Re: Missing arches on EPEL 8 for LibRaw?

On 16.08.2019 6:22, Richard Shaw wrote: > I assume this is because LibRaw is available in RHEL but only for x86_64 > and ppc64le? The same as Pidgin and lots of other apps/libs. You need to add "ExclusiveArch: x86_64 ppc64le" in order to build your package successfully. -- Sincerely, Vitaly Za

Re: unable to branch to epel8

Robert-André Mauchin writes: > The PDC is the Product Definition Center: Thanks. > Your package has already a EPEL8 branch in the PDC: > https://pdc.fedoraproject.org/rest_api/v1/component-branches/? > global_component=procenv > > If the branch has not been created in dist-git, you can create i

Re: unable to branch to epel8

Kevin Fenzi writes: >> Also, I don't get any notifications from pagure (as with various other >> -- most? -- services), despite turning on anything relevant-looking in >> the notifications app. I've asked several times about lack of >> notifications with no luck or suggestions how to debug it.

Re: Orphaning cloud-init, python-boto

Igor Gnatenko writes: > python-boto is dead and deprecated. Why do you want to take it? While I don't run it from Fedora, Elasticluster is one current user (see ) for what it's worth. ___ devel ma

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

On Thu, 2019-08-15 at 09:50 -0400, Gerald Henriksen wrote: > On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 11:23:53 -0500, you wrote: > > > So in summary, I guess I mostly support allowing packages which can't be > > rebuilt to stay in the distribution as long as they actually work and > > aren't causing maintenance burden

Re: Why does anaconda-core runtime depend on python3-coverage?

The coverage dependency was removed (F31 and Rawhide): https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/pull/2086 The main reason for the removal was that this wasn't really used in the past and the recent Anaconda changes needs other solution to get the correct coverage. Jirka On Wed, 2019-08-14 at 11:

[Test-Announce] Fedora 31 Rawhide 20190816.n.0 nightly compose nominated for testing

Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event for Fedora 31 Rawhide 20190816.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

Projects in Copr @ discussion.f.o

Hi, I want to soon enable embedded discussion on Copr projects pages. I created: https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/c/projects-in-copr There is one downside thou - if you enabled Preferences -> Emails -> Enable mailing list mode (which BTW discouraged by Discourse devels) then you are likely

vdr-epg-daemon does not compile on f32

Hi, i run the following command as mentioned on [1] $ fedpkg clone vdr-epg-daemon; cd vdr-epg-daemon; git merge master $ git add vdr-epg-daemon-makefile.patch $ fedpkg diff; fedpkg commit -p -c; fedpkg build --target=f32-python but this fails like you see here in the log-files [3] Can somebod

Re: vdr-epg-daemon does not compile on f32

On 16. 08. 19 13:34, Martin Gansser wrote: Hi, i run the following command as mentioned on [1] $ fedpkg clone vdr-epg-daemon; cd vdr-epg-daemon; git merge master $ git add vdr-epg-daemon-makefile.patch $ fedpkg diff; fedpkg commit -p -c; fedpkg build --target=f32-python but this fails like y

Re: Announcing EPEL-8.0 Release

Dne 14. 08. 19 v 16:50 Stephen John Smoogen napsal(a): > The EPEL Steering Committee is pleased to announce that the initial > EPEL-8 is ready for release. We would like to thank everyone in the > > ## Known Issues: Can someone please update: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL -- Miroslav Su

recode-3.7.1 in Fedora 32 will change a soname

I'm preparing an upgrade of "recode" pacakge from 3.6 to 3.7.1 version. Because it changes an ABI and a license (from (GPLv2+) to (GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+ and BSD and OFSFDL); the library itself from LGPLv2+ to LGPLv3+)), the upgrade will be performed in Rawhide only. Following packages will need to b

Re: What other external trackers would you like added to Bugzilla?

Hi! I've e-mailed the list to bugzilla-ow...@redhat.com now. -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Time zone: Europe/London signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ devel

Re: Missing arches on EPEL 8 for LibRaw?

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 12:40 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > On 16.08.2019 6:22, Richard Shaw wrote: > > I assume this is because LibRaw is available in RHEL but only for x86_64 > > and ppc64le? > > The same as Pidgin and lots of other apps/libs. You need to add > "ExclusiveArch: x86_64 pp

Fedora-Rawhide-20190816.n.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check! 10 of 45 required tests failed, 2 results missing openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING** below Unsatisfied gating requirements that could not be mapped to openQA tests: FAILED: compose.cl

Re: [HEADS-UP]: Mercurial with Python3 on rawhide?

I think tortoisehg is not ported to python3 On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 1:39 PM Neal Becker wrote: > > I just tested hg-5.1.0 with the latest git version of hg-evolve on > python3 and at least some basic things seem to be working. One > problem: > hg > *** failed to import extension hggit: No module

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:30:36AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > I think the process is actually great. I kinda prefer the direction of > travel where we expect that packages are actively maintained and quite > aggressively throw them out if they aren't, to the direction where we > accumulate cru

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

On 16. 08. 19 16:21, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: I think if you make it easy to "throw out" packages then you must also make it easy to add them back later. People do a lot of work adding and maintaining packages and requiring a full re-review for a package that was retired a few days ago is too m

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

On Fri, 2019-08-16 at 15:21 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:30:36AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > I think the process is actually great. I kinda prefer the direction of > > travel where we expect that packages are actively maintained and quite > > aggressively thro

Re: Projects in Copr @ discussion.f.o

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 13:31 Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Hi, > I want to soon enable embedded discussion on Copr projects pages. I created: > https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/c/projects-in-copr > There is one downside thou - if you enabled > Preferences -> Emails -> Enable mailing list mode >

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

> "GH" == Gerald Henriksen writes: GH> On the other hand, unbuildable packages could be viewed as a GH> security risk. I mentioned security explicitly in my message. Just not in the portion you quoted. GH> If you can't just fix the security issue and rebuild, but instead GH> have to also f

Re: unable to branch to epel8

On Friday, 16 August 2019 11:13:56 CEST Dave Love wrote: > Robert-André Mauchin writes: > > > > The PDC is the Product Definition Center: > > > Thanks. > > > > Your package has already a EPEL8 branch in the PDC: > > https://pdc.fedoraproject.org/rest_api/v1/component-branches/? > > global_co

Re: unable to branch to epel8

On 16. 08. 19 11:13, Dave Love wrote: Robert-André Mauchin writes: The PDC is the Product Definition Center: Thanks. Your package has already a EPEL8 branch in the PDC: https://pdc.fedoraproject.org/rest_api/v1/component-branches/? global_component=procenv If the branch has not been creat

Re: Missing arches on EPEL 8 for LibRaw?

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 09:52, Troy Dawson wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 12:40 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel > wrote: > > > > On 16.08.2019 6:22, Richard Shaw wrote: > > > I assume this is because LibRaw is available in RHEL but only for x86_64 > > > and ppc64le? > > > > The same as Pidgin and

Fedora 31 Beta blocker status email #3

Action summary Accepted blockers - 1. dracut-modules-olpc — Cannot be installed due to unsatisfied 'bitfrost' dependency — NEW ACTION: dracut-modules-olpc to resolve dependency on desired bitfrost package. Proposed blockers - 1. gnome-initial-s

Re: Announcing EPEL-8.0 Release

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 08:12, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > Dne 14. 08. 19 v 16:50 Stephen John Smoogen napsal(a): > > The EPEL Steering Committee is pleased to announce that the initial > > EPEL-8 is ready for release. We would like to thank everyone in the > > > > ## Known Issues: > > Can someone pl

Re: Fedora 31 Beta blocker status email #3

On Fri, 2019-08-16 at 12:35 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > Action summary > > > Accepted blockers > - > 1. dracut-modules-olpc — Cannot be installed due to unsatisfied > 'bitfrost' dependency — NEW > bitfrost package was retired, which prevents dractu-modules-olpc

Re: Fedora 31 Beta blocker status email #3

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 12:04 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > > Action summary > > > Accepted blockers > - > 1. dracut-modules-olpc — Cannot be installed due to unsatisfied > 'bitfrost' dependency — NEW > ACTION: dracut-modules-olpc to resolve dependency on desired bitf

Re: Fedora 31 Beta blocker status email #3

On Fri, 2019-08-16 at 12:38 -0500, Justin Forbes wrote: > > 2. kernel — https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733388 — NEW > > Circular locking often causes btrfs installs to hang with > > kernel-5.3.0-0.rc0.git7.1.fc31 and later > > > > Installations since kernel-5.3.0-0.rc0.git7.1.fc31 of

[Test-Announce] 2019-08-19 @ 15:00 UTC - Fedora QA Meeting

# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting # Date: 2019-08-19 # Time: 15:00 UTC (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto) # Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net Greetings testers! We didn't meet for a few weeks, so let's check in on where we're at. If anyone has any other items f

[Test-Announce] Proposal to CANCEL: 2019-08-19 Fedora 31 Blocker Review Meeting

Hey folks! I'm proposing we cancel the blocker review meeting for Monday; there are no proposed blockers and only one boring accepted blocker on the list. Thanks everyone! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://

Re: unable to branch to epel8

On 8/16/19 2:40 AM, Dave Love wrote: > Kevin Fenzi writes: > >>> Also, I don't get any notifications from pagure (as with various other >>> -- most? -- services), despite turning on anything relevant-looking in >>> the notifications app. I've asked several times about lack of >>> notifications w

looking to orphan docker-distribution..

I'm looking to give up ownership of the docker-distribution package. Current co-maintainers aren't keen on owning it either, but I heard registry.fp.o depends on it. So, just checking if anyone would like to own it before I orphan it. -- Lokesh IRC, GitHub: lsm5 GPG: 0xC7C3A0DD https://keybase.io

Something odd going on with the Fedora mirror manager?

This site: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mirrormanager/ Shows releases for 25835, 25788, 25775, 25757 and 25748. -- Jonathan Billings ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedorapro

FedoraRespin-30-updates-20190816.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 2/31 (x86_64) ID: 432615 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default_upload URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/432615 ID: 432619 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_live URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/43261