On Fri, 26 Oct 2018, Aaron Gray wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to get Xen working properly on rawhide / F29 Beta.
>
> I had one instillation on F29 that worked straight away with :-
>
> sudo yum groupinstall 'Virtualization' sudo yum install xen
>
> I cannot seem to reproduce this now though
Hi all,
Quick note to mention the Redis 5.0 release builds are
available in testing now for all current Fedora versions.
This release is backward compatible with the 4.x series
and adds a series of new features:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/antirez/redis/5.0/00-RELEASENOTES
I've been running
It was discovered[1] a short while ago that, due to a packaging
mistake in the fedora-workstation-repos package, upgrades from Fedora
28->Fedora 29 would replace the /etc/yum.repos.d/*.repo files provided
from that package with their default configuration.
What this meant in practice is that anyon
On Friday, 26 October 2018 at 07:24, Kefu Chai wrote:
> hey guys,
>
> i am pushing fmt 5.2.1 to rawhive (f30)[1]. and plan to push this
> updated change to fc29 and then fc28. as fmt-static is no longer
> packaged in fmt-5.2.1, kodi package will need to dynamically linked
> against libfmt at runti
Hello all,
This didn't happen to me with the last version (F28) but I didn't install
Workstation, I installed KDE Spin. So now my question is: Does this
affect to all Fedoras, including Spins and Labs, or is it an issue that for
some reason affects Workstation only?
Kind regards.
Silvia
FAS:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 14:43:21 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > "AS" == Ankur Sinha writes:
>
> AS> The package review process suggests the use of "Trivial" on the
> AS> Whiteboard for simpler tickets to aid new-comers. So, they seem to
> AS> serve the same purpose as EasyFix. Would it b
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 5:11 AM Silvia Sánchez wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> This didn't happen to me with the last version (F28) but I didn't
> install Workstation, I installed KDE Spin. So now my question is: Does
> this affect to all Fedoras, including Spins and Labs, or is it an issue
> that
On 25/10/2018 20:58, Ben Cotton wrote:
The Fedora 29 Final RC1.2 compose [1] is GO and will to be shipped
live on Tuesday, October 30, 2018.
For more information please check the Go/No-Go meeting minutes [2] or logs [3].
Thank you to everyone who has worked on this release.
[1] http://dl.fedor
Ah, okay. Thanks.
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 11:33, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 5:11 AM Silvia Sánchez wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> This didn't happen to me with the last version (F28) but I didn't
>> install Workstation, I installed KDE Spin. So now my question i
> On 25/10/2018 20:58, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > The Fedora 29 Final RC1.2 compose [1] is GO and will to be shipped
> > live on Tuesday, October 30, 2018.
> >
> > For more information please check the Go/No-Go meeting minutes [2] or logs
> > [3].
> >
> > Thank you to everyone who has worked on this re
Hello,
there is no Xfce live iso in RC-1.2:
https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_RC-1.2/Spins/x86_64/iso/
It has been available in beta-1.5:
https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_Beta-1.5/Spins/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Xfce-Live-x86_64-29_Beta-1.5.iso
It is also available in rawhide
Thomas Woerner wrote on 2018/10/26 21:23:
Hello,
there is no Xfce live iso in RC-1.2:
https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_RC-1.2/Spins/x86_64/iso/
It has been available in beta-1.5:
https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_Beta-1.5/Spins/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Xfce-Live-x86_64-29_Be
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 8:23 AM Peter Robinson wrote:
> Yes, I agree, I am at a loss as to why it was signed off as well,
> there was blockers like "Be able to apply updates using the desktop
> mechanism" that were seemingly ignored with broken gnome-software,
> plus numerous other issues. I don'
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 72/133 (x86_64), 19/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20181025.n.0):
ID: 301443 Test: i386 Everything-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301443
ID: 301502 Test: x86_64
Hello,
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 8:37 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 8:23 AM Peter Robinson wrote:
>
> > Yes, I agree, I am at a loss as to why it was signed off as well,
> > there was blockers like "Be able to apply updates using the desktop
> > mechanism" that were seemingly ig
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20181025.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20181026.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:3
Dropped images: 4
Added packages: 5
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 55
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 9.34 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 12:09 PM chandan kumar
wrote:
> Just a query, Does XFCE Fedora 29 spin is removed?
> It is not visible here
> https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_RC-1.2/Spins/x86_64/iso/
>
See
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/MW
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 12:59:24PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > Just a query, Does XFCE Fedora 29 spin is removed?
> > It is not visible here
> > https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_RC-1.2/Spins/x86_64/iso/
> See
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.o
OLD: Fedora-29-20181025.n.0
NEW: Fedora-29-20181026.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 5
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 0
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of upgraded
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 12:25 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 12:59:24PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
>> > Just a query, Does XFCE Fedora 29 spin is removed?
>> > It is not visible here
>> > https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_RC-1.2/Spins/x86_64/iso/
>> See
>> https://l
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 3:16 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 12:59:24PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > > Just a query, Does XFCE Fedora 29 spin is removed?
> > > It is not visible here
> > > https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_RC-1.2/Spins/x86_64/iso/
> > See
> > http
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 4:43 AM, Christian Dersch
wrote:
> On 25/10/2018 20:58, Ben Cotton wrote:
>>
>> The Fedora 29 Final RC1.2 compose [1] is GO and will to be shipped
>> live on Tuesday, October 30, 2018.
>>
>> For more information please check the Go/No-Go meeting minutes [2] or logs
>> [3].
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 15:16, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 12:59:24PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > > Just a query, Does XFCE Fedora 29 spin is removed?
> > > It is not visible here
> > > https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_RC-1.2/Spins/x86_64/iso/
> > See
> > https:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 6:22 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> On 25/10/2018 20:58, Ben Cotton wrote:
>> > The Fedora 29 Final RC1.2 compose [1] is GO and will to be shipped
>> > live on Tuesday, October 30, 2018.
>> >
>> > For more information please check the Go/No-Go meeting minutes [2] or logs
>>
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 6:23 AM, Thomas Woerner wrote:
> Hello,
>
> there is no Xfce live iso in RC-1.2:
>
> https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_RC-1.2/Spins/x86_64/iso/
Isn't Xfce a release blocking desktop for ARM or something?
--
Chris Murphy
__
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:09 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 6:23 AM, Thomas Woerner wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> there is no Xfce live iso in RC-1.2:
>>
>> https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_RC-1.2/Spins/x86_64/iso/
>
> Isn't Xfce a release blocking desktop for ARM or some
The Xfce image built for aarch64, but not for x86_64 so that's how we got
here.
Geoff Marr
IRC: coremodule
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:10 PM Chris Murphy
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 6:23 AM, Thomas Woerner
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > there is no Xfce live iso in RC-1.2:
> >
> > https://dl.
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 4/133 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)
ID: 301579 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso modularity_tests
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301579
ID: 301636 Test: arm Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz
install_arm_image_deployment_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedor
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 4:43 AM, Christian Dersch
>
> I understand the complaint in isolation, but in relation to the
> existing processes and release criteria I do not follow. What solution
> do you propose?
>
> Right now release criteria explicitly does not block the release even
> if all th
Building now. I'll be rebuilding dependent packages when it completes
tomorrow.
Some packages (InsightToolkit, DiffusionKurtosisFit, and petpvc) are
failing to build due to an issue with vxl and C++11. I've filed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1637255
--
Orion Poplawski
Manager
On Fri, 2018-10-26 at 19:39 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> Building now. I'll be rebuilding dependent packages when it
> completes
> tomorrow.
>
> Some packages (InsightToolkit, DiffusionKurtosisFit, and petpvc) are
> failing to build due to an issue with vxl and C++11. I've filed
> https://b
On 10/26/2018 07:47 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Fri, 2018-10-26 at 19:39 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
Building now. I'll be rebuilding dependent packages when it
completes
tomorrow.
Some packages (InsightToolkit, DiffusionKurtosisFit, and petpvc) are
failing to build due to an issue with vxl a
Hi all,
I am attempting to build the latest matplotlib but it is failing to
install python3-wxpython4 [1]:
- nothing provides python3-sip-api(12)(x86-64) = 12.5 needed by
python3-wxpython4-4.0.1-9.fc29.x86_64
I attempted to rebuild python-wxpython4 [2], but that did not help. It
was then that
33 matches
Mail list logo
