On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 03:34:28 +
Álvaro Castillo wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> Just that. Why is not included JFS on Anaconda?
>
At the moment there is a thread on "Desktop" what anaconda should do
for a workstation:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2014-February/009136.html
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 03:34:28 +
Álvaro Castillo wrote:
> Could be include JFS into Anaconda to next release? What's your
> opinion about JFS?
Apology wrong thread, in prior email:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2014-February/009195.html
___
Regards
Frank
frankly3d.com
--
Richard Fearn writes:
>>> Slightly off-topic: fedora-review is telling packagers NOT to add
>>> "Requires: jpackage-utils" to javadoc subpackages because that is added
>>> automatically, but I see no mention of this on
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java.
>>
>> Guidelines state that
Hi guys,
I have identified 551 packages on the Fedora 20 source DVD which are missing a
%check section in their spec files but are very likely to have a test suite. See
https://github.com/atodorov/fedora-scripts/blob/master/sample-data/fedora-20/srpms-with-tests-WITHOUT-check-in-fedora-20-dvd
F
On 02/25/2014 11:45 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> Hi guys,
> I have identified 551 packages on the Fedora 20 source DVD which are
> missing a %check section in their spec files but are very likely to have
> a test suite. See
> https://github.com/atodorov/fedora-scripts/blob/master/sample-data/fedo
On 02/24/2014 08:57 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
WG meeting will be at 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting on Freenode.
== Topic ==
# additional repository
fedora-{incubator,ugly}
* better name than ugly based on content of repo
* github-like frontend f
- Original Message -
> On 02/19/2014 08:57 PM, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> > * Open floor (t8m, 19:45:44)
> >* AGREED: FESCo expects the Tech specs/docs from working groups by
> > March 3rd at the latest (+7, -0, 0:0) (t8m, 19:50:38)
> >* ACTION: t8m will update the weekly reports ti
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:45:11 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> Hi guys,
> I have identified 551 packages on the Fedora 20 source DVD which are missing
> a
> %check section in their spec files but are very likely to have a test suite.
> See
> https://github.com/atodorov/fedora-scripts/blob/maste
На 25.02.2014 13:40, Michael Schwendt написа:
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:45:11 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
Hi guys,
I have identified 551 packages on the Fedora 20 source DVD which are missing a
%check section in their spec files but are very likely to have a test suite. See
https://github.com/
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> On 02/24/2014 08:57 PM, drago01 wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Marcela Mašláňová
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> WG meeting will be at 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting on Freenode.
>>>
>>> == Topic ==
>>> # additional repository
>>> fedora
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:47:01 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> >> https://github.com/atodorov/fedora-scripts/blob/master/sample-data/fedora-20/srpms-with-tests-WITHOUT-check-in-fedora-20-dvd
> >>
> >
> > Could you add a short classifier to each src.rpm name, which sums up why
> > your checker beli
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 03:34 +, Álvaro Castillo wrote:
> Could be include JFS into Anaconda to next release? What's your
> opinion about JFS?
What benefit would be provided by offering a filesystem that we have
(afaik) zero people supporting?
Note one: choice for its own sake is not a benefit
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 12:45 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> 1) Do we consider this a bug and if yes what priority do you give it? From
> last
> week discussions it looks like most people prefer to have tests executed in
> %check.
I don't consider %check to be an appropriate way to run tests,
- Original Message -
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> tl;dr: FESCo needs to know what is going to need extra time to deliver
> Fedora.next in the Fedora 21 cycle.
>
>
> Now that the Fedora.next product PRDs have been approved, the next
> phase is to plan our executio
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>> We do not have a formal process in place for organizing such planning
>> efforts, but as a provisional one, we'd like to take the following steps:
>
> We do have a formal process in place - Change process. I'm going to
> announce it right
- Original Message -
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>
> >> We do not have a formal process in place for organizing such planning
> >> efforts, but as a provisional one, we'd like to take the following steps:
> >
> > We do have a formal process in place - Change
На 25.02.2014 13:57, Michael Schwendt написа:
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:47:01 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
https://github.com/atodorov/fedora-scripts/blob/master/sample-data/fedora-20/srpms-with-tests-WITHOUT-check-in-fedora-20-dvd
Could you add a short classifier to each src.rpm name, which
On 02/25/2014 07:24 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 02/24/2014 10:47 PM, Noriko Hosoi wrote:
Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/24/2014 09:00 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
Hello,
IPA team filled this ticket
https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/47553.
It requires an ACI improvement so that durin
2014-02-24 5:16 GMT+01:00 Kevin Kofler :
> It is very obvious that autokarma is NOT working. It is causing way more
> breakage than direct stable pushes (or manual pushes with "too little"
> karma) ever caused. If direct stable pushes (or manual pushes with "too
> little" karma) were so bad a prob
On 02/24/2014 11:35 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/24/2014 02:47 PM, Noriko Hosoi wrote:
Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/24/2014 09:00 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
Hello,
IPA team filled this ticket
https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/47553.
It requires an ACI improvement so that durin
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 08:50:18AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 12:45 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
>
> > 1) Do we consider this a bug and if yes what priority do you give it? From
> > last
> > week discussions it looks like most people prefer to have tests executed in
>
On 02/25/2014 07:42 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 02/25/2014 03:34 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/25/2014 07:24 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 02/24/2014 10:47 PM, Noriko Hosoi wrote:
Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/24/2014 09:00 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
Hello,
IPA team filled this ticket
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 15:45 +0100, Matthias Runge wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 08:50:18AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > This is an argument against %check, not against testing in general. We
> > should be relying on rpmbuild less, not more. rpm doesn't even have
> > anything like Requires(ch
Hello,
Ticket https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/47553, is a 389-ds
enhancement to allow a finer access control during a MODDN (new
superior) operation. The use case being to allow/deny a bound user
to move an entry from one specified part of the DIT to an other part.
This without
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:01:06AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> You are failing to distinguish between "pushed to package git" and
> "pushed to an installable repository", which is a mistake.
I'm distinguishing:
1. package compiles successfully
2. rpmbuild manages to include all files into an rpm
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:32:37 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> > Well, your check may be too simplified. I've had a look at
> >
> >/mnt/fedora/l/libetpan-1.1-7.fc20.src.rpm
> >
> > and it contains a "tests" subdir with a few test programs, but no test-suite
> > to run automatically.
> >
>
> I
On 02/25/2014 04:45 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/25/2014 08:28 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 02/25/2014 04:17 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/25/2014 08:14 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 02/25/2014 03:46 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 02/25/2014 07:42 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 02/25/2014 0
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
wrote:
>
> Since javadoc subpackages put files in /usr/share/javadoc they must
> require package that provides this directory.
In my opinion all javadocs should be crosslinked with local JDK's
javadocs (+ others as appropriate) and have a dep
#fedora-meeting: Env and Stacks (2014-02-25)
Meeting started by mmaslano at 16:02:04 UTC. The full logs are available
at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2014-02-25/env-and-stacks.2014-02-25-
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 12:45 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
>
>> 1) Do we consider this a bug and if yes what priority do you give it? From
>> last
>> week discussions it looks like most people prefer to have tests executed in
>> %check.
>
>
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 12:45:11PM +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> Hi guys,
> I have identified 551 packages on the Fedora 20 source DVD which are
> missing a %check section in their spec files but are very likely to
> have a test suite. See
> https://github.com/atodorov/fedora-scripts/blob/maste
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
So, I have an interesting problem to solve. I have a package that
installs a web application[1] that is run automatically with
httpd.service. The package can be deployed for one or more "sites" on
the system (which may be different apache virtual hosts
On Tue, 25.02.14 14:55, Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com) wrote:
> There are actually two pieces to this that I'd like to see (and
> hopefully have someone tell me are already possible):
>
> 1. The ability to add new ExecStartPre commands to the httpd service
> when installing new site
Hi!
As FESCo agreed on the last meeting to continue with current Change
process as is for Fedora 21 [1] and work on "final" schedule is ongoing
(see Stephan Gallagher's mail earlier), please participate and
submit your Change proposals as soon as possible.
With Fedora.next in mind, I'd like to ask
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/25/2014 03:07 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Tue, 25.02.14 14:55, Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com)
> wrote:
>
>> There are actually two pieces to this that I'd like to see (and
>> hopefully have someone tell me are already possible):
On Tue, 25.02.14 15:49, Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com) wrote:
> In the specific case I'm looking at, I'm not (necessarily) talking
> about separate httpd instances. Rather, I'm talking about either
> different virtual hosts or different paths on the same virtual host.
>
> For example, I
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 03:45:51PM +0100, Matthias Runge wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 08:50:18AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 12:45 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> >
> > > 1) Do we consider this a bug and if yes what priority do you give it?
> > > From last
> > > we
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 22:38 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 03:45:51PM +0100, Matthias Runge wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 08:50:18AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 12:45 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> > >
> > > > 1) Do we consider this a
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 22:41 +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Tue, 25.02.14 15:49, Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> > In the specific case I'm looking at, I'm not (necessarily) talking
> > about separate httpd instances. Rather, I'm talking about either
> > different virtual
On 25 February 2014 16:04, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 22:41 +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Tue, 25.02.14 15:49, Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com) wrote:
> >
> > > In the specific case I'm looking at, I'm not (necessarily) talking
> > > about separate httpd instances.
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 03:45:51PM +0100, Matthias Runge wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 08:50:18AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 12:45 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
>> >
>> > > 1) Do we consider this a bug an
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
meeting Wednesday at 18:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net.
To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto
or run:
date -d '2014-02-26 18:00 UTC'
Links to all tickets below
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 18:35 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> Just to mention: there are probably many packages where the equivalent
> of %check can't be run without access to a source tree, so Taskotron
> can't usefully replace %check. I maintain a package like that.
How do you get from that pr
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 20:13 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can reply to
> this e-mail, file a new ticket at https://fedorahosted.org/fesco,
> e-mail me directly, or bring it up at the end of the meeting, during
> the open floor topic. Note that ad
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:56:43 +0800
Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 20:13 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can reply to
> > this e-mail, file a new ticket at https://fedorahosted.org/fesco,
> > e-mail me directly, or bring it up at
On Tuesday 25 February 2014 22:41:29 Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Tue, 25.02.14 15:49, Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > For example, I might have
> >
> > http://reviews.myserver.com/systemd-reviews/
> > http://reviews.myserver.com/networkmanager-reviews/
> > http://otherreview
46 matches
Mail list logo
