I've just finished the pcre deprecation change [1].
If anyone is interested, please take a look.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PcreDeprecation
Lukas
On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 2:43 PM Lukas Javorsky wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> The Fedora 39 System Wide changes are scheduled for Jun 2023, so tha
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 11:21:05AM +0200, Lukas Javorsky wrote:
> I've just finished the pcre deprecation change [1].
> If anyone is interested, please take a look.
>
> [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PcreDeprecation
Why F39? Shouldn't the deprecation (and the work on porting) be already
happ
Hi,
I've noticed ca-certificates package was updated recently, and went looking
at the changes, and I have some questions.
The first issue is what certdata.txt was used ? It's supposed to be
downloaded from Mozilla NSS sources, but doesn't match any released
versions.
The second issue is what
Sorry. Still learning rpmautospec. :)
--
Gwyn Ciesla
she/her/hers
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love
-d. bowie
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
--- Original Message ---
On Wednesday, August 17th, 2022 at 4:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 at 18:23, Kevin Kofler via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> > I don't know of an Operating System which isn't a rolling operating
> system
> > which works this way. MacOS, Windows, Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora all require
> a
> > manual clickth
Regardless of the messy rebuild, thank you for working on libgda 6.0.
I think I was able to repair sequeler’s changelogs to the extent that
they are linear and no pre-existing changelogs are lost. I suppose I
could have edited out the entries for the builds that never succeeded,
but I chose no
OLD: Fedora-37-20220817.n.1
NEW: Fedora-37-20220818.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 3
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 28
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 112.69 KiB
Size of dropped packages:1.34 MiB
On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 4:43 PM Tom Stellard wrote:
>
> We've been training up more people on LLVM packaging so we should be able
> to cover the stable release of Fedora better in the future. I'm sorry
> that the stable releases have been falling behind, we'll work on getting them
> back up to da
Good catch, thanks. Fix is building.
--
Gwyn Ciesla
she/her/hers
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love
-d. bowie
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
--- Original Message ---
On Thursday, August 18th, 2022 at 8:38
On 8/18/22 08:05, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 4:43 PM Tom Stellard wrote:
We've been training up more people on LLVM packaging so we should be able
to cover the stable release of Fedora better in the future. I'm sorry
that the stable releases have been falling behind, we'll
Greetings everyone.
Many years ago mock introduced and then made default it's isolation to
use systemd-nspawn instead of chroot. Shortly after the nspawn isolation
was added, it was used in fedoraproject koji builds, but there were
issues and since then the fedoraproject koji has defaulted to usi
Yes, please! I'm looking forward to this!
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022, 5:02 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Greetings everyone.
>
> Many years ago mock introduced and then made default it's isolation to
> use systemd-nspawn instead of chroot. Shortly after the nspawn isolation
> was added, it was used in fedor
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 11:02 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Greetings everyone.
>
> Many years ago mock introduced and then made default it's isolation to
> use systemd-nspawn instead of chroot. Shortly after the nspawn isolation
> was added, it was used in fedoraproject koji builds, but there were
> i
Do it!
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022, 4:01 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Greetings everyone.
>
> Many years ago mock introduced and then made default it's isolation to
> use systemd-nspawn instead of chroot. Shortly after the nspawn isolation
> was added, it was used in fedoraproject koji builds, but there wer
Hello everyone!
I just completed the first run of FESCo's newly approved Inactive
Packager Policy[1]. Packagers that have been identified as inactive
have a ticket in the find-inactive-packagers repo[2]. One week after
the F37 final release, packagers who remain inactive will be removed
from the p
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 5:23 PM Tom Stellard wrote:
>
> I'm working on the 14.0.5 update for F36 right now. The 14.0.6 release
> is going to have to wait until after 15.0.0 lands in F37 and rawhide,
> because I don't think it's worth doing the 14.0.6 update there, since
> 15.0.0 is so close.
Awe
On Thu, 2022-08-18 at 14:01 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Thoughts?
♥ nspawn ♥
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fe
Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> I should have been clearer. I was talking about the changes between
> XP->7->8->8.1->10->11 versus 10. -> 10.. I was thinking of
> it more since for the most part they used pretty much the same compiler
> for all of 10 versus new compiler and major library changes every six
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 9:34 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
> Since this is the first time we've done something like this, it could
> be a little rough.
While I fully expect that this first time is going to be
somewhat "special", I agree with the intent of the
policy, and believe it will result in better
Hi,
I do see any utility for schroot , especially on set of packages that I
call "Debian tools" .
schroot have a big update from schroot-1.6.10-17 to 1.6.12 (Update to
1.6.10 happened in 2018-05-03) and I observed that don't install init.d
files. I guess, it misses , the "dh_installinit" stage of
On Thu, 2022-08-18 at 17:28 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> Hello everyone!
>
> I just completed the first run of FESCo's newly approved Inactive
> Packager Policy[1]. Packagers that have been identified as inactive
> have a ticket in the find-inactive-packagers repo[2]. One week after
> the F37 final
Il 19/08/22 07:17, Adam Williamson ha scritto:
> On Thu, 2022-08-18 at 17:28 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
>> Hello everyone!
>>
>> I just completed the first run of FESCo's newly approved Inactive
>> Packager Policy[1]. Packagers that have been identified as inactive
>> have a ticket in the find-inacti
I like this policy, but it strikes me as odd that the packagers' email
addresses are posted publicly on the Pagure tickets... Wouldn't that
make it easier for spammers to get more email addresses?
On Thu, 2022-08-18 at 17:28 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> Hello everyone!
>
> I just completed the fir
On 19/08/2022 08:45, Merlin Cooper wrote:
I like this policy, but it strikes me as odd that the packagers' email
addresses are posted publicly on the Pagure tickets... Wouldn't that
make it easier for spammers to get more email addresses?
Spammers can easily get email addresses from all Git com
24 matches
Mail list logo
