On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 7:00 AM wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> You are kindly invited to the meeting:
>ELN SIG on 2021-12-03 from 12:00:00 to 13:00:00 US/Eastern
>At fedora-meet...@irc.libera.chat
>
> The meeting will be about:
I don't currently have any items for the agenda this time, so I'll
On 12/2/21 09:56, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 5:07 PM Andreas Schneider wrote:
Hello,
I would like to compile the tree-sitter parser generating tool. For this rust-
html-escape and rust-smallbitvec is missing in the distro. It would allow that
you can add additional
Hello everyone
My name is Diego Herrera, I'm a 35 y/o software developer and a recent hire
at Red Hat CPE Team. I've been actively using Fedora as my workstation
prefered OS since version 16.
I have made a couple of contributions to OSS projects in the past and have
some experience with
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FsVerityRPM
== Summary ==
Enable the use of fsverity for installed RPM files validation.
== Owners ==
* Name: [[User:Dcavalca|Davide Cavalca]], [[User:Borisb|Boris
Burkov]], [[User:Filbranden|Filipe Brandenburger]],
[[User:Salimma|Michel Alexandre
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GnutlsAllowlisting
== Summary ==
Presently, crypto-policies controls GnuTLS in a way that
"hard-disables" select algorithms, leaving no option for the
applications using GnuTLS to reenable said algorithms back. We propose
switching to more future-proof
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 7:38:29 PM CET Florian Weimer wrote:
> I'd like to provide an ld.so command as part of glibc. Today, ld.so can
> be used to activate preloading, for example. Compared to LD_PRELOAD,
> the difference is that it's specific to one process, and won't be
> inherited by
Dear Diego,
Welcome! I'm also new to the Fedora community, so maybe we can share
notes at some point :)
As you're interested in packaging open source games for Fedora, I'll
invite you to an IRC channel all about open source games! It's
#libregamenight on Libera.Chat; there are plenty of people
Hi,
Globe Trotter via devel writes:
> Thank you to Dan Čermák for reviewing this package. However, I had two
> questions from his comments. The first was that the spec file should use
> gpgverify.
> So, I went to the suggested webpage:
>
> === Relationship with IMA ===
>
> [https://sourceforge.net/p/linux-ima/wiki/Home/ IMA] is another
> technology meant to provide detection of file alterations. IMA and
> fsverity operate very differently, and are somewhat complementary.
> [...]
Do these two systems use the same per-file
Hi everyone,
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 this in form of a blog post, check the
On Thu, 2021-12-02 at 15:08 -0500, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>
> > === Relationship with IMA ===
> >
> > [https://sourceforge.net/p/linux-ima/wiki/Home/ IMA] is another
> > technology meant to provide detection of file alterations. IMA and
> > fsverity operate very differently, and are somewhat
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 9:07 PM Aleksei Bavshin
wrote:
>
(snip)
>
> `smallbitvec` deps are only needed for benchmark, so the test suite is
> actually passing without these. Should be safe to drop with metadata patch.
>
> rust-tiny_http 0.8.2 also has a benchmark-only dependency `fdlimit`
> which
On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 02:36:51PM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
...snip...
>
> In the context of rpm, there are two parts to this:
> * at build time, we compute the Merkle tree for the files within a
> package, then sign it and ship it as part of the rpm metadata;
This is some kind of seperate
On Thu, 2021-12-02 at 13:09 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 02:36:51PM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
> ...snip...
> >
> > In the context of rpm, there are two parts to this:
> > * at build time, we compute the Merkle tree for the files within a
> > package, then sign it and ship it
* Nico Kadel-Garcia:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 1:39 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to provide an ld.so command as part of glibc. Today, ld.so can
>> be used to activate preloading, for example. Compared to LD_PRELOAD,
>> the difference is that it's specific to one process, and won't be
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 1:39 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> I'd like to provide an ld.so command as part of glibc. Today, ld.so can
> be used to activate preloading, for example. Compared to LD_PRELOAD,
> the difference is that it's specific to one process, and won't be
> inherited by
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021, at 12:32 PM, Brian (bex) Exelbierd wrote:
> Also, how does this intersect with Fedora IoT and their desire to move
> to Imagebuilder?
I'd love for one of the team members there to comment on this. From the
FCOS side I can say there's interest in aligning CoreOS and Image
Good day everyone,
we (Anaconda team) have decided to migrate our old
anaconda-devel-l...@redhat.com mailing list under Fedora. This decision
was made to be closer to community and more discoverable in the Fedora
world.
The new mailing list will work the same way as the old one. If you have
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 5:07 PM Andreas Schneider wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I would like to compile the tree-sitter parser generating tool. For this rust-
> html-escape and rust-smallbitvec is missing in the distro. It would allow that
> you can add additional languages for highlighting in neovim.
>
>
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021, at 12:32 PM, Brian (bex) Exelbierd wrote:
>
> Also, how does this intersect with Fedora IoT and their desire to move
> to Imagebuilder?
Actually sorry you asked a specific question about IoT and I went off on a
larger tangent.
The simple answer is: everything in the
On 12/2/21 06:45, Nemanja Ivanovic wrote:
Hi Tom,
would it be OK to directly send you git hashes for patches we would like back
ported until the bugzilla transition completes?
Yes, that's fine.
-Tom
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 1:08 AM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev mailto:cfe-...@lists.llvm.org>>
I'd like to provide an ld.so command as part of glibc. Today, ld.so can
be used to activate preloading, for example. Compared to LD_PRELOAD,
the difference is that it's specific to one process, and won't be
inherited by subprocesses—something is that exactly what is needed.
There is also some
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 11:02 AM Jiri Konecny wrote:
>
> we (Anaconda team) have decided to migrate our old
> anaconda-devel-l...@redhat.com mailing list under Fedora. This decision
> was made to be closer to community and more discoverable in the Fedora
> world.
This is great, thank you!
> If
I am working on adding p4 language support to fedora.
One of its packages uses the orphaned python-nnpy.
Builds ok on rawhide, anyone mind if I adopt it ?
Tom
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
Hi,
Can someone please review these 3 package reviews? They are three Rust
crates packages;
two of them are re-reviews due to the crates being renamed:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1983160
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2007419 (crate renamed,
depends on 1983160's
On Thu, 2021-12-02 at 19:38 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I'd like to provide an ld.so command as part of glibc. Today, ld.so
> can
> be used to activate preloading, for example. Compared to LD_PRELOAD,
> the difference is that it's specific to one process, and won't be
> inherited by
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021, 5:33 PM Davide Cavalca via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-12-02 at 13:09 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 02:36:51PM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > ...snip...
> > >
> > > In the context of rpm, there are two parts to this:
> >
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 7:29 PM Reon Beon via devel
wrote:
>
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kernel/ no?
Upstream kernel git is gearing up to release 5.16-rc4, so it'd be
premature to bump to a version that doesn't exist yet.
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
I see it is not git, never mind. Thanks.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 7:27 PM Michel Alexandre Salim
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 07:10:32PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 2, 2021, 5:33 PM Davide Cavalca via devel <
> > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 2021-12-02 at 13:09 -0800, Kevin Fenzi
On 12/2/21 15:08, Sérgio Basto wrote:
I didn't understood . What is the difference for /lib64/ld-2.33.so or
/lib/ld-2.33.so ?
The lib64 one is 64-bit and the lib one is 32-bit.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe
On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 05:19:52PM +0100, Jiri Konecny wrote:
>
>
> Dne 01. 12. 21 v 1:10 Michel Alexandre Salim napsal(a):
> > On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 10:08:19AM -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 30 2021 at 10:57:37 AM -0500, Colin
> > > Walters
> > > wrote:
> > > >
I see mine crashing reasonably often in Problem Reporting. Any packages I
should install?
"The backtrace does not contain enough meaningful function frames to be
reported. It is annoying but it does not necessarily indicate a problem with
your computer. ABRT will not allow you to create a
On 12/2/21 6:46 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Could this be directly added to rpm instead of an external tool set?
I see you did. It helps to read the Change link... Sorry. :)
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kernel/ no?
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
On Thu, 2021-12-02 at 15:19 -0800, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 12/2/21 15:08, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > I didn't understood . What is the difference for /lib64/ld-2.33.so
> > or
> > /lib/ld-2.33.so ?
>
rephrasing my question :
What is the difference of /usr/bin/ld.so for /lib64/ld-2.33.so or
Hello,
On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 07:10:32PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2021, 5:33 PM Davide Cavalca via devel <
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2021-12-02 at 13:09 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 02:36:51PM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > >
I guess it is kernel-debug, I am going to try that.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
On 12/2/21 4:32 PM, Davide Cavalca via devel wrote:
There's support in robosignatory to ask to sign files (used for the
short lived IMA stuff), but I suspect it would need a new ability for
this.
Finally who is going to write this? Change owners?
Or do you expect robosignatory maintainers to do
Reon Beon via devel writes:
> I see mine crashing reasonably often in Problem Reporting. Any
> packages I should install?
>
> "The backtrace does not contain enough meaningful function frames to
> be reported. It is annoying but it does not necessarily indicate a
> problem with your computer.
On Friday, December 3, 2021 12:33:58 AM CET Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-12-02 at 15:19 -0800, Samuel Sieb wrote:
>
> > On 12/2/21 15:08, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> >
> > > I didn't understood . What is the difference for /lib64/ld-2.33.so
> > > or
> > > /lib/ld-2.33.so ?
> >
> >
>
>
>
On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 08:20:52PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Nico Kadel-Garcia:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 1:39 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>
> >> I'd like to provide an ld.so command as part of glibc.
+1.
> > That seems a horrible idea. The ".so" suffix indicates that it is a
> >
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/phoronix-test-suite/pull-request/3
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
I tried kernel-debug that didn't fix it, I will try debuginfo-install kernel
now.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
Dne 01. 12. 21 v 22:32 Sergio Belkin napsal(a):
Hi community,
Sorry for the OT.
I'd like to know your opinion based on current facts :)
Do you think that (Linux) Software RAID is still relevant in this "breve new
world" of cloud/devops ?
Thanks for your opinions :)
Yes! I do not even want
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-35-20211201.0):
ID: 1075768 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
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-34-20211201.0):
ID: 1075845 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 11:20:05PM +0100, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> On Monday, November 29, 2021 4:46:42 PM CET Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 04:38:26PM +0100, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 29, 2021 4:02:23 PM CET Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Nov
Dear all,
You are kindly invited to the meeting:
ELN SIG on 2021-12-03 from 12:00:00 to 13:00:00 US/Eastern
At fedora-meet...@irc.libera.chat
The meeting will be about:
Source: https://calendar.fedoraproject.org//meeting/10108/
___
devel
Sergio Belkin wrote:
> Do you think that (Linux) Software RAID is still relevant in this "breve
> new world" of cloud/devops ?
There are still some people who don't want some cloud to live their
life for them. If anything would make software RAID irrelevant, it
would be ZFS and BTRFS, not clouds
I'm debugging a rather difficult to diagnose build problem with edk2
in F36 rawhide.
The same srpm builds fine in F35 build roots, but fails in F36 build
roots with bizarre make errors. make appears to "loose" a bunch of
the rules in the makefile, despite them still actually existing when
I dump
Hey folks,
The Community Platform Engineering team from Red Hat will join us today for
the Fedora Social Hour call. This call would be slightly different from
usual ones – as this time we won’t be breaking any rules when you talk
$work (like always). We will have both, some from management and
* Daniel P. Berrangé:
>
> The same srpm builds fine in F35 build roots, but fails in F36 build
> roots with bizarre make errors. make appears to "loose" a bunch of
> the rules in the makefile, despite them still actually existing when
> I dump a copy of the makefile contents immediately before
* Daniel P. Berrangé:
> Basically I'd like to try a build in koji with each of the glibc
> versions in:
> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/glibc/2.34.9000/
> to see if any one of those was the trigger.
And to answer your question: “fedpkg request-side-tag”, and then “koji
tag” the
* Daniel P. Berrangé:
> Basically I'd like to try a build in koji with each of the glibc
> versions in:
> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/glibc/2.34.9000/
> to see if any one of those was the trigger.
And to answer your question: “fedpkg request-side-tag”, and then “koji
tag” the
Il giorno gio 2 dic 2021 alle ore 12:20 Björn Persson
ha scritto:
> But the licensing situation makes ZFS painful, and BTRFS seems to take
> forever to mature, so it should be expected that many people will choose
> software RAID
No The. ZFS licensing problems you mentioned have nothing to do
We're starting to approach Change proposal deadlines for Fedora Linux
36. Here are some key dates:
* Wed 2021-12-22 — Proposal deadline for Changes that require
infrastructure changes
* Tue 2021-12-28 — Proposal deadline for System-Wide Changes
* Tue 2021-12-28 — Proposal deadline for Changes
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021, at 11:33 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> A couple of things from my perspective:
>
> * I would like to see how this would enable CoreOS releases to go
> through Bodhi
To me, a notable chunk of the value of how we're doing FCOS is that
our build, test and release processes are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2028659
Bug ID: 2028659
Summary: perl-libwww-perl-6.59 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-libwww-perl
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Am 02.12.21 um 19:49 schrieb Carl George:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 1:32 PM Troy Dawson wrote:
In our last EPEL Steering Committee meeting, Carl brought up a new proposal for
our epel9 / epel9-next rollout. Sometimes IRC isn't the best way to explain
things like that, it got a little
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GnutlsAllowlisting
== Summary ==
Presently, crypto-policies controls GnuTLS in a way that
"hard-disables" select algorithms, leaving no option for the
applications using GnuTLS to reenable said algorithms back. We propose
switching to more future-proof
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FsVerityRPM
== Summary ==
Enable the use of fsverity for installed RPM files validation.
== Owners ==
* Name: [[User:Dcavalca|Davide Cavalca]], [[User:Borisb|Boris
Burkov]], [[User:Filbranden|Filipe Brandenburger]],
[[User:Salimma|Michel Alexandre
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 1:32 PM Troy Dawson wrote:
>
> In our last EPEL Steering Committee meeting, Carl brought up a new proposal
> for our epel9 / epel9-next rollout. Sometimes IRC isn't the best way to
> explain things like that, it got a little confusing. Carl and I had a good
> video
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2028698
Bug ID: 2028698
Summary: perl-MCE-1.876 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-MCE
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025845
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|stompclt-1.8-1.el8 |stompclt-1.8-1.el8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025616
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
Dear all,
In working to populate EPEL9 with packages we need at work that are
missing from Stream 9, I stumbled upon a gray area: C9S' iptables has
subpackages that are disabled by conditionals, and the delta between the
C9S package and the EPEL package is tiny, and I initially thought this
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
3 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-2413c1a726
seamonkey-2.53.10-2.el7
The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing
python-amqp-2.4.2-1.el7
The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
3 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-b9fd954bc5
seamonkey-2.53.10-2.el8
The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing
python-apprise-0.9.6-1.el8
Details about builds:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2009895
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-c5f01e0121 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=2025845
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version||stompclt-1.8-1.el8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025845
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|stompclt-1.8-1.el8 |stompclt-1.8-1.el8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025845
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|stompclt-1.8-1.el8 |stompclt-1.8-1.el8
On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 4:29 PM Leon Fauster via epel-devel
wrote:
>
> Am 02.12.21 um 19:49 schrieb Carl George:
> > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 1:32 PM Troy Dawson wrote:
> >>
> >> In our last EPEL Steering Committee meeting, Carl brought up a new
> >> proposal for our epel9 / epel9-next rollout.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2009895
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #5 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2009895
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|mspa...@redhat.com, |jples...@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2009895
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-8bd8a04c22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-8bd8a04c22
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2009895
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-c5f01e0121 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-c5f01e0121
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2028150
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2027884
Upstream Release Monitoring
changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|perl-HTML-Template-Pro-0.95
We're starting to approach Change proposal deadlines for Fedora Linux
36. Here are some key dates:
* Wed 2021-12-22 — Proposal deadline for Changes that require
infrastructure changes
* Tue 2021-12-28 — Proposal deadline for System-Wide Changes
* Tue 2021-12-28 — Proposal deadline for Changes
81 matches
Mail list logo
