No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64), 1/7 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-33-20210105.0):
ID: 752235 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912587
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #2 from
Hi Kevin,
thanks for the HOWTO.
Some comments from trying it:
>
> git push
> (This pushes the new ‘main’ branch to pagure.io)
This should be:
git push --set-upstream origin main
> git push origin :master
> (This deletes the old ‘master’ branch)
git push origin :master
remote: Branch deletion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913160
Bug ID: 1913160
Summary: perl-Gnome2-VFS-1.084 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Gnome2-VFS
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913148
--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
the-new-hotness/release-monitoring.org's scratch build of
perl-TAP-Formatter-JUnit-0.12-1.fc32.src.rpm for rawhide failed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=59031725
--
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913148
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
Created attachment 1744792
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1744792=edit
[patch] Update to 0.12 (#1913148)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913148
Bug ID: 1913148
Summary: perl-TAP-Formatter-JUnit-0.12 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-TAP-Formatter-JUnit
Keywords:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913143
--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
the-new-hotness/release-monitoring.org's scratch build of
perl-Gnome2-GConf-1.047-1.fc32.src.rpm for rawhide completed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=59030670
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913143
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
Created attachment 1744791
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1744791=edit
[patch] Update to 1.047 (#1913143)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913143
Bug ID: 1913143
Summary: perl-Gnome2-GConf-1.047 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Gnome2-GConf
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2021/01/06/report-389-ds-base-1.4.4.9-1.fc33.x86_64.html
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913119
--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
the-new-hotness/release-monitoring.org's scratch build of
perl-RPC-XML-0.81-1.fc32.src.rpm for rawhide failed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=59024663
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913119
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
Created attachment 1744750
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1744750=edit
[patch] Update to 0.81 (#1913119)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913111
--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
the-new-hotness/release-monitoring.org's scratch build of
perl-Gnome2-1.048-1.fc32.src.rpm for rawhide completed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=59021716
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913111
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
Created attachment 1744742
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1744742=edit
[patch] Update to 1.048 (#1913111)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913111
Bug ID: 1913111
Summary: perl-Gnome2-1.048 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Gnome2
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1911534
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-0978de8d81 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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=1910811
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-82a9b15e0e has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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=1912662
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-596a590d8c has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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=1912612
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-b50706b7de has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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=1908211
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1911534
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #4 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910811
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #4 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912662
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #6 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912612
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #4 from
Ben Cotton wrote:
> == Summary ==
> We want to add signatures to individual files that are part of shipped
> RPMs. These signatures will use the Linux IMA (Integrity Measurement
> Architecture) scheme, which means they can be used to enforce runtime
> policies to ensure execution of only trusted
On 1/5/21 6:58 AM, Tom Stellard wrote:
On 11/30/20 2:06 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
Hi,
As part of the f34 change request[1] for removing make from the
buildroot, I will be doing a mass update of packages[2] to add
BuildRequires: make where it is needed.
If you are a package maintainer and
Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Rex Dieter wrote:
>> It's a linked library, so *yes*, rpmbuild will add it.
>
> Depends on whether the application links directly to libQt5Svg.so.5 or
> whether it uses it only through the plugin-based imageformats
In this context, for the software/package in
Per
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GitRepos-master-to-main#Phase0_-_2021-01-05
here's a short guide for any interested folks on how to change the
default branch in pagure.io projects:
Switching default branch from ‘master’ to ‘main’ on pagure.io
If you have an existing project using
Per
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GitRepos-master-to-main#Phase0_-_2021-01-05
here's a short guide for any interested folks on how to change the
default branch in pagure.io projects:
Switching default branch from ‘master’ to ‘main’ on pagure.io
If you have an existing project using
Hello Roberto,
- Original Message -
> From: "Roberto Ragusa"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2020 5:20:38 PM
> Subject: Re: gpg-agents all over the place
>
> On 12/23/20 1:56 PM, Oron Peled wrote:
>
> > More problematic, but possible.
> >
> > The key
On Tue, Jan 5, 2021, at 3:19 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> ... IMA seems to be pretty useless.
This is a complex and highly nuanced topic because IMA is both a mechanism and
a set of potential *policies* that one can use, and a whole lot depends on the
exact policy in use.
Like SELinux in that
On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 2:40 PM Robbie Harwood wrote:
>
> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek writes:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 03:19:16PM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/golang1.16
> >>
> >> == Summary ==
> >> Rebase of Golang package to upcoming version 1.16 in
* Peter Robinson:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 6:41 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
>>
>> * Ben Cotton:
>>
>> > During signing builds, the files in it will be signed with IMA
>> > signatures.. These signatures will be made with a key that’s kept by
>> > the Fedora Infrastructure team, and installed on the
On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 6:59 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:51 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 01:38:48PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > >
> > > While having IMA is nice, can we *please* have repodata signing too?
> >
> > Why? It gets us nothing really...
On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 6:41 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Ben Cotton:
>
> > During signing builds, the files in it will be signed with IMA
> > signatures.. These signatures will be made with a key that’s kept by
> > the Fedora Infrastructure team, and installed on the sign vaults.
>
> What is
On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 6:39 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:05 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Signed_RPM_Contents
> >
> > Note that this change was submitted after the deadline, but since it can be
> > shipped in an complete state, I am
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek writes:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 03:19:16PM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/golang1.16
>>
>> == Summary ==
>> Rebase of Golang package to upcoming version 1.16 in Fedora 34,
>
> No complaint about the Change, but...
> can we please
On Tue, 2021-01-05 at 08:49 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> To be blunt, I would have never done Zchunk metadata if it was going
> to be used as a tool to kill DeltaRPMs. I firmly believe we need both
> to have a comprehensive offering that accommodates the needs of
> Fedora users across the world.
Matthew Miller writes:
> Logs can accidentally contain sensitive data, and it's just plain
> faster to work with them when there's less. I propose we set this to
> something like six months by default.
If there are non-negligible speed impacts from large logs, this seems
like a problem with
On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:39 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:05 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Signed_RPM_Contents
> >
> > Note that this change was submitted after the deadline, but since it can be
> > shipped in an complete state, I am
On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 08:01:04PM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 05. 01. 21 v 19:44 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
> > On the next f33-updates push the entire process runs again. It never
> > _updates_ existing repos, it always creates them.
>
> Ahh. So this all worked when we run the the process
side-tag created for sundials-5.6.1:
$ koji list-tagged --latest f34-build-side-35531
Build Tag Built by
sundials-5.6.1-1.fc34
On Tue, 2021-01-05 at 18:18 +0100, Daniel Mach wrote:
> Dne 24. 12. 20 v 22:54 Matthew Almond via devel napsal(a):
> > Depends on how it got there, and what you asked for. Here's some
> > examples:
> >
> > 1. cp foo.rpm /var/cache/dnf//Packages/ && dnf install foo
> > ...will fail the librepo
On Tue, 2021-01-05 at 13:05 -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Signed_RPM_Contents
>
> Note that this change was submitted after the deadline, but since it
> can be shipped in an complete state, I am still processing it for
> Fedora 34.
>
>
> == Summary ==
> We
Dne 05. 01. 21 v 19:44 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
> On the next f33-updates push the entire process runs again. It never
> _updates_ existing repos, it always creates them.
Ahh. So this all worked when we run the the process once per week. But because
we run it every day now, the deltas are
minimal.
On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:51 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 01:38:48PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> >
> > While having IMA is nice, can we *please* have repodata signing too?
>
> Why? It gets us nothing really... adds complexity and issues.
>
And IMA has the same problem. IMA is
Dne 05. 01. 21 v 15:31 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
> Yet another reason why popcon would be useful.
https://github.com/xsuchy/popcon-for-fedora-old
Feel free to take it :)
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Associate Manager ABRT/Copr, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 01:38:48PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> While having IMA is nice, can we *please* have repodata signing too?
Why? It gets us nothing really... adds complexity and issues.
We would definiltey need to improve dnf's handling of signed repos
before we did at least.
kevin
On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 07:41:05PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Will GPLv3 packages be excluded, or will the signing keys be provided
> upon request?
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GiveUpKeys
Q: I use public key cryptography to sign my code to assure its
authenticity.
On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 09:49:59AM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 05. 01. 21 v 0:29 Matthew Miller napsal(a):
> > So, the first thing we need to do to fix this is move deltarpm creation out
> > of the updates process.
>
> Right.
>
> > Kevin Fenzi tells me this would mean we'd need a
> >
* Ben Cotton:
> During signing builds, the files in it will be signed with IMA
> signatures.. These signatures will be made with a key that’s kept by
> the Fedora Infrastructure team, and installed on the sign vaults.
What is the impact on RPM database size?
Will GPLv3 packages be excluded, or
On Tue, Jan 5, 2021, at 1:05 PM, Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Signed_RPM_Contents
There's a bunch of related discussion in
https://github.com/coreos/rpm-ostree/issues/1883
I think probably rather than having RPMs *also* include IMA signatures by
default it'd
On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:05 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Signed_RPM_Contents
>
> Note that this change was submitted after the deadline, but since it can be
> shipped in an complete state, I am still processing it for Fedora 34.
>
>
> == Summary ==
> We want to
On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 01:05:01PM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
> We want to add signatures to individual files that are part of shipped RPMs.
This is for _every file_ in every RPM? Or some files in some RPMs?
--
Matthew Miller
Fedora Project Leader
___
On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 12:26:45PM +0100, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
> What's the progress on this change? Is it going to land in one week? I
For src.fedoraproject.org yes. It's planned for next week.
(some pagure.io projects we control should go tomorrow (Phase1))
> just want to be sure that our
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Signed_RPM_Contents
Note that this change was submitted after the deadline, but since it can be
shipped in an complete state, I am still processing it for Fedora 34.
== Summary ==
We want to add signatures to individual files that are part of shipped RPMs.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Signed_RPM_Contents
Note that this change was submitted after the deadline, but since it can be
shipped in an complete state, I am still processing it for Fedora 34.
== Summary ==
We want to add signatures to individual files that are part of shipped RPMs.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1911534
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-9901d85b8d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9901d85b8d
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
Dne 05. 01. 21 v 0:50 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 06:29:13PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 10:21:15PM +, Matthew Almond via devel wrote:
There's been a lot of interesting talk about the state and future of
drpm. I'd like to propose we continue
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1911534
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-0978de8d81 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-0978de8d81
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1911534
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
Dne 24. 12. 20 v 22:54 Matthew Almond via devel napsal(a):
Depends on how it got there, and what you asked for. Here's some
examples:
1. cp foo.rpm /var/cache/dnf//Packages/ && dnf install foo
...will fail the librepo full file check, and it'll be re-
downloaded.
2. dnf install
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1911534
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 03:44:31PM +0100, Frédéric Pierret wrote:
> I'm using Redhat linux distribution family for more than 20 years so I
> guess it's time to propose my help into this community effort.
Welcome! Glad to have you here!
--
Matthew Miller
Fedora Project Leader
On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 3:46 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
> The metadata would also be much larger, and so would be the battery
> usage to recompress the payload. 8-(
And while the bandwidth reduction has value,
cpu and wallclock time to rebuild the rpm is
substantially increased for low end devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912934
Bug ID: 1912934
Summary: perl-Socket-2.031 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Socket
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910811
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-91c1f3a5f5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-91c1f3a5f5
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910811
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-82a9b15e0e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-82a9b15e0e
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
Am 05.01.21 um 16:01 schrieb Neal Gompa:
Welcome to Fedora, Frédéric! I'm looking forward to see efforts around
reproducible builds in Fedora. :)
+1 from me.
I think this is really on example where free software can really show its
strengths and if there is some easy tooling in Fedora to
Hi,
a bit later than what I expected (holidays are a busy time as well :-) ) I
will update armadillo to 10.1.0. This implies an so bump and so I will update
it in a side tag together with the dependent packages gdal and mlpack.
I intend to do this for rawhide, and later for Fedora 33 and 32.
This may be of interest to us as well...
-- Forwarded message -
From: Ludwig Nussel
Date: Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 11:03 AM
Subject: Thoughts on the file system layout
To:
Hi,
While working on MicroOS, UsrMerge, UsrEtc, playing with systemd
features I was wondering where that
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910811
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910811
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912831
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1911305
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
* Matthew Miller:
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 11:30:10AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> > I also remember when this was a killer feature for Fedora, and without any
>> > real way of judging use and demand, I'm hesitant to kill it off.
>>
>> Is it really saving bandwidth, though? The reported
On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 11:30:10AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > I also remember when this was a killer feature for Fedora, and without any
> > real way of judging use and demand, I'm hesitant to kill it off.
>
> Is it really saving bandwidth, though? The reported savings are
> generally very
I took python-orderedset.
On 12/30/20 4:41 PM, Jerry James wrote:
> I maintain packages that used to BR the packages in $SUBJECT, but with
> their latest versions no longer do. I'm orphaning these packages. If
> you need them, please pick them up.
>
Welcome Frédéric!
On Tue, 2021-01-05 at 15:44 +0100, Frédéric Pierret wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My name is Frédéric and you can reach me on Github as "fepitre" (
> https://github.com/fepitre).
>
> I'm currently a member of Qubes OS (https://github.com/QubesOS) core
> team since 2016. In this project, my
On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 06:28:22PM +0800, Qiyu Yan wrote:
> Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
> 于2020年12月31日周四 下午6:12写道：
> >
> > On 30.12.2020 20:53, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > > This change makes the GRUB configuration files layout to be consistent
> > > across all the supported architectures. Currently EFI
On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 9:45 AM Frédéric Pierret
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> My name is Frédéric and you can reach me on Github as "fepitre"
> (https://github.com/fepitre).
>
> I'm currently a member of Qubes OS (https://github.com/QubesOS) core team
> since 2016. In this project, my work consists in
On Tue, 5 Jan 2021 at 03:50, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 05. 01. 21 v 0:29 Matthew Miller napsal(a):
> > So, the first thing we need to do to fix this is move deltarpm creation
> out
> > of the updates process.
>
> Right.
>
> > Kevin Fenzi tells me this would mean we'd need a
> > separate delta
On 11/30/20 2:06 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
Hi,
As part of the f34 change request[1] for removing make from the
buildroot, I will be doing a mass update of packages[2] to add
BuildRequires: make where it is needed.
If you are a package maintainer and would prefer to update your packages
on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912831
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions
changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|robinlee.s...@gmail.com
On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 06:29:13PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> I also remember when this was a killer feature for Fedora, and without any
> real way of judging use and demand, I'm hesitant to kill it off. But that's
> definitely plan B. We can point people who are in low-bandwidth situations
>
Hi,
My name is Frédéric and you can reach me on Github as "fepitre"
(https://github.com/fepitre).
I'm currently a member of Qubes OS (https://github.com/QubesOS) core team since
2016. In this project, my work consists in releasing (building, packaging,
testing or continuous integration) the
Hi,
> we aren't making very many, which makes them even less useful. Plus, we're
> only making them between updates and for packages where those updates are
> frequent, that means you need to keep on top of things, which may be best
> practice but is most difficult for low-bandwidth users who
On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 08:49:20AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 8:34 AM Colin Walters wrote:
> > Now speaking of deltas - really delta implementations are going to benefit
> > from a stronger "cadence" to releases, exactly much like what we do for
> > CoreOS (but not
Once upon a time, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek said:
> #2517 F34 Change: ntp replacement
> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2517
> APPROVED (+5, 0, 0)
I changed my stratum 1 server from ntpd to chronyd+ntp-refclock... had a
few small bumps to figure out (getting the NTP, PPS, and chrony services
Dear maintainers.
Based on the current fail to build from source policy, the following packages
will be retired from Fedora 34 approximately one week before branching (February
2021).
Policy:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/
Note that
Dear maintainers.
Based on the current fail to build from source policy, the following packages
will be retired from Fedora 34 approximately one week before branching (February
2021).
Policy:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/
Note that
On 05. 01. 21 15:07, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
#2525 Updates Policy exception for black (python-black)
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2525
APPROVED (+4, 0, 0)
Upgraded black is in bodhi:
F33: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-a453d7234b
F32:
On 05. 01. 21 15:07, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
#2525 Updates Policy exception for black (python-black)
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2525
APPROVED (+4, 0, 0)
Upgraded black is in bodhi:
F33: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-a453d7234b
F32:
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the
FESCo meeting Wednesday at 15:00UTC in #fedora-meeting-2 on
irc.freenode.net.
To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto
or run:
date -d '2021-01-06 15:00 UTC'
Links to all issues to
On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 8:34 AM Colin Walters wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2021, at 6:29 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> >
> > I also remember when this was a killer feature for Fedora, and without any
> > real way of judging use and demand, I'm hesitant to kill it off. But that's
> > definitely plan
On Mon, Jan 4, 2021, at 6:29 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> I also remember when this was a killer feature for Fedora, and without any
> real way of judging use and demand, I'm hesitant to kill it off. But that's
> definitely plan B. We can point people who are in low-bandwidth situations
> at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910970
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1890590
Bug 1890590 depends on bug 1890585, which changed state.
Bug 1890585 Summary: EPEL8 Request: perl-AnyEvent-AIO
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1890585
What|Removed |Added
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1890585
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
