https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750082
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-5.30-3120190918075438.a9ea5770 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 Modular
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750686
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-5.30-3120190918075438.a9ea5770 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 Modular
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751149
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-5.30-3120190918075438.a9ea5770 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 Modular
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745561
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-5.30-3120190918075438.a9ea5770 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 Modular
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750303
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-5.30-3120190918075438.a9ea5770 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 Modular
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752718
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-5.30-3120190918075438.a9ea5770 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 Modular
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750082
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-5.30-3020190918075438.bba63816 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 Modular
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745561
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-5.30-3020190918075438.bba63816 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 Modular
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750686
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-5.30-3020190918075438.bba63816 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 Modular
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750303
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-5.30-3020190918075438.bba63816 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 Modular
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751149
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-5.30-3020190918075438.bba63816 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 Modular
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752718
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-5.30-3020190918075438.bba63816 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 Modular
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745561
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-5.30-2920190918075438.fafb7136 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 Modular
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750686
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-5.30-2920190918075438.fafb7136 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 Modular
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750303
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-5.30-2920190918075438.fafb7136 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 Modular
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752718
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #6 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750082
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-5.30-2920190918075438.fafb7136 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 Modular
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751149
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-5.30-2920190918075438.fafb7136 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 Modular
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See
The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
7 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-85b930849d
blis-0.6.0-4.el8
6 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-cb6a4f8130
bird-2.0.6-1.el8
The following builds have been pushed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744494
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744683
Bug 1744683 depends on bug 1748038, which changed state.
Bug 1748038 Summary: Please build perl-XML-Parser-Lite for EPEL 8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748038
What|Removed |Added
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748038
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748057
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1753360
Upstream Release Monitoring
changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|perl-MCE-1.861 is available |perl-MCE-1.862 is
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2019/09/19/report-389-ds-base-1.4.2.1-20190918git16cf97e.fc30.x86_64.html
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752807
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-File-Slurp-.28-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1749253
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1753008
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-PDF-API2-2.036-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752807
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 6:57 PM Tom Seewald wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> Does zswap actually keep the data compressed when the DRAM-based swap is
> full, and it writes to the spill-over non-volatile swap device?
>
> I'm not an expert on this at all, however my understanding was that zswap
> must
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747735
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750082
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-Archive-Zip-1.65-1.fc3 |perl-Archive-Zip-1.65-1.fc3
Hi Chris,
Does zswap actually keep the data compressed when the DRAM-based swap is full,
and it writes to the spill-over non-volatile swap device?
I'm not an expert on this at all, however my understanding was that zswap must
decompress the data before it writes to the backing swap. But
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744708
Emmanuel Seyman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||1744690
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744690
Emmanuel Seyman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1744708
Referenced Bugs:
Zbyszek,
Do you have any advice on how to assess 'swap on ZRAM' versus 'zswap'
by default for Fedora Workstation? They're really too similar from a
user point of view, I think it really comes down to the technical
arguments.
1a. 'swap on ZRAM' compresses only that which goes to the ZRAM device
I just submitted a Bodhi update for varnish-6.0.4-2.fc29, [
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-8a85a90af6 |
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-8a85a90af6 ]
It fixes a medium risk security update, VSV3 aka CVE-2019-15892. Please
test and add karma.
br,
No missing expected images.
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
4 of 45 required tests failed, 2 results missing
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
below
Unsatisfied gating requirements that could not be mapped to openQA tests:
MISSING:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744690
--- Comment #2 from Denis Fateyev ---
If anyone interested, missing prerequisites for this package in EPEL8:
DEBUG util.py:593: No matching package to install: '/usr/bin/python'
DEBUG util.py:593: No matching package to install:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1753425
Bug ID: 1753425
Summary: [RFE] EPEL8 branch of perl-File-Slurper
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-File-Slurper
Assignee: jples...@redhat.com
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> So... building multilib packages is still very much supported. You cannot
> *run* a pure-i686 environment, but you can 32 bit development.
You have to configure a slow, non-mirrored repository for that instead of
just using the same mirrored URL pattern (with
I want to keep "old" stuff in, because there's no reason to drop the support
for systems that we already support, if we can do so without breaking anything.
On September 18, 2019 7:07:30 PM UTC, "Anderson, Charles R"
wrote:
>So, not only do you want to keep "old" stuff in Fedora (i686), but
Now that Modularity is available for all Fedora variants, it's time to
address issues discovered and improve the experience for packagers and
users. The Modularity team identified a number of projects that will
improve the usefulness of Modularity and the experience of creating
modules for
Now that Modularity is available for all Fedora variants, it's time to
address issues discovered and improve the experience for packagers and
users. The Modularity team identified a number of projects that will
improve the usefulness of Modularity and the experience of creating
modules for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1753401
Bug ID: 1753401
Summary: [RFE] EPEL8 branch of perl-Class-Accessor-Lite
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel8
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Class-Accessor-Lite
Assignee:
So, not only do you want to keep "old" stuff in Fedora (i686), but now you want
to revert/remove "new" stuff (modules) too? I'm beginning to think that Fedora
just isn't a good fit for you.
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 06:22:52PM +, John M. Harris, Jr. wrote:
> Removing modules is a potential
On 9/18/19 1:38 PM, John M. Harris, Jr. wrote:
Thank you for this link, looks like there's not a lot of issues, and most are
closed.
Don't assume closed = fixed. You'll see some of them are closed due to lack of input
from the reporter and some are closed due to being reported against EOL
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 14:32, John M. Harris, Jr. wrote:
>
> These "obsolete" stacks you refer to can easily coexist with newer software,
> or newer hardware. They currently do, for example. I really don't understand
> why there is so much hostility against anything perceived as being old here.
Thank you for this link, looks like there's not a lot of issues, and most are
closed.
On September 18, 2019 4:59:33 PM UTC, Michael Cronenworth
wrote:
>On 9/17/19 7:01 PM, John M. Harris, Jr. wrote:
>> The thing is, i686 still works. The kernel still builds as well,
>without issue. I
>> have
u2f-hidraw-policy is obsoleted by an upstream systemd change. Thanks to
the systemd people for doing this!
I have asked systemd to obsolete u2f-hidraw-policy in all branches when
they apply the update:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1753381
and I'll be retiring u2f-hidraw-policy
These "obsolete" stacks you refer to can easily coexist with newer software, or
newer hardware. They currently do, for example. I really don't understand why
there is so much hostility against anything perceived as being old here.
On September 18, 2019 10:24:31 AM UTC, "Zbigniew
Agreed, especially when there is little to no call for such a thing.
For example, Python 2 and Python 3 can and do coexist. i686 builds can coexist
with x86_64 builds.
On September 18, 2019 9:56:49 AM UTC, Kevin Kofler
wrote:
>John M. Harris, Jr. wrote:
>> These are generic servers. I can
Removing modules is a potential solution to this, as it would simplify package
management.
On September 18, 2019 8:29:49 AM UTC, Petr Pisar wrote:
>On 2019-09-18, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> Error:
>> Problem 1: package crypto-utils-2.5-4.fc29.x86_64 requires
>> libperl.so.5.28()(64bit), but
Brought up at the meeting and there were no objections to doing this. Thank you.
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 09:34, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 06:26, Dave Love wrote:
> >
> > I'd like to upgrade the el7 blis package (v0.4) to the latest version
> > (v0.6), which has a
Hey,
Speaking as someone who understands a little bit of all the pieces
involved here, but without claiming to be an expert in anything ...
I would expect Flatpak containers to consume Kerberos in roughly the
same way as Toolbox [1] containers do.
First, the host must be configured to use KCM
mcatanz...@gnome.org writes:
> Robbie Harwood wrote:
>
>> Can you link the bug you've filed about this?
>
> I don't even know where to file a bug. Which component? kerberos?
> xdg-desktop-portal?
When filing bugs that you don't know the cause of, it's best to start
with the highest level
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1753360
Bug ID: 1753360
Summary: perl-MCE-1.861 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-MCE
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
On 9/17/19 7:01 PM, John M. Harris, Jr. wrote:
The thing is, i686 still works. The kernel still builds as well, without issue. I
have no idea what the issues that have been mentioned are, and I've kept asking.
Nobody has given me an answer. Nobody has pointed me to an issue, or I'd be
working
Hi,
thank you for all the testing and comparisons between different
approaches. It looks really interesting.
> The ideal scenario is to get everyone on the same page, and so far it
> looks like systemd's zram-generator, built in Rust, meets all the
> requirements. That needs to be confirmed, but
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019, 11:21 Felipe Borges, wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 11:07 AM wrote:
> >
> > Hello, I don't know if this is the right place to ask this question.
> > Btw, on Fedora 31, in the Online Accounts list there is a "Fedora"
> > voice alongside "Google", "Nextcloud" and
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 10:06:21AM -0400, Randy Barlow wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-09-17 at 19:15 -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > fork it and make Memdora for low memory systems.
>
> If you make Memdora, then you will also need to think of four values
> that start with M:
>
> Mriends
> Mreedom
This is the Minimization Objective [0] update.
Status: Discovery phase
== systemd-sysusers ==
Many packages pull in Systemd because of systemd-sysusers to create new
users. This is fine in traditional setups where there already is Systemd,
but for containers, that means pulling additional 60MB
Michal Schorm wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Q:
> Is it needed to explicitly list (or pack) license (files) of a library
> that a package bundles? [1]
> And if yes, what's the right way to do so?
>
> The built package only contain 1 binary (and it's manpage and license
> file). In this case - when no
On 2019-09-18, Michal Schorm wrote:
> Is it needed to explicitly list (or pack) license (files) of a library
> that a package bundles? [1]
If the bundled library code is part of the binary package, then yes, you
need to list and to package the license.
> And if yes, what's the right way to do
Minutes:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2019-09-18/minimization.2019-09-18-15.01.html
Minutes (text):
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2019-09-18/minimization.2019-09-18-15.01.txt
Log:
On 2019-09-18, Kalev Lember wrote:
> Hm, did perl get moved to the modular repo? That sounds like it is going
> to cause more issues than solve as it's not a leaf package. Why can't it
> stay as a regular package?
>
Perl is still a regular package and until Fedora allows modules in
a build root
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 10:43 am, Robbie Harwood
wrote:
Can you link the bug you've filed about this?
I don't even know where to file a bug. Which component? kerberos?
xdg-desktop-portal?
It's seems less like a bug in any Fedora component, rather something
that's never been designed to
On Wed, 2019-09-18 at 09:15 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 9/17/19 4:04 PM, Mohan Boddu wrote:
>
> > Since this is a Beta release, we expect that you may encounter bugs or
> > missing features. To report issues encountered during testing, contact the
> > Fedora QA team via the mailing list or
On Wed, 2019-09-18 at 12:11 +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
> On 9/18/19 10:29, Petr Pisar wrote:
> > On 2019-09-18, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > - package perl-libs-4:5.28.2-439.module_f31+6019+b24e098f.x86_64 is
> > > excluded
> >
> > Funnily DNF finds out that you could actually get that
Hi all,
a new version rpkg-1.59 is released.
Currently, just Fedora 31 packages are eligible to be moved into the stable
repository, feel free to
try other waiting distributions in Bodhi.
The release contains new features and bug fixes as well. Among considerable
new features are new commands
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752807
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2019-29d9210940 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-29d9210940
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752807
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #1 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750686
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2019-33b057aa14 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2019-33b057aa14
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745561
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2019-33b057aa14 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2019-33b057aa14
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750303
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2019-33b057aa14 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2019-33b057aa14
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752718
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2019-33b057aa14 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2019-33b057aa14
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750082
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2019-33b057aa14 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2019-33b057aa14
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751149
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2019-33b057aa14 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2019-33b057aa14
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750686
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2019-cf37c6cc3e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2019-cf37c6cc3e
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745561
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2019-cf37c6cc3e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2019-cf37c6cc3e
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752718
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2019-cf37c6cc3e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2019-cf37c6cc3e
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751149
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2019-cf37c6cc3e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2019-cf37c6cc3e
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750303
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2019-cf37c6cc3e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2019-cf37c6cc3e
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750082
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2019-cf37c6cc3e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2019-cf37c6cc3e
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745561
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2019-3e8040e69e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2019-3e8040e69e
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751149
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2019-3e8040e69e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2019-3e8040e69e
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750082
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2019-3e8040e69e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2019-3e8040e69e
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750303
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2019-3e8040e69e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2019-3e8040e69e
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752718
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750686
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2019-3e8040e69e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2019-3e8040e69e
--
You are receiving this mail because:
mcatanz...@gnome.org writes:
> Felipe Borges wrote:
>
>> The "Fedora" account is just a branded Kerberos account. By adding a
>> Fedora account in GNOME Online Accounts you would get automatically
>> signed on whenever you'd need to enter your FAS credentials. This
>> means while accessing
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:34 AM Daniel Walsh wrote:
>
> On 9/17/19 8:04 AM, Colin Walters wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 12:45 PM, Troy Dawson wrote:
> >> systemd-sysusers seeks to unify user creation[1]. It also has the
> >> benefit of being able to create users on bootup. But, it
On Tue, 2019-09-17 at 19:15 -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> fork it and make Memdora for low memory systems.
If you make Memdora, then you will also need to think of four values
that start with M:
Mriends
Mreedom
Mirst
Meatures
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 11:18 am, Felipe Borges
wrote:
The "Fedora" account is just a branded Kerberos account. By adding a
Fedora account in GNOME Online Accounts you would get automatically
signed on whenever you'd need to enter your FAS credentials. This
means while accessing Pagure,
I have made some updates to the epel-release for EL7/EL8. they will be
going into testing and once promoted, symlinks will be fixed on the
download servers.
epel-release-7-12
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 7/152 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-31-20190917.n.2):
ID: 45 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_remote_logging_server
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/45
ID: 453334 Test: x86_64
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 06:26, Dave Love wrote:
>
> I'd like to upgrade the el7 blis package (v0.4) to the latest version
> (v0.6), which has a soname bump. It's not currently required by
> anything else in EPEL, and the BLAS compatibility shims won't change.
> Any objection?
>
> The current
OLD: Fedora-31-20190917.n.2
NEW: Fedora-31-20190918.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:10
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 7
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 131
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 147.20 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size
> Featuritis? Actually, do not see any usefulness in any module.
*any* module ?
Maybe you just haven't met the right use case yet.
I maintain packages of MariaDB and MySQL projects. There's no better
way I can imagine, to develop two version of the packages of the DB,
than modules.
Fedora have
Hi guys,
I am orphaning the git-remote-bzr package. Regarding the repoquery,
there are not any other rpms depending on that package.
Cheers,
--
Petr Stodulka
OS & Application Modernization
IRC nicks: pstodulk, skytak
Senior Software Engineer
Red Hat Czech s.r.o.
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
