OLD: Fedora-31-20191018.n.0
NEW: Fedora-31-20191019.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 2
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of upgraded
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 5/153 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-31-20191018.n.0):
ID: 472457 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_browser
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/472457
ID: 472488 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-d
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 02:09:14PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OnDemandSideTags
Nice idea. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see in the proposal if
there would be guidelines for naming the side tags so they don't
interfere with each other?
For OCaml rebuilds t
Greetings.
As many of you may have noticed, we have not had a rawhide compose now
for 5 days. :(
2019-10-15 - anaconda bug
2019-10-16 - another anaconda bug
( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1761901 )
2019-10-17 - broken dep on kde media
- nothing provides libmpfr.so.4()(64bit) nee
Hi all,
It's been incredible to part of this project and community! :-)
Once upon a time I was an (over?)enthusiastic packager and it's left me
with ownership of 300+ packages. O_o
In the last couple years I haven't been able to dedicate enough time to
Fedora, and I've just about kept my most
On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 03:52:03PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 02:09:14PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OnDemandSideTags
>
> Nice idea. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see in the proposal if
> there would be guidelines for namin
Of course, just after I post, I find I've somehow missed three packages:
These go in list [d] (depended on by other packages at runtime):
nodejs-shelljs: 4
nodejs-walkdir: 1
This goes in list [f] (not depended on by anything):
nodejs-sha
Kind regards,
--
Jamie Nguyen
___
It seems that Fedora repo has been providing lmms version 1.1.3 roughly
released three years ago. I'm curious if that is there is no one to
maintain the package or there are legal problems with the new versions of
LMMS (currently 2.0) disallowing update of the package to new versions. I
would appre
According to the schedule [1], Fedora 31 Candidate RC-1.3 is now
available for testing. Please help us complete all the validation
testing! For more information on release validation testing, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan
Test coverage information for the curr
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 5/153 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)
ID: 472716 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso modularity_tests
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/472716
ID: 472757 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_browser
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/
On Saturday, 19 October 2019 at 19:38, Jamie Nguyen wrote:
[...]
> ===
> [a]: Need owner
> ===
[...]
> utf8cpp
I'll take utf8cpp. Two of my packages BuildRequire it.
Regards,
Dominik
--
Fedora https://getfedora.org | RPM Fusion http://rpmfusion.org
There should be a
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 10:42:54AM -0700, Howard Howell wrote:
> I just got a new computer, an Intel with Nvidia 2060 graphics card. I
> could NOT get fedora to install or boot. For the first time since
Do you recall any specifics? This is very unlikely to be related to
modularity or anything to
On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 05:49:18PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 03:52:03PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 02:09:14PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OnDemandSideTags
> >
> > Nice idea. Maybe
Thanks Neal. It's better last week so I work from my bed (I've been so lucky
to catch new sickness day after my last email...sigh. at least I do not have
any better entertainment program after almost 2w in bed than playing with
code on saturday).
I rebased mercurial to version 5.1.2. today in raw
On Sat, 2019-10-19 at 14:35 -0400, Code Zombie wrote:
> It seems that Fedora repo has been providing lmms version 1.1.3 roughly
> released three years ago. I'm curious if that is there is no one to
> maintain the package or there are legal problems with the new versions of
> LMMS (currently 2.0) di
15 matches
Mail list logo
