Fedora Rawhide-20180427.n.1 compose check report

No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 36/137 (x86_64), 14/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm) ID: 230771 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso base_services_start URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230771 ID: 230784 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default@uefi URL: https://openqa.f

Intent to orphan: rubygem-ronn, trac-code-comments-plugin

I am orphaning the packages: - rubygem-ronn - trac-code-comments-plugin ...as I no longer have a need for them and have been unable to find the time to properly care for them and update them. These are mostly easy-to-care-for packages, but they are starting to accumulate some bugs that need dusti

Re: Fedora Workstation and Third-Party Repositories

I found that https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Third_Party_Software_Repositories works in f28 KDE DE also: 'dnf install fedora-workstation-repositories' installs the extra third party repositories on the command line and makes the .repo files available in /etc/yum.repos.d/. Chrome

Re: Fedora Workstation and Third-Party Repositories

Ah, I did not realize the repositories were disabled in the rpm. Would it be appropriate for me to update this page to mention that under the command line installation section? Additionally, might it be worth adding a

Re: Fedora Workstation and Third-Party Repositories

On 04/27/2018 02:56 PM, David Benoit wrote: > Hi all, > > Regarding the inclusion of the fedora-workstation-repositories package in > F28, is there currently a policy in place against including it as a > dependency? From what I understand from the recent fedora magazine article >

Fedora Workstation and Third-Party Repositories

Hi all, Regarding the inclusion of the fedora-workstation-repositories package in F28, is there currently a policy in place against including it as a dependency? From what I understand from the recent fedora magazine article and the pol

Re: Fedora 28 Final status is GO

On Thu, 2018-04-26 at 16:54 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 01:02:32PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > *was* an 'official' schedule with an earlier release date than the > > actual one in each case. If anyone's as sadly nerdy as me, I can > > provide specific references for

Fedora 28-20180427.n.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 1/137 (x86_64), 3/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm) ID: 230555 Test: x86_64 Everything-boot-iso install_default@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230555 ID: 230574 Test: i386 Workstation-boot-iso memory_check URL: https://openqa.fedorap

Re: Fedora 28 Final status is GO

On Fri, 2018-04-27 at 18:29 +0200, Thomas Moschny wrote: > 2018-04-26 22:02 GMT+02:00 Adam Williamson : > > On that basis, I'm gonna say FC1 was at least a day late from the > > schedule in place a week before it came out, > > It even slipped 'officially': > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-

Fedora 28 compose report: 20180427.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-28-20180425.n.0 NEW: Fedora-28-20180427.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:1 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

Re: systemd in non-privileged container

On Friday, April 27, 2018 5:41:19 PM CEST Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Fr, 27.04.18 17:27, Pavel Raiskup (prais...@redhat.com) wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > just wanted to let you know about trivial experiment [1] with systemd in > > container. Non-privileged systemd can now pretty fine run in

Re: systemd in non-privileged container

On 04/27/2018 11:41 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Fr, 27.04.18 17:27, Pavel Raiskup (prais...@redhat.com) wrote: Hi all, just wanted to let you know about trivial experiment [1] with systemd in container. Non-privileged systemd can now pretty fine run in docker container (tested on Fedora

Re: Fedora 28 Final status is GO

2018-04-26 22:02 GMT+02:00 Adam Williamson : > On that basis, I'm gonna say FC1 was at least a day late from the > schedule in place a week before it came out, It even slipped 'officially': https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2003-October/msg01178.html :) - Thomas __

Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2018-04-27)

Minutes: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2018-04-27/fesco.2018-04-27-15.02.html Minutes (text): https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2018-04-27/fesco.2018-04-27-15.02.txt Log: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2018-04-27/fesco.2018-04-27-15.02.log.html

Re: systemd in non-privileged container

On Fr, 27.04.18 17:27, Pavel Raiskup (prais...@redhat.com) wrote: > Hi all, > > just wanted to let you know about trivial experiment [1] with systemd in > container. Non-privileged systemd can now pretty fine run in docker > container (tested on Fedora 27 box). Hmm, IIRC there were at least two

systemd in non-privileged container

Hi all, just wanted to let you know about trivial experiment [1] with systemd in container. Non-privileged systemd can now pretty fine run in docker container (tested on Fedora 27 box). Could we support this under fedora-kickstarts, or as a layered image? [1] https://github.com/praiskup/systemd

Re: Fedora 28 Final status is GO

Wow, that is some serious digging, and good to know that we are on time :) Hope we continue it for future releases. On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:03 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2018-04-26 at 20:41 +0200, Jan Kurik wrote: > > The Fedora_28_RC_1.1 compose [1] is considered as GOLD and it is g

Re: Fedora 28 Final status is GO

Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Adam Williamson said: > > For the record, I have determined to at least my own satisfaction that > > this is the first *ever* on-time Fedora release. Go team! > > Ehh, release schedules are more like guidelines anyway... :) In Fedora "guidelines" usually

Re: SELinux Policy Modules Packaging Draft

On 04/27/2018 10:23 AM, Pavel Raiskup wrote: > Hi all, any plan to ratify the Draft? [1] > > I'm thinking whether it is good time already to add '*-selinux' subpackage > to generally selinux-covered services (by selinux-policy-targeted), like > e.g. 'httpd' or 'postgresql-server'. > > Any experie

SELinux Policy Modules Packaging Draft

Hi all, any plan to ratify the Draft? [1] I'm thinking whether it is good time already to add '*-selinux' subpackage to generally selinux-covered services (by selinux-policy-targeted), like e.g. 'httpd' or 'postgresql-server'. Any experiences? [1] https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Ta