Missing expected images:
Iot dvd aarch64
Iot dvd x86_64
Failed openQA tests: 2/15 (aarch64)
ID: 1234269 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1234269
ID: 1234282 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso release_identification@uefi
URL:
I'm getting: There are currently no products linked to this invitation code...
---
Chris Murphy
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
Adam Jackson wrote:
> Turns out the support story is less bad than I thought, the simpledrm
> change was more powerful than I knew. I've updated the change again
> but the short story is vga= on kcmdline will give you just as good of
> support as UEFI framebuffer.
Or rather, as bad of support,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077156
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |ERRATA
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2076721
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
churchyard merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-ExtUtils-CppGuess`
that you are following.
Merged pull-request:
``
Update to 0.26
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-ExtUtils-CppGuess/pull-request/1
___
perl-devel mailing list --
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077427
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077156
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-405a479d1e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-405a479d1e
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077427
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|POST|MODIFIED
--- Comment #4 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2076721
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|POST|MODIFIED
--- Comment #4 from
The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
1 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-0bb4947962
zchunk-1.2.2-1.el8
1 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-a55cc9e04f
stb-0-0.8.20211022gitaf1a5bc.el8
The following builds
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
1 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-e7404b9cd7
zchunk-1.2.2-1.el7
1 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-1e126c870e
stb-0-0.8.20211022gitaf1a5bc.el7
The following builds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077283
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-2027c4b69a has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077281
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-47fbefb1d3 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077403
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-75ea3ea924 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077083
d...@islenet.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
Status|NEW
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077281
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-b2e2b1ecc0 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077283
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-7dd110a869 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077083
--- Comment #5 from d...@islenet.com ---
Stand by...this may have been user error. Currently cleaning up some issues
such as an old sa and razor build in /usr/local/bin that I did not realize was
there.
--
You are receiving this mail
On Thu, 2022-04-21 at 17:49 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote:
> >
> Thanks, I have expired the overrides and have read about the side tags.
> Am I understanding correctly that these only work for rawhide?
Nope, you can use them for all releases now.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA
IRC: adamw |
Hi,
Upgrading NetworkManager-sstp to the latest version, I've noticed that
there is a failed test related to missing branch protection on AArch64
[1]. After reading that and [2], I know what it is all about, however, I
wonder what is the best way to apply it to my package?
Should I check if the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077083
--- Comment #4 from d...@islenet.com ---
perl-Razor-Agent-2.86-1.fc35.x86_64
spamassassin-3.4.6-3.fc35.x86_64
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077083
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 10:09 PM Demi Marie Obenour
wrote:
>
[snip]
> > I'm also not sure I agree it's clear that we'd find more bugs if the
> > fallback path didn't exist. People don't usually just boot straight in
> > "basic graphics mode", after all. They try a regular boot, and if it
> >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077083
--- Comment #3 from Robert Scheck ---
Did you update the packages perl-Razor-Agent or spamassassin recently? If so,
from which version to which exactly?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077288
Upstream Release Monitoring
changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|perl-Devel-CheckOS-1.90 is |perl-Devel-CheckOS-1.91
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077083
--- Comment #2 from d...@islenet.com ---
Razor config itself has not been touched in a couple of years.
System has been upgraded to successive Fedora versions as released which does
touch Perl.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077083
Robert Scheck changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
---
W dniu 21.04.2022 o 21:22, Julian Sikorski pisze:
Hello,
I have created two PRs against minizip which are yet to be merged:
- https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/minizip/pull-request/3
- https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/minizip/pull-request/4
The first one should be a low risk one and should
On 4/21/22 12:35, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2022-04-21 at 10:10 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 6:06 PM Kevin Kofler via devel
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Adam Williamson wrote:
Right now it's not entirely clear whether this is considered part of
the Change scope or
Hi Sérgio,
We aren't sure if you saw this or not, but you have permission to move
ahead with the re-builds.
Let us know if you need help with anything.
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 3:06 PM Carl George wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 5:17 PM Troy Dawson wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at
Hello,
I have created two PRs against minizip which are yet to be merged:
- https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/minizip/pull-request/3
- https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/minizip/pull-request/4
The first one should be a low risk one and should allow pkg-config using
dependencies like
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 8:39 PM Julian Sikorski wrote:
>
> Am 21.04.22 um 20:30 schrieb Miro Hrončok:
> > On 21. 04. 22 20:23, Julian Sikorski wrote:
> >> Am 21.04.22 um 20:11 schrieb Miro Hrončok:
> >>> On 21. 04. 22 17:49, Julian Sikorski wrote:
> Am 21.04.22 um 17:42 schrieb Miro Hrončok:
Am 21.04.22 um 20:30 schrieb Miro Hrončok:
On 21. 04. 22 20:23, Julian Sikorski wrote:
Am 21.04.22 um 20:11 schrieb Miro Hrončok:
On 21. 04. 22 17:49, Julian Sikorski wrote:
Am 21.04.22 um 17:42 schrieb Miro Hrončok:
On 21. 04. 22 17:21, Julian Sikorski wrote:
Hello,
I have recently
On 21. 04. 22 20:23, Julian Sikorski wrote:
Am 21.04.22 um 20:11 schrieb Miro Hrončok:
On 21. 04. 22 17:49, Julian Sikorski wrote:
Am 21.04.22 um 17:42 schrieb Miro Hrončok:
On 21. 04. 22 17:21, Julian Sikorski wrote:
Hello,
I have recently created 3 updates to goffice and gnumeric:
-
Am 21.04.22 um 20:11 schrieb Miro Hrončok:
On 21. 04. 22 17:49, Julian Sikorski wrote:
Am 21.04.22 um 17:42 schrieb Miro Hrončok:
On 21. 04. 22 17:21, Julian Sikorski wrote:
Hello,
I have recently created 3 updates to goffice and gnumeric:
-
On 21. 04. 22 17:49, Julian Sikorski wrote:
Am 21.04.22 um 17:42 schrieb Miro Hrončok:
On 21. 04. 22 17:21, Julian Sikorski wrote:
Hello,
I have recently created 3 updates to goffice and gnumeric:
- https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a7a300f5b1
-
On 22. 03. 22 19:48, Adam Williamson wrote:
now we have convenient self-service side tags,*please use them*.
Especially for something as major as a bump of perl that changes
dependencies of packages built against it like this. Side tags avoid
this mess entirely. Using the mechanism to produce an
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077283
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077403
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #4 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077281
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #4 from
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 10:10 AM Adam Jackson wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 6:06 PM Kevin Kofler via devel
> wrote:
> >
> > Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > Right now it's not entirely clear whether this is considered part of
> > > the Change scope or not. The paragraph about the `uvesafb`
Looks like your orig message didn't get to epel-devel, perhaps you
aren't subscribed?
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 04:03:20PM +0200, Michael Trip wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
>
> What does that mean for the ansible rpm package in general? Do we have
> to remove the ansible RPM from our systems and install
On Thu, 2022-04-21 at 10:10 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 6:06 PM Kevin Kofler via devel
> wrote:
> >
> > Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > Right now it's not entirely clear whether this is considered part of
> > > the Change scope or not. The paragraph about the `uvesafb`
Hi,
This is the official unresponsive maintainer check for rosslagerwall.
I have tried a direct mail already some time ago, but did not get an answer.
Last login in FAS:
rosslagerwall 2015-12-03
Last package update on bodhi:
2015-10-05 20:52:38 on package libnfs-1.9.8-1.fc22
Associated bz:
Hi,
This is the official unresponsive maintainer check for rosslagerwall.
I have tried a direct mail already some time ago, but did not get an answer.
Last login in FAS:
rosslagerwall 2015-12-03
Last package update on bodhi:
2015-10-05 20:52:38 on package libnfs-1.9.8-1.fc22
Associated bz:
On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 6:29 AM Troy Dawson wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 3:49 PM Amos wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 4:57 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, I'll echo smooge here. Can you expand on exactly what you are
>>> hitting?
>>>
>>> I can't seem to find the orig thread
On Thu, 2022-04-21 at 17:21 +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have recently created 3 updates to goffice and gnumeric:
>
> - https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a7a300f5b1
> - https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-9a07603dd6
> -
Am 21.04.22 um 17:42 schrieb Miro Hrončok:
On 21. 04. 22 17:21, Julian Sikorski wrote:
Hello,
I have recently created 3 updates to goffice and gnumeric:
- https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a7a300f5b1
- https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-9a07603dd6
-
On 21. 04. 22 17:21, Julian Sikorski wrote:
Hello,
I have recently created 3 updates to goffice and gnumeric:
- https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a7a300f5b1
- https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-9a07603dd6
-
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 9:30 AM Julian Sikorski wrote:
> I have recently created 3 updates to goffice and gnumeric:
>
> - https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a7a300f5b1
> - https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-9a07603dd6
> -
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 6/229 (x86_64), 8/161 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-36-20220420.n.0):
ID: 1233509 Test: x86_64 Everything-boot-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1233509
ID: 1233611 Test: aarch64
Hello,
I have recently created 3 updates to goffice and gnumeric:
- https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a7a300f5b1
- https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-9a07603dd6
- https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-ab9857bfaf
Despite putting the
On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 6:06 PM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Right now it's not entirely clear whether this is considered part of
> > the Change scope or not. The paragraph about the `uvesafb` driver seems
> > kind of aspirational and doesn't seem to commit to
On 21/04/2022 13:20, Vít Ondruch wrote:
It is quite common, to have some sources, which are not available as a
tarball from upstream. In case of rubygem- packages, they quite often do
not ship their test suites. In this case, our .spec file contains
something like [1]:
I prefer a separate
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 10:01 AM Colin Walters wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022, at 7:19 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >
> > - dnf-daemon would be dbus-activated and exit-on-idle after a suitable
> > timeout
>
> This is how rpm-ostree has worked for about 5 years now:
>
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022, at 7:19 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>
> - dnf-daemon would be dbus-activated and exit-on-idle after a suitable
> timeout
This is how rpm-ostree has worked for about 5 years now:
https://github.com/coreos/rpm-ostree/pull/606
(Lots of useful references in that
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077283
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-a6b423ea50 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a6b423ea50
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077283
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-7dd110a869 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-7dd110a869
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077288
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 14:48:47 -0700
Troy Dawson wrote:
> gnucash-2.6.21-1.el72018-04-15 (1466)
Should be safe to unpush this one because gnucash-2.6.21-4.el7 should
be in epel7 stable for 2 years:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-aa8e8965dc
Paul.
That shows how much I've read the policies in detail. That got transferred
over to the regular (non-wiki) docs
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy/#a_yet_again_little_bit_bigger_minor_version_updates
That policy in particular is for updates that do not have ABI changes, but
Missing expected images:
Minimal raw-xz armhfp
Compose PASSES proposed Rawhide gating check!
All required tests passed
Failed openQA tests: 10/231 (x86_64), 16/161 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20220419.n.2):
ID: 1232800 Test: x86_64
OLD: Fedora-36-20220420.n.0
NEW: Fedora-36-20220421.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 4
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of upgraded
Dne 21. 04. 22 v 13:20 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Now I am looking for feedback about general approach. Of course it could be somehow polished and improved to hide some
boiler plate.
This part:
%{echo:%(
[ ! -e %{S:1} ] &&
Looks really clumsy. After reading the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077283
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077281
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-6a8f944143 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-6a8f944143
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077283
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Doc Type|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077281
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-b2e2b1ecc0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-b2e2b1ecc0
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077281
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version||perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077281
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Doc Type|---
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 6:56 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> Dne 20. 04. 22 v 8:55 Jaroslav Mracek napsal(a):
>>
>>
>> I've gotta ask... How much memory does the new dnf daemon take while idle?
>
>
> We do not have any measurements right now. Please feel free to test it. We
> have a repository with
Another status update for transparency purposes:
1. openssl-3.0.2-3 and crypto-policies-20220412-1.git97fe449
now distrust SHA-1 signatures in FUTURE policy or NO-SHA1 subpolicy.
Meaning that updating the packages and issuing
`update-crypto-policies --set FUTURE` /
Hey all,
As we get ready to release Fedora Linux 36, another anticipated moment
has arrived: the Fedora contributor tee shirt giveaway! Sending a huge
“THANK YOU!!” to everyone who works to make Fedora the amazing
community it is. The Mindshare Committee is excited to be able to
share swag with
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2075957
Michal Josef Spacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077427
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Doc Type|---
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-34-20220420.0):
ID: 1233075 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 12:45:48PM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 20. 04. 22 v 8:55 Jaroslav Mracek napsal(a):
> >
> >
> > I've gotta ask... How much memory does the new dnf daemon take while
> > idle?
> After installation:
> Memory: 1.6M
> CPU: 23ms
>
> After upgrade of
mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-PPIx-Regexp` that you
are following.
Merged pull-request:
``
0.085 bump
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-PPIx-Regexp/pull-request/12
___
perl-devel mailing list --
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077427
--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
the-new-hotness/release-monitoring.org's scratch build of
perl-ExtUtils-CppGuess-0.26-1.fc34.src.rpm for rawhide completed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=86021986
--
Hi,
It is quite common, to have some sources, which are not available as a
tarball from upstream. In case of rubygem- packages, they quite often do
not ship their test suites. In this case, our .spec file contains
something like [1]:
~~~
# Tests are not packaged with the gem. You may get
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077427
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
Created attachment 1874027
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1874027=edit
Update to 0.26 (#2077427)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077427
Bug ID: 2077427
Summary: perl-ExtUtils-CppGuess-0.26 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-ExtUtils-CppGuess
Keywords: FutureFeature,
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-PPIx-Regexp` that
you are following:
``
0.085 bump
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-PPIx-Regexp/pull-request/12
___
perl-devel mailing list --
ppisar closed without merging a pull-request against the project:
`perl-Dumbbench` that you
are following.
Closed pull-request:
``
Add gating
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Dumbbench/pull-request/2
___
perl-devel mailing list --
ppisar opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Dumbbench` that you
are following:
``
Add gating
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Dumbbench/pull-request/2
___
perl-devel mailing list --
Dne 20. 04. 22 v 8:55 Jaroslav Mracek napsal(a):
I've gotta ask... How much memory does the new dnf daemon take while idle?
We do not have any measurements right now. Please feel free to test it. We have a repository with DNF5/Microdnf
nightly builds -
And its probably down again. Last notification I received was at
2022-04-20 16:37:08 UTC
Vít
Dne 20. 04. 22 v 17:04 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Dne 19. 04. 22 v 20:35 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 07:48:56PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
I think this is broken again. Last
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077403
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-fd18ff1a8a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-fd18ff1a8a
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077403
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-75ea3ea924 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-75ea3ea924
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2075957
Michal Josef Spacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20220419.n.2
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20220421.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 7
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 104
Downgraded packages: 1
Size of added packages: 59.61 MiB
Size of dropped packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077403
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077403
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077403
Bug ID: 2077403
Summary: perl-Dumbbench-0.503 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Dumbbench
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 11:01 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> > * Compatibility
> > ** To improve user experience and to unify dnf/microdnf behavior we
> > were unable to keep 100% compatibility with formal Microdnf in
> > command-line and in behavior
>
> Can you comment more on this
Ihr Postfach hat das vom Standardadministrator festgelegte Limit überschritten.
Sie können keine neuen oder ausstehenden Nachrichten mehr erhalten. Ignorieren
Sie es nicht, um zu verhindern, dass Ihr E-Mail-Konto vom Serveradministrator
gekündigt wird. Führen Sie jetzt ein Upgrade durch, um Ihr
> * Compatibility
> ** To improve user experience and to unify dnf/microdnf behavior we
> were unable to keep 100% compatibility with formal Microdnf in
> command-line and in behavior
Can you comment more on this part? yum/dnf command-line and behaviour
compatiblity made adoption fairly easy. (I
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MajorUpgradeOfMicrodnf
Overall, the new architecture is a huge improvement and should fix many
of the long-standing issues.
Would it be possible to extend the How To Test section with installation
and commandline-use instructions? Is the stuff planned in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2077156
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2076721
--- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok ---
*** Bug 2077156 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2076721
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
