Re: Update to last minute blocker bugs proposal (Rev:07242019)
On Mon, 2019-08-12 at 16:11 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 8:04 PM Adam Williamson > wrote: > > # '''Last minute blocker bugs''' - bugs proposed as blockers 7 days or > > fewer before the scheduled [[Go_No_Go_Meeting]] for a milestone release > > (Beta or Final) can be considered under this policy, as there are some > > circumstances in which we believe it is not sensible to delay an > > otherwise-impending release to fix a bug which would usually be > > accepted as a blocker if discovered earlier. In these circumstances, > > the bug can instead be accepted as a blocker for the ''next'' milestone > > release. > > # '''Difficult to fix blocker bugs''' - bugs which it may not be > > practical to fix within a reasonable time frame for the release to be > > made (due to e.g. complexity or resource constraints) > > Are these collapsible? That is, ostensibly the reason to trigger a > last minute blocker bug exception, would be that it can't be fixed in > say, 12 hours. Right? So chances are it's somehow difficult to fix, or > possibly difficult to fix and test (perhaps mainly for regressions). > > A "difficult to fix and confidently test within remaining time > constraints" single category and exception? In theory, yeah. In practice, I feel like if we tried to be clever and just word it that way we'd wind up having to explain why an apparently simple fix that popped up at the last minute was taken under this "difficult to fix" clause, and then I think the text would wind having more or less the same bits as it does now, only in a less clear construction. But...if you think it can be done, take a cut at it! Post a draft :) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Update to last minute blocker bugs proposal (Rev:07242019)
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 8:04 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > > # '''Last minute blocker bugs''' - bugs proposed as blockers 7 days or > fewer before the scheduled [[Go_No_Go_Meeting]] for a milestone release > (Beta or Final) can be considered under this policy, as there are some > circumstances in which we believe it is not sensible to delay an > otherwise-impending release to fix a bug which would usually be > accepted as a blocker if discovered earlier. In these circumstances, > the bug can instead be accepted as a blocker for the ''next'' milestone > release. > # '''Difficult to fix blocker bugs''' - bugs which it may not be > practical to fix within a reasonable time frame for the release to be > made (due to e.g. complexity or resource constraints) Are these collapsible? That is, ostensibly the reason to trigger a last minute blocker bug exception, would be that it can't be fixed in say, 12 hours. Right? So chances are it's somehow difficult to fix, or possibly difficult to fix and test (perhaps mainly for regressions). A "difficult to fix and confidently test within remaining time constraints" single category and exception? -- Chris Murphy ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Update to last minute blocker bugs proposal (Rev:07242019)
On Mon, 2019-08-12 at 22:39 +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: > On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 4:04 AM Adam Williamson > wrote: > > > > > +++ DRAFT START +++ > > > > === Exceptional cases === > > > > Generally speaking, any bug that is agreed to be a violation of the > > [[Fedora Release Criteria|release criteria]] should be accepted as a > > blocker bug for the next relevant milestone release. However, bearing > > in mind the [[Fedora_Release_Life_Cycle|Fedora life cycle's]] emphasis > > on '''both''' time '''and''' quality, in some cases we may make an > > exception. There are two main categories of bug that may be > > 'exceptional': > > > > # '''Last minute blocker bugs''' - bugs proposed as blockers 7 days or > > fewer before the scheduled [[Go_No_Go_Meeting]] for a milestone release > > (Beta or Final) can be considered under this policy, as there are some > > circumstances in which we believe it is not sensible to delay an > > otherwise-impending release to fix a bug which would usually be > > accepted as a blocker if discovered earlier. In these circumstances, > > the bug can instead be accepted as a blocker for the ''next'' milestone > > release. [snip] > That's very well written and I don't have any concerns about its wording. > I'm a bit hesitant whether 7 is the right number, but we can try it and see. I should've called that up for discussion more prominently, I guess. Yes, I just picked that number out of the air, it's absolutely up for debate. Do you think it should be a bigger number or a smaller number? :) I wondered about whether to build in some fudge space here - say the number's a guideline and we can go beyond it if we think it's a good idea - but worried that might be a bit too messy. > Whether this new policy is a good idea, that's a separate question. The > idealist in me cries every time we sacrifice quality. And this policy will > probably result in more bugs being waved compared to the past. However, I > feel it's better to have the rules formalized than to wave such bugs > without any real grounds and feel like cheating on our policies every time > we actually need waive something. FWIW my intent would be to use this no more often than we currently do this in a non-formalized way. But of course it's possible that having it written down will make us use it more, that's a risk indeed. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: A Friday with Infra [fedocal possible retirement]
On Mon, 2019-08-12 at 22:51 +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 5:16 PM Adam Williamson > wrote: > > > In case folks didn't see it on devel@, I wanted to flag this up here. > > Infra is talking about no longer maintaining fedocal. We do use it for > > some purposes, the most notable I can think of is the Test Day calendar > > - we used to keep the Test Day schedule in the wiki, effectively, then > > a few years back moved to doing it in fedocal. Anyone have any thoughts > > on how we should handle this? > > > > It's not just test days, it's also our other events - QA meetings, blocker > review meetings, maybe something else (we used to have QA devel meetings). I count those as a bit less 'notable' though as the main vector for those is the announcement emails. I quite often forget to update the calendar at all :/ -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: A Friday with Infra [fedocal possible retirement]
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 5:16 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > In case folks didn't see it on devel@, I wanted to flag this up here. > Infra is talking about no longer maintaining fedocal. We do use it for > some purposes, the most notable I can think of is the Test Day calendar > - we used to keep the Test Day schedule in the wiki, effectively, then > a few years back moved to doing it in fedocal. Anyone have any thoughts > on how we should handle this? > It's not just test days, it's also our other events - QA meetings, blocker review meetings, maybe something else (we used to have QA devel meetings). Unless somebody steps up to maintain Fedocal, the simple yet probably unpopular solution is to maintain it in Google Calendar or something similar. Yes, it's a proprietary service, and the admin privileges can't be maintained through FAS. But the end-user experience is very similar - people can see a web view of the events, and they can add an ical link to their calendar client of choice. If somebody knows of a FOSS service to host calendars accessible through ical, speak up please. I can also think of some bear-bone solution e.g. by storing the ics file in a git repo, pull, edit in Evolution/etc, push. People could still link it to their calendar client, but we wouldn't have any web view. I don't think we want to go this route, though. ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Update to last minute blocker bugs proposal (Rev:07242019)
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 4:04 AM Adam Williamson wrote: > > > +++ DRAFT START +++ > > === Exceptional cases === > > Generally speaking, any bug that is agreed to be a violation of the > [[Fedora Release Criteria|release criteria]] should be accepted as a > blocker bug for the next relevant milestone release. However, bearing > in mind the [[Fedora_Release_Life_Cycle|Fedora life cycle's]] emphasis > on '''both''' time '''and''' quality, in some cases we may make an > exception. There are two main categories of bug that may be > 'exceptional': > > # '''Last minute blocker bugs''' - bugs proposed as blockers 7 days or > fewer before the scheduled [[Go_No_Go_Meeting]] for a milestone release > (Beta or Final) can be considered under this policy, as there are some > circumstances in which we believe it is not sensible to delay an > otherwise-impending release to fix a bug which would usually be > accepted as a blocker if discovered earlier. In these circumstances, > the bug can instead be accepted as a blocker for the ''next'' milestone > release. > # '''Difficult to fix blocker bugs''' - bugs which it may not be > practical to fix within a reasonable time frame for the release to be > made (due to e.g. complexity or resource constraints) > > The stakeholder groups must first agree, following the procedures > described above, that the bug violates the release criteria and so > would otherwise be accepted as a blocker bug for the imminent release. > > After that, the stakeholder groups may separately make a decision as to > whether to invoke this policy and consider delaying the blocker status > to a future milestone release. Anyone attending the meeting (or > otherwise taking part in the discussion, if it is being done outside of > a meeting) can suggest that this evaluation be done. In making the > decision, the following factors can be considered: > > * How prominently visible the bug will be > * How severe the consequences of the bug are > * How many users are likely to encounter the bug > * Whether the bug could or should have been proposed earlier in the > cycle > * Whether the current stable release is affected by the bug > * Whether delaying the release may give us an opportunity to carry out > other desirable work > * Possible effects of the expected delay on Fedora itself and also to > downstream projects > * Whether an additional delay to fix the bug, combined with any prior > delays in the cycle, results in the total delay becoming unacceptable > in regard to the [[Fedora_Release_Life_Cycle]] > > In almost all 'exceptional' cases, the bug should be accepted as a > blocker either for the very next milestone release, or for the > equivalent milestone for the next release (if it would not violate the > criteria for the very next milestone). For very complex '''difficult to > fix''' cases, a longer extension may be needed. > > +++ DRAFT END +++ > That's very well written and I don't have any concerns about its wording. I'm a bit hesitant whether 7 is the right number, but we can try it and see. Whether this new policy is a good idea, that's a separate question. The idealist in me cries every time we sacrifice quality. And this policy will probably result in more bugs being waved compared to the past. However, I feel it's better to have the rules formalized than to wave such bugs without any real grounds and feel like cheating on our policies every time we actually need waive something. So yeah, I guess I have no objections to this being a part of our release criteria. ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Testing Workstation
On Mon, 2019-08-12 at 13:52 +0200, Alessio wrote: > Some observations. > > Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-Rawhide-20190811.n.1.iso > > Installed successfully, but initial setup doesn't start. > Initial setup start only adding enforcing=0 to grub. This is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1734197 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1734198 . > > Since in the latest composes there is no Workstation netinstall iso, > using Fedora-Workstation-netinst-x86_64-Rawhide-20190802.n.1.iso these > are the observations: > > Installation works. > > Problems with Date & Time settings: > - the Time Zone is not the one selected during setup. > - in settings, the Time Zone list is empty, so I can't change it. > - turning on Automatic Date & Time and Automatic Time Zone switches > lead to Settings panel to hang for some time, then they are not > preserved > - sudo timedatectl, lead to this error "Failed to query server: > Connection timed out" That's probably the same thing. > Problem with GNOME Activities overview: > - clicking on Activities (or using Super keystroke), it is like that > "Type to search..." has no focus, so, in order to search for an > application, you have to click on the search bar I'll see if I can reproduce this. Thanks! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [Xen-devel] Xen / EC2 release criteria proposal
On Sat, 2019-08-10 at 20:12 +0200, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > Sorry for the top posting, "smart" phone... > > What about Qubes OS? Isn't their dom0 using xen, based on Fedora? > > Do they use Xen as packaged by Fedora? If not, couldn't they contribute > whatever they do that Fedora doesn't here? > > It might be worth getting in touch with them. They look like a significant > Xen user, on Fedora. I have no idea, but those seem like reasonable questions. I'll see if I can track down a contact point for them. Thanks! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Self-introduction
Hi Victor, Welcome to Fedora! We welcome your experience and willingness to test! Please see the the attached articles [0] [1] [2] for more information on how to get involved and what to do to start testing. One of the best ways to contribute is through validation testing on the latest compose, which is located here [3]. Let me know if you have any questions. Geoff Marr IRC: coremodule [0] https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/getting-started-fedora-qa-part-1/ [1] https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/getting-started-fedora-qa-part-2/ [2] https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/getting-started-fedora-qa-part-3/ [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_31_Rawhide_20190802.n.1_Summary?rd=Test_Results:Current_Summary On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 4:30 PM Victor Bystrov wrote: > Hi guys, > > My name is Victor Bystrov, I'm 31 years old and live in Gomel Belarus. > > I would like to join to your QA team. I have some experience with testing. > And little experience with Linux. I'm studying Java Development as well. > > Bye > > > ___ > test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org > ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Self-introduction
Hi guys, My name is Victor Bystrov, I'm 31 years old and live in Gomel Belarus. I would like to join to your QA team. I have some experience with testing. And little experience with Linux. I'm studying Java Development as well. Bye ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora-Rawhide-20190812.n.0 compose check report
No missing expected images. Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check! 3 of 45 required tests failed, 6 results missing openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING** below Unsatisfied gating requirements that could not be mapped to openQA tests: MISSING: fedora.Workstation-boot-iso.x86_64.64bit - compose.install_default MISSING: fedora.Workstation-boot-iso.x86_64.uefi - compose.install_default Failed openQA tests: 16/143 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20190811.n.1): ID: 430933 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_remote_logging_server URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/430933 ID: 430934 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_remote_logging_client URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/430934 ID: 430962 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_update_graphical URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/430962 ID: 430966 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso apps_startstop URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/430966 ID: 430985 Test: x86_64 universal install_delete_pata@uefi **GATING** URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/430985 ID: 430993 Test: x86_64 universal install_simple_free_space URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/430993 Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20190811.n.1): ID: 430941 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default_upload **GATING** URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/430941 ID: 430942 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default@uefi **GATING** URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/430942 ID: 430968 Test: arm Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz install_arm_image_deployment_upload URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/430968 ID: 430970 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso install_default@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/430970 ID: 430971 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso install_default_upload URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/430971 ID: 431032 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_desktop_64bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/431032 ID: 431040 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_desktop_encrypted_64bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/431040 ID: 431043 Test: x86_64 universal install_european_language URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/431043 ID: 431044 Test: x86_64 universal install_cyrillic_language URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/431044 ID: 431046 Test: x86_64 universal install_arabic_language URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/431046 ID: 431047 Test: x86_64 universal install_asian_language URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/431047 Passed openQA tests: 111/143 (x86_64) Skipped gating openQA tests: 4/143 (x86_64) Old skipped gating tests (same test skipped in Fedora-Rawhide-20190811.n.1): ID: 430946 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso base_update_cli **GATING** URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/430946 ID: 430947 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso base_system_logging **GATING** URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/430947 ID: 430949 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_terminal **GATING** URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/430949 ID: 430950 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_browser **GATING** URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/430950 Skipped non-gating openQA tests: 13 of 145 Installed system changes in test x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default@uefi: 1 packages(s) added since previous compose: libtextstyle 2 packages(s) removed since previous compose: GeoIP, GeoIP-GeoLite-data Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/430721#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/430906#downloads Installed system changes in test x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default: 1 packages(s) added since previous compose: libtextstyle 2 packages(s) removed since previous compose: GeoIP, GeoIP-GeoLite-data Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/430722#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/430907#downloads Installed system changes in test x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_default_upload: System load changed from 0.05 to 0.16 Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/430723#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/430908#downloads Installed system changes in test x86_64 Everything-boot-iso install_default@uefi: 1 packages(s) added since previous compose: libtextstyle Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/430754#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/430939#downloads Installed system changes in test x86_64 Everything-boot-iso install_default: 1 packages(s) added since previous compose: libtextstyle Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/430755#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/430940#downl
Testing Workstation
Some observations. Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-Rawhide-20190811.n.1.iso Installed successfully, but initial setup doesn't start. Initial setup start only adding enforcing=0 to grub. Since in the latest composes there is no Workstation netinstall iso, using Fedora-Workstation-netinst-x86_64-Rawhide-20190802.n.1.iso these are the observations: Installation works. Problems with Date & Time settings: - the Time Zone is not the one selected during setup. - in settings, the Time Zone list is empty, so I can't change it. - turning on Automatic Date & Time and Automatic Time Zone switches lead to Settings panel to hang for some time, then they are not preserved - sudo timedatectl, lead to this error "Failed to query server: Connection timed out" Problem with GNOME Activities overview: - clicking on Activities (or using Super keystroke), it is like that "Type to search..." has no focus, so, in order to search for an application, you have to click on the search bar ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora rawhide compose report: 20190812.n.0 changes
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20190811.n.1 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20190812.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 1 Dropped packages:2 Upgraded packages: 16 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 24.57 MiB Size of dropped packages:267.33 KiB Size of upgraded packages: 264.35 MiB Size of downgraded packages: 0 B Size change of upgraded packages: 1.15 MiB Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B = ADDED IMAGES = = DROPPED IMAGES = = ADDED PACKAGES = Package: wine-dxvk-1.3.2-1.fc31 Summary: Vulkan-based D3D11 and D3D10 implementation for Linux / Wine RPMs:wine-dxvk wine-dxvk-dxgi Size:24.57 MiB = DROPPED PACKAGES = Package: gwsmhg-0.13.2-16.fc31 Summary: A PyGTK GUI wrapper for hg and mq RPMs:gwsmhg Size:246.60 KiB Package: python-pthreading-0.1.3-14.fc31 Summary: Re-implement threading.Lock, RLock and Condition with libpthread RPMs:python2-pthreading Size:20.73 KiB = UPGRADED PACKAGES = Package: 3Depict-0.0.22-3.fc31 Old package: 3Depict-0.0.21-3.fc30 Summary: Valued 3D point cloud visualization and analysis RPMs: 3Depict Size: 34.10 MiB Size change: 777.22 KiB Changelog: * Fri Apr 05 2019 D Haley - 0.0.22-1 - Update to 0.0.22 * Wed Jul 24 2019 Fedora Release Engineering - 0.0.22-2 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_31_Mass_Rebuild * Sun Aug 11 2019 D Haley - 0.0.22-3 - Fix for PPC64LE qhull include bug (#1735406) Package: aircrack-ng-1.5.2-7.fc31 Old package: aircrack-ng-1.5.2-5.fc30 Summary: 802.11 (wireless) sniffer and WEP/WPA-PSK key cracker RPMs: aircrack-ng Size: 19.74 MiB Size change: 242.58 KiB Changelog: * Wed Jul 24 2019 Fedora Release Engineering - 1.5.2-6 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_31_Mass_Rebuild * Sun Aug 11 2019 Filipe Rosset - 1.5.2-7 - Fix FTBFS on rawhide fixes rhbz#1734928 and rhbz#1735447 Package: git-2.23.0-0.2.rc2.fc31 Old package: git-2.23.0-0.1.rc1.fc31 Summary: Fast Version Control System RPMs: git git-all git-core git-core-doc git-cvs git-daemon git-email git-gui git-instaweb git-subtree git-svn gitk gitweb perl-Git perl-Git-SVN Size: 37.38 MiB Size change: -2.15 KiB Changelog: * Sun Aug 11 2019 Todd Zullinger - 2.23.0-0.2.rc2 - Update to 2.23.0-rc2 Package: gsequencer-2.2.37-0.fc31 Old package: gsequencer-2.2.28-0.fc31 Summary: Audio processing engine RPMs: gsequencer gsequencer-devel gsequencer-devel-doc Size: 20.16 MiB Size change: 22.03 KiB Package: igt-gpu-tools-1.23-1.20190811gitf43f5fa.fc31 Old package: igt-gpu-tools-1.23-1.20190801gitb3138fb.fc31 Summary: Test suite and tools for DRM drivers RPMs: igt-gpu-tools igt-gpu-tools-docs Size: 12.43 MiB Size change: 7.36 KiB Changelog: * Sun Aug 11 2019 Lyude Paul - 1.23-1.20190811gitf43f5fa - New git snapshot Package: ocaml-charinfo-width-1.1.0-3.fc31 Old package: ocaml-charinfo-width-1.1.0-2.fc31 Summary: Determine column width for a character RPMs: ocaml-charinfo-width ocaml-charinfo-width-devel Size: 1.37 MiB Size change: 1.48 KiB Changelog: * Sun Aug 11 2019 Ben Rosser - 1.1.0-3 - Rebuilt for camomile 1.0.2. Package: ocaml-lwt-log-1.1.1-1.fc31 Old package: ocaml-lwt-log-1.1.0-4.fc31 Summary: Lwt logging library RPMs: ocaml-lwt-log ocaml-lwt-log-devel Size: 1.68 MiB Size change: 691.58 KiB Changelog: * Wed Aug 07 2019 Ben Rosser - 1.1.0-5 - Fix use of deprecated Lwt_main.exit_hooks in lwt 4.1+. * Thu Aug 08 2019 Ben Rosser - 1.1.1-1 - Update to latest upstream release, 1.1.1. Package: ocaml-zed-2.0.3-1.fc31 Old package: ocaml-zed-2.0.2-2.fc31 Summary: Abstract engine for text edition in OCaml RPMs: ocaml-zed ocaml-zed-devel Size: 6.97 MiB Size change: 66.14 KiB Changelog: * Sun Aug 11 2019 Ben Rosser - 2.0.3-1 - Updated to latest upstream release. Package: podman-2:1.5.1-0.6.dev.git2348c28.fc31 Old package: podman-2:1.5.1-0.3.dev.git3bc861c.fc31 Summary: Manage Pods, Containers and Container Images RPMs: podman podman-docker podman-manpages podman-remote podman-tests Size: 125.58 MiB Size change: -28.66 KiB Changelog: * Sun Aug 11 2019 Lokesh Mandvekar (Bot) - 2:1.5.1-0.4.dev.git7bbaa36 - autobuilt 7bbaa36 * Sun Aug 11 2019 Lokesh Mandvekar (Bot) - 2:1.5.1-0.5.dev.git1467197 - autobuilt 1467197 * Mon Aug 12 2019 Lokesh Mandvekar (Bot) - 2:1.5.1-0.6.dev.git2348c28 - autobuilt 2348c28 Package: python-dmidecode-3.12.2-16.fc31 Old package: python-dmidecode-3.12.2-15.fc31 Summary: Python module to access DMI data RPMs: python3-dmidecode Dropped RPMs: python2-dmidecode Size: 553.45 KiB Size change: -559.50 KiB Changelog: * Sun Aug 11 2019 Miro Hron??ok - 3.12.2-16 - Subpackage
