On 9/21/20 12:25 AM, Marcin Zajączkowski wrote:
Hi. There is an ongoing problem with conflicting build-ids in chromium
and chromium-freeworld [1][2]:
Error: Transaction test error:
file /usr/lib/.build-id/61/91aba223f60784c4a2fb95cdedcedc97217e5b from
install of
The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
12 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-0214580ca4
mbedtls-2.16.8-1.el8
10 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-c5ced83bcc
seamonkey-2.53.4-1.el8
3
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
768 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-3c9292b62d
condor-8.6.11-1.el7
507 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-bc0182548b
bubblewrap-0.3.3-2.el7
15
https://github.com/389ds/389-ds-base/pull/4328
Reminder to review this please :)
—
Sincerely,
William Brown
Senior Software Engineer, 389 Directory Server
SUSE Labs, Australia
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
Hi. There is an ongoing problem with conflicting build-ids in chromium
and chromium-freeworld [1][2]:
> Error: Transaction test error:
> file /usr/lib/.build-id/61/91aba223f60784c4a2fb95cdedcedc97217e5b from
> install of chromium-freeworld-85.0.4183.102-1.fc32.x86_64 conflicts with file
> from
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2020/09/20/report-389-ds-base-1.4.4.4-20200916gitf9638bb.fc32.x86_64.html
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
On 20/09/2020 21:16, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 11:07 AM Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Does Btrfs have any mechanism to help manage ERC settings in the drives
>> or is there any desire for Fedora to help users do this?
>
> File systems have nothing do with SCT ERC or the
Hi Everyone,
Below is this week's CPE weekly for week ending 2020-09-20.
I found that if you want to skip to the hackmd, you can use the view
link https://hackmd.io/8iV7PilARSG68Tqv8CzKOQ?view and then use the
header bar on your left to skip to either the Fedora or CentOS
updates, whichever
On Sunday, September 20, 2020 8:52:21 PM CEST Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 07:11:29PM +0200, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > After upgrade of one of my servers to F33, I noticed that I can not ssh to
> > one of my other servers running Debian 9 system (relatively freshly EOLed,
> > I need
On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 11:07 AM Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
>
>
> Does Btrfs have any mechanism to help manage ERC settings in the drives
> or is there any desire for Fedora to help users do this?
File systems have nothing do with SCT ERC or the SCSI command timer.
There's no mechanism at all.
>
On 20. 09. 20 20:45, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
But also because it doesn't really make sense to me. I can imagine a case
when a bug in Fedora N can be fixed by adding a new package (for example
when we accidentally introduce a new dependency) and I don't understand why
Wouldn't that be caught in
On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 5:39 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 5:48 AM Daniel Pocock wrote:
> >
> >
> > I noticed another thread about subvolumes already exists, I'm starting
> > this one for the very specific topic of installing multiple root
> > filesystems as subvolumes
> >
> >
On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 07:11:29PM +0200, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> After upgrade of one of my servers to F33, I noticed that I can not ssh to
> one of my other servers running Debian 9 system (relatively freshly EOLed,
> I need to do something about it). On F33 I always need to:
>
> $ ssh
On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 03:11:39PM -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 5:03 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020, 17:03 Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> So, my question is: Should we fix the document to describe the long
> >> standing
> >> practice more
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 11:02:26PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Hello,
>
> As many of you know, Fedora has an EOL policy that roughly tl;drs to:
>
> "Fedora N goes to End of Life 4 weeks after Fedora N+2 Final Release (GA)."
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Life_Cycle
>
> The
The build was successfully as tested:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=51905588
Patch submitted to upstream:
https://github.com/LuxCoreRender/LuxCore/issues/449
--
Luya Tshimbalanga
Fedora Design Team
Fedora Design Suite maintainer
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 11:28:10AM -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 9:36 AM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 09:18:17AM -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
> > ...snip...
> > >
> > > When a maintainer is done with their package in playground, they must
> > > untag all
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 09:54:00PM -0500, Carl George wrote:
> At the EPEL Steering Committee last week, we had an extensive discussion of
> this proposal, specifically focused on how to handle the dist macro. I
> believe these are the possible choices.
>
> * keep dist the same as epel8 (.el8)
>
On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 3:48 AM Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
>
> I noticed another thread about subvolumes already exists, I'm starting
> this one for the very specific topic of installing multiple root
> filesystems as subvolumes
>
> Examples: Fedora 33 in one subvolume, Fedora rawhide in another
>
On 2020-09-20 4:49 a.m., Richard Shaw wrote:
On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 8:27 PM Luya Tshimbalanga
mailto:l...@fedoraproject.org>> wrote:
Thanks for quick response. The suggestion seems to work.
Unfortunately, the build failed on openvdb (either using the
bundled and 7.1.0 version)
On 9/20/20 10:11 AM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
I'm curious about the effects of the change. It claims that RSA 2048 >= should
stay accepted by DEFAULT, and from what I can tell the host server key seems to
be RSA 2048 (at least that's what is generated by default on Debian 9):
$ ssh-keygen -l
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880859
Bug ID: 1880859
Summary: perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20200920 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases
Keywords:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2020 at 13:12, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> After upgrade of one of my servers to F33, I noticed that I can not ssh to
> one of my other servers running Debian 9 system (relatively freshly EOLed,
> I need to do something about it). On F33 I always need to:
>
> $ ssh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880857
Bug ID: 1880857
Summary: perl-Module-CoreList-5.20200920 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Module-CoreList
Keywords:
After upgrade of one of my servers to F33, I noticed that I can not ssh to
one of my other servers running Debian 9 system (relatively freshly EOLed,
I need to do something about it). On F33 I always need to:
$ ssh -oPubkeyAcceptedKeyTypes=+ssh-rsa user@debian-9-host
The changes in Fedora
Does Btrfs have any mechanism to help manage ERC settings in the drives
or is there any desire for Fedora to help users do this?
I've typically used rc.local to check the settings on drives used in md
or btrfs arrays, e.g.
DISKS="/dev/sda /dev/sdb"
echo -n "smartctl: Trying to enable SCTERC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880852
--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
the-new-hotness/release-monitoring.org's scratch build of
perl-HTTP-CookieJar-0.010-1.fc32.src.rpm for rawhide completed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=51900377
--
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880852
Bug ID: 1880852
Summary: perl-HTTP-CookieJar-0.010 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-HTTP-CookieJar
Keywords: FutureFeature,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880852
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
Created attachment 1715469
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1715469=edit
[patch] Update to 0.010 (#1880852)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880850
Bug ID: 1880850
Summary: perl-libwww-perl-6.48 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-libwww-perl
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 2/16 (x86_64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-IoT-33-20200919.0):
ID: 672309 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_zezere_server
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/672309
ID: 672312 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 1/181 (x86_64)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-33-20200919.n.0):
ID: 672194 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_postinstall
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/672194
Soft failed openQA tests: 9/181 (x86_64)
On 20. 09. 20 15:07, Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote:
I have now orphaned vdr-skinsoppalusikka, because I don't have a
working VDR installation anymore. If someone has the ability, my user
(vpv) can be dropped from the packages vdr, vdr-epgsearch, vdr-femon
and vdr-osdteletext.
Done.
--
Miro Hrončok
Hi all,
As some of you may have noticed, I have been away from Fedora
packaging for quite a while. I've been hoping to find the time for
packaging work, but it hasn't happened. In hindsight, I should have
let the project know earlier.
I have now orphaned vdr-skinsoppalusikka, because I don't
OLD: Fedora-33-20200919.n.0
NEW: Fedora-33-20200920.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
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
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 2/16 (x86_64)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-34-20200919.0):
ID: 672059 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_zezere_server
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/672059
ID: 672062 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso
On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 8:27 PM Luya Tshimbalanga
wrote:
> Thanks for quick response. The suggestion seems to work. Unfortunately,
> the build failed on openvdb (either using the bundled and 7.1.0 version)
> while working fine on Fedora 32.
>
>
No missing expected images.
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
3 of 43 required tests failed, 4 results missing
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
below
Failed openQA tests: 10/181 (x86_64)
New failures (same test not failed in
No missing expected images.
Passed openQA tests: 7/7 (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
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20200919.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20200920.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 1
Dropped packages:2
Upgraded packages: 124
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 130.53 KiB
Size of dropped packages
> If anybody wants to try their kernel with a different page size, for
> example, using ppc64el with the 4k page size instead of 64k
>
> - are there any packages in a standard installation that should be
> recompiled?
No, there's no recompile needed, in the early aarch64 days there was
but we
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-32-20200918.0):
ID: 671734 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
If anybody wants to try their kernel with a different page size, for
example, using ppc64el with the 4k page size instead of 64k
- are there any packages in a standard installation that should be
recompiled?
- before recompiling anything, should we recompile any build tools, such
as gcc, on
On Sun, 20 Sep 2020 at 03:27, Luya Tshimbalanga
wrote:
> On 2020-09-19 1:32 p.m., Andy Mender wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2020 at 22:27, Richard Shaw wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 3:16 PM Luya Tshimbalanga
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello team,
>>>
>>> openvdb is updated to 7.1.0 in Rawhide and
44 matches
Mail list logo
