Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2019-10-10 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.freenode.net.
Local time information (via. uitime):
= Day: Thursday ==
2019-10-10 09:00 PDT US/Pacific
2019-10-10
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 08:50:44PM -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 3:54 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
> zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 08:32:47AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Those are fairly substantial changes, but time is of essence
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:46:00AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 09. 10. 19 22:46, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modules_In_Non-Modular_Buildroot
> >
> > Enable module default streams in the buildroot repository for modular
> > and non-modular RPMs.
> >
> > == Sum
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 08:42:57PM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> Anyone else seeing this? If so, anyone know the reason and plans to fix?
> Thanks!
You'll have to be more specific than this, there has been some work put recently
on its database which led to some improvements so if you still fin
> > Anyone else seeing this? If so, anyone know the reason and plans to fix?
> > Thanks!
>
> You'll have to be more specific than this, there has been some work put
> recently
> on its database which led to some improvements so if you still find koji slow,
> you'll have to provide some more infor
* Florian Weimer:
> * Jerry James:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 8:25 PM Jerry James wrote:
>>> The previous build managed to grab the last build of glibc32 for
>>> s390x, it seems. I'm going to assume that this means that s390x
>>> should be removed from the multilib_64_arches variable in the gcc
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 3:53 AM Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> Release criterion
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_31_Final_Release_Criteria#Xen_DomU
>
> Bug since Fedora 30 also affects Fedora 31 and has been proposed as a
> Fedora 31 blocker bug
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=170370
On 07. 10. 19 11:39, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 06. 10. 19 23:52, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Sun, Oct 06, 2019 at 09:00:18PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
It says: package python3-3.7.4-5.fc31.armv7hl is excluded
I don't know why would it be. How do i debug why it gets excluded?
Only python36 and python38
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 8:46 AM Jared K. Smith
wrote:
> I will open a Rel-Eng ticket for unretirement once the package has been
> re-reviewed.
>
>
The package has been re-reviewed and re-approved, and I have opened the
rel-eng ticket at https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8891.
--
Jared Smith
Hi,
Phil Sutter writes:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 01:23:01PM +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 12:58, wrote:
>>
>> > Notification time stamped 2019-10-08 11:54:56 UTC
>> >
>> > From 26d638db91fa316f706ea947ab076bce216ec8cc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> > From: Phil Su
On Thursday, 10 October 2019 04:42:57 CEST Orion Poplawski wrote:
> Anyone else seeing this? If so, anyone know the reason and plans to
> fix? Thanks!
I concur, yesterday it was taking around a minute to get an answer from the
server.
___
devel mail
OLD: Fedora-31-20191009.n.0
NEW: Fedora-31-20191010.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:2
Dropped images: 0
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
Is it too late to restore maintenance of mypaint? I've just fixed all
issues, and only about to push last patch, but cannot do it unfortunately
anymore.
--
Sergey Avseyev
El lun., 7 ene. 2019 a las 7:59, Miro Hrončok ()
escribió:
> The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when th
On Thu, 2019-10-10 at 14:06 +, Sergey Avseyev wrote:
> mypaint
is not retired you can take the onwership
--
Sérgio M. B.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
F
On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 19:56, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 10. 10. 19 1:44, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 18:46, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> What I miss in the description is:
> >>
> >> 1. How does this thing actually work? is there an additional repository
> >> compos
No missing expected images.
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
2 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.clo
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 5/153 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-31-20191009.n.0):
ID: 466566 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso apps_startstop
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/466566
ID: 466618 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_ser
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Free_Pascal_Compiler_3.2.0
== Summary ==
Update the Free Pascal Compiler used within Fedora to version 3.2.0,
once it is published, and enable building (previously unsupported)
AArch64 and ppc64le packages using the compiler.
== Owners ==
* Name: [[User:suve
> So despite providing zero feedback here, this was voted at the modularity
> meeting:
>
> * Tagging Module Defaults into non-modular repo (sgallagh, 15:41:37)
>* AGREED: We disagree with merging default streams into the main repo
> as non-modular packages. Our approach is to implement a
Is there a COPR available for testing?
hedgewars just released 1.0 and I need to see if I have any issues with the
new compiler stack, especially since it looks like I won't need ExcludeArch
anymore.
Thanks,
Richard
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20191009.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20191010.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:2
Dropped images: 3
Added packages: 13
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 64
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 46.87 MiB
Size of dropped packages
On 10. 10. 19 16:15, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 19:56, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 10. 10. 19 1:44, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 18:46, Miro Hrončok wrote:
What I miss in the description is:
1. How does this thing actually work? is there an additi
Hello,
We had a rather short meeting where I quickly ran over the agenda. A few
action items are pending, so we'll work on those:
===
#fedora-neuro: NeuroFedora - 2019-10-10
===
Meeting started by FranciscoD at 15:01:56 UTC
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 03:30:40PM +0200, Robert-André Mauchin wrote:
> On Thursday, 10 October 2019 04:42:57 CEST Orion Poplawski wrote:
> > Anyone else seeing this? If so, anyone know the reason and plans to
> > fix? Thanks!
>
> I concur, yesterday it was taking around a minute to get an answ
> https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8880 - Include default_modules_scm_url in
> platform 31 virtual module
platform *f32*?
Other than that, it would be nice to have more specific rules *when*
and *how* modules are checked to conform to the guidelines…
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:51 PM Ben Cotton w
Il 10/10/19 16:35, Ben Cotton ha scritto:
> == Scope ==
> All packages depending on `fpc` should be rebuilt with the new `fpc`
> once it hits F32, or, if there is not enough time for that, just all
> packages built after the new `fpc` hits the buildroots.
>
> * Proposal owners:
> ** Update the `fpc
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:52 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 09. 10. 19 22:46, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modules_In_Non-Modular_Buildroot
> >
> > Enable module default streams in the buildroot repository for modular
> > and non-modular RPMs.
> >
> > == Summary ==
On 10. 10. 19 17:46, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:52 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 09. 10. 19 22:46, Ben Cotton wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modules_In_Non-Modular_Buildroot
Enable module default streams in the buildroot repository for modular
and non-modular
On 09. 10. 19 15:14, Ben Cotton wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ReplaceBazaarWithBreezy
Note that this was originally discussed on the devel mailing list:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/RQW6L265IIVHUIHNXPELEFMIBQX67DLC/#TBWSCGWFSG
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:28:37AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Yeah, I agree that there's a problem with non-parallel-installable modules
> > that aren't effectively leaves.
> The problem does not only happen if the module is a non-leaf at module
> level, but there can also be conflicts at pack
On Thu, 2019-10-10 at 08:23 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 03:30:40PM +0200, Robert-André Mauchin wrote:
> > On Thursday, 10 October 2019 04:42:57 CEST Orion Poplawski wrote:
> > > Anyone else seeing this? If so, anyone know the reason and plans
> > > to
> > > fix? Thanks!
>
Hello,
In accordance with Fedora non-responsive maintainer policy, I'm sending
this message in attempt to contact Andreas Bierfert (awjb).
Required non-responsive maintainer bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760528
Open unaddressed bugs (53 in total):
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/
... and that's the wrong list. My bad.
Thanks,
--Robbie
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:39 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
> Sorry, I wasn't aware that you were trying to rebuild gcc this week. I
> spoke to Jakub about the glibc32 change, and he had no objections.
>
> It's not clear how you are handling the transition. Why do you need to
> change GCC build requi
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 2:36 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote:
> > So the PRs were for Rawhide, but the bug I'm trying to fix exists on all
> > supported Fedora releases. I wasn't planning on updating F29 at this
> point
> > but F30 does have a lot of life left.
> >
> > I
Andreas Bierfert writes:
> On Thu, 2019-10-10 at 14:23 -0400, Robbie Harwood wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> In accordance with Fedora non-responsive maintainer policy, I'm
>> sending this message in attempt to contact Andreas Bierfert (awjb).
>>
>> Required non-responsive maintainer bug:
>> https://bug
On 10/10/19 9:23 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 03:30:40PM +0200, Robert-André Mauchin wrote:
On Thursday, 10 October 2019 04:42:57 CEST Orion Poplawski wrote:
Anyone else seeing this? If so, anyone know the reason and plans to
fix? Thanks!
I concur, yesterday it was taking
I continue to run into strange (at least to me) issues with modules on
EL8. RHEL8 ships a 'rhn-tools' module that ships only the "koan"
package from the cobbler srpm [1]. When this module is enabled, I
cannot install cobbler from my copr - dnf reports that 'cobbler' is
excluded.
Can someone
Hello,
currently, there is a problem with building EPEL-8 packages because of
DNF bugs regarding modularity (see RHBZ 1758459).
The only known workaround is to use DNF with `best=False'. Even though
it is something you don't really want to use longterm, we are patching
mock configs epel-8-* chroo
Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:28:37AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> The problem does not only happen if the module is a non-leaf at module
>> level, but there can also be conflicts at package level, if the modules
>> bundle non-leaf packages that then conflict between the 2 mod
Lukas Ruzicka wrote:
> Just for illustration, this is what I wanted to say about it:
>
>1. Modularity should stay away from my system until I call for it ->
>now it is not the case, because modularity sneaks into users' computer
>through modular defaults that overcome the non-modular p
> On Oct 10, 2019, at 7:34 PM, Jakub Kadlcik wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> currently, there is a problem with building EPEL-8 packages because of
> DNF bugs regarding modularity (see RHBZ 1758459).
>
> The only known workaround is to use DNF with `best=False'. Even though
> it is something you don't
On 10/10/19 4:57 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
On 10/10/19 9:23 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 03:30:40PM +0200, Robert-André Mauchin wrote:
On Thursday, 10 October 2019 04:42:57 CEST Orion Poplawski wrote:
Anyone else seeing this? If so, anyone know the reason and plans to
fix?
Shame on Redhat for using an untested feature
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671683
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https:/
ABI changed in svt-vp9 0.1.1 release.
All changes
https://taskotron.fedoraproject.org/artifacts/all/6720382c-ebf1-11e9-904f-52540077ca13/tests.yml/svt-vp9-0.1.1-1.fc32.log
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an ema
45 matches
Mail list logo
