For builds on COPR and when using Fedora in the cloud, occasionally get
an error when trying to read rawhide repository information:
$ sudo dnf install wget
Fedora - Rawhide - Developmental packages for t 13 MB/s | 21 MB
00:01
Errors during downloading metadata for repository 'rawhide':
- Curl
Il 17/02/23 17:14, Ben Cotton ha scritto:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 1:48 AM Mattia Verga via devel
> wrote:
>> During the weekend I can write down a script reusing partial code from
>> the find_inactive_packagers script and purge the ticket list from users
>> that showed activity in RH bugzilla, l
Hi all,
Does anyone know about the maintainer "Fab"?
I have tried to contact him through
asciidoc-maintain...@fedoraproject.org on 29th January and through
f...@fedoraproject.org on 11th February, but did not received an answer
from either.
asciiDoc has not been updated for two years with 1
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20230217.n.1
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20230218.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:4
Dropped images: 3
Added packages: 24
Dropped packages:4
Upgraded packages: 90
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 338.15 MiB
Size of dropped packages
Il 16/02/23 21:45, Mattia Verga ha scritto:
> Il 16/02/23 20:26, Mattia Verga ha scritto:
>> Il 16/02/23 18:36, Kevin Fenzi ha scritto:
>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 09:04:01AM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 6:29 AM Daniel P. Berrangé
wrote:
> I'm a little surprised
OLD: Fedora-38-20230217.n.0
NEW: Fedora-38-20230218.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:2
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 4
Dropped packages:3
Upgraded packages: 61
Downgraded packages: 1
Size of added packages: 5.77 MiB
Size of dropped packages:229.55 MiB
Gordon Messmer wrote:
> Before merging that feature, RPM's maintainers are
> interested in feedback from a wider audience.
The Detailed Description describes the problem thoroughly, but fails to
describe the solution. Unanswered questions include:
· What exactly will be added to the dependencies
Fabian Affolter has been consistently active in Fedora. At the same time, he
maintains a huge number of packages that he does not seem to have time to keep
up to date. My experience is that he usually does not—but occasionally
does—respond to efforts to contact him, including Bugzilla, PR’s, and
On 2023-02-18 at 03:08 UTC, Gordon Messmer wrote:
The point where compatibility becomes an issue is the use of old packages or third-party packages that don't Provide versioned virtual packages to fulfill the requirements of Fedora packages. Because Fedora package dependencies must be fulfilled
On 2023-02-18 08:23, John Reiser wrote:
About once per year I find it necessary or convenient to use /usr/bin/alien
(provided by Fedora package alien-8.95-18.fc36.noarch, for instance)
to import one or more Debian .deb package into Fedora as .rpm.
I don't see how this could work with the propose
On 2023-02-18 04:40, Björn Persson wrote:
The Detailed Description describes the problem thoroughly, but fails to
describe the solution.
Thanks. I'll make sure that it does before formally proposing it,
assuming that we proceed to that point.
Unanswered questions include:
· What exactly
(This is the second response I wrote to this email. I accidentally
deleted the first one :/)
On Fri Feb 17, 2023 at 14:08 -0500, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 10:17 AM Maxwell G wrote:
> >
> > On Fri Feb 17, 2023 at 08:37 -0500, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 17,
Thanks for working on this! Overall I like it and am in favor... just a
few questions:
- What Fedora release(es) are you targeting here?
- You mention "over the course of two releases" but don't mention what
is done in each one?
- If this was approved for say f39, couldn't we enable this now
On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 05:07:29PM +0200, David Sastre wrote:
> Hello and apologies for resurrecting an old thread.
And now I am posting to it again, so likewise appologies.
> I was looking for information regarding IMA in F37 and found it was asked
> but I could not see any replies.
> My questi
On 2023-02-18 10:33, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
- What Fedora release(es) are you targeting here?
I'd appreciate guidance from more senior project members on that point.
- You mention "over the course of two releases" but don't mention what
is done in each one?
I don't know the specifics of ho
Gordon Messmer wrote:
> In order to enable the requires feature on a single package (without a
> mass rebuild in between), the maintainer would need to ensure that all
> of the package's dependencies had been build after the provides feature
> was enabled, and arrange to rebuild any that hadn't.
Thanks for the information. I filed a ticket, so everyone should get an
email, including Fab by his private mail address:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2171184
On 2/18/23 14:06, Ben Beasley wrote:
Fabian Affolter has been consistently active in Fedora. At the same time, he
maint
(Resending as it seems this didn't reach the ML the first time...)
Hi Fedorians,
Changes/Mass_Retire_Golang_Leaves [1] has been approved by FESCo. As
part of this Change, all Go library packages that are leaves will be be
mass retired and removed from the Fedora 39 repositories in
approximately o
On 2023-02-18 12:19, Björn Persson wrote:
Gordon Messmer wrote:
In order to enable the requires feature on a single package (without a
mass rebuild in between), the maintainer would need to ensure that all
of the package's dependencies had been build after the provides feature
was enabled, and
On 2023-02-18 03:59, Reindl Harald (privat) wrote:
Am 18.02.23 um 06:08 schrieb Gordon Messmer:
The point where compatibility becomes an issue is the use of old
packages or third-party packages that don't Provide versioned virtual
packages to fulfill the requirements of Fedora packages. Becau
On 2023-02-18 14:23, Reindl Harald (privat) wrote:
Am 18.02.23 um 22:58 schrieb Gordon Messmer:
On 2023-02-18 03:59, Reindl Harald (privat) wrote:
sounds horrible because Obsoletes/Provides in noarch-packages won't
be longer enough to override useless dependencies
Can you provide an examp
On Sat, Feb 18, 2023, 18:20 Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 2023-02-18 04:40, Björn Persson wrote:
> > The Detailed Description describes the problem thoroughly, but fails to
> > describe the solution.
>
> Thanks. I'll make sure that it does before formally proposing it,
> assuming that we proceed t
On 2023-02-18 15:53, Fabio Valentini wrote:
I see a big hole in that problem (assuming that I understand Things
correctly): What happens to packages where this .so.x.y.z pattern does
not match their actual version?
In this implementation, there is no relationship between the version of
the s
Updated license information to BSD-3-Clause AND MIT AND CC-PDDC AND
(BSD-3-Clause OR Apache-2.0) after examining while doing SPDX update.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproj
24 matches
Mail list logo
