No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64), 1/7 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-33-20201204.0):
ID: 735940 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2020/12/05/report-389-ds-base-2.0.1-20201205gitdec149b.fc33.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=1904632
Bug ID: 1904632
Summary: perl-File-Edit-Portable-1.25 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-File-Edit-Portable
Keywords:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1904632
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
Created attachment 1736592
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1736592=edit
[patch] Update to 1.25 (#1904632)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1903541
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-0ff6da3db5 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1903541
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from
On Fri, 2020-12-04 at 15:43 -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I filed https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2512 asking FESCo to move all
> automated emails to a separate list where people who want to follow
> can, while I was part of the proliferation of compose reports coming
> here, there is
On 12/4/20 11:14 PM, Robert-André Mauchin wrote:
On 11/30/20 12:12 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
golang-github-casbin go-sig, orphan 0 weeks ago
golang-k8s-kubernetes go-sig, orphan 1 weeks ago
I don't get why these were orphaned, I fixed
> Am 04.12.2020 um 23:16 schrieb Japheth Cleaver :
>
> On 12/4/2020 12:35 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> For the people who were using it as servers, it was split between getting
>> ready for the next RHEL/CentOS they would be deploying, they needed packages
>> which were
> Am 04.12.2020 um 20:33 schrieb Matthew Miller :
>
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 07:53:12PM +0100, p...@uni-bremen.de wrote:
>> Just in case it is indeed considered useful and desirable I could
>> contribute various Fedora Server related/specific documentations and
>> how-to's, e.g. an annotated
On 12/3/20 1:01 PM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 03. 12. 20 v 20:02 Matthew Miller napsal(a):
Mostly the latter. I don't even really care if they end up keeping the
distinct os-release and etc.
Is this backed by some numbers and analysis?
My personal usage is that I create **hundred thousands**
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1904607
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
An HTTP error occurred downloading the package's new Source URLs: Getting
https://cpan.metacpan.org/modules/by-module/DateTime/DateTime-1.54.tar.gz to
./DateTime-1.54.tar.gz
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1904607
Bug ID: 1904607
Summary: perl-DateTime-1.54 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-DateTime
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 4:39 PM Gary Buhrmaster
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 9:24 PM DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> > But fedoras aren't made of sheets of main, they're made from sheets of
> > rawhide...
>
> Actually, fedoras can be made from many different
> source materials (straw, cotton, hemp,
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 03:43:04PM -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> I filed https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2512 asking FESCo to move all
> automated emails to a separate list where people who want to follow
> can, while I was part of the proliferation of compose reports coming
> here, there is now a
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 02:16:23PM -0800, Japheth Cleaver wrote:
> be a better-engineered and tested option. But as time goes on and
> the next EL release isn't either isn't announced or isn't stable
> enough to rely on, Fedora Server probably sees more use as a
> quasi-stable release base.. This
On 12/4/2020 12:35 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
Anecdata which is as 'useful' as any other.
Most of the people I have dealt with in the last 4 years with Server
have been using it mainly as a replacement for the Everything DVD and
because it was the most 'un-opinionated' release of
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 10:46 PM Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I filed https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2512 asking FESCo to move all
> automated emails to a separate list where people who want to follow
> can, while I was part of the proliferation of compose reports coming
> here, there is now
On 11/30/20 12:12 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
golang-github-casbin go-sig, orphan 0
weeks ago
golang-k8s-kubernetes go-sig, orphan 1
weeks ago
I don't get why these were orphaned, I fixed them back in August.
Hi all,
I filed https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2512 asking FESCo to move all
automated emails to a separate list where people who want to follow
can, while I was part of the proliferation of compose reports coming
here, there is now a great deal of them, and they no longer seem to
trigger any
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 9:24 PM DJ Delorie wrote:
> But fedoras aren't made of sheets of main, they're made from sheets of
> rawhide...
Actually, fedoras can be made from many different
source materials (straw, cotton, hemp, etc.) in
addition to rawhide.
There are some workflows such that I
Am 04.12.20 um 21:35 schrieb Stephen John Smoogen:
Anecdata which is as 'useful' as any other.
just some additional experience from my side:
- Fedora provides a recent PHP (unlike RHEL 7) but also ships the full PHP stack
required to run popular PHP applications like WordPress/NextCloud/...
Daniel P. Berrangé writes:
> Perhaps this is heresy, but we could stop calling our main development
> stream "rawhide", and instead call it "main", then it will be trivially
> aligned with the "main" git branch name :-)
But fedoras aren't made of sheets of main, they're made from sheets of
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 8:48 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 11:26:18PM +0100, Petr Šabata wrote:
> > Also a couple of notes on modularity here:
> >
> > # By default, module stream name is derived from the branch name
> > If we have any "master" modules, those will get
On Friday, 04 December 2020 at 20:51, Josh Boyer wrote:
[...]
> For those using it for traditional server use cases, why? What about
> it do you find better than something like CentOS?
Here are my reasons, in no particular order:
1. Because that's what I use on my desktops.
2. Because latest
On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 15:17, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 02:51:45PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > It would be interesting if we had a set of use cases Fedora Server
> > actually solves. So far in this thread we've seen people use it, but
> > it reads to me like they use it to
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 07:29:41PM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> Most public services (GitHub, GitLab, etc.) use separate domains for
> the user content.
I looked into this a little bit, and it appears that the primary concern is
cross-site scripting attacks, not a legal separation.
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 02:51:45PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> It would be interesting if we had a set of use cases Fedora Server
> actually solves. So far in this thread we've seen people use it, but
> it reads to me like they use it to get a boiled down installation of
> Fedora. So is Fedora
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 11:09:01AM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> I always thought it could be something better like 'headwaters' or
> something. But that gets us into a big long bikeshed. :(
I thought we'd all already settled on Primordial Soup. :)
--
Matthew Miller
Fedora Project Leader
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 07:29:41PM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> fedoraproject.org is the main Matrix server with all user content.
Or whatever we decide to call it. I am super-unclear on what you're saying
about using a different domain here and what that would buy us. I note that
if
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 2:33 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 07:53:12PM +0100, p...@uni-bremen.de wrote:
> > I’m not a maintainer but I use Fedora Server for a lot of our university
> > research institutions infrastructure (and I’m a dormant member of Fedora
> > docs).
> >
> >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744419
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|w3c-markup-validator-1.3-19 |w3c-markup-validator-1.3-19
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 12:08 PM Jerry Snitselaar
wrote:
>
> We are looking to no longer support TPM1.2 in RHEL9. Than raised the
> question with regards to opencryptoki-tpmtok if it should be changed in
> Fedora as well, so I thought I'd see what everyone thinks about future
> TPM1.2 support in
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 11:26:18PM +0100, Petr Šabata wrote:
> Also a couple of notes on modularity here:
>
> # By default, module stream name is derived from the branch name
> If we have any "master" modules, those will get unexpectedly renamed
> as soon as they get rebuilt. This might impact
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 12:45:03AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 12/3/20 4:39 PM, Petr Šabata wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 4:34 PM Pierre-Yves Chibon
> > wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 04:16:56PM +0100, Petr Šabata wrote:
> > > > Since I don't see those on the list, does this impact
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 07:29:41PM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 04.12.2020 19:14, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > It doesn't seem possible that you mean literally copied from
> > https://chat.fedoraproject.org tohttps://fedoraproject.org/; that's not the
> > way things work. Can you
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 04:11:05PM +0100, Marius Schwarz wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> as you may have heared, Fedora is now running on Pinephone and other
> devices, that need bleeding edge versions to function.
>
> Status of Fedora Pine as of 15:15 CET
>
> Cams now working, but app needs rework
>
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 07:53:12PM +0100, p...@uni-bremen.de wrote:
> I’m not a maintainer but I use Fedora Server for a lot of our university
> research institutions infrastructure (and I’m a dormant member of Fedora
> docs).
>
> Just in case it is indeed considered useful and desirable I could
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 01:18:35PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 11:34 AM Olivier Fourdan wrote:
> > This is a twofold question, a possible xserver 1.21 version and a separate
> > release of Xwayland upstream.
> >
> > Regarding a possible xserver 1.21 release, I guess
Jerry Snitselaar @ 2020-12-04 11:59 MST:
> Simo Sorce @ 2020-12-04 07:32 MST:
>
>> On Fri, 2020-12-04 at 14:08 +, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 2:04 PM Simo Sorce wrote:
>>> > On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 21:25 +, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>> > > > We are looking to no longer
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 06:11:40AM -0500, Pavel Valena wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Till Maas"
> > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
> >
> > Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 11:09:27 AM
> > Subject: Re: Fedora 34 Change: GitRepos-master-to-main (Self-Contained
>
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 10:01:04AM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 01:50:24PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 04:08:26PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > > Is there a reason why "main" is proposed instead of "rawhide" on src.fp.o?
> > > For all
On Fri, 2020-12-04 at 11:59 -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
> Simo Sorce @ 2020-12-04 07:32 MST:
>
> > On Fri, 2020-12-04 at 14:08 +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 2:04 PM Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 21:25 +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > > > > > We
Simo Sorce @ 2020-12-04 07:32 MST:
> On Fri, 2020-12-04 at 14:08 +, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 2:04 PM Simo Sorce wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 21:25 +, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> > > > We are looking to no longer support TPM1.2 in RHEL9. Than raised the
>> > > >
> Am 04.12.2020 um 19:08 schrieb Matthew Miller :
>
> It's not a matter of making changes for change's own sake, but I would hope
> that we'd have some level of innovation and experimentation in Fedora
> Server. There are also just normal things like marketing materials,
> promotion, blog
On 04.12.2020 19:14, Matthew Miller wrote:
It doesn't seem possible that you mean literally copied from
https://chat.fedoraproject.org tohttps://fedoraproject.org/; that's not the
way things work. Can you clarify the problem you're concerned about?
chat.fedoraproject.org is the hosted web
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 07:07:56PM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> >We’ll have own hosted server athttps://chat.fedoraproject.org/
> Hosting the Matrix server on the main domain would be very
> dangerous, because someone can join a room with pornographic or
> pirated content, and this
On 04.12.2020 18:18, Matthew Miller wrote:
Log in will be through FAS, and we’ll also federate the server so you can
come in with a different identity.
Only nheko and Element support SSO, btw.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 11:59:17AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > No one is talking about making it go away, just de-editioning it. I'd
> > definitely prefer it to remain an edition, but we need it to be more active
> > for that to work.
> Having an active team is one thing, but making changes just
On 04.12.2020 18:18, Matthew Miller wrote:
We’ll have own hosted server athttps://chat.fedoraproject.org/
Hosting the Matrix server on the main domain would be very dangerous,
because someone can join a room with pornographic or pirated content,
and this content will be copied to the
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 01:02:49PM -0500, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> I don't think that's right. I'm a happy weechat user, but as far as I'm
> aware, it only supports IRC natively. There exists a matrix script (
> https://github.com/poljar/weechat-matrix , linked from
>
Matthew Miller writes:
> * On a slightly more controversial note: we know that the bridge can be
> somewhat annoying when Matrix decides it wants to send a URL rather than a
> long message, and that things like reactions just don’t get bridged. Our
> plan here, assuming the trial is
On 12/4/20 5:51 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
On 12/4/20 4:55 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 12/3/20 6:27 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
However, in the discussion on the mailing list for this change, not everyone
agreed that cmake should Require make and this point was never resolved. So,
since there is
I'm not part of the server WG, but a super interested user. Count me in to
help if needed.
Br,
El vie, 4 dic 2020 a las 14:00, Neal Gompa () escribió:
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 11:49 AM Matthew Miller
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 10:03:24AM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > > I
As promised, a summary of our video call for those who couldn't attend:
Highlights
* Red Hat’s Open Source Program Office is interested in this experiment and
will fund hosted Element out of non-Fedora budget. That makes going ahead
with a practical trial basically a no-brainer.
* We’ll
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 8:08 AM Antonio T. sagitter
wrote:
>
> Hi all.
>
> Why openblas-0.3.5 is waiting for stable branch since 2 years? [1]
>
> Is it reasonable, taking into account the rebuilds of dependent
> packages, to rebuild openblas on epel7 by using a more recent GCC
> version like GCC-8
Am 04.12.20 um 17:34 schrieb Adam Williamson:
I don't think there's an easy way to do this, because of how we build
stuff. The Rawhide and Branched trees are rsynced over top of the
previous content from the most recent successful compose, with metadata
pre-built at the compose level. The old
Am 04.12.20 um 16:37 schrieb Vít Ondruch:
As a workaround, if you use `keepcache=True` in dnf.conf, you'd have
copies of everything you previously installed on your system.
Thats even better :) thx, didn't know this.
best regards,
Marius
___
devel
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 11:49 AM Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 10:03:24AM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > I agree, sign me up! I've been using Fedora Server for years for my
> > own projects and it's been 99.9% flawless, so I would be sad if it
> > went away.
>
> No one is
On Fri, 4 Dec 2020, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 12/3/20 10:06 PM, Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
Is %generate_buildrequires suppose to work for packages
which do not used python ?
Yes, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DynamicBuildRequires
Thanks. Now that I read that, this looks like a
On 12/4/20 4:55 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 12/3/20 6:27 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
However, in the discussion on the mailing list for this change, not
everyone agreed that cmake should Require make and this point was
never resolved. So, since there is still ambiguity here, I am
planning to do
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 10:03:24AM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> I agree, sign me up! I've been using Fedora Server for years for my
> own projects and it's been 99.9% flawless, so I would be sad if it
> went away.
No one is talking about making it go away, just de-editioning it. I'd
definitely
Missing expected images:
Iot dvd x86_64
Iot dvd aarch64
Failed openQA tests: 6/15 (aarch64), 3/16 (x86_64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-IoT-34-20201203.0):
ID: 735852 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso release_identification@uefi
URL:
On Fri, 2020-12-04 at 16:11 +0100, Marius Schwarz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as you may have heared, Fedora is now running on Pinephone and other
> devices, that need bleeding edge versions to function.
>
> Status of Fedora Pine as of 15:15 CET
>
> Cams now working, but app needs rework
> Mobile INET
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 4:21 PM Gary Buhrmaster
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 12:55 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> > For what's it worth I think that packages that only use make via cmake
> should
> > not have an explcit dependency on make. Packages that use make directly
> should
> > have an
On Friday, 04 December 2020 at 17:20, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 12:55 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> > For what's it worth I think that packages that only use make via cmake
> > should
> > not have an explcit dependency on make. Packages that use make directly
> > should
> >
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 10:22 AM Gary Buhrmaster
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 3:39 PM Fabio Valentini
> wrote:
>
> > I still think a lot of those are "false positives".
> > CMake has a hard Requires on make, so if I BuildRequires cmake, adding
> > "BuildRequires: make" is just redundant.
> >
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 12:55 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> For what's it worth I think that packages that only use make via cmake should
> not have an explcit dependency on make. Packages that use make directly should
> have an explicit dependency on make (even if they already BR cmake).
Does that
Dne 04. 12. 20 v 15:25 Kevin Kofler via devel napsal(a):
> +1 for "rawhide" as the branch name.
>
> I have always seen the inconsistency between "rawhide" and "master" as a
> result of "master" being a default name in git. If we are going to change it
> anyway, we should change it to the real
Hi all.
Why openblas-0.3.5 is waiting for stable branch since 2 years? [1]
Is it reasonable, taking into account the rebuilds of dependent
packages, to rebuild openblas on epel7 by using a more recent GCC
version like GCC-8 or GCC-9 ?
[1]
I definitely support this.
As a workaround, if you use `keepcache=True` in dnf.conf, you'd have
copies of everything you previously installed on your system.
Now if there was some dnf plugin, which would make repository from the
cache, that would be super helpful. I have never found time to
Hi José,
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 1:17 PM José Abílio Matos wrote:
> Probably the build was erased, another place where it can be found is:
> https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/nonamedotc/nbconvert-6.0.7/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01795144-python-nbconvert/
I cannot find "xelatex" nor
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 1/15 (aarch64)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-33-20201203.0):
ID: 735790 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/735790
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/16 (x86_64)
(Tests
Hi,
as you may have heared, Fedora is now running on Pinephone and other
devices, that need bleeding edge versions to function.
Status of Fedora Pine as of 15:15 CET
Cams now working, but app needs rework
Mobile INET working
WIFI working
Touch working
SMS working
GPS working
Calls partly,
Greetings, all!
The Fedora 33 elections have completed.
## Fedora Council
Tom Callaway is elected to the Fedora Council.
## Fedora Engineering Steering Committee (FESCo)
The following candidates are elected to FESCo:
* Miro Hrončok
* Kevin Fenzi
* Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
* Fabio
Greetings, all!
The Fedora 33 elections have completed.
## Fedora Council
Tom Callaway is elected to the Fedora Council.
## Fedora Engineering Steering Committee (FESCo)
The following candidates are elected to FESCo:
* Miro Hrončok
* Kevin Fenzi
* Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
* Fabio
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 2:32 PM Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2020-12-04 at 14:08 +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 2:04 PM Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 21:25 +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > > > > We are looking to no longer support TPM1.2 in RHEL9. Than
On Fri, 2020-12-04 at 14:08 +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 2:04 PM Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 21:25 +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > > > We are looking to no longer support TPM1.2 in RHEL9. Than raised the
> > > > question with regards to
Fabio Valentini wrote:
> Is there a reason why "main" is proposed instead of "rawhide" on src.fp.o?
> For all non-dist-git repositories I am fine with "main", but if we are
> changing this anyway, "rawhide" would actually make more sense for
> dist-git repos.
> This would make the branch name
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 9:03 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 12:24:32PM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 03:25:20PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 04:15:24PM +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > > > On
Missing expected images:
Xfce raw-xz armhfp
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
3 of 43 required tests failed
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
below
Failed openQA tests: 14/180 (x86_64), 23/117 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in
Ben Cotton wrote:
> ...changes in default behavior, when 1. technically reasonable and 2.
> not explicitly overridden by the user, should generally be made on
> upgrade.
I disagree. Upgrades should be as unsurprising as possible and keep user
configuration as much as possible. Changes in
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 2:04 PM Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 21:25 +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > > We are looking to no longer support TPM1.2 in RHEL9. Than raised the
> > > question with regards to opencryptoki-tpmtok if it should be changed in
> > > Fedora as well, so I thought
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 9:01 AM Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 15:41 -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 3:32 PM Tom Hughes via devel
> > wrote:
> > > What exactly does "change the default on upgrade" actually mean
> > > here? Making nano-default-editor a dependency
On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 21:25 +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > We are looking to no longer support TPM1.2 in RHEL9. Than raised the
> > question with regards to opencryptoki-tpmtok if it should be changed in
> > Fedora as well, so I thought I'd see what everyone thinks about future
> > TPM1.2
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 12:24:32PM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 03:25:20PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 04:15:24PM +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 04:08:26PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > > > On Thu,
On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 15:41 -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 3:32 PM Tom Hughes via devel
> wrote:
> > What exactly does "change the default on upgrade" actually mean
> > here? Making nano-default-editor a dependency of something else
> > that people are likely to have installed?
On 12/3/20 6:27 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
However, in the discussion on the mailing list for this change, not everyone
agreed that cmake should Require make and this point was never resolved. So,
since there is still ambiguity here, I am planning to do the safest option,
which is to add
On 12/4/20 1:14 PM, José Abílio Matos wrote:
On Friday, December 4, 2020 9:56:35 AM WET Lumír Balhar wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I'm getting HTTP/404 for
> https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/nonamedotc/nbconvert-6.0
> .7/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01795156-python-nbconvert/
>
>
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20201203.n.1
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20201204.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:2
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 1
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 44
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 73.13 KiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 11:34 AM Olivier Fourdan wrote:
> This is a twofold question, a possible xserver 1.21 version and a separate
> release of Xwayland upstream.
>
> Regarding a possible xserver 1.21 release, I guess that would be up to
> someone upstream to step up and coordinate such a
On Friday, December 4, 2020 9:56:35 AM WET Lumír Balhar wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I'm getting HTTP/404 for
> https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/nonamedotc/nbconvert-6.0
> .7/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01795156-python-nbconvert/
>
> Could you please try to rebuild the package?
> Have a nice
Dne 04. 12. 20 v 12:36 Marius Schwarz napsal(a):
Am 03.12.20 um 21:06 schrieb Ben Cotton:
...changes in default behavior, when 1. technically reasonable and 2.
not explicitly overridden by the user, should generally be made on
upgrade. Distributions are supposed to be opinionated, and in cases
Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event
for Fedora 34 Rawhide 20201204.n.0. Please help run some tests for this
nightly compose if you have time. For more information on nightly
release validation testing, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki
Am 03.12.20 um 21:06 schrieb Ben Cotton:
...changes in default behavior, when 1. technically reasonable and 2.
not explicitly overridden by the user, should generally be made on
upgrade. Distributions are supposed to be opinionated, and in cases
where the user has accepted our opinion, we should
On 12/4/20 3:08 AM, Matthias Runge wrote:
otherwise, it's YA-trivial DIY build ...
Thank you for looking into this. Since you already did the work,
would you mind to propose a patch here, especially, if it's trivial?
I'm asking abt non-response -- if the 'official' pkgs are maintained, or
On 12/3/20 7:27 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
On 12/3/20 8:32 AM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 5:17 PM Tom Stellard wrote:
On 12/3/20 7:39 AM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 4:35 PM Tom Stellard
wrote:
On 12/2/20 5:45 AM, Artem Tim wrote:
How to quickly retest
- Original Message -
> From: "Till Maas"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 11:09:27 AM
> Subject: Re: Fedora 34 Change: GitRepos-master-to-main (Self-Contained Change)
>
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 08:52:13PM +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon
On 04/12/2020 12:01, PGNet Dev wrote:
unbound upstream release version is now a 1.13
Fedora packages
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/unbound
are several versions behind.
no response from maintainer in months, re updates, @
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860887
anyone
unbound upstream release version is now a 1.13
Fedora packages
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/unbound
are several versions behind.
no response from maintainer in months, re updates, @
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860887
anyone know what's up with unbound pkgs
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
