Hello,
The new ansible (5.x) is in the EPEL stable which works great until
one tries to use some non-trivial modules which require some Python
modules to be available… At that point you realize that the new
Ansible is built against Python 3.8 (default is 3.6) and we don't have
many python38-*
On 6/6/22 20:25, Paul Black via devel wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 at 05:17, Ian Laurie wrote:
Is anyone else seeing crashes and other strange events in VirtualBox
6.1.34 (from RPMFusion) with Linux guests when the Linux host is
running
Fedora 36 with kernel-5.17.12?
I do and
The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing
remmina-1.4.25-4.el7
Details about builds:
remmina-1.4.25-4.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2022-f18e1a4121)
Remote Desktop Client
The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing
pugixml-1.12.1-1.el8
remmina-1.4.26-3.el8
Details about builds:
pugixml-1.12.1-1.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2022-be11c39161)
A light-weight
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093024
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093567
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-421e607597 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 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=2093567
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #6 from
On Mon, Jun 6 2022 at 11:58:45 PM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
for no practical benefit whatsoever because
everyone can just install the codecs from RPM Fusion.
Kevin, I care about users who do not know about rpmfusion, or have
enough technical experience to enable it. Everything
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> Could it be https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2089986 ?
>
> There's an update fixing it, so please test:
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e3c5f45422
That bug is a direct result of the downstream-only hack to dlopen
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Sunday, 05 June 2022 at 19:15, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
>> It is common knowledge that Fedora is/was effectively useless for
>> anything remotely related to multimedia without RPM Fusion packages.
>
> That's entirely false. There are many
On 6/6/22 00:58, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On 6/3/22 13:43, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 11:25 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
BTW isn't the `_flag_` prefix too generic? And also, the initial
underscore implies that this is internal macro which should ideally not
be used. So should it be
On 6/6/22 15:14, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Roger Wells:
we use pvcs here for CM and have for many years (~30).
Currently we are using it on RHEL 7 & Fedora.
On F35 (and earlier) no issues at all.
On F36 (installed end of last week) some programs are not recognized
and issue error message "not a
Hi,
On 6/6/22 21:14, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Roger Wells:
>
>> we use pvcs here for CM and have for many years (~30).
>> Currently we are using it on RHEL 7 & Fedora.
>> On F35 (and earlier) no issues at all.
>> On F36 (installed end of last week) some programs are not recognized
>> and issue
On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 at 15:50, Roger Wells wrote:
>
> On 6/6/22 14:28, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 at 14:07, Roger Wells
> wrote:
>
>> we use pvcs here for CM and have for many years (~30).
>> Currently we are using it on RHEL 7 & Fedora.
>> On F35 (and earlier) no issues at
On 6/6/22 15:13, Sérgio Basto wrote:
Hi,
what is pvcs ?
an ancient commercial source code configuration management tool, first
released 37 years ago
On Mon, 2022-06-06 at 14:05 -0400, Roger Wells wrote:
we use pvcs here for CM and have for many years (~30).
Currently we are using it on
On 6/6/22 14:28, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 at 14:07, Roger Wells
wrote:
we use pvcs here for CM and have for many years (~30).
Currently we are using it on RHEL 7 & Fedora.
On F35 (and earlier) no issues at all.
On F36 (installed end of last week) some
On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 at 15:14, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Hi,
>
> what is pvcs ?
>
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PVCS
>
>
> On Mon, 2022-06-06 at 14:05 -0400, Roger Wells wrote:
> > we use pvcs here for CM and have for many years (~30).
> > Currently we are using it on RHEL 7 & Fedora.
> > On F35
* Roger Wells:
> we use pvcs here for CM and have for many years (~30).
> Currently we are using it on RHEL 7 & Fedora.
> On F35 (and earlier) no issues at all.
> On F36 (installed end of last week) some programs are not recognized
> and issue error message "not a dynamic executable" when
Hi,
what is pvcs ?
On Mon, 2022-06-06 at 14:05 -0400, Roger Wells wrote:
> we use pvcs here for CM and have for many years (~30).
> Currently we are using it on RHEL 7 & Fedora.
> On F35 (and earlier) no issues at all.
> On F36 (installed end of last week) some programs are not recognized
>
On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 at 14:07, Roger Wells wrote:
> we use pvcs here for CM and have for many years (~30).
> Currently we are using it on RHEL 7 & Fedora.
> On F35 (and earlier) no issues at all.
> On F36 (installed end of last week) some programs are not recognized and
> issue error message "not
we use pvcs here for CM and have for many years (~30).
Currently we are using it on RHEL 7 & Fedora.
On F35 (and earlier) no issues at all.
On F36 (installed end of last week) some programs are not recognized and
issue error message "not a dynamic executable" when examined with "ldd":
any
* Ralf Corsépius:
> Am 06.06.22 um 16:38 schrieb Petr Pisar:
>
>> I believe that glibc payed a special attention to provide both
>> ABIs. But that does not apply to other libraries. Maybe it's not so
>> important problem. Proprietary software tends to bundle the
>> libraries, externally relying
On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 4:40 PM Leigh Scott wrote:
>
>
> > That is also blatantly false. The idea was posted by Andreas on
> > rpmfusion-developers list in November 2021 and I (one of the FFmpeg
> > maintainers) was the only one who responded. The other maintainers made
> > no comments in that
Am 06.06.22 um 16:38 schrieb Petr Pisar:
I believe that glibc payed a special attention to provide both ABIs. But that
does not apply to other libraries. Maybe it's not so important problem.
Proprietary software tends to bundle the libraries, externally relying only on
kernel and glibc.
How
Dne 03. 06. 22 v 16:32 Tom Stellard napsal(a):
On 6/3/22 02:24, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi Tom,
Since you are looking into this and I like this proposal, have you
considered to look alto into `%extension_*flags`:
Hi all.
I know we're all busy people, but I'm hoping I can impose on someone with the
necessary rights to take a look at this, as it's been in limbo for several
months now.
Basically, I discovered a fairly nasty bug in chrpath — a package for which
upstream has vanished, so we're pretty much
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2092730
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2092660
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Fixed
On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 at 10:44, Patrick Riehecky via epel-devel <
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> I realize this is a bit of a pipe dream, but is there "some way" to
> ship a repo file from EPEL that points to the crb repo(s)? Folks not
> wanting it could block the package/not install
I realize this is a bit of a pipe dream, but is there "some way" to
ship a repo file from EPEL that points to the crb repo(s)? Folks not
wanting it could block the package/not install weak deps. Getting the
right repos is a bit tricky but I figured I'd voice the idea...
Pat
On Sat, 2022-06-04
> That is also blatantly false. The idea was posted by Andreas on
> rpmfusion-developers list in November 2021 and I (one of the FFmpeg
> maintainers) was the only one who responded. The other maintainers made
> no comments in that thread.
>
> In other words, Kevin, please stop spreading lies.
>
V Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 02:40:50PM +0300, Panu Matilainen napsal(a):
> On 6/6/22 13:29, Petr Pisar wrote:
> > V Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 12:07:18PM +0200, Miroslav Lichvar napsal(a):
> > > On Thu, Jun 02, 2022 at 05:46:05PM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote:
> > > > $ gcc -m32 -D_TIME_BITS=64
On 5/30/22 10:15, Jitka Plesnikova wrote:
Hello,
Perl 5.36 was released on May 28 2022 and Perl 5.36 change was approved
by FESCo [1].
I have required `f37-perl' build-root for this purpose [2] and it was
created.
I will start the rebuild later today and you can be notified via mail
about
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093567
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-Math-NumSeq-75-1.fc37 |perl-Math-NumSeq-75-2.fc37
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093024
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #1 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093567
--- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar ---
F34 is EOL tomorrow. Skipping it.
F37 built was built against perl 5.34. After perl 5.36 appears a build root, it
will need rebuilding.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093567
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-0fd21fb373 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-0fd21fb373
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093567
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-421e607597 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-421e607597
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093567
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version||perl-Math-NumSeq-75-1.fc37
Ah, cool. Totally missed that in release notes. 臘♂️
Thanks,
--
Bojan
6 June 2022 8:13:10 pm Alexander Sosedkin :
On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 12:03 PM Bojan Smojver via devel
wrote:
>
> Before I open a bug on this, the latest firefox/nss software that is
Hello all,
Fedora 34 will go end of life for updates and support on 2022-06-07
No further updates, including security updates, will be
available for Fedora 34 after the said date. All the updates of Fedora
34 being pushed to stable will be stopped as well.
Fedora 35 will continue to receive
Hello all,
Fedora 34 will go end of life for updates and support on 2022-06-07
No further updates, including security updates, will be
available for Fedora 34 after the said date. All the updates of Fedora
34 being pushed to stable will be stopped as well.
Fedora 35 will continue to receive
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093567
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
On 6/6/22 13:29, Petr Pisar wrote:
V Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 12:07:18PM +0200, Miroslav Lichvar napsal(a):
On Thu, Jun 02, 2022 at 05:46:05PM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote:
$ gcc -m32 -D_TIME_BITS=64 -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 main.c
$ ./a.out
sizeof(time_t)=8
I recommend you to file a bug against tar in
On Monday, 06 June 2022 at 12:03, Bojan Smojver via devel wrote:
> Before I open a bug on this, the latest firefox/nss software that is
> in F36 - is it not accepting SSL certificates without matching
> subjectAlternativeName on purpose?
>
> I still have to complete more tests, but it seems that
V Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 12:07:18PM +0200, Miroslav Lichvar napsal(a):
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2022 at 05:46:05PM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote:
> > $ gcc -m32 -D_TIME_BITS=64 -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 main.c
> > $ ./a.out
> > sizeof(time_t)=8
> >
> > I recommend you to file a bug against tar in Fedora's
On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 at 05:17, Ian Laurie wrote:
> Is anyone else seeing crashes and other strange events in VirtualBox
> 6.1.34 (from RPMFusion) with Linux guests when the Linux host is running
> Fedora 36 with kernel-5.17.12?
>
I do and on two different machines (one a Lubuntu guest and the
On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 12:03 PM Bojan Smojver via devel
wrote:
>
> Before I open a bug on this, the latest firefox/nss software that is in F36 -
> is it not accepting SSL certificates without matching subjectAlternativeName
> on purpose?
>
> I still have to complete more tests, but it seems
On Thu, Jun 02, 2022 at 05:46:05PM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote:
> $ gcc -m32 -D_TIME_BITS=64 -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 main.c
> $ ./a.out
> sizeof(time_t)=8
>
> I recommend you to file a bug against tar in Fedora's Bugzilla. However, this
> proposed solution would require rebuilding in the same way all
Before I open a bug on this, the latest firefox/nss software that is in F36 -
is it not accepting SSL certificates without matching subjectAlternativeName on
purpose?
I still have to complete more tests, but it seems that if SSL certificate is
issued to CN abc.example.com and if that name is
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-34-20220604.0):
ID: 1289036 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
Hello everyone,
Please join us at the next Open NeuroFedora team meeting on Monday 6th
June(today!) at 1300UTC in #fedora-neuro on IRC (Libera.chat) or
Matrix. The meeting is a public meeting, and open for everyone to
attend. You can join us over:
Matrix:
On Saturday, 04 June 2022 at 00:05, Otto Urpelainen wrote:
> I have discovered that installing the ffmpeg-free package degrades Firefox
> video support. Without any kind of ffmpeg installed, Firefox is able to play
> all the videos I want to watch. Installing RPM Fusion's ffmpeg package does
> not
On Sunday, 05 June 2022 at 19:15, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > P.S. Vitaly, your suggestions to enable rpmfusion are not helpful for
> > inexperienced Fedora users, who expect multimedia to work
> > out-of-the-box. Common multimedia needs like "play a video"
On 6/5/22 15:08, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4 2022 at 01:05:58 AM +0300, Otto Urpelainen
wrote:
It seems clear that there is a bug somewhere, but I cannot decide,
where, hence this post to devel. Should Fedora's Firefox actually have
media.ffmpeg.enabled set to false by default,
Hey All,
First of all, I would like to thank all those who have shown interest
in testing Fedora and making it better.
We saw a lot of new faces in the test day(s) and introduction emails
to welcome you all,
here's is what we have for you.
We are going to have an onboarding call,
We will focus
On Sunday, 05 June 2022 at 10:36, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 5, 2022 at 9:37 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
> wrote:
> >
> > On 04/06/2022 22:43, Otto Urpelainen wrote:
> > > But the question is, what needs to be done so that ffmpeg-free will not
> > > suffer, either.
> >
> > ffmpeg-free is a
On 6/3/22 13:43, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 11:25 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
BTW isn't the `_flag_` prefix too generic? And also, the initial
underscore implies that this is internal macro which should ideally not
be used. So should it be rather removed or not?
I agree that
Hi,
I'd like to update pam_radius from v1.4 to v2.0 in EPEL9 and 8. The newer
version includes several patches to make the PAM module thread-safe.
I've opened a ticket in the steering committee's repository
(https://pagure.io/epel/issue/181) and I'd also like to hear the feedback from
the
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-36-20220604.0):
ID: 1289020 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
60 matches
Mail list logo
