No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 9/132 (x86_64), 2/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20180913.n.0):
ID: 280334 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso
desktop_notifications_postinstall
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/280334
ID: 28035
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20180913.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20180914.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:2
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 5
Dropped packages:6
Upgraded packages: 121
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 2.20 MiB
Size of dropped packages
# F29 Blocker Review meeting
# Date: 2018-09-17
# Time: 16:00 UTC
# Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net
Hi folks! We have 2 proposed Beta blockers, 6 proposed Beta freeze
exceptions and 8 proposed Final blockers to review, so let's have a
review meeting on Monday (those numbers ma
Hi folks! I'm proposing we cancel the QA meeting tomorrow. We're still
focused on F29 Beta at the moment, though please do take a minute to
look at the firmware RAID criterion proposal. There will be a blocker
review meeting at 16:00 UTC, please come to that if you can.
If you're aware of anything
Missing expected images:
Atomichost qcow2 x86_64
Atomichost raw-xz x86_64
Failed openQA tests: 3/132 (x86_64), 1/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
ID: 279984 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso
desktop_notifications_postinstall
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/279984
ID: 279991 Test: i386
On Fri, 2018-09-14 at 14:41 +, Samuel Rakitničan wrote:
> The following bug have not been updated since report. I would say it is a big
> issue since an upgrade will break dnf,
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1598590
I've closed it as a dupe of the bug we're using as the main
On 09/14/2018 10:22 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> I'd like to propose that we make the following change to
> the criteria going forward:
>
> "The blocking criterion for successful installation atop a firmware
> RAID array is moved to the GA release criteria."
+1
signature.asc
Description: Ope
On Fri, 2018-09-14 at 19:37 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 09/13/2018 07:59 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-09-13 at 16:07 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 10-09-18 14:40, Abhiram Kuchibhotla wrote:
> > > > According to the LICENSE file in their git repo, the
Hi,
On 09/13/2018 07:59 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 2018-09-13 at 16:07 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 10-09-18 14:40, Abhiram Kuchibhotla wrote:
According to the LICENSE file in their git repo, the code in the repo seems to
be gplv2. Not sure if that proves anything. I'll do the licen
OLD: Fedora-29-20180911.n.0
NEW: Fedora-29-20180912.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 3
Added packages: 3
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 103
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 90.43 MiB
Size of dropped packages:134.08 KiB
Si
Thanks for explaining about it!
I found the part of "platform: []" in the document you shared.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/modularity/making-modules/defining-modules/#_modular_dependencies
Jun
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Adam Samalik wrote:
> That's right!
>
> This and more is do
I want to retire pgtune
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pgtune
The original upstream is dead and python2 only:
https://github.com/gregs1104/pgtune
There is a new upstream based on the original version:
https://github.com/le0pard/pgtune
But it is far of being simple. It is made in ruby a
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:22:12AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> At yesterday's F29 Go/No-Go meeting, we discussed the blocker status
> of BZ #1628192 - Fedora 29 installation cannot see a firmware RAID
> device. While the blocker criteria clearly states that this should be
> a blocker for Beta
The following bug have not been updated since report. I would say it is a big
issue since an upgrade will break dnf,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1598590
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email
At yesterday's F29 Go/No-Go meeting, we discussed the blocker status
of BZ #1628192 - Fedora 29 installation cannot see a firmware RAID
device. While the blocker criteria clearly states that this should be
a blocker for Beta, many of the people present at the meeting
disagreed, for a variety of rea
Due to in-progress RC2 for the F29 Beta release and presence of
blocker bugs, the decision is “No Go”. The Beta release slips for one
week to “Target #1” date (September 25th)[1]. We are not going to slip
the Final GA yet.
For more information please check the minutes from the F29 Beta
Go/No-Go me
Urgh, unfinished trains of thought.
- Original Message -
> > * Benefit to Fedora contributors: they can make their packaging work
> > available across distributions and distribution versions.
>
> Most likely duplicating upstream work on getting that same
...on getting that same applicati
- Original Message -
> Hi Bastien,
>
> Here are some of the benefits I see of this effort as compared to simply
> telling users to consume Flatpaks from Flathub or independent repositories:
Sorry it took a couple of days to get back to you.
If the end-goal is shipping Flatpaks, and tha
On 09/14/2018 01:02 PM, Vascom wrote:
I and some other users just upgraded from F28 to F29 see that dnf can't
find Gnome 3.30 packages.
That's because there hasn't been a successful F29 compose since GNOME
3.30.0 got pushed to stable. Just have to wait for releng to sort this out.
--
Kalev
Hi all.
I and some other users just upgraded from F28 to F29 see that dnf can't
find Gnome 3.30 packages. For example nautilus:
LANG=C sudo dnf list all nautilus --refresh
Available Packages
nautilus.i6863.28.1-2.fc29 fedora
nautilus.x86_64 3.28.1-2.fc29 fedora
LANG=C
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 9:26 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> Can anyone who is still struggling with DNF crashes on *basic*
> operations on F29 or Rawhide please reply, and provide a few details on
> what you're seeing and any workarounds or fixes you've found?
FWIW, I never hit such problem.
The on
21 matches
Mail list logo
