My desktop PC is happily running Fedora for years.
Its on Fedora 32 now. It also has Windows 10 dual
boot via Grub.
But I cannot boot a live CD image as it gets stuck
in "Monitoring of LVM2 mirrors, ...". This is not a
new problem I have seen this for a couple of Fedora
releases, but not reported
tsalim--- via devel wrote:
> Hello! I am Tanveer Salim and am a Computer Engineering Student from Texas
> Tech University. I am currently writing a standard user-space
> implementation of KangarooTwelve.
What is missing in this introduction is: what is KangarooTwelve?
A search engine points me
No missing expected images.
Passed openQA tests: 1/1 (x86_64)
--
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/1 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
ID: 604095 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/604095
--
Mail generated by check-compose:
I raise this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1829799 with details
that show that users sessions are started up and user services run during
the dnf system-upgrade. This is clearly not a good idea.
It has been triaged, but its not a RPM script issues as suggested.
I'm not sure who
Am 24.05.20 um 11:49 schrieb Antonio Trande:
> Can i include all dependent packages without related permissions? (i'm
> not the maintainer of `R-argon2` `borgbackup` `gtkhash`)
>
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-628ff99cfc#comment-1383812
Yes. Submitting an update does not
Paul Dufresne via devel wrote:
> Is there some technical problems for not packaging LLVM code rather than
> CPU specific code?
First of all, we would have to use LLVM to begin with. The preferred
compiler in Fedora is GCC, not Clang. There are other technical concerns,
but this one is the most
Hi all,
now that we have new detailed statistics about new package review
tickets ( https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/ ) I would like
to make some cleanings... at the time I'm writing, there are 517 tickets
listed as new, many of them are older than 5 years!
The first steps I
Can i include all dependent packages without related permissions? (i'm
not the maintainer of `R-argon2` `borgbackup` `gtkhash`)
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-628ff99cfc#comment-1383812
--
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key:
On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 2:17 PM Guido Aulisi wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> the new package review tickets page [0] was last updated on 2020-04-06.
> New tickets are not displayed, I made a new review request on April 19
> and it never appeared on that page
>
> Is there anything not working on auto updating
Hi,
the new package review tickets page [0] was last updated on 2020-04-06.
New tickets are not displayed, I made a new review request on April 19
and it never appeared on that page
Is there anything not working on auto updating that page?
Ciao
Guido
FAS: tartina
[0]:
On 24.05.2020 11:47, Barry Scott wrote:
> I have tested with both the Workstation image and
> the KDE spin image. Both get stuck at the same place.
Can you check latest respins[1]?
[1]: https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/live-respins/
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Sun, 2020-05-24 at 08:02 +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
> Hi all,
Hey,
> now that we have new detailed statistics about new package review
> tickets ( https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/ ) I would
> like
> to make some
No missing expected images.
Passed openQA tests: 1/1 (x86_64)
--
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 5:07 PM Paul Dufresne via devel
wrote:
>
> Well... I will try to repeat more clearly my claim:
>
> If Fedora want to pretend to implement the Boot Loader Specification, it
> must, on a new disk formatted in GPT, end up with an entry in fstab for an
> ESP partition
On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 7:48 PM James Cassell
wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, May 24, 2020, at 9:39 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 6:42 PM Paul Dufresne via devel
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Le 20-05-24 à 19 h 34, Naheem Zaffar a écrit :
> > > > The change record for this states that we are
The change record for this states that we are not following the BLS at
https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Specifications/BootLoaderSpec/ but the
proposed update at
https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/MatthewGarrett/BootLoaderSpec/ .
It is not clear however if everyone has moved to the new spec or
On Sun, May 24, 2020, at 7:06 PM, Paul Dufresne via devel wrote:
> Well... I will try to repeat more clearly my claim:
>
> If Fedora want to pretend to implement the Boot Loader Specification,
> it must, on a new disk formatted in GPT, end up with an entry in fstab
> for an ESP partition
On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 11:21 AM Paul Dufresne via devel
wrote:
>
> Well... it take time to me to get used to the Boot Loader Specification.
>
> I am being lazy here... asking people on the mailing list rather than trying
> to determine it myself.
>
> After making an installation of Fedora, I
Well... I will try to repeat more clearly my claim:
If Fedora want to pretend to implement the Boot Loader Specification, it
must, on a new disk formatted in GPT, end up with an entry in fstab for
an ESP partition mounted on /boot:
"These directories are defined below the placeholder file
On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 6:42 PM Paul Dufresne via devel
wrote:
>
> Le 20-05-24 à 19 h 34, Naheem Zaffar a écrit :
> > The change record for this states that we are not following the BLS at
> > https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Specifications/BootLoaderSpec/ but
> > the proposed update at
> >
On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 08:02:09AM +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> now that we have new detailed statistics about new package review
> tickets ( https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/ ) I would like
> to make some cleanings... at the time I'm writing, there are 517
Le 20-05-24 à 19 h 34, Naheem Zaffar a écrit :
The change record for this states that we are not following the BLS at
https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Specifications/BootLoaderSpec/ but
the proposed update at
https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/MatthewGarrett/BootLoaderSpec/ .
Thanks for
On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 03:29:47PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 2:17 PM Guido Aulisi wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > the new package review tickets page [0] was last updated on 2020-04-06.
> > New tickets are not displayed, I made a new review request on April 19
> > and it
On 5/22/20 6:26 AM, Antonio Trande wrote:
Scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=44816285
I rebuilt octave with it and it seems no more broken than it already is,
so I'm fine with the update. Thanks.
--
Orion Poplawski
Manager of NWRA Technical Systems
On Sun, May 24, 2020, at 9:39 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 6:42 PM Paul Dufresne via devel
> wrote:
> >
> > Le 20-05-24 à 19 h 34, Naheem Zaffar a écrit :
> > > The change record for this states that we are not following the BLS at
> > >
This mail for asking to the maintainers of `R-argon2` `borgbackup`
`gtkhash` how we want to rebuild the packages against latest `libb2`
update as required by rhbz#1836534 and rhbz#1836535.
By buildroot override?
By a side-tag method?
On 5/23/20 6:42 AM, David Schwörer wrote:
On 5/22/20 2:26 PM, Antonio Trande wrote:
Scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=44816285
My initial try of rebuilding in copr for easier testing failed.
I had to add
export OMPI_MCA_rmaps_base_oversubscribe=yes
to the
Well... it take time to me to get used to the Boot Loader Specification.
I am being lazy here... asking people on the mailing list rather than
trying to determine it myself.
After making an installation of Fedora, I begin to think:
Hey, I don't remember having seen the installer like
I have installed the May 22 Rawhide on a disk today, and I am now
realizing that the installer did not helped me enough to create valid
Boot Loader Specification partitions.
So I wanted (still want) to make this disk dual boot (Fedora and NixOS).
Because NixOS does not follows BLS (I think...
Am 24.05.20 um 18:47 schrieb Antonio Trande:
> This mail for asking to the maintainers of `R-argon2` `borgbackup`
> `gtkhash` how we want to rebuild the packages against latest `libb2`
> update as required by rhbz#1836534 and rhbz#1836535.
>
> By buildroot override?
> By a side-tag method?
>
On Sun, 24 May 2020 14:56:34 -0400
Paul Dufresne via devel wrote:
> I have installed the May 22 Rawhide on a disk today, and I am now
> realizing that the installer did not helped me enough to create valid
> Boot Loader Specification partitions.
>
> So I wanted (still want) to make this disk
Le 20-05-24 à 05 h 47, Barry Scott a écrit :
...
But I cannot boot a live CD image as it gets stuck
in "Monitoring of LVM2 mirrors, ...". This is not a
new problem I have seen this for a couple of Fedora
releases, but not reported it before.
Is it possible you don't wait enough, that is about
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20200522.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20200524.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 4
Added packages: 4
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 153
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 53.17 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0
Am 24.05.20 um 11:49 schrieb Antonio Trande:
> Can i include all dependent packages without related permissions? (i'm
> not the maintainer of `R-argon2` `borgbackup` `gtkhash`)
>
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-628ff99cfc#comment-1383812
Yes. Submitting an update does not
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839251
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839536
Bug ID: 1839536
Summary: perl-Devel-PatchPerl-1.94 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Devel-PatchPerl
Keywords: FutureFeature,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839515
Bug ID: 1839515
Summary: perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20200524 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases
Keywords:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839251
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
649 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-3c9292b62d
condor-8.6.11-1.el7
391 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-c499781e80
python-gnupg-0.4.4-1.el7
389
The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
9 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-765ceaa306
clamav-0.102.3-1.el8
8 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-30aba92944
log4net-2.0.8-10.el8
8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835360
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835355
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2020/05/25/report-389-ds-base-1.4.4.2-20200524gitc350ddc.fc32.x86_64.html
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
8 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-db3d7a1399
exim-4.92.3-2.el6
7 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-d5bbc97415
json-c12-0.12.1-4.el6
1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839623
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
Created attachment 1691688
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1691688=edit
[patch] Update to 2.009 (#1839623)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839623
--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
the-new-hotness/release-monitoring.org's scratch build of
perl-TeX-Encode-2.009-1.fc30.src.rpm for rawhide completed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=44938823
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839623
Bug ID: 1839623
Summary: perl-TeX-Encode-2.009 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-TeX-Encode
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
This mail for asking to the maintainers of `R-argon2` `borgbackup`
`gtkhash` how we want to rebuild the packages against latest `libb2`
update as required by rhbz#1836534 and rhbz#1836535.
By buildroot override?
By a side-tag method?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835355
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1835360
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #2 from
51 matches
Mail list logo
