On Thu, 2019-05-23 at 17:17 -0400, Christopher wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 7:18 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 23. 05. 19 1:15, Christopher wrote:
> > > Is there ever going to be a replacement for the old pkgdb "Take"
> > > button to take over orphaned p
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 7:18 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 23. 05. 19 1:15, Christopher wrote:
> > Is there ever going to be a replacement for the old pkgdb "Take"
> > button to take over orphaned packages?
> > The current process of submitting a releng ticke
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 7:58 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> On 5/23/19 3:22 AM, Brian (bex) Exelbierd wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > What is now sending fedmsg events when a new package is added to
> > Fedora? Amongst other thigns, we have a badge that isn't being
> > awarded and I can't even figure out how t
On 5/23/19 3:22 AM, Brian (bex) Exelbierd wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What is now sending fedmsg events when a new package is added to
> Fedora? Amongst other thigns, we have a badge that isn't being
> awarded and I can't even figure out how to easily audit to catch it
> up.
Should be:
https://apps.fedora
Hi,
What is now sending fedmsg events when a new package is added to
Fedora? Amongst other thigns, we have a badge that isn't being
awarded and I can't even figure out how to easily audit to catch it
up.
thanks,
bex
--
Brian "bex" Exelbierd (he/him/his)
Fedora Community Action & Impact Coordin
On 23. 05. 19 1:15, Christopher wrote:
Is there ever going to be a replacement for the old pkgdb "Take"
button to take over orphaned packages?
The current process of submitting a releng ticket, and waiting for
somebody to take manual action, seems much worse than the old pkgdb
solut
Is there ever going to be a replacement for the old pkgdb "Take"
button to take over orphaned packages?
The current process of submitting a releng ticket, and waiting for
somebody to take manual action, seems much worse than the old pkgdb
solution.
Given the previous (ongoing?) mass
On 03/23/2018 10:11 PM, Christopher wrote:
>>
> Thanks. That clarifies things significantly. "Docs could definitely be
> better" is a severe understatement :)
>
> FWIW, I found the-new-hotness code at
> https://github.com/fedora-infra/the-new-hotness
> I was going to try to do a pull request to im
bugs being filed (or at least... interested in trying it
> out).
> >
> > It also references pkgdb, but pkgdb is no longer available.
>
> See the downthread post for link...
>
> >
> > Also, why is this confusingly called "the-new-hotness" instead of s
gt; > in bugs being filed (or at least... interested in trying it out).
> >
> > It also references pkgdb, but pkgdb is no longer available.
> >
> > Also, why is this confusingly called "the-new-hotness" instead of simply
> > "release-monitoring.org
On 03/23/2018 08:27 PM, Christopher wrote:
> I received the following message about a new version of a package, but I'm
> unable to figure out how to change these settings, because I *AM*
> interested in bugs being filed (or at least... interested in trying it out).
>
> It a
On Sat, 24 Mar 2018, Christopher wrote:
I received the following message about a new version of a package, but I'm
unable to figure out how to change these settings, because I *AM* interested
in bugs being filed (or at least... interested in trying it out).
It also references pkgdb, but
I received the following message about a new version of a package, but I'm
unable to figure out how to change these settings, because I *AM*
interested in bugs being filed (or at least... interested in trying it out).
It also references pkgdb, but pkgdb is no longer available.
Also, why is
On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 08:50:58AM +0200, Adam Samalik wrote:
> RPMs... Well, if someone has an application on their server that doesn't
> run in a container, there are still RPMs on a traditional system. But would
> you install multiple versions stuff on that single system? Or would other
> things
Adam Williamson wrote:
> pkgdb had an API endpoint, 'collections', which was useful as a
> reliable source of information about available Fedora releases and
> their status. It still exists now, until pkgdb is entirely turned off:
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 09:51:40PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 08:06:22PM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > >I swear we talked about this somewhere before. I can't find the
> > >ticket, though.
> > Possibly https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/23
> Yes! That was t
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 08:06:22PM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> >I swear we talked about this somewhere before. I can't find the
> >ticket, though.
> Possibly https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/23
Yes! That was totally it. Thanks.
--
Matthew Miller
Fedora Project Leader
___
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
I swear we talked about this somewhere before. I can't find the
ticket,
though.
Possibly https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/23
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 02:13:17PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> There's an important consequence of this that I only realized today.
>
> pkgdb had an API endpoint, 'collections', which was useful as a
> reliable source of information about available Fedora releases a
On Fri, 2017-05-26 at 15:42 -0400, Ralph Bean wrote:
> To make this happen requires significant infrastructure changes. Our
> proposed plan[4] is to decommission PkgDB entirely and to replace it
> with a combination of PDC[5] and pagure over dist-git. (Tangentially,
> getting pagu
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Dridi Boukelmoune
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I just received the notification above and I'm very surprised. I
> retired this package before f26 was branched because of
> incompatibility with recent Varnish releases.
>
> The old pkgdb web
Am 16.08.2017 um 21:36 schrieb Dridi Boukelmoune:
-- Forwarded message --
From:
Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 5:46 PM
Subject: pkgdb created branch 'f27' for the 'rpms/varnish-agent' package
To: dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com
pkgdb created branch 'f27
-- Forwarded message --
From:
Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 5:46 PM
Subject: pkgdb created branch 'f27' for the 'rpms/varnish-agent' package
To: dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com
pkgdb created branch 'f27' for the 'rpms/varnish-agent' package
Dne 12.6.2017 v 21:01 Ralph Bean napsal(a):
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 01:09:28PM +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>> Hello , pkgdb also have Monitoring settings, Koschei integration,
>> timeline and Anitya , where do we have this on Pagure over Dist-Git ?
> The Koschei integratio
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 01:09:28PM +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Hello , pkgdb also have Monitoring settings, Koschei integration,
> timeline and Anitya , where do we have this on Pagure over Dist-Git ?
The Koschei integration is going to move into Koschei's web UI.
(Koschei actually
Hello , pkgdb also have Monitoring settings, Koschei integration,
timeline and Anitya , where do we have this on Pagure over Dist-Git ?
Thanks
On Sun, 2017-06-11 at 23:27 -0400, Scott Talbert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I read the page about the PkgDB replacement[1] but it seems
To search packages you could use
https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Hi,
I read the page about the PkgDB replacement[1] but it seems to focus
mainly on the "logged in" functionality of PkgDB. However, I also use
PkgDB as a convenient way for searching all of Fedora's packages. In
addition, I find the Builds status, Updates status, Pack
/*Adam Samalik*/ wrote on Fri, 9 Jun 2017 08:50:58 +0200:
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Randy Barlow
mailto:bowlofe...@fedoraproject.org>>
wrote:
On Thu, 2017-06-08 at 22:17 +0200, Adam Samalik wrote:
> You add the package and other people start to use it. That's great
> unt
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Randy Barlow
wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-06-08 at 22:17 +0200, Adam Samalik wrote:
> > You add the package and other people start to use it. That's great
> > until you need to change the version, but can't, because other people
> > started to use it as a dependency and
On Thu, 2017-06-08 at 22:17 +0200, Adam Samalik wrote:
> You add the package and other people start to use it. That's great
> until you need to change the version, but can't, because other people
> started to use it as a dependency and it would break their stuff.
I recently heard that it will be i
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 08/06/17 18:54, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 06:48:27PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
>>
>>> I mean it would probably still be quite daunting for somebody that
>>> did want to get into more detail I guess but I think I wound
On 08/06/17 18:54, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 06:48:27PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
I mean it would probably still be quite daunting for somebody that
did want to get into more detail I guess but I think I wound up
there following through from some of the other stuff about arbit
On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 06:48:27PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
> I mean it would probably still be quite daunting for somebody that
> did want to get into more detail I guess but I think I wound up
> there following through from some of the other stuff about arbitrary
> branching and I was mostly just
e document and found it
was a long and detailed list of steps the sysadmins would need to
take to roll it out rather than an explanation of what it meant for
end users and gave up at that point on trying to understand what it
meant beyond moving from pkgdb to pagure over dist-git.
Th
licked through to the document and found it was a long and
> detailed list of steps the sysadmins would need to take to roll it out
> rather than an explanation of what it meant for end users and gave up at
> that point on trying to understand what it meant beyond moving from pkgdb
> to
ing to understand what it meant beyond
moving from pkgdb to pagure over dist-git.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 10:38:11AM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Normally I ignore any Modularity discussion. It doesn't interest me,
> and it doesn't affect any projects I work on. It's my own fault that
> this change, which does affect me, was not on my radar. I'm not
> looking to stop the
On 06/08/2017 10:24 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
Speaking as someone on both side of doors... this is not something that
was developed in secret at all. It's something that was implied by the
modularity work — which has been very open — and the change "in the
open last month" is all there is to it.
On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 09:42:45AM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> This change, which is a pretty radical change, was only brought out
> in the open last month. It's now being shovelled down our throats
> after being behind closed doors for who knows how long. This is a
> dramatic reversal from
On 06/08/2017 09:13 AM, Michael J Gruber wrote:
So, PkgDB now comes with a big fat warning saying:
"Attention! PkgDB will be replaced during the week of July 10th, 2017.
Please read the following for migration instructions:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/WhatHappenedToPkgdb&
So, PkgDB now comes with a big fat warning saying:
"Attention! PkgDB will be replaced during the week of July 10th, 2017.
Please read the following for migration instructions:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/WhatHappenedToPkgdb";
If I go there I find no "migrati
feeds into multiple releases. For other packages, it makes sense
> to have multiple branches which correlate with multiple upstream minor
> releases. Today, our source branches are tied to the distro release,
> via PkgDB. We want to decouple that and use modules to put it all
> back
On 06/02/2017 06:02 PM, Ralph Bean wrote:
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 12:41:57PM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>> Dne 26.5.2017 v 21:42 Ralph Bean napsal(a):
>>> Any feedback before that would be
>>> greatly appreciated.
>>
>> PkgDB handles Koschei and upstrea
nto multiple releases. For other packages, it makes sense
> to have multiple branches which correlate with multiple upstream minor
> releases. Today, our source branches are tied to the distro release,
> via PkgDB. We want to decouple that and use modules to put it all
> back together
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 12:41:57PM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 26.5.2017 v 21:42 Ralph Bean napsal(a):
> > Any feedback before that would be
> > greatly appreciated.
>
> PkgDB handles Koschei and upstream monitoring settings too. How I can do that
> after the migr
On 05/29/2017 04:41 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 26.5.2017 v 21:42 Ralph Bean napsal(a):
>> Any feedback before that would be
>> greatly appreciated.
>
> PkgDB handles Koschei and upstream monitoring settings too. How I can do that
> after the migration?
The wiki pag
Dne 26.5.2017 v 21:42 Ralph Bean napsal(a):
> Any feedback before that would be
> greatly appreciated.
PkgDB handles Koschei and upstream monitoring settings too. How I can do that
after the migration?
Does this change somehow affect fedora-packages (aka Moksha)
https://apps.fedoraproje
, our source branches are tied to the distro release,
via PkgDB. We want to decouple that and use modules to put it all
back together again.
To make this happen requires significant infrastructure changes. Our
proposed plan[4] is to decommission PkgDB entirely and to replace it
with a combination
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon
wrote:
> Before I investigate what it would take to drop pkgdb entirely and let pagure
> handle the ACLs, I wanted to hear from you if you think this is a terrible
> idea
> or worth investigating.
I think it's fine to drop pe
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:09:47AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Kevin, I genuinely don't understand your worry here. If Fedora had a
> > long per-release lifetime already, and we were talking about shortening
> > it, that'd be one thing, but I think the most common situation will
> > actually be
El vie, 24-03-2017 a las 19:37 +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon escribió:
> Hi everyone,
>
> As I am working on bringing pagure as a front-end to our dist-git, a
> question is
> troubling me.
>
> Currently ACLs are stored in pkgdb, it allows having a per-branch ACL
> model,
&g
Matthew Miller wrote:
> Kevin, I genuinely don't understand your worry here. If Fedora had a
> long per-release lifetime already, and we were talking about shortening
> it, that'd be one thing, but I think the most common situation will
> actually be modules which have *longer* lifetime, and which
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 12:06:47PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
>
> Dne 25.3.2017 v 07:14 Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a):
> > On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 01:45:12AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >> Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> >>> Of course, EPEL vs Fedora comes to mind here, but I wonder: if the EPEL
> >
Dne 25.3.2017 v 07:14 Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a):
> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 01:45:12AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
>>> Of course, EPEL vs Fedora comes to mind here, but I wonder: if the EPEL
>>> maintainer has also commit on the Fedora branches, is it really that muc
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 01:45:12AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> As I already mentioned in person when this came up in a DevConf talk, I
> think that this is a plan that will likely break a lot of things, especially
> the expectations all our users rely on (that everything in Everything has a
> c
> As I already mentioned in person when this came up in a DevConf talk, I
> think that this is a plan that will likely break a lot of things, especially
> the expectations all our users rely on (that everything in Everything has a
> consistent guaranteed life time), and that doing away with that
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 01:45:12AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > Of course, EPEL vs Fedora comes to mind here, but I wonder: if the EPEL
> > maintainer has also commit on the Fedora branches, is it really that much
> > of a big deal? And vice-versa?
>
> Well, I don't w
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 01:45:12AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > Of course, EPEL vs Fedora comes to mind here, but I wonder: if the EPEL
> > maintainer has also commit on the Fedora branches, is it really that much
> > of a big deal? And vice-versa?
>
> Well, I don't w
On 03/25/2017 01:45 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
Of course, EPEL vs Fedora comes to mind here, but I wonder: if the EPEL
maintainer has also commit on the Fedora branches, is it really that much
of a big deal? And vice-versa?
Well, I don't want to get the EPEL bugs assigne
Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> Of course, EPEL vs Fedora comes to mind here, but I wonder: if the EPEL
> maintainer has also commit on the Fedora branches, is it really that much
> of a big deal? And vice-versa?
Well, I don't want to get the EPEL bugs assigned to me.
> PS2: I am also considering thi
the occasional git revert doesn't work then you have a much greater
> problem anyway.
>
> So per-branch _enforcement_ of ACLs doesn't seem particularly important
> to me, but I think it would still be useful to keep track somewhere.
> And of course we have to tell bugzilla so
On Fri, 2017-03-24 at 15:37 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Oh good — this was going to be my comment… having different main
> contacts and package admins might be.
Oh good — this was going to be my comment ☺
I do like and use the ability to have bug reports for different
branches go to different
I also wanted to add that a small bit of ACL flexibility is a very small
cost if we gain what Pagure offers. Easy personal package forks. Pull
requests for packages. I'd give up more than per-branch ACLs for that,
certainly.
- J<
___
devel mailing li
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 07:37:59PM +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> PS2: I am also considering this question having in mind the change in
> branching model the modularity work will bring (ie: branch no longer
> tied to a Fedora version but rather to upstream's version)
Oh good — this was going t
> "PC" == Pierre-Yves Chibon writes:
PC> So, does per-branch ACLs make sense to you? Have you had cases where
PC> you thought it was good/bad? More importantly, have you had cases
PC> where you would want to give someone access to just one branch and
PC> really really do *not* want them to ha
Hi everyone,
As I am working on bringing pagure as a front-end to our dist-git, a question is
troubling me.
Currently ACLs are stored in pkgdb, it allows having a per-branch ACL model,
which in itself is quite cool, but I wonder: is it that useful?
I know pkgdb brings us other things too and I
On 21.12.2016 23:52, Till Maas wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:34:16PM +0100, Sandro Mani wrote:
Side-note: the new package request allows either full url or just BZ ticket
number. Perhaps the unretirement form could be made to also accept both
inputs.
Yes, a fix is already queued for the
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:34:16PM +0100, Sandro Mani wrote:
> Side-note: the new package request allows either full url or just BZ ticket
> number. Perhaps the unretirement form could be made to also accept both
> inputs.
Yes, a fix is already queued for the next release of the admin tool that
p
ct in your assessment and I'd
certainly call it a bug.
Can you see if you can change the status of
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/admin/action/9237/status to
"Obsolete" and then file a new ticket with the proper info?
FWIW I reviewed the request and approved it.
Thanks!
'd
> certainly call it a bug.
>
> Can you see if you can change the status of
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/admin/action/9237/status to
> "Obsolete" and then file a new ticket with the proper info?
FWIW I reviewed the request and approved it. However cou
ure
ticket instead of the mailing list, but I happened to see your message.
As far as I can tell, you're correct in your assessment and I'd
certainly call it a bug.
Can you see if you can change the status of
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/admin/action/9237/stat
ntos
> wrote:
>
> > On 12/19/2016 02:34 PM, Greg Hellings wrote:
> >
> >> I've been trying to log into pkgdb for the past few days - every
> >> time I do,
> >> I get a 500 error response from the id.fedoraproject.org page
> >> doing the S
Hi
I filed the request to unretire eigen2, but I accidentally specified
only the rhbz ticket number instead of the full URL so it got denied
with "Invalid review BZ". I now tried filing a new unretirement request
with the full ticket url, but now I'm getting
Could not save the request for br
een trying to log into pkgdb for the past few days - every time I
>> do,
>> I get a 500 error response from the id.fedoraproject.org page doing the
>> SSO. I thought this was a temporary thing, but I first noticed the problem
>> back on Friday morning and it has persisted
On 12/19/2016 02:34 PM, Greg Hellings wrote:
I've been trying to log into pkgdb for the past few days - every time I do,
I get a 500 error response from the id.fedoraproject.org page doing the
SSO. I thought this was a temporary thing, but I first noticed the problem
back on Friday mornin
I've been trying to log into pkgdb for the past few days - every time I do,
I get a 500 error response from the id.fedoraproject.org page doing the
SSO. I thought this was a temporary thing, but I first noticed the problem
back on Friday morning and it has persisted through the weekend and
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 07:44:21PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 05:12:19PM +0100, Dave Love wrote:
> > How do you change the homepage listed in a project's apps page and
> > "upstream" in pkgdb (e.g. in
> > https://apps.fedorap
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 05:12:19PM +0100, Dave Love wrote:
> How do you change the homepage listed in a project's apps page and
> "upstream" in pkgdb (e.g. in
> https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/powerman and the different one
> in https://admin.fedoraproject.org/
How do you change the homepage listed in a project's apps page and
"upstream" in pkgdb (e.g. in
https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/powerman and the different one
in https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/powerman/)?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedorap
oesn't make sense.
Yeah, could you file a bug on
https://github.com/fedora-infra/the-new-hotness about this, when you
ahve time, please? From a quick look at the code, it looks like you
will receive a notification like this if pkgdb monitoring is set to
False.. but you will receive *n
y?
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > the-new-hotness saw an update for eiciel, but pkgdb says the maintainers
> > are not interested in bugs being filed
> > https://release-monitoring.org/project/8847/
>
> It seems this happens when a new project is added to the rele
On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 12:19:07 -0500, Ralph Bean wrote:
> > https://release-monitoring.org/project/8847/
>
> Yeah, looking at the message history for eicil helps show what
> happened:
>
> https://apps.fedoraproject.org/datagrepper/raw?package=eiciel
>
> It looks like someone added eicil to
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> Subject: the-new-hotness saw an update for eiciel, but pkgdb says the
> maintainers are not interested in bugs being filed
>
>
> the-new-hotness saw an update for eiciel, but pkgdb says the maintainers are
> not interested in bugs bei
>
> the-new-hotness saw an update for eiciel, but pkgdb says the maintainers are
> not interested in bugs being filed
> https://release-monitoring.org/project/8847/
It seems this happens when a new project is added to the release
monitoring site and it finds the first release (tha
Anyone knows what this cryptic message is trying to tell?
What kind of "update" does it refer to?
Is this a belated notification about 0.9.11 which is in koji
since Dec 2015 already?
[...]
Begin forwarded message:
Subject: the-new-hotness saw an update for eiciel, but pkgd
On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 04:35:25PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 8.1.2016 v 14:45 Tom Hughes napsal(a):
> > On 08/01/16 13:41, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2016-01-08 at 13:36 +, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> >>> Hiya!
> >>>
> >>> Can the su
On Fri, 2016-01-08 at 16:45 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> That's not pkgdb.
No, but it still reports "(no description in pkgdb)"
> This is: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/ola/
>
> | rpms/ola (upstream)
> |
> | a framework for c
On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 14:58:55 +0100, Dave Olsthoorn wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-01-08 at 13:41 +, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> > Pkgdb picks up the summary and description from the spec itself, so
> > one
> > just needs to update the spec and it should reflect in pgkdb after
Dne 8.1.2016 v 14:45 Tom Hughes napsal(a):
> On 08/01/16 13:41, Ankur Sinha wrote:
>> On Fri, 2016-01-08 at 13:36 +, Ankur Sinha wrote:
>>> Hiya!
>>>
>>> Can the summary and description of a package be changed on pkgdb?
>>>
>>> Also, i
On Fri, 2016-01-08 at 13:41 +, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> Pkgdb picks up the summary and description from the spec itself, so
> one
> just needs to update the spec and it should reflect in pgkdb after
> the
> next push.
That seems weird to me because I forgot to add a description
On 08/01/16 13:41, Ankur Sinha wrote:
On Fri, 2016-01-08 at 13:36 +, Ankur Sinha wrote:
Hiya!
Can the summary and description of a package be changed on pkgdb?
Also, if it can't, is it OK if the summary and description on pkgdb
differ from the spec?
Ref: https://bugzilla.redha
On Fri, 2016-01-08 at 13:36 +, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> Hiya!
>
> Can the summary and description of a package be changed on pkgdb?
>
> Also, if it can't, is it OK if the summary and description on pkgdb
> differ from the spec?
>
> Ref: https://bugzilla.redhat.com
Hiya!
Can the summary and description of a package be changed on pkgdb?
Also, if it can't, is it OK if the summary and description on pkgdb
differ from the spec?
Ref: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1296914
--
Thanks,
Regards,
Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD"
http://fedorap
On 12/17/15, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
> But there are entries in pkgdb which can not be fetched that way:
>
> actdiag
> gnome-cpufreq-applet
> kf5-textwidgets
> nwdiag
> python-elementtree
> repsurgeon
> R-gnomeGUI
> seqdiag
> tetex-beamer
> tetex-pgf
> tet
W dniu 17.12.2015 o 16:11, Michael Schwendt pisze:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/?q=actdiag
doesn't find the git repo either.
Same for "seqdiag" and "nwdiag".
Review request for "actdiag":
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1072065
Watch this ->
| New Package SCM Request 2014-
On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 12:34:01 +0100, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
> But there are entries in pkgdb which can not be fetched that way:
>
> actdiag
$ fedpkg clone actdiag
Cloning into 'actdiag'...
FATAL: R any actdiag mschwendt DENIED by fallthru
(or you mis-spelled the reponam
> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/?q=actdiag
> doesn't find the git repo either.
>
> Same for "seqdiag" and "nwdiag".
Review request for "actdiag":
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1072065
Watch this ->
| New Package SCM Request 2014-03-04
| ===
| Package Name
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 02:40:01PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 13:13:31 +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
>
> > > pkgdb-cli list |cut -d" " -f4 |sort >$HTMP/fedoralist
>
> > After testing a few of them in pkgdb, they seem to be mar
On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 13:13:31 +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > pkgdb-cli list |cut -d" " -f4 |sort >$HTMP/fedoralist
> After testing a few of them in pkgdb, they seem to be marked as retired there
> as
> well:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/p
1 - 100 of 605 matches
Mail list logo
