Fedora-Cloud-33-20210310.0 compose check report

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-33-20210309.0): ID: 806295 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL:

[Test-Announce] [Reminder] Fedora IoT Testday is Happening Today! 10 March 2021

Hello testers! This is a friendly reminder that the Fedora IoT testday is occurring today, 10 March 2021! See the test day wiki page [0] and the testday app [1] for more information on how to get started testing. We appreciate any and all testing that can be done, in a VM or on baremetal

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

Forwarding this announcement to beakerlib contributor - beakerlib, the library for writing tests for Fedora/RHEL, has rlIsFedora function, so IMO it parses /etc/os-release somehow. Dalibor, any potential breakage in beakerlib regarding this change? On 3/9/21 3:33 PM, Ben Cotton wrote: >

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

And, if Fedora Linux isn't clear enough, we can always abruptly rebrand it to Fedora Stream in a few months. I don't think that would cause any confusion. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

I'm +1 on "Fedora Linux". I believe it adds clarity, especially when talking with software vendors. IE, "I'm running Fedora Linux" is less ambiguous than having to explain that Fedora is Linux after telling your ISP's support, etc., "I'm running Fedora."

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 9:58 PM Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > > > "Fedora" is the name of our project. Our general-purpose Linux distribution > > is "Fedora Linux". Let's refer to it that way in the OS itself. > > Does Fedora have some other product? A dessert topping? A floor wax? > Perhaps a hip

Re: Package update requires modification of config file in users' home directories

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 7:46 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > On 09.03.2021 00:10, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: > > Is there something I can do to sed out the -qt5 suffix, or should I > > just bite the bullet, build the update and wait for the bug reports to > > come in? > > You cannot modify

Fwd: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

> "Fedora" is the name of our project. Our general-purpose Linux distribution > is "Fedora Linux". Let's refer to it that way in the OS itself. Does Fedora have some other product? A dessert topping? A floor wax? Perhaps a hip new dance choreography, taking the world by storm? Is it recognizable

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 05:32:41PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > I agree that it's a little weird at first, but as Ben Cotton said, > after the first hundred times or so it becomes natural. This is not necessarily true. Our university IT department changed its name about a decade ago, from three

Re: Package update requires modification of config file in users' home directories

On 3/9/21 4:21 PM, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: Do all of the DEs we have in Fedora support the same notification mechanisms? I'm not 100% sure, but it's freedesktop.org/D-Bus based, so it's about as standard as it gets these days. (Probably irrelevant, though.) I added ln -sf

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 5:33 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > In short... both of these projects have the same policy I'm asking for. I get the idea that it's useful to draw a distinction between the project and the product, and agree with the goal. The upstream naming preference wasn't really my point

[Bug 1936221] perl-libwww-perl-6.53 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936221 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-ae3eac324a 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

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing report

The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing: Age URL 13 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-71d1af6aca isync-1.4.1-1.el8 10 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-fedb6fa69d python-aiohttp-3.7.4-1.el8 7

[Bug 1933398] perl-Perl-Critic-Pulp-99 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933398 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Perl-Critic-Pulp-99-1. |perl-Perl-Critic-Pulp-99-1.

Fedora-Rawhide-20210309.n.1 compose check report

No missing expected images. Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check! 4 of 43 required tests failed openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING** below Failed openQA tests: 27/187 (x86_64), 13/126 (aarch64) New failures (same test not failed in

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing report

The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing: Age URL 7 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-0859a9d61e x11vnc-0.9.13-12.el7 7 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-9fbe0750f7 privoxy-3.0.32-1.el7 7

[Bug 1933398] perl-Perl-Critic-Pulp-99 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933398 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In

[Bug 1936221] perl-libwww-perl-6.53 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936221 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-f2bf0f1eb2 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing

Re: Fedora 34 cryptsetup fails to mount veracrypt volume with kernel 5.11.3, worked in 5.11.2

Just FYI kernel 5.11.5 still doesn't work for me, 5.11.2 does work. Didn't check 5.11.4 however. On 3/10/21 7:50 AM, Ian Laurie wrote: Thanks Milan, turns out our generated passphrase is exactly 64 bytes long. If your passphrase is longer than 63 characters, please read

Re: python noarch packaging vs pip install

On Mon, 2021-03-08 at 19:07 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 08. 03. 21 18:33, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > > I'm just wondering: what's the benefit of packaging Python noarch > > projects in Fedora? > > You can use them as requirements for packaged applications. > > > I can see the reason

[Bug 1936221] perl-libwww-perl-6.53 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936221 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from

[Bug 1936048] perl-HTTP-Message-6.29 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936048 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #3 from

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 10:25:31PM +, Ian McInerney wrote: > This doesn't really sound like something that gets included in a software > release notes page. Can we have a technical description in the release > notes as well please? It would be good to explicitly say that the > key changed in

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 04:11:55PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote: > I have seen third-party install scripts and such that parse that file > and look for "Fedora" to take actions/set variables/etc. for Fedora > Linux. You can say "we don't support third-party anything", but it's > still going to cause

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 04:15:14PM -0500, Christopher wrote: > This is similar to how I use "Apache" to refer to the webserver and > "Apache Software Foundation" to refer to the organization, and how I > use "Eclipse" to refer to the IDE software, and the "Eclipse > Foundation" to refer to that

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 2:34 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Fedora_Linux_in_os-release > > == Summary == > > "Fedora" is the name of our project. Our general-purpose Linux > distribution is "Fedora Linux". Let's refer to it that way in the OS itself. > > == Owner ==

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 10:12 PM Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Ben Cotton said: > > This change isn't big — it is simply expanding > > > > * NAME=Fedora to NAME="Fedora Linux" and > > * PRETTY_NAME="Fedora Linux [##] ([edition or spin]) > > > > in the file /etc/os-release. > > I have

Re: Package update requires modification of config file in users' home directories

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 10:27 PM Ian Pilcher wrote: > > On 3/9/21 1:39 PM, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: > > Well, the first option is still a no-no, as the fixup has to happen in > > the user's home directory. For the second one, I think I'd need to add > > something like "Requires: zenity", which

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

Once upon a time, Ben Cotton said: > This change isn't big — it is simply expanding > > * NAME=Fedora to NAME="Fedora Linux" and > * PRETTY_NAME="Fedora Linux [##] ([edition or spin]) > > in the file /etc/os-release. I have seen third-party install scripts and such that parse that file and

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

Once upon a time, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel said: > But we are still using GCC, GNU coreutils, glibc, libstdc++, etc. > That's why we cannot name an OS without the GNU prefix. Sure we can. There is absolutely no GNU requirement that you embed their name in your name (and it'd be a violation of

Re: Package update requires modification of config file in users' home directories

On 3/9/21 1:39 PM, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: Well, the first option is still a no-no, as the fixup has to happen in the user's home directory. For the second one, I think I'd need to add something like "Requires: zenity", which in turn would pull in other dependencies. I don't believe that

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:27 PM José Abílio Matos wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 9, 2021 4:34:48 PM WET Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > Fedora is. Linux isn't. Linux is just an OS kernel. It cannot be used > > without helpers like GNU libraries and utilities. > > Fedora is the project. > How do

Re: Fedora 34 Change: Route all Audio to PipeWire (System-Wide Change)

I'm using rpm-ostree based fedora system (fedora 33) with pipewire and after latest update pipewire-0.3.23-1.fc33.x86_64 pipewire-alsa-0.3.23-1.fc33.x86_64 pipewire-pulseaudio-0.3.23-1.fc33.x86_64 pipewire-utils-0.3.23-1.fc33.x86_64 pipewire-libs-0.3.23-1.fc33.x86_64

Re: Fedora 34 cryptsetup fails to mount veracrypt volume with kernel 5.11.3, worked in 5.11.2

Thanks Milan, turns out our generated passphrase is exactly 64 bytes long. If your passphrase is longer than 63 characters, please read https://gitlab.com/cryptsetup/cryptsetup/-/issues/627 (And try 5.11.4 kernel.) If not, please report this upstream (or to bugzilla) with more info. Milan

Re: Request to include package: coreboot

coreboot-util is deprecated, no? ___ 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

Re: Package update requires modification of config file in users' home directories

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 7:28 PM Ian Pilcher wrote: > > On 3/8/21 5:10 PM, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: > > Is there something I can do to sed out the -qt5 suffix, or should I > > just bite the bullet, build the update and wait for the bug reports to > > come in? > > You could replace the executable

Orphaned gsignond and related packages

Hi everybody, I have decided to drop the Online Accounts support from Pantheon, because it has not been working for a while and it's not even used for anything (other than optional Last.FM scrobbling support in elementary-music, which I don't even know if it works). Which is why I have now

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

Another pointless change that adds nothing and will cause breakages. Shouldn't we be given a vote on this? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

Ben Cotton píše v Út 09. 03. 2021 v 09:33 -0500: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Fedora_Linux_in_os-release > > == Summary == > > "Fedora" is the name of our project. Our general-purpose Linux > distribution is "Fedora Linux". Let's refer to it that way in the OS > itself. This change

Re: Package update requires modification of config file in users' home directories

On 3/8/21 5:10 PM, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: Is there something I can do to sed out the -qt5 suffix, or should I just bite the bullet, build the update and wait for the bug reports to come in? You could replace the executable with a wrapper script that performs the necessary fixups before

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

The change is indeed not big and it will probably not change the fact that most people will still refer to "Fedora" as "Fedora" but I agree that it is a good move to name and distinguish things properly in the documentation and system information. It was always odd to me that RHEL was called

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 07:02:10PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Are we going to move from getfedora.org to getfedoralinux.org? Websites/design are still looking at the plan for the next generation of the user-oriented "brochure" websites. Remember, we don't have to solve all things immediately and

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

Dne 09. 03. 21 v 18:05 Matthew Miller napsal(a): On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 05:58:47PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: Are we going to change also our logo to be consistent? As part of the new logo rollout, in places where it makes sense, yes. Are we going to move from getfedora.org to

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 at 12:46, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On 09.03.2021 18:20, DJ Delorie wrote: > > Feel free to start your own distro with whatever name > > *you* choose;-) > > I'm Fedora maintainer too, so I have the right to show my point of view > on

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 12:40:50PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > I personally think this is a fine change to make. FESCo can certainly > approve the mechanics of this change, but I expect a Fedora Council > approval at the project level to correspond to this. I don't see a > ticket for this there,

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:38 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 09. 03. 21 15:33, Ben Cotton wrote: > > ... > > * Trademark approval: Not required. Note that this has been cleared by > > Fedora Legal. > > As a change proposal, this will need to pass a FESCo vote. From FESCo > perspective, I think we

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

On 09. 03. 21 15:33, Ben Cotton wrote: ... * Trademark approval: Not required. Note that this has been cleared by Fedora Legal. As a change proposal, this will need to pass a FESCo vote. From FESCo perspective, I think we should make sure it doesn't break stuff (and many have already

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

On 09.03.2021 18:20, DJ Delorie wrote: Feel free to start your own distro with whatever name *you* choose;-) I'm Fedora maintainer too, so I have the right to show my point of view on this issue. -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

On Tuesday, March 9, 2021 4:34:48 PM WET Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > Fedora is. Linux isn't. Linux is just an OS kernel. It cannot be used > without helpers like GNU libraries and utilities. Fedora is the project. How do you distinguish the project from the distribution? AFAICS this is an

Re: Fedora 34 cryptsetup fails to mount veracrypt volume with kernel 5.11.3, worked in 5.11.2

On 09/03/2021 10:42, Ian Laurie wrote: > Fedora 34 with latest updates (kernel-5.11.3-300.fc34.x86_64) won't > mount Veracrypt volumes. I can boot with the previous kernel 5.11.2 and > it works fine. > > kernel-5.11.3-300.fc34.x86_64 > cryptsetup-2.3.4-2.fc34.x86_64 > > Commands I'm using

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 05:20:30PM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > The short identifier ID=fedora will remain the same, so scripted > > > interactions should be unaffected. > > > > python-distro and mock is using this information. I just tested it and this > > change should not change the

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

Vitaly Zaitsev via devel writes: > Ofc we can use it, but only when we will get rid of all GNU libraries, > compiler and utilities. :-) Please don't start this tired old argument again. "Fedora Linux" is a name, not an ISO standard, we can call it whatever we want. We respect that you may

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 05:10:46PM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Dne 09. 03. 21 v 15:33 Ben Cotton napsal(a): > > > > This change isn't big — it is simply expanding > > > > * NAME=Fedora to NAME="Fedora Linux"  and > > * PRETTY_NAME="Fedora Linux [##] ([edition or spin]) > > > > in the file

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

On Tuesday, March 9, 2021, Ben Cotton wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Fedora_Linux_in_os-release > > == Summary == > > "Fedora" is the name of our project. Our general-purpose Linux > distribution is "Fedora Linux". Let's refer to it that way in the OS itself. > > == Owner == > >

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

Am 09.03.21 um 17:54 schrieb Matthew Miller: We don't need to reach 100% compliance (or any other metric) to be an improvement. I don't think adding "Linux" is an improvement.  Everyone who does not think of a hat first, when someone mentions Fedora, already knows,  this is a Linux

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 05:35:40PM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > On 09.03.2021 17:03, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > >tl;dr: 8% gnu (by some measure) in 2011. That number has probably > >fallen quite a bit since then. > > GCC, glibc, libstdc++, coreutils. Yeah, but all those

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 05:58:47PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Are we going to change also our logo to be consistent? As part of the new logo rollout, in places where it makes sense, yes. -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader ___ devel mailing

Re: python noarch packaging vs pip install

On Mon, 08 Mar 2021 17:33:00 + Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > I'm just wondering: what's the benefit of packaging Python noarch > projects in Fedora? Ob XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1987/ It is the same reason I build RPMs instead of installing Perl modules directly from CPAN. Jim

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

Are we going to change also our logo to be consistent? Vít Dne 09. 03. 21 v 15:33 Ben Cotton napsal(a): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Fedora_Linux_in_os-release == Summary == "Fedora" is the name of our project.

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 10:37:02AM -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 9:33 am, Ben Cotton wrote: > >Fedora is made of people! When used by itself, the term "Fedora" > >refers to the Fedora Project. When referring to our work, please > >use either a specific name like Fedora

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

On 09.03.2021 17:49, Matthew Miller wrote: Right, and I'm proposing we use the name "Fedora Linux", not just "Linux". Ofc we can use it, but only when we will get rid of all GNU libraries, compiler and utilities. :-) -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 05:34:48PM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > On 09.03.2021 16:43, Matthew Miller wrote: > >Fedora Linux is an OS. > Fedora is. Linux isn't. Linux is just an OS kernel. It cannot be > used without helpers like GNU libraries and utilities. Right, and I'm proposing we

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 9:33 am, Ben Cotton wrote: Fedora is made of people! When used by itself, the term "Fedora" refers to the Fedora Project. When referring to our work, please use either a specific name like Fedora Workstation, Fedora CoreOS, or Fedora KDE Plasma Desktop; or use Fedora

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

On 09. 03. 21 17:03, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 10:43:32AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 04:28:54PM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: "Fedora" is the name of our project. Our general-purpose Linux distribution is "Fedora Linux". Let's

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

On 09.03.2021 17:03, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: tl;dr: 8% gnu (by some measure) in 2011. That number has probably fallen quite a bit since then. GCC, glibc, libstdc++, coreutils. -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org) ___

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

On 09.03.2021 16:43, Matthew Miller wrote: Fedora Linux is an OS. Fedora is. Linux isn't. Linux is just an OS kernel. It cannot be used without helpers like GNU libraries and utilities. We are not part of GNU, and in fact listed by them as specifically not endorsed because we have policy

Re: annobin breaks reproducibility?

Hi Nick, First of all, thank you for answer. Le 3/9/21 à 1:24 PM, Nick Clifton a écrit : Hi Frédéric, I'm currently working on reproducibility for Fedora packages and I'm hitting an issue with lto/annobin. 35: 2af0 0 NOTYPE  LOCAL  HIDDEN    13

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

Dne 09. 03. 21 v 15:33 Ben Cotton napsal(a): This change isn't big — it is simply expanding * NAME=Fedora to NAME="Fedora Linux"  and * PRETTY_NAME="Fedora Linux [##] ([edition or spin]) in the file /etc/os-release. The short identifier ID=fedora will remain the same, so scripted

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 10:43:32AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 04:28:54PM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > >"Fedora" is the name of our project. Our general-purpose Linux > > >distribution is "Fedora Linux". Let's refer to it that way in the > > >OS itself. > >

Re: Fedora's GPG key in DNS(SEC)

Dne 08. 03. 21 v 15:01 Björn Persson napsal(a): Suppose a bad guy has somehow tricked you into downloading a malicious version of rpmfusion-free-release. The package is signed by brad.guy@malicious.example, and the key is published in the domain malicious.example. All the DNSsec signatures are

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 04:28:54PM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > >"Fedora" is the name of our project. Our general-purpose Linux > >distribution is "Fedora Linux". Let's refer to it that way in the > >OS itself. > > 1. "Fedora" is shorter and better, IMO. The "Core" suffix was >

How to handle nginx 3rd party modules?

Fedorans, I am the maintainer of the nginx package in Fedora and EPEL. Currently I have two bug reports [1][2] open against nginx that ask for the inclusion of 3rd party extensions into the nginx main package. Unlike the Apache httpd, the nginx codebase does not allow modules to be

Re: Self introduction

On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 10:25:00AM -, Alexey Gorgurov wrote: > Hello, Matthew! > > I would be appreciated to help with C++ and related tooling, Qt, some KDE > libraries, Java, .NET and possibly Python. I also may be help with CMake > buildsystem issues, MPI parts, Wine (as I had some

[389-devel] please review: PR 4664 - CLI - unable to add objectclass/attribute without x-origin

https://github.com/389ds/389-ds-base/pull/4664 -- 389 Directory Server Development Team ___ 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:

Re: llvm version is incorrect, so is release

On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 04:21:34AM -, Reon Beon via devel wrote: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936050 > Name : llvm > Version : 12.0.0 WRONG shoud be 10.00-rc1 > Release : 0.1.rc1.fc35 WRONG should not have rc1 in it Please see

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

On 09.03.2021 15:33, Ben Cotton wrote: "Fedora" is the name of our project. Our general-purpose Linux distribution is "Fedora Linux". Let's refer to it that way in the OS itself. 1. "Fedora" is shorter and better, IMO. The "Core" suffix was dropped years ago. 2. Why Linux and not GNU/Linux?

Fedora-34-20210309.n.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 13/126 (aarch64), 6/187 (x86_64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-34-20210308.n.0): ID: 804967 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso install_vncconnect_server@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/804967 ID: 804971 Test:

F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Fedora_Linux_in_os-release == Summary == "Fedora" is the name of our project. Our general-purpose Linux distribution is "Fedora Linux". Let's refer to it that way in the OS itself. == Owner == * Name: [[User:mattdm| Matthew Miller]] * Email: mattdm At

F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Fedora_Linux_in_os-release == Summary == "Fedora" is the name of our project. Our general-purpose Linux distribution is "Fedora Linux". Let's refer to it that way in the OS itself. == Owner == * Name: [[User:mattdm| Matthew Miller]] * Email: mattdm At

Fedora 34 compose report: 20210309.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-34-20210308.n.0 NEW: Fedora-34-20210309.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 8 Added packages: 0 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 1 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 0 B Size of dropped packages:0 B Size of upgraded

Re: Unannounced SONAME change: libwsman_client.so.4 -> libwsman_client.so.5

On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 01:32:15PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > from: > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=25443037 > to: > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=25443037 > > the SONAME changed. This broke a bunch of stuff. I'm doing the > rebuilds now. It

Re: F34 gdm login prompt goes crazy when a fingerprint reader with no enrolled prints is present

Hi Chris and others, On Mon, 2021-03-08 at 22:38 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > Do any of the bugs in this thread need to be proposed as blockers or > freeze exceptions, for beta or final? > > This looks like it might have been lost in process because it got > closed due to a fix for Fedora 33

Unannounced SONAME change: libwsman_client.so.4 -> libwsman_client.so.5

from: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=25443037 to: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=25443037 the SONAME changed. This broke a bunch of stuff. I'm doing the rebuilds now. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones

Re: Package update requires modification of config file in users' home directories

On 09.03.2021 00:10, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: Is there something I can do to sed out the -qt5 suffix, or should I just bite the bullet, build the update and wait for the bug reports to come in? You cannot modify files in user home directories. -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev

Re: annobin breaks reproducibility?

Hi Frédéric, I'm currently working on reproducibility for Fedora packages and I'm hitting an issue with lto/annobin.     35: 2af0 0 NOTYPE  LOCAL  HIDDEN    13 .annobin_dummyqbs_drv.so.MDkv6z.ltrans0.o Do you have any idea what would be the best strategy to fix that?

[Bug 1936221] perl-libwww-perl-6.53 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936221 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-ae3eac324a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ae3eac324a -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list

[Bug 1936221] perl-libwww-perl-6.53 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936221 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-f2bf0f1eb2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-f2bf0f1eb2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list

[Bug 1936221] perl-libwww-perl-6.53 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936221 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-411281d4f8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-411281d4f8 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list

[Bug 1936221] perl-libwww-perl-6.53 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936221 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In Version|

[rpms/perl-libwww-perl] PR #1: Tests

ppisar merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-libwww-perl` that you are following. Merged pull-request: `` Tests `` https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-libwww-perl/pull-request/1 ___ perl-devel mailing list --

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers

On 3/8/21 11:52 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote: The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason:

Re: python noarch packaging vs pip install

On the NeuroFedora side, having Python modules packaged in Fedora allows us to produce the ISO images with all the necessary tools for a particular domain (like comp-neuro). I know that in FOSS we assume that everyone can use virtual environments and pip, but that's not necessarily true in a

Re: Self introduction

Hello, Matthew! I would be appreciated to help with C++ and related tooling, Qt, some KDE libraries, Java, .NET and possibly Python. I also may be help with CMake buildsystem issues, MPI parts, Wine (as I had some experience with Windows and ReactOS) and possibly CUDA (though CUDA is more

[rpms/perl-App-cpanminus] PR #1: Tests

ppisar closed without merging a pull-request against the project: `perl-App-cpanminus` that you are following. Closed pull-request: `` Tests `` https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-App-cpanminus/pull-request/1 ___ perl-devel mailing list --

Fedora 34 cryptsetup fails to mount veracrypt volume with kernel 5.11.3, worked in 5.11.2

Fedora 34 with latest updates (kernel-5.11.3-300.fc34.x86_64) won't mount Veracrypt volumes. I can boot with the previous kernel 5.11.2 and it works fine. kernel-5.11.3-300.fc34.x86_64 cryptsetup-2.3.4-2.fc34.x86_64 Commands I'm using are: sudo cryptsetup open /dev/sdb1 vcvolume --type

Re: python noarch packaging vs pip install

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 4:20 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > Dne 08. 03. 21 v 18:33 Mattia Verga via devel napsal(a): > > In what way is different from installing them by pip? Does packaging > > them worth spending resources (disk space, Koji cycles) and packagers time? > > 1. You know from where the

Re: Work getting hwcaps microchiecture package geneataion into rpm

* Dan Čermák: > Reon Beon via devel writes: > >> https://hackweek.suse.com/all/projects/support-glibc-hwcaps-and-micro-architecture-package-generation >> Comments >> >> dancermak >> 5 days ago by dancermak | Reply >> >> This sounds very intriguing! I have a few notes about this: >>

Fedora-Cloud-32-20210309.0 compose check report

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-32-20210308.0): ID: 804664 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL:

Re: python noarch packaging vs pip install

Dne 08. 03. 21 v 18:33 Mattia Verga via devel napsal(a): In what way is different from installing them by pip? Does packaging them worth spending resources (disk space, Koji cycles) and packagers time? 1. You know from where the package comes. Verified using GPG checks. Helps to avoid

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 at 06:57, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > If any concerns about the autoconf2.69-2.69 compat package ? If needed it > can be implemented as non-parallelly instalable, > Really .. instead wasting time on packaging stuff which is ~7 years old it would be better to use that time to fix

  1   2   >