On 6/26/23 12:00, Aoife Moloney wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/AnacondaWebUIforFedoraWorkstation
>
> This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
> process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
> community feedback. This proposal will only be
On Jun 24, 2023, at 8:05 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 24 2023 at 08:53:32 AM -0500, Chris Adams
> wrote:
>>> Is it? At one point, there were considerable gaps in security
>>> updates;
>> RHEL 9.x would get an update while CentOS Stream 9 (as the target for
>> RHEL 9.[x+1])
On Sun, Jul 2 2023 at 06:27:48 PM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour
wrote:
What about stuff that is too urgent to wait on Red Hat QA? There have
been vulnerabilities (such as CVE-2013-0156 and Log4Shell) for which
unauthenticated, fully automated, remote code execution exploits have
been found very,
Myself and a few others over in Amazon Linux land have been musing for a while
about possible improvements that could be done in Fedora to help make Fedora
and downstream distributions (such as CentOS Stream and Amazon Linux) have an
easier and simpler time having their individual opinionated
> On Jun 22, 2023, at 2:01 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> ELN is a build of (some) Fedora packages with EL-specific options, so
>>> it requires Fedora.
>> ELN can exist off an internal non fedora tree. Just depends who is
>> updating the tree.
>
> Sure, but... that's the _opposite_ of
On Sun, Jul 2, 2023 at 10:27 PM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> Peter Robinson wrote:
> > Assuming those "binary compatible distributions" choose to add
> > LibreOffice back in and support it, given what they actually do in
> > terms of actual development it's actually pretty unlikely they're
>
On Sun, Jul 2 2023 at 09:53:30 PM +, "Smith, Stewart via devel"
wrote:
With this development model, what is the thought for those who may
want to / be able to submit pull requests to CentOS Stream with
security fixes?
It really depends. CentOS Stream does accept merge requests. With
On Sun, Jul 2 2023 at 08:33:46 AM -0700, Carlos Rodriguez-Fernandez
wrote:
Hi Michael,
We have been told repeatedly that "the source is there" in CentOS
stream.
The source for the next minor version is there.
I can see the scenario that RH branches from CentOS stream to
create a new
In this case, OpenCOLLADA can be retired on Rawhide as Blender no longer
explicitely requires it for building.
On 2023-06-29 8:02 p.m., Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
Richard Shaw wrote:
> If anyone wants to take it over let me know otherwise I plan to retire
> early next week.
The right
On Sun, Jul 2 2023 at 04:59:39 PM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour
wrote:
Fedora Flatpaks are also a security disaster: they are shipped in OCI
format instead of OSTree format, but they aren’t signed by anyone.
I’ve disabled the Fedora remote and recommend that others do the
same.
I didn't
On 7/2/23 19:28, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 2 2023 at 04:59:39 PM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour
> wrote:
>>>
>> Fedora Flatpaks are also a security disaster: they are shipped in OCI
>> format instead of OSTree format, but they aren’t signed by anyone.
>> I’ve disabled the Fedora remote
Peter Robinson wrote:
> Assuming those "binary compatible distributions" choose to add
> LibreOffice back in and support it, given what they actually do in
> terms of actual development it's actually pretty unlikely they're
> going to do all the extra work to add back an office suite and all the
>
On 6/3/23 08:42, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 3 2023 at 10:26:07 AM -, John Iliopoulos
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> While i completely understand why you do this i do think that it is
>> important for desktop/workstation oriented devices to have some
>> optional access to Office
On 6/27/23 05:00, Simon de Vlieger wrote:
> On 6/27/23 10:40, Hans de Goede wrote:
>
> > Ok, so can you provide some instructions for how to make this work ?
> I guess it would be something like add the cmdline option + then start
> some systemd unit ? Can you please put some instructions for
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20230701.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20230702.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:3
Dropped images: 2
Added packages: 1
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 39
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 14.01 KiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
l...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
> In this case, OpenCOLLADA can be retired on Rawhide as Blender no longer
> explicitely requires it for building.
That by itself is not a reason for fast-track retiring the library.
Kevin Kofler
___
devel mailing
Peter Robinson wrote:
> Someone doing work in EPEL is quite a bit different to my point of a
> corporate organisation downstream of RHEL adding value and
> differentiation that Red Hat doesn't provide as part of RHEL.
The discussion was about people being able or unable to obtain the
LibreOffice
On 6/24/23 11:05, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 24 2023 at 08:53:32 AM -0500, Chris Adams
> wrote:
>>> Is it? At one point, there were considerable gaps in security
>>> updates;
>> RHEL 9.x would get an update while CentOS Stream 9 (as the target for
>> RHEL 9.[x+1]) didn't get a
On 7/2/23 08:56, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
On 01/07/2023 14:28, Peter Robinson wrote:
This sort of comment is off topic, various companies are free to do
with their data as they wish, just as you are free to do with it as
you please.
This is not offtopic. What I mean is that a
On 02/07/2023 10:51, Simon de Vlieger wrote:
The suppliers for these enterprise distributions and the support they
offer also abide by political lines.
Indeed. That's why having RHEL repacks (Alma, Rocky, Oracle Linux) is good.
While your data won't be gone in an instant you still end up in
On Sun, Jul 2, 2023 at 11:01 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 02/07/2023 10:51, Simon de Vlieger wrote:
> > The suppliers for these enterprise distributions and the support they
> > offer also abide by political lines.
>
> Indeed. That's why having RHEL repacks (Alma, Rocky, Oracle
On 01/07/2023 14:28, Peter Robinson wrote:
This sort of comment is off topic, various companies are free to do
with their data as they wish, just as you are free to do with it as
you please.
This is not offtopic. What I mean is that a distribution targeted at
enterprise use should have a
Hi,
On 6/28/23 09:43, Miro Hrončok wrote:
If you see a package that was built, please let me know.
If you see a package that should be exempted from the process,
please let me know and we can work together to get a FESCo approval
for that.
If you see a package that can be rebuilt, please do
On Fri, Jun 30 2023 at 11:09:41 AM -0700, Carlos Rodriguez-Fernandez
wrote:
Going forward, you will see those patches contributions going into
Centos stream first, and they will be accepted by RH engineers, and
then
they will end up in CentOS Stream distro first, and finally in RHEL.
Just
On Fri, Jun 30 2023 at 05:40:33 AM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
So Red Hat is essentially killing all work on desktop packages, not
just on
LibreOffice?
No. Losing Bastien is extremely unfortunate and demoralizing, but we
are not killing all work on desktop packages.
Michael
Hi Michael,
We have been told repeatedly that "the source is there" in CentOS
stream. I can see the scenario that RH branches from CentOS stream to
create a new minor release, and during QA, a bug is discovered and a
patch is backported (or created) to fix it internally in your minor
release
Hi there
in one of my recent builds, I came across this error on i686 [1].
Transaction test succeeded.
Running transaction
warning: /etc/hosts created as /etc/hosts.rpmnew
Error unpacking rpm package shadow-utils-2:4.13-7.fc39.i686
error: unpacking of archive failed on file
Perfect!
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rst2pdf/pull-request/2
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
On 02/07/2023 17:51, Matthias Runge wrote:
Hi there
in one of my recent builds, I came across this error on i686 [1].
Transaction test succeeded.
Running transaction
warning: /etc/hosts created as /etc/hosts.rpmnew
Error unpacking rpm package shadow-utils-2:4.13-7.fc39.i686
error: unpacking
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2219205
Bug ID: 2219205
Summary: perl-Module-CoreList-5.20230520 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Module-CoreList
Keywords:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2219232
Bug ID: 2219232
Summary: perl-Lingua-EN-Fathom-1.24 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Lingua-EN-Fathom
Keywords: FutureFeature,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2219204
Bug ID: 2219204
Summary: perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20230703 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases
Keywords:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2219128
Bug ID: 2219128
Summary: perl-DBIx-Connector-0.59 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-DBIx-Connector
Keywords: FutureFeature,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2219128
--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
Created attachment 1973713
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1973713=edit
Update to 0.59 (#2219128)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2219128
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
Scratch build failed. Details below:
BuilderException: Build failed:
Command '['rpmbuild', '-D', '_sourcedir .', '-D', '_topdir .', '-bs',
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2219122
Bug ID: 2219122
Summary: perl-Statistics-Descriptive-3.0801 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Statistics-Descriptive
Keywords:
36 matches
Mail list logo
