On 19/08/16 08:11 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 18:53 -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
>> On 19/08/16 12:58 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
Possibly as I boot the livemedia from the plain old burned DVD for
testing purpose. Perhaps doing the verification
check detect the p
Missing expected images:
Cloud_base raw-xz x86_64
Cloud_base raw-xz i386
Atomic raw-xz x86_64
Failed openQA tests: 11/89 (x86_64), 4/17 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
ID: 28633 Test: x86_64 Atomic-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/28633
ID: 28655 Test: x86_64 Se
On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 18:53 -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
> On 19/08/16 12:58 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Possibly as I boot the livemedia from the plain old burned DVD for
> > > testing purpose. Perhaps doing the verification
> > > check detect the problem.
> > Just to make
Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event
for Fedora 25 Branched 20160819.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
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 7:41 PM Chris Murphy
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> wrote:
> > On Saturday, 20 August 2016 at 01:30, Chris Murphy wrote:
> >> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Christopher
> >> wrote:
> >> > Can somebody please reopen and appro
On 19/08/16 12:58 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
>>
>> Possibly as I boot the livemedia from the plain old burned DVD for
>> testing purpose. Perhaps doing the verification
>> check detect the problem.
> Just to make sure - have you just tried to boot the LiveCD, or have you
> installed it and booted the
# F25 Blocker Review meeting
# Date: 2016-08-22
# Time: 16:00 UTC
# Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net
Hi folks! We currently have 2 proposed Alpha blockers, 1 proposed
Beta blocker and 6 proposed Final blockers to review. There are also
2 proposed Alpha freeze exceptions a
# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting
# Date: 2016-08-22
# 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! cmurf would like to discuss the
Wayland-by-default change, and we
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> On Saturday, 20 August 2016 at 01:30, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Christopher
>> wrote:
>> > Can somebody please reopen and appropriately mark the following bug for
>> > EPEL7, so it doesn't get
On Saturday, 20 August 2016 at 01:30, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Christopher
> wrote:
> > Can somebody please reopen and appropriately mark the following bug for
> > EPEL7, so it doesn't get auto-closed on new Fedora releases? Thanks.
> >
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.co
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Christopher
wrote:
> Can somebody please reopen and appropriately mark the following bug for
> EPEL7, so it doesn't get auto-closed on new Fedora releases? Thanks.
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1164414
When product is changed to Fedora EPEL, the
Hey All,
This is a gentle reminder that we have a Fedora QA onboarding call on
Sat 2016-08-20 at 1700-1900 UTC. We will focus on helping the new
contributors to start contributing right away. The meeting will be a
video call, with a 'piratepad'[1] for text notes and chat. The agenda is
already on
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 2:31 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 18:25:49 +
> Christopher wrote:
>
> > Can somebody please re-open and bump
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017603 to F24. The bug
> > was auto-closed because it was marked for F22. I've taken the packag
On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 18:25:49 +
Christopher wrote:
> Can somebody please re-open and bump
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017603 to F24. The bug
> was auto-closed because it was marked for F22. I've taken the package
> for newer Fedora versions, but cannot update bugs marked for
Can somebody please re-open and bump
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017603 to F24. The bug was
auto-closed because it was marked for F22. I've taken the package for newer
Fedora versions, but cannot update bugs marked for older Fedora versions
which were auto-closed, because I don't h
Can somebody please reopen and appropriately mark the following bug for
EPEL7, so it doesn't get auto-closed on new Fedora releases? Thanks.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1164414
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lis
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Adam Miller
wrote:
> Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the
> FESCo meeting Friday at 16:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on
> irc.freenode.net.
>
> To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto
>
> or r
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> extremetuxracer
>
> taken.
--
http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love
-d. bowie
--
devel mailing list
devel@l
Hi there,
because I haven't actually developed or used them in a long time, I've
orphaned a couple of packages, or handed them over to other active
package admins or co-maintainers. I've copied co-admins, co-maintainers
if there are any (and the list isn't too long, looking at you, glade2)
so the
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 10:58:06AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Adam Miller
> wrote:
> > Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the
> > FESCo meeting Friday at 16:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on
> > irc.freenode.net.
> We should handle https://fedoraho
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 09:37:39 -0600,
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
* The failing composes still always send the broken deps emails, which
means when we run several composes a day to try and fix things people
will get a bunch of duplicate emails. There's a proposed fix for
this, hopefully landing af
Hello, I'm the maintainer of the ca-certificates package.
Could you please help to confirm that the following system configuration change
doesn't cause any regressions for your use of the Internet?
ca-legacy disable
# (needs to be executed with root permission)
If you see any issues with SS
Greetings.
Astute followers of rawhide/branched composes will note that we haven't
had to many of them recently that finished successfully. ;(
As of this email the last rawhide one was 2016-08-12 (7 days ago) and
the last branched one was 2016-08-16 ( 3 days ago).
This has various anoying and
On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 09:18 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 15:20 +0200, Kai Engert wrote:
> >
> > It won't break software that uses NSS / OpenSSl / GnuTLS / glib-
> > networking.
>
> I have only one concern: what about Qt stuff? Do you know?
I've just used f24 qupzilla t
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Adam Miller
wrote:
> Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the
> FESCo meeting Friday at 16:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on
> irc.freenode.net.
>
> To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto
>
> or r
On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 15:20 +0200, Kai Engert wrote:
> It won't break software that uses NSS / OpenSSl / GnuTLS / glib-
> networking.
I have only one concern: what about Qt stuff? Do you know?
Anyway, I agree that you should prepare an F25 update for this. Just do
not request a freeze exception,
On Pá, 2016-08-19 at 15:54 +0200, Kai Engert wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 09:45 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >
> > However, pre-release Fedora is different from released Fedoras in
> > that the
> > updates-testing repo is enabled by default on them. This means that
> > if you
> > push
> > t
On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 09:05 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Applying this to older releases would be a violation of the Stable Updates
> Policy[1] (though arguably it could be considered to fall under "The update
> fixes a security issue that would affect a large number of users.".
Although I cu
On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 09:45 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> However, pre-release Fedora is different from released Fedoras in that the
> updates-testing repo is enabled by default on them. This means that if you
> push
> the ca-certificates package to updates-testing before next week's Go/No-Go
>
On 08/19/2016 09:20 AM, Kai Engert wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 09:01 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> With my FESCo hat on, I'd be in favor of landing this in updates-testing
>> immediately. Then folks who install the Alpha will get it in their first
>> update
>> and we'd have ample time to wo
On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 15:20 +0200, Kai Engert wrote:
> It's not as simple as that. The suggested change doesn't mean that our
> software
> will block any CAs with 1024 bit.
This sentence wasn't sufficiently precise.
Although for some server certificates, it's possible to find a chain of trust to
On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 09:01 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > I'm having a hard time following the argument of scale and risk here
> > when it pertains to schedule slip. The package itself is fairly
> > self-contained and isn't likely to cause issues against the actual
> > Alpha test criteria.
On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 14:54 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> The plan is to apply this change to past releases, too.
>
> I find this discrepancy—okay for past releases, but not okay for
> alpha—somewhat puzzling. I don't know which direction this should go,
> but let's be consistent, please.
Giv
On 08/19/2016 08:54 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 08/19/2016 02:38 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> On 08/19/2016 08:29 AM, Kai Engert wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2016-08-18 at 22:29 -0400, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
Beta sounds a bit late to be introducing such a change unilaterally.
Should this not
On 08/19/2016 08:46 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 8:38 AM, Stephen Gallagher
> wrote:
>> On 08/19/2016 08:29 AM, Kai Engert wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2016-08-18 at 22:29 -0400, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
Beta sounds a bit late to be introducing such a change unilaterally.
Should
On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 08:46 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 8:38 AM, Stephen Gallagher
> wrote:
> >
> > On 08/19/2016 08:29 AM, Kai Engert wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2016-08-18 at 22:29 -0400, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Beta sounds a bit late to be introducing su
On 08/19/2016 02:38 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On 08/19/2016 08:29 AM, Kai Engert wrote:
On Thu, 2016-08-18 at 22:29 -0400, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
Beta sounds a bit late to be introducing such a change unilaterally.
Should this not be going through FESCo at this point?
Then I suggest that
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 8:38 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 08/19/2016 08:29 AM, Kai Engert wrote:
>> On Thu, 2016-08-18 at 22:29 -0400, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
>>> Beta sounds a bit late to be introducing such a change unilaterally.
>>> Should this not be going through FESCo at this point?
>>
Hi,
during the meeting we were able to check status with most of the team
representatives. Most of the representatives of teams who were not
able to make the meeting did report me off-line, so we now have the
overall readiness status ready.
Except the NO-GO decision due to missing RC and present
On 08/19/2016 08:29 AM, Kai Engert wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-08-18 at 22:29 -0400, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
>> Beta sounds a bit late to be introducing such a change unilaterally.
>> Should this not be going through FESCo at this point?
>
> Then I suggest that we make the change immediately for Fedora
On Thu, 2016-08-18 at 22:29 -0400, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> Beta sounds a bit late to be introducing such a change unilaterally.
> Should this not be going through FESCo at this point?
Then I suggest that we make the change immediately for Fedora 25, to allow it to
be included in the delayed alph
> On 18/08/16 02:45 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-08-18 at 14:19 -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
> >> On 18/08/16 12:07 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >>> Hi folks!
> >>>
> >>> There is a bug nominated as a Fedora 25 Alpha blocker:
> >>>
> >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id
42 matches
Mail list logo
