1. and 2.: Yes, it often takes at least 3 days for security critical updates in
important packages (e.g. kernel update to 4.8.3) to land.
I think the real challenge here is to continue shipping quality software while
reducing time to ship. Scratch builds and release-monitoring.org (Anitya) have
> On 10/30/2016 03:26 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> Fedora updates so often that attempts to pre-download anything updates
> related are pointless. Chances are you
> a) waste gobs of bandwidth downloading that changing data over and over
> again without ever using it
> b) when you actually *do*
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
>>
>>
>> The vulkan loader has
One good thing we would gain from using bodhi for rawhide is having all
packages signed, especially in Rawhide. Since rawhide is used by developers,
this is a pretty important thing to do.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsub
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Christian Stadelmann
wrote:
> 1. and 2.: Yes, it often takes at least 3 days for security critical updates
> in important packages (e.g. kernel update to 4.8.3) to land.
>
> I think the real challenge here is to continue shipping quality software
> while reducing
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 6:59 AM, Christian Stadelmann
wrote:
> One good thing we would gain from using bodhi for rawhide is having all
> packages signed, especially in Rawhide. Since rawhide is used by developers,
> this is a pretty important thing to do.
That's something that will be supported
OLD: Fedora-25-20161101.n.0
NEW: Fedora-25-20161102.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 2
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 0
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0.00 B
Size of dropped packages:626.80 KiB
Size
On 10/31/2016 05:10 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-10-31 at 15:09 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
>>
>> I think this kind of issue is really fixed the hard way, i.e. fixing
>> bugs and adding unimplemented features rather than just adding complex
>> UI workarounds.
>
> I think making it wo
On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 07:27:34 -0400
Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 6:59 AM, Christian Stadelmann
> wrote:
> > One good thing we would gain from using bodhi for rawhide is having
> > all packages signed, especially in Rawhide. Since rawhide is used
> > by developers, this is a pretty im
On Tuesday, 01 November 2016 at 13:05, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is mass bug filing material, I have been under the weather
> shortly after the first message on this thread but I have made more
> progress now. Enough to CC the packaging list too.
Actually, a check for this would be
On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 7:27:34 AM CDT Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 6:59 AM, Christian Stadelmann
>
> wrote:
> > One good thing we would gain from using bodhi for rawhide is having all
> > packages signed, especially in Rawhide. Since rawhide is used by
> > developers, this i
Hi,
I drafted a process to cover the evaluation of "Important bugs" [1].
It still needs some work on the wording, however it should be good
enough for review and comments. May I ask for a feedback and possibly
improvement proposals, please ?
[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Program_Mana
On 02/11/16 15:55, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Tuesday, 01 November 2016 at 13:05, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
Actually, a check for this would be useful to have in both
fedora-review
Actually, f-r is testing this since long. However, the review approach
is different: does this
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 5/101 (x86_64), 2/17 (i386)
New failures (same test did not fail in 25-20161101.n.0):
ID: 45375 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/45375
ID: 45376 Test: x86_64 Workstati
> I'm still curious if this elegant shell code could be used to enhance the
current tests f-r has. As noted, they are extremely expensive, in a class
of it's own besides the build and install tasks.
I don't think so, f-r works on packages built from a source rpm. This on
the other hand is a brute-
Consider we have package 'foo-libs' that provides set of libraries.
How do I get all dependant packages (for batch rebuild of dependencies after
package update)? Something which takes soft dependencies into account, too.
Some packages might depend on 'foo-libs' explicitly, some depend on soname
On 02/11/16 17:49, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
I'm still curious if this elegant shell code could be used to enhance
the current tests f-r has. As noted, they are extremely expensive, in a
class of it's own besides the build and install tasks.
I don't think so, f-r works on packages built from a
Sorry for the typo in $Subject, s/dependencies/dependant packages/ probably, or
"requiring" packages, according to "--whatrequires" syntax.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedorapro
On 11/02/2016 12:51 PM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> Consider we have package 'foo-libs' that provides set of libraries.
>
> How do I get all dependant packages (for batch rebuild of dependencies after
> package update)? Something which takes soft dependencies into account, too.
>
> Some packages migh
On 11/02/2016 01:09 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 11/02/2016 12:51 PM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
>> Consider we have package 'foo-libs' that provides set of libraries.
>>
>> How do I get all dependant packages (for batch rebuild of dependencies after
>> package update)? Something which takes soft d
On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 04:10:53PM +0100, Jan Kurik wrote:
> I drafted a process to cover the evaluation of "Important bugs" [1].
> It still needs some work on the wording, however it should be good
> enough for review and comments. May I ask for a feedback and possibly
> improvement proposals, ple
On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 1:38:57 PM CET Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 11/02/2016 01:09 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > On 11/02/2016 12:51 PM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> >> Consider we have package 'foo-libs' that provides set of libraries.
> >>
> >> How do I get all dependant packages (for batc
On Sun, 2016-10-30 at 08:50 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On a related note, why on earth is the main Fedora repo set to expire
> every two weeks? (and its -source and -debuginfo every week??) It's not
> supposed to change *ever* for a released distro version now is it?
You know, this may be m
On Wed, 2016-11-02 at 10:49 +, Christian Stadelmann wrote:
> > On 10/30/2016 03:26 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > Fedora updates so often that attempts to pre-download anything updates
> > related are pointless. Chances are you
> > a) waste gobs of bandwidth downloading that changing data
El 2/11/2016 12:16 p. m., "Adam Williamson"
escribió:
>
> On Sun, 2016-10-30 at 08:50 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > On a related note, why on earth is the main Fedora repo set to expire
> > every two weeks? (and its -source and -debuginfo every week??) It's not
> > supposed to change *ever* fo
Yeah, sorry, looks like either hyperkitty or I messed up.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2016-11-03 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.freenode.net.
Local time information (via. rktime):
2016-11-03 09:00 Thu US/Pacific PDT
2016-11-03 12:00 Thu US/Eastern EDT
2016-11-03 1
27 matches
Mail list logo
