On Fri, 2016-10-21 at 19:48 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:51:25AM +0200, Julien Enselme wrote:
>
> >
> > I guess that in this case you mean the (co)maintainer of the
> > retired
> > package not its dependencies. Can I ask what permissions on the
> > package
> > are required
> = Proposed Self Contained Change:Blivet-GUI in Anaconda =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/AnacondaBlivetGUI
>
> Change owner(s):
> * Martin Kolman * Vojtěch Trefný
>
> Add blivet-gui as an alternative option for storage configuration in
> Anaconda Installer.
>
>
> == Detailed Desc
On Sun, 2016-10-23 at 03:49 +, Christopher wrote:
> 2. Should I preserve the entire changelog in the SPEC? Or should I
> roll it
> over when I update to the latest upstream? It seems the changelog
> could
> easily become the bulk of a package if everything is preserved, and
> I'd
> think git wo
OLD: Fedora-25-20161022.n.0
NEW: Fedora-25-20161023.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:2
Dropped images: 4
Added packages: 1
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 71
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 245.68 KiB
Size of dropped packages:0.00 B
Size
On 10/23/2016 04:09 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Sun, 2016-10-23 at 03:49 +, Christopher wrote:
2. Should I preserve the entire changelog in the SPEC? Or should I
roll it
over when I update to the latest upstream? It seems the changelog
could
easily become the bulk of a package if everyth
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Michael Catanzaro
wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-10-23 at 03:49 +, Christopher wrote:
>> 2. Should I preserve the entire changelog in the SPEC? Or should I
>> roll it
>> over when I update to the latest upstream? It seems the changelog
>> could
>> easily become the bul
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-10-23 at 03:49 +, Christopher wrote:
>> 2. Should I preserve the entire changelog in the SPEC? Or should I
>> roll it
>> over when I update to the latest upstream? It seems the changelog
>> could
>> easily become the bulk
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Michael Catanzaro
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 2016-10-23 at 03:49 +, Christopher wrote:
>>> 2. Should I preserve the entire changelog in the SPEC? Or should I
>>> roll it
>>> over when I update to the latest u
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 5/101 (x86_64), 2/17 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
ID: 43302 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso
desktop_notifications_postinstall
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/43302
ID: 43318 Test: i386 KDE-live-iso install_default
URL: https://openq
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 10:35 AM Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 10/23/2016 04:09 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > On Sun, 2016-10-23 at 03:49 +, Christopher wrote:
> >> 2. Should I preserve the entire changelog in the SPEC? Or should I
> >> roll it
> >> over when I update to the latest upstream?
On Sun, 2016-10-23 at 16:31 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > SUSE has a %changelog RPM macro that fixes this by
> > moving the changelog into a .changes file stored in the same
> directory.
> > Every SUSE package uses it. Probably we should too?
>
> No. That said, I personally consider SUSE's add
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 10:37:17AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> In Mageia, we use the VCS log as input to dynamically generate the RPM
> changelog and append it to the spec as part of the SRPM build process
> for the package build.
This would be far better than the current situation IMHO. There's n
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 03:39:06PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Michael Catanzaro
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2016-10-23 at 03:49 +, Christopher wrote:
> >> 2. Should I preserve the entire changelog in the SPEC? Or should I
> >> roll it
> >> over when I update to t
On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 16:21:25 +, Christopher wrote:
> > Our rules is "leave it to the packager's personal preference" and to
> > "keep what's important".
>
> I'm curious, what *IS* important?
1.) Don't copy upstream changelogs into the spec %changelog.
2.) Mention everything that may affect
# F25 Blocker Review meeting
# Date: 2016-10-24
# Time: 16:00 UTC
# Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net
Hi folks! We currently have 2 proposed Final blockers to review. There
are also 11 accepted Final blockers to check in on and 3 proposed Final
freeze exceptions we could also lo
# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting
# Date: 2016-10-24
# Time: 15:00 UTC
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto)
# Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net
Greetings testers!
It's meeting time again tomorrow! We still have the validation results
change proposal to kick about
16 matches
Mail list logo