On 15/04/2022 01:25, Nikolay Nikolov wrote:
At least on my computers, Gnome has never notified me about a BIOS
update from my motherboard vendor. Besides, it's proprietary software,
so I wouldn't expect Fedora to be offering it by default. Doesn't it
need adding an extra software repository?
OLD: Fedora-36-20220414.n.0
NEW: Fedora-36-20220415.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 14
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size
Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event
for Fedora 36 Branched 20220415.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
Hey Fabio!
> However, testing the fallback to OpenID, it does
> not work for me with bodhi.stg.fedoraproject.org
> Trying to access this login URL, I'm getting HTTP 500 / Internal
> Server Error responses from
> https://bodhi.stg.fedoraproject.org/dologin.html?openid=https%3A%2F%2Fid
> which
On 15/04/2022 03:51, Nikolay Nikolov wrote:
But I'm still surprised that Fedora by default downloads and updates
proprietary firmware, downloaded from the Internet.
1. Fedora itself doesn't download anything. The user must manually allow
installation of such update.
2. Vulnerable firmware is
On 15/04/2022 00:53, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Obviously this was for dual bios mode ( legacy and uefi ) ( otherwise
the option to disable it would not be there ) in which the vendor
himself seemingly decided to disable the legacy part of the bios via
firmware update which highlight the
On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 09:29:27PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> >That’s maybe true for desktops, but in the server world any server needs
> >to be able to do bios boot, because of the data center requirements.
> >
> Interesting I would assume that those data center requirements would
>
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> For example EU has regulation that requires vendors to have spare parts
> available for 7–10 years after date of manufacturing so it makes sense
> for the project to support hw no longer than a decade from the date of
> it's manufacturing.
I fail to imagine what
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> "In the bios, upgraded to 810 the option to enable legacy boot is greyed
> out"
>
> So how do people propose the situation to be handled when firmware from
> vendors, disables the legacy boot option via firmware update.
I haven't seen anyone arguing that Fedora
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 12:54 PM Aurelien Bompard
wrote:
>
> Hey Fabio!
>
> > However, testing the fallback to OpenID, it does
> > not work for me with bodhi.stg.fedoraproject.org
> > Trying to access this login URL, I'm getting HTTP 500 / Internal
> > Server Error responses from
> >
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 9/229 (x86_64), 11/161 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-36-20220414.n.0):
ID: 1226984 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_printing
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1226984
ID: 1227023 Test: x86_64
Hi,
> Initial test with a CD-R and an HP Compaq 8510w are mixed.
> It boots to GRUB, but it spins a long time blinking the HDD light displaying
> nothing but "Welcome to GRUB". It eventually spits out "failure reading
> sector 0x4f838 from 'hd31'."
'hd31' looks strange for HDD as well as for
On 4/13/22 6:52 PM, Brian C. Lane wrote:
A huge thanks to Thomas Schmitt for posting xorrisofs arguments :)
Here is a lorax PR switching to grub2 for BIOS and changing the layout
of the iso as described in his post:
https://github.com/weldr/lorax/pull/1226
And a Fedora 36 iso:
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 4/48 (x86_64)
ID: 1227621 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso gnome_text_editor
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1227621
ID: 1227642 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_live
URL:
> Am 15.04.2022 um 00:24 schrieb Nikolay Nikolov :
>
> If you want to deprecate legacy boot on new installs on UEFI-capable BIOS-es,
> that's another story. E.g. if the installer detects that the BIOS is modern
> (e.g. later than 2017-2018) and UEFI capable, but is running in legacy boot
>
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-34-20220414.0):
ID: 1226613 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2062562
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||p...@city-fan.org
--- Comment #3 from
The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
4 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-740d836cc1
cacti-1.2.20-1.el8 cacti-spine-1.2.20-1.el8
1 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-7aca455c41
pdns-4.6.2-1.el8
The
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2075768
Emmanuel Seyman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|bugzilla|Creating/Changing Bugs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2068943
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Fixed In
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2075839
Bug ID: 2075839
Summary: perl-Code-TidyAll-0.82 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Code-TidyAll
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2075768
Bug ID: 2075768
Summary: selecting the 'Component' at the end, cleares the
'Description'
Product: Fedora
Version: 35
Status: NEW
Component: bugzilla
22 matches
Mail list logo
