On 28/03/19 20:14, Robert-André Mauchin wrote:
On Thursday, 28 March 2019 19:38:30 CET Michal Konecny wrote:
I found out what is wrong, you created the project without Fedora
mapping, so the first version was retrieved without knowing how this is
packaged in Fedora. But I see, that the mapping
On 29/03/19 08:40, Michal Konecny wrote:
On 28/03/19 20:14, Robert-André Mauchin wrote:
On Thursday, 28 March 2019 19:38:30 CET Michal Konecny wrote:
I found out what is wrong, you created the project without Fedora
mapping, so the first version was retrieved without knowing how this is
pac
On Fri, 2019-03-29 at 00:32 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 20. 03. 19 9:57, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > I've gone ahead with my proposal and created the Stewardship SIG.
> >
> > This includes the SIGs/Stewardship wiki page [0], the @stewardship-
> > sig
> > FAS group [1], to which high-priority or
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 7:46 PM Christopher wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 9:50 AM Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> > - javapackages-tools, stream 201801 (buildroot-only module, not
> > intended to be delivered to users)
>
> How do I enable/install this module locally? It would be very helpful
> for
On Friday, 29 March 2019 09:30:31 CET Michal Konecny wrote:
> >
> >
> > Could you send me the list of projects you added? I will manually
> > refresh them.
>
>
> I was right, there is missing message call in API code for adding new
> package mapping. I created issue for it here
> https://githu
On 29. 03. 19 10:31, Robert-André Mauchin wrote:
On Friday, 29 March 2019 09:30:31 CET Michal Konecny wrote:
Could you send me the list of projects you added? I will manually
refresh them.
I was right, there is missing message call in API code for adding new
package mapping. I created issue
On 29/03/19 10:31, Robert-André Mauchin wrote:
On Friday, 29 March 2019 09:30:31 CET Michal Konecny wrote:
Could you send me the list of projects you added? I will manually
refresh them.
I was right, there is missing message call in API code for adding new
package mapping. I created issue f
Dne 28. 03. 19 v 14:53 Mikolaj Izdebski napsal(a):
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 8:44 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> Trying to take look from the other side, the java.yaml might need some
>> love [1], because the GH links are broken [2, 3]
> java module doesn't have any complete builds. It is not actively
Hi, Mikolaj,
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 10:24 AM Mikolaj Izdebski
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 7:46 PM Christopher
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 9:50 AM Mikolaj Izdebski
> wrote:
> > > - javapackages-tools, stream 201801 (buildroot-only module, not
> > > intended to be delivered to
On Friday, 29 March 2019 10:33:36 CET Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 29. 03. 19 10:31, Robert-André Mauchin wrote:
>
> > On Friday, 29 March 2019 09:30:31 CET Michal Konecny wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Could you send me the list of projects you added? I will manually
> >>> refresh them.
> >>
> >
Hi everyone,
My name is Venkata Rama Koundinya Lanka. I am currently pursuing my final
year of engineering at Vasireddy Venkatadri Institute of Technology, Andhra
Pradesh. My skills include python, Java, Android, and Machine Learning. I
would like to contribute to* Fedora Gooey Karma* project for
I have been working on a private RPM for a Rust based program and
noticed that the RPM strip scripts are not reducing the binaries files
like when I execute strip directly on those binaries.
The first thing I checked is the brp-strip script. This one is filtering
executables where "file" repor
On 29/03/2019 16:17, Robert Marcano wrote:
I have been working on a private RPM for a Rust based program and
noticed that the RPM strip scripts are not reducing the binaries files
like when I execute strip directly on those binaries.
The first thing I checked is the brp-strip script. This one
OLD: Fedora-30-20190326.n.0
NEW: Fedora-30-20190329.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:7
Dropped images: 2
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:36
Upgraded packages: 4
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:1.25 GiB
Size of
On 3/29/19 12:23 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 29/03/2019 16:17, Robert Marcano wrote:
I have been working on a private RPM for a Rust based program and
noticed that the RPM strip scripts are not reducing the binaries files
like when I execute strip directly on those binaries.
The first thing I c
Missing expected images:
Atomichost raw-xz x86_64
Atomichost qcow2 x86_64
Failed openQA tests: 7/144 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)
ID: 374065 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/374065
ID: 374077 Test: x86_64 Workstation-boot-iso ins
On 3/29/19 9:17 AM, Robert Marcano wrote:
> I have been working on a private RPM for a Rust based program
Side note on this -- if you do package Rust shared libraries, not just
executables, and you want them to be available for further linking, then
rustc needs to have the metadata in the .rustc s
On 3/29/19 1:44 PM, Josh Stone wrote:
On 3/29/19 9:17 AM, Robert Marcano wrote:
I have been working on a private RPM for a Rust based program
Side note on this -- if you do package Rust shared libraries, not just
executables, and you want them to be available for further linking, then
rustc ne
I know it's not unusual to carry builds over from prior releases. My
understanding is that happens because there was no mass rebuild.
However, when I look at the F29 repo I see
rubygem-puppet-lint-1.1.0-2.fc23.noarch.rpm. Was there really no mass
rebuild between F23 and F29? This package is sev
Dne 29. 03. 19 v 19:47 John Florian napsal(a):
> I know it's not unusual to carry builds over from prior releases. My
> understanding is that happens because there was no mass rebuild.
> However, when I look at the F29 repo I see
> rubygem-puppet-lint-1.1.0-2.fc23.noarch.rpm. Was there really n
On 3/29/19 2:58 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 29. 03. 19 v 19:47 John Florian napsal(a):
>> I know it's not unusual to carry builds over from prior releases. My
>> understanding is that happens because there was no mass rebuild.
>> However, when I look at the F29 repo I see
>> rubygem-puppet-lint-
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 05:03:23PM +0100, Georg Sauthoff wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 03:04:53PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 06:07:05PM +0100, Georg Sauthoff wrote:
> > > because rpm automatically adds something like:
> > >
> > > libfoo.so.1()(64bit)
> > >
Hi everybody,
It looks like the first round of orphans has been taken in by our SIG - this
seemed to be a good time to do inventory and think about how to proceed.
Status Report
-
First of all, I've written a small script [0] that produces a simple HTML page
of the current status of
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 5:24 AM Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 7:46 PM Christopher
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 9:50 AM Mikolaj Izdebski
> > wrote:
> > > - javapackages-tools, stream 201801 (buildroot-only module, not
> > > intended to be delivered to users)
>
On 2019-03-28 12:47 p.m., Robert-André Mauchin wrote:
> > > Pass the correct Python version to cmake: > > %cmake \ >
-DCMAKE_VERBOSE_MAKEFILE:BOOL=TRUE \ > -DBOOST_ROOT=%{_prefix} \ >
-DLUXRAYS_DISABLE_OPENCL=0 \ > -DPYTHON_V=%{python3_version_nodots} \ >
.. Done
> > > You'll need to apply the patc
25 matches
Mail list logo
