Hi,
Trying to install EPEL 8 on RHEL 8.1 Beta.
I did
$ yum install
https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/8/Everything/x86_64/Packages/e/epel-release-8-1.noarch.rpm
and doing
$ yum update
gives the error
failed to open:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1731809
Orion Poplawski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Resolution|---
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
351 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-3c9292b62d
condor-8.6.11-1.el7
127 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-d2c1368294
cinnamon-3.6.7-5.el7
93
On 7/31/19 4:18 PM, Mátyás Selmeci wrote:
> Hi,
>
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-f0f74bf64a and
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-fb3b2a2164 have been
> stuck in "pending" status for several hours now. Can someone kick them so
> they get into
Mátyás Selmeci wrote:
> Hi,
>
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-f0f74bf64a and
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-fb3b2a2164 have been
> stuck in "pending" status for several hours now. Can someone kick them so
> they get into testing?
Updates generally
On Wednesday, July 31, 2019 7:08:57 PM EDT Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 01. 08. 19 0:03, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > I have a package that fails to build because libraries aren't where they
> > are suposed to be. I looked at the project page
> >
> >
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2019/08/01/report-389-ds-base-1.4.1.6-20190731gita593f3d.fc30.x86_64.html
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
On Wednesday, July 31, 2019 7:06:17 PM EDT Charalampos Stratakis wrote:
> - Original Message -
>
> > From: "Charalampos Stratakis"
> > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
> >
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 1:03:51
> > AM
> > Subject: Re: python2->python3 mass rebuild and
The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing
screen-4.6.2-10.el8
Details about builds:
screen-4.6.2-10.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2019-9c590bc54d)
A screen manager that supports multiple
> "NG" == Neal Gompa writes:
NG> You just set localpkg_gpgcheck=1 in /etc/dnf/dnf.conf
NG> That said, you probably don't want to do that, since most downloaded
NG> packages aren't signed...
I think that the ideal behavior would be to always check, but
warn/prompt for unsigned packages or
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 2:45 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> On 7/31/19 11:09 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Jason L. Tibbitts, III:
> >
> > At one point, RPM wrote unchecked file contents to disk, leading to
> > vulnerabilities such as CVE-2013-6435. At the time, it was not possible
> > to teach RPM
> > I disagree with ANY raised vector instruction requirement, considering that:
> > * it would make Fedora incompatible with some hardware out there,
>
> That's already so for hardware which is at least of similar age to
> SSE2-only x86_64, i.e. POWER7; my build logs show -mcpu=power8.
For
Hi,
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-f0f74bf64a and
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-fb3b2a2164 have been stuck
in "pending" status for several hours now. Can someone kick them so they get
into testing?
Thanks,
-Mat
--
Mátyás (Mat) Selmeci
Open Science
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 09:05:21PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote:
> Le mercredi 31 juillet 2019 à 12:25 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III a
> écrit :
> > > > > > > "KF" == Kevin Fenzi writes:
> >
> > KF> * If you use metalinks, rpm signatures are just gravy on top, in
> > the
> > KF> end you
On 01. 08. 19 1:08, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 01. 08. 19 0:03, Steve Grubb wrote:
I have pyexec_PYTHON. What is supposed to be there? And since this is an
upstream package consumed by all distributions and old versions of Fedora/
RHEL, what is the portable thing to do?
There's other things out
On 01. 08. 19 0:03, Steve Grubb wrote:
Hello,
Hi Steve.
I have a package that fails to build because libraries aren't where they are
suposed to be. I looked at the project page
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Python_means_Python3
and there is no mention of the effect on autotools.
- Original Message -
> From: "Charalampos Stratakis"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 1:03:51 AM
> Subject: Re: python2->python3 mass rebuild and auto tools
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Steve Grubb"
> > To:
- Original Message -
> From: "Steve Grubb"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 12:03:01 AM
> Subject: python2->python3 mass rebuild and auto tools
>
> Hello,
>
> I have a package that fails to build because libraries aren't where they
On 31. 07. 19 23:29, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Seems like some script is being run a second time and is filing
duplicate FTBFS bugs (unless there's some difference in these bugs
which I'm not able to discern):
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1735387 &
* Christopher [30/07/2019 13:20] :
>
> Is there anything special one must do to "Join" the Java SIG? I would
> like to join.
SIGs are rather informal and none of them have a joining
procedure that I know of.
You should subscribe to the mailing list, introduce yourself and
request any commit
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2019-08-01 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.freenode.net.
Local time information (via. uitime):
= Day: Thursday ==
2019-08-01 09:00 PDT US/Pacific
2019-08-01
Hello,
I have a package that fails to build because libraries aren't where they are
suposed to be. I looked at the project page
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Python_means_Python3
and there is no mention of the effect on autotools.
I have pyexec_PYTHON. What is supposed to be there?
Seems like some script is being run a second time and is filing
duplicate FTBFS bugs (unless there's some difference in these bugs
which I'm not able to discern):
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1735387 &
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1734855
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 08:52:36PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote:
> Le mercredi 31 juillet 2019 à 17:03 +0200, Andreas Tunek a écrit :
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 31 Jul 2019, 16:10 Nicolas Mailhot via devel, <
> > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > > Le 2019-07-31 14:13, Lennart
Frantisek Zatloukal writes:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 11:00 AM Kevin Kofler
> wrote:
>
>> * the performance increase to be had is marginal, given that we are mostly
>> talking about code written in C or C++ without even compiler
>> vectorization
>> (-ftree-vectorize) turned on,
>>
>
> Are
I don't agree with the proposal, and am only interested in EPEL, but:
Kevin Kofler writes:
> I disagree with ANY raised vector instruction requirement, considering that:
> * it would make Fedora incompatible with some hardware out there,
That's already so for hardware which is at least of
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 22:42 Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On 7/31/19 9:29 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 05:06:17PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
> >> On 31/07/2019 16:58, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> >>
> >>> My canary ran took 24 minutes, apparently the CI pipeline was slower
>
On 7/29/19 10:40 AM, Yash Thakkar wrote:
> Please remove me from this mailing list! I am trying to unsubscribe using
> unsubscribe option for days! But I don't think that works!
As the footer for every mail notes:
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an
On 7/31/19 9:29 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 05:06:17PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
>> On 31/07/2019 16:58, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
>>
>>> My canary ran took 24 minutes, apparently the CI pipeline was slower than
>>> usual
>>> but the rest of the workflow seemed fine.
On 7/31/19 12:05 PM, Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote:
> Le mercredi 31 juillet 2019 à 12:25 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III a
> écrit :
>>> "KF" == Kevin Fenzi writes:
>>
>> KF> * If you use metalinks, rpm signatures are just gravy on top, in
>> the
>> KF> end you are still just trusing SSL CA's.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1735227
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1700317 (F31FTBFS)
Referenced Bugs:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 3:46 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> On 7/31/19 12:16 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
> > Fabio Valentini wrote:
> >> You can add your "kerberos account" to GNOME online accounts once, and
> >> it will automatically renew tickets for you.
> >> This way you'll never have to type your
On 7/31/19 12:16 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
> Fabio Valentini wrote:
>> You can add your "kerberos account" to GNOME online accounts once, and
>> it will automatically renew tickets for you.
>> This way you'll never have to type your FAS password (or run kinit)
>> for this again.
>
> First, I don't
On 7/31/19 12:01 PM, Kaleb Keithley wrote:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733602
>
> One of the suggestions there is to "drop the arch." I.e. i686.
>
> If that ends up being the solution that pretty much would force me to drop
> the arch too for glusterfs. (GlusterFS has a
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 14:00, Björn Persson wrote:
>
> I'm sorry to be complaining. I know everybody has too much to do (myself
> included), but seriously folks, this needs to be improved. This is not
> a good user experience. I hope the plans to retire some less important
> services will lead
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 15:10, Kaleb Keithley wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 1:31 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
>> On 7/25/19 11:05 AM, Kaleb Keithley wrote:
>> > hmmm. from the root.log
>> >
>> > DEBUG util.py:585: BUILDSTDERR: Error:
>> > DEBUG util.py:585: BUILDSTDERR: Problem:
Fabio Valentini wrote:
>You can add your "kerberos account" to GNOME online accounts once, and
>it will automatically renew tickets for you.
>This way you'll never have to type your FAS password (or run kinit)
>for this again.
First, I don't use Gnome 3 because a software engineer's workstation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1735227
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Release Engineering ---
Created attachment 1596162
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1596162=edit
build.log
file build.log too big, will only attach last 32768 bytes
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1735227
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Release Engineering ---
Created attachment 1596164
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1596164=edit
state.log
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1735227
Bug ID: 1735227
Summary: fusioninventory-agent: FTBFS in Fedora rawhide/f31
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: fusioninventory-agent
Assignee:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1735227
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Release Engineering ---
Created attachment 1596163
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1596163=edit
root.log
file root.log too big, will only attach last 32768 bytes
--
You are receiving this mail
Le mercredi 31 juillet 2019 à 12:25 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III a
écrit :
> > > > > > "KF" == Kevin Fenzi writes:
>
> KF> * If you use metalinks, rpm signatures are just gravy on top, in
> the
> KF> end you are still just trusing SSL CA's.
>
> Only if you trust every mirror to always serve
On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 1:31 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On 7/25/19 11:05 AM, Kaleb Keithley wrote:
> > hmmm. from the root.log
> >
> > DEBUG util.py:585: BUILDSTDERR: Error:
> > DEBUG util.py:585: BUILDSTDERR: Problem: conflicting requests
> > DEBUG util.py:585: BUILDSTDERR: - nothing
Le mercredi 31 juillet 2019 à 17:03 +0200, Andreas Tunek a écrit :
>
>
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019, 16:10 Nicolas Mailhot via devel, <
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > Le 2019-07-31 14:13, Lennart Poettering a écrit :
> >
> > Hi Lennart
> >
> > > Note that there's a "stable" backport tree
On 7/31/19 11:09 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Jason L. Tibbitts, III:
>
>>> "FW" == Florian Weimer writes:
>>
>> FW> At one point, there was a verified hash chain from the https://
>> FW> metalink service, to the repository metadata, down to individual
>> FW> packages. Any tampering was
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 13:25, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Mi, 31.07.19 12:57, Tomasz Kłoczko (kloczko.tom...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> > As usually that type of versioning convention is rubbish and it only adds
> > more work on packaging layer.
> > Why you guys did not released that as v243.99 ?
On 31. 07. 19 20:18, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 08:02:30PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 31. 07. 19 19:54, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 31. 07. 19 19:45, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
The error is:
DEBUG util.py:585: BUILDSTDERR: Error:
DEBUG util.py:585: BUILDSTDERR: Problem
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 8:00 PM Björn Persson wrote:
>
> I recently added two new packages to Fedora. Things have changed a bit
> since the previous time I did this, and more things can now be done
> through fedpkg. I would like to share my experience with this. This is
> what the procedure is
> "MH" == Miro Hrončok writes:
MH>
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ima-evm-utils/c/5c9e2a91303d801bd828ad63bd8fe3ea2bab3e17?branch=master
MH> This updated soname version from libimaevm.so.0 to libimaevm.so.1.
Note that it also added a dependency on the tss2 package. That's small
and
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 08:02:30PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 31. 07. 19 19:54, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >On 31. 07. 19 19:45, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >>The error is:
> >>
> >>DEBUG util.py:585: BUILDSTDERR: Error:
> >>DEBUG util.py:585: BUILDSTDERR: Problem 1: package
>
* Jason L. Tibbitts, III:
>> "FW" == Florian Weimer writes:
>
> FW> At one point, there was a verified hash chain from the https://
> FW> metalink service, to the repository metadata, down to individual
> FW> packages. Any tampering was detected then.
>
> I understand that the metalink
Tom Callaway skrev:
>One of my packages (alienarena) fails to build in rawhide on s390x (and
>only that arch), but the build log shows it never even starts. When I look
>at the root log, I see this:
>
>DEBUG util.py:585: BUILDSTDERR: error: unpacking of archive failed on file
> "TC" == Tom Callaway writes:
TC> One of my packages (alienarena) fails to build in rawhide on s390x
TC> (and only that arch), but the build log shows it never even
TC> starts.
Does it fail repeatably? This error is known but as far as I know it's
always been transient. It only seems to
On 31. 07. 19 19:54, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 31. 07. 19 19:45, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
The error is:
DEBUG util.py:585: BUILDSTDERR: Error:
DEBUG util.py:585: BUILDSTDERR: Problem 1: package
rpm-devel-4.15.0-0.beta.2.fc31.1.x86_64 requires librpmsign.so.9()(64bit), but
none of the
On 31. 07. 19 19:08, Tom Callaway wrote:
One of my packages (alienarena) fails to build in rawhide on s390x (and only
that arch), but the build log shows it never even starts. When I look at the
root log, I see this:
DEBUG util.py:585: BUILDSTDERR: error: unpacking of archive failed on file
I recently added two new packages to Fedora. Things have changed a bit
since the previous time I did this, and more things can now be done
through fedpkg. I would like to share my experience with this. This is
what the procedure is like for a volunteer who only sometimes works on
Fedora stuff:
·
> "FW" == Florian Weimer writes:
FW> At one point, there was a verified hash chain from the https://
FW> metalink service, to the repository metadata, down to individual
FW> packages. Any tampering was detected then.
I understand that the metalink contains enough information to verify the
On 31. 07. 19 19:45, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
The error is:
DEBUG util.py:585: BUILDSTDERR: Error:
DEBUG util.py:585: BUILDSTDERR: Problem 1: package
rpm-devel-4.15.0-0.beta.2.fc31.1.x86_64 requires librpmsign.so.9()(64bit), but
none of the providers can be installed
DEBUG util.py:585:
* Jason L. Tibbitts, III:
>> "KF" == Kevin Fenzi writes:
>
> KF> * If you use metalinks, rpm signatures are just gravy on top, in the
> KF> end you are still just trusing SSL CA's.
>
> Only if you trust every mirror to always serve authentic content.
At one point, there was a verified hash
The error is:
DEBUG util.py:585: BUILDSTDERR: Error:
DEBUG util.py:585: BUILDSTDERR: Problem 1: package
rpm-devel-4.15.0-0.beta.2.fc31.1.x86_64 requires librpmsign.so.9()(64bit), but
none of the providers can be installed
DEBUG util.py:585: BUILDSTDERR: - package
> "KF" == Kevin Fenzi writes:
KF> * If you use metalinks, rpm signatures are just gravy on top, in the
KF> end you are still just trusing SSL CA's.
Only if you trust every mirror to always serve authentic content.
- J<
___
devel mailing list --
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 1/27 (x86_64)
ID: 428120 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_live
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/428120
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/27 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
ID: 428103
One of my packages (alienarena) fails to build in rawhide on s390x (and
only that arch), but the build log shows it never even starts. When I look
at the root log, I see this:
DEBUG util.py:585: BUILDSTDERR: error: unpacking of archive failed on file
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 05:06:17PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 31/07/2019 16:58, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
>
> >My canary ran took 24 minutes, apparently the CI pipeline was slower than
> >usual
> >but the rest of the workflow seemed fine.
> >
> >$ koji buildinfo ocaml-result-1.2-12.fc31
>
On 7/31/19 9:06 AM, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 31/07/2019 16:58, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
>
>> My canary ran took 24 minutes, apparently the CI pipeline was slower
>> than usual
>> but the rest of the workflow seemed fine.
>>
>> $ koji buildinfo ocaml-result-1.2-12.fc31
>> returns:
>> Tags: f31
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 08:52:52AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Do you have an example build for me to look at?
I waited 2 hours for ocaml-result-1.2-12.fc31. In fact it's just now
become available in the buildroot. I don't know if that helps.
The next build I will be waiting for (when it
On 31/07/2019 16:58, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
My canary ran took 24 minutes, apparently the CI pipeline was slower than usual
but the rest of the workflow seemed fine.
$ koji buildinfo ocaml-result-1.2-12.fc31
returns:
Tags: f31 f31-updates-pending
So it should be in the buildroot. Is it
On 7/31/19 7:35 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 03:15:32PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 11:11:34AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>> In this case it's koji.
>>>
>>> For every package in the mass rebuild (f31-pending tag) robosign asks
>>> koji "hey, is
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 04:39:09PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 04:35:11PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
> > On 31/07/2019 16:10, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > >On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 03:15:32PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > >>On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 11:11:34AM
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 04:08:13PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote:
> Le 2019-07-31 14:13, Lennart Poettering a écrit :
>
> Hi Lennart
>
> >Note that there's a "stable" backport tree maintained outside of the
> >main repo:
> >
> >https://github.com/systemd/systemd-stable
> >
> >Either
On 7/31/19 8:07 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:22:36AM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 10:16, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 11:11:34AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
In this case it's koji.
For every
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 04:35:11PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 31/07/2019 16:10, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 03:15:32PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >>On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 11:11:34AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >>>In this case it's koji.
> >>>
> >>>For every
On 31/07/2019 16:10, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 03:15:32PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 11:11:34AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
In this case it's koji.
For every package in the mass rebuild (f31-pending tag) robosign asks
koji "hey, is
> "SG" == Stephen Gallagher writes:
SG> Do any tools exist to simplify the conversion to MDB? Can this be
SG> automated?
I'd like to know this as well. It's always better to provide tools or
extremely clear and detailed instructions, because it's not safe to
assume that people know how to
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 03:15:32PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 11:11:34AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > In this case it's koji.
> >
> > For every package in the mass rebuild (f31-pending tag) robosign asks
> > koji "hey, is foobar-1.0.1-1.fc31 signed' ? koji
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:22:36AM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 10:16, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 11:11:34AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > In this case it's koji.
> > >
> > > For every package in the mass rebuild (f31-pending tag)
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019, 16:10 Nicolas Mailhot via devel, <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Le 2019-07-31 14:13, Lennart Poettering a écrit :
>
> Hi Lennart
>
> > Note that there's a "stable" backport tree maintained outside of the
> > main repo:
> >
> >
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 8:45 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OpenLDAPwithBerkleyDBasModule
>
> == Summary ==
> Change the ''openldap-servers'' package so that BDB and HDB backends
> are required to be dynamically loaded.
>
> == Owner ==
> * Name: [[User:mhonek|
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 03:15:32PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 11:11:34AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > In this case it's koji.
> >
> > For every package in the mass rebuild (f31-pending tag) robosign asks
> > koji "hey, is foobar-1.0.1-1.fc31 signed' ? koji
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 10:16, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 11:11:34AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > In this case it's koji.
> >
> > For every package in the mass rebuild (f31-pending tag) robosign asks
> > koji "hey, is foobar-1.0.1-1.fc31 signed' ? koji checks... "yes, it
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 11:11:34AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> In this case it's koji.
>
> For every package in the mass rebuild (f31-pending tag) robosign asks
> koji "hey, is foobar-1.0.1-1.fc31 signed' ? koji checks... "yes, it is".
> robosign: "great, then I ask you to write out the signed
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 09:15, Frantisek Zatloukal
wrote:
> Personally, I am not at all against raising the bar for baseline x86_64.
> Of course, it'd be ideal to have some sort of derived x86_64_avx arch, but
> if we find out it'd require too much of an investment into infra/releng,
> I'd be +1
Le 2019-07-31 14:13, Lennart Poettering a écrit :
Hi Lennart
Note that there's a "stable" backport tree maintained outside of the
main repo:
https://github.com/systemd/systemd-stable
Either way, I doubt this discussion is relevant to Fedora, is it?
It was when a lot of users could not test
Well, this is a question from Miroslav Suchý on my PR with a solution.
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/pull/293
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Personally, I am not at all against raising the bar for baseline x86_64. Of
course, it'd be ideal to have some sort of derived x86_64_avx arch, but if
we find out it'd require too much of an investment into infra/releng, I'd
be +1 for just changing the base x86_64. Sure, it'd make sense to
The Anaconda team has decided to withdraw this proposal. We have discussed your
concerns and it is true, that the impact on users with Windows could be
significant. The problem seems to be the unfortunate design and unfriendliness
of the current Manual Partitioning screen. We will keep that in
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:00:57PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019, at 4:13 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>
> > Please note that the cgroup hierarchy default remains as "hybrid".
> > Upstream has switched the default to "unified", but I reverted this
> > switch
On Mi, 31.07.19 12:57, Tomasz Kłoczko (kloczko.tom...@gmail.com) wrote:
> As usually that type of versioning convention is rubbish and it only adds
> more work on packaging layer.
> Why you guys did not released that as v243.99 ?
I like my bikesheds blue.
> Other thing is that looks like
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 21:19, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> a new pre-release of systemd was tagged today, and it's building in
> rawhide now. See https://github.com/systemd/systemd/blob/v243-rc1/NEWS
As usually that type of versioning convention is rubbish and it
You wrote:
> Dave Love wrote:
>> they'd be rather limited by the compiler options we're supposed to use,
>> that don't include vectorization, so you don't even get the benefit you
>> could from SSE2. (I've been told off in review for turning that on,
>> though an FPC member has approved it.)
>
Benson Muite writes:
> Tradeoffs to satisfy a wide variety of users - a base system with most
> common software easy to try which can then be re-installed for
> performance. Flatpacks should help with easy but not performance
> optimal installation of many packages. Spack (https://spack.io/) may
I also want to join!
--
Jun Aruga | He - His - Him
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
Panu Matilainen wrote:
> This proposal seems mostly like an experiment in disguise to find out
> whether the Fedora developers can agree on *something*,
This also looks to me like the tactic to ask for the moon to get a
"compromise" that is still unacceptable.
> and quite clearly the answer is
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 09:17, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 01:13:50PM -0400, Tim Zabel wrote:
> >Hello,
> >I'm a little late to this conversation, but is fpaste in Category 4 due
> > to
> >the high legal costs, or because of a lack of a maintainer?
> >It
Hi,
I've proposed some packaging changes [0] to Fedora wine package. TLDR: It
splits d3d libraries into subpackages and lays groundwork for future dxvk
packaging [1]. Details are in the PR.
*What is DXVK?*
Vulkan-based D3D11 and D3D10 implementation for Linux / Wine. In short, you
can replace
Hi Ondřej, welcome to the Fedora project!
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:30 AM Ondřej Míchal wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> my name is Ondřej Míchal, I'm a student from Czech Republic who was lucky
> enough to get an internship at Red Hat for this year. I've been using Linux-y
> systems for almost 4
Greetings,
my name is Ondřej Míchal, I'm a student from Czech Republic who was
lucky enough to get an internship at Red Hat for this year. I've been
using Linux-y systems for almost 4 years already and Fedora for the
past two. My main job as an intern is to work on Toolbox project that
is
The package xmlunit since version 2 uses two licenses. The legacy module
retains BSD from version 1. The rest is licensed under ASL 2.0.
I improperly marked it as ASL 2.0 only, this should be fixed in this PR:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xmlunit/pull-request/2 if we still
want to
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 01:13:50PM -0400, Tim Zabel wrote:
>Hello,
>I'm a little late to this conversation, but is fpaste in Category 4 due to
>the high legal costs, or because of a lack of a maintainer?
>It would be sad to see fpaste go away because of legal reasons. Is there a
>
Count me in! I'm not sure if I will have much time to do actual work,
but surely I can help people with advises :)
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 4:58 PM Adam Samalik wrote:
>
> Hi everyone!
>
> I'm starting a Minimization Objective [1] focusing on minimising the
> installation size of some of the
100 matches
Mail list logo
