On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 5:48 PM, Kyle Marek wrote:
> But you are certainly right that any non-read-only access on the ESP
> outside of the context of Linux md is going to lead to corruption. I
> would think that read only access (reading the .efi file) should be
> safe, right?
Writing outside
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
As part of a recent guideline change
(https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/772) which ties in with an
accepted F29 change
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/No_more_automagic_Python_bytecompilation),
this section of the guidelines was
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 6:48 PM Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> Some packages call install-info and provide the actual entry for the
> directory instead of allowing install-info to extract it from the info
> file. I'm not sure why this is done, but if removing scriptlets which
> do this, the
As part of a recent guideline change
(https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/772) which ties in with an
accepted F29 change
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/No_more_automagic_Python_bytecompilation),
this section of the guidelines was overhauled for F29+:
On 06/15/2018 07:22 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 4:42 PM, Kyle Marek wrote:
>> On 06/15/2018 06:35 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 3:58 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 15/06/18 22:50, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>> "KM" == Kyle Marek writes:
>
As of Fedora 28, the 'info' package has gained a file trigger
(%transfiletrigger) which will automatically rebuild the info directory
node when any file is installed into %_infodir. Thus it is no longer
necessary for packages in F28 or newer to include scriptlets which call
install-info, nor to
Hello.
There are a couple of things that's been annoying me in KDE for a
while, and I'd like to poke around and understand how I can help
making them any better.
1. Which is not as bad, but still, is the screen power. It seems to
randomly not work, i.e. leave the power on despite the settings to
Thank you both,
mock -r fedora-29-i386 --arch=i386 kernel-4.18.0-0.rc0.git9.1.fc29.src.rpm
ran just fine.
On the other hand, retrying after a "--scrub=all" with
mock -r fedora-29-i386 --forcearch=i386 init
gave the same error.
___
devel mailing list --
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018, 10:42 PM Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 5:51 PM Till Maas wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 03:57:36PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:53 PM Randy Barlow
> >
> > > > Downside is that it would be possible (though I'd guess
Hello,
I am curious if any of the upcoming changes also solve the following issue:
Workstation setup where you want full disk redudancy with raid1 and efi
boot.
* Setting up the OS to be placed on raid1 leaves you with multiple options
(mdadm/btrfs/...)
* Setting up EFI only makes one of those
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 at 17:53, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
[..]
> We put the bar for _security_ measures much higher then mere inconvenience.
> In fact we know that users have been installing software in ~/
> successfully before this change, and it doesn't allow them to do
> anything they
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 6:08 AM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018, 10:42 PM Josh Boyer wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 5:51 PM Till Maas wrote:
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 03:57:36PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:53 PM Randy Barlow
>> >
By the way, our 32-bit configurations have always been i386 instead of i686?
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 6:49 AM Alexander Ploumistos <
alex.ploumis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> By the way, our 32-bit configurations have always been i386 instead of
> i686?
>
They are i686, the chroots are named that for historical reasons.
Thanks,
Richard
Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event
for Fedora 29 Rawhide 20180615.n.0. Please help run some tests for this
nightly compose if you have time. For more information on nightly
release validation testing, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek writes:
> The "how to test section" doesn't have too many details.
>
>> 1. install a PKCS#11 module, say softhsm
>> 2. create an NSS database
>> 3. list modules registered to the NSS database, and check that there is
>> softhsm
>
> *Please* provide explicit
I clarified some aspects of this proposal.
After consulting with Jakub Jelinek, I'm now proposing to use
“-march=i686 -msse2 -mtune=generic -mfpmath=sse -mstackrealign”. This
is very close to previous proposal. Only a few preprocessor macros are
different:
@@ -142,3 +142,2 @@
#define
I am late to the discussion, and a lot of them are related to the
security implications. I am more worried about users overriding
dependencies of other programs. Let me explain with a hypothetical case:
1- There is a system installed application that manipulates PDFs and has
a requirement to
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 2:34 PM, Josh Boyer
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 6:08 AM Stephen Gallagher
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018, 10:42 PM Josh Boyer
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 5:51 PM Till Maas wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 03:57:36PM -0400,
On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 02:12:58PM +0200, Jan Kurik wrote:
> = Proposed System Wide Change: NSS load p11-kit modules by default =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NSSLoadP11KitModules
>
>
> Owner(s):
> * Daiki Ueno
>
>
> When NSS database is created, PKCS#11 modules configured in
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 12:06 PM, Stephen Gallagher
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018, 10:42 PM Josh Boyer
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 5:51 PM Till Maas wrote:
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 03:57:36PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:53 PM Randy Barlow
>>
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 06:06:57AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018, 10:42 PM Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 5:51 PM Till Maas wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 03:57:36PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:53 PM Randy
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 11:19 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 6:54 AM, Rudolf Kastl wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am curious if any of the upcoming changes also solve the following issue:
>>
>> Workstation setup where you want full disk redudancy with raid1 and efi
>> boot.
>
> I've
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2018-06-15)
===
Meeting started by bowlofeggs at 15:00:00 UTC. The full logs are
available at
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2018-06-15/fesco.2018-06-15-15.00.log.html
.
Meeting
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 6:54 AM, Rudolf Kastl wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am curious if any of the upcoming changes also solve the following issue:
>
> Workstation setup where you want full disk redudancy with raid1 and efi
> boot.
I've though of two sane options:
a. Anything that modifies the ESP is
On 06/15/2018 07:30 AM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
Nevertheless still no one answered on very simple question. So I'll repeat it:
Why Fedora_must_ offer OOTB ~/.local/bin, /usr/local{s,}bin paths on
the front of the $PATH in OOTB settings?
The churn in some software (javascript, python, ...) is
Hi,
Am 15.06.2018 um 00:50 schrieb Alois Mahdal:
On 06/14/2018 11:37 PM, Till Maas wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 04:19:27PM +0200, Alois Mahdal wrote:
On 06/14/2018 08:40 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
What about attack success rate?
But if the attacker is some browser
On 06/15/2018 11:24 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> ...]
>
>> What I'm trying to say is that with these kinds of attack (like viruses,
>> or exploits on massively accessed page), there is inevitably going to be
>> some sort of economic decision on side of author affecting how "smart"
>> they want the
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 8/138 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20180611.n.0):
ID: 249300 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_cockpit_basic
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/249300
ID: 249315 Test: x86_64
> "JB" == Josh Boyer writes:
JB> I know we do a lot of rubber stamping because process requires it.
This is one of the primary reasons why I lost interest in serving on
FESCo way back in the day. It felt like an endless stream of feature
process documents without much real involvement in
On 15/06/18 19:52, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> I have mixed feelings about that. On one hand, I agree that this is NOT
> a serious security issue (it's essentially a local compromise requiring
> an existing local compromise), so if someone claims it'll make their
> life easier, I want to say
On 06/15/2018 05:09 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>> "CM" == Chris Murphy writes:
> CM> The installer right now, against upstream mdadm dev's explicit
> CM> advice, sets up an mdadm raid1 using (I think deprecated 0.9
> CM> metadata format but could also work with 1.0 format).
>
> And I'm
> "KM" == Kyle Marek writes:
KM> I can't remember what else I discovered in reading the manual
KM> last. Do you know if there are any other discovery/identification
KM> limitations to the old superblocks?
I don't think there are any in the context of having a small RAID1 ESP
across not too
Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> Many people here gently been pointing on the issue without showing
> real POC how to use this.
> I think that it may force someone to put publically some POC showing
> how to use this.
> I see almost between the lines that I'm not only person here which
> such POC already
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 at 21:32, Jason L Tibbitts III
wrote:
> > "JB" == Josh Boyer writes:
>
> JB> I know we do a lot of rubber stamping because process requires it.
>
> This is one of the primary reasons why I lost interest in serving on
> FESCo way back in the day. It felt like an endless
> "MM" == Matthew Miller writes:
MM> That seems like we're doing things right!
Yes, of course, one nice thing about Fedora is that if you are willing
to do work, people will let you do work. But it also might explain why
there is something of a lack of candidates for FESCo. There are
Rex Dieter wrote:
> Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 09:37 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
>>> fyi, I've begun work to bring Qt 5.9.6 LTS/bugfix release to fedora
>>> 27.
>>> This work will involve rebuilding all packages that have a strict
>>> versioned
>>> dependency (ie, those packages
> "CM" == Chris Murphy writes:
CM> The installer right now, against upstream mdadm dev's explicit
CM> advice, sets up an mdadm raid1 using (I think deprecated 0.9
CM> metadata format but could also work with 1.0 format).
And I'm really happy that it does; I have used that configuration for
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 02:31:45PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> If I want to be involved in actually making something happen, I just
> need to put my head down and do some work. I don't need to be on
> FESCo to get things done.
That seems like we're doing things right!
--
Matthew
On 15/06/18 22:50, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"KM" == Kyle Marek writes:
KM> I can't remember what else I discovered in reading the manual
KM> last. Do you know if there are any other discovery/identification
KM> limitations to the old superblocks?
I don't think there are any in the context
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 15/06/18 22:50, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>
>>> "KM" == Kyle Marek writes:
>>
>>
>> KM> I can't remember what else I discovered in reading the manual
>> KM> last. Do you know if there are any other discovery/identification
>>
> "AL" == Andrew Lutomirski writes:
AL> I wouldn't be surprised if using a capsule-on-disk did terrible
AL> terrible things if ESP were on invisible RAID 1 (a la mdadm 0.9 or
AL> 1.0).
Anything that writes will do "terrible" things (really just corrupting
one of the copies, which for
Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines.
-
In Fedora 28 (and rawhide), the texinfo scriptlets (which call
install-info) are no longer necessary and should be removed or, for
cross-release specfiles, wrapped in conditionals. Note that there are
nearly 300 specs currently
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>> "CM" == Chris Murphy writes:
>
> CM> The installer right now, against upstream mdadm dev's explicit
> CM> advice, sets up an mdadm raid1 using (I think deprecated 0.9
> CM> metadata format but could also work with 1.0 format).
>
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 3:58 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 15/06/18 22:50, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>
>>> "KM" == Kyle Marek writes:
>>
>>
>> KM> I can't remember what else I discovered in reading the manual
>> KM> last. Do you know if there are any other discovery/identification
>>
On 06/15/2018 06:35 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 3:58 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
>> On 15/06/18 22:50, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"KM" == Kyle Marek writes:
>>>
>>> KM> I can't remember what else I discovered in reading the manual
>>> KM> last. Do you know if there are
Hi folks! I'm proposing we cancel the QA meeting on Monday. I don't
see anything urgent to discuss, so let's take the time off.
If you're aware of anything important we have to discuss this week,
please do reply to this mail and we can go ahead and run the meeting.
Thanks!
--
Adam Williamson
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 4:42 PM, Kyle Marek wrote:
> On 06/15/2018 06:35 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 3:58 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
>>> On 15/06/18 22:50, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> "KM" == Kyle Marek writes:
KM> I can't remember what else I discovered in
Dne 15.6.2018 v 08:40 Alexander Ploumistos napsal(a):
> ERROR: Could not find useradd in chroot, maybe the install failed?
I have seen this error when there was old root cache (created prior rename of
unprivileged user in buildroot).
Try `-r fedora-29-i386 --scrub=all`. If this is the case, it
Dne 15.6.2018 v 08:40 Alexander Ploumistos napsal(a):
> ERROR: Could not find useradd in chroot, maybe the install failed?
I have seen this error when there was old root cache (created prior rename of
unprivileged user in buildroot).
Try `-r fedora-29-i386 --scrub=all`. If this is the case, it
Hi Miroslav,
I'm having trouble with the i386 arch on x86_64. I've tested it on
actual hardware and in a VM and in both cases I get
ERROR: Could not find useradd in chroot, maybe the install failed?
I've tried building the kernel with
mock -r fedora-29-i386 --forcearch=i386
Hi,
I'm orphaining emacs-mew package because I'm not the user of it
anymore. pleease feel free to take it over if you want to maintain.
--
Akira TAGOH
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
On 15/06/18 07:40, Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
I'm having trouble with the i386 arch on x86_64. I've tested it on
actual hardware and in a VM and in both cases I get
ERROR: Could not find useradd in chroot, maybe the install failed?
I've tried building the kernel with
mock -r fedora-29-i386
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591990
Bug ID: 1591990
Summary: perl-Dancer-1.3400 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-Dancer
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591991
Bug ID: 1591991
Summary: perl-File-ShareDir-1.108 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-File-ShareDir
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee:
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2018/06/16/report-389-ds-base-1.4.0.10-20180615git5fe4e21.fc28.x86_64.html
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591742
Bug ID: 1591742
Summary: perl-Net-Whois-Raw-2.99015 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-Net-Whois-Raw
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591526
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #4 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1590577
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #8 from
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
14 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-7155fb2e51
prosody-0.10.2-1.el7
8 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-86538d58b1
strongswan-5.6.3-1.el7
5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1588216
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-3.60-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1586067
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-perlfaq-5.20180605-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1585345
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1586063
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-HTTP-Message-6.18-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1586305
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-libwww-perl-6.34-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1586067
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-perlfaq-5.20180605-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1586063
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-HTTP-Message-6.18-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1586305
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-libwww-perl-6.34-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1590577
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-Module-Starter-1.75-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591526
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-Module-Starter-1.75-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See
Just a note that I've backported the %set_build_flags macro from Fedora
to EPEL6 and EPEL7. Updates are at:
* https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-99aa68bf61 (EPEL7)
* https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-6b0faf2b25 (EPEL6)
Buildroot overrides have been
https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/49785
___
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: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591526
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-Module-Starter-1.75-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-7d85ecd152
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591526
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-Module-Starter-1.75-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-88ba9e3eca
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1590577
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-Module-Starter-1.75-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-88ba9e3eca
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1590577
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-Module-Starter-1.75-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-7d85ecd152
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526063
Donald O. changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WONTFIX |EOL
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591526
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1590973
--- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar ---
(In reply to Mark Brader from comment #3)
> Thanks. I must have obtained "Encode" from CPAN at some time in the past
> and then forgotten doing it, so I thought it came from an rpm.
You can use "rpm -qf
79 matches
Mail list logo
