[Test-Announce] Fedora 39 Candidate RC-1.5 Available Now!

According to the schedule [1], Fedora 39 Candidate RC-1.5 is now available for testing. Please help us complete all the validation testing! For more information on release validation testing, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan Test coverage information for the

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

The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing: Age URL 5 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-b4ff3ac6b0 stb-0-0.39.20231011gitbeebb24.el7 4 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-7d5cd32373 chromium-118.0.5993.117-1.el7 4

Re: DNF5: Checking signatures of packages installed out of a repository?

FWIW, from what I can recall, yum used to check all packages, but this resulted in tons of people complaining because they did not want it to check their local packages. So, a localpkg_gpgcheck option was added and set to false. dnf4 still has this option. It's also worth noting that if you pass

Re: DNF5: Checking signatures of packages installed out of a repository?

Am Di., 31. Okt. 2023 um 19:31 Uhr schrieb Christopher < ctubb...@fedoraproject.org>: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 1:38 PM Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > > > > Dne 31. 10. 23 v 16:23 Petr Pisar napsal(a): > > > Hello, > > > > > > DNF5 got a complaint > > >

Re: DNF5: Checking signatures of packages installed out of a repository?

On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 16:23:41 +0100 Petr Pisar wrote: > I would would like to hear your opinion: Should DNF5 start verifying > all packages? Should DNF5 keep ignoring signatures for > out-of-repository packages? Or should rather narrow the verification > skip to packages from a local file system?

Re: DNF5: Checking signatures of packages installed out of a repository?

On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 1:38 PM Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > Dne 31. 10. 23 v 16:23 Petr Pisar napsal(a): > > Hello, > > > > DNF5 got a complaint > > that "dnf > > update > > https://...; skips verifying package signatures: > > > > $

Re: DNF5: Checking signatures of packages installed out of a repository?

Dne 31. 10. 23 v 16:23 Petr Pisar napsal(a): Hello, DNF5 got a complaint that "dnf update https://...; skips verifying package signatures: $ sudo dnf update

Re: OK to have same license file in multiple sub-packages?

On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 5:47 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > How it conflicts? > > %files > > %license LICENSE > > %files doc > > %license LICENSE > > should not create any conflicts. And this is recomended way to do it. > I guess the conflicts happen when the LICENSE file changes between builds and

[Bug 2247279] New: perl-Math-BigInt-2.000000 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247279 Bug ID: 2247279 Summary: perl-Math-BigInt-2.00 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-Math-BigInt Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

Re: DNF5: Checking signatures of packages installed out of a repository?

On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 11:57 AM Petr Pisar wrote: > > V Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 04:32:09PM +0100, Fabio Valentini napsal(a): > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 4:24 PM Petr Pisar wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > DNF5 got a complaint > > >

[Bug 2247270] perl-Business-ISBN-Data-20231031.001 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247270 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|---

Re: OK to have same license file in multiple sub-packages?

Dne 31. 10. 23 v 16:10 Tom Stellard napsal(a): Hi, I've run into a problem with the cmake package, and I'm trying to figure out how to solve it.  This issue is that the cmake license files are included in both the cmake and cmake-doc packages.  This creates a conflict when up trying to update

[Bug 2247270] perl-Business-ISBN-Data-20231031.001 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247270 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Comment #1 from

[EPEL-devel] [Fedocal] Reminder meeting : EPEL Steering Committee

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: EPEL Steering Committee on 2023-11-01 from 16:00:00 to 17:00:00 US/Eastern At fedora-meet...@irc.libera.chat The meeting will be about: This is the weekly EPEL Steering Committee Meeting. A general agenda is the following: #topic aloha

[Bug 2247270] New: perl-Business-ISBN-Data-20231031.001 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247270 Bug ID: 2247270 Summary: perl-Business-ISBN-Data-20231031.001 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-Business-ISBN-Data Keywords:

Re: DNF5: Checking signatures of packages installed out of a repository?

V Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 04:32:09PM +0100, Fabio Valentini napsal(a): > On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 4:24 PM Petr Pisar wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > DNF5 got a complaint > > that "dnf > > update > > https://...; skips verifying package

Re: DNF5: Checking signatures of packages installed out of a repository?

On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 4:24 PM Petr Pisar wrote: > > Hello, > > DNF5 got a complaint > that "dnf update > https://...; skips verifying package signatures: > > $ sudo dnf update >

DNF5: Checking signatures of packages installed out of a repository?

Hello, DNF5 got a complaint that "dnf update https://...; skips verifying package signatures: $ sudo dnf update

Re: OK to have same license file in multiple sub-packages?

On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 11:10 AM Tom Stellard wrote: > > Hi, > > I've run into a problem with the cmake package, and I'm trying to figure out > how > to solve it. This issue is that the cmake license files are included in both > the cmake and cmake-doc packages. This creates a conflict when up

OK to have same license file in multiple sub-packages?

Hi, I've run into a problem with the cmake package, and I'm trying to figure out how to solve it. This issue is that the cmake license files are included in both the cmake and cmake-doc packages. This creates a conflict when up trying to update cmake while an older version of cmake-doc is

Re: Does a change approved for f39 need reapproval for f40?

Hi Jonathan, Sorry this (among other things Im sure) fell through the cracks while we were without a Fedora Program Manager :( I will re-announce this on discourse as this is how the process for a change targeting F40 goes, and open a new ticket to FESCo after about a week or so, and thank you

[EPEL-devel] Re: Upgrade of mlpack in epel-7

On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 11:10 PM Benson Muite wrote: > On 10/30/23 16:37, Troy Dawson wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 10:35 AM Benson Muite > > mailto:benson_mu...@emailplus.org>> wrote: > > > > Would like to upgrade mlpack from 3.4.2 to 4.2.1 > > Version 3 is no longer maintained,

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20231031.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20231030.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20231031.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:4 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 6 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 96 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 1.01 MiB Size of dropped packages:0 B

Re: Forester project - Anaconda kickstart with Redfish

> Could you do some compare and contrast with cobbler? Sure, Forester is focused on image-based provisioning it does not (and probably never will) support traditional RPM installation like Cobbler. This is an experiment targeted on those who would like to apply cloud provisioning workflow in

Heads-up: python-probeinterface 0.2.18 coming to Rawhide

In one week, 2023-11-07, or slightly later, I plan to update python-probeinterface to 0.2.18 in Rawhide[1]. This release contains some small breaking API changes[2]; in particular, the with_channel_index argument is removed from plot_probe. Since python-probeinterface is currently a leaf

Fedora 39 compose report: 20231031.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-39-20231030.n.0 NEW: Fedora-39-20231031.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:2 Dropped images: 2 Added packages: 0 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 4 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 0 B Size of dropped packages:0 B Size of upgraded

[Bug 2246640] perl-Data-TreeDumper-Renderer-GTK-0.03 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246640 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Doc Type|---

[Bug 2241707] perl-Apache-DBI-Cache-0.08-46.fc40 FTBFS: DBI connect('f_dir=tmp1','',...) failed: No such directory 'tmp1 at /builddir/build/BUILD/Apache-DBI-Cache-0.08/blib/lib/Apache/DBI/Cache.pm lin

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241707 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |ERRATA

[Bug 2241707] perl-Apache-DBI-Cache-0.08-46.fc40 FTBFS: DBI connect('f_dir=tmp1','',...) failed: No such directory 'tmp1 at /builddir/build/BUILD/Apache-DBI-Cache-0.08/blib/lib/Apache/DBI/Cache.pm lin

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241707 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #2 from

[EPEL-devel] Re: Upgrade of mlpack in epel-7

On 10/30/23 16:37, Troy Dawson wrote: > On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 10:35 AM Benson Muite > mailto:benson_mu...@emailplus.org>> wrote: > > Would like to upgrade mlpack from 3.4.2 to 4.2.1 > Version 3 is no longer maintained, and there do not seem to be > dependencies on mlpack, at least