We, as a distro, just take a different approach.
To be bleeding edge requires to have releases often.
That allow us to manage changes like GCC, OpenSSL and so on quickly.
Struggling with upstream who don't adapt, can't adapt or don't want to
adapt at the same speed. (And OpenSSL patch isn't someth
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 9:14 PM steve schooler wrote:
>
>
> I am currently using Fedora 26. When I first heard of your (new) End-Of-Life
> policy, I hoped that the Fedora developer community would be so inundated
> with complaints that the policy would be reversed. Instead however, the
> poli
steve schooler wrote:
> I am currently using Fedora 26. When I first heard of your (new)
> End-Of-Life policy,
That policy is not new. It has been like that for years, and before that the
lifetime was even shorter.
> If you agree but need to first alleviate current burdens, then I suggest
> rev
This email is a hail mary pass.
I posted the following message to the Fedora forum:
https://ask.fedoraproject.org/en/question/129083/could-fedora-please-reverse-its-policy-re-end-of-life/
Part of the _closing_ response was for me to redirect the message to a
fedora.org mailing list. No
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 at 19:27, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
>
> Hi everyone! Let's talk about something new and exciting. Since its
> first release fifteen years ago, Fedora has had a 13-month lifecycle
> (give or take). That works awesomely for many cases (like, hey, we're
> all here), but not for ever
Hi everyone! Let's talk about something new and exciting. Since its
first release fifteen years ago, Fedora has had a 13-month lifecycle
(give or take). That works awesomely for many cases (like, hey, we're
all here), but not for everyone. Let's talk about how we might address
some of the users an
On Tue, 2018-11-13 at 15:00 +, Fedora compose checker wrote:
> No missing expected images.
>
> Failed openQA tests: 90/142 (x86_64), 24/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
>
> New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20181112.n.0):
Pretty much every failure today was caused by:
https://bugzilla.redh
Hi all,
Due to requests from folks on the North America west coast, I've
changed the time of the retrospective to 11am Eastern (1600 UTC). The
meeting will still be in
https://meet.jit.si/GuiltyCherriesSearchLoyally with notes taken in
#fedora-meeting-2 (this is a change). I apologize for the shor
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 8:49 PM Randy Barlow
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2018-11-13 at 13:43 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > It wasn't a random rebase. A FESCo ticket was submitted and
> > approved[1]. However, there was a miscommunication that led to the
> > DNF
> > team not being aware it happened.
> >
> >
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 7:49 PM Peter Robinson wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 3:35 PM Jaroslav Mracek wrote:
> >
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > There was an announcement of release libsolv-0.7.0 ([HEADS UP] libsolv 0.7)
> > into rawhide, but the rebase also ended up in stable branches of Fedora
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 4:45 PM Jaroslav Mracek wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> There was an announcement of release libsolv-0.7.0 ([HEADS UP] libsolv 0.7)
> into rawhide, but the rebase also ended up in stable branches of Fedora 28
> and 29. This release could affect not only libsolv users, but
On Tue, 2018-11-13 at 13:43 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> It wasn't a random rebase. A FESCo ticket was submitted and
> approved[1]. However, there was a miscommunication that led to the
> DNF
> team not being aware it happened.
>
> [1]: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2009
This was not approved - the
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 1:42 PM Peter Robinson wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 3:35 PM Jaroslav Mracek wrote:
> >
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > There was an announcement of release libsolv-0.7.0 ([HEADS UP] libsolv 0.7)
> > into rawhide, but the rebase also ended up in stable branches of Fedora
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 3:35 PM Jaroslav Mracek wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> There was an announcement of release libsolv-0.7.0 ([HEADS UP] libsolv 0.7)
> into rawhide, but the rebase also ended up in stable branches of Fedora 28
> and 29. This release could affect not only libsolv users, but
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 10:14 PM wrote:
>
> A new Fedora Atomic Host update is available via an OSTree update:
>
> Version: 29.20181113.0
> Commit(x86_64):
> 89bfa708d349a5856cc5cd3be441c07e1f96d0be2aa97e2b676f6004e7f6abed
> Commit(aarch64):
> d0e58aa379b37a39fd5e29b8d87d747b5a3a6aeaef91de751f7ab
Dne 05. 11. 18 v 16:22 Justin Forbes napsal(a):
> It
> is possible that some of this could be alleviated with a fairly simple
> change to mock.
There is no need for a change in Mock. Mock can consume modules for looong
time. You can put in mock config something like:
# This is executed just befo
A new Fedora Atomic Host update is available via an OSTree update:
Version: 29.20181113.0
Commit(x86_64): 89bfa708d349a5856cc5cd3be441c07e1f96d0be2aa97e2b676f6004e7f6abed
Commit(aarch64):
d0e58aa379b37a39fd5e29b8d87d747b5a3a6aeaef91de751f7abd39fbbe2d51
Commit(ppc64le):
d8c4215c936a5e064dc4f1c9d
=
#fedora-meeting-3: Weekly Meeting of the Modularity Working Group
=
Minutes:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-3/2018-11-13/modularity_wg.2018-11-13-15
On Sat, 2018-11-10 at 12:41 -0500, Randy Barlow wrote:
> Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the
> FESCo meeting Monday at 15:00UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
> irc.freenode.net.
We did not reach quorum yesterday, so the meeting was canceled.
signature.asc
Description: This is
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 90/142 (x86_64), 24/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20181112.n.0):
ID: 308260 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_repository_nfs_graphical
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/308260
ID: 308266
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 at 09:39, Patrick Creech wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2018-11-13 at 07:56 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 12. 11. 18 22:37, Patrick Creech wrote:
> > > The pulp team is orphaning the pulp 2 stack in fedora's repositories.
> > >
> > > The upstream project is focusing the majority of it'
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20181112.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20181113.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:3
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 9
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 173
Downgraded packages: 1
Size of added packages: 93.32 MiB
Size of dropped packages
> Thoughts on how to proceed, since a good portion are already 'orphaned', and
> the rest are waiting on action from the other 'owner'
I did a little more digging this morning, and found the retire steps. I have
retired on master the same packages listed below. Apologies for the confusion.
>
On Tue, 2018-11-13 at 07:56 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 12. 11. 18 22:37, Patrick Creech wrote:
> > The pulp team is orphaning the pulp 2 stack in fedora's repositories.
> >
> > The upstream project is focusing the majority of it's development efforts
> > on pulp 3, and is removing fedora sup
I just created the topic on Travis community page.
https://travis-ci.community/t/multiarch-testing-tips/862
Jun
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Con
> Please do not drag Go into this if you want to handwave Go away
> problems. Yes modules will be useful in Go but only to blow away in EPEL
> the rotten Go codebase RHEL ships.
>
> But anyway, since you referred to GO.
>
> Go is the perfect example of why bundling as a general approach does not
Just to make sure this reaches all interested parties, we have some
important discussions about Modularity going on in Pagure tickets:
Distribution Upgrades (reaching decision) — Handling modules, streams, and
defaults during major distribution upgrades.
* Tracker: https://tree.taiga.io/project/mo
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 21:05:19 +0100, Robert-André Mauchin wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Robert,
> i need help reviewing these packages:
>
> - golang-contrib-opencensus-exporter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/
> show_bug.cgi?id=1649059
> - golang-github-census-instrumentation-opencensus-proto https://
28 matches
Mail list logo
