OLD: Fedora-eln-20250809.n.0
NEW: Fedora-eln-20250810.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:2
Upgraded packages: 5
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:8.63 MiB
Size of
On 8/9/25 17:16, Matthew Krupcale wrote:
Hey Orion,
Thanks for working on these updates. Are there any plans to move vtk-qt to
build against Qt6? It looks like pcl supports Qt6 [1,2], and more software is
starting to support Qt6 now.
Best,
Matthew
[1] https://github.com/PointCloudLibrary/pcl
Hey Orion,
Thanks for working on these updates. Are there any plans to move vtk-qt to
build against Qt6? It looks like pcl supports Qt6 [1,2], and more software is
starting to support Qt6 now.
Best,
Matthew
[1] https://github.com/PointCloudLibrary/pcl/pull/4969
[2] https://github.com/PointClou
Many recipients of my mails to various *-maintai...@fedoraproject.org
addesses are rejecting the messages due to SPF failures. Is there
anything that can be done about this in general?
e.g.:
(expanded from
): host
mx05.up.pt[193.137.55.46] said: 550 5.7.23 :
Recipient
address reject
My recollection is that having unmerged side tags around the release
branch time can be an issue. Is my memory correct?
Are there critical points where side tags updates should be complete by?
--
Orion Poplawski
he/him/his - surely the least important thing about me
IT Systems Manager
Plans have changed a bit. I'm not ready for the netcdf/vtk update so
I'm going to just go ahead to do the libharu update now. It is starting
to build in the side tag. Will be building deps after that.
I do still plan to get the netcdf/vtk update into F43 if possible - but
vtk is a beast to
On 2025-08-09 05:46, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski via devel wrote:
On Friday, 08 August 2025 at 18:06, Jeremy Newton wrote:
Hi,
I noticed this has been untouched for almost a year (new major version
available):
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2312363
It seems it's owned by the
On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 12:28 AM Orion Poplawski wrote:
>
> It silently fails to detect the use of rpmautospec and updates the spec
> anyway. See https://pagure.io/rpmdevtools/issue/128
>
> This caused me a bunch of grief today with the octave update.
Sorry about that. It looks like an update to
Em qua., 6 de ago. de 2025, 17:55, Ryan Bach via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> escreveu:
> Transaction failed: Rpm transaction failed.
> - file /usr/share/thumbnailers/gdk-pixbuf-thumbnailer.thumbnailer
> conflicts between attempted installs of gdk-pixbuf2-2.43.3-4.fc43.i686 and
> gdk-p
On Friday, 08 August 2025 at 18:06, Jeremy Newton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed this has been untouched for almost a year (new major version
> available):
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2312363
>
> It seems it's owned by the multimedia SIG, so maybe someone from there
> is on here an
Hi, i got the same issue today, easy temp fix will be updating with:
sudo dnf update --exclude=gdk-pixbuf2*
Hope it helps.
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fe
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20250808.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20250809.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 2
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 61
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 59.73 KiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
12 matches
Mail list logo
