John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> To clarify a bit, the most common method of extracting a key from a TPM
> has been to simply desolder the TPM from the system and solder it onto
> another system. This works with the popular implementations.
Surely that is not a process that you want to advertise to end
I tried to submit a new update for txt2man for EPEL 8.
It was a PITA but I *THOUGHT* I got it correct. Now I see the wrong package
was included in the update.
Problem 1: bodhi couldn't find the update so I tried to paste it in
manually (which was a PITA in itself).
Instead it chose tpm2-tss-2.3.
Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1782622
This bug is part of the non-responsive maintainer procedure for
davidcl, following
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers/
.
Many of your packages are FTBFS in rawhide, including jrose
On Wed, 2019-12-11 at 02:46 +, Fedora compose checker wrote:
> No missing expected images.
>
> Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
> 21 of 43 required tests failed, 17 results missing
> openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
> below
This compose
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20191210.n.1
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20191211.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 1
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 24
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 9.42 MiB
Size of dropped packages
No missing expected images.
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
21 of 43 required tests failed, 18 results missing
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
below
Failed openQA tests: 50/165 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test not failed in Fed
On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 02:53:22PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Hello,
>
> what are the gcc 10 plans for Fedora 32? Will there be a change proposal for
> that? Is Fedora 32 the target for gcc 10?
Yes.
> I remember that gcc was updated to 9 during Fedora 30 cycle without a change
> proposal and t
On Wed, 2019-12-11 at 14:53 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Hello,
>
> what are the gcc 10 plans for Fedora 32? Will there be a change
> proposal for
> that? Is Fedora 32 the target for gcc 10?
Plan is for gcc-10 to be the compiler for F32. We coordinate with the
Fedora leaders on this each year as
Hello,
what are the gcc 10 plans for Fedora 32? Will there be a change proposal for
that? Is Fedora 32 the target for gcc 10?
I remember that gcc was updated to 9 during Fedora 30 cycle without a change
proposal and the change proposal was submitted later, after the deadline and
after gcc wa
I would like to take http_ping, since it is a simple spec file :-) and
I am still learning packaging.
On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 7:31 AM Clement Verna wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019, 21:49 Miro Hrončok wrote:
>>
>> On 09. 12. 19 18:38, Adam Miller wrote:
>> > On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 11:15 AM Mi
On Tuesday, 10 December 2019 at 13:38, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 05. 11. 19 21:17, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > I'm sure there are other pain points and I encourage you to share
> > them. Please adhere to the guidelines about objectively measurable
> > issues, though.
>
> M5. Modular packages are l
11 matches
Mail list logo
