Missing expected images:
Minimal raw-xz armhfp
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
1 of 43 required tests failed
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
below
Failed openQA tests: 12/231 (x86_64), 15/161 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed
hi,
could someone kindly tell me if my toshiba l750 machine has EFI support?
i'm blind and efi/bios screens are in accessible.
Majid
> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2022 at 6:03 am
> From: "Gary Buhrmaster"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Subject: Re: F37 Change:
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 *despite* the driver that
> > needs signing is proprietary. That's a better
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?
> >
>
> koji tag-build
>
Thanks, there's so many options in koji I wasn't sure
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?
>
koji tag-build
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
___
devel mailing list --
Google has failed me, how do I go about moving an existing build into a
side tag I just created?
Thanks,
RIchard
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20220404.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20220405.n.2
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 14
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 150
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 4.51 MiB
Size of dropped packages
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 9:07 PM Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
>
> On 4/5/22 16:09, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 3:38 PM Adam Jackson wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 3:15 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> >>
> >>> We also lack solutions for dealing with the NVIDIA driver in
> >>>
> On 4/5/22 19:38, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > Apple and Microsoft signing NVIDIA's proprietary driver doesn't at all
> > indicate Apple and Microsoft trust the driver itself. It is trusting
> > the providence of the blob, in order to achieve an overall safer
> > ecosystem for their users.
On 4/5/22 16:09, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 3:38 PM Adam Jackson wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 3:15 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>>
>>> We also lack solutions for dealing with the NVIDIA driver in
>>> UEFI+Secure Boot case. Are you planning to actually *fix* that now?
>>> Because
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 8:59 PM Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
>
> On 4/5/22 19:38, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 3:08 PM Jared Dominguez wrote:
> >
> >> The security of UEFI systems is immeasurably better. Standardized firmware
> >> updates, support for modern secure TPMs, OS
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 6:55 PM Jared Dominguez wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 8:51 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 8:54 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
>> > Legacy BIOS support is not
>> > removed, but new non-UEFI installation is not supported on those
>> > platforms. This is
On 4/5/22 19:38, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 3:08 PM Jared Dominguez wrote:
>
>> The security of UEFI systems is immeasurably better. Standardized firmware
>> updates, support for modern secure TPMs, OS protection from firmware (SMM
>> mitigations), HTTP(S) boot support,
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 8:51 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 8:54 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
> > 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 legacy
> > BIOS support
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 8:54 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
> 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 legacy
> BIOS support entirely.
What is the distinction between "support is not removed"
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 7:39 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 3:08 PM Jared Dominguez wrote:
>
> > The security of UEFI systems is immeasurably better. Standardized
> firmware updates, support for modern secure TPMs, OS protection from
> firmware (SMM mitigations), HTTP(S) boot
Those figures are recommended minimums, not requirements. I have a single core
F35 machine which works fine.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 3:08 PM Jared Dominguez wrote:
> The security of UEFI systems is immeasurably better. Standardized firmware
> updates, support for modern secure TPMs, OS protection from firmware (SMM
> mitigations), HTTP(S) boot support, largely shared and open sourced firmware
>
Hi
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 6:59 PM Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> > Current owners plan to orphan some packages regardless of whether the
> > proposal is accepted.
>
> And that is completely unacceptable blackmailing.
>
Blackmail is always conditional. Stating openly that someone is going to
do
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 installation is not supported on those
On 4/5/22 15:58, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 11:18 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
>> While this will eventually reduce workload for boot/installation
>> components (grub2 reduces surface area, syslinux goes away entirely,
>> anaconda reduces surface area), the reduction in support
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 8:50 AM Chris Adams wrote:
>
> Once upon a time, Colin Walters said:
> > Ah but with a 512M disk I do get 256 bit inodes, I bet that's the
> > difference.
>
> It comes from /etc/mke2fs.conf... kind of. Below 512M, mke2fs chooses
> to use the "small" config from there,
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 8:27 AM Colin Walters wrote:
> Or, maybe it's an Anaconda thing to override it?
I don't think so (from Workstation edition installation)
# grep mke2 /var/log/anaconda/storage.log
INFO:program:Running... mke2fs -t ext4 /dev/vda2
INFO:program:b'mke2fs 1.46.5 (30-Dec-2021)'
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 3:42 PM Gregory Bartholomew
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 3:51 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 11:47 AM Gregory Bartholomew
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I haven't done a "default" Fedora Server installation in a long time, so
>> > I'm not sure how they are
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 5:46 PM Richard Shaw wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 12:31 PM Tom Hughes via devel
> wrote:
==
>> Is it actually true though? You need to be able to find some space
>> for an EFI partition but assuming that can be done is there some
>> other reason you can't migrate
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 3:51 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 11:47 AM Gregory Bartholomew
> wrote:
>
> > I haven't done a "default" Fedora Server installation in a long time, so
> I'm not sure how they are laid out. But I seem to remember /boot being a
> separate partition for a
On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 07:05:24PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 10:16:01AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 06:10:03PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 10:07:39AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Apr 01, 2022
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 4:10 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 3:38 PM Adam Jackson wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 3:15 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> >
> > > We also lack solutions for dealing with the NVIDIA driver in
> > > UEFI+Secure Boot case. Are you planning to actually *fix*
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 11:47 AM Gregory Bartholomew
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 12:39 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>>
>> Fedora Server users *must* fully reinstall, because there's no way to
>> make space for an ESP and reconfigure things.
>
>
> I haven't done a "default" Fedora Server
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 11:31 AM Tom Hughes via devel
wrote:
>
> On 05/04/2022 15:52, Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> > * There is no migration story from Legacy BIOS to UEFI -
> > repartitioning effectively mandates a reinstall. As a result, we
> > don’t drop support for existing Legacy BIOS systems yet,
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 4:28 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 9:56 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
> >
> > * Peter Robinson:
> >
> > > This is out of context here because you can disable Secure Boot but
> > > still use UEFI to make that work. You're trying to link to different
> > >
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 9:56 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Peter Robinson:
>
> > This is out of context here because you can disable Secure Boot but
> > still use UEFI to make that work. You're trying to link to different
> > problems together.
>
> I think there's firmware out there which enables
Chris Murphy writes:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 8:54 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
>> Fedora already requires a 2GHz dual core CPU at minimum (and therefore
>> mandates that machines must have been made after 2006).
>
> Where do we require this? I see only one location for such minimums:
>
>
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 8:54 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
> Fedora already requires a 2GHz dual core CPU at minimum (and therefore
> mandates that machines must have been made after 2006).
Where do we require this? I see only one location for such minimums:
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 4:01 PM Sebastian Crane wrote:
> If the installation media can not install onto BIOS-only machines yet
> all the bootloader stages support BIOS, then there will be an awkward
> stage where some existing Fedora installations can be upgraded, but if
> anything goes wrong
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 1:18 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 not
> removed, but new non-UEFI
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 3:38 PM Adam Jackson wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 3:15 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> > We also lack solutions for dealing with the NVIDIA driver in
> > UEFI+Secure Boot case. Are you planning to actually *fix* that now?
> > Because we still don't have a way to have
I frequently use BIOS-only machines which don't have a UEFI boot option
- and one of those machines is indeed running Fedora! Certainly, I
understand that there are better ways of booting systems now, but for
the time being BIOS is still very important.
If the installation media can not install
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 11:18 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
> While this will eventually reduce workload for boot/installation
> components (grub2 reduces surface area, syslinux goes away entirely,
> anaconda reduces surface area), the reduction in support burden
> extends much further into the stack -
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 3:15 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> We also lack solutions for dealing with the NVIDIA driver in
> UEFI+Secure Boot case. Are you planning to actually *fix* that now?
> Because we still don't have a way to have kernel-only keyrings for
> secure boot certificates to avoid importing
On 4/5/22 15:09, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 3:06 PM Demi Marie Obenour
> wrote:
>>
>> On 4/5/22 13:38, Neal Gompa wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 1:31 PM Tom Hughes via devel
>>> wrote:
On 05/04/2022 15:52, Ben Cotton wrote:
> * There is no migration story
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 3:06 PM Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
>
> On 4/5/22 13:38, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 1:31 PM Tom Hughes via devel
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 05/04/2022 15:52, Ben Cotton wrote:
> >>
> >>> * There is no migration story from Legacy BIOS to UEFI -
> >>>
On 4/5/22 13:38, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 1:31 PM Tom Hughes via devel
> wrote:
>>
>> On 05/04/2022 15:52, Ben Cotton wrote:
>>
>>> * There is no migration story from Legacy BIOS to UEFI -
>>> repartitioning effectively mandates a reinstall. As a result, we
>>> don’t drop
Akamai owns Linode, which is a prominent VPS that focuses on Linux
(Linode is a contraction meaning "Linux Node").
+1
DigitalOcean similarly is Linux centric and so Windows doesn't matter.
+1
Most web hosting providers and VPSes are Linux-centric and so Windows
doesn't matter.
+1
On 4/5/22 12:29, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5 2022 at 11:56:07 AM -0400, Robbie Harwood
> wrote:
>> Users wishing to use NVIDIA hardware have the following options:
>>
>> - Use nouveau (free, open source, cool)
>> - Sign their own copy of the proprietary driver (involves messing with
mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-libwww-perl` that you
are following.
Merged pull-request:
``
6.62 bump
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-libwww-perl/pull-request/22
___
perl-devel mailing list --
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2022-04-05)
===
Meeting started by mhroncok at 17:00:17 UTC. The full logs are available
at
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2022-04-05/fesco.2022-04-05-17.00.log.html
.
Meeting
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-libwww-perl` that
you are following:
``
6.62 bump
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-libwww-perl/pull-request/22
___
perl-devel mailing list --
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 2:36 PM Robbie Harwood wrote:
>
> PGNet Dev writes:
>
> > Curious, has anyone from @redhat or @fedora though to actually
> > communicate with any of the 'big' hosting providers, to perhaps
> > coordinate/influence/compromise/plan?
> >
> > I'd bet AWS, DigitalOcean &
(Akamai is, to my knowledge, not a provider of VPSs.)
https://www.linode.com/press-release/akamai-to-acquire-linode/
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora
PGNet Dev writes:
> Curious, has anyone from @redhat or @fedora though to actually
> communicate with any of the 'big' hosting providers, to perhaps
> coordinate/influence/compromise/plan?
>
> I'd bet AWS, DigitalOcean & Linode/Akamai -- among this biggest
> hosting providers where 'new
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 1:17 PM Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>
> For those who might be curious, the systems are Supermicro 6026TT-HTRF
> machines with four nodes in 2U. I have three, so twelve machines in
> total. The machines have X8DTT-HF+ motherboards. I actually have older
> hardware than
So you've heard that we're overloaded, and you know that UEFI is the
direction the world is heading.
Well, so is (was?) 'IPv6' ...
Your solution to this is... what, stick
our heads in the sand and ignore that? Just do legacy? We already have
UEFI-only platforms (see also: the mention of ARM
> Ben Cotton writes:
> == Make UEFI a hardware requirement for new Fedora installations on
> platforms that support it (x86_64).
My problem here is that I have real, useful hardware which has always
run Fedora that I would like to continue using. But it's just old
enough (purchased in
> Am 05.04.2022 um 19:57 schrieb Robbie Harwood :
>
> Peter Boy writes:
>
>> And I also don't understand why we should give up a hallmark of free
>> Linux, namely to support old, but still good usable hardware (unlike
>> commercial system, not only Windows but also e.g. RHEL).
>
> Developers
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 7/229 (x86_64), 11/161 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-36-20220404.n.0):
ID: 1211773 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_printing
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1211773
ID: 1211779 Test: x86_64
Tom Hughes writes:
> On 05/04/2022 18:51, Robbie Harwood wrote:
>
>> Right, you need the EFI partition (EFI System Partition, or ESP). I
>> don't remember what we default those to these days - I usually make
>> about 600M, but I need it larger for testing stuff. The partition
>> scheme also
> Am 05.04.2022 um 19:38 schrieb Neal Gompa :
>
> Fedora Server is
> screwed because they use XFS and you cannot shrink an XFS volume.
Server is not screwed because of XFS, according to the change, an existing
installation can still use bios boot. That is not a Problem. (And you could
Gregory Bartholomew writes:
> But I seem to remember /boot being a separate partition for a long
> time (it used to be required because some older BOISs couldn't read
> beyond a certain sector on the disk). Could not /boot be converted to
> the ESP (i.e. reformatted with FAT32) on such systems?
Peter Boy writes:
> And I also don't understand why we should give up a hallmark of free
> Linux, namely to support old, but still good usable hardware (unlike
> commercial system, not only Windows but also e.g. RHEL).
Developers are free to support whatever systems they like. If someone
wants
On 05/04/2022 18:51, Robbie Harwood wrote:
Right, you need the EFI partition (EFI System Partition, or ESP). I
don't remember what we default those to these days - I usually make
about 600M, but I need it larger for testing stuff. The partition
scheme also needs to be GPT, not MBR. Once
Tom Hughes via devel writes:
> On 05/04/2022 15:52, Ben Cotton wrote:
>
>> * There is no migration story from Legacy BIOS to UEFI -
>> repartitioning effectively mandates a reinstall. As a result, we
>> don’t drop support for existing Legacy BIOS systems yet, just new
>> installations.
>
> This
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 1:47 PM Gregory Bartholomew
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 12:39 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>>
>> Fedora Server users *must* fully reinstall, because there's no way to
>> make space for an ESP and reconfigure things.
>
>
> I haven't done a "default" Fedora Server installation
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 1:46 PM Tom Hughes wrote:
>
> On 05/04/2022 18:38, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 1:31 PM Tom Hughes via devel
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 05/04/2022 15:52, Ben Cotton wrote:
> >>
> >>> * There is no migration story from Legacy BIOS to UEFI -
> >>> repartitioning
> Am 05.04.2022 um 16:52 schrieb Ben Cotton :
>
> 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, Apr 5, 2022 at 12:39 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> Fedora Server users *must* fully reinstall, because there's no way to
> make space for an ESP and reconfigure things.
>
I haven't done a "default" Fedora Server installation in a long time, so
I'm not sure how they are laid out. But I seem to
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 12:31 PM Tom Hughes via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On 05/04/2022 15:52, Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> > * There is no migration story from Legacy BIOS to UEFI -
> > repartitioning effectively mandates a reinstall. As a result, we
> > don’t drop support for
On 05/04/2022 18:38, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 1:31 PM Tom Hughes via devel
wrote:
On 05/04/2022 15:52, Ben Cotton wrote:
* There is no migration story from Legacy BIOS to UEFI -
repartitioning effectively mandates a reinstall. As a result, we
don’t drop support for existing
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 1:31 PM Tom Hughes via devel
wrote:
>
> On 05/04/2022 15:52, Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> > * There is no migration story from Legacy BIOS to UEFI -
> > repartitioning effectively mandates a reinstall. As a result, we
> > don’t drop support for existing Legacy BIOS systems yet,
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 2/15 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-IoT-36-20220404.0):
ID: 1212154 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso release_identification@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1212154
Old failures (same test failed in
On 05/04/2022 15:52, Ben Cotton wrote:
* There is no migration story from Legacy BIOS to UEFI -
repartitioning effectively mandates a reinstall. As a result, we
don’t drop support for existing Legacy BIOS systems yet, just new
installations.
This is where I have a problem with this, the fact
mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-libwww-perl` that you
are following.
Merged pull-request:
``
6.62 bump
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-libwww-perl/pull-request/21
___
perl-devel mailing list --
Am 05.04.22 um 16:52 schrieb Ben Cotton:
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 installation is not
Once upon a time, Robbie Harwood said:
> (Just to be clear here: this change is proposing a deprecation, not a
> removal.)
No, the change proposes making it impossible to install Fedora on BIOS.
That's not a deprecation.
--
Chris Adams
___
devel
David Duncan writes:
> For similar reasons, I agree with Neal. There are a number of Amazon
> EC2 instance types that would be left out of the next generation. I
> think it would be better to identify the usage in some way and create
> a general awareness that it is being removed prior to
Neal Gompa writes:
> By virtue of how boot stuff is handled in Fedora, the community is
> incapable of working on it.
Not true. Not at all true.
src.fedoraproject.org permits anyone, *anyone* to send PRs to fix issues
in the boot stack, or any other package. Even without it, bugzilla
doesn't
On Tue, 2022-04-05 at 09:33 -0700, David Duncan wrote:
>
>
> > On Apr 5, 2022, at 8:08 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:54 AM Ben Cotton
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DeprecateLegacyBIOS
> > >
> > > == Summary ==
> > > Make UEFI a
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-libwww-perl` that
you are following:
``
6.62 bump
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-libwww-perl/pull-request/21
___
perl-devel mailing list --
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022, 11:15 Neal Gompa wrote:
> 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).
On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 9:40 PM Gordon Messmer
wrote:
> The ticket mentions Boot Repair, which is the first thing that comes to
> mind: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Boot-Repair
Boot repair is obviously tricky because you have to have something bootable
to initiate the repair. Practically
> On Apr 5, 2022, at 8:08 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> 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
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
5 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-b3413eba96
chromium-99.0.4844.84-1.el7
2 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-a3ae41bd1e
unrealircd-6.0.3-1.el7
The following builds
mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-libwww-perl` that you
are following.
Merged pull-request:
``
6.62 bump
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-libwww-perl/pull-request/20
___
perl-devel mailing list --
On Tue, Apr 5 2022 at 11:56:07 AM -0400, Robbie Harwood
wrote:
Users wishing to use NVIDIA hardware have the following options:
- Use nouveau (free, open source, cool)
- Sign their own copy of the proprietary driver (involves messing with
certificates, so not appropriate for all users)
-
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 9:47 AM stan via devel
wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 15:58:14 -0500
> Gregory Bartholomew wrote:
>
> > > Of topic but related: I wish there was supported option to remove
> > > the current rescue kernel,
> >
> > Is echo "dracut_rescue_image=no" >
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-libwww-perl` that
you are following:
``
6.62 bump
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-libwww-perl/pull-request/20
___
perl-devel mailing list --
OLD: Fedora-36-20220404.n.0
NEW: Fedora-36-20220405.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 16
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 49
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 37.83 MiB
Size of dropped packages:9.07 MiB
Neal Gompa writes:
> And we've still failed to get ARM and RISC-V broadly on board with
> UEFI
This statement is not correct. ARM in Fedora is UEFI-only, and we were
both in the Plumbers conversation around RISC-V's booting.
> We also lack solutions for dealing with the NVIDIA driver in
>
mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-libwww-perl` that you
are following.
Merged pull-request:
``
6.62 bump
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-libwww-perl/pull-request/19
___
perl-devel mailing list --
* Peter Robinson:
> This is out of context here because you can disable Secure Boot but
> still use UEFI to make that work. You're trying to link to different
> problems together.
I think there's firmware out there which enables Secure Boot
unconditionally in UEFI mode, but still has CSM
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 11:26 AM Peter Robinson wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 4:09 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:54 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
> > >
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DeprecateLegacyBIOS
> > >
> > > == Summary ==
> > > Make UEFI a hardware
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2071865
Michal Josef Spacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-libwww-perl` that
you are following:
``
6.62 bump
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-libwww-perl/pull-request/19
___
perl-devel mailing list --
On Tue, 2022-04-05 at 10:52 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DeprecateLegacyBIOS
>
> Important, relevant points from that thread (yes, I reread the entire
> thread) that have informed this change:
>
> * Some machines are BIOS-only. This change does not prevent
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 4:09 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> 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
Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event
for Fedora 36 Branched 20220405.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
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:47 AM stan via devel
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 15:58:14 -0500
> Gregory Bartholomew wrote:
>
> > > Of topic but related: I wish there was supported option to remove
> > > the current rescue kernel,
> >
> > Is echo "dracut_rescue_image=no" >
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 not
> removed, but new non-UEFI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2071784
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Status|MODIFIED
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 installation is not supported on those
platforms. This is a first
1 - 100 of 144 matches
Mail list logo
