Each DNF command could have static method set_argparser (here is the
example from reposync plugin:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf-plugins-core/blob/master/plugins/reposync.py#L60)
which can be used for adding command specific arguments. However there
is no such method for adding
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 4:31 AM Igor Gnatenko
wrote:
>
> Hi Florian,
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 9:28 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/x86-64_micro-architecture_update
> >
> > == Summary ==
> > Fedora currently uses the original K8 micro-architecture (without
>
This sounds like 'You should stop using and contributing to Fedora for
x86_64' to me.
Technically, I don't have any concern.
Practically, as a user, I only have one machine that supports AVX2
which is my laptop.
As a packager, the main machines that I use for building and testing
my packages
On Monday, July 22, 2019, Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/x86-64_micro-architecture_update
>
> == Summary ==
> Fedora currently uses the original K8 micro-architecture (without
> 3DNow! and other AMD-specific parts) as the baseline for its
> x86_64 architecture. This
No missing expected images.
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
24 of 47 required tests failed, 19 results missing
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
below
Unsatisfied gating requirements that could not be mapped to openQA tests:
FAILED:
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20190721.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20190722.n.1
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 9
Dropped packages:2
Upgraded packages: 119
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 360.84 MiB
Size of dropped packages
Dear all,
You are kindly invited to the meeting:
Modularity Team (weekly) on 2019-07-23 from 15:00:00 to 16:00:00 UTC
At fedora-meetin...@irc.freenode.net
The meeting will be about:
Meeting of the Modularity Team.
More information available at: [Modularity Team
The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
33 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-12f1eb1b1f
tomcat-7.0.94-1.el6
The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 6 updates-testing
lxi-tools-1.21-1.el6
partclone-0.3.12-1.el6
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2019/07/23/report-389-ds-base-1.4.1.6-20190722git53efe7a.fc30.x86_64.html
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
Hi Florian,
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 9:28 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/x86-64_micro-architecture_update
>
> == Summary ==
> Fedora currently uses the original K8 micro-architecture (without
> 3DNow! and other AMD-specific parts) as the baseline for its
> x86_64
Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event
for Fedora 31 Rawhide 20190722.n.1. Please help run some tests for this
nightly compose if you have time. For more information on nightly
release validation testing, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1731807
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-4.10-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1731823
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-NetPacket-1.7.2-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1731812
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-Module-CoreList-5.20190720-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1731823
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #4 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1731807
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1731812
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #4 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1731799
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1731806
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from
A brief survey of my hardware and less than half of it supports avx2.
I can't find a single enthusiastic endorsement for this proposal in this
thread, so far; but if this proposal ends up being adopted, I hope that this
gets announced well in advance, including a big fat banner on
Plenty has already been said here about why we should not do this (and OMFG we
should NOT do this), and I am in complete agreement.
(I have 0 machines, of 3 in my personal network, with AVX2 support. My current
desktop I only bought a year and a half ago, and it's not AVX2 capable! My
laptop
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
342 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-3c9292b62d
condor-8.6.11-1.el7
117 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-d2c1368294
cinnamon-3.6.7-5.el7
83
> After preliminary discussions with CPU vendors...
CPU vendors want to sell CPUs, while there are still plenty of running
Sandy/Ivy bridge expensive high-end machines running that would not be
upgradable.
Not supporting machines that are 16 years old is ok, but restricting to < 6
years (7
Once upon a time, Ben Cotton said:
> After preliminary discussions with CPU vendors, we propose AVX2 as the
> new baseline. AVX2 support was introduced into CPUs from 2013 to
> 2015. See
> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Vector_Extensions#CPUs_with_AVX2
> CPUs with AVX2].
There are
Solomon Peachy wrote:
> One sorce of data is Steam's hardware survey. Unfortunately they don't
> include AVX2, but their most recent stats show that 88.6% of their
> overall userbase has a CPU supporting AVX1. Limiting that to Linux
> users the number drops to 87.2%.
A survey among Steam's
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> And that's a lot of hardware. Half of my machines don't support AVX2.
> If you dropped back to SSSE3 then I wouldn't complain as that would
> just scrap my 32-bit only machines, but requiring AVX2 is definitely
> going too far.
Requiring SSSE3 would also
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 02:40:29PM -0700, Joseph D. Wagner wrote:
> I may have to turn in my nerd card for not being able to pull this myself,
> but what would this list look like if the baseline was SSSE3? Just curious.
Steam claims 97.8% of their userbase has a processor supporting SSSE3
(vs
> Fedora installations on systems with CPUs which are not able to
> execute AVX2 instructions will not be able to upgrade.
So it looks like Fedora would no longer work on my laptop from 2013. I
could probably switch the laptop over to CentOS, but that would
restrict my ability to work on Fedora
On Monday, 22 July 2019 20:51:27 CEST Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/x86-64_micro-architecture_update
>
> == Summary ==
> Fedora currently uses the original K8 micro-architecture (without
> 3DNow! and other AMD-specific parts) as the baseline for its
> x86_64
> On Jul 22, 2019, at 1:21 PM, Solomon Peachy wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 04:11:32PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> With my FESCo hat on, I can't support this action as currently stated.
>> I think I'd be more inclined to consider it if the Change was proposed
>> as a new architecture
Jeremy Cline wrote:
> In my opinion Fedora is spinning its wheels here, and the vehicle isn't
> even pointed in the right direction. Gnome is on GitLab. Debian and the
> graphics stack is moving to GitLab AFAIK.
KDE is also moving from Phabricator to GitLab.
Kevin Kofler
On 2019-07-22 13:12, Felix Kaechele via devel wrote:
On 2019-07-22 2:51 p.m., Ben Cotton wrote:
After preliminary discussions with CPU vendors, we propose AVX2 as the
new baseline. AVX2 support was introduced into CPUs from 2013 to
2015. See
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 2:35 PM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> Anyone who wants to build a library with AVX can already do so even
> if the library doesn't support runtime detection. You just build
> twice, once with and once without and put the AVX-enabled version
> in
On Tue, 2019-07-23 at 06:01 +1000, David Airlie wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 5:58 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 3:45 PM Solomon Peachy wrote:
> > > But since anectdote != data, are there any sort of deployment numbers
> > > out there that show how many Fedora deployments
Ben Cotton wrote:
> Fedora currently uses the original K8 micro-architecture (without
> 3DNow! and other AMD-specific parts) as the baseline for its
> x86_64 architecture. This baseline dates back to 2003
> and has not been updated since. As a result, performance of Fedora is
> not as good as it
Hello,
we have just disabled Fedora 28 chroots in Copr.
According to the Fedora wiki [1], Fedora 28 reached the end of its life
on 2019-05-28 and therefore we are disabling it in Copr.
That effectively means that from this moment, it is no longer possible
to submit builds for the following
Right, I was making a ha-ha-only-serious thought that perhaps there
could be a spin that is specifically highly optimized for
latest-n-greatest architectures, and if packagers want to maintain two
different versions of x64, that’d be their choice, otherwise fallback
to the ‘regular’ one. It
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:47 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 2:52 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/x86-64_micro-architecture_update
> >
> > == Summary ==
> > Fedora currently uses the original K8 micro-architecture (without
> > 3DNow!
On Mon, 2019-07-22 at 14:51 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> After preliminary discussions with CPU vendors, we propose AVX2 as the
> new baseline. AVX2 support was introduced into CPUs from 2013 to
> 2015. See
> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Vector_Extensions#CPUs_with_AVX2
> CPUs with
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:43 PM David Airlie wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:03 AM Josh Boyer wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 3:27 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
> > >
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/x86-64_micro-architecture_update
> > >
> > > == Summary ==
> > > Fedora
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 03:54:41PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> There are no stats available that could be considered defensible. At
> best, we could come up with some estimates based on the stats from
> other sources that we might assume have a similar profile as Fedora.
> I'm not sure if that data
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 04:11:32PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> With my FESCo hat on, I can't support this action as currently stated.
> I think I'd be more inclined to consider it if the Change was proposed
> as a new architecture bring-up. Effectively, this would be a whole new
>
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 03:05:15PM -0500, Ron Olson wrote:
> Perhaps as a compromise there could be a ‘regular’ 64-bit and a
> 64-bit-optimized-for-machines-made-after-2013 version?
It's not as simple as a "CPU newer than date X" cutoff -- Intel limits
AVX support to their Xeon and Core brands
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 3:27 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/x86-64_micro-architecture_update
>
>
> == Upgrade/compatibility impact ==
> Fedora installations on systems with CPUs which are not able to
> execute AVX2 instructions will not be able to upgrade.
>
I
Am 22.07.19 um 21:52 schrieb David Airlie:
>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 02:51:27PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
>>> After preliminary discussions with CPU vendors, we propose AVX2 as the
>>> new baseline. AVX2 support was introduced into CPUs from 2013 to
>>> 2015. See
>>>
On 2019-07-22 2:51 p.m., Ben Cotton wrote:
After preliminary discussions with CPU vendors, we propose AVX2 as the
new baseline. AVX2 support was introduced into CPUs from 2013 to
2015. See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Vector_Extensions#CPUs_with_AVX2
CPUs with AVX2].
Here's a
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 2:52 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/x86-64_micro-architecture_update
>
> == Summary ==
> Fedora currently uses the original K8 micro-architecture (without
> 3DNow! and other AMD-specific parts) as the baseline for its
> x86_64 architecture.
On 22/07/2019 20:42, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 22/07/2019 20:20, Tom Hughes wrote:
I will need to check but I suspect there will be a fair few
production systems at work that are missing support as well.
Out of 31 machines running F29 or F30 at work there are
only 9 with AVX2 support and only 18
* Josh Boyer [22/07/2019 15:56] :
>
> Would it be possible to include some basic instructions or a script
> for people to run on their systems to see if they are AVX2 compliant?
> That would help them assess the impact.
you can find your cpu model by running the command:
$ grep 'model name'
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:03 AM Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 3:27 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/x86-64_micro-architecture_update
> >
> > == Summary ==
> > Fedora currently uses the original K8 micro-architecture (without
> > 3DNow! and other
> Fedora will use current CPUs more efficiently, increasing performance
> and reducing power consumption.
I hope the energy usage involved in having to buy new hardware (including
manufacturing and shipping) is taken into account. This proposed change is
incompatible with all 3 of my 64-bit
My entire involvement around Fedora is based on the fact that I was able
to use machines that had been thrown away because they were deemed
‘too old’. I have several servers and multiple laptops that run
Fedora perfectly and none of them would meet this requirement,
effectively ending any
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 5:58 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 3:45 PM Solomon Peachy wrote:
> >
> > But since anectdote != data, are there any sort of deployment numbers
> > out there that show how many Fedora deployments are on AVX[2]-capable
> > hardware?
> >
> There are no
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 3:27 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/x86-64_micro-architecture_update
>
> == Summary ==
> Fedora currently uses the original K8 micro-architecture (without
> 3DNow! and other AMD-specific parts) as the baseline for its
> x86_64 architecture.
On Monday, 22 July 2019 at 20:51, Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/x86-64_micro-architecture_update
[...]
> == Upgrade/compatibility impact ==
> Fedora installations on systems with CPUs which are not able to
> execute AVX2 instructions will not be able to upgrade.
And
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 3:45 PM Solomon Peachy wrote:
>
> But since anectdote != data, are there any sort of deployment numbers
> out there that show how many Fedora deployments are on AVX[2]-capable
> hardware?
>
There are no stats available that could be considered defensible. At
best, we could
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 5:46 AM Solomon Peachy wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 02:51:27PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > After preliminary discussions with CPU vendors, we propose AVX2 as the
> > new baseline. AVX2 support was introduced into CPUs from 2013 to
> > 2015. See
> >
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 02:51:27PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> After preliminary discussions with CPU vendors, we propose AVX2 as the
> new baseline. AVX2 support was introduced into CPUs from 2013 to
> 2015. See
> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Vector_Extensions#CPUs_with_AVX2
> CPUs
On 22/07/2019 20:20, Tom Hughes wrote:
My firewall is brand new, built a few months ago to replace
a 32 bit machine because Fedora was deprecating that! Yet it
is a low end Celeron CPU and has no AVX2 support.
The final one is a VM from a cloud provider and even updating
to their latest
> == Upgrade/compatibility impact ==
> Fedora installations on systems with CPUs which are not able to
> execute AVX2 instructions will not be able to upgrade.
>
Time for me to switch to LinuxMint as I'm not going to be forced into hardware
updates I can't afford.
> "JLT" == Jason L Tibbitts writes:
JLT> And, let's see, I'd have to toss out five desktops (which isn't too
JLT> bad, I guess)
I was wrong. It would be 36 desktops. Being charitable requires me to
assume this was proposed without adequate consideration of just how much
hardware is
> "BC" == Ben Cotton writes:
BC> * Other developers: Other developers may have to adjust test suites
BC> which expect exact floating point results, and correct linking with
BC> libatomic. They will also have to upgrade their x86-64
BC> machines to something that can execute AVX2
On 22/07/2019 19:51, Ben Cotton wrote:
After preliminary discussions with CPU vendors, we propose AVX2 as the
new baseline. AVX2 support was introduced into CPUs from 2013 to
2015. See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Vector_Extensions#CPUs_with_AVX2
CPUs with AVX2].
Going all the
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 06:59:04PM +0300, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
> On ma, 22 heinä 2019, Jeremy Cline wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 05:37:10PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > Keycloak is not generally Fedora contributor friendly. Aside from it
> > > being written in Java (which is
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/x86-64_micro-architecture_update
== Summary ==
Fedora currently uses the original K8 micro-architecture (without
3DNow! and other AMD-specific parts) as the baseline for its
x86_64 architecture. This baseline dates back to 2003
and has not been updated
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/x86-64_micro-architecture_update
== Summary ==
Fedora currently uses the original K8 micro-architecture (without
3DNow! and other AMD-specific parts) as the baseline for its
x86_64 architecture. This baseline dates back to 2003
and has not been updated
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Erlang_22
== Summary ==
Update Erlang/OTP to version 22.
== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:Peter|Peter Lemenkov]], [[SIGs/Erlang|Fedora Erlang
SIG]], [[User:bowlofeggs|Randy Barlow]], [[User:jcline|Jeremy Cline]]
* Email: lemen...@gmail.com,
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GHC_8.6
== Summary ==
Update Haskell packages from GHC 8.4 to 8.6 and from Stackage LTS 12
to 13 package versions.
== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:Petersen|Jens Petersen]]
* Email:
* Name: [[Haskell_SIG|Haskell SIG]]
* Email:
== Detailed Description ==
The
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/VariableNotoFonts
== Summary ==
This Change aims to change the priority in Google Noto to make
Variable Fonts higher than non-Variable Fonts.
== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:Tagoh| Akira TAGOH]]
* Email: ta...@redhat.com
== Detailed Description ==
The font
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Erlang_22
== Summary ==
Update Erlang/OTP to version 22.
== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:Peter|Peter Lemenkov]], [[SIGs/Erlang|Fedora Erlang
SIG]], [[User:bowlofeggs|Randy Barlow]], [[User:jcline|Jeremy Cline]]
* Email: lemen...@gmail.com,
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GHC_8.6
== Summary ==
Update Haskell packages from GHC 8.4 to 8.6 and from Stackage LTS 12
to 13 package versions.
== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:Petersen|Jens Petersen]]
* Email:
* Name: [[Haskell_SIG|Haskell SIG]]
* Email:
== Detailed Description ==
The
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/VariableNotoFonts
== Summary ==
This Change aims to change the priority in Google Noto to make
Variable Fonts higher than non-Variable Fonts.
== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:Tagoh| Akira TAGOH]]
* Email: ta...@redhat.com
== Detailed Description ==
The font
On Sun, 2019-07-21 at 03:41 +, Fedora compose checker wrote:
> No missing expected images.
>
> Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
> 24 of 47 required tests failed, 19 results missing
> openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
> below
> Unsatisfied
Hello,
First of all, thanks for accept me on these mail list.. my first mail it's
about a issue I facing here on my job...
I need to add some optional arguments on dnf, not a command, just a
"global" args.. eg: $ dnf repolist --my_arg=abcd
How can I do these? Can I use plugin with these
=
#fedora-meeting-1: FESCO (2019-07-22)
=
Meeting started by ignatenkobrain at 15:00:27 UTC. The full logs are
available at
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2019-07-22/fesco.2019-07-22-15.00.log.html
.
Le 2019-07-22 17:29, Pierre-Yves Chibon a écrit :
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:19:17AM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot via devel
wrote:
Le 2019-07-22 10:22, Miro Hrončok a écrit :
> Personally, I wish we had spent less engineering time in
> infrastructure on Modularity and more on the contributor UX :(
On Mon, 2019-07-22 at 07:23 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> if the Wiki
> > explodes and nobody will ever fix it,
>
> The wiki is fully supported, at least as long as QA uses it for their
> TCMS. :)
...and that's likely to remain the case until someone manages to find
or write a better one :/
--
On ma, 22 heinä 2019, Jeremy Cline wrote:
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 05:37:10PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 4:31 PM Jeremy Cline wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 08:33:02AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 6:46 AM Pierre-Yves Chibon
wrote:
> > >
> > >
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:19:17AM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote:
> Le 2019-07-22 10:22, Miro Hrončok a écrit :
>
> > Personally, I wish we had spent less engineering time in
> > infrastructure on Modularity and more on the contributor UX :(
>
> It’s not just Modularity. Modularity is
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:59 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> On 7/22/19 1:22 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 16. 07. 19 20:18, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> >> Good Morning,
> >>
> >> We posted this [1] blog today and want to open a mailing thread to garner
> >> feedback, field questions and get some
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 10:29 AM wrote:
> In what timezone is this deadline? :)
>
Deadlines are in UTC unless otherwise specified.
--
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Fedora Program Manager
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
___
devel mailing list --
On 7/19/19 7:30 AM, Alfredo Moralejo Alonso wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I created https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1728768 to ask for
> puppet update in rawhide some days ago but didn't get any feedback from
> maintainers.
>
>
> Also a PR was posted to
>
Hi everyone,
In what timezone is this deadline? :)
Regards,
Jirka
On Mon, 2019-07-22 at 10:01 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> Self-Contained Change proposals for Fedora 31 must be submitted (i.e.
> placed into the ChangeReadyForWrangler category) by the end of
> tomorrow (23 July).
>
> I was on PTO
On 7/22/19 1:22 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 16. 07. 19 20:18, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
>> Good Morning,
>>
>> We posted this [1] blog today and want to open a mailing thread to garner
>> feedback, field questions and get some thoughts from the Community on
>> the approach that we in Community
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1731811
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
Notification time stamped 2019-07-22 14:11:33 UTC
From 5af75d2c9d605fe807a31e2efe1438b81bd208e3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Howarth
Date: Jul 22 2019 14:10:52 +
Subject: Update to 1.842
- New upstream release 1.842
- The Windows hack introduced in 1.841 is 2x slower for one edge
Self-Contained Change proposals for Fedora 31 must be submitted (i.e.
placed into the ChangeReadyForWrangler category) by the end of
tomorrow (23 July).
I was on PTO last week, so if you were anticipating action on a Change
proposal and it hasn't happened yet, I'll work through that backlog
Self-Contained Change proposals for Fedora 31 must be submitted (i.e.
placed into the ChangeReadyForWrangler category) by the end of
tomorrow (23 July).
I was on PTO last week, so if you were anticipating action on a Change
proposal and it hasn't happened yet, I'll work through that backlog
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 05:37:10PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 4:31 PM Jeremy Cline wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 08:33:02AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 6:46 AM Pierre-Yves Chibon
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Good Morning,
> > > >
> > >
Can I adopt python-plumbum?
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 5:27 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 19. 07. 19 10:52, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > Hello, I've just orphaned python-CacheControl and
> python-django-countries by the
> > request of the previous maintainer.
>
> Orphaned:
>
> python-rpyc
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1731810
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they
are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure
that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life
Note: If
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1731825
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
On Tue, 2019-07-16 at 06:37 -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 5:34 AM Björn 'besser82' Esser
> wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, den 16.07.2019, 00:20 +0200 schrieb Kevin Kofler:
> > > Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > > gnutls now cannot be rebuilt:
> > > >
> > > > nothing provides
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 07:25:50AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:00 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 01:03:59PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 11:52 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:00 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 01:03:59PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 11:52 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 10:13:21AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > > On Mon,
Note that javapackages-tools provides jpackage-utils, so apparantly some of
these reports are wrong. But it might be a good idea to update the requires
instead of considering this a virtual (feature) provide.
___
devel mailing list --
On 2019-07-20, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> 1. Why did that create 4 module build jobs for each stream?
>
> (ins)[asinha@ankur-pc nest(2.18.0=3D)]$ fedpkg module-build
> Submitting the module build...
> The builds 5109, 5110, 5111 and 5112 were submitted to the MBS
> Build URLs:
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1731720
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 12:33 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 10:47:10AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > See this report online at:
> > https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/orphans-2019-07-22.txt
>
> Since the majority of new failures (394!) are caused by the orphaning
> of
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
