See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2271547 . Apparently other
applications will run automatically as a Startup Application (I tried
Aisleriot), but not gnome-terminal. Don't know if this violates any Final
criteria, posting here to get more attention since I wasn't even sure what
FWIW, I've occasionally seen this happen in F38, but not reproducibly.
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
What's going on with the 6.1 kernel for stable releases? Normally, there are
Koji builds even if it's not intended for stable releases yet, but the only
Koji build for the 6.1 kernel was for Rawhide. Is there an issue causing it to
be skipped?
___
So far, updates haven't fixed it, but I found that if I use the "enforcing=0"
boot option, the problems with both GNOME and the network are gone.
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
After clean installing from the first branched Everything netinst, and updating
fedora-repos to 34-0.12 (to get the branched repos instead of rawhide), and
manually enabling the fedora repo and updating, my network doesn't work, and
GNOME doesn't start (something about dbus). By running
The update was obsoleted, but it looks like your fix worked on its replacement.
The new update https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-04374575bf
now shows "All required tests passed". Thanks!
___
test mailing list --
For about the last 2 months, no F32 container-selinux update has been able to
go to stable. This is due to a single failed test which for some reason, only
applies to F32 but not F31. The latest update is
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-30e48495bf which is now
submitted for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1609289 (dnf, Rawhide)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1609292 (comps, Rawhide)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1609294 (comps, F28)
___
test mailing list --
Which component should a bug be filed against for the following Rawhide error?
[root@localhost ~]# dnf groupinstall basic-desktop-environment
Last metadata expiration check: 1:44:13 ago on Fri 27 Jul 2018 03:39:28 AM EDT.
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/bin/dnf", line 58, in
> accessing it). I don't suppose you kept a backup of the file? That
> would be very helpful for investigating the problem...
See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1598590#c4 .
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
The package baloo-libs is no longer in the F26 repo. Removing it removes knode
and knode-libs as dependencies. Attempting to install them again gives
[root@localhost ~]# yum-deprecated --skip-broken install knode knode-libs
Yum command has been deprecated, use dnf instead.
See 'man dnf' and 'man
Correction, it should be "grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/grub2/grub.cfg" (not
grub.conf).
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
The F24 lives don't contain a rescue kernel or generate the corresponding
grub entry (see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317709 ). Is
there a way to install the rescue kernel if it was not done during the
initial install? (The package dracut-config-rescue was not installed, and
I've
When I used this method to create new rescue mode files for my F23 box (which
already had a rescue mode entry), I got an additional rescue mode entry at the
top of the grub menu. This was fixed by manually editing /boot/grub2/grub.conf
to delete the new entry (as mentioned in
> Sorry on the qemu front, but I was under the impression that bodhi handles
> obsoleting old updates when a new version is submitted. Am I wrong, or is
> something busted on the bodhi side?
See the bug. The downgrades happened when old updates were submitted for
stable, either by the packager
I don't see which of those apply for any of the three packages in the bug. Are
you sure you're not talking about the old bodhi?
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
I think you're looking at the wrong time period. libpng-1.6.19-1.fc23 went to
stable on 2015-11-23 (see
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-9199a1bfe1 ). At this time,
1.6.17-3 had already been pushed to testing and was just sitting there. Then it
was submitted for stable on
The stable versions of qemu, libpng, and just now bzip2 have been downgraded
in F23 (although qemu has been fixed). See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292914 . It would be a good
idea for packagers to keep track of what the latest stable version of their
package is, and not submit
Disregard my previous message regarding the TC2 link. Just realized that
since TC1 was never announced, it makes sense to link to the beginning of
the ticket.
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Adam Williamson adamwill at fedoraproject.org writes:
Content information, including changes, can be found at
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6213 .
Link to TC2 is https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6213#comment:3 .
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
Kalev Lember kalevlember at gmail.com writes:
4) Run 'fedora-easy-karma' daily, and give -1 karma to updates that
regress anything and +1 karma to those that don't
Chances are f-e-k won't work. See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144587 and
Matthias Clasen mclasen at redhat.com writes:
Let me ask now, then: can we make the change to reject 'weak' passwords
specific to only those products that enable sshd by default, please ?
If the only concern is remote attacks, I'd like to see someone answer the
earlier question about whether
Chris Murphy lists at colorremedies.com writes:
If this is really an improvement in security, which it isn't because
an 8 character good password still has very low entropy, then it
It depends - if the only concern is remote access, and there is a limit on
the number of login attempts (either
This is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079906 (originally
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062997 ). It partially works
now in Rawhide, except that it fails to remove the old version of
kernel-devel (see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079906#c18
which is
drago01 drago01 at gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Brian C. Lane bcl at redhat.com wrote:
I *know* this is going to be a bit of a pain to get used to. But the
increased security is worth it.
Depends ... if you force user to choose a password that they can't
possibly
Michael Schwendt mschwendt at gmail.com writes:
Have you tried
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16078
?
Thanks! It works for me and I no longer need splix. Added karma.
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
I have a Samsung ML-1740 laser printer which in F20 and below would work
immediately after install, even though splix wasn't installed. I believe it
was necessary for foomatic to be installed, and in one previous release it
wasn't installed by default, but was supposed to be. Anyway, in F21 it
Sérgio Basto sergio at serjux.com writes:
Anyway, in F21 it was
necessary to install splix. Was the suppport for this printer moved from
foomatic to splix,
No, without splix , we couldn't print on this kind of printers, I think.
The printer was working in F20, F19, and F18, and I
Jonathan Calloway jonathancalloway at gmail.com writes:
Would you be willing to point me to the web interface? Are you referring
to the web interface for Bodhi?
Yes, I was just referring to logging into bodhi.fedoraproject.org with your
FAS account and giving karma one package at a time.
--
Jonathan Calloway jonathancalloway at gmail.com writes:
I was trying to contribute some karma for F20. However, it cannot seem to
contact Bodhi. Is it just me?
[callowayj at localhost ~]$ fedora-easy-karma
Getting list of installed packages...
Waiting for Bodhi for a list of packages in
As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Final Release Candidate 2
(RC2) is now available for testing. Content information, including
changes, can be found at
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6031#comment:24 . Please see the
following pages for download links (including delta ISOs) and
As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Final Release Candidate 1
(RC1) is now available for testing. Content information, including
changes, can be found at
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6031#comment:21 . Please see the
following pages for download links (including delta ISOs) and
Adam Williamson adamwill at fedoraproject.org writes:
On Thu, 2014-11-27 at 13:09 -0500, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA
wrote:
I have an updated F-21 alpha that is working well. Is it any different
than F-21 beta and eventually the final release?
No.
There may be leftover
As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Final Release Candidate 1
(RC1) is now available for testing. Content information, including
changes, can be found at
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6031#comment:21 . Please see the
following pages for download links (including delta ISOs) and
As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Final Test Compose 4 (TC4)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6031#comment:18
. Please see the following pages for download links (including delta
ISOs) and
As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Final Test Compose 4 (TC4)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6031#comment:18
. Please see the following pages for download links (including delta
ISOs) and
As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Final Test Compose 3 (TC3)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6031#comment:10
. Please see the following pages for download links (including delta
ISOs) and
As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Final Test Compose 3 (TC3)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6031#comment:10
. Please see the following pages for download links (including delta
ISOs) and
As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Final Test Compose 2 (TC2)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6031#comment:3 .
Please see the following pages for download links (including delta ISOs)
and
As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Final Test Compose 2 (TC2)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6031#comment:3 .
Please see the following pages for download links (including delta ISOs)
and
As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Final Test Compose 1 (TC1)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6031 . Please
see the following pages for download links (including delta ISOs) and
testing
As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Final Test Compose 1 (TC1)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6031 . Please
see the following pages for download links (including delta ISOs) and
testing
As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Beta Release Candidate 2
(RC2) is now available for testing. Content information, including
changes, can be found at
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6010#comment:17 . Please see the
following pages for download links (including delta ISOs) and
As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Beta Release Candidate 1
(RC1) is now available for testing. Content information, including
changes, can be found at
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6010#comment:11 . Please see the
following pages for download links (including delta ISOs) and
Andre Robatino robatino at fedoraproject.org writes:
Fairly often in the last few weeks, in both my F21 and Rawhide VirtualBox
guests, I've had a shutdown while doing a yum distro-sync, shortly before
the transaction starts (so I've never actually had to clean up a
transaction). I can
poma pomidorabelisima at gmail.com writes:
core: introduce poweroff as new failure action types
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/commit/src/core/failure-action.c?id=f07756b
man 5 systemd-system.conf
/StartTimeoutSec
/StartTimeoutAction
- /etc/systemd/system.conf
man 5
Fairly often in the last few weeks, in both my F21 and Rawhide VirtualBox
guests, I've had a shutdown while doing a yum distro-sync, shortly before
the transaction starts (so I've never actually had to clean up a
transaction). I can then always reboot and redo the distro-sync without
incident. The
As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Beta Test Compose 4 (TC4)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6010#comment:7 .
Please see the following pages for download links (including delta ISOs)
and testing
As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Beta Test Compose 4 (TC4)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6010#comment:7 .
Please see the following pages for download links (including delta ISOs)
and testing
As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Beta Test Compose 2 (TC2)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6010#comment:2 .
Please see the following pages for download links (including delta ISOs)
and testing
As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Beta Test Compose 2 (TC2)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6010#comment:2 .
Please see the following pages for download links (including delta ISOs)
and testing
As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Beta Test Compose 1
(TC1) is now available for testing. Content information, including
changes, can be found at
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6010 . Please see the following
pages for download links (including delta ISOs) and testing
As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Alpha Release Candidate 1
(RC1) is now available for testing. Content information, including
changes, can be found at
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5940#comment:13 . Please see the
following pages for download links (including delta ISOs) and
Andre Robatino robatino at fedoraproject.org writes:
According to
http://worldofgnome.org/opening-a-new-terminal-tabwindow-in-gnome-3-12/ ,
this is a deliberate change. You have to go into Edit/Preferences/General to
control whether Open Terminal opens the terminal in a new window or a new
Michael Catanzaro mcatanzaro at gnome.org writes:
I agree. Secret buttons not affect the behavior of menu items. If you
have time, you could file a bug for this upstream and see where it
goes
I commented at https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=543996#c9 .
It looks like
As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Alpha Release Candidate 1
(RC1) is now available for testing. Content information, including
changes, can be found at
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5940#comment:13 . Please see the
following pages for download links (including delta ISOs) and
Andre Robatino robatino at fedoraproject.org writes:
Joachim Backes joachim.backes at rhrk.uni-kl.de writes:
the gnome-terminal in F21 does not allow to open a *tab* in the terminal
window. I can only open a new terminal *window*.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=548
Joachim Backes joachim.backes at rhrk.uni-kl.de writes:
the gnome-terminal in F21 does not allow to open a *tab* in the terminal
window. I can only open a new terminal *window*.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=548
For now you have to use the hidden keyboard sequence
As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Alpha Test Compose 6 (TC6)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5940#comment:9 .
Please see the following pages for download links (including delta ISOs)
and
As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Alpha Test Compose 6 (TC6)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5940#comment:9 .
Please see the following pages for download links (including delta ISOs)
and
I previously had vte-0.34.9-3.fc20 installed in F20 stable (installed on
July 3, which is probably the push date) but a yum distro-sync downgraded it
to vte-0.34.9-2.fc20, and the -3 version does not appear in Bodhi. What
happened to it?
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
Andre Robatino robatino at fedoraproject.org writes:
I previously had vte-0.34.9-3.fc20 installed in F20 stable (installed on
July 3, which is probably the push date) but a yum distro-sync downgraded it
to vte-0.34.9-2.fc20, and the -3 version does not appear in Bodhi. What
happened
This is
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062997
which to be fixed is waiting on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079906
and I don't know what the status is (I asked, no response). I was under the
impression it was a simple change.
--
test mailing list
In rawhide, R-core drpms always fail to rebuild with an md5 mismatch
error. Is this a known problem?
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Kevin Fenzi kevin at scrye.com writes:
On Fri, 16 May 2014 11:45:33 + (UTC)
Andre Robatino robatino at fedoraproject.org wrote:
In rawhide, R-core drpms always fail to rebuild with an md5 mismatch
error. Is this a known problem?
Can you pastebin the full output?
I shut down
Kevin Fenzi kevin at scrye.com writes:
I have no idea if the package could be fixed to not do this, I'm not
sure what that reconf does. You might open an R bug on it...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098663
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
Adam Williamson awilliam at redhat.com writes:
slub debugging is enabled this early in the kernel cycle. You'll want to
boot with slub_debug=- .
In my VirtualBox Rawhide VM, I have that set, but find that it's almost
useless (I haven't done actual timings to see if it's totally useless, or
Mukundan Ragavan nonamedotc at fedoraproject.org writes:
I was updating my Rawhide instance sometime ago and saw this
interesting transaction (below). It looks like something that should
not happen Is anyone else seeing this? Is this even an issue?
I am particularly concerned about
NOTE: The 32-bit Install DVD is over its size limit.
As per the Fedora 20 schedule [1], Fedora 20 Final Release Candidate 1
(RC1) is now available for testing. Content information, including
changes, can be found at
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5808#comment:15 . Please see the
NOTE: The 64-bit Desktop Live is over its size limit.
As per the Fedora 20 schedule [1], Fedora 20 Final Test Compose 5 (TC5)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5808#comment:13
. Please see the following
NOTE: The 64-bit Desktop Live is over its size limit.
As per the Fedora 20 schedule [1], Fedora 20 Final Test Compose 5 (TC5)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5808#comment:13
. Please see the following
NOTE: The 64-bit LXDE Live is over its size limit.
As per the Fedora 20 schedule [1], Fedora 20 Final Test Compose 4 (TC4)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5808#comment:11
. Please see the following pages
NOTE: The 64-bit LXDE Live is over its size limit.
As per the Fedora 20 schedule [1], Fedora 20 Final Test Compose 4 (TC4)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5808#comment:11
. Please see the following pages
NOTE: The 64-bit Desktop and LXDE Lives are over their respective size
limits.
As per the Fedora 20 schedule [1], Fedora 20 Final Test Compose 3 (TC3)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5808#comment:8 .
For a few weeks now, installing a DE by the usual method yum install
@gnome-desktop no longer works. For some DEs, I can make it work by using
groupinstall without the @ sign. For others, it says that the DE does not
exist. Is the old syntax expected to work again eventually, and if not, what
has
NOTE: The 64-bit LXDE Live is over its size limit.
As per the Fedora 20 schedule [1], Fedora 20 Final Test Compose 2 (TC2)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5808#comment:6 .
Please see the following pages
NOTE: The 64-bit LXDE Live is over its size limit.
As per the Fedora 20 schedule [1], Fedora 20 Final Test Compose 2 (TC2)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5808#comment:6 .
Please see the following pages
Currently there appears to be nowhere in the Install Test Results Matrix to
validate checksums for the Images/i386 and Images/x86_64 dirs (see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_20_Install_Results_Template
). The results for Images/armhfp go under
NOTE: The 64-bit LXDE Live is over its size limit.
As per the Fedora 20 schedule [1], Fedora 20 Final Test Compose 1 (TC1)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5808 . Please
see the following pages for
Chris Murphy lists at colorremedies.com writes:
On Nov 14, 2013, at 5:22 PM, Chris Murphy lists at colorremedies.com
wrote:
Will there be a delta ISO to go from (final) beta to release TC1? Or is
it an all new download?
Yes Chris, apparently it wasn't there when you last checked for it,
Adam Williamson awilliam at redhat.com writes:
On Sat, 2013-11-09 at 08:57 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
For the alpha I reported that I had problems (glacial speed being the main
one) trying to do a live install on a machine with 512 MB. I'd like to
report that for Beta a live install
Adam Williamson awilliam at redhat.com writes:
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 03:23 +, Andre Robatino wrote:
The install images for 20 Beta RC3 and RC4 are definitely NOT identical. The
checksums are different, and just looking at the DVD, the options under
Installation source are different
BTW, the behavior of RC3 and RC4 is not *exactly* the same - for example, in
text install for i386 RC3 vs. RC4, the positions of the root and user spokes
are different - this is an example of
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=929177 .
--
test mailing list
Adam Williamson awilliam at redhat.com writes:
On Sat, 2013-11-02 at 14:52 +, Andre Robatino wrote:
Do we or should we have a policy of automatically promoting unfixed freeze
exceptions from Alpha to Beta, or Beta to Final? The concept doesn't make
sense for blockers, since those have
NOTE: The 32- and 64-bit Security Spins are over their respective size
targets.
As per the Fedora 20 schedule [1], Fedora 20 Beta Release Candidate 5
(RC5) is now available for testing. Content information, including
changes, can be found at
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5787#comment:29
NOTE: The 64-bit Desktop Live, and the 32- and 64-bit Security Spins are
over their respective size targets.
As per the Fedora 20 schedule [1], Fedora 20 Beta Release Candidate 3
(RC3) is now available for testing. Content information, including
changes, can be found at
NOTE: The 32- and 64-bit Security Spins are over their respective size
targets.
As per the Fedora 20 schedule [1], Fedora 20 Beta Release Candidate 4
(RC4) is now available for testing. Content information, including
changes, can be found at
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5787#comment:26
The install images for 20 Beta RC3 and RC4 are definitely NOT identical. The
checksums are different, and just looking at the DVD, the options under
Installation source are different (RC3 only had one option, RC4 has the
regular complement) and the add-ons for Basic desktop are different (RC3
had
NOTE: The 64-bit Desktop Live, and the 32- and 64-bit Security Spins are
over their respective size targets.
As per the Fedora 20 schedule [1], Fedora 20 Beta Release Candidate 3
(RC3) is now available for testing. Content information, including
changes, can be found at
Do we or should we have a policy of automatically promoting unfixed freeze
exceptions from Alpha to Beta, or Beta to Final? The concept doesn't make
sense for blockers, since those have to be fixed at each stage before going
to the next, but FEs don't.
On a related note, I've noticed a tendency
NOTE: The 20 Beta RC1 compose was skipped. The last tested compose was TC6.
NOTE: The 32- and 64-bit Security Spins are over their respective size
targets.
As per the Fedora 20 schedule [1], Fedora 20 Beta Release Candidate 2
(RC2) is now available for testing. Content information, including
NOTE: The 32- and 64-bit DVDs, and the 32- and 64-bit Security Spins are
over their respective size targets.
As per the Fedora 20 schedule [1], Fedora 20 Beta Test Compose 6 (TC6)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at
NOTE: The 32- and 64-bit DVDs, the 64-bit LXDE Live, and the 32- and
64-bit Security Spins are over their respective size targets.
As per the Fedora 20 schedule [1], Fedora 20 Beta Test Compose 5 (TC5)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at
Joachim Backes joachim.backes at rhrk.uni-kl.de writes:
did anybody try to install F20-Beta-TC... in a VirtualBox-4.3 (from
virtualbox.org) VM?
Using VirtualBox-4.3, I've had no problems with testing any of the 20 Beta
TC5 32- or 64-bit install images (DVD or netinst), or with running my
Chris Murphy lists at colorremedies.com writes:
Oh nice, it's one of those days. Although I now sorta feel like gutting
that wiki page to remove all the ancient Fedora clutter.
The thing is, there's always someone using an incredibly old version of
Fedora, or any version of RHEL/CentOS, and
Frank beacon at videotron.ca writes:
First (as superuser root) try out the
package-cleanup --cleandupes
command. If that doesn't manage to remove the duplicate, give
rpm --erase --justdb --noscripts --notriggers usbmuxd-1.0.8-10.fc20.x86_64
a try.
You want to remove the old
NOTE: The 32- and 64-bit DVDs, the 64-bit LXDE Live, and the 32- and
64-bit Security Spins are over their respective size targets.
As per the Fedora 20 schedule [1], Fedora 20 Beta Test Compose 5 (TC5)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at
piruthiviraj natarajan piruthiviraj at gmail.com writes:
Is there any other reason except for oversize for not building the TC4 for
LXDE,XFCE,MATE spin CDs?
They're located in the Live/ directory now.
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
dlehman proposed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019500 as a
Beta Blocker, and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019502 as a
Final Blocker, but both are private, so they need to be fixed before the
meeting.
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
NOTE: The 32- and 64-bit DVDs, the 64-bit LXDE Live, and the 32- and
64-bit Security Spins are over their respective size targets.
As per the Fedora 20 schedule [1], Fedora 20 Beta Test Compose 4 (TC4)
is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
can be found at
1 - 100 of 523 matches
Mail list logo
