Re: Fedora 33 and 34 Workstation images not booting in Hyper-V

I just did a quick test with Fedora 34 beta on Hyper-V on Windows 10 version 2009, build 19042. These settings should work on Windows Server 2016 and later too as far as I know. The live boot and install worked as usual. The hyperv_fb driver defaults to 1024x768, but you can change the

Re: Grub 2 protected packages

On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 7:54 PM Robert Scheck wrote: > > On Sat, 10 Apr 2021, Neal Gompa wrote: > > We do have those packaged in Fedora: > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/efifs > > > > The GRUB2 sources being used as an input is wrong, though. It should > > be using the ones from the rhboot

Re: Grub 2 protected packages

On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 7:35 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 9:20 PM Chris Murphy wrote: > > > "$BOOT must be a file system readable by the firmware" > > > > That condition is met by efifs, ergo by wrapping GRUB file system > > modules as EFI file system drivers. For non-UEFI,

[Bug 1948241] New: perl-perlfaq-5.20210411 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1948241 Bug ID: 1948241 Summary: perl-perlfaq-5.20210411 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-perlfaq Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

Re: Grub 2 protected packages

On Sat, 10 Apr 2021, Neal Gompa wrote: > We do have those packaged in Fedora: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/efifs > > The GRUB2 sources being used as an input is wrong, though. It should > be using the ones from the rhboot fork: > https://github.com/rhboot/grub2/commits/fedora-35 I am

Re: Grub 2 protected packages

On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 9:20 PM Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 3:55 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel > wrote: > > > > On 10.04.2021 23:16, PGNet Dev wrote: > > > https://systemd.io/BOOT_LOADER_SPECIFICATION/#type-1-boot-loader-specification-entries > > >

Re: Grub 2 protected packages

On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 3:55 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > On 10.04.2021 23:16, PGNet Dev wrote: > > https://systemd.io/BOOT_LOADER_SPECIFICATION/#type-1-boot-loader-specification-entries > > https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd-boot.html > > I think the Extended Boot

Re: Grub 2 protected packages

On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 3:10 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > On 10.04.2021 23:00, Chris Murphy wrote: > > Both of those resolve to $BOOT/loader/entries and systemd-boot > > supports either EFI System partition or Extended Boot Loader > > partition. > > if ! [[ $MACHINE_ID ]]; then >

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

The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing: Age URL 12 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-a1ab6f9c4e libmediainfo-21.03-1.el7 libzen-0.4.39-1.el7 mediainfo-21.03-1.el7 11 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-d0a9c2bf03

[Bug 1890795] EPEL8 Request: perl-PDL

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1890795 Bug 1890795 depends on bug 1940400, which changed state. Bug 1940400 Summary: EPEL8 Request: fftw2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1940400 What|Removed |Added

[Bug 1890795] EPEL8 Request: perl-PDL

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1890795 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version|

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

The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing: Age URL 11 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-b26bce013a chromium-89.0.4389.90-3.el8 9 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-58127424cd perl-Net-Netmask-2.0001-1.el8 7

Re: F35 Change: Debuginfod By Default (Self-Contained Change proposal)

> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DebuginfodByDefault The change page lacks a discussion of security implications. An informed decision requires answers to questions such as: · What kinds of attacks might be possible with malicious debuginfo files? (For example debugging tools might

Re: Grub 2 protected packages

On 10.04.2021 23:16, PGNet Dev wrote: https://systemd.io/BOOT_LOADER_SPECIFICATION/#type-1-boot-loader-specification-entries https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd-boot.html I think the Extended Boot Loader Partition is not suitable for Fedora yet because it does not support

Re: Grub 2 protected packages

On 10.04.2021 23:16, PGNet Dev wrote: Boot entries defined with Boot Loader Specification description files located in /loader/entries/ on the ESP and the Extended Boot Loader Partition. These usually describe Linux kernel images with associated initrd images, but alternatively may also

Re: Grub 2 protected packages

If the /boot/loader/entries directory is exists, kernel-install will use it. systemd-boot cannot read configs from this directory. fyi, https://systemd.io/BOOT_LOADER_SPECIFICATION/#type-1-boot-loader-specification-entries https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd-boot.html

Re: Grub 2 protected packages

On 10.04.2021 23:00, Chris Murphy wrote: Both of those resolve to $BOOT/loader/entries and systemd-boot supports either EFI System partition or Extended Boot Loader partition. if ! [[ $MACHINE_ID ]]; then ENTRY_DIR_ABS=$(mktemp -d /tmp/kernel-install.X) || exit 1 trap "rm -rf

Re: Grub 2 protected packages

> This shouldn't be the case. Unless there's a bug, grub2 may be > installed an unused. If it interferes with sd-boot, please file > a bug. The grub2-efi-x64 package contains directory /boot/loader/entries. AFAICT this directory presence alone makes kernel-install script install the boot files

Re: Grub 2 protected packages

On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 2:39 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > On 10.04.2021 22:22, Neal Gompa wrote: > > GRUB by default uses the same configuration snippets as sd-boot for > > the past few releases: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BootLoaderSpecByDefault > >

Re: Grub 2 protected packages

On 10.04.2021 22:22, Neal Gompa wrote: GRUB by default uses the same configuration snippets as sd-boot for the past few releases: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BootLoaderSpecByDefault /boot/loader/entries/ instead of /boot/efi/loader/entries/. systemd-boot cannot read ext4/btrfs fs.

Re: Grub 2 protected packages

On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 4:20 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > On 10.04.2021 21:34, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > Every once in a while something pulls in the grub stack. For a long > > time this was grubby. Maybe now it's something else. > > Proprietary NVIDIA drivers from RPM

Re: Grub 2 protected packages

On 10.04.2021 21:34, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: Every once in a while something pulls in the grub stack. For a long time this was grubby. Maybe now it's something else. Proprietary NVIDIA drivers from RPM Fusion repository has a strict dependency on grubby. This shouldn't be the

Re: Grub 2 protected packages

On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 08:26:02PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > Hello. > > Today I found[1] that the grub* and shim* packages are now protected > in Fedora 34 and cannot be removed by dnf. I think this change > should be reverted before the F34 release, because some users don't > use

Re: Storing package metadata in ELF objects

[I'm forwarding the mail from Luca who is not subscribed to fedora-devel] On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 01:38:31PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote: Hello, Cross-posting to the mailing lists of a few relevant projects. After an initial discussion [0], recently we have been working on a new specification

Re: Package downgrades from Fedora 33 -> Fedora 34 (including ostree + rpm-ostree)

On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 07:33:42PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 12:42 PM Fabio Valentini wrote: > > --- > > A quick update: > > I have created the missing bodhi updates where the packagers obviously > just forgot to file one, or missed the announcement of the >

Re: Grub 2 protected packages

On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 08:35:11PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > >Protected doesn't mean that it's impossible to remove > Problem: The operation would result in removing the following > protected packages: grub2-efi-x64, grub2-pc, grub2-tools-minimal, > shim-x64 > (try to add

Re: Grub 2 protected packages

On 10.04.2021 20:32, Matthew Miller wrote: Protected doesn't mean that it's impossible to remove Problem: The operation would result in removing the following protected packages: grub2-efi-x64, grub2-pc, grub2-tools-minimal, shim-x64 (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable

Re: Grub 2 protected packages

On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 08:26:02PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > Today I found[1] that the grub* and shim* packages are now protected > in Fedora 34 and cannot be removed by dnf. I think this change > should be reverted before the F34 release, because some users don't > use Grub at all.

Grub 2 protected packages

Hello. Today I found[1] that the grub* and shim* packages are now protected in Fedora 34 and cannot be removed by dnf. I think this change should be reverted before the F34 release, because some users don't use Grub at all. I'm using systemd-boot and all grub2 packages must be removed for

RE: Stepping down as Fedora Jam maintainer

Thank you so much for your contributions, Erich! Using Fedora Jam helped re-introduce me back to the Fedora project and it has been a great platform for learning audio development and music production on Linux. I wish you the best of luck on your endeavors with Ubuntu Studio and Kubuntu Focus.

Re: Package downgrades from Fedora 33 -> Fedora 34 (including ostree + rpm-ostree)

On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 12:42 PM Fabio Valentini wrote: > --- A quick update: I have created the missing bodhi updates where the packagers obviously just forgot to file one, or missed the announcement of the updates-testing activation point (i.e. builds for f35 and f34 (and sometimes f33 or even

Fedora-34-20210410.n.0 compose check report

Missing expected images: Minimal raw-xz armhfp Xfce raw-xz armhfp Failed openQA tests: 11/189 (x86_64), 5/127 (aarch64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-34-20210409.n.0): ID: 851894 Test: x86_64 universal support_server URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/851894 ID:

Re: PETSc 3.15

Also dolfin-0:2019.1.0.post0-10.fc33.src getdp-0:3.3.0-6.fc33.src On 4/10/21 7:26 PM, Antonio T. sagitter wrote: Hi all. PETSc 3.15 is coming in Rawhide branch. Release notes: https://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/documentation/changes/315.html Dependencies in Fedora: $ repoquery --disablerepo=*

PETSc 3.15

Hi all. PETSc 3.15 is coming in Rawhide branch. Release notes: https://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/documentation/changes/315.html Dependencies in Fedora: $ repoquery --disablerepo=* --enablerepo=fedora*-source --whatrequires petsc-openmpi-devel bout++-0:4.3.1-7.fc33.src freefem++-0:4.6-6.fc33.src

Re: Did golang really get upgraded to 1.16.2?

Go 1.16 enables by default modules. In fact, in 1.17, GOPATH is going to be removed. https://github.com/golang/go/issues/41330 If you are building RPM packages, go-srpm-macros not only contains useful macros but it enables GOPATH. ___ devel mailing

Re: Did golang really get upgraded to 1.16.2?

Totally my fault. Rawhide branch contained stuff related to 1.16 release candidates and I didn't properly check it. The same thing happens in F34. It should be already solved in rawhide and soon on F34. ___ devel mailing list --

Fedora-Rawhide-20210410.n.0 compose check report

Missing expected images: Xfce raw-xz armhfp Minimal 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: 19/189 (x86_64), 12/127 (aarch64) New failures

Re: New lapack packages in rawhide

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll rebuild FlexiBLAS on rawhide. Per [1], all the other packages should be pointing to FlexiBLAS already. :) [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FlexiBLAS_as_BLAS/LAPACK_manager Iñaki On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 at 16:20, Tom Callaway wrote: > Hi Fedorans, > > I've

New lapack packages in rawhide

Hi Fedorans, I've updated lapack to 3.9.1 in rawhide. This comes with several notable changes: 1. I've moved to using the upstream build files, specifically, cmake. This eliminates lots of ancient cruft in the Fedora lapack package that needed to be redone by hand with every new release. 2. This

Re: F35 Change: Debuginfod By Default (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Sat, Apr 10 2021 at 08:03:09 AM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: Did you notice that it also works for the Fedora Flatpaks (thanks, Frank!) - basic proof of concept: $ flatpak run --command=sh --filesystem=home --share=network --devel org.gnome.Aisleriot [ org.gnome.Aisleriot ~]$

Stepping down as Fedora Jam maintainer

Hello all, A little over a year ago, I came to the Fedora project to revive and modernize the Fedora Jam project. I have successfully done that. My vision was that it would be a great way to help develop and test the most recent advancements in Linux audio. Unfortunately, or fortunately,

Fedora 34 compose report: 20210410.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-34-20210409.n.0 NEW: Fedora-34-20210410.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:1 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 0 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 6 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 0 B Size of dropped packages:0 B Size of upgraded

Re: Storing package metadata in ELF objects

On Sat, 2021-04-10 at 13:29 +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote: > Hello, > > Cross-posting to the mailing lists of a few relevant projects. > > After an initial discussion [0], recently we have been working on a new > specification [0] to encode rich package-level metadata inside ELF > objects, so that

Re: F35 Change: Debuginfod By Default (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 11:01 AM Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 9 2021 at 04:19:31 PM +0200, Lars Seipel > wrote: > > Really cool. Thanks for making it happen. > > I started testing the staging server yesterday. It seems a little slow > -- I worry for anyone debugging anything that

Re: New RPM submission

Also look at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers сб, 10 апр. 2021 г., 14:22 Peter Oliver : > Welcome! Start at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process > ___ > devel mailing list --

Re: New RPM submission

Welcome! Start at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:

New RPM submission

Hi I am trying to create an "offical" RPM for a package related to dovecot imap server See : https://github.com/grosjo/fts-xapian/issues/82 How one should proceed to hae a RPM referenced in Fedora repositories ? Thank you JM___ devel mailing list

Re: F34 xscreensaver

On 2021-04-10 at 16:30 +0800, Qiyu Yan wrote: > 在 2021-04-10星期六的 10:25 +0200，Łukasz Posadowski写道： > > Hi. > > > > I have an old laptop with a minimal graphical interface, which > > includes Xscreensaver. It was updated to version 6 and I have a > > little problem. I'm using a little script to

Packaging new Compiz 0.9 version

Hello. I'd like to package new Compiz 0.9. New version required for GNOME Flashback [1] and also have some other nice improvements like CCSM ported on GTK3. Currently Compiz 0.8 packaged in Fedora. The question is: should i send PR with update current Compiz 0.8 -> 0.9 or should i made compat

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20210410.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20210409.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20210410.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:2 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 4 Dropped packages:1 Upgraded packages: 62 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 31.15 MiB Size of dropped packages

Fedora-Cloud-32-20210410.0 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-32-20210409.0): ID: 851313 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL:

Re: F34 xscreensaver

在 2021-04-10星期六的 10:25 +0200，Łukasz Posadowski写道： > > Hi. > > I have an old laptop with a minimal graphical interface, which > includes Xscreensaver. It was updated to version 6 and I have a > little problem. I'm using a little script to force screen lock: > > sudo date --set='+1 hour' > sleep

F34 xscreensaver

Hi. I have an old laptop with a minimal graphical interface, which includes Xscreensaver. It was updated to version 6 and I have a little problem. I'm using a little script to force screen lock: sudo date --set='+1 hour' sleep 5 sudo date --set='-1 hour' It was working fine with Xscrensaver

Re: Fedora 33 and 34 Workstation images not booting in Hyper-V

Am 09.04.21 um 23:03 schrieb Patrick Lang: Yes, that’s the right setting for secure boot on Linux. Fedora, Ubuntu, and probably more distros use that setting. There is a list of distros that support secure boot here: Supported Linux and FreeBSD virtual machines for Hyper-V on Windows |

Re: Fedora 33 and 34 Workstation images not booting in Hyper-V

Am 09.04.21 um 20:58 schrieb Stephen John Smoogen: On Fri, 9 Apr 2021 at 14:34, Marius Schwarz > wrote: Hi, I had the chance check Fedora Workstation Images F33 + F34 Beta  on a brandnew Windows Server with Hyper-V latest. I am able to boot

Fedora-Cloud-33-20210410.0 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-33-20210409.0): ID: 851299 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL:

[389-devel] 389 DS nightly 2021-04-10 - 94% PASS

https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2021/04/10/report-389-ds-base-2.0.4-20210410gite542902ae.fc33.x86_64.html ___ 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to