Heads up, updates to pypolicyd-spf and python3-py3dns in Rawhide
The former is an update to the latest version of spf-engine, which rejigs the package, among other thing, so this will require careful testing. The latter had async IO pulled out, because Python 3.12 no longer supports the APIs that were used. Once again, careful testing will be required. Thanks, -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: F38 updates stuck in pending
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/11508 -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: F38 updates stuck in pending
Yeah, a ticket may be a better idea. I am not a maintainer of those packages, so don't want to overstep. -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
F38 updates stuck in pending
If anyone reading this email has special powers to get some of the week old F38 updates unstuck from pending, please click the magic button. An example of such an update: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-ef0e8e36fc Thanks, -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Firefox builds broken on F38/39
Hi Fabio, Kevin pointed to llvm/rust bugs in that FF bug already: - https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/61932 - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/109934 So, yeah - folks are already aware of this. For Firefox, using older rust for builds worked. -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Firefox builds broken on F38/39
Thank you for the pointer Kevin! Trying to build with older rust in corp now: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/bojan/FF/build/5862010/ -- Bojan -Original Message- From: Bojan Smojver To: Fedora Development List Subject: Firefox builds broken on F38/39 Date: 30/04/23 12:05:11 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2189964 It you have any ideas of what could be causing this, please feel free to share. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Firefox builds broken on F38/39
Looks like build infrastructure is having trouble building Firefox for these two at the moment. More info here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2189964 It you have any ideas of what could be causing this, please feel free to share. Thanks, -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Bodhi 7.0.1 deployed to prod
Yay! Thank you! -- Bojan -Original Message- From: Mattia Verga Reply-To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To: devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Bodhi 7.0.1 deployed to prod Date: 17/01/23 16:39:49 - Frozen releases updates will now be forced into testing before being pushed to stable. Previously, when a release was frozen, an update which was just submitted (pending), but had received enough votes to be pushed directly to stable, was not pushed in testing nor stable. Now it will be pushed to testing and remain there until the release is un-frozen. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: FF 107.0 scratch builds - just for fun
FF 107.0 shipped in all current Fedora releases a while ago. You can find all that in bodhi. If you mean 107.0.1, that will depend on the FF maintainers. Maybe they see no reason to respin, because the bugs fixed in that release are not something that is important in Fedora - not sure. -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: FF 107.0 scratch builds - just for fun
107.0.1 build for F37/x86_64: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/bojan/FF/ If you want/need or are obsessive about version numbers, like yours truly. ;-) -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: FF 107.0 scratch builds - just for fun
Of course, relevant build overrides had to be provided, because required version of nss was not in stable at the time I started these scratch builds. Thought I'd mention it for completeness. -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: FF 107.0 scratch builds - just for fun
Everything except F38 completed fine. -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
FF 107.0 scratch builds - just for fun
Now that nss 3.85 has been built, I thought I'd have a go at building
FF 107.0, given that's been out for a few days and original builds
failed in koji, because nss was too old at the time.
No idea how this is going to end up, but the tasks for F3{8,7,6,5} are
here, if anyone is interested:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94367463
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94367626
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94367632
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94367638
PS. I am not the FF maintainer (obviously), so this is just for kicks.
--
Bojan
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Direct to stable updates
Maybe push them to both, if they've never been to testing? In other words, never skip testing. Sure, there will be some duplication of packages for a cycle or two, but eventually, they anything that's already in stable will be kicked out of testing, right? -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Direct to stable updates
Quick question about direct to stable updates in bodhi, such as FF 106.0.4 and kernel 6.0.7 that are lined up for F37 right now. Such updates often end up being in nowhere land for quite some time, because they skip testing to go to stable directly, but the push to stable cannot happen for whatever reason. Would it not be better to get such update to testing in this scenario, given stable is something that cannot be touched? In other words, should the algorithm for pushes be changed during such times? -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Building two conflicting binaries from the same source
Possibly in one of the future versions. I am not even sure at this point how well (if at all) glamor support works with xorgxrdp. -- Bojan -Original Message- From: Hans de Goede To: Development discussions related to Fedora Cc: Bojan Smojver Subject: Re: Building two conflicting binaries from the same source Date: 04/11/22 19:45:43 Maybe the rpath tricks + making the actual lib (or binary) a link to /run/foo and then have a udev rule create /run/foo to point to the right version depending on the hw it is running on might be useful for you too ? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Building two conflicting binaries from the same source
It was for packaging xorgxrdp with glamor support. Submitted to bodhi now, so all good. -- Bojan 4 Nov 2022 7:38:17 pm Hans de Goede : Hi, On 11/3/22 21:31, Bojan Smojver via devel wrote: > This may be a trivial question, but my friend Google is not showing me any > obvious answers, so I will ask here at my own peril. > > Say one needs to configure and build the same source with two (or more) > different sets of options that generate different binary RPMs, but which have > files in exactly the same place. This is to support different hardware. The > end result would be mutually conflicting binary packages that users then > install etc. > > Sure, it is easy enough to configure/build repeatedly and stash the results > into non-conflicting paths of buildroot, but how does one then package this > in %files sections into exactly the same paths? > > If there is an example floating somewhere, that would be very useful. Is this perhaps for the Intel IPU6 camera support userspace bits? If yes I'm working on packaging those (for rpmfusion since parts are closed source) and I have a plan how to deal with them. If no, then please ignore this email :) (just making sure that if the answer is yes we can coordinate / avoid doing double work) Regards, Hans ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Building two conflicting binaries from the same source
Thank you!
--
Bojan
4 Nov 2022 8:48:25 am Florian Weimer :
* Bojan Smojver via devel:
> Sure, it is easy enough to configure/build repeatedly and stash the
> results into non-conflicting paths of buildroot, but how does one then
> package this in %files sections into exactly the same paths?
See tests/data/SPECS/test-subpackages-pathpostfixes.spec in the RPM
source tree:
| Name: test
| […]
| %description
| %{summary}.
|
| %package test2
| RemovePathPostfixes: .foobar
| Summary: Test2.
| %description test2
| […]
| %files
| /bin/hello
|
| %files test2
| /bin/hello.foobar
| […]
The key enabler is RemovePathPostfixes.
Thanks,
Florian
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Building two conflicting binaries from the same source
Cool, thank you! I think this is exactly what I was looking for (unsuccessfully). -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Building two conflicting binaries from the same source
PS. I am aware of the alternatives approach, but looking to see whether there is something that rpm specs have natively for this. -- Bojan 4 Nov 2022 7:31:14 am Bojan Smojver : This may be a trivial question, but my friend Google is not showing me any obvious answers, so I will ask here at my own peril. Say one needs to configure and build the same source with two (or more) different sets of options that generate different binary RPMs, but which have files in exactly the same place. This is to support different hardware. The end result would be mutually conflicting binary packages that users then install etc. Sure, it is easy enough to configure/build repeatedly and stash the results into non-conflicting paths of buildroot, but how does one then package this in %files sections into exactly the same paths? If there is an example floating somewhere, that would be very useful. Thanks, -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Building two conflicting binaries from the same source
This may be a trivial question, but my friend Google is not showing me any obvious answers, so I will ask here at my own peril. Say one needs to configure and build the same source with two (or more) different sets of options that generate different binary RPMs, but which have files in exactly the same place. This is to support different hardware. The end result would be mutually conflicting binary packages that users then install etc. Sure, it is easy enough to configure/build repeatedly and stash the results into non-conflicting paths of buildroot, but how does one then package this in %files sections into exactly the same paths? If there is an example floating somewhere, that would be very useful. Thanks, -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Firefox/nss behaviour change in F36?
Ah, cool. Totally missed that in release notes. 臘♂️ Thanks, -- Bojan 6 June 2022 8:13:10 pm Alexander Sosedkin : On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 12:03 PM Bojan Smojver via devel wrote: > > Before I open a bug on this, the latest firefox/nss software that is in F36 - > is it not accepting SSL certificates without matching subjectAlternativeName > on purpose? > > I still have to complete more tests, but it seems that if SSL certificate is > issued to CN abc.example.com and if that name is not mentioned in SAN, > Firefox complains that the certificate is not for the right domain. This is > all only with most recent updates. > > Anyone else seeing similar stuff? https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/101.0/releasenotes says: > Removed "subject common name" fallback support from certificate validation. > This fallback mode was previously enabled > only for manually installed certificates. > The CA Browser Forum Baseline Requirements > have required the presence of the "subjectAltName" extension since 2012, > and use of the subject common name was deprecated in RFC 2818. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Firefox/nss behaviour change in F36?
Before I open a bug on this, the latest firefox/nss software that is in F36 - is it not accepting SSL certificates without matching subjectAlternativeName on purpose? I still have to complete more tests, but it seems that if SSL certificate is issued to CN abc.example.com and if that name is not mentioned in SAN, Firefox complains that the certificate is not for the right domain. This is all only with most recent updates. Anyone else seeing similar stuff? -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
F34: httpd package stuck in bodhi
Could someone with sufficient permissions please get httpd package unstuck in bodhi? It's been sitting there for a few days, waiting to get to stable, but it keeps getting kicked out, because some automated tests did not pass. The package contains security fixes. Thanks, -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Rawhide: noarch package built differently on different architectures
Thank you. Will check out the logs and the bug report. -- Bojan -Original Message- From: Petr Pisar To: Development discussions related to Fedora Cc: Bojan Smojver Subject: Re: Rawhide: noarch package built differently on different architectures Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 16:44:52 +0200 V Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 06:40:48PM +1000, Bojan Smojver via devel napsal(a): > Example: > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=76099482 > > Built the same thing on F35/34/33 and EPEL8/7 and that worked. Did > something change in Rawhide that I should be aware of or is this just a > temporary thing? > That looks like a bug in doxygen <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2000138>. Report your failure there. -- Petr ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Rawhide: noarch package built differently on different architectures
Example: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=76099482 Built the same thing on F35/34/33 and EPEL8/7 and that worked. Did something change in Rawhide that I should be aware of or is this just a temporary thing? Thanks, -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
FF builds
Just being devil's advocate for a second here... Two days to build FF in koji? Has it gotten that big or are the builds that slow? :-) -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: F33: kernel 5.10.x
Yeah, I'm aware of alternative testing mechanisms and I already participated in the testing of kernel 5.10. That's not the problem. Kernel 5.9 is EOL. 5.10.5 fixes CVE-2020-36158, for example. There is no choice but to go to that branch now anyway. So, I am wondering whether there is some known big issue that is outstanding in 5.10 that is blowing people's machines up or something else (i.e. delay, oversight, etc.). -- Bojan -Original Message- From: Sérgio Basto To: Development discussions related to Fedora Cc: Bojan Smojver Subject: Re: F33: kernel 5.10.x Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2021 23:22:12 + Before be submitted in bodhi , we can test here: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jforbes/kernel-stabilization On Fri, 2021-01-08 at 22:40 +, Bojan Smojver via devel wrote: > Just wondering whether there is a particular reason 5.10 kernel has > not been submitted for testing in bodhi for F33. Or is it simply an > oversight? > > -- > Bojan > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
F33: kernel 5.10.x
Just wondering whether there is a particular reason 5.10 kernel has not been submitted for testing in bodhi for F33. Or is it simply an oversight? -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Firefox 78.0.2 for F32
Cool, thanks! -- Bojan___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Firefox 78.0.2 for F32
Would someone with sufficient powers mind queueing up this update? Thanks, -- Bojan___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Status of bodhi
OK, thanks for the pointer. -- Bojan___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Status of bodhi
There was a note recently in one the the kernel packages about bodhi being a tad temperamental recently and not pushing updates out. Anyone knows what's going on with that? Is the fix on the horizon? -- Bojan___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Xorg 1.20.4-7.el7
Just tried building a scratch build of xorgxrdp, but this still pulls in the old Xorg, before RHEL 7.7 version. Could someone please change that, so that builds pick the latest package up. All in relation to: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1738669 id="-x-evo-selection-start-marker"> Thanks, -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Firewalld v nftables
Awesome! Thank you. -Original Message- From: Eric Garver To: Development discussions related to Fedora Cc: Bojan Smojver Subject: Re: Firewalld v nftables Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 10:36:12 -0400 On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 07:14:49AM +1000, Bojan Smojver via devel wrote: > This was patched out, because an official feature was never submitted.Now > that RHEL8 is using that combo, maybe it's time to try again? :-) You are correct. Now that libvirt's integration with firewalld hasimproved, it's time to try again. We still have time for F31. I plan to release firewalld 0.7.0 this week.After which I'll submit a Fedora Change for the nftables backend. Thanks for bringing it up.Eric. -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Firewalld v nftables
This was patched out, because an official feature was never submitted. Now that RHEL8 is using that combo, maybe it's time to try again? :-) -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
