On Friday, 17 April 2020 16.03.49 WEST Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> I guess personal taste is at issue here, so I will provide the complete
> opposite feedback. IMO our default wallpapers are at their best when
> they're abstract and geometric. The new version of the F32 wallpaper is
> one of my
OLD: Fedora-32-20200416.n.0
NEW: Fedora-32-20200417.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
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 Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 01:01:52AM -, Demi M. Obenour wrote:
> How can this be accomplished? I know that substantial releng and QA effort
> will be needed, along with close coordination with package maintainers and
> upstream developers. That said, I have virtually never noticed a
>
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 12:49:48 -
"Leigh Scott" wrote:
> If there any plan to fix them?
>
> https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/screenshots/Screenshot%20from%202020-04-17%2013-32-22.png
As a contrasting opinion, I accept, and am indifferent to, whatever
wallpaper the Fedora release
FWIW I quite like the final version of the wallpaper. I don't like is
that it was changed at the last minute prior to final release -- that
was a process problem, for sure -- but I'm happy with the result. It's
not crap. That's just rude.
I'm disappointed with default wallpapers in the latest
>When I updated, I honestly thought that my graphics drivers were broken.
Me too.
Geoff Marr
IRC: coremodule
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 8:09 AM Kamil Paral wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 2:51 PM Leigh Scott
> wrote:
>
>> If there any plan to fix them?
>>
>>
>>
On Fri, 2020-04-17 at 16:09 +0300, Benson Muite wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020, at 4:02 PM, Leigh Scott wrote:
> > > Hi Leigh,
> > >
> > >
> > > Do you think you could please use nicer language? There's no need to
> > > use words like that to describe other people's work in the community.
> >
>
Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering said:
> The DNS servers in edge routers are awful at supporting
> either. i.e. the DNS servers you usually get informed about in DHCP
> leases are typically too crap at supporting either kind of DNSSEC (and
> that for a reason actually, these devices generally
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 04:47:54PM +0200, Christopher Engelhard wrote:
> On 17.04.20 16:07, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > Especially the one in Fedora 15 (GNOME edition) and 16 was outstanding.
> > Can we do more of those, please?
>
> Not weighing in on the merits of the current art, but 16 is still my
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d57f17e529
I accidentally built it into Rawhide instead of into the side tag.
Unfortunately I can't untag it myself apparently:
$ koji untag-build f33 ocaml-4.11.0-0.1.pre.fc33
2020-04-17 17:17:37,473 [ERROR] koji: ActionNotAllowed: tag
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 9:22 AM Leon Fauster wrote:
>
> Am 17.04.20 um 17:00 schrieb Troy Dawson:
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 7:07 AM Leon Fauster
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I am unsure if this is something for RHEL8 or EPEL8:
> >>
> >> The usage in EL8 of
> >>
> >> pandoc --pdf-engine=xelatex
> >>
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 11:56 PM Michel Alexandre Salim
wrote:
>
> Apr 16, 2020 18:02:33 Demi M. Obenour :
>
> >
> > Finally, some packages should have all updates considered as security
> > updates. This includes anything based on a web browser (Firefox,
> > Thunderbird, SeaMonkey, Chromium,
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 18:14:29 -0700, you wrote:
>On Fri, 2020-04-17 at 01:01 +, Demi M. Obenour wrote:
>> Currently, security updates can take days to get to users. In
>> particular, Firefox and Thunderbird often take a day or more, even
>> though virtually every single update contains
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 12:11 pm, Gerald Henriksen
wrote:
At least a recent Firefox update was to fix 2 issues that were
reported as being already exploited in the real world.
Probably on Windows.
___
devel mailing list --
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 06:04:21PM +0100, José Abílio Matos wrote:
>On Friday, 17 April 2020 16.03.49 WEST Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>
>> I guess personal taste is at issue here, so I will provide the complete
>
>> opposite feedback. IMO our default wallpapers are at their best when
>
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20200416.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20200417.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 3
Dropped packages:6
Upgraded packages: 102
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 629.75 KiB
Size of dropped packages
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 11:12 AM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-04-17 at 16:09 +0300, Benson Muite wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2020, at 4:02 PM, Leigh Scott wrote:
> > > > Hi Leigh,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Do you think you could please use nicer language? There's no need to
> > > > use
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 8:34 AM Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering said:
> > The DNS servers in edge routers are awful at supporting
> > either. i.e. the DNS servers you usually get informed about in DHCP
> > leases are typically too crap at supporting either kind of
On Friday, April 17, 2020 9:32:19 AM MST Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 12:11 pm, Gerald Henriksen
> wrote:
>
> > At least a recent Firefox update was to fix 2 issues that were
> > reported as being already exploited in the real world.
>
>
> Probably on Windows.
Most
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 1:43 AM Jan Kratochvil
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 06:55:10 +0200, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> > For kernel updates this is probably not a good idea. Given that updates
> > potentially introduce regressions, being able to distinguish updates with
> > known CVEs that
On Fri, 2020-04-17 at 15:13 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> Of the two, I loved FC6 more, because I thought the way the Fedora
> logo was used throughout the artwork was really well-done. And it
> conveyed what I felt Fedora was about very well: Fedorans are the
> community, and the community is
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 2:30 PM Carson Black wrote:
> When updating the 'ikona' package to 1.0, I ran across some linkage
> gore relating to dlopen: https://asciinema.org/a/321155
The linker is telling you that -ldl needs to come *after* libikonars.a
on the command line, since the latter needs
Aye, thanks, that did the job. Much appreciated. :)
-- Carson Black [ jan Pontaoski ]
Am Fr., 17. Apr. 2020 um 16:38 Uhr schrieb Jerry James :
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 2:30 PM Carson Black wrote:
> > When updating the 'ikona' package to 1.0, I ran across some linkage
> > gore relating to
On 17 April 2020 21:00:55 CEST, "John M. Harris Jr"
wrote:
>On Friday, April 17, 2020 5:49:48 AM MST Leigh Scott wrote:
>> If there any plan to fix them?
>>
>> https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/screenshots/Screenshot%20from%202
>> 020-04-17%2013-32-22.png
>
>Wow, that does look
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 05:38:04PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d57f17e529
>
> I accidentally built it into Rawhide instead of into the side tag.
> Unfortunately I can't untag it myself apparently:
Done.
kevin
signature.asc
On Friday, April 17, 2020 5:49:48 AM MST Leigh Scott wrote:
> If there any plan to fix them?
>
> https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/screenshots/Screenshot%20from%202
> 020-04-17%2013-32-22.png
Wow, that does look pretty shitty. Perhaps one of the old ones could be re-
used?
--
John M.
When updating the 'ikona' package to 1.0, I ran across some linkage
gore relating to dlopen: https://asciinema.org/a/321155
I can only reproduce this within the rpmbuild environment, leading me
to believe this is caused by bad compilation flags coming from macros
or an issue with rpmbuild's faked
On 4/16/20 11:42 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 06:55:10 +0200, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
For kernel updates this is probably not a good idea. Given that updates
potentially introduce regressions, being able to distinguish updates with
known CVEs that we do need to roll out
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 11:04 AM Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>
> FWIW I quite like the final version of the wallpaper. I don't like is
> that it was changed at the last minute prior to final release -- that
> was a process problem, for sure -- but I'm happy with the result. It's
> not crap. That's
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 3:24 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2020-04-17 at 15:13 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> >
> > Of the two, I loved FC6 more, because I thought the way the Fedora
> > logo was used throughout the artwork was really well-done. And it
> > conveyed what I felt Fedora was
On 17. 04. 20 16:07, Kamil Paral wrote:
I'm disappointed with default wallpapers in the latest releases. I wonder if we
could go back to more artistic images from previous releases? Here are some of
my favorite ones:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Wallpapers#Fedora_29
Since we were No-Go yesterday, we get to do this (at least) one more time!
Action summary
Accepted blockers
-
1. f32-backgrounds — final f32-backgrounds version isn't in stable
repo — MODIFIED
ACTION: Maintainer to fix Supplements dependencies
2.
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 5:13 PM Michel Alexandre Salim
wrote:
>
> On 4/16/20 11:42 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 06:55:10 +0200, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> >> For kernel updates this is probably not a good idea. Given that updates
> >> potentially introduce regressions,
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 at 13:21, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 at 17:28, clime wrote:
>>
>> > > and lines like this:
>> > > https://pagure.io/Fedora-Infra/rpmautospec/blob/3c208f17329940977cbe1552f3d1bbee35014f93/f/rpmautospec/tag_package.py#_53
>> > > are not needed?
>> >
# F32 Blocker Review meeting
# Date: 2020-04-20
# Time: 16:00 UTC
# Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net
Hi folks! We have 1 proposed Final blocker and 5 proposed Final
freeze exceptions to review, so let's have a Fedora 32 blocker review
meeting on Monday!
If you have time this
Hi folks! I'm proposing we cancel the QA meeting for Monday. We have
a couple of open proposals, but I think we can discuss those on list,
and we'll be focusing on Fedora 32 Final stuff next week. There will be
a blocker review meeting.
If you're aware of anything important we have to discuss
> Well then please don't express your opinion then and keep it to yourself.
It's a free country with free speech.
If you don't like it don't read it!
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
On 4/7/20 11:38 AM, Marius Schwarz wrote:
Description of problem:
the Info URL of the package "clamsmtp" seems to be offline ...
$ dnf info clamsmtp | grep -i url
URL : http://memberwebs.com/stef/software/clamsmtp/
$ host memberwebs.com
Host memberwebs.com not found: 2(SERVFAIL)
David Schwörer writes:
> Upstream said in Februar they where working on a 3.0 release [1]. Not
> sure where they are working though, because there are no new commits
> [2]. Omnibond as in omnibond.com? Not sure that helps with orangefs,
> there link to orangefs is broken, and they only refer to
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 01:01:52AM -, Demi M. Obenour wrote:
> We need to ensure that security updates reach stable within hours of an
> upstream advisory.
Technically, we can create a critical security repository that will be
composed and published on every new package build. But since rsync
No missing expected images.
Passed openQA tests: 1/1 (x86_64)
--
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
No missing expected images.
Passed openQA tests: 1/1 (x86_64)
--
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 06:55:10 +0200, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> For kernel updates this is probably not a good idea. Given that updates
> potentially introduce regressions, being able to distinguish updates with
> known CVEs that we do need to roll out immediately, versus other updates we
>
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 03:43:39PM -0600, Jerry James wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 1:00 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > Sure, I can do the rebuild tomorrow, if you push the changes
> > today.
>
> All of the changes have been pushed. I have made utop buildable
> again, so if that isn't part
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 at 17:28, clime wrote:
> > > and lines like this:
> > >
> https://pagure.io/Fedora-Infra/rpmautospec/blob/3c208f17329940977cbe1552f3d1bbee35014f93/f/rpmautospec/tag_package.py#_53
> > > are not needed?
> >
> > This is not involved in the computation of the next release value.
On 17 April 2020 15:17:50 CEST, Leigh Scott wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020, at 4:02 PM, Leigh Scott wrote:
>>
>> Hi Leigh,
>>
>> Elections for alternative wallpapers are currently open:
>> https://apps.fedoraproject.org/nuancier/elections/
>> Please vote for ones that you like.
>>
>> The
Missing expected images:
Iot dvd aarch64
Iot dvd x86_64
Passed openQA tests: 8/8 (x86_64)
Installed system changes in test x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso
install_default_upload:
System load changed from 0.14 to 0.32
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/578630#downloads
On 3/26/20 1:32 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 01:16:22PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
Right. I realize %posttrans is not a good idea. But *some* mechanism
is necessary, because without that the change will mostly be a noop
for most users. So I think this needs
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 2:51 PM Leigh Scott wrote:
> If there any plan to fix them?
>
>
> https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/screenshots/Screenshot%20from%202020-04-17%2013-32-22.png
When I updated, I honestly thought that my graphics drivers were broken. I
don't think that's a
If there any plan to fix them?
https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/screenshots/Screenshot%20from%202020-04-17%2013-32-22.png
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020, at 4:02 PM, Leigh Scott wrote:
> > Hi Leigh,
> >
> >
> > Do you think you could please use nicer language? There's no need to
> > use words like that to describe other people's work in the community.
>
> That was the nicest term I could use to describe it!
>
> >
> > I
> > Do you think you could please use nicer language? There's no need to
> > use words like that to describe other people's work in the community.
>
> That was the nicest term I could use to describe it!
Well then please don't express your opinion then and keep it to yourself.
Hi Leigh,
> If there any plan to fix them?
Do you think you could please use nicer language? There's no need to
use words like that to describe other people's work in the community.
I personally quite like the 90s retro look.
>
> Hi Leigh,
>
>
> Do you think you could please use nicer language? There's no need to
> use words like that to describe other people's work in the community.
That was the nicest term I could use to describe it!
>
> I personally quite like the 90s retro look.
>
> >
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020, at 4:02 PM, Leigh Scott wrote:
>
> Hi Leigh,
>
> Elections for alternative wallpapers are currently open:
> https://apps.fedoraproject.org/nuancier/elections/
> Please vote for ones that you like.
>
> The submission phase for Fedora 32 has unfortunately already closed.
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 04:48:11PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 3/26/20 1:32 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 01:16:22PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> >
> >Right. I realize %posttrans is not a good idea. But *some* mechanism
> >is necessary, because without
On Do, 16.04.20 19:53, Chris Adams (li...@cmadams.net) wrote:
> Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering said:
> > Again, we do not support DNSSEC from client to the stub. If you set CD
> > we'll return NOTIMP as rcode, indicating that. We do not implement a
> > full DNS server, but just enough for
On 17.04.20 16:07, Kamil Paral wrote:
> Especially the one in Fedora 15 (GNOME edition) and 16 was outstanding.
> Can we do more of those, please?
Not weighing in on the merits of the current art, but 16 is still my
favourite default artwork of any distro, ever.
Not much we can do about pandoc, because it is in RHEL8.
texlive-* packages ... sorry ... scary nightmare after looking at the
spec file for that.
Technically, I believe we could have some type of epel-only texlive-*
package(s) as long as the source rpm isn't the same name as texlive.
But trust
Two main topics for todays meeting are
- final vote and/or tweeks of Policy on Stalled EPEL Requests
-- https://pagure.io/epel/issue/101#comment-642775
- discussion (possible resolution) of "Explicitly list EPEL8/RHEL8
channel conflict policy"
-- https://pagure.io/epel/issue/102
On Thu, Apr 16,
Am 17.04.20 um 17:00 schrieb Troy Dawson:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 7:07 AM Leon Fauster wrote:
I am unsure if this is something for RHEL8 or EPEL8:
The usage in EL8 of
pandoc --pdf-engine=xelatex
pandoc --pdf-engine=lualatex
is broken.
Because EL8 doesn't provide
https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/51032
--
389 Directory Server Development Team
___
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://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1825443
Bug ID: 1825443
Summary: perl-MooseX-Storage-0.53 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-MooseX-Storage
Keywords: FutureFeature,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824317
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2020/04/18/report-389-ds-base-1.4.4.0-20200417git5fc54f4.fc31.x86_64.html
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
Hey,
I am unsure if this is something for RHEL8 or EPEL8:
The usage in EL8 of
pandoc --pdf-engine=xelatex
pandoc --pdf-engine=lualatex
is broken.
Because EL8 doesn't provide texlive-ucharcat-%{VERSION}.rpm
I already opened a ticket here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1820194
66 matches
Mail list logo
