On 10/11/2017 08:57 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
pagure.io is for "upstream" projects and general trackers. This is a
replacement for fedorahosted.org and similar to github or gitlab.
src.fedoraproject.org is a pagure instance + a pagure dist git extension
( https://pagure.io/pagure-dist-git ). It is
On 10/11/2017 09:42 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
[]
It is something we forget a lot.. but is a reason why older
maintainers of XYZ software (Mozilla, X11, gcc, kernel, etc) would
make sure that a heads up email about a major version change goes out.
If you put out a heads up that "tomor
Hi,
Please see discussion about using testing package for Koschei to detect
possible breakage "before" the update is pushed to stable.
https://github.com/msimacek/koschei/issues/194
This may have some infrastructure impact
Remi.
___
devel mailing lis
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 12:04 AM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On 10/11/2017 07:23 PM, Christopher wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Pagure seems to play several roles in the Fedora community, but it's a
> bit
> > confusing. Perhaps somebody can respond (or write a Wiki article on the
> > topic) to clear up some con
On 10/11/2017 07:23 PM, Christopher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Pagure seems to play several roles in the Fedora community, but it's a bit
> confusing. Perhaps somebody can respond (or write a Wiki article on the
> topic) to clear up some confusion.
I can try...
> For example, I hear/read the term "dist-gi
> Also, it might be trash for you but for someone else it might be a very
useful tool or even his or her favourite programme for a given task. So
please, be respectful to others' preferences or needs.
Could you guys please stop catching words? Obviously nobody meant any
insult by the choice of wor
Missing expected images:
Server dvd i386
Workstation live i386
Server boot i386
Kde live i386
Failed openQA tests: 85/128 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20171010.n.1):
ID: 155954 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_no_user
URL: https://openqa.fedoraprojec
Hi,
Pagure seems to play several roles in the Fedora community, but it's a bit
confusing. Perhaps somebody can respond (or write a Wiki article on the
topic) to clear up some confusion.
For example, I hear/read the term "dist-git" a lot, but most of the
conversation about that seems to focus on P
Dear all,
You are kindly invited to the meeting:
Fedora Modular Server Beta Release Go/No-Go on 2017-10-12 from 13:00:00 to
15:00:00 US/Eastern
At fedora-meetin...@irc.freenode.net
The meeting will be about:
Before each public release Development, QA and Release Engineering meet to
determ
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 17:13 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Martin Stransky
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm surprised that people use updates-testing for stable/production
> > > machines, have proble
On 10/01/2017 01:41 PM, Christian Stadelmann wrote:
> The package tnef [1][2] has unfixed CVEs [3][4]. A fix has been commited and
> an update has been released upstream. The fedora version has not seen this
> update yet. Can someone please step in?
I've built and pushed the update for
CVE-2017-
On Wed, 2017-08-02 at 17:16 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hi, folks! So I've (finally) got ready an initial round of draft
> changes to various wiki pages for the purpose of implementing the 'No
> More Alphas' Change. You can find all the drafts in the NoMoreAlphas
> category:
>
> https://fedora
On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 17:13 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Martin Stransky
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I'm surprised that people use updates-testing for stable/production
> > machines, have problem with handling the update and act like newbies. If
> > you can't handl
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Martin Stransky
wrote:
>
>
> I'm surprised that people use updates-testing for stable/production
> machines, have problem with handling the update and act like newbies. If
> you can't handle that, don't use that. Fedora is really a bleeding edge so
> don't compla
On 09/08/2017 03:35 PM, Christopher wrote:
> I was playing around in the new Pagure https://src.fedoraproject.org/ and I
> created a fork of a repo to test. However, I don't need or want this fork.
> How do I delete it? There doesn't appear to be an option.
Go to the fork page, click on 'settings'
Missing expected images:
Server dvd i386
Workstation live i386
Server boot i386
Kde live i386
Failed openQA tests: 88/128 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20171008.n.0):
ID: 155169 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_no_user
URL: https://openqa.fedo
Missing expected images:
Server dvd i386
Workstation live i386
Server boot i386
Kde live i386
Failed openQA tests: 17/128 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)
ID: 155668 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso base_services_start
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/155668
ID: 155684 Test: x86_64 Workstatio
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:07:44PM +0100, James Hogarth wrote:
>Yes I saw the commit but that is my very point.Â
>I was pretty sure that only scratch builds could be carried out from non
>release branches but you get something into a compose you needed to merge
>to master or a rele
On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 20:58 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>
> OTOH, let's consider two points: one, FF57 is disruptive, and two,
> FF57 will be released as an update in Fedora when Mozilla make the
> release, as specified by our policy for FF updates.
Uh, what policy is that? AFAICS F
On 2017-10-11, 14:38 GMT, Martin Stransky wrote:
> And no, I'm not going to create COPR builds for that - it does
> not contain required NSS/NSPR packages and building from git
> is broken.
I don’t think I want to get immersed into merit of this
discussion, but let me just note that:
a) th
On 11 Oct 2017 4:48 pm, "Pierre-Yves Chibon" wrote:
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 04:34:52PM +0100, James Hogarth wrote:
>On 11 October 2017 at 16:23, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Till Hofmann
> wrote:
>
>The very first sentence of the page you linke
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:52:11PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 15:42 -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > On 11 October 2017 at 15:08, Martin Stransky wrote:
> > > On 10/11/2017 07:26 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Heiko Adam
On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 15:42 -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 11 October 2017 at 15:08, Martin Stransky wrote:
> > On 10/11/2017 07:26 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Heiko Adams wrote:
> > >
> > > > Am Mittwoch, den 11.10.2017, 07:53 -0700 schrieb G
On 11 October 2017 at 15:08, Martin Stransky wrote:
> On 10/11/2017 07:26 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Heiko Adams wrote:
>>
>>> Am Mittwoch, den 11.10.2017, 07:53 -0700 schrieb Gerald B. Cox:
>>>
>>> By definition BETA software is never intended to be pushed t
De: "Mark Wielaard"
>On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 20:36 +0200, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
>> De: "Frank Ch. Eigler"
>
>> > nicolas.mailhot wrote:
>> >
>> > > [...]
>> > > extracting debug info from
>> > > /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/golang-github-performancecopilot-speed-
>> > > 2.0.0-1.el7.ll
On 10/11/2017 07:26 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Heiko Adams wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 11.10.2017, 07:53 -0700 schrieb Gerald B. Cox:
By definition BETA software is never intended to be pushed to stable. Fx
57 is BETA. When the STABLE version is released, then it
On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 20:36 +0200, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
> De: "Frank Ch. Eigler"
>
> > nicolas.mailhot wrote:
> >
> > > [...]
> > > extracting debug info from
> > > /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/golang-github-performancecopilot-speed-
> > > 2.0.0-1.el7.llt.x86_64/usr/bin/mmvdump
> > >
De: "Frank Ch. Eigler"
|nicolas.mailhot wrote:
|
|> [...]
|> extracting debug info from
|>
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/golang-github-performancecopilot-speed-2.0.0-1.el7.llt.x86_64/usr/bin/mmvdump
|> *** ERROR: No build ID note found in
|>
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/golang-github-performancecopil
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 1:37 PM Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> You need to read my entire statement in context. That is not what I
> meant. As I replied to Heiko:
>
> "My opinion however is common sense dictates that you don't put anything
> in updates-testing unless you intend to push that software to
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 09:55:29AM -0700, Brian C. Lane wrote:
> The time for change is finally, almost here :) Upstream is talking about
> installing the v1.4 series as gpg1. They have already switched the
> default install of 2.2 to /usr/bin/gpg, but we currently override this
> with the --
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Stephen Gallagher
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 1:05 PM Heiko Adams wrote:
>
>> Am Mittwoch, den 11.10.2017, 07:53 -0700 schrieb Gerald B. Cox:
>>
>> By definition BETA software is never intended to be pushed to stable. Fx
>> 57 is BETA. When the STABLE
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Heiko Adams wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 11.10.2017, 07:53 -0700 schrieb Gerald B. Cox:
>
> By definition BETA software is never intended to be pushed to stable. Fx
> 57 is BETA. When the STABLE version is released, then it can go into
> updates-testing. Not befo
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 1:05 PM Heiko Adams wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 11.10.2017, 07:53 -0700 schrieb Gerald B. Cox:
>
> By definition BETA software is never intended to be pushed to stable. Fx
> 57 is BETA. When the STABLE version is released, then it can go into
> updates-testing. Not before
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 07:53 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
>
> > Martin, this is what is stated at the very top of the doc you referenced:
> > "The *updates-testing* repository
>
>
> It's worth noting that page isn't really a policy page, i
* Gerald B. Cox [11/10/2017 07:53] :
>
> By definition BETA software is never intended to be pushed to stable.
We've sometimes pushed beta versions of software, usually when that version is
more stable than the previous stable release.
I'm all for enforcing rules on what goes to the updates and u
Am Mittwoch, den 11.10.2017, 07:53 -0700 schrieb Gerald B. Cox:
> By definition BETA software is never intended to be pushed to
> stable. Fx 57 is BETA. When the STABLE version is released, then it
> can go into updates-testing. Not before. Again, that is the purpose
> of RAWHIDE.
>
>
>
>
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 4:09 AM Tomas Mraz wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 05:33 +, Christopher wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 5:44 PM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <
> > domi...@greysector.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday, 10 October 2017 at 20:57, Christopher wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct
On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 07:53 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Martin Stransky
> wrote:
>
> >
> >It's *updates*-testing repo and software in it should not be 'planned',
> > > but basically 'ready' for Fedora.
> > >If you want testing repo for experienced users
nicolas.mailhot wrote:
> [...]
> extracting debug info from
> /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/golang-github-performancecopilot-speed-2.0.0-1.el7.llt.x86_64/usr/bin/mmvdump
> *** ERROR: No build ID note found in
> /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/golang-github-performancecopilot-speed-2.0.0-1.el7.llt.x86_64/us
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 04:34:52PM +0100, James Hogarth wrote:
>On 11 October 2017 at 16:23, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Till Hofmann
> wrote:
>
>The very first sentence of the page you linked above:
>
> The updates-testing repositor
On 11 October 2017 at 16:23, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Till Hofmann
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> The very first sentence of the page you linked above:
>>
>>> The updates-testing repository, also referred to as Test Updates,
>>> contains updates scheduled to be released f
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Till Hofmann
wrote:
>
>
> The very first sentence of the page you linked above:
>
>> The updates-testing repository, also referred to as Test Updates,
>> contains updates scheduled to be released for Branched pre-releases (after
>> the Bodhi enabling point) and st
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Martin Stransky
wrote:
>
>It's *updates*-testing repo and software in it should not be 'planned',
>> but basically 'ready' for Fedora.
>>If you want testing repo for experienced users, use COPR.
>>
>
> I don't see it that way. Is that your personal stateme
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Martin Stransky
wrote:
> On 10/11/2017 03:17 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
>
>> Was this on purpose? Fx 57 is BETA, and I was under the impression that
>> BETA software was for RAWHIDE.
>>
>
> It's going to be stable in one month. Fx 57 release date is 2017-11-14.
>
On 10/11/2017 03:17 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
Was this on purpose? Fx 57 is BETA, and I was under the impression that
BETA software was for RAWHIDE.
Yes, I understand there is an annotation NOT to push Fx 57 to stable - but
I thought that was the purpose of updates testing... software there is
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20171010.n.1
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20171011.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 24
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0.00 B
Size of dropped packages:1.09
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:26 AM Till Hofmann
wrote:
>
> The very first sentence of the page you linked above:
> > The updates-testing repository, also referred to as Test Updates,
> contains updates scheduled to be released for Branched pre-releases (after
> the Bodhi enabling point) and stable
On 10/11/2017 04:00 PM, Martin Stransky wrote:
On 10/11/2017 03:52 PM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 03:32:07PM +0200, Martin Stransky wrote:
On 10/11/2017 03:17 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
Was this on purpose? Fx 57 is BETA, and I was under the impression
that
BETA software wa
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017, Martin Stransky wrote:
> On 10/11/2017 03:46 PM, Mátyás Selmeci wrote:
> > On 10/11/17 08:32, Martin Stransky wrote:
> > > On 10/11/2017 03:17 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> > > > Was this on purpose? Fx 57 is BETA, and I was under the impression that
> > > > BETA software was fo
On 10/11/2017 03:52 PM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 03:32:07PM +0200, Martin Stransky wrote:
On 10/11/2017 03:17 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
Was this on purpose? Fx 57 is BETA, and I was under the impression that
BETA software was for RAWHIDE.
It's going to be stable in one mon
On 10/11/2017 03:46 PM, Mátyás Selmeci wrote:
On 10/11/17 08:32, Martin Stransky wrote:
On 10/11/2017 03:17 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
Was this on purpose? Fx 57 is BETA, and I was under the impression that
BETA software was for RAWHIDE.
It's going to be stable in one month. Fx 57 release date
On 10/11/2017 03:46 PM, Mátyás Selmeci wrote:
On 10/11/17 08:32, Martin Stransky wrote:
On 10/11/2017 03:17 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
Was this on purpose? Fx 57 is BETA, and I was under the impression that
BETA software was for RAWHIDE.
It's going to be stable in one month. Fx 57 release date
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 03:32:07PM +0200, Martin Stransky wrote:
> On 10/11/2017 03:17 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> > Was this on purpose? Fx 57 is BETA, and I was under the impression that
> > BETA software was for RAWHIDE.
>
> It's going to be stable in one month. Fx 57 release date is 2017-11-1
On 10/11/17 08:32, Martin Stransky wrote:
On 10/11/2017 03:17 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
Was this on purpose? Fx 57 is BETA, and I was under the impression that
BETA software was for RAWHIDE.
It's going to be stable in one month. Fx 57 release date is 2017-11-14.
Yes, I understand there is an
On 10/11/2017 03:17 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
Was this on purpose? Fx 57 is BETA, and I was under the impression that
BETA software was for RAWHIDE.
It's going to be stable in one month. Fx 57 release date is 2017-11-14.
Yes, I understand there is an annotation NOT to push Fx 57 to stable -
Was this on purpose? Fx 57 is BETA, and I was under the impression that
BETA software was for RAWHIDE.
Yes, I understand there is an annotation NOT to push Fx 57 to stable - but
I thought that was the purpose of updates testing... software there is
intended to be tested and pushed to stable.
Th
Hi Tomas,
On Fri, 2017-10-06 at 20:09 +0200, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
> Mark, thanks for feedback!
>
> I'll be honest that I left gcc and gdb in there by accident. As Dan
> said, we are trying to reduce size of that container so it's easier
> to use. Who decides what's in it?
> This was an internal
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 05:06:02PM +0200, Zygmunt Krynicki wrote:
>
> As it's too early to tell which way we'll go with SELinux and golang I
> think it's okay to drop this. Once we start to make some progress into
> making any policy work in snapd we'll either revive this or use a
> maintained pac
Hi,
BTW since we are talking about debug and future tech, what is the correct way
(as of rawhide and EPEL 7) to handle
extracting debug info from
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/golang-github-performancecopilot-speed-2.0.0-1.el7.llt.x86_64/usr/bin/mmvdump
*** ERROR: No build ID note found in
/build
On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 05:33 +, Christopher wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 5:44 PM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <
> domi...@greysector.net> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 10 October 2017 at 20:57, Christopher wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 1:04 PM Brian C. Lane
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
60 matches
Mail list logo
