Because if we keep "no breaking updates in stable" policy, then Fedora
won't be "first anymore". You can do this only if rawhide will be more
popular between people.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 03:34 Brendan Conoboy On 11/16/18 7:50 AM, Paul Frields wrote:
> [snip]
> > We should skip the F31 release cy
On 11/27/18 9:16 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
Because if we keep "no breaking updates in stable" policy, then Fedora
won't be "first anymore".
Users perceive your "first" as unstable and unreliable. There are plenty
of examples of how e.g. FC30 was broken and still is.
One such example is you pe
On 27/11/18 12:13, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 5:08 PM Jeff Fearn wrote:
>>
>> On 27/11/18 02:06, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
>>> * Neal Gompa [26/11/2018 11:01] :
Out of curiosity, does anyone know where the source code for Red Hat
Bugzilla actually is? I tried to find i
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 9:39 AM Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> On 11/27/18 9:16 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> > Because if we keep "no breaking updates in stable" policy, then Fedora
> > won't be "first anymore".
>
> Users perceive your "first" as unstable and unreliable. There are plenty
> of examples of
Dne 26. 11. 18 v 17:03 Matthew Miller napsal(a):
> * embrace Taiga (an open source kanban tool) for project planning
> * fix the compose speed (target: one hour!)
> * really actually for real gated Rawhide
> * better CI pipeline tests for everything
> * define a base platform -- Red Hat wants to fo
Dne 26. 11. 18 v 16:57 Ben Cotton napsal(a):
> Bugzilla 5.0 introduces a new REST endpoint to replace XML-RPC and
> JSON-RPC. The XML-RPC and JSON-RPC APIs will remain available.
Before someone jumps into porting their code to the new REST API (my team tried
that) - it is undocumented, the few
do
Hi folks,
I'm going to update tinyxml2 to 7.x later this week.
Affected packages:
* cppcheck
* dvblinkremote
* fuse
* gazebo
* kodi (rpmfusion)
* libmediainfo
* vdr
I'm going to rebuild all of them myself.
---
Maintainers by package:
cppcheck fcami jussilehtola sgrubb
dvblinkremote
On 11/27/18 12:48 AM, Ian Kent wrote:
On Mon, 2018-11-26 at 14:38 +0100, Pavel Březina wrote:
On 11/26/18 2:21 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:16 AM Pavel Březina wrote:
This e-mail is long so I just put the question here before explanation:
Do you know about any pack
On 11/26/18 8:24 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
Pavel B™ezina writes:
Do you know about any package that installs an nsswitch.conf module and
automatically enables it in /etc/nsswitch.conf? So far I have two
packages - nss-mdns and systemd.
I don't know about enabling, but it's easy to ask the databas
Hi Ben,
26.11.2018 16:10 Ben Cotton wrote:
> [...]
> [1]
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=POST&bug_status=MODIFIED&bug_status=ON_DEV&bug_status=ON_QA&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=RELEASE_PENDING&classification=Fedora&list_id=9748312&query_f
Dne 26. 11. 18 v 20:01 Randy Barlow napsal(a):
> On Mon, 2018-11-26 at 17:23 +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
>>> * really actually for real gated Rawhide
>> Is the "creating side tag for chain builds or by automated requests"
>> is planned here?
>> When I deal with rust packages, I often need to build
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 09:08:17PM -0800, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 11/26/18 8:58 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
> >Looks like there is a new image format in town and we need the libheif and
> >libde265 libraries in order to read it according to the gimp plugin [1]. The
> >plugin docs say it should be include
On 27/11/2018 11:02, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 09:08:17PM -0800, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 11/26/18 8:58 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
Looks like there is a new image format in town and we need the libheif and
libde265 libraries in order to read it according to the gimp plugin [1].
Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event
for Fedora 30 Rawhide 20181127.n.0. Please help run some tests for this
nightly compose if you have time. For more information on nightly
release validation testing, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:45 PM Paul Frields wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 5:47 PM Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> > El lun, 26-11-2018 a las 17:14 -0500, Josh Boyer escribió:
> > > Because the people that would be tasked with doing the development are
> > > also tasked with cranking out the release
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 4:41 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> Dne 26. 11. 18 v 17:03 Matthew Miller napsal(a):
> > * embrace Taiga (an open source kanban tool) for project planning
> > * fix the compose speed (target: one hour!)
> > * really actually for real gated Rawhide
> > * better CI pipeline tes
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 9:27 PM Brendan Conoboy wrote:
>
> On 11/16/18 7:50 AM, Paul Frields wrote:
> [snip]
> > We should skip the F31 release cycle and leave F30 in place longer in
> > order to focus on improving the tooling and testing changes. These
> > tooling changes will improve the overall
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:26 PM Brendan Conoboy wrote:
>
> On 11/16/18 7:50 AM, Paul Frields wrote:
> [snip]
> > We should skip the F31 release cycle and leave F30 in place longer in
> > order to focus on improving the tooling and testing changes. These
> > tooling changes will improve the overall
Sorry for the last-minute email. There are two things I'd like to discuss
today in the Modularity WG meeting [0]:
I'd like to get the "Stream default changes & Fedora Changes" [1] issue
voted on and hopefully off the table — there are already two +1s in the
ticket, and it doesn't introduce any sig
On 11/26/18 3:53 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
The one issue I see off hand is that koji
tags are kind of expensive so we can't just tag everything the way we
may want
Can you please elaborate a bit on this? What makes them expensive?
___
devel mailing list
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 9:08 AM John Florian wrote:
>
> On 11/26/18 3:53 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > The one issue I see off hand is that koji
> > tags are kind of expensive so we can't just tag everything the way we
> > may want
>
> Can you please elaborate a bit on this? What makes them expensiv
On 11/27/18 3:54 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
* kodi (rpmfusion)
You're welcome to ping me when you need this rebuilt.
Thanks,
Michael
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject
Hello,
I accidentally submitted a Koji build for 4 packages [1] that are not
supposed to be packaged for Rawhide. I would like to remove these builds.
But I see that they have already been included in a compose and as I
understand from [2], I can not simply remove the f30 tag now.
What can I do n
> "SS" == Salman Siddiqui writes:
SS> I accidentally submitted a Koji build for 4 packages [1] that
SS> are not supposed to be packaged for Rawhide.
Are they EPEL only packages are something?
In any case, if those packages aren't ever supposed to be in rawhide (or
be branched for f30 in the
El lun, 26-11-2018 a las 19:44 -0500, Paul Frields escribió:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 5:47 PM Dennis Gilmore
> wrote:
> > El lun, 26-11-2018 a las 17:14 -0500, Josh Boyer escribió:
> > > Because the people that would be tasked with doing the
> > > development are
> > > also tasked with cranking o
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 8:21 AM Justin Forbes wrote:
>
> Long cycles have been done before, and will be done again, it has been
> 4 or 5 years since the last one. I think skipping to a yearly cadence
> for every release isn't such a great idea. There are benefits to the
> cadence we have, but I do
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1399506
--- Comment #5 from Ben Cotton ---
This message is a reminder that Fedora 27 is nearing its end of life.
On 2018-Nov-30 Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for
Fedora 27. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releas
A lot of discussion about improving the compose process seem to end up
with a "reality check" - that ideas have already been tried but don't
work because of requirements a) b) c) d). You can't have the pony, but
maybe if a lot of effort is put into it, you can have a faster rocking
horse.
If want
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 at 09:59, Owen Taylor wrote:
>
> A lot of discussion about improving the compose process seem to end up
> with a "reality check" - that ideas have already been tried but don't
> work because of requirements a) b) c) d). You can't have the pony, but
> maybe if a lot of effort is
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 9:26 PM Brendan Conoboy wrote:>
> On 11/16/18 7:50 AM, Paul Frields wrote:
> [snip]
> > We should skip the F31 release cycle and leave F30 in place longer in
> > order to focus on improving the tooling and testing changes. These
> > tooling changes will improve the overall
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:12 AM Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> Define what a compose is? Currently it is a word which covers a
> multitude of different processes and reasons for those processes. We
> can't 'fix' or even 'replace' or parallel them without actually
> knowing why someone duct taped t
One of the key parts of making a decision to delay/skip F31 is
figuring out, ahead of the decision, what the expected experience is
for users and packagers. Does F30 have normal stability, or do we try
to keep users happy by moving things forward with ad-hoc updates and
cross-our-fingers and hope n
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20181126.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20181127.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 10
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 116
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 56.01 MiB
Size of dropped packages
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:40 AM Owen Taylor wrote:
>
> One of the key parts of making a decision to delay/skip F31 is
> figuring out, ahead of the decision, what the expected experience is
> for users and packagers. Does F30 have normal stability, or do we try
> to keep users happy by moving thin
That's exactly question I had in mind, thanks for bringing it up!
Personally, if we won't be able to push breaking changes in F30, then
after some time people will not be happy about outdated software and
will leave distribution I think.
For maintainers it would probably mean that F29 won't get a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450364
--- Comment #3 from Ben Cotton ---
This message is a reminder that Fedora 27 is nearing its end of life.
On 2018-Nov-30 Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for
Fedora 27. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releas
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:13 AM Owen Taylor wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 9:26 PM Brendan Conoboy wrote:>
> > On 11/16/18 7:50 AM, Paul Frields wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > We should skip the F31 release cycle and leave F30 in place longer in
> > > order to focus on improving the tooling and tes
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 11:05 AM Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:13 AM Owen Taylor wrote:
> > But for the next thousand or so Fedora developers, the release cycle
> > is actually not a big deal - not something that takes much of their
> > time - and it gives them a regular place to
=
#fedora-meeting-3: Weekly Meeting of the Modularity Working Group
=
Meeting started by nils at 15:01:00 UTC.
Minutes:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meetin
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 at 17:23, Owen Taylor wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 11:05 AM Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:13 AM Owen Taylor wrote:
> > > But for the next thousand or so Fedora developers, the release cycle
> > > is actually not a big deal - not something that takes m
Hey Jason,
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 9:42 AM Jason L Tibbitts III
wrote:
> > "SS" == Salman Siddiqui writes:
>
> SS> I accidentally submitted a Koji build for 4 packages [1] that
> SS> are not supposed to be packaged for Rawhide.
>
> Are they EPEL only packages are something?
>
The packages
Unfortunately due to some reasons I can't or don't want to modularize some
packages.
What should I do in this case?
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 16:59 Stephen Gallagher On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:40 AM Owen Taylor wrote:
> >
> > One of the key parts of making a decision to delay/skip F31 is
> > figuri
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:49:55AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> As came up in another part of the earlier thread, I think this is an
> opportunity for Modularity. For those things like GNOME that want to
> rev mid-release, if they shipped the 3.34 release as new stream, those
> that want to mo
On 27. 11. 18 16:49, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:40 AM Owen Taylor wrote:
One of the key parts of making a decision to delay/skip F31 is
figuring out, ahead of the decision, what the expected experience is
for users and packagers. Does F30 have normal stability, or do w
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 11:21 AM Owen Taylor wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 11:05 AM Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:13 AM Owen Taylor wrote:
> > > But for the next thousand or so Fedora developers, the release cycle
> > > is actually not a big deal - not something that take
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 4:39 PM Owen Taylor wrote:
>
> One of the key parts of making a decision to delay/skip F31 is
> figuring out, ahead of the decision, what the expected experience is
> for users and packagers. Does F30 have normal stability, or do we try
> to keep users happy by moving thing
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:51 AM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> As came up in another part of the earlier thread, I think this is an
> opportunity for Modularity. For those things like GNOME that want to
> rev mid-release, if they shipped the 3.34 release as new stream, those
> that want to move to it
On 11/27/18 7:54 AM, Ben Cotton wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 8:21 AM Justin Forbes wrote:
Long cycles have been done before, and will be done again, it has been
4 or 5 years since the last one. I think skipping to a yearly cadence
for every release isn't such a great idea. There are benefits
On 11/27/18 10:13 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 11:21 AM Owen Taylor wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 11:05 AM Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:13 AM Owen Taylor wrote:
But for the next thousand or so Fedora developers, the release cycle
is actually not a big deal
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 9:50 AM Dennis Gilmore wrote:
[...snip...]
> > The customers RH serves have specific expectations, and in part that
> > dictates how delivery tooling is done. Binding the community to that
> > may be counterproductive. This is especially true now that RHEL 8 Beta
> > is out
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 75/142 (x86_64), 21/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20181126.n.0):
ID: 312649 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_repository_nfs_variation
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/312649
ID: 312650
We can definitely talk about whether moving to a slower cadence for
certain parts of the base platform. But people don't judge Fedora on
how beautifully we maintain glibc and gcc - they mostly judge it by
installing it on a laptop and seeing how well it works. And it doesn't
really matter how relia
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:19 PM Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 11:21 AM Owen Taylor wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 11:05 AM Josh Boyer
> > wrote:
[...snip...]
> > > I completely disagree. Our release process and tooling is built on
> > > heroism and tech debt. At some point,
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:40 PM Owen Taylor wrote:
>
> We can definitely talk about whether moving to a slower cadence for
> certain parts of the base platform. But people don't judge Fedora on
> how beautifully we maintain glibc and gcc - they mostly judge it by
> installing it on a laptop and se
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 9:59 AM Owen Taylor wrote:
> A lot of discussion about improving the compose process seem to end up
> with a "reality check" - that ideas have already been tried but don't
> work because of requirements a) b) c) d). You can't have the pony, but
> maybe if a lot of effort is
On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 11:56 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Does that mean that Bodhi will be finally enabled for Rawhide or not?
> Because otherwise I can't see how Bodhi is related here.
Indeed, the plan is to make Bodhi manage Rawhide as well.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 6:26 PM Paul Frields wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 9:50 AM Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> [...snip...]
> > > The customers RH serves have specific expectations, and in part that
> > > dictates how delivery tooling is done. Binding the community to that
> > > may be counterpr
I agree with the folks in this subthread, but I think we are going to
have to look at 'redesigning' things more than just 'optimizing'.
ie, collect all our inputs and outputs and things we need to do in the
process and figure out how to make it modular (no relation) so we can
look at just a single
On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 19:30 +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 6:26 PM Paul Frields wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 9:50 AM Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> > [...snip...]
> > > > The customers RH serves have specific expectations, and in part that
> > > > dictates how delivery tool
On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 12:09 +, rawh...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
> Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event
> for Fedora 30 Rawhide 20181127.n.0. Please help run some tests for this
> nightly compose if you have time. For more information on nightly
Hello,
I'm no longer using it and don't have the cycles to maintain it anymore.
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/scite
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora
Hello,
I'm orphaning TinyCA2, since it is accumulating bug-reports while
upstream is no longer maintained, recently even vanished. Plus I've
switched to XCA, thus no longer use TinyCA2.
Given state of upstream, I'm not sure whether anyone would be interested
to take over maintenance of he package
On 27/11/18 19:45, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 26. 11. 18 v 16:57 Ben Cotton napsal(a):
>> Bugzilla 5.0 introduces a new REST endpoint to replace XML-RPC and
>> JSON-RPC. The XML-RPC and JSON-RPC APIs will remain available.
>
> Before someone jumps into porting their code to the new REST API (my t
A new Fedora Atomic Host update is available via an OSTree update:
Version: 29.20181126.0
Commit(x86_64): a10e5df10dd29683fd9b08df3cbd562b034768b4ca8ad52ba5c7620b789eb62c
Commit(aarch64):
36f7f42a1933cab67434b06d084fa7b79b146ff1a32eebcd8ef3cafeff12c83c
Commit(ppc64le):
45e6a1df95612c056fcf1e9ef
On Tuesday, November 27, 2018, Owen Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:51 AM Stephen Gallagher
> wrote:
> > As came up in another part of the earlier thread, I think this is an
> > opportunity for Modularity. For those things like GNOME that want to
> > rev mid-release, if they shipped t
Okay, so, in https://src.fedoraproject.org , repos seem to have two
URLs for SSH access.
One is referred to as "Pull Requests" in the "helpful" "Clone"
dropdown menu. However, I cannot figure out what this is for.
If the origin is:
ssh://ctubb...@pkgs.fedoraproject.org/rpms/zookeeper.git
Then the
On 27. 11. 18 23:25, Christopher wrote:
Okay, so, in https://src.fedoraproject.org , repos seem to have two
URLs for SSH access.
One is referred to as "Pull Requests" in the "helpful" "Clone"
dropdown menu. However, I cannot figure out what this is for.
If the origin is:
ssh://ctubb...@pkgs.fedo
On 11/27/2018 10:39 AM, Owen Taylor wrote:
We can definitely talk about whether moving to a slower cadence for
certain parts of the base platform. But people don't judge Fedora on
how beautifully we maintain glibc and gcc - they mostly judge it by
installing it on a laptop and seeing how well it
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:39 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 27. 11. 18 23:25, Christopher wrote:
> > Okay, so, in https://src.fedoraproject.org , repos seem to have two
> > URLs for SSH access.
> > One is referred to as "Pull Requests" in the "helpful" "Clone"
> > dropdown menu. However, I cannot f
Hello - I am trying to update a package on Fedora 28 but am getting this
error any time I try to run fedpkg:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/bin/fedpkg", line 6, in
from pkg_resources import load_entry_point
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", l
> "MM" == Mike Miller writes:
MM> I have installed the latest fedpkg, fedpkg-1.35-1.fc28.noarch. Do I
MM> need to upgrade to 29? I thought fedpkg would still work on 28.
I'm still on F28 (for another hour or so) and have no problems running
fedpkg.
fedpkg-1.35-1.fc28.noarch
python2-2.7.15
The python2-pyyaml package was missing a file, weird.
rpm -V python2-pyyaml-3.12-10.fc28.x86_64
missing /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/PyYAML-3.12-py2.7.egg-info
Running "dnf reinstall python2-pyyaml-3.12-10.fc28.x86_64" fixed it.
Thanks for the help!
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 8:26 PM Jason
On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 20:42 -0500, Mike Miller wrote:
> The python2-pyyaml package was missing a file, weird.
> rpm -V python2-pyyaml-3.12-10.fc28.x86_64
> missing /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/PyYAML-3.12-py2.7.egg-info
>
> Running "dnf reinstall python2-pyyaml-3.12-10.fc28.x86_64" fixed
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 1/2 (x86_64)
ID: 312876 Test: x86_64 AtomicHost-dvd_ostree-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/312876
Passed openQA tests: 1/2 (x86_64)
--
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
On 11/27/18 11:39 AM, Owen Taylor wrote:
We can definitely talk about whether moving to a slower cadence for
certain parts of the base platform. But people don't judge Fedora on
how beautifully we maintain glibc and gcc - they mostly judge it by
installing it on a laptop and seeing how well it wo
On 11/28/18 1:32 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
I agree with the folks in this subthread, but I think we are going to
have to look at 'redesigning' things more than just 'optimizing'.
+1. At the same time, we should also ensure that Devel,QE,Infra,RelEng..
all equal stake holders and are hand in glov
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 1/2 (x86_64)
ID: 312879 Test: x86_64 AtomicHost-dvd_ostree-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/312879
Passed openQA tests: 1/2 (x86_64)
--
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-co
If F31 is delayed by 6 months and F30 is supported for 6 months longer,
does it mean F29 *also* automatically gets a longer cycle since it by
policy becomes EOL when F31 is out + 1 month?
Can we EOL F29 6 months before F31 is out to not have *two* long term
branches to maintain?
--
Kalev
___
78 matches
Mail list logo
