On 09/02/2016 01:00 AM, Steve Dickson wrote:
Hello,
This is regard to bz1372136... as the bz says
From Koji logs :
- x86_64 and armv7hl have an issue in configure : checking for res_querydomain
in -lresolv... no
- i686 works : checking for res_querydomain in -lresolv... yes
This is strange,
On 08/31/2016 02:10 PM, Charalampos Stratakis wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> While checking out the SPEC file of python, it seems there were some packages
> that, while separate at some point, they got included in python's stdlib and
> then obsoleted as standalone packages (thus to cope with the change
On 09/02/2016 06:44 AM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> On 08/31/2016 02:10 PM, Charalampos Stratakis wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> While checking out the SPEC file of python, it seems there were some
>> packages that, while separate at some point, they got included in python's
>> stdlib and then obsoleted as
There are already some bugzillas open for some of the packages, e.g.:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249129
Of course I could prepare the patches and ask a proven packager for a rebuild,
but maybe that would be too invasive so I want to get some feedback first on
what could be the
All guidelines mandate the use of 292 binary rpms) with
unversioned Obsoletes or with >/=/>= Obsoletes.
It is causing problems with upgrade (if package is getting re-added)
or with 3rd-party repositories. Older package is obsoleting new
package.
Problem categories (in following text by "never" I
On 09/02/2016 07:14 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> All guidelines mandate the use of have some number of packages (179 source rpms -> 292 binary rpms) with
> unversioned Obsoletes or with >/=/>= Obsoletes.
>
> It is causing problems with upgrade (if package is getting re-added)
> or with 3rd-party re
Dne 31.8.2016 v 14:10 Charalampos Stratakis napsal(a):
> glacier-cli
Fixed. This was meant only for el6, but the %if was incorrectly constructed.
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Senior Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
h
ppisar set the monitor flag of perl-Getopt-Lucid to nobuild
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 01:14:13PM +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> Table of affected packages/maintainers:
> https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/broken-obsoletes/2016-09-02/broken-obsoletes.txt
I fixed open-vm-tools, only in dist-git.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http
On Fri, 2016-09-02 at 13:14 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> * Package replacement
> Package "storaged" has "Obsoletes: udisks2" -> take latest version
> from koji (2.1.7-1) and make Obsoletes versioned: udisks2 < 2.1.7-2
> storaged is not simple use-case as it replaces udisks2, but latter is
> still
On 09/02/2016 07:55 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-09-02 at 13:14 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
>> * Package replacement
>> Package "storaged" has "Obsoletes: udisks2" -> take latest version
>> from koji (2.1.7-1) and make Obsoletes versioned: udisks2 < 2.1.7-2
>> storaged is not simple
On 09/02/2016 02:36 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 09/02/2016 07:55 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>> On Fri, 2016-09-02 at 13:14 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
>>> * Package replacement
>>> Package "storaged" has "Obsoletes: udisks2" -> take latest version
>>> from koji (2.1.7-1) and make Obsoletes
On 09/02/2016 08:44 AM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> On 09/02/2016 02:36 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> On 09/02/2016 07:55 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2016-09-02 at 13:14 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
* Package replacement
Package "storaged" has "Obsoletes: udisks2" -> take latest v
On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 13:14:13 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> All guidelines mandate the use of have some number of packages (179 source rpms -> 292 binary rpms) with
> unversioned Obsoletes or with >/=/>= Obsoletes.
>
> It is causing problems with upgrade (if package is getting re-added)
> or with
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 13:14:13 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
>
>> All guidelines mandate the use of > have some number of packages (179 source rpms -> 292 binary rpms) with
>> unversioned Obsoletes or with >/=/>= Obsoletes.
>>
>> It is causing p
We need Vulkan loader which is now on review. I will take care of it ASAP.
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Why is the Vulkan driver being left out right now?
>
> Here's the RFE[1] from July asking for it to be enabled.
>
> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?
Why is the Vulkan driver being left out right now?
Here's the RFE[1] from July asking for it to be enabled.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356229
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 09/02/2016 08:59 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
We need Vulkan loader which is now on review. I will take care of it ASAP.
I see it[1] now. Thanks, Igor. If there is anything I can do to help with the review
just let me know.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308985
--
devel mail
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 13:14:13 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
>>
>>> All guidelines mandate the use of >> have some number of packages (179 source rpms -> 292 binary rpms) with
>>> unversio
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 13:14:13 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
>>
>>> All guidelines mandate the use of >> have some number of packages (179 source rpms -> 292 binary rpms) with
>>> unversio
There is the Non-responsive Maintainer Policy [0] however it takes way too
long, and in the end you will get ownership of the package, so if you want to
do a minor fix to a package (and the maintainer is not responding), you will
either need to wait 3+ weeks and then get the package and do it yo
On 09/02/2016 02:59 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 09/02/2016 01:00 AM, Steve Dickson wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> This is regard to bz1372136... as the bz says
>>
>> From Koji logs :
>> - x86_64 and armv7hl have an issue in configure : checking for
>> res_querydomain in -lresolv... no
>> - i686 wor
Missing expected images:
Cloud_base raw-xz i386
Atomic raw-xz x86_64
Failed openQA tests: 26/89 (x86_64), 3/17 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20160831.n.0):
ID: 31786 Test: x86_64 universal install_repository_http_graphical
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproj
Hi,
DNF-1.1.10 and DNF-PLUGINS-CORE-0.1.21 has been released. Note this
will be the last version and only critical bug fixes will be
backported into DNF-1. Look into release notes [1][2] for more
details. DNF-2 (current DNF upstream) will be actively developed and
take the lead.
DNF-2 release can
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 05:04:40PM +0200, Honza Silhan wrote:
>
> DNF-2 release candidate will land into rawhide. It will bring many new
> features and bug fixes. DNF-2 is using libdnf instead of hawkey or
> libhif. Unfortunately it brings some incompatibilities with previous
> version which were
Missing expected images:
Cloud_base raw-xz i386
Failed openQA tests: 11/89 (x86_64), 3/17 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test did not fail in 25-20160901.n.0):
ID: 31885 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso realmd_join_cockpit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/31885
ID: 31893
On Fri, 2016-09-02 at 08:47 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Well, if there was fallout during the Beta period, there would still
> be Final to
> revert it, but in general I agree: let's do it sooner rather than
> later, while
> we have more time to react.
OK, done. Hopefully nothing breaks.
--
d
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 05:04:40PM +0200, Honza Silhan wrote:
>>
>> DNF-2 release candidate will land into rawhide. It will bring many new
>> features and bug fixes. DNF-2 is using libdnf instead of hawkey or
>> libhif. Unfortunately it brings
On Fri, 2016-09-02 at 08:36 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Makes sense to me. Do we want to do F25 at the same time or wait
> until closer to
> Beta Freeze (2016-09-27)?
I just did both rawhide and F25.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/li
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the
FESCo meeting Friday at 16:00UTC 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 '2016-08-12 16:00 UTC'
Links to all tickets below c
On 09/02/2016 11:52 AM, Honza Silhan wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 05:04:40PM +0200, Honza Silhan wrote:
>>>
>>> DNF-2 release candidate will land into rawhide. It will bring many new
>>> features and bug fixes. DNF-2 is using libdnf instea
On 09/02/2016 12:54 PM, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> Stephen Gallagher writes:
>
>> On 09/02/2016 07:14 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
>>>
>>> * Weird obsoletes (broken)
>>> "krb5-server" has "Obsoletes: krb5-server-1.14.3-8.fc26.i686".
>>> Basically it will not obsolete anything because it's threated as
>>
On 09/02/2016 06:57 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 09/02/2016 12:54 PM, Robbie Harwood wrote:
>> Stephen Gallagher writes:
>>
>>> On 09/02/2016 07:14 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
* Weird obsoletes (broken)
"krb5-server" has "Obsoletes: krb5-server-1.14.3-8.fc26.i686".
Basically
On 09/02/2016 01:28 PM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> On 09/02/2016 06:57 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> On 09/02/2016 12:54 PM, Robbie Harwood wrote:
>>> Stephen Gallagher writes:
>>>
On 09/02/2016 07:14 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
>
> * Weird obsoletes (broken)
> "krb5-server" has "Obsole
DNF-2 release candidate will land into rawhide. It will bring many new
features and bug fixes. DNF-2 is using libdnf instead of hawkey or
libhif. Unfortunately it brings some incompatibilities with previous
version which were either needed to preserve compatibility with yum
Hello,
the transaction model that has been introduced with firewalld-0.4.2 makes it
possible to group rules together and to apply them at once and quick. For this
the restore commands of iptables, ip6tables and ebtables are used as long as
they are available.
At the moment the transaction model
On Friday, 02 September 2016 at 18:57, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 09/02/2016 12:54 PM, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> > Stephen Gallagher writes:
> >
> >> On 09/02/2016 07:14 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> >>>
> >>> * Weird obsoletes (broken)
> >>> "krb5-server" has "Obsoletes: krb5-server-1.14.3-8.fc26.
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 7:28 PM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> On 09/02/2016 06:57 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> On 09/02/2016 12:54 PM, Robbie Harwood wrote:
>>> Stephen Gallagher writes:
>>>
On 09/02/2016 07:14 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
>
> * Weird obsoletes (broken)
> "krb5-server" ha
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:24:10PM +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> DNF has nothing to do with Obsoletes. It's up to RPM how to handle it.
DNF might not, but Yum did. Hence
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1261034
--
Matthew Miller
Fedora Project Leader
--
devel mailing list
devel@list
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 10:34 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:24:10PM +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
>> DNF has nothing to do with Obsoletes. It's up to RPM how to handle it.
>
> DNF might not, but Yum did. Hence
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1261034
It's differe
Charalampos Stratakis wrote:
> The plan for renaming python is only for rawhide, while removing the
> Obsoletes/Provides might as well go in F25 as well, depending on the time
> frame that maintainers will be able to fix their packages.
Why can't those simple Provides just stay in forever? I reall
I would like to swap reviews with someone if they could take a look at
hyperscan: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372866
Thanks in advance!
JT
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Il 03/09/2016 03:53, jason taylor ha scritto:
I would like to swap reviews with someone if they could take a look at
hyperscan: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372866
Thanks in advance!
JT
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/
Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> Everyone OK if I retire it in rawhide now? I think if we were going to
> have any issue that would cause us to switch back to udisks, it would
> have manifested by now.
Actually, there is this one:
http://www.spinics.net/linux/fedora/fedora-kde/msg18000.html
Kev
On Sat, 2016-09-03 at 04:13 +0200, gil wrote:
>
> Il 03/09/2016 03:53, jason taylor ha scritto:
> >
> > I would like to swap reviews with someone if they could take a look
> > at
> >
> > hyperscan: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372866
> >
> > Thanks in advance!
> >
> > JT
> > --
45 matches
Mail list logo
