On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, Adam Williamson wrote:
it sounds like downgrading from 56 to 52
(the most recent ESR), aside from the epoch bump it'd require on our
side, is not straightforward (it seems there were profile changes
between 56 and 52).
Ouch.
Is now a good time to think about how we could
Another option could be to ship Fedora 27 with a Firefox 57 prerelease
version. This will stop breakage of extensions 2 weeks after Fedora 27
ships (and shipped extensions can be moved to web extension version).
On 13 Oct 2017 12:31 pm, "Peter Oliver" <
lists.fedoraproject@mavit.org.uk> wrote:
On 10/13/2017 01:29 PM, Peter Oliver wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, Adam Williamson wrote:
it sounds like downgrading from 56 to 52
(the most recent ESR), aside from the epoch bump it'd require on our
side, is not straightforward (it seems there were profile changes
between 56 and 52).
Ouch.
Is
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 02:21:42PM +0200, Martin Stransky wrote:
> On 10/13/2017 01:29 PM, Peter Oliver wrote:
> >On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> >>it sounds like downgrading from 56 to 52
> >>(the most recent ESR), aside from the epoch bump it'd require on our
> >>side, is not st
On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
All the energy devoted to this thread would imho be better spent on
trying to encourage the authors of popular extensions to update to the
new model,
My understanding is that the new API lacks capabilities needed to make some
extensions
Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 08:44:27AM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
I think I found the issue.
Last week we finally migrated the ACLs from pkgdb to pagure but it looks like
the query I used to export the ACLs from pkgdb wasn't restricted to active
Fedora branch, so it
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 02:55:37PM +0100, Peter Oliver wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>
> >All the energy devoted to this thread would imho be better spent on
> >trying to encourage the authors of popular extensions to update to the
> >new model,
>
> My understan
Changing the subject to reflect the actual discussion.
Apparently many people are unaware of Mozilla's plan for Fx and
webextensions:
Here are some links which might be helpful:
https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/08/21/the-future-
of-developing-firefox-add-ons/
https://blog.mozilla.org/addons
On 13/10/17 15:26, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
Sure, that's what everybody knows. But without going from generalities
to details of a specific extension, we're just speculating idly.
So lets do a little review of the things I have installed in one of my
firefox instances that aren't cu
There are also several alternatives for those who for whatever reason do
not want to use the new Fx,
and want to continue using the old extension system:
https://www.waterfoxproject.org/
http://www.palemoon.org/
https://www.seamonkey-project.org/
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:34 AM, Gerald B. Cox
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 01:14:50PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> All the energy devoted to this thread would imho be better spent on
> trying to encourage the authors of popular extensions to update to the
> new model, or trying to find alternatives that work with FF57+.
> Personally,
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 10:15:37AM -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 08:44:27AM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > > I think I found the issue. Last week we finally migrated the ACLs
> > > from pkgdb to pagure but it looks like the query I used t
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Athos Ribeiro wrote:
> I maintain a small extension to toggle proxy configurations […]
Hi Athos,
Does noturno support proxy authentication by any chance ;) ?
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To uns
Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 10:15:37AM -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:
It might be unrelated, but I've received broken dependency
notifications for nginx the past two days. I've never been a
maintainer or contributor to nginx. I did fork the repo in pagure,
just to look at
Please use the thread Fx 57 Release Issues. This discussion isn't about
the use of the updates-testing repository for non-update software.
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Alexander Ploumistos <
alex.ploumis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Athos Ribeiro
> wrote:
> > I ma
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 6:31 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> Please use the thread Fx 57 Release Issues. This discussion isn't about the
> use of the updates-testing repository for non-update software.
Sure, sorry for the digression.
___
devel mailing list
On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 12:29 +0100, Peter Oliver wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > it sounds like downgrading from 56 to 52
> > (the most recent ESR), aside from the epoch bump it'd require on our
> > side, is not straightforward (it seems there were profile changes
> > bet
Adam, can you please use the other thread. This discussion has gotten way
off topic. The other thread I opened is Fx 57 Release Issues.
Thanks!
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 12:29 +0100, Peter Oliver wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, Adam Willia
On 10/13/2017 10:40 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
We've chosen not to ship ESR in the past, AIUI, because we think our
target audiences generally prefer to get the main Firefox release
stream, they don't want the ESR stream. We could change that decision,
of course. I don't personally think a one-of
On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 15:56 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 13/10/17 15:26, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>
> > Sure, that's what everybody knows. But without going from generalities
> > to details of a specific extension, we're just speculating idly.
>
> So lets do a little review of the thin
On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 08:44 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> Adam, can you please use the other thread. This discussion has gotten way
> off topic. The other thread I opened is Fx 57 Release Issues.
I think that ship sailed long ago, I'm afraid. I can't really 'move' a
reply to the other thread, em
On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 10:47 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>
> Is everyone being over-dramatic (per usual)?
To take that personally for a minute, well, no, I don't believe I've
been over-dramatic at all. I've never suggested anything besides 'maybe
we should take a look at whether shipping Fir
On 13/10/17 16:48, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 15:56 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
Cookie Monster
Seemed to have been removed from AMO and no obvious replacement.
I use(d) Self Destructing Cookies, but the page for that one says it's
not being rewritten as a webextension and
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:46:42PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> That's far less important. Especially the distinction between
> enhancement and newpackage, I think, barely matters.
If we had this metadata for stuff that lands in Rawhide, it'd be
useful, but since we don't, it's basically just f
On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 14:26 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 02:55:37PM +0100, Peter Oliver wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >
> > > All the energy devoted to this thread would imho be better spent on
> > > trying to encourage
On vendredi 13 octobre 2017 17:48:51 CEST Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 15:56 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
>
> > On 13/10/17 15:26, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Sure, that's what everybody knows. But without going from generalities
> > > to details of a specific
On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 18:48 +0200, Robert-André Mauchin wrote:
> On vendredi 13 octobre 2017 17:48:51 CEST Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 15:56 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
> >
> > > On 13/10/17 15:26, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Sure, that's what everybo
On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 09:43 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 14:26 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 02:55:37PM +0100, Peter Oliver wrote:
> > > On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > >
> > > > All the energy devoted to
On Oct 13, 2017 19:00, "Simo Sorce" wrote:
We are Fedora and we are First, even when it is painful IMHO.
I count for little in the Fedora community, but this is exactly my opinion
in this discussion.
A.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedorapr
> Does this update break the entire browser?
No, it's more akin to the switch from Gnome 2 to Gnome 3: lots of changes all
over the place, old trusted features gone, replacements not totally there and
in any case different requiring user adaptation.
Which all means our release planning is too
On 10/12/2017 05:34 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> In this case there's an even worse consequence; if you do attempt to
> update to nss 3.33.0 without nspr 4.17.0 dnf will 'skip' *most* of the
> nss packages (as it notices that they are missing dependencies), but it
> *will* install nss-softokn-freeb
Missing expected images:
Server dvd i386
Workstation live i386
Server boot i386
Kde live i386
Failed openQA tests: 85/128 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)
Old failures (same test failed in Rawhide-20171012.n.0):
ID: 157120 Test: x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproj
Missing expected images:
Server dvd i386
Workstation live i386
Server boot i386
Kde live i386
Failed openQA tests: 24/128 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test did not fail in 27-20171012.n.0):
ID: 157273 Test: x86_64 Everything-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproj
On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 12:58 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 09:43 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 14:26 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 02:55:37PM +0100, Peter Oliver wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Zbigniew Jędrze
On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 10:38 -0700, Josh Stone wrote:
> On 10/12/2017 05:34 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > In this case there's an even worse consequence; if you do attempt to
> > update to nss 3.33.0 without nspr 4.17.0 dnf will 'skip' *most* of the
> > nss packages (as it notices that they are mis
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Adam Miller
wrote:
> 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 r
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Adam Williamson <
adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 12:58 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 09:43 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 14:26 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oc
OLD: Fedora-Modular-Bikeshed-20171012.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Modular-Bikeshed-20171013.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 1
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 0
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 531.63 KiB
Size of
OLD: Fedora-Modular-27-20171012.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Modular-27-20171013.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:12
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 291
Downgraded packages: 21
Size of added packages: 0.00 B
Size of dropped packages
On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Jerry James wrote:
> I don't believe that anybody looks at those pull requests on a regular
> basis. Should somebody be doing so? There are 8 pull requests,
> dating back to about the time of the above conversation. Five of
> those don't contain a single comment.
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 03:07:05PM -0600, Jerry James wrote:
> But that's not the end of the fun. GCL failed the mass rebuild this
> summer. It built successfully on every architecture but s390x. On
> s390x, the build failed due to a failed call to mprotect(), almost
> certainly a sign that SELi
On 10/13/2017 11:07 PM, Jerry James wrote:
But that's not the end of the fun. GCL failed the mass rebuild this
summer. It built successfully on every architecture but s390x. On
s390x, the build failed due to a failed call to mprotect(), almost
certainly a sign that SELinux was in enforcing mod
On 10/13/2017 02:07 PM, Jerry James wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Jerry James wrote:
...snip...
> But that's not the end of the fun. GCL failed the mass rebuild this
> summer. It built successfully on every architecture but s390x. On
> s390x, the build failed due to a failed call t
Easy python module, python-Mastodon:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1502072
I'll take one of yours in return if you like.
Thanks all!
-Gwyn
--
http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear,
On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 14:53 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> It's really hard to say what the trouble
> is... are there to few of them? Overtasked with other work? Workflow too
> difficult?
AFAIK it's basically just lvrabec at the moment, and I think the 'map'
permission issues that showed up this cycl
On 10/13/2017 03:00 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 14:53 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> It's really hard to say what the trouble
>> is... are there to few of them? Overtasked with other work? Workflow too
>> difficult?
>
> AFAIK it's basically just lvrabec at the moment, and I th
On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 15:58 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On 10/13/2017 03:00 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 14:53 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > It's really hard to say what the trouble
> > > is... are there to few of them? Overtasked with other work? Workflow too
> > > diffic
On 14 Oct 2017 12:08 am, "Adam Williamson"
wrote:
On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 15:58 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On 10/13/2017 03:00 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 14:53 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > It's really hard to say what the trouble
> > > is... are there to few of them? O
# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting
# Date: 2017-10-16
# Time: 15:00 UTC
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto)
# Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net
Greetings testers!
It's time for another meeting! Let's call this the Everyone Tell Adam
What's Going On meeting, as I'm
Hi folks! I'm proposing we cancel the blocker review meeting for
Monday, as there are no proposed Final (or Server Beta) blockers.
Thanks!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
Adam Williamson writes:
> There are currently separate updates for nss 3.33.0 and nspr 4.17.0 in
> both Fedora 26 and 27. However, nss 3.33.0 requires nspr 4.17.0.
>
> As a reminder, this is a violation of the Updates Policy:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Updating_inter-depend
On Sat, 2017-10-14 at 07:41 +0200, Daiki Ueno wrote:
> Adam Williamson writes:
>
> > There are currently separate updates for nss 3.33.0 and nspr 4.17.0 in
> > both Fedora 26 and 27. However, nss 3.33.0 requires nspr 4.17.0.
> >
> > As a reminder, this is a violation of the Updates Policy:
> >
52 matches
Mail list logo
