On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 9:26 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> Can anyone who is still struggling with DNF crashes on *basic*
> operations on F29 or Rawhide please reply, and provide a few details on
> what you're seeing and any workarounds or fixes you've found?
FWIW, I never hit such problem.
The on
Hi all.
I and some other users just upgraded from F28 to F29 see that dnf can't
find Gnome 3.30 packages. For example nautilus:
LANG=C sudo dnf list all nautilus --refresh
Available Packages
nautilus.i6863.28.1-2.fc29 fedora
nautilus.x86_64 3.28.1-2.fc29 fedora
LANG=C
On 09/14/2018 01:02 PM, Vascom wrote:
I and some other users just upgraded from F28 to F29 see that dnf can't
find Gnome 3.30 packages.
That's because there hasn't been a successful F29 compose since GNOME
3.30.0 got pushed to stable. Just have to wait for releng to sort this out.
--
Kalev
- Original Message -
> Hi Bastien,
>
> Here are some of the benefits I see of this effort as compared to simply
> telling users to consume Flatpaks from Flathub or independent repositories:
Sorry it took a couple of days to get back to you.
If the end-goal is shipping Flatpaks, and tha
Urgh, unfinished trains of thought.
- Original Message -
> > * Benefit to Fedora contributors: they can make their packaging work
> > available across distributions and distribution versions.
>
> Most likely duplicating upstream work on getting that same
...on getting that same applicati
Due to in-progress RC2 for the F29 Beta release and presence of
blocker bugs, the decision is “No Go”. The Beta release slips for one
week to “Target #1” date (September 25th)[1]. We are not going to slip
the Final GA yet.
For more information please check the minutes from the F29 Beta
Go/No-Go me
At yesterday's F29 Go/No-Go meeting, we discussed the blocker status
of BZ #1628192 - Fedora 29 installation cannot see a firmware RAID
device. While the blocker criteria clearly states that this should be
a blocker for Beta, many of the people present at the meeting
disagreed, for a variety of rea
The following bug have not been updated since report. I would say it is a big
issue since an upgrade will break dnf,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1598590
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:22:12AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> At yesterday's F29 Go/No-Go meeting, we discussed the blocker status
> of BZ #1628192 - Fedora 29 installation cannot see a firmware RAID
> device. While the blocker criteria clearly states that this should be
> a blocker for Beta
I want to retire pgtune
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pgtune
The original upstream is dead and python2 only:
https://github.com/gregs1104/pgtune
There is a new upstream based on the original version:
https://github.com/le0pard/pgtune
But it is far of being simple. It is made in ruby a
Thanks for explaining about it!
I found the part of "platform: []" in the document you shared.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/modularity/making-modules/defining-modules/#_modular_dependencies
Jun
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Adam Samalik wrote:
> That's right!
>
> This and more is do
OLD: Fedora-29-20180911.n.0
NEW: Fedora-29-20180912.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 3
Added packages: 3
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 103
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 90.43 MiB
Size of dropped packages:134.08 KiB
Si
Hi,
On 09/13/2018 07:59 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 2018-09-13 at 16:07 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 10-09-18 14:40, Abhiram Kuchibhotla wrote:
According to the LICENSE file in their git repo, the code in the repo seems to
be gplv2. Not sure if that proves anything. I'll do the licen
On Fri, 2018-09-14 at 19:37 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 09/13/2018 07:59 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-09-13 at 16:07 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 10-09-18 14:40, Abhiram Kuchibhotla wrote:
> > > > According to the LICENSE file in their git repo, the
On 09/14/2018 10:22 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> I'd like to propose that we make the following change to
> the criteria going forward:
>
> "The blocking criterion for successful installation atop a firmware
> RAID array is moved to the GA release criteria."
+1
signature.asc
Description: Ope
On Fri, 2018-09-14 at 14:41 +, Samuel Rakitničan wrote:
> The following bug have not been updated since report. I would say it is a big
> issue since an upgrade will break dnf,
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1598590
I've closed it as a dupe of the bug we're using as the main
Missing expected images:
Atomichost qcow2 x86_64
Atomichost raw-xz x86_64
Failed openQA tests: 3/132 (x86_64), 1/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
ID: 279984 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso
desktop_notifications_postinstall
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/279984
ID: 279991 Test: i386
Hi folks! I'm proposing we cancel the QA meeting tomorrow. We're still
focused on F29 Beta at the moment, though please do take a minute to
look at the firmware RAID criterion proposal. There will be a blocker
review meeting at 16:00 UTC, please come to that if you can.
If you're aware of anything
# F29 Blocker Review meeting
# Date: 2018-09-17
# Time: 16:00 UTC
# Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net
Hi folks! We have 2 proposed Beta blockers, 6 proposed Beta freeze
exceptions and 8 proposed Final blockers to review, so let's have a
review meeting on Monday (those numbers ma
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20180913.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20180914.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:2
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 5
Dropped packages:6
Upgraded packages: 121
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 2.20 MiB
Size of dropped packages
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 9/132 (x86_64), 2/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20180913.n.0):
ID: 280334 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso
desktop_notifications_postinstall
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/280334
ID: 28035
21 matches
Mail list logo
