Hi Sergio,
we have a full example in our docs:
https://packit.dev/docs/fedora-releases-guide#full-example or you can check
the configuration of packages that have Packit set up, e.g.
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qownnotes/blob/rawhide/f/.packit.yaml or
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/micr
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20231113.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20231114.n.1
= SUMMARY =
Added images:4
Dropped images: 3
Added packages: 13
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 163
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 3.88 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0
Hi,
have we an example working ?
I'd like had packit
for https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libphonenumber
Upstream Release Monitoring report here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2237976
I'd like have the pull request , koji_build and bohi update
Thank you,
On Fri, 20
* Michael Catanzaro:
> On Tue, Nov 14 2023 at 08:16:39 AM -0500, Christopher
> wrote:
>> I think for the sake of security, it'd be better if this were on by
>> default, and you just had to specify the --nogpgcheck
>> For convenience, the error message should probably say "Error: GPG
>> check FAIL
Am 14.11.23 um 22:04 schrieb Christopher:
On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 9:30 AM Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Tue, Nov 14 2023 at 08:16:39 AM -0500, Christopher
wrote:
I think for the sake of security, it'd be better if this were on by
default, and you just had to specify the --nogpgcheck
For conven
On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 9:30 AM Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 14 2023 at 08:16:39 AM -0500, Christopher
> wrote:
> > I think for the sake of security, it'd be better if this were on by
> > default, and you just had to specify the --nogpgcheck
> > For convenience, the error message shou
On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 9:24 AM Petr Pisar wrote:
>
> V Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 08:16:39AM -0500, Christopher napsal(a):
> > On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 8:03 AM Jaroslav Mracek wrote:
> > >
> > > I believe that one of the strong complains was related to not signed
> > > packages. The use case is that w
Hello all,
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 8:16:39 AM EST Christopher wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 8:03 AM Jaroslav Mracek
> wrote:
> >
> > I believe that one of the strong complains was related to not signed
> > packages. The use case is that when I build RPMs locally and then I
> > install th
On Tue, Nov 14 2023 at 08:16:39 AM -0500, Christopher
wrote:
I think for the sake of security, it'd be better if this were on by
default, and you just had to specify the --nogpgcheck
For convenience, the error message should probably say "Error: GPG
check FAILED (try again with '--nogpgcheck' to
V Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 08:16:39AM -0500, Christopher napsal(a):
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 8:03 AM Jaroslav Mracek wrote:
> >
> > I believe that one of the strong complains was related to not signed
> > packages. The use case is that when I build RPMs locally and then I install
> > them (see bell
On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 8:03 AM Jaroslav Mracek wrote:
>
> I believe that one of the strong complains was related to not signed
> packages. The use case is that when I build RPMs locally and then I install
> them (see bellow).
>
> dnf install *.rpm --setopt=localpkg_gpgcheck=true
> ...
> Package
The warnings mentioned in the blog were added to the 2.39 release of the GNU
Binutils, so they should potentially be present in the build logs of any
package built for f38 or later.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe
I would like to highlight a cool feature of DNF5 - drop-in directory for
configuration overrides, where distribution may modify configuration of DNF5.
Why I am mentioning it, because it allows to make a decision by distribution
and the behavior might be modify outside of DNF5 package. Therefore
You can test for problems by searching the build logs for warnings from the
linker:
"has a LOAD segment with RWX permissions"
"has a TLS segment with execute permission"
"missing .note.GNU-stack section implies executable stack"
There are also two related warning messages, although these
I believe that one of the strong complains was related to not signed packages.
The use case is that when I build RPMs locally and then I install them (see
bellow).
dnf install *.rpm --setopt=localpkg_gpgcheck=true
...
Package dnf-4.17.1-1.git.9598.552e61e.fc38.noarch.rpm is not signed
Package dn
On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 07:26:04PM -0800, John Reiser wrote:
> >Also, under what circumstances would thread local storage segments be
> >executable?
>
> When the assembly-language source contains a statement such as
> .section my_section_name,"atx"
> where the "atx" are the attributes of the E
16 matches
Mail list logo
