https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2075210
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|jples...@redhat.com,|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074633
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-45dfbb843a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-45dfbb843a
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074633
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version||perl-bignum-0.65-1.fc37
On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 12:38 AM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> Matthew Miller wrote:
> > We've got a 300+ message thread in just one week, with 66 different
> > participants. This handily beats discussions systemd-resolved,
> > btrfs-by-default, and even switching the default editor to nano.
On 4/11/22 17:45, Sandro Mani wrote:
> Facing a similar situation a while ago, it was suggested to use a script
> like [1] to prepare an offline cache of all dependencies, and point yarn
> to that folder in the package spec. Other example is pgadmin4 [2].
>
> Sandro
That only works if that
On 4/12/22 11:22, Petr Pisar wrote:
> V Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 04:04:35PM +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> napsal(a):
>> On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 11:16:59AM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote:
>>> Where should autoreconf be placed? %pre or %conf?
>>
>> For me the important distinction is that %prep should
On 4/13/22 17:11, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> On 13.4.2022 08:04, David Bold wrote:
>>
>> It seems I must be missing something? Why should we not care about a
>> significant number of our users, just because other OSs have more users?
>> Could you explain that?
>
> First of all this is not
On Thu, Apr 14 2022 at 03:02:16 AM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
Given that this is not the first time that we have annobin-induced
breakage
endangering a release,
Thing is, Kevin has a point here. I've lost track of the number of
times annobin troubles have resulted in gratuitous
On 4/12/22 16:54, Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MajorUpgradeOfMicrodnf
>
> == Summary ==
> A major upgrade of Microdnf is the first step in the evolution of
> package management in Fedora. The new microdnf has ambitions to
> provide all major features of DNF without
Neal Gompa wrote:
> The binary RPM for grub's BIOS boot code is grub2-pc (and
> grub2-pc-modules), not grub2.
Oh, it used to be just grub2 until F26 (included), I had either forgotten or
not noticed at all that it had been renamed back in F27 already. (It used to
be the case for years that
Fabio Valentini wrote:
> And, lo and behold, now there's a third update for annobin:
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-3dd2ddf4ab
>
> The update for LLVM 14 was pushed to stable due to a freeze exception,
> but the GCC+annobin update is still in "testing".
> And now there's a
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 8:45 PM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> Hans de Goede wrote:
> > As the Source0 provider for the packages and then next to:
> >
> > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/grub2
> >
> > Add a:
> >
> > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/grub2-bios
> >
> > And moving the build
Germano Massullo wrote:
> This problem was caused because I had misinterpreted official Red Hat
> configuration [2].
The documentation was written with interactive use in mind, not for
scripting or packaging. The "scl enable" tool is very impractical for
packaging because you would have to
On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 12:48 PM Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Looks like there's a little bit of a mess around LLVM 14 / GCC /
> annobin updates brewing in f36-updates-testing.
>
> Right now, there's *two* updates in "testing" state that contain
> builds of annobin:
>
> -
Hans de Goede wrote:
> As the Source0 provider for the packages and then next to:
>
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/grub2
>
> Add a:
>
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/grub2-bios
>
> And moving the build of all sub-packages which are
> only necessary for BIOS support to the second
Matthew Miller wrote:
> We've got a 300+ message thread in just one week, with 66 different
> participants. This handily beats discussions systemd-resolved,
> btrfs-by-default, and even switching the default editor to nano.
>
> Clearly there's a lot to talk about here. Would it be useful to have
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 7:52 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
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:
https://bcl.fedorapeople.org/boot-grub2-f36.iso
I've
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 5:05 PM Carl George wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 5:17 PM Troy Dawson wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 3:00 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 2022-04-08 at 13:08 -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 12:46 PM Sérgio
On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 5:17 PM Troy Dawson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 3:00 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 2022-04-08 at 13:08 -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 12:46 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 2022-03-31 at 11:54 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
Minutes:
https://meetbot-raw.fedoraproject.org/teams/fedora_coreos_meeting/fedora_coreos_meeting.2022-04-13-16.31.html
Minutes (text):
https://meetbot-raw.fedoraproject.org/teams/fedora_coreos_meeting/fedora_coreos_meeting.2022-04-13-16.31.txt
Log:
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 12:56:11PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> If that proves acceptable for change owners here that would perhaps take
> care of the short term problem. What about longer term though? Would the
> thought be that the BIOS sig would remain around for the forseeable
> future
On 13.4.2022 08:04, David Bold wrote:
It seems I must be missing something? Why should we not care about a
significant number of our users, just because other OSs have more users?
Could you explain that?
First of all this is not significant number of Fedora's users ( or in
the overall
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 03:27:14PM -0400, David Cantrell wrote:
> > FWIW, ATM I think everything which can be said about
> > this has been said and I'm not sure if having a video
> > call about this will add anything new.
> Agreed.
Works for me -- I just wanted to put the option there in case it
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074594
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2075210
Bug ID: 2075210
Summary: perl-Math-BigRat-0.2622 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Math-BigRat
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 09:03:09PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> 1. I'm not sure if it is possible to setup group ownership
> of pkgs in pagure? So to keep things simple the few packages which
> are only necessary for BIOS boot can be handed over to me and then
> I'll just add other
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074593
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #2 from
...snip bios sig plan...
Thanks for that Hans!
If that proves acceptable for change owners here that would perhaps take
care of the short term problem. What about longer term though? Would the
thought be that the BIOS sig would remain around for the forseeable
future maintaining BIOS boot? Or
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074622
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 09:03:09PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 4/13/22 18:07, David Cantrell wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 10:39:23AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 13 2022 at 10:54:01 AM -0400, David Cantrell
> >> wrote:
> >>> The core issue still comes down
Hi,
On 4/13/22 18:07, David Cantrell wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 10:39:23AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 13 2022 at 10:54:01 AM -0400, David Cantrell
>> wrote:
>>> The core issue still comes down to having resources to continue
>>> maintaining
>>> BIOS boot support in
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 09:34:18AM -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 4/13/22 07:54, David Cantrell wrote:
> > The core issue still comes down to having resources to continue maintaining
> > BIOS boot support in Fedora and so far no one has come forward to work on
> > that.
>
> As far as I can tell
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 07:08:13PM +0200, Germano Massullo wrote:
> Hello, in my opinion we should add to Fedora Packaging Guidelines, a
> paragraph concerning GCC Toolset usage.
>
> I recently experienced some problems in building darktable for
> epel8/epel8-next due bad configuration of
Hello, in my opinion we should add to Fedora Packaging Guidelines, a
paragraph concerning GCC Toolset usage.
I recently experienced some problems in building darktable for
epel8/epel8-next due bad configuration of gcc-toolset-11 in the spec
file. In a few words, gcc-toolset-11 was not really
Hello DNS users,
I have already created some bugs to inform some affected software
packages. But I would like to notify also here with prepared plan to
obsolete SHA-1 in upcoming RHEL 9.0. Final documentation is not yet
created for it, but it could be tested already on centos container:
docker
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 2/15 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-IoT-36-20220411.0):
ID: 1224256 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso release_identification@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1224256
Old failures (same test failed in
On 4/13/22 07:54, David Cantrell wrote:
The core issue still comes down to having resources to continue maintaining
BIOS boot support in Fedora and so far no one has come forward to work on
that.
As far as I can tell from the responses in the other thread, there is
not currently an issue with
On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 at 14:25, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 09:54:12AM -0400, David Cantrell wrote:
> > If you use i686 packages for something now, please respond to this thread.
>
> I use {glibc{,-devel,-static},{gmp,mpfr,libmpc}{,-devel}}.i686 for
> development and testing of
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
4 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-14d598751d
libbson-1.3.5-7.el7
4 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-4a24f39c87
blender-2.68a-9.el7
2
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 6/229 (x86_64), 11/161 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-36-20220412.n.0):
ID: 1223658 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_lvm_ext4@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1223658
ID: 1223806 Test: aarch64
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 10:39:23AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13 2022 at 10:54:01 AM -0400, David Cantrell
> wrote:
> > The core issue still comes down to having resources to continue
> > maintaining
> > BIOS boot support in Fedora and so far no one has come forward to work
> >
On Wed, Apr 13 2022 at 10:54:01 AM -0400, David Cantrell
wrote:
The core issue still comes down to having resources to continue
maintaining
BIOS boot support in Fedora and so far no one has come forward to
work on
that.
It's not true, although you can be forgiven for missing it in such a
On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 07:20:52PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> We've got a 300+ message thread in just one week, with 66 different
> participants. This handily beats discussions systemd-resolved,
> btrfs-by-default, and even switching the default editor to nano.
>
> Clearly there's a lot to
Neal Gompa wrote:
> dnf, microdnf
Doesn't the change page say the Python DNF will go away?
I would welcome a pure C/C++ base system, with no language interpreters
beyond bash.
Kevin Kofler
___
devel mailing list --
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 10:07 AM Mattia Verga via devel
wrote:
>
> Il 12/04/22 22:54, Ben Cotton ha scritto:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MajorUpgradeOfMicrodnf
> >
> > == Summary ==
> > A major upgrade of Microdnf is the first step in the evolution of
> > package management in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074633
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|jples...@redhat.com,|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074593
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-390f83bc78 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-390f83bc78
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
Il 12/04/22 22:54, Ben Cotton ha scritto:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MajorUpgradeOfMicrodnf
>
> == Summary ==
> A major upgrade of Microdnf is the first step in the evolution of
> package management in Fedora. The new microdnf has ambitions to
> provide all major features of DNF
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074593
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version||perl-Math-BigInt-1.9998.30-
OLD: Fedora-36-20220412.n.0
NEW: Fedora-36-20220413.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 0
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:1.33 MiB
Size
Due to outstanding blocker bugs[1], we do not have an F36 Final
release candidate. As a result, F36 Final is NO-GO for the early
release target and tomorrow's Go/No-Go meeting is cancelled.
The next Fedora Linux 36 Final Go/No-Go meeting[2] will be held at
1700 UTC on Thursday 21 April in
Due to outstanding blocker bugs[1], we do not have an F36 Final
release candidate. As a result, F36 Final is NO-GO for the early
release target and tomorrow's Go/No-Go meeting is cancelled.
The next Fedora Linux 36 Final Go/No-Go meeting[2] will be held at
1700 UTC on Thursday 21 April in
Missing expected images:
Minimal raw-xz armhfp
Compose PASSES proposed Rawhide gating check!
All required tests passed
Failed openQA tests: 12/231 (x86_64), 12/152 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20220412.n.0):
ID: 1223127 Test: x86_64
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 10:15 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> Dne 12. 04. 22 v 22:54 Ben Cotton napsal(a):
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MajorUpgradeOfMicrodnf
> >
> > == Summary ==
> > A major upgrade of Microdnf is the first step in the evolution of
> > package management in Fedora. The
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (aarch64), 1/8 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
New soft failures (same test not soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-34-20220412.0):
ID: 1223407 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi
URL:
I confirm Dan's analysis. Problem solved. All details at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074663#c7
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074594
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-42a926ccec has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-42a926ccec
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074940
Bug 2074940 depends on bug 1979848, which changed state.
Bug 1979848 Summary: Remove usage of gethostbyname() and inet_addr() from
perl-FCGI package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1979848
What|Removed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074940
Michal Josef Spacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074940
Michal Josef Spacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|emman...@seyman.fr |mspa...@redhat.com
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074940
Bug ID: 2074940
Summary: Remove usage of gethostbyname() and inet_addr() from
perl-FCGI package
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component:
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20220412.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20220413.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 4
Added packages: 5
Dropped packages:2
Upgraded packages: 81
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 6.36 MiB
Size of dropped packages:1.14
On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 09:47:55 +0200
Germano Massullo wrote:
> Il 12/04/22 20:59, Dan Horák ha scritto:
> > On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 18:20:25 +0200
> > Germano Massullo wrote:
> >
> >> Hello, a new kind of failure is happening, still on same package and CPU
> >> arch
> >>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074593
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074594
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Dne 12. 04. 22 v 22:54 Ben Cotton napsal(a):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MajorUpgradeOfMicrodnf
== Summary ==
A major upgrade of Microdnf is the first step in the evolution of
package management in Fedora. The new microdnf has ambitions to
provide all major features of DNF without
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074622
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-eb7872d105 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-eb7872d105
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074622
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|jples...@redhat.com,|
Il 12/04/22 20:59, Dan Horák ha scritto:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 18:20:25 +0200
Germano Massullo wrote:
Hello, a new kind of failure is happening, still on same package and CPU
arch
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=85563318
Maybe an OpenMP bug?
so now it chokes on inlined
On 12.4.2022 20:44, Mark Otaris wrote:
Your calculations have to be off; I’m pretty sure there are way more than 100
Fedora users with a Nvidia GPU. The Linux Hardware Project alone reports 106 Fedora
users with Nvidia GPUs (which is actually 29% of their sample) so that’s a hard
minimum:
71 matches
Mail list logo
