On Thu, 2021-10-28 at 10:41 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-10-28 at 10:28 -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> > Stephen John Smoogen writes:
> >
> > > Mainly because it is the authentication service equivalent of
> > > telnet**. Very simple to set up, very simple to use, and very
> > >
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 4/204 (x86_64), 2/141 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-35-20211028.n.0):
ID: 1044974 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1044974
ID: 1045055 Test: x86_64 KDE
OLD: Fedora-35-20211028.n.0
NEW: Fedora-35-20211028.n.1
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 1
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 7
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 37.11 KiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size
On Thu, 2021-10-28 at 21:14 -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 8:02 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2021-10-26 at 16:42 -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
> > > Hello team,
> > >
> > > I would like to let you know ImageMagick-6.9.12-26 recently landed
> > >
Missing expected images:
Xfce raw-xz armhfp
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
1 of 43 required tests failed
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
below
Failed openQA tests: 7/141 (aarch64), 5/206 (x86_64)
New failures (same test not failed in
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 8:02 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2021-10-26 at 16:42 -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
> > Hello team,
> >
> > I would like to let you know ImageMagick-6.9.12-26 recently landed
> > upstream.
>
> Hello , when you update from 6.9.11 to 6.9.12, we need rebuild all
>
On Tue, 2021-10-26 at 16:42 -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
> Hello team,
>
> I would like to let you know ImageMagick-6.9.12-26 recently landed
> upstream.
Hello , when you update from 6.9.11 to 6.9.12, we need rebuild all
depended packages because we got one soname bump and packages won't
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20211027.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20211028.n.1
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 6
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 173
Downgraded packages: 1
Size of added packages: 3.57 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Today I learned that some people are quite surprised (and not in a happy
way) that Fedora Cloud base is no longer considered an Edition.
Please see discussion here, both on the history and the potential futures:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 1:29 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 4:18 PM Troy Dawson wrote:
> >
> > Will we be able to add additional people, like a normal package, so that
> we all get the emails?
> > If we can, then I don't mind being the initial person to add.
> > If we can not,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1961865
Tomas Hoger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
Status|NEW
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 4:18 PM Troy Dawson wrote:
>
> Will we be able to add additional people, like a normal package, so that we
> all get the emails?
> If we can, then I don't mind being the initial person to add.
> If we can not, then I think it would be good to create an epel-sig bz
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018102
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-903b0ef95e has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 1:02 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 03:10:38PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > In a conversation with Carl George and Troy Dawson earlier this week,
> > we discussed the possibility of creating a "distribution" component in
> > the EPEL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018102
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-05fb85d77c has been pushed to the Fedora 34 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=2018102
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-30b2469a06 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 03:10:38PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> In a conversation with Carl George and Troy Dawson earlier this week,
> we discussed the possibility of creating a "distribution" component in
> the EPEL product in Bugzilla. The idea would be that they could use it
> as
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 2:40 PM Luca Boccassi
> It is not enough. It's not enough in *any* distribution, because
> people can (re)build and deploy the same NEVRA. You *need* a build-id
> to guarantee uniqueness of the binary. If the NVR is the same but the
> build has been modified, the
On Do, 28.10.21 15:10, Neal Gompa (ngomp...@gmail.com) wrote:
> It is not enough. It's not enough in *any* distribution, because
> people can (re)build and deploy the same NEVRA. You *need* a
> build-id to guarantee uniqueness of the binary. If the NVR is the
> same but the build has been
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 12:10:15PM -0400, David Cantrell wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 07:26:47PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 03:09:00PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> >>https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Package_information_on_ELF_objects
> >>
> >>==
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018102
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-01fdca 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
On Do, 28.10.21 12:10, David Cantrell (dcantr...@redhat.com) wrote:
> Thanks for revising the change proposal and filling in more details.
> After reading through it, I have some questions:
>
> 1) The proposal notes that users tend to combine built packages from
> different distributions. Even
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 2:40 PM Luca Boccassi wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 07:26:47PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for revising the change proposal and filling in more details.
> > After reading through it, I have some questions:
> >
> > 1) The proposal notes
Hi folks,
In a conversation with Carl George and Troy Dawson earlier this week,
we discussed the possibility of creating a "distribution" component in
the EPEL product in Bugzilla. The idea would be that they could use it
as a place for tracking bugs and other not-tied-to-a-specific
component
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 05:44:44PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 28/10/2021 15:53, Chris Adams wrote:
> > New 500G SSDs are available under $50, and 1TB under $90.
>
> QLC is not an option. Too slow outside of the SLC cache.
Stop moving the goalposts, okay?
--
Tomasz Torcz
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 07:26:47PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>
> Thanks for revising the change proposal and filling in more details.
> After reading through it, I have some questions:
>
> 1) The proposal notes that users tend to combine built packages from
> different
The Fedora 35 Final RC1.2 compose [1] is GO and will be shipped live
on Tuesday, 2 November 2021.
For more information please check the Go/No-Go meeting minutes [2] or logs [3].
Thank you to everyone who has worked on this release. Be sure to join
us November 12–13 for the F35 Release Party[4]
The Fedora 35 Final RC1.2 compose [1] is GO and will be shipped live
on Tuesday, 2 November 2021.
For more information please check the Go/No-Go meeting minutes [2] or logs [3].
Thank you to everyone who has worked on this release. Be sure to join
us November 12–13 for the F35 Release Party[4]
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 07:26:47PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 03:09:00PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Package_information_on_ELF_objects
== Summary ==
All binaries (executables and shared libraries) are annotated with an
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 7/141 (aarch64), 1/204 (x86_64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-35-20211027.n.0):
ID: 1043715 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso anaconda_help@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1043715
ID: 1043716 Test: aarch64
On 28/10/2021 15:53, Chris Adams wrote:
New 500G SSDs are available under $50, and 1TB under $90.
QLC is not an option. Too slow outside of the SLC cache.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
___
devel mailing list --
On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 at 10:03, Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > a) Not have Lennart's name tied to a request. That just pulls in all
> > kinds of over-the-top statements where people will say 99.99% of the
> > people won't use it without any evidence.
>
> What does
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 02:10:37PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>
> It breaks libguestfs. It also breaks basic stuff like "what is
> installed in this container?" "Is this file owned by RPM?" "Has
> this
> file been modified?" I think deleting the RPM database is broken, and
> tools
Perfect. Thank you Mamoru-san.
armv7hl is now back in.
Regards,
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 10:31 AM Mamoru TASAKA
wrote:
> Kaleb Keithley wrote on 2021/10/28 22:41:
> >
> >
> > See
> >
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018102
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #5 from
On Thu, 2021-10-28 at 10:28 -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Stephen John Smoogen writes:
>
> > Mainly because it is the authentication service equivalent of
> > telnet**. Very simple to set up, very simple to use, and very easy to
> > steal all the information about logins, users, and setups.
Kaleb Keithley wrote on 2021/10/28 22:41:
See
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/3MQ4ZRPS4MOIDG2RPAR6YX43VX2MCOLW/
I have not had a chance to follow through yet with a self contained
change...
Looks like the same "issue" written on
Stephen John Smoogen writes:
> Mainly because it is the authentication service equivalent of
> telnet**. Very simple to set up, very simple to use, and very easy to
> steal all the information about logins, users, and setups. [...]
... well, compared to what? LDAP commonly distributes
On Do, 28.10.21 14:24, Fedora Development ML (devel@lists.fedoraproject.org)
wrote:
> Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > I understand you are not working with backtraces/coredumps every
> > day.
>
> For core dumps, this is true. (I have found those to not be of much use,
> other than getting a
Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> What I just don't understand is why so much argument over a minuscule
> disk space increase. We can argue over the best way to create
> backtraces. But trying to step on the toes of other people who are
> working on this problem just because their work requires a tiny
>
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 02:10:37PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 02:00:36PM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> > Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > 5. This proposal is not about licensing, but if it is adopted, it'll only
> > > make figuring out potential
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> a) Not have Lennart's name tied to a request. That just pulls in all
> kinds of over-the-top statements where people will say 99.99% of the
> people won't use it without any evidence.
What does Lennart's name have to do with this? I would have objected the
same way
OLD: Fedora-35-20211027.n.0
NEW: Fedora-35-20211028.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 0
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of upgraded
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 03:24:07AM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> > == Owner ==
> > (for example using Fedora containers on Debian or vice versa),
>
> Containers ought to include the (guest) distribution's package database.
> Everything else is just broken and needs to be fixed.
Indeed.
Once upon a time, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel said:
> SSD is must have nowadays. Typical SSD size is still 128/256 GB,
> because 500+ GB is too expensive for now.
New 500G SSDs are available under $50, and 1TB under $90.
--
Chris Adams
___
devel mailing
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Stratis_3.0.0
== Summary ==
Stratis 3.0.0 includes many internal improvements, bug fixes, and
user-visible changes.
== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:dkeefe|Dennis Keefe]], [[User:mulhern|Anne Mulhern]],
[[User:jbaublitz|John Baublitz]]
* Email:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Stratis_3.0.0
== Summary ==
Stratis 3.0.0 includes many internal improvements, bug fixes, and
user-visible changes.
== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:dkeefe|Dennis Keefe]], [[User:mulhern|Anne Mulhern]],
[[User:jbaublitz|John Baublitz]]
* Email:
See
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/3MQ4ZRPS4MOIDG2RPAR6YX43VX2MCOLW/
I have not had a chance to follow through yet with a self contained
change...
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 9:36 AM Richard W.M. Jones
wrote:
>
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018182
Looks like glusterfs has been dropped on armv7. Is this a permanent
state of affairs? Is there a bug about it?
(I don't care either way, just want to know if we should drop the
libvirt support for glusterfs on armv7 too.)
Rich.
--
Richard
Le 28/10/2021 à 10:50, Remi Collet a écrit :
Mass rebuild is in progress in f36-build-side-47161
which already have php-8.1.0~RC5-1.fc36
Mass rebuild done
58/63 packages were built with success and
are now available in rawhide
See:
On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 at 08:51, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>
>
> What I just don't understand is why so much argument over a minuscule
> disk space increase. We can argue over the best way to create
> backtraces. But trying to step on the toes of other people who are
> working on this problem just
What I just don't understand is why so much argument over a minuscule
disk space increase. We can argue over the best way to create
backtraces. But trying to step on the toes of other people who are
working on this problem just because their work requires a tiny
annotation in each binary
Hi Everyone,
I currently have a review request open for
the sugar-view-slides package, the package was dropped a while back due
to an FTB and the package has been fixed and now builds but is still
been dropped by rawhide.
Can someone help me review it so it can get added back to rawhide?
Lennart Poettering wrote:
> I understand you are not working with backtraces/coredumps every
> day.
For core dumps, this is true. (I have found those to not be of much use,
other than getting a backtrace, but I would rather just get the backtrace
directly.) For backtraces, it is not. I
On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 at 23:47, Ian Kent wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2021-10-27 at 13:40 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 04:37:18PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > > == User Experience ==
> > > For some users this change may be a bit disruptive and it may
> > > require
> > > some
Hello,
This is a weekly report from the CPE (Community Platform Engineering)
Team. If you have any questions or feedback, please respond to this
report or contact us on #redhat-cpe channel on libera.chat
(https://libera.chat/).
If you wish to read in a well-formatted blog post, check the post on
Hi Lennart,
On Thu, 2021-10-28 at 09:56 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> But as someone who's at the upstream receiving end of bug
> reports
> of one major project I can tell you that MiniDebugInfo is literally
> the best thing since sliced bread: in systemd upstream the bug reports
> we get
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018102
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #1 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018102
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-903b0ef95e has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-903b0ef95e
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018102
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #1 from
Hi Daniel,
On Wed, 2021-10-27 at 10:01 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> Getting RPM NEVRs directly from the coredumps is something that
> will be incredibly helpful for people dealing with support
> requests after crashes. build-ids have always been very tedious
> to deal with and as you say
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018102
lionel.c...@cern.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
> On 27/10/2021 21:38, Luca Boccassi wrote:
>
> I will ask additional information from user if the bug report has no
> useful backtrace.
Which you might get or not, and might be correct or not. This is what we
experience daily - just because you are lucky and don't need it, it doesn't
mean
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-34-20211027.0):
ID: 1043564 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018102
Bug ID: 2018102
Summary: stompclt-1.7 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: stompclt
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee:
Hi,
I started working on PHP 8.1 on F36/Rawhide
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/php81
Mass rebuild is in progress in f36-build-side-47161
which already have php-8.1.0~RC5-1.fc36
I will try to take care of most extensions
so please don't build any, or use the side tag
and please tell me.
On 28/10/2021 00:22, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
IMHO, core dumps should not even be enabled by default to begin with. They
are typically just a useless waste of disk space. Uploading them is a bad
idea because they are huge and can contain sensitive personal information.
Yes, publishing and
On 27/10/2021 22:22, Lennart Poettering wrote:
So no, if you aren't interested in reading coredumps yourself you
won't benefit immediately. But if you want to increase the chance that
the various bugs you undoubtly run into every now and then have the
highest chance to be fixed quickly, then
On 27/10/2021 21:38, Luca Boccassi wrote:
As an upstream developer, you get what users send you, which might or might not
be what you prefer
I will ask additional information from user if the bug report has no
useful backtrace.
With this change, the bare minimum produced as a corefile is
On Do, 28.10.21 00:22, Fedora Development ML (devel@lists.fedoraproject.org)
wrote:
> And me mentioning "crash handler" and "no core dumps" together is
> not a mistake. A well-designed crash handler does NOT operate on
> core dumps, but on live processes. This implies that it should be
>
On Do, 28.10.21 01:48, Fedora Development ML (devel@lists.fedoraproject.org)
wrote:
> That said, you are probably right that this change proposal is not the worst
> source of bloat we have ever encountered. There has been much worse. (Just
> in terms of bloat added to each ELF binary by
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-33-20211027.0):
ID: 1043548 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
On 28/10/2021 00:43, Luca Boccassi wrote:
Today, 1 TB+ hard drives are common
Have you tried using modern GNU/Linux distributions on hard drives? I
tried. They were too slw.
SSD is must have nowadays. Typical SSD size is still 128/256 GB, because
500+ GB is too expensive for now.
--
Le 28/10/2021 à 08:33, l...@fedoraproject.org a écrit :
On 2021-10-27 10:21 a.m., "Antonio T. sagitter"
wrote:
Use a side-tag
(https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Update_Guide/#multiple_packages),
please.
Done. '''
Side tag 'f36-build-side-47153' (id 47153)
Le 27/10/2021 à 01:42, Luya Tshimbalanga a écrit :
Hello team,
I would like to let you know ImageMagick-6.9.12-26 recently landed
upstream.
Learning from the previous experiences, I or my co-maintainer are
planning to commit and build this package for Rawhide only in about a
week, so the
On 2021-10-27 10:21 a.m., "Antonio T. sagitter"
wrote:
Use a side-tag
(https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Update_Guide/#multiple_packages),
please.
Done.
'''
Side tag 'f36-build-side-47153' (id 47153) created.
Use 'fedpkg build
76 matches
Mail list logo
