No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/1 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
ID: 594394 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/594394
--
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.i
On Thu, May 07, 2020 02:58:38 +0530, Purusharth Saxena wrote:
> Hi folks,
Hi Purusharth!
>
> Hope you all are doing well. Nice to meet ya'll. I'm Purusharth. I've been
> using Fedora for 3-4 good years now.I'm working at a project in IITB (FOSSEE-
> Free and Open Source software for education),
Hi
I'm hitting the following error (and other similar ones) with this
qt-creator build [1] on armv7hl and armv7hl only:
/usr/include/clang/AST/Type.h: In member function 'clang::QualType
clang::TypeSourceInfo::getType() const':
/usr/include/clang/AST/Type.h:6238:37: error: invalid use of non-
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 11:54:07AM +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'm hitting the following error (and other similar ones) with this
> qt-creator build [1] on armv7hl and armv7hl only:
Code snippets like that aren't useful for analyzing what's going on, as they
can't be compiled. Please send
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the
FESCo meeting Monday at 15:00UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.freenode.net.
To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto
or run:
date -d '2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hello,
I guess that people think that only first digit goes to SONAME, but
that is not true and needs to be checked carefully.
Broken packages are:
* [gmsh](https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1833305)
* [paraview](https://bugzilla.redhat.c
On Thu, 7 May 2020 at 20:58, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 08:39:19PM +0200, clime wrote:
> ...snip... please folks... please trim your posts? :)
>
> > These are some great stats!
> >
> > But I would like to note that exploded repos (or source-git repos)
> > have at least two othe
On Thu, 7 May 2020 at 22:53, clime wrote:
>
>
>
> > In the rare occasion that I need to make downstream-only changes with
> > patches, I usually just explode the upstream tarball, run "git init",
> > then "git add .", "git commit -m import", apply my changes, and then
> > do "git diff --patch > .
On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 09:59, clime wrote:
>
> On Thu, 7 May 2020 at 20:58, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 08:39:19PM +0200, clime wrote:
> > ...snip... please folks... please trim your posts? :)
> >
> > > These are some great stats!
> > >
> > > But I would like to note that ex
Not that it's a huge deal for me but I wouldn't call the upgrade smooth.
There were a bunch of python2 packages that needed to be removed which
necessitated --allowerasing which I've never had to do before.
Now this, which I'm guessing is a packaging issue which a user shouldn't
have to deal with
On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 16:22, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
> On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 09:59, clime wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 7 May 2020 at 20:58, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 08:39:19PM +0200, clime wrote:
> > > ...snip... please folks... please trim your posts? :)
> > >
> >
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 09:24:14AM -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> Not that it's a huge deal for me but I wouldn't call the upgrade smooth.
>
> There were a bunch of python2 packages that needed to be removed which
> necessitated --allowerasing which I've never had to do before.
This should not be t
On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 11:56:12AM +0200, Hunor Csomortáni wrote:
> I'm working at Red Hat and I've been a member of the Packit team since
> February. This means I'm going to spend more time in Fedora-space than
> before.
Welcome! Glad to hear it.
> Previously I was doing automation and testing i
On Fri, 8 May 2020, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
Not that it's a huge deal for me but I wouldn't call the upgrade smooth.
There were a bunch of python2 packages that needed to be removed which
necessitated --allowerasing which I've never had to do before.
This should not be the case. If
On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 11:41:37AM +0200, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
> I'm actually not a fan of the term "source-git" honestly - I'd love to
> call it "upstream git" since that's what we are trying to do - use the
> repository layout which is well-known in the upstream community.
The problem with that
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 10:55 am, Scott Talbert wrote:
Speaking of fedora-obsolete-packages, that package got removed from
my system on upgrade from F31->F32. Is that expected?
Without fedora-obsolete-packages installed, maintaining an upgrade path
becomes impossible. So that sounds bad. Prob
On Fri, 8 May 2020, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
Speaking of fedora-obsolete-packages, that package got removed from my
system on upgrade from F31->F32. Is that expected?
Without fedora-obsolete-packages installed, maintaining an upgrade path
becomes impossible. So that sounds bad. Probably it s
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 2:24 PM Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> Well, a way to allow force pushes would be to have a git hook that
> branches the tree before the force push. (creating a branch named
> something like audit-force-push-)
In Ceph we do this at a slightly different point of time. We use
"rdopkg
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 11:08 am, Scott Talbert wrote:
That is kind of what I figured. BTW, I used the GUI method to
upgrade.
Yeah me too. And my fedora-obsolete-packages is also gone.
It cannot be installed, either. I wonder: am I misunderstanding how
this is supposed to work? Or has someth
On Fri, 2020-05-08 at 10:47 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 11:08 am, Scott Talbert wrote:
> > That is kind of what I figured. BTW, I used the GUI method to
> > upgrade.
>
> Yeah me too. And my fedora-obsolete-packages is also gone.
>
> It cannot be installed, either.
On 08.05.2020 16:55, Scott Talbert wrote:
> Speaking of fedora-obsolete-packages, that package got removed from my
> system on upgrade from F31->F32. Is that expected?
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-obsolete-packages/pull-request/23
fedora-obsolete-packages is no longer required.
--
On Fri, 8 May 2020, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
That is kind of what I figured. BTW, I used the GUI method to upgrade.
Yeah me too. And my fedora-obsolete-packages is also gone.
It cannot be installed, either. I wonder: am I misunderstanding how this is
supposed to work? Or has something impro
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 03:41:36AM +0530, Purusharth Saxena wrote:
Hi folks,
I'm packaging tpcclib (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832562)
and as per the review, I wanted to confirm the licence for tpcclib (
https://gitlab.utu.fi/vesoik/tpcclib/-/blob/master/license.md)
Should it b
On Thu, 7 May 2020 at 20:50, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 06:46:48PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> ...snip...
> >
> > The latest tag for a source package name wins for the Koji-generatged
> > repository. I don't know what happens if different source packages
> > build subpackag
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 12:05 PM Scott Talbert wrote:
> On Fri, 8 May 2020, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>
> >> That is kind of what I figured. BTW, I used the GUI method to upgrade.
> >
> > Yeah me too. And my fedora-obsolete-packages is also gone.
> >
> > It cannot be installed, either. I wonder: a
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 12:39:04PM -0400, Dan Book wrote:
> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 12:05 PM Scott Talbert wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 8 May 2020, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> >
> > >> That is kind of what I figured. BTW, I used the GUI method to upgrade.
> > >
> > > Yeah me too. And my fedora-obsolete-pa
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 12:54 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 12:39:04PM -0400, Dan Book wrote:
> > On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 12:05 PM Scott Talbert wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 8 May 2020, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > >
> > > >> That is kind of what I
On 08/05/2020 17:33, David Cantrell wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 03:41:36AM +0530, Purusharth Saxena wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I'm packaging tpcclib
>> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832562)
>> and as per the review, I wanted to confirm the licence for tpcclib (
>> https://gitlab
On Fri, May 08, 2020 18:11:32 +0100, J. Randall Owens wrote:
> On 08/05/2020 17:33, David Cantrell wrote:
Thank you for both your replies.
We know the breakdown of the licenses in the different files
(`licensecheck` provides us with it, and is run as part of Fedora
review). The query primarily is
Hi,
I'm a bit late to the party, but here's my 2¢.
On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 05:05:02PM +0200, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
> In the packit project, we work in source-git repositories. These are
> pretty much upstream repositories combined with Fedora downstream
> packaging files.
I think source-git would
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 06:58:51PM +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2020 18:11:32 +0100, J. Randall Owens wrote:
On 08/05/2020 17:33, David Cantrell wrote:
Thank you for both your replies.
We know the breakdown of the licenses in the different files
(`licensecheck` provides us with i
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 06:11:32PM +0100, J. Randall Owens wrote:
On 08/05/2020 17:33, David Cantrell wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 03:41:36AM +0530, Purusharth Saxena wrote:
Hi folks,
I'm packaging tpcclib
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832562)
and as per the review, I wanted
On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 05:05:02PM +0200, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
Let’s talk about dist-git, as a place where we work. For us,
packagers, it’s a well-known place. Yet for newcomers, it may take a
while to learn all the details. Even though we operate with projects
in a dist-git repository, the layou
On 5/8/20 7:24 AM, Richard Shaw wrote:
There were a bunch of python2 packages that needed to be removed which
necessitated --allowerasing which I've never had to do before.
I install lots of extra things and I'm surprised when I don't need to
add that option.
_
Hello,
I upgraded to F32 Beta, and then final when it came out. In the last
few days I've got an issue that I'm 99% sure I'm not the cause of but I
don't know what component to report it on.
I've had this workstation for years and it has a number of VMs that I
manage with virt-manager/libvirt
Missing expected images:
Iot dvd aarch64
Iot dvd x86_64
Failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-IoT-33-20200507.0):
ID: 594575 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso release_identification
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/594575
Passed openQA tes
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 03:12:15PM -0400, David Cantrell wrote:
> WHAT I WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO:
>
> * View Fedora's dist-git repos as authoritative for packages built for
> Fedora. That is, I want to see a package on my Fedora system and be able to
> visit its dist-git repo to see how it's pa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Fri, 2020-05-08 at 13:34 -0600, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I upgraded to F32 Beta, and then final when it came out. In the
> last
> few days I've got an issue that I'm 99% sure I'm not the cause of but
> I
> don't know what compone
On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 20:05, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I'm a bit late to the party, but here's my 2¢.
>
> On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 05:05:02PM +0200, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
> > In the packit project, we work in source-git repositories. These are
> > pretty much upstream repositories
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 8:03 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 01. 05. 20 22:21, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > == Detailed Description ==
> > Fedora 33 will ship with the latest LTS version of Node.js by default.
> > This will either be the `nodejs:14` module stream or else replicated
> > to the non-modular re
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 10:43 AM Fabio Valentini wrote:
> I pushed maven-javadoc-plugin-3.2.0 to rawhide today, which should fix
> OpenJDK 11 related issues according to its release notes.
> Please verify that this doesn't fix your problems before working on
> any workarounds :)
So far this update
On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 6:26 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 01. 05. 20 22:21, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > * Proposal owners:
> > The packages are already built for Fedora 33 in a non-default module
> > stream. On June 14th, 2020, the nodejs-14.x packages will become the
> > default in Fedora 33 (either by
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:55 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 03:12:15PM -0400, David Cantrell wrote:
> > WHAT I WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO:
> >
> > * View Fedora's dist-git repos as authoritative for packages built for
> > Fedora. That is, I want to see a package on
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 4:25 PM Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:55 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 03:12:15PM -0400, David Cantrell wrote:
> > > WHAT I WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO:
> > >
> > > * View Fedora's dist-git repos as authoritative for
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 10:19 PM Jerry James wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 10:43 AM Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > I pushed maven-javadoc-plugin-3.2.0 to rawhide today, which should fix
> > OpenJDK 11 related issues according to its release notes.
> > Please verify that this doesn't fix your probl
On Fri, 2020-05-08 at 22:08 +0200, Igor Raits wrote:
>
> I would guess that some ip_forward or something like this is not set.
> I'd report this against firewalld component on
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com.
>
Thanks Igor,
In attempting to file the bug I found that a bug has been filed
alread
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 07:54:11PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 03:12:15PM -0400, David Cantrell wrote:
WHAT I WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO:
* View Fedora's dist-git repos as authoritative for packages built for
Fedora. That is, I want to see a package on my Fed
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 10:23:45PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:55 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 03:12:15PM -0400, David Cantrell wrote:
> WHAT I WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO:
>
> * View Fedora's dist-git repos as authoritative for packages bu
On 08/05/2020 21:18, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 6:26 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 01. 05. 20 22:21, Ben Cotton wrote:
* Proposal owners:
The packages are already built for Fedora 33 in a non-default module
stream. On June 14th, 2020, the nodejs-14.x packages will become the
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 04:28:37PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 4:25 PM Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:55 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 03:12:15PM -0400, David Cantrell wrote:
> > WHAT I WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO:
> >
> > * V
Hello
By bad, I had intended to kick off the rebuilds straight away but then
got sidetracked by other business.
Apologies
Sandro
On 08.05.20 13:36, Igor Raits wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hello,
I guess that people think that only first digit goes to SONAME, but
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20200507.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20200508.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 4
Added packages: 10
Dropped packages:3
Upgraded packages: 83
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 477.53 MiB
Size of dropped packages
# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting
# Date: 2020-05-11
# Time: 15:00 UTC
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto)
# Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net
Greetings testers!
We STILL didn't get through the whole agenda last week, so let's
continue this week again!
If anyone
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Sat, 2020-05-09 at 00:32 +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
> Hello
>
> By bad, I had intended to kick off the rebuilds straight away but
> then
> got sidetracked by other business.
Please use side tags for SONAME bumps and updates which require build
o
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 10:13:25PM +0200, clime wrote:
> On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 20:05, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > I'm a bit late to the party, but here's my 2¢.
> >
> > On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 05:05:02PM +0200, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
> > > In the packit project, we work in s
No missing expected images.
Passed openQA tests: 1/1 (x86_64)
--
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedorap
56 matches
Mail list logo
