On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 5:28 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> Hey Pythonistas.
>
> The Python standard library distutils module will be removed from Python 3.12+
>
> https://peps.python.org/pep-0632/
>
> As preparatory work, we build all python packages in a Copr repository with
> Python 3.11 sans
Hello all,
It is been pointed out to me that I pushed out an update of a package to
EPEL that did not follow the incompatible upgrades policy:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-incompatible-upgrades/
That's because I wasn't aware of the policy until it was pointed out to
me
On Wed, 2022-10-19 at 14:29 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 9:37 AM Matthew Miller
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 09, 2022 at 05:17:29AM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> > > IMHO, we need a proper solution for the general comps issue rather than
> > > that
> > >
On 19. 10. 22 17:24, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 01:49:33PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 11:31 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
I'm going to push a branch to dist-git for very few packages (so far gcc
and redhat-rpm-config) which will be used
On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 9:37 AM Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 09, 2022 at 05:17:29AM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> > IMHO, we need a proper solution for the general comps issue rather than that
> > half-baked compromise that does not really improve the situation. KDE Plasma
>
> I
Hi
Based on the discussion in #2134021 (mingw-pyproject-rpm-macros review),
I've abbandoned the pyproject approach and instead switched to
python-build + python-installer. For this, I'd need the following new
packages reviewed:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2136235 -
The Fedora Linux 37 Final Go/No-Go[1] meeting is scheduled for
Thursday 20 October at 1700 UTC in #fedora-meeting. At this time, we
will determine the status of the F37 Final for the 25 October
target date #1[2]. For more information about the Go/No-Go meeting, see
the wiki[3].
Currently, we have
The Fedora Linux 37 Final Go/No-Go[1] meeting is scheduled for
Thursday 20 October at 1700 UTC in #fedora-meeting. At this time, we
will determine the status of the F37 Final for the 25 October
target date #1[2]. For more information about the Go/No-Go meeting, see
the wiki[3].
Currently, we have
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136209
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
Doc Type|---
On 19-10-2022 14:51, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 at 05:09, Sandro wrote:
On 19-10-2022 10:31, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 4:01 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
We don't have a "main mirror" for that to work.
dl.fedoraproject.org would be what this would aim at
On Wed, 2022-10-19 at 07:13 +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Hello Adam,
>
> Adam Williamson [2022-10-18 10:37 -0700]:
> > that would define a critical path for Server. That would mean updates
> > containing any of those packages or their dependencies would be
> > 'critical path' updates, meaning they
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 01:49:33PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 11:31 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
> >
> > I'm going to push a branch to dist-git for very few packages (so far gcc
> > and redhat-rpm-config) which will be used by COPR builds to port Fedora
> > to C99 and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136209
Bug ID: 2136209
Summary: Please branch and build perl-JSON-XS for epel 9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component: perl-JSON-XS
Assignee:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 1:47 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 19/10/2022 14:14, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > IOW, the impact of AES on server peformance will vary depending
> > on CPU models, NIC models / network switches and whether other
> > workloads are competing for CPU time.
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 9:33 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 4:01 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
> wrote:
> >
> > On 19/10/2022 09:48, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > > Sure but as mentioned it's public data, and the modification, and I
> > > covered that in my reply, would be picked up
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20221016.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20221019.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 12
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 177
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 31.15 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0
OLD: Fedora-37-20221018.n.0
NEW: Fedora-37-20221019.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:3
Dropped images: 1
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
On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 at 05:09, Sandro wrote:
> On 19-10-2022 10:31, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 4:01 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
>
> > We don't have a "main mirror" for that to work.
>
>
dl.fedoraproject.org would be what this would aim at but we would probably
have to change
Once upon a time, Vitaly Zaitsev said:
> On 19/10/2022 09:33, Peter Robinson wrote:
> >Why are they insecure? This is public open data, not banking data,
> >where the data being downloaded is verifiable by the rpm signatures
> >and signing keys.
>
> ISPs or anyone on the the same network can
On 19/10/2022 14:14, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
IOW, the impact of AES on server peformance will vary depending
on CPU models, NIC models / network switches and whether other
workloads are competing for CPU time. Admins need to decide
what tradeoffs are important to them.
In future, modern web
On Tue, Oct 18, 2022, at 4:35 PM, Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ModernizeLiveMedia
Just for reference, today Fedora CoreOS uses a different implementation of this:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 01:56:47PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 19/10/2022 10:31, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > HTTPS does not help with that. It's just a transport protocol.
>
> It will. All requests will be encrypted. ISP will only see server's
> IP-address and its hostname (only if SNI
On 19/10/2022 10:31, Neal Gompa wrote:
HTTPS does not help with that. It's just a transport protocol.
It will. All requests will be encrypted. ISP will only see server's
IP-address and its hostname (only if SNI is enabled).
Not in any meaningful way, and in most cases HTTPS makes mirrors
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 11:31 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> I'm going to push a branch to dist-git for very few packages (so far gcc
> and redhat-rpm-config) which will be used by COPR builds to port Fedora
> to C99 and later language standards.
So you only plan to trigger COPR builds from these
On 10/19/22 04:33, Maxwell G wrote:
> Hi Karolina,
>
> Thank you for working on this! I have also found Zuul useful, but I
> don't always remember to enable it for my packages. I have two
> suggestions 1) It looks like some other lines were rearranged as part
> of this change. Would it be
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 11:25 AM Matthew Miller
wrote:
>
> I _very much_ appreciate all the work you and the other Rust SIG folks
> (Igor and Zbyszek in particular but I'm sure others as well!) have put into
> packaging rust apps and crates and all of the systems around that.
I'll respond
> With
> {{package|livesys-scripts}}, those scripts have been simplified and
> turned into systemd services that activate only in live environments.
Just to confirm, will live-media-only these systemd services all be contained
within a package (either livesys-scripts, or some other RPM), and
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 10:43 PM Ben Cotton
>
> Neal, Matt, what is the rationale for enabling persistence for the default
> boot option? I have mixed opinions about this. One of the benefits of a
> Live image, as we use it today, is that it's always the same/fresh. If I
> use it and then
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127708
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-c2e0731168 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 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=2127708
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-de087ddbf2 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
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 09:22:23AM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> I don't think that persistence by default is a good idea, because
> modern USB-flash drives are very unreliable and don't have a
> wear-cell balancer, so it will wear out very quickly for some
> frequently modified files.
On a server I don't use very often, I am trying to update
mock-core-configs with yum and I am seeing:
Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
---> Package mock-core-configs.noarch 0:36.9-1.el7 will be updated
---> Package mock-core-configs.noarch 0:36.13-1.el7 will be an update
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
3 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-473e5052db
ckeditor-4.20.0-1.el7
3 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-576e858e93
php-Smarty-3.1.47-1.el7
3
I'm going to push a branch to dist-git for very few packages (so far gcc
and redhat-rpm-config) which will be used by COPR builds to port Fedora
to C99 and later language standards.
GCC 14 is expected to reject certain constructs that were removed from C
in C99:
* implicit function
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127708
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-b76026f9a4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 10:50:19AM +0200, Sandro wrote:
> >We don't have a "main mirror" for that to work.
>
> So, this has been looked into already? It definitely sounds like it
> could help in sparsely served parts of the world at a reasonable
> cost.
Yes. I think this is basically just a
On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 03:46:49PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > The dependency on LLVM is not even the worst issue in my eyes. LLVM is also
> > used by other core projects, e.g., mesa, these days.
> >
> > The worst issue I see with Rust is the way libraries are "packaged", which
> > just
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2135882
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version||perl-Feed-Find-0.13-1.fc38
On 19-10-2022 10:31, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 4:01 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
On 19/10/2022 09:48, Peter Robinson wrote:
Sure but as mentioned it's public data, and the modification, and I
covered that in my reply, would be picked up by the other mechanisms.
They
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 4:01 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 19/10/2022 09:48, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > Sure but as mentioned it's public data, and the modification, and I
> > covered that in my reply, would be picked up by the other mechanisms.
>
> They can collect a lot of sensitive
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127708
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #6 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2132841
--- Comment #7 from Michal Josef Spacek ---
In 6.42 was fixed issue in
https://github.com/libwww-perl/HTTP-Message/issues/187)
Prepared fix with dependencies:
https://github.com/libwww-perl/HTTP-Message/pull/188
--
You are receiving this
On 19/10/2022 09:48, Peter Robinson wrote:
Sure but as mentioned it's public data, and the modification, and I
covered that in my reply, would be picked up by the other mechanisms.
They can collect a lot of sensitive information: your IP, Fedora
version, packages version, etc. This can help
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 8:40 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 19/10/2022 09:33, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > Why are they insecure? This is public open data, not banking data,
> > where the data being downloaded is verifiable by the rpm signatures
> > and signing keys.
>
> ISPs or anyone on
On 19/10/2022 09:33, Peter Robinson wrote:
Why are they insecure? This is public open data, not banking data,
where the data being downloaded is verifiable by the rpm signatures
and signing keys.
ISPs or anyone on the the same network can view, intercept or even
modify HTTP/rsync traffic.
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 8:17 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 13/10/2022 15:46, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > Also, a ton of Fedora mirrors still don't use HTTPS for various reasons.
>
> I think such insecure mirrors should be removed from metalink.
Why are they insecure? This is public open
On 18/10/2022 22:35, Ben Cotton wrote:
There should be new options for resetting the persistent overlay and
booting with no persistence. The default options should boot with
persistence and setup of persistence should work.
I don't think that persistence by default is a good idea, because
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 2:57 AM Kamil Paral wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 10:43 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
>>
>> There should be new options for resetting the persistent overlay and
>> booting with no persistence. The default options should boot with
>> persistence and setup of persistence should
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2135882
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|jples...@redhat.com,|
On 13/10/2022 15:46, Neal Gompa wrote:
Also, a ton of Fedora mirrors still don't use HTTPS for various reasons.
I think such insecure mirrors should be removed from metalink.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
___
devel mailing
On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 03:57:41PM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> > Also, a ton of Fedora mirrors still don't use HTTPS for various reasons.
> I would say that those mirrors ought to be kicked out of the mirror list
> immediately.
There are also a lot of rsync mirrors. I don't think any
On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 10:43 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
> There should be new options for resetting the persistent overlay and
> booting with no persistence. The default options should boot with
> persistence and setup of persistence should work.
>
Neal, Matt, what is the rationale for enabling
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133215
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-1e8ddf3408 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
53 matches
Mail list logo
