# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting
# Date: 2016-09-26
# Time: 15:00 UTC
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto)
# Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net
Greetings testers!
It's meeting time again on Monday! We have some Test Days coming up to
check in on, Beta is coming up
# F25 Blocker Review meeting
# Date: 2016-09-26
# Time: 16:00 UTC
# Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net
Hi folks! We currently have 2 proposed Beta blockers and 8 proposed
Final blockers to review.
If you have time this weekend, you can take a look at the proposed or
accepted blo
On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 11:37 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> Well... we certainly need to port it sooner or later although I
> understand that effort will be quite non-trivial.
You mean port libp11? That's already working against OpenSSL 1.1, isn't
it? We just need to ensure we can ship a version of lib
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 6:05 AM, Sandro Mani wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'll be updating to podofo-0.9.4 in rawhide next weekend. This update
> includes a soname bump, and the following packages will need to be rebuilt:
>
> calibre
> fontmatrix
> krename
> scribus
>
> I don't have commit access to any of th
On 23/09/16 12:44 PM, gil wrote:
> hi
>
> Il 23/09/2016 19:49, Luya Tshimbalanga ha scritto:
>> Hi team,
>>
>> Could someone do a review of f25-backgrounds before the beta freeze on
>> September 27?
>> It is a critical package because it contains the default wallpapers for
>> F25 release.
>>
>> The
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 02:44:31PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> I plan to retire festival before f25 beta unless someone else wants
> to take it over.
I think you should do it. Updated packages are likely to be so
different that they deserve a re-review anyway.
--
Matthew Miller
Fedora Proje
The rawhide build is now complete.
On 18.09.2016 13:05, Sandro Mani wrote:
Hi
I'll be updating to podofo-0.9.4 in rawhide next weekend. This update
includes a soname bump, and the following packages will need to be
rebuilt:
calibre
fontmatrix
krename
scribus
I don't have commit access to
Hi,
after updating to Gnome 3.22 it seems that at least evolution[1] and
epiphany[2] are broken but I'm affraid the problem affects any app which
deals with html conten.
So please unpush that update and fix the problem ASAP.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378985
[2] https://
I plan to retire festival before f25 beta unless someone else wants to
take it over.
It really needs a lot of work to update it to a current version. Also recently
outside changes have resulted in it segfaulting (even after a rebuild) and
it is currently unusable.
hi
Il 23/09/2016 19:49, Luya Tshimbalanga ha scritto:
Hi team,
Could someone do a review of f25-backgrounds before the beta freeze on
September 27?
It is a critical package because it contains the default wallpapers for
F25 release.
The link is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=13789
Hi,
I just orphaned oflb-riordonfancy-fonts - it is a FTBFS package I tried
to save from retirement a while ago thinking that maintaining a font
should not be that hard. However I realized I do not have the time to
get to understand why it does not build. Therefore I orphaned it for now
and will r
Hi team,
Could someone do a review of f25-backgrounds before the beta freeze on
September 27?
It is a critical package because it contains the default wallpapers for
F25 release.
The link is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378971
Thanks in advance.
--
Luya Tshimbalanga
Graphic & W
On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 15:24 +, Fedora compose checker wrote:
> Missing expected images:
>
>
> Xfce raw-xz armhfp
> Cloud_base raw-xz i386
> Atomic raw-xz x86_64
>
>
> Failed openQA tests: 7/98 (x86_64), 1/17 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
If anyone's wondering where the nice 'compare to previous compos
Missing expected images:
Xfce raw-xz armhfp
Cloud_base raw-xz i386
Atomic raw-xz x86_64
Failed openQA tests: 7/98 (x86_64), 1/17 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
ID: 35749 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35749
ID: 35750 Test: x86_
On 09/22/2016 09:18 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:32:40PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
* IMHO the initial upstream default didn't make sense for Fedora
On this specific change, I'm not sure the *updated* default makes sense
either. It still is quite constrained.
* Perhaps
Missing expected images:
Kde live i386
Kde live x86_64
Cloud_base raw-xz i386
Atomic raw-xz x86_64
Kde raw-xz armhfp
Failed openQA tests: 5/89 (x86_64), 3/16 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
ID: 35652 Test: i386 Workstation-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35652
ID: 35
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 5:34 AM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
wrote:
> Hello,
> A user posted some issue on gnutls [0], and it turned out that after a
> fresh install of f24 that user had two versions of the library
> installed. I have no idea why this can be or whether that should be
> expected from
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:32:40PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> * IMHO the initial upstream default didn't make sense for Fedora
>
> On this specific change, I'm not sure the *updated* default makes sense
> either. It still is quite constra
Hello,
A user posted some issue on gnutls [0], and it turned out that after a
fresh install of f24 that user had two versions of the library
installed. I have no idea why this can be or whether that should be
expected from the installer/updater. Any insights?
regards,
Nikos
[0]. https://bugzilla
I definitely fixed this issue:
https://github.com/fedora-infra/the-new-hotness/commit/2eed58c4ea09729f17e8c672196318d7028b0dba
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:34:07 -0400
> Avram Lubkin wrote:
>
>> Seems like this issue is almost a year old.
>
> Sadly
20 matches
Mail list logo
