On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 7:08 AM Richard Hughes wrote:
>
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 at 11:20, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> wrote:
> > > and on its way out. As it ages, maintainability has decreased, and
> > > the status quo of maintaining both stacks in perpetuity is not viable
> > > for those
On 4/6/22 8:03 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
If you really have a need to reinstall such machine, you'll take the F36 image
and upgrade to F37+ and you should still be good.
With 100s - 1000s of of affected machines -- real & virtual -- still in
operation, with usable lifetimes of years-to-come,
Indeed, HP (now HPE) first introduced UEFI support to their ProLiant
servers in the Gen8 series, which I believe was around 2013. While I
think the previous G7 servers have reached the end of their support
lifecycle (but are probably still happily running in some places), UEFI
has indeed been
Dne 05. 04. 22 v 17:08 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:54 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DeprecateLegacyBIOS
== Summary ==
Make UEFI a hardware requirement for new Fedora installations on
platforms that support it (x86_64). Legacy BIOS support is
Hi Aurélien!
thanks for the hard work on the new Bodhi release!
I have a question on the non-interactive way of Bodhi authentication. I
understand that supporting OpenID is hard, but are there some other options
to support this workflow in the future?
A little bit of context:
* We, as a Packit
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 7:30 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 05/04/2022 16:52, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > Make UEFI a hardware requirement for new Fedora installations on
> > platforms that support it (x86_64). Legacy BIOS support is not
> > removed, but new non-UEFI installation is not
On 05/04/2022 16:52, Ben Cotton wrote:
Make UEFI a hardware requirement for new Fedora installations on
platforms that support it (x86_64). Legacy BIOS support is not
removed, but new non-UEFI installation is not supported on those
platforms. This is a first step toward eventually removing
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 7:14 AM John Boero wrote:
>
> I can fully understand why this would be done. As per the original
> discussion when Peter Robinson mentioned a Spin to deprecate BIOS, would
> anybody else be interested in helping with a Spin for legacy BIOS support? I
> agree with the
I can fully understand why this would be done. As per the original discussion
when Peter Robinson mentioned a Spin to deprecate BIOS, would anybody else be
interested in helping with a Spin for legacy BIOS support? I agree with the
e-waste comments and it seems a shame to trash some perfectly
On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 at 11:20, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> > and on its way out. As it ages, maintainability has decreased, and
> > the status quo of maintaining both stacks in perpetuity is not viable
> > for those currently doing that work.
> Have you tried getting more people
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 1:00 PM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
>
> Dne 08. 03. 22 v 19:40 Alexander Sosedkin napsal(a):
> > Hello, community, I need your wisdom for planning a disruptive change.
> >
> > Fedora 28 had https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/StrongCryptoSettings
> > Fedora 33 had
Dne 08. 03. 22 v 19:40 Alexander Sosedkin napsal(a):
Hello, community, I need your wisdom for planning a disruptive change.
Fedora 28 had https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/StrongCryptoSettings
Fedora 33 had https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/StrongCryptoSettings2
I believe we should
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 12:04 AM Gary Buhrmaster
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 12:59 AM Demi Marie Obenour
> wrote:
> >
> > On 4/5/22 19:38, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > > We either want users with NVIDIA hardware to be inside the Secure Boot
> > > fold or we don't. I want them in the fold
Hey everyone!
Bodhi 6.0 will be published in a few days, and deployed to production a
couple weeks after the Fedora release. It has backwards-incompatible
changes, here's what you need to know.
== Authentication ==
Bodhi gained support for OpenID Connect (OIDC) authentication, like most of
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20220405.n.2
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20220406.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 12
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size
On Tuesday, 05 April 2022 at 16:52, Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DeprecateLegacyBIOS
>
> == Summary ==
> Make UEFI a hardware requirement for new Fedora installations on
> platforms that support it (x86_64). Legacy BIOS support is not
> removed, but new non-UEFI
On Tue, 2022-04-05 at 22:34 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:04 PM Neal Gompa
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 11:01 PM Richard Shaw
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Google has failed me, how do I go about moving an existing build
> > into a side tag I just created?
> > >
> >
> >
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-34-20220405.0):
ID: 1212946 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 09:07:59AM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote:
V Mon, Apr 04, 2022 at 01:04:01AM +0200, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden napsal(a):
On Sun, Apr 03, 2022 at 10:47:45PM +0100, Ian McInerney via devel wrote:
> There hasn't been an update to the fedora-obsolete-packages package after
> the
Hi,
Here's the request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072115
Happy to review something in exchange.
Cheers,
--
Iñaki Úcar
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
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-35-20220405.0):
ID: 1212930 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2063934
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2071865
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-e63545a43c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e63545a43c
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2071865
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-1bbb291854 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-1bbb291854
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2071865
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2063934
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
I have no strong opinion on this, and not much say anyways, but I thought I
could share my little piece of info.
My currently one and only computer is a 2012 MSI GE60 0ND, with a core
i7-3630QM, 16GB RAM and retrofitted with a SSD.
So I would say fast enough for using Fedora. At least according
V Mon, Apr 04, 2022 at 01:04:01AM +0200, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden napsal(a):
> On Sun, Apr 03, 2022 at 10:47:45PM +0100, Ian McInerney via devel wrote:
> > There hasn't been an update to the fedora-obsolete-packages package after
> > the upgrade testing that was done last month in preparation
Forgot to reply to devel :)
On 4/5/22 22:54, Jaroslav Prokop wrote:
On 4/5/22 13:23, Ben Beasley wrote:
Thanks for updating these pages.
I noticed that the Flask and Django pages have language like:
Fedora includes a |python3-flask| package that you can install
and import. However,
101 - 129 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
