On 1 April 2017 at 22:25, Neal Gompa wrote:
> This is a libsolv test case. Fedora's high level package manager
> (DNF[0]) uses libsolv[1] for its resolver engine. If you're trying to
> determine how something is going to behave, you can write a test case
> and use testsolv (in the libsolv-tools p
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 y
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 y
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon
wrote:
> Before I investigate what it would take to drop pkgdb entirely and let pagure
> handle the ACLs, I wanted to hear from you if you think this is a terrible
> idea
> or worth investigating.
I think it's fine to drop per-branch ACLs and
On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
>
> On 1 April 2017 at 18:54, Igor Gnatenko
> wrote:
>>
>> repo system 0 testtags
>> #>=Pkg: foo-static 1 1 x86_64
>> repo available 0 testtags
>> #>=Pkg: bar 1 1 x86_64
>> #>=Obs: foo-static
>> #>=Pkg: foo-static 2 1 x86_64
>> system x86_64
On 1 April 2017 at 18:54, Igor Gnatenko
wrote:
> repo system 0 testtags
> #>=Pkg: foo-static 1 1 x86_64
> repo available 0 testtags
> #>=Pkg: bar 1 1 x86_64
> #>=Obs: foo-static
> #>=Pkg: foo-static 2 1 x86_64
> system x86_64 rpm system
> poolflags implicitobsoleteusescolors
> solverflags allow
Missing expected images:
Xfce live x86_64
Failed openQA tests: 1/22 (x86_64)
ID: 74097 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/74097
Passed openQA tests: 13/22 (x86_64)
Skipped openQA tests: 8 of 22
--
Mail generated by check-compose:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Sat, 2017-04-01 at 15:52 +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> On 1 April 2017 at 08:19, Michael Schwendt
> wrote:
>
> > In reality, that's not case always. In order to remove a previously
> >
>
> introduced Obsoletes tag, you would need to do what e
On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 15:52:53 +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> Please start playing with those specs files which I've posted.
You have seen my reply to that faulty test case of yours, haven't you.
Nothing would change.
> I fully understand that it is not easy to understand some new approach if
> so
On 1 April 2017 at 08:19, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> In reality, that's not case always. In order to remove a previously
>
introduced Obsoletes tag, you would need to do what exactly?
>
I've already wrote this straight. Quote:
"So exact paragraph in FPG should be not about using versioned Obsole
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 22:44:27 +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> OK so it is exactly like trying to fix the C code issue with left some
> parts of last changes iteration which should be fixed by deleted such
> lines completely and instead such deletion someone is implementing jump
> over such left pa
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 21:10:29 +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> According to those two "laws" at the moment *I think* that what it was
> codified in FPG was caused by something stupid :)
> Lets say .. it was something like misinterpretation when in on upgrade test
> package from 2.0 to 3.0 someone for
12 matches
Mail list logo
