On 24/01/2022 21:53, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
We have a number of ideas how to improve this situation and hopefully we
will get to doing some of that soon.
Is it possible to completely disable build notifications for my
packages? I think it's better to get nothing than to get dozens of late
emails
Dne 21. 01. 22 v 23:22 Jeremy Newton napsal(a):
In order to update "rocm-runtime" to the latest, it requires a new
package "ROCm-Device-Libs" as a build requirement.
The issue is that the project installs files into /usr/amdgcn, which
seems incorrect to me based on the FHS and Fedora guidelines
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-35-20220124.0):
ID: 1112990 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
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-34-20220124.0):
ID: 1113065 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
Hello all,
I'm the Fedora maintainer of the perl-HTML-Tidy package and its
underlying library, tidyp.
The upstream maintainer of these packages has now stopped work on
tidyp, and has archived the upstream repository in a read-only state:
https://github.com/petdance/tidyp
He has also stopped work
Hi everyone,
First of all, thanks a lot for all the work that went into podman v4. The
release notes looks great and full of interesting changes!
As I understand it, the podman client and server remote API are version locked:
podman v3 clients can only speak with podman v3 servers, v4 clients w
Hello,
during the Fedora 34 development cycle a year ago, I've reported the following
buzgillas about packages that don't install:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=ASSIGNED&f1=blocked&f2=blocked&f3=blocked&list_id=12391194&o1=substring&o2=substring&o3=substring&product=Fedora
Mark Wielaard writes:
> Although I am not against trying to turn nondeterministic bugs into
> deterministic ones and getting rid off more undefined code, I am
> slightly worried it means those bugs will be harder to find in
> production. Also I really hope we do also encourage people to use the
>
On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 15:55:47 -0500
"Steven A. Falco" wrote:
> I've been able to rebuild KiCad using the new gcc-12.0.1-0.2 compiler rpms on
> Rawhide via mock. While KiCad compiles, it doesn't quite run correctly.
>
> As shown in the attached screenshot, all the icons are missing, and have bee
Hey!
Is the minutes of this meeting gonna be posted online somewhere so i can
read up on them after the fact?
forgot about it totally yesterday
On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 2:36 AM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> # Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting
> # Date: 2022-01-24
> # Time: 16:00 UTC
> (https://fedorap
On Sat, 2022-01-22 at 15:00 -0500, Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Saturday, January 22, 2022 6:36:01 AM EST Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
> wrote:
> > On 21/01/2022 19:04, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > > Uninitialized variables are a big problem.
> >
> > Yes, but as a package maintainer, I don't want to deal with do
Hi,
gcc-12.0.1-0.3.fc36 [1] is building now and in addition to the usual
updates from upstream it fixes at least 2 kinds of the ppc64le issues -
the segfaulting ICE with "during RTL pass: final" and the "not
assembling" one.
[1] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=81826627
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 6:43 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> during the Fedora 34 development cycle a year ago, I've reported the following
> buzgillas about packages that don't install:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=ASSIGNED&f1=blocked&f2=blocked&f3=blocked&list_id=
On Mon, Jan 24 2022 at 03:19:00 PM -0800, Adam Williamson
wrote:
I do hope this can be cleaned up soon. Dropping arches from packages
is
a very big hammer and should be wielded extremely sparingly. Unless
ceph was unusable without a rebuild on the other arches, it would've
been better to wait u
On 1/25/22 07:36 AM, Dan Horák wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 15:55:47 -0500
"Steven A. Falco" wrote:
I've been able to rebuild KiCad using the new gcc-12.0.1-0.2 compiler rpms on
Rawhide via mock. While KiCad compiles, it doesn't quite run correctly.
As shown in the attached screenshot, all th
> Am 25.01.2022 um 14:53 schrieb Luna Jernberg :
>
> Hey!
>
> Is the minutes of this meeting gonna be posted online somewhere so i can read
> up on them after the fact?
> forgot about it totally yesterday
Are you looking for these?
Minutes:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeti
Ah yeah, thanks :)
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 5:06 PM Peter Boy wrote:
>
>
> Am 25.01.2022 um 14:53 schrieb Luna Jernberg :
>
> Hey!
>
> Is the minutes of this meeting gonna be posted online somewhere so i can
> read up on them after the fact?
> forgot about it totally yesterday
>
>
>
> Are you loo
Read it now, and did one more Kernel 5.16.2 test with the updated image :)
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 5:07 PM Luna Jernberg wrote:
> Ah yeah, thanks :)
>
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 5:06 PM Peter Boy wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Am 25.01.2022 um 14:53 schrieb Luna Jernberg :
>>
>> Hey!
>>
>> Is the minutes of
On Tue, 2022-01-25 at 08:50 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24 2022 at 03:19:00 PM -0800, Adam Williamson
> wrote:
> > I do hope this can be cleaned up soon. Dropping arches from packages
> > is
> > a very big hammer and should be wielded extremely sparingly. Unless
> > ceph was un
Hello Dave,
On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 9:29:53 AM EST David Malcolm wrote:
> Steve, thanks for putting together these cases.
>
> I've filed:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104224
> against the gcc analyzer upstream to help me track improving the
> analyzer on this.
>
> OK if
Greetings.
The mass rebuild finished it's first pass on saturday morning, leaving
3448 failed builds.
We then did a second pass yesterday ( 2022-01-24 ) of all failed builds,
and that resulted in 1282 failed builds.
The f36-rebuild tag is being merged now, but unfortunately our SOP had
it merg
Hello, we plan to orphan gnu-efi shortly after I finish fixing the
FTBFS. There do not appear to be any consumers:
# dnf repoquery --repo=rawhide{,-source} --whatrequires gnu-efi{,-devel}
--source
Last metadata expiration check: 0:05:32 ago on Tue 25 Jan 2022 01:09:26 PM EST.
gnu-efi-3.0.11-7.1.
On 25. 01. 22 19:17, Robbie Harwood wrote:
Hello, we plan to orphan gnu-efi shortly after I finish fixing the
FTBFS. There do not appear to be any consumers:
# dnf repoquery --repo=rawhide{,-source} --whatrequires gnu-efi{,-devel}
--source
Last metadata expiration check: 0:05:32 ago on Tue 25
On 1/25/22 19:20, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 25. 01. 22 19:17, Robbie Harwood wrote:
Hello, we plan to orphan gnu-efi shortly after I finish fixing the
FTBFS. There do not appear to be any consumers:
# dnf repoquery --repo=rawhide{,-source} --whatrequires gnu-efi{,-devel}
--source
Last metadata e
On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 04:08:04PM +, Roberto Sassu via devel wrote:
> Hi everyone
>
> (note for the infrastructure mailing list: please check if the changes
> I'm proposing could be tested in the Fedora infrastructure, like Copr)
copr uses a different signing setup... so probibly won't work
Miro Hrončok writes:
> On 25. 01. 22 19:17, Robbie Harwood wrote:
>> Hello, we plan to orphan gnu-efi shortly after I finish fixing the
>> FTBFS. There do not appear to be any consumers:
>>
>> # dnf repoquery --repo=rawhide{,-source} --whatrequires gnu-efi{,-devel}
>> --source
>> Last metadata
On 25. 01. 22 19:53, Robbie Harwood wrote:
Miro Hrončok writes:
On 25. 01. 22 19:17, Robbie Harwood wrote:
Hello, we plan to orphan gnu-efi shortly after I finish fixing the
FTBFS. There do not appear to be any consumers:
# dnf repoquery --repo=rawhide{,-source} --whatrequires gnu-efi{,-dev
On 25. 01. 22 15:48, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 6:43 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
Hello,
during the Fedora 34 development cycle a year ago, I've reported the following
buzgillas about packages that don't install:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=ASSIGNED&f1=
Miro Hrončok writes:
> On 25. 01. 22 19:53, Robbie Harwood wrote:
>> Miro Hrončok writes:
>>
>>> On 25. 01. 22 19:17, Robbie Harwood wrote:
Hello, we plan to orphan gnu-efi shortly after I finish fixing the
FTBFS. There do not appear to be any consumers:
# dnf repoquery --r
On 25. 01. 22 20:05, Robbie Harwood wrote:
Miro Hrončok writes:
On 25. 01. 22 19:53, Robbie Harwood wrote:
Miro Hrončok writes:
On 25. 01. 22 19:17, Robbie Harwood wrote:
Hello, we plan to orphan gnu-efi shortly after I finish fixing the
FTBFS. There do not appear to be any consumers:
#
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 19:13, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> Greetings.
>
> The mass rebuild finished it's first pass on saturday morning, leaving
> 3448 failed builds.
>
> We then did a second pass yesterday ( 2022-01-24 ) of all failed builds,
> and that resulted in 1282 failed builds.
>
> The f36-rebui
Hi,
(I sent this to epel-devel but did not get any reply there so maybe fedora-devel
is a better place for this question even though this is about EPEL packages?)
the packaging guidelines have a few excemptions for the package review process
[1]. I'm working on updating certbot to Python 3 in
On 25. 01. 22 21:05, Felix Schwarz wrote:
Hi,
(I sent this to epel-devel but did not get any reply there so maybe
fedora-devel is a better place for this question even though this is about EPEL
packages?)
the packaging guidelines have a few excemptions for the package review process
[1]. I'
Am 25.01.22 um 21:22 schrieb Miro Hrončok:
If I assume correctlty that both python-augeas and python-boto3 are in RHEL
7,
yes.
this exception applies:
"""
>
The package exists in both Fedora and RHEL, but the packager wants to
ship it in EPEL under an alternative name (as required by EPEL
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 08:39:31PM +0100, Iñaki Ucar wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 19:13, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> > Greetings.
> >
> > The mass rebuild finished it's first pass on saturday morning, leaving
> > 3448 failed builds.
> >
> > We then did a second pass yesterday ( 2022-01-24 ) of all
Hi,
following the process at
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement_Process/#claiming
this is to declare my intent to un-retire uwsgi.
I've filed a review request at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2045884
__
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 09:53:10AM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 24/01/2022 21:53, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > We have a number of ideas how to improve this situation and hopefully we
> > will get to doing some of that soon.
>
> Is it possible to completely disable build notifications for
Hi Miro,
Miro Hrončok writes:
> On 25. 01. 22 15:48, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 6:43 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> during the Fedora 34 development cycle a year ago, I've reported the
>>> following
>>> buzgillas about packages that don't install:
>>>
>>
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 8:00 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> Well, the obvious problem with that approach is that the packagers are
> otherwise active (at least the majority of them):
>
> Fabian Affolter (5 bugzillas)
> Dan Horák (4 bugzillas)
> Peter Robinson, Rust SIG, Mukundan Ragavan...
>
> And the
I received an FTBFS email for KiCad. This has two causes - one is a code error
that I'm correcting, the other is because of the well-known ppc64le compiler
bug.
Should I leave the FTBFS bug open until such time as the ppc64le compiler bug
is fixed, or can I close the FTBFS bug once I've compl
On Tue, 2022-01-25 at 17:58 -0500, Steven A. Falco wrote:
> I received an FTBFS email for KiCad. This has two causes - one is a code
> error that I'm correcting, the other is because of the well-known ppc64le
> compiler bug.
>
> Should I leave the FTBFS bug open until such time as the ppc64le c
Quick update, I've made some new package reviews:
ROCm-Device-Libs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2044664
ROCm-CompilerSupport: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045955
ROCm-Device-Libs is needed to update "rocm-runtime" and for
ROCm-CompilerSupport.
ROCm-CompilerSupport
Hello team,
It has been a while about default fedora backgrounds need a refresh. The
current method requires a package review for each release, which deemed
cumbersome.
One of suggestions is making a package containing a set of 10 Fedora
release wallpaper. The issue will be the increase of f
43 matches
Mail list logo
