On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 05:17:56AM +0200, Michal Novotny wrote:
> Hello,
>
> we will have soon a planning meeting that should determine a more long-term
> strategy and bring us to a team agreement on what COPR currently is and
> what it should be in half a year or so.
>
> I would like to kindly a
Hello Matthias,
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Matthias Runge
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 05:17:56AM +0200, Michal Novotny wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > we will have soon a planning meeting that should determine a more
> long-term
> > strategy and bring us to a team agreement on what COPR cur
On 2017-08-21, Langdon White wrote:
> [2]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Module:Review_Process
I don't understand purpose of this paragraph:
> As a Contributor, you should only be creating modules out of
> pre-existing software in the Fedora RPM repositories which adheres to
> the Package Namin
On 27 June 2017 at 12:40, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
>
> Dne 27.6.2017 v 10:41 Jeroen van Meeuwen (Kolab Systems) napsal(a):
> > On Fri, 2017-06-23 at 11:39 +0100, James Hogarth wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Has anyone heard from kanarip or able to contact him?
> >>
> > Most people do hear from kanarip at
On 08/22/2017 11:17 AM, Michal Novotny wrote:
>> - it would be great, if there is a possibility to trigger rebuilds on
>> dependent packages, like rebuild required packages after ABI bump.
>>
>
> Right, this would be a nice option. I could imagine this being implemented
> as a configurable fedms
On 2017-08-22, Honggang LI wrote:
> hi,
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404043#c41
> libibcm, libibumad, libibverbs, librdmacm and ibacm had been replaced by
> the new rdma-core package. Those five packages are sub-packages of the
> new rdma-core package.
>
> I had retired the f27
On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 9:04:24 AM CEST Matthias Runge wrote:
> - the ability to directly upload srpms; that is, one can store spec
> files etc. on the local machine. I'm undecided, if integrating a
> distgit on copr would solve any issues or would introduce more, like
> diverging specs.
Hello,
For the past hour or so, I've been trying to rebuild my copr packages
for f27 and rawhide. While there were some hiccups with rawhide, e.g.
not finding mirrors to download packages, after resubmitting them a
couple of times, all builds were successful. On the other hand, f27
builds fail as
I've built glusterfs previously on F27 with these same Build-Requires.
Same package & same .spec build on F28 and F26.
While trying to build a new version for the last 24 hours I keep hitting
this:
...
DEBUG util.py:439: No matching package to install: 'libibverbs-devel'
DEBUG util.py:439:
Hi,
please correct me if I am wrong or if this isn't the right list.
One of my packages needs autoconf-archive.noarch for building on CentOS 7
but the build fails because autoconf-archive is not available in EPEL 7
anymore.
yum search autoconf-archive
reveals nothing. Have I missed somethin
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
>
> I've built glusterfs previously on F27 with these same Build-Requires. Same
> package & same .spec build on F28 and F26.
>
> While trying to build a new version for the last 24 hours I keep hitting
> this:
>
> ...
> DEBUG util.py:439:
As you can see here
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/autoconf-archive/commits/epel7
autoconf-archive removed from EPEL7 because it must be included in main
CentOS repos.
вт, 22 авг. 2017 г. в 13:43, Benjamin Kircher :
> Hi,
>
> please correct me if I am wrong or if this isn't the right list.
>
Dne 22.8.2017 v 12:48 Peter Robinson napsal(a):
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY
> wrote:
>> I've built glusterfs previously on F27 with these same Build-Requires. Same
>> package & same .spec build on F28 and F26.
>>
>> While trying to build a new version for the last 24 h
Hello Alexander,
you haven't missed anything. It is just that there hasn't been mock release
yet
with f27 configs added. It is in upstream already but not yet released. If
it is
not in Fedora until the end of the week, then we can probably temporarily
provide
our own substitute repo configs.
clim
On Mon, 2017-08-21 at 19:41 -0700, stan wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 18:19:09 +0100
> Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> > and How I create one boot.iso (or netinstall iso ) ?
>
> I haven't actually done this, and you will probably get better
> responses on the users or test lists, but here are some links
Hello Mikolaj,
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Mikolaj Izdebski
wrote:
> On 08/22/2017 11:17 AM, Michal Novotny wrote:
> >> - it would be great, if there is a possibility to trigger rebuilds on
> >> dependent packages, like rebuild required packages after ABI bump.
> >>
> >
> > Right, this w
switching to rdma-core-devel also fails.
because according to
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=953605 there are
no armv7hl rpms built.
Probably due to the
# 32-bit arm is missing required arch-specific memory barriers,
ExcludeArch: %{arm}
in its .spec file
Which see
Hey Kamil,
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Kamil Dudka wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 9:04:24 AM CEST Matthias Runge wrote:
> > - the ability to directly upload srpms; that is, one can store spec
> > files etc. on the local machine. I'm undecided, if integrating a
> > distgit on copr
Dne 22.8.2017 v 13:45 Kaleb S. KEITHLEY napsal(a):
> Also rdma-core hasn't been built for f28 yet!
It was build prior branching, wasn't it?
V.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.
Ahem..
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1483278
-Yanko
On Tue, 2017-08-22 at 13:55 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> Dne 22.8.2017 v 13:45 Kaleb S. KEITHLEY napsal(a):
> > Also rdma-core hasn't been built for f28 yet!
>
> It was build prior branching, wasn't it?
>
> V.
>
__
Michal Novotny wrote:
> - Batch package rebuilding ("Rebuild all" button in Packages view) so
> that you can rebuild all your packages in the new chroots.
Unfortunately, this feature is less useful than I had expected, it does not
work for uploaded SRPMs or SRPMs fetched from URLs. In that case
> On 22. Aug 2017, at 12:53, Vascom wrote:
>
> As you can see here
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/autoconf-archive/commits/epel7
> autoconf-archive removed from EPEL7 because it must be included in main
> CentOS repos.
Thanks for the pointer.
Unfortunately this new RHEL package is not
Thanks Michal. Is there someplace I should monitor to know when the
f27 mock will be available?
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Hey Kevin,
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Kevin Kofler
wrote:
> Michal Novotny wrote:
> > - Batch package rebuilding ("Rebuild all" button in Packages view) so
> > that you can rebuild all your packages in the new chroots.
>
> Unfortunately, this feature is less useful than I had expected, i
Eventually, a new version should pop up here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=mock
You can give it Karma when it appears so that it reaches Fedora repos a bit
faster.
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Alexander Ploumistos <
alex.ploumis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Michal. Is t
I don't know what component to file this bug under ...
When running ‘fedora-review -b 1477363’, it fails to test build the
package in mock. The errors in root.log are peculiar:
> DEBUG util.py:450: Package ocaml-4.04.2-4.fc27.x86_64 is already installed,
> skipping.
> DEBUG util.py:450: Error
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Michal Novotny wrote:
> Eventually, a new version should pop up here:
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=mock
>
> You can give it Karma when it appears so that it reaches Fedora repos a bit
> faster.
Oh, I had never given much thought to what happ
On 08/03/2017 05:46 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
* My proposal for 'what do we do about release criteria / validation'
is basically: the 'Fedora 27 Alpha Release Criteria' page gets renamed
'Basic Release Criteria' (note: not versioned, I don't think it should
be), and we document that *all* comp
Hi Langdon,
Thanks for all the work that went into the process and guidelines!
My particular interest is in what I consider the simplest use case - taking an
existing leaf-node application (desktop or otherwise), creating a module that
only includes that application and is not meant for buildi
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 07:18:04PM +0530, Sudhir D wrote:
> On a slightly different thought, if we run all existing Alpha
> criteria tests in rawhide, we can then probably look at existing
> Alpha blocker as Branch blocker.. i.e, we don't branch unless the
> blockers are fixed and thereby keeping r
On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 1:51:44 PM CEST Michal Novotny wrote:
> Hey Kamil,
>
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Kamil Dudka wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 9:04:24 AM CEST Matthias Runge wrote:
> > > - the ability to directly upload srpms; that is, one can store spec
> > >
> > > fi
===
==
#fedora-meeting-3: Meeting of the Modularity Working Group (once every
two weeks)
===
==
Meeting started by nils at 14:00:19 UTC.
Minutes
On 08/22/2017 07:34 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 07:18:04PM +0530, Sudhir D wrote:
On a slightly different thought, if we run all existing Alpha
criteria tests in rawhide, we can then probably look at existing
Alpha blocker as Branch blocker.. i.e, we don't branch unless t
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Kamil Dudka wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 1:51:44 PM CEST Michal Novotny wrote:
> > Hey Kamil,
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Kamil Dudka wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 9:04:24 AM CEST Matthias Runge wrote:
> > > > - the ability to dir
On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 5:03:06 PM CEST Michal Novotny wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Kamil Dudka wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 1:51:44 PM CEST Michal Novotny wrote:
> > > Hey Kamil,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Kamil Dudka wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, Augu
On 08/22/2017 02:30 AM, Petr Pisar wrote:
> On 2017-08-22, Honggang LI wrote:
>> hi,
>>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404043#c41
>> libibcm, libibumad, libibverbs, librdmacm and ibacm had been replaced by
>> the new rdma-core package. Those five packages are sub-packages of the
>
Was just curious, anyone understands why there are so many obsolete
updates in F26 testing repository? For example, there is firefox 54.0
from June, other stuff back from April etc.
--
Bojan
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To uns
I would like to publicly note that I had completely different idea about
this project first time I have encountered it at the last Flock.
My idea was that the project will target runtime rather than build-time and
will try to provide a set of packages that would be able to
e.g. spawn and run an ht
Bojan Smojver wrote:
> Was just curious, anyone understands why there are so many obsolete
> updates in F26 testing repository? For example, there is firefox 54.0
> from June, other stuff back from April etc.
I think one intention of keeping stuff in testing (for at least little
while) is to all
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 5:23 AM Petr Pisar wrote:
> On 2017-08-21, Langdon White wrote:
> > [2]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Module:Review_Process
>
> I don't understand purpose of this paragraph:
>
> > As a Contributor, you should only be creating modules out of
> > pre-existing software in
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:53 AM Owen Taylor wrote:
> Hi Langdon,
>
> Thanks for all the work that went into the process and guidelines!
>
> My particular interest is in what I consider the simplest use case -
> taking an existing leaf-node application (desktop or otherwise), creating a
> module t
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 2:40 PM Michal Novotny wrote:
> I would like to publicly note that I had completely different idea about
> this project first time I have encountered it at the last Flock.
>
> My idea was that the project will target runtime rather than build-time
> and will try to provide
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 08:37:59PM +0200, Michal Novotny wrote:
> My idea was that the project will target runtime rather than
> build-time and will try to provide a set of packages that would be
> able to e.g. spawn and run an httpd stack almost at one command.
I think what you describe is someth
Missing expected images:
Server dvd i386
Workstation live i386
Server boot i386
Kde live i386
Failed openQA tests: 27/126 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20170821.n.0):
ID: 133158 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso base_services_start
URL: https://openqa.
python-basemap seems wrong...
There's now a python3-basemap and a python2-basemap-examples but no
python2-basemap. ;(
Also, I'd like to very much thank you for doing this work. :)
It's great to get done, it's great to do it quickly and I know it's a
lot of hard work to script and build things.
k
Owen Taylor wrote:
> My particular interest is in what I consider the simplest use case -
> taking an existing leaf-node application (desktop or otherwise), creating
> a module that only includes that application and is not meant for building
> on top of, and creating a container or flatpak out of
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2017-08-23 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-2 on
irc.freenode.net.
Local time information (via. uitime):
= Day: Wednesday =
2017-08-23 10:00 PDT US/Pacific
2017-08-23 1
On Tue, 2017-08-22 at 21:41 -0400, James Antill wrote:
> Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
> meeting Thursday at 2017-08-23 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-2 on
Wednesday, even.
> irc.freenode.net.
>
> Local time information (via. uitime):
>
> ==
Hi,
I was just trying to build a new package in Rawhide that built fine a few
days ago. The failure seems to be occurring because the python3
setuptools_scm module isn't being found. I'm using the new pythonXdist
tags:
BuildRequires: %{py2_dist py pytest setuptools_scm}
BuildRequires: %{
Hello Langdon,
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Langdon White
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 2:40 PM Michal Novotny wrote:
>
>> I would like to publicly note that I had completely different idea about
>> this project first time I have encountered it at the last Flock.
>>
>> My idea was t
50 matches
Mail list logo
