarz wrote: > Am 12.11.24 um 10:07 schrieb Daniel P. Berrangé: > > For example, right next to the word "karma" at the bottom of the > > comment form, we have to put descriptive text telling users what > > we actually want from them: > > > > "Karma: Is the update generally functional?"

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

Am 12.11.24 um 10:07 schrieb Daniel P. Berrangé: For example, right next to the word "karma" at the bottom of the comment form, we have to put descriptive text telling users what we actually want from them: "Karma: Is the update generally functional?" The word "karma" is adding no value her

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

Am 11.11.24 um 18:51 schrieb Mattia Verga via devel: - even not considering that, we are misusing the concept of karma (as I understand it): giving positive karma to an update doesn't give back positive karma on your own update, and vice versa. "Karma" is not given,it's earned by your actions

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

Il 13/11/24 19:32, Mattia Verga via devel ha scritto: > Il 10/11/24 16:18, Mattia Verga via devel ha scritto: >> I have started to move away Bodhi from using the term "karma" > Ok, so... we have concluded that no one consider offensive using "karma" > for this p

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

Adam Williamson writes: > This is not correct. The current policy says nothing about critpath > updates requiring no negative votes. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bodhi#Karma_requirements_for_Critical_Path_updates "Critical Path updates require a karma sum of +2 or can be pushed aft

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

On Wed, 2024-11-13 at 16:59 -0500, DJ Delorie wrote: > (except for critical packages, which must receive no "no" > votes, but those are exceptions) This is not correct. The current policy says nothing about critpath updates requiring no negative votes. Bodhi prior to 8.2 had

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

Barry writes: > I wonder is Go and No-Go would work as a replacement? Technically, no. What we have for packages is a voting system, like a tug-of-war, where enough "yes" votes can override a smaller number of "no" votes. (except for critical packages, which must receive no "no" votes, but thos

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

Il 13/11/24 11:22, Lukas Ruzicka ha scritto: > > @mattia, > The ticket you have posted for us to view has been merged which means > that the change has already been made. I do not think this is how we > should be doing things. The discussion here has been going on still. > What is the point to b

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

Il 10/11/24 16:18, Mattia Verga via devel ha scritto: > I have started to move away Bodhi from using the term "karma" Ok, so... we have concluded that no one consider offensive using "karma" for this purpose. Can we step aside from that discussion and focus on the pra

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 at 15:47, Ken Gaillot wrote: > > On Wed, 2024-11-13 at 14:41 +, Barry wrote: > > > On 11 Nov 2024, at 08:16, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek < > > > zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: > > > > > > That's a great idea. If we are to change, please do 'kudos' rather > > > 'rating'/'feedback

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

Agreed, Arnie. -- Lukáš Růžička FEDORA QE, RHCE Red Hat Purkyňova 115 612 45 Brno - Královo Pole lruzi...@redhat.com TRIED AND PERSONALLY TESTED, ERGO TRUSTED. -- ___ devel mailing list -- d

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

On Wed, 2024-11-13 at 14:41 +, Barry wrote: > > On 11 Nov 2024, at 08:16, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek < > > zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: > > > > That's a great idea. If we are to change, please do 'kudos' rather > > 'rating'/'feedback'/'evaluation'. > > I wonder is Go and No-Go would work as a r

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

ain constantly they don't have time to fix bug X that's really been disenfranchising people for years on end, but will spend hours & days beating this to death. Hilarious, ironic point somebody made about "Bodhi". Since group-think & social-media are the new normal wh

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

> On 11 Nov 2024, at 08:16, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: > > That's a great idea. If we are to change, please do 'kudos' rather > 'rating'/'feedback'/'evaluation'. I wonder is Go and No-Go would work as a replacement? It is already the jargon used when releasing Fedora. Barry -- _

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

Gary Buhrmaster writes: > I dislike the term rating. Maybe just remove > the term karma, and simply count the thumbs > (stable by thumps up: 3), and the feedback > is simply a thumbs up, or down? I'm sorry to advise that counting thumbs may be hurtful to some with congenital limb deformat

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

have a denotation, they > also have connotations. They might be positive or negative. For me, the > connotations of the word "karma" are positive and I cannot come up with a > negative one. Therefore, I am not convinced the word itself could be a > problem. > > In the

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

led something a "shrine", or "redeemer" or whatever. Actually, if I were a Buddhist, I would feel offended by us removing the word Karma. By the way, the word "Bodhi" itself has a significant religious meaning and we are not taking Bodhi away, however I somehow feel this i

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 10:11 AM Michael J Gruber wrote: > Now, we have a tendency to hide concepts and meanings behind terms > which no outsider could possibly infer from the terms - karma, koji, > bodhi, pagure, noggin, ... If we use this initiative to *clear up* > things I'm

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

down symbol in this line is telling users > what actually matters. The word "karma" here is adding no value, > it is again useless word clutter. I agree with this observation and in this particular case (term "karma" used in Bodhi) I'd be up for clarification / term clean

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

IOW, whether or not "karma" is an acceptable term to use is ultimately a distraction. More fundamentally it is a poor choice of term from a descriptive POV, and we'll end up improving bodhi for users overall by replacing it. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o-ht

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 4:44 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 09:07:33AM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > >"Karma: Is the update generally functional?" > > > > The word "karma" is adding no value here, it is mere word clutter > > and could be trivially remove

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 09:43:37AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 09:07:33AM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > >"Karma: Is the update generally functional?" > > > > The word "karma" is adding no value here, it is mere word clutter > > and could be triviall

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 09:07:33AM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: >"Karma: Is the update generally functional?" > > The word "karma" is adding no value here, it is mere word clutter > and could be trivially removed. You describe the use of the word from the perspective of newcomers. But I t

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

Am Di., 12. Nov. 2024 um 09:23 Uhr schrieb drago01 : > > > > On Sunday, November 10, 2024, Mattia Verga via devel > wrote: >> >> I have started to move away Bodhi from using the term "karma" to rate >> updates. I know this word has become familiar to

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

On Sunday, November 10, 2024, Mattia Verga via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > I have started to move away Bodhi from using the term "karma" to rate > updates. I know this word has become familiar to all Fedora users, but > there were several request

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

t;>> >>> >>> I am also personally disappointed in this. Draining the personality away >>> from things we make just makes it less fun and interesting. ☹️ >> >> >> I'd much rather keep the existing karma terminology as well. I hope it is &

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 05:51:18PM +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > The original request to change the term "karma" in Bodhi was > https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/4321 > > I see some points which are in favor to the renaming: > - we are using the te

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

If the word police are involved, we might as well go right to the ideal name: double-plus-goodness ! In case it's not obvious, I'm opposed to the proposed change. "Karma" is the best English word to describe what we're doing. Previous builds of packages benefit us, and we benefit them by testin

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

t makes it less fun and interesting. ☹️ >> > > I'd much rather keep the existing karma terminology as well. I hope it is > not a final decision to change it. > > -- > Kalev > > The original request to change the term "karma" in Bodhi was > https://gith

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

ions and they'll >>> start pushing again. >> >> I am also personally disappointed in this. Draining the personality away >> from things we make just makes it less fun and interesting. ☹️ > > I'd much rather keep the existing karma terminology as well. I h

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 at 17:25, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 11:58:39AM +0100, Lukas Ruzicka wrote: > > Well, I am very sad about this step and I feel very sorry that you are > > trying to remove the word karma from the process. I believe that Karma > > denotes one of the most po

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 11:58:39AM +0100, Lukas Ruzicka wrote: > Well, I am very sad about this step and I feel very sorry that you are > trying to remove the word karma from the process. I believe that Karma > denotes one of the most powerful, the most noble, and the most fair > principles of this

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

On Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 3:19 PM Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > For updates, the term "karma" is used as the sum of all karma|feedback > submitted by users, so I plan to rename this to "rating". I dislike the term rating. Maybe just remove the term karma, and simply count the thumbs (stable by

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

back what you let go. > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 9:16 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 08:47:57AM +0100, Sandro wrote: > > > On 11-11-2024 08:27, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > > On Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 03:18:49PM +0

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 12:05 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 5:59 AM Lukas Ruzicka wrote: > >> Well, I am very sad about this step and I feel very sorry that you are >> trying to remove the word karma from the process. I believe that Karma >> denotes one of the most powerful, the

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 5:59 AM Lukas Ruzicka wrote: > Well, I am very sad about this step and I feel very sorry that you are > trying to remove the word karma from the process. I believe that Karma > denotes one of the most powerful, the most noble, and the most fair > principles of this world,

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

000, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > > > > I have started to move away Bodhi from using the term "karma" to rate > > > > updates. I know this word has become familiar to all Fedora users, > but > > > > there were several requests in the past to stop the mi

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 08:47:57AM +0100, Sandro wrote: > On 11-11-2024 08:27, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 03:18:49PM +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > > > I have started to move away Bodhi from using the term "karma" to rate >

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

On 11-11-2024 08:27, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 03:18:49PM +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: I have started to move away Bodhi from using the term "karma" to rate updates. I know this word has become familiar to all Fedora users, but there we

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

On Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 03:18:49PM +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > I have started to move away Bodhi from using the term "karma" to rate > updates. I know this word has become familiar to all Fedora users, but > there were several requests in the past to stop the m

Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

I have started to move away Bodhi from using the term "karma" to rate updates. I know this word has become familiar to all Fedora users, but there were several requests in the past to stop the misuse. As I may not be the most "politically correct" person you know, thi

Re: Bodhi 8.2 in production: changes to karma requirements

On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 11:55:20AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: ...snip... > If folks believe allowing early push at +1 for non-critpath updates was > appropriate, then the appropriate thing to do would be to lobby FPC to > change the policy. I think Bodhi should always attempt to impl

Bodhi 8.2 in production: changes to karma requirements

Bodhi 8.2.0 is now in production. This includes a big change I wrote a while ago to how Bodhi handles various 'requirements' - https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/pull/5630 . One big visible change is that the karma requirements now match what the Updates Policy says, which they hav

[Test-Announce]Fedora Linux 41 Bodhi updates-testing activation & Beta freeze

Hi all, Today's an important day on the Fedora Linux 41 schedule [1], with several significant cut-offs. First, today is the Bodhi updates-testing activation point [2]. That means that from now on, all Fedora Linux 41 packages must be submitted for updates-testing and pass the rel

Re: Is it possible for Copr to use Bodhi build overrides?

ek 15. srpna 2024 22:27:11, SELČ Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Peter Lemenkov: > > > > > Hello All! > > > I have a few Bodhi build overrides and I love to use them in Copr. Is > > > it possible? At least is it possible to enable updates-testing > > > reposito

Re: Is it possible for Copr to use Bodhi build overrides?

On čtvrtek 15. srpna 2024 22:27:11, SELČ Florian Weimer wrote: > * Peter Lemenkov: > > > Hello All! > > I have a few Bodhi build overrides and I love to use them in Copr. Is > > it possible? At least is it possible to enable updates-testing > > repository? >

Re: Is it possible for Copr to use Bodhi build overrides?

* Peter Lemenkov: > Hello All! > I have a few Bodhi build overrides and I love to use them in Copr. Is > it possible? At least is it possible to enable updates-testing > repository? You can request a side tag and reference its repository in the Copr configuration. The repositori

Is it possible for Copr to use Bodhi build overrides?

Hello All! I have a few Bodhi build overrides and I love to use them in Copr. Is it possible? At least is it possible to enable updates-testing repository? -- With best regards, Peter Lemenkov. -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel

Re: Bodhi update for mesa stuck waiting on test gating?

On Wed, 2024-06-26 at 14:06 -0400, Scott Talbert wrote: > Hi, > > Can someone please check this update for mesa? [1] > > If I'm reading the results correctly, it seems like it is waiting on > update.server_freeipa_replication_replica for 64bit server, but if you > click on that test, it shows t

Bodhi update for mesa stuck waiting on test gating?

Hi, Can someone please check this update for mesa? [1] If I'm reading the results correctly, it seems like it is waiting on update.server_freeipa_replication_replica for 64bit server, but if you click on that test, it shows that test passed 3 hours ago. Thanks, Scott [1] https://bodhi.fedor

Fedora Linux 40 Bodhi updates-testing activation & Beta freeze

Hi all, Today's an important day on the Fedora Linux f40 schedule [1], with several significant cut-offs. First of all, today is the Bodhi updates-testing activation point [2]. That means that from now all Fedora Linux 40 packages must be submitted to updates-testing and pass the rel

Re: bodhi push error

On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 3:12 AM Christoph Junghans wrote: > > Hi, > > Has anybody seen this error before: > FEDORA-2024-310c0537ac ejected from the push because "Cannot find > relevant tag for gromacs-2023.4-1.fc39. None of ['f39-updates', > 'f39-updates-pending'] are in ['epel9-next-testing', 'epe

Re: bodhi push error

On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 9:12 PM Christoph Junghans wrote: > > Hi, > > Has anybody seen this error before: > FEDORA-2024-310c0537ac ejected from the push because "Cannot find > relevant tag for gromacs-2023.4-1.fc39. None of ['f39-updates', > 'f39-updates-pending'] are in ['epel9-next-testing', 'epe

Re: bodhi push error

x27;f38-flatpak-updates-testing', > 'f40-updates-testing', 'f38-updates-testing', > 'f38-container-updates-testing', 'f39-updates-testing', > 'f39-container-updates-testing', 'f39-flatpak-updates-testing']." I h

Re: Bodhi 8.0.2 deployed to prod

V Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 07:00:28PM +, Mattia Verga via devel napsal(a): > - There should be no more Updates ejected from the composes that remain > stuck in pending state due to wrong tags applied to their builds (or, > better, they should be automatically pushed again after 48 hours) > - The

bodhi push error

Hi, Has anybody seen this error before: FEDORA-2024-310c0537ac ejected from the push because "Cannot find relevant tag for gromacs-2023.4-1.fc39. None of ['f39-updates', 'f39-updates-pending'] are in ['epel9-next-testing', 'epel7-testing', 'eln-updates-testing', 'epel8-testing', 'epel9-testing', '

Bodhi 8.0.2 deployed to prod

Hello folks, we (well, mostly kevin) have just deployed Bodhi 8.0.2 in prod. There are several changes in the background, but what can be of some interest for you, users and developers, are these points: - Fixed “cannot access local variable ‘tags’” error when editing flatpak updates

Re: How can I delete a rawhide Bodhi update?

On Fri, 2023-11-24 at 09:51 +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > I must say this is really a rare case when an automatic update which is > gated by failing tests and stuck in testing It's really not *that* rare any more, since we do quite extensive gating of critical path updates on openQA test

Re: How can I delete a rawhide Bodhi update?

. How do I make >>>> sure that doesn't happen? >>>> >>>> As it's for rawhide, I didn't create the Bodhi update, and I don't see >>>> an option to delete it. >>>> >>> There's no option to delete Bodhi updates.

Re: How can I delete a rawhide Bodhi update?

thout admins intervening, your only option is to bump a release and do new build. The old, stuck update will get superseded by the new update. This is unfair. I remember times when there was no bodhi updates for rawhide - when you build something in rawhide it went to next compose and there was nothi

Re: How can I delete a rawhide Bodhi update?

7;t happen? > > > > > > As it's for rawhide, I didn't create the Bodhi update, and I > > > don't see > > > an option to delete it. > > > > > There's no option to delete Bodhi updates. It can only be done by > > hacking t

Re: How can I delete a rawhide Bodhi update?

; > > > > As it's for rawhide, I didn't create the Bodhi update, and I don't see > > > an option to delete it. > > > > > There's no option to delete Bodhi updates. It can only be done by > > hacking the database directly, but it is u

Re: How can I delete a rawhide Bodhi update?

* Mattia Verga via devel: > Il 23/11/23 16:40, Florian Weimer ha scritto: >> I've got an update that I don't see pushed to stable. How do I make >> sure that doesn't happen? >> >> As it's for rawhide, I didn't create the Bodhi update, and I

Re: How can I delete a rawhide Bodhi update?

Il 23/11/23 16:40, Florian Weimer ha scritto: > I've got an update that I don't see pushed to stable. How do I make > sure that doesn't happen? > > As it's for rawhide, I didn't create the Bodhi update, and I don't see > an option to delete it. > T

Re: How can I delete a rawhide Bodhi update?

On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 4:40 PM Florian Weimer wrote: > > I've got an update that I don't see pushed to stable. How do I make > sure that doesn't happen? > > As it's for rawhide, I didn't create the Bodhi update, and I don't see > an option to de

Re: How can I delete a rawhide Bodhi update?

V Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 04:40:39PM +0100, Florian Weimer napsal(a): > I've got an update that I don't see pushed to stable. How do I make > sure that doesn't happen? > > As it's for rawhide, I didn't create the Bodhi update, and I don't see > an option

How can I delete a rawhide Bodhi update?

I've got an update that I don't see pushed to stable. How do I make sure that doesn't happen? As it's for rawhide, I didn't create the Bodhi update, and I don't see an option to delete it. Thanks, Florian -- _

Re: Automatic check for bodhi updates not to break RPM dependencies

g > > back > > the previous soname. > > > > Apologies for the troubles. > > Hello, > > this is not the first time I saw a bodhi update that breaks dozens of > dependencies, goes unnoticed for a week and is automatically pushed stable, > only to discover m

Re: Automatic check for bodhi updates not to break RPM dependencies

On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 04:20:52PM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Miro Hrončok wrote: > > this is not the first time I saw a bodhi update that breaks dozens of > > dependencies, goes unnoticed for a week and is automatically pushed > > stable, only to discover

Re: Automatic check for bodhi updates not to break RPM dependencies

Miro Hrončok wrote: > this is not the first time I saw a bodhi update that breaks dozens of > dependencies, goes unnoticed for a week and is automatically pushed > stable, only to discover many packages fail to install. The most important measure would be to abolish automatic pushes. Th

Automatic check for bodhi updates not to break RPM dependencies

gdal-3.6.2-8.really3.5.3.fc37 to address this, please don't rebuild any dependencies in the meantime, as the new package will bring back the previous soname. Apologies for the troubles. Hello, this is not the first time I saw a bodhi update that breaks dozens of dependencies, goes unnot

Re: Bodhi API does not list f39 in pending releases

On 10/25/23 19:14, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: Il 25/10/23 12:54, Tomas Hrcka ha scritto: This looks like a bug in bodhi. Actually, it was done that way on purpose. The HTML rendered output shows frozen releases in the same table of pending releases by a hack, but for API purposes I just

Re: Bodhi API does not list f39 in pending releases

Il 25/10/23 12:54, Tomas Hrcka ha scritto: > This looks like a bug in bodhi. > Actually, it was done that way on purpose. The HTML rendered output shows frozen releases in the same table of pending releases by a hack, but for API purposes I just let the output being pedantic about the req

Re: Bodhi API does not list f39 in pending releases

On 10/25/23 15:17, Clement Verna wrote: On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 at 12:55, Tomas Hrcka <mailto:thr...@redhat.com>> wrote: This looks like a bug in bodhi. the web UI lists correct releases pending and current. On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 11:57 AM Pavel Březina mailto:pbrez...@r

Re: Bodhi API does not list f39 in pending releases

On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 3:17 PM Clement Verna wrote: > > On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 at 12:55, Tomas Hrcka wrote: >> >> This looks like a bug in bodhi. >> >> the web UI lists correct releases pending and current. >> >> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 11:57 AM Pavel Bř

Re: Bodhi API does not list f39 in pending releases

On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 at 12:55, Tomas Hrcka wrote: > This looks like a bug in bodhi. > > the web UI lists correct releases pending and current. > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 11:57 AM Pavel Březina > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > Fedora 39 stopped showing in pen

Re: Bodhi API does not list f39 in pending releases

This looks like a bug in bodhi. the web UI lists correct releases pending and current. On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 11:57 AM Pavel Březina wrote: > > Hi, > Fedora 39 stopped showing in pending releases (and is not in current > either) when using: > > curl https://bodhi.fedorapr

Bodhi API does not list f39 in pending releases

bodhi bug? We rely on this information to automatically pick up fedora versions for SSSD PR CI. Thanks. Pavel ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >