Iago Rubio kirjoitti 20.8.2021 klo 0.03:
[iago@rawhide]$ dnf repoquery --releasever rawhide --whatrequires
"rarian*"
Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:26 ago on Thu 19 Aug 2021 10:34:56
PM CEST.
alleyoop-0:0.9.8-18.fc35.x86_64
etherape-0:0.9.18-8.fc35.x86_64
gnome-translate-0:0.99-39.fc35.x86
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-33-20210819.0):
ID: 953182 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
Kevin Fenzi kirjoitti 20.8.2021 klo 22.32:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 11:03:27PM +0200, Iago Rubio wrote:
On Wed, 2021-08-18 at 08:56 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 08:15:36PM +0700, Didik Supriadi wrote:
I think ppl now can go to
https://packager-dashboard.fedoraproject.org/us
Great tío thank you
En 21 ago. 2021 9:30, en 9:30, Otto Urpelainen escribió:
>Iago Rubio kirjoitti 20.8.2021 klo 0.03:
>>
>> [iago@rawhide]$ dnf repoquery --releasever rawhide --whatrequires
>> "rarian*"
>> Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:26 ago on Thu 19 Aug 2021
>10:34:56
>> PM CEST.
>> al
>
>
>
> For some time already, I have all of the package maintainer docs already
> rewritten and improved at package-maintainer-docs [1], with the intent to
> keep improving them. They remain unpublished because, despite my pleas, the
> main docs page maintainers keep ignoring two oneliner pull
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 17:22:59 +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> * Ankur Sinha [20/08/2021 12:27] :
> >
> > I totally understand the point of the system we have in place, but I do
> > see how it doesn't quite address the case of upstream developers or
> > individuals who'd just like to maintain their
On 21/08/2021 10:57, Ankur Sinha wrote:
So, if we can do anything to make it easier for developers to just
maintain their one or two tools for the Fedora community, that'll be
good.
And we will get a lot of low-quality packages with bundled a lot of
libraries, ignoring Fedora build flags, guid
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 1/8 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Cloud-34-20210819.0):
ID: 953209 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2
base_service_manipulation@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/953209
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8
On Fri, 2021-08-20 at 12:32 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 11:03:27PM +0200, Iago Rubio wrote:
> > I checked out the wishlist and the first entry is the orphans page,
> > that leads to the link I edited to the packager dashboard orphans.
> >
> > So I am now a bit confused on w
On Fri, 2021-08-20 at 23:29 +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
> On 8/20/21 9:32 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 11:03:27PM +0200, Iago Rubio wrote:
> > > Right now, I was aiming for rarian.
> > > ...
> > > Should I go fot it or I'd rather search for other package on the
> > > wish
> > >
I've been wondering for a while but I haven't had time to ask this, why is
there no lld compatibility package?
clang and llvm have them and only lld seems to lack it.
I'd understand it if lld was just a linker but it also provides many libraries
and development files that can have brekaing change
On Sat, Aug 21, 2021 at 7:55 PM Jan Drögehoff wrote:
>
> I've been wondering for a while but I haven't had time to ask this, why is
> there no lld compatibility package?
> clang and llvm have them and only lld seems to lack it.
> I'd understand it if lld was just a linker but it also provides man
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20210820.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20210821.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:2
Dropped images: 3
Added packages: 5
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 99
Downgraded packages: 1
Size of added packages: 2.65 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
> On Sat, Aug 21, 2021 at 7:55 PM Jan Drögehoff wrote:
>
> tstellar already answered in a different thread:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.o...
I can understand if there is no compatibility package because there hasn't been
a use for one
though I don't
No missing expected images.
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
1 of 43 required test results missing
Unsatisfied gating requirements that could not be mapped to openQA tests:
MISSING: fedora.Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2.x86_64.64bit - compose.cloud_autocloud
Failed openQA tests: 12/207 (x86_6
The errors are not the same across releases.
The complete error on F34 is:
~~~
Error:
Problem: package OpenColorIO-devel-2.0.1-1.fc34.x86_64 requires
libOpenColorIO.so.2.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
- package OpenColorIO-devel-2.0.1-1.fc34.x86_64 requires
OpenColor
On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 at 21:42, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>
> I'm starting to build packages and all dependencies for an updated
> hdf5/netcdf/octave stack in a side tag. Please use:
>
> fedpkg build --target=f35-build-side-44365
>
> to build dependent packages until the side tag is merged back.
>
Is
I have been fiddling with the rarian package, and I can't get the rpm
to build on fedora-eln-i386.
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/iago/rarian/builds/
It's a weird error as it's a dependency problem. Lack of go-srpm-macros
needed by redhat-rpm-config-197-1.eln112.noarch.
https://downlo
On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 at 21:42, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>
> I'm starting to build packages and all dependencies for an updated
> hdf5/netcdf/octave stack in a side tag. Please use:
>
> fedpkg build --target=f35-build-side-44365
>
> to build dependent packages until the side tag is merged back.
>
> De
> ~~~
> diff -Naur
> blender-2.93.3-original/source/blender/io/usd/intern/usd_writer_abstract.cc
> blender-2.93.3/source/blender/io/usd/intern/usd_writer_abstract.cc
> ---
> blender-2.93.3-original/source/blender/io/usd/intern/usd_writer_abstract.cc
> 2021-04-20 22:02:39.0 -0400
> +++ b
20 matches
Mail list logo
