On 07/01/2021 02:02, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 6:27 PM Peter Robinson wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 11:25 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 6:03 PM Peter Robinson wrote:
> Regardless of the packages above, I still think the Btrfs issue is the
>
On 11/30/20 2:06 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
Hi,
As part of the f34 change request[1] for removing make from the
buildroot, I will be doing a mass update of packages[2] to add
BuildRequires: make where it is needed.
If you are a package maintainer and would prefer to update your packages
on you
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021, 5:49 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 10:20:59PM -, Endi Sukma Dewata wrote:
> > Hi, there seems to be a problem with libuv on F32.
> > It doesn't seem to be happening on F33. Is anybody
> > familiar with this? Thanks.
>
> I'm not sure how this could happen
Ok, will do
-- Rex
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021, 8:02 PM 西木野羰基 wrote:
> Hello rdieter,
>
> I have built fcitx5-configtool-5.0.1-1.fc33 in f33-kde tag, since this
> version of fcitx5-configtool depends on latest version of
> kf5-kirigami2. And I think this build should belong to
> https://bodhi.fedorapro
Hello rdieter,
I have built fcitx5-configtool-5.0.1-1.fc33 in f33-kde tag, since this
version of fcitx5-configtool depends on latest version of
kf5-kirigami2. And I think this build should belong to
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-b6c17b6872
So, could you please add this build
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 6:27 PM Peter Robinson wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 11:25 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 6:03 PM Peter Robinson wrote:
> > >
> > > > Regardless of the packages above, I still think the Btrfs issue is the
> > > > biggest surprise for people and it
On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 10:20:59PM -, Endi Sukma Dewata wrote:
> Hi, there seems to be a problem with libuv on F32.
> It doesn't seem to be happening on F33. Is anybody
> familiar with this? Thanks.
I'm not sure how this could happen with updates repos. pungi (The tool
that makes them) fails i
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 3:36 PM Jerry James wrote:
> My other option is to remove the mono subpackage and tell the
> community that anybody who wants it back has to figure out how to
> build it. :-) I'm trying to avoid that option, but if I can't get
> anything else to work, that's what we'll have
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 11:25 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 6:03 PM Peter Robinson wrote:
> >
> > > Regardless of the packages above, I still think the Btrfs issue is the
> > > biggest surprise for people and it is worse because it is the default
> > > filesystem now. People can
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 6:03 PM Peter Robinson wrote:
>
> > Regardless of the packages above, I still think the Btrfs issue is the
> > biggest surprise for people and it is worse because it is the default
> > filesystem now. People can reboot into a new kernel but they may not be
> > able to easil
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 11:01 PM Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 10:49 pm, Peter Robinson
> wrote:
> > As per standard package process each architecture has a tracking bug
> > where you file a bug against the package and link it to the bug for
> > the architecture as a blocker.
> > On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 9:53 pm, Peter Robinson
> > wrote:
> >> Ultimately it's software bugs and if the software is open it's a
> >> fixable problem. Are there bugs filed? Because I've always found the
> >> IBM team that are involved in Fedora are pretty active on addressing
> >> those sorts o
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 10:49 pm, Peter Robinson
wrote:
As per standard package process each architecture has a tracking bug
where you file a bug against the package and link it to the bug for
the architecture as a blocker. The POWER blocker alias is PPCTracker
[1]
Is there some page I can use
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 10:01 PM Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 9:53 pm, Peter Robinson
> wrote:
> > Ultimately it's software bugs and if the software is open it's a
> > fixable problem. Are there bugs filed? Because I've always found the
> > IBM team that are involved in Fedo
First, thank you very much for this reply, Omair. I appreciate the
time you took to walk me through the issues. This is one of the
things I love about Fedora: the community is very helpful.
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 1:13 PM Omair Majid wrote:
> Jerry James writes:
>
> > Antlr4 4.9.1 is out. This
Hi, there seems to be a problem with libuv on F32.
It doesn't seem to be happening on F33. Is anybody
familiar with this? Thanks.
# podman run --rm -it fedora:32 dnf install libuv -y
Fedora 32 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64
On 06/01/2021 23:02, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 9:53 pm, Peter Robinson
> wrote:
>> Ultimately it's software bugs and if the software is open it's a
>> fixable problem. Are there bugs filed? Because I've always found the
>> IBM team that are involved in Fedora are pretty a
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 9:53 pm, Peter Robinson
wrote:
Ultimately it's software bugs and if the software is open it's a
fixable problem. Are there bugs filed? Because I've always found the
IBM team that are involved in Fedora are pretty active on addressing
those sorts of problems.
Where do you
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 9:21 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 02:11:37PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> >
> > We did some more troubleshooting of AMD Radeon issues on ppc64
>
> Small aside: I know you mean ppc64le (because thats all we make
> anymore), but it confuses me since 'ppc6
> We did some more troubleshooting of AMD Radeon issues on ppc64
>
> As with Nouveau, it looks like a change from 64k to 4k page size got it
> working again with RX 5700. I suspect it will be similar for RX 6800 if
> we can get some of them, they are a good complement for the compute power.
>
>
On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 11:07:24AM -0500, Scott Talbert wrote:
>
> OK.
>
> And of course, now sip6 has been released. So perhaps we should just skip
> sip5 altogether and just go directly to 6.
Ha. Figures.
I just want to get back to where I can update calibre again.
It updates very often be
On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 02:11:37PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
> We did some more troubleshooting of AMD Radeon issues on ppc64
Small aside: I know you mean ppc64le (because thats all we make
anymore), but it confuses me since 'ppc64' is what we called the old big
endian 64 bit ppc, which is re
Hi,
I have some thoughts but no real answers, sorry.
Jerry James writes:
> Antlr4 4.9.1 is out. This is mostly a small change from version 4.9,
> except that the mono runtime has changed drastically.
That's a little brave for a patch release
Mono and .NET Core are two different implement
> Which project/host are you trying to push to?
> This is allowed on pagure.io but if you're trying on src.fp.o it will be
> blocked
> (and this is expected). We will be doing src.fp.o directly server side, we'll
> simply be renaming the master ref to rawhide (to by-pass the git hook which
> does
On Tue, 2021-01-05 at 13:05 -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
> == Benefit to Fedora ==
>
> Having all files signed with a verifiable key means that system
> owners can use the kernel Integrity and Measurement Architecture
> (IMA) to enforce only verified files can be executed, or define other
> policies.
Hello all,
Antlr4 4.9.1 is out. This is mostly a small change from version 4.9,
except that the mono runtime has changed drastically. Upstream now
builds against netstandard2.0 and netstandard2.1, and I can no longer
build with "xbuild Antlr4.mono.sln" because Antlr4.mono.sln is gone.
I figured
On 06. 01. 21 12:26, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
I'm pretty sure that the 81 python3-rpm are backports from upstream.
The python3-rpm package is an EPEL7 only package and there will be no rebase.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
_
On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 4:27 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that the 81 python3-rpm are backports from upstream. The 129
> patches for gcl seems to be upstream prerelase patches. When upstream makes
> the
> next release, no "rebase" is needed — those patches will be just d
I've submitted an update for adplug yesterday for all released branches of
Fedora (and EPEL), because it addresses 8 CVEs.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?search=adplug-2.3.3
The API is compatible (but ABI bump), so it will just require a rebuild for
dependent packages. Given only two
On 11/30/20 2:06 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
Hi,
As part of the f34 change request[1] for removing make from the
buildroot, I will be doing a mass update of packages[2] to add
BuildRequires: make where it is needed.
If you are a package maintainer and would prefer to update your packages
on you
Am 06.01.21 um 14:06 schrieb Paul Howarth:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 12:11:43 +0100
Marius Schwarz wrote:
we need an urgent build of 2.3.13 as the CVE-2020-24386 got public.
I saw in Koji that the first build failed on the 4th Jan for F32 and
F33.
Can someone pls help and invest this, as it's a crit
On Mon, 4 Jan 2021, Rex Dieter wrote:
I think fundamentally the version of PyQt5-sip probably needs to match
(or be very close to) the version of sip that PyQt5 itself was
compiled with.
I think for calibre (which is currently failing with):
...
/usr/bin/python3 -c import os;
os.chdir('/build
Minutes:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2021-01-06/fesco.2021-01-06-15.00.html
Minutes (text):
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2021-01-06/fesco.2021-01-06-15.00.txt
Log:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2021-01-06/fesco.2021-01-06-15.00.lo
Hi Orion.
PETSc-3.14 looks still incompatible with Sundials-5.6, so PETSc rebuilds
are not in plan.
Regards.
--
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto: sagit...@fedoraproject.org
GPG key: 0x29FBC85D7A51CC2F
GPG key server: https://keys.gnupg.net/
OpenPGP_0x29FBC85D7A51CC2F.asc
Description:
I've kicked off builds of octave, dolfin, and bout++. Are you planning
on rebuilding petsc?
Orion
On 1/5/21 12:12 PM, Antonio T. sagitter wrote:
side-tag created for sundials-5.6.1:
$ koji list-tagged --latest f34-build-side-35531
Build Tag
Dne 05. 01. 21 v 20:01 Michel Alexandre Salim napsal(a):
> Is there any relation between this and fapolicyd, that seems to be
> developed mostly by Red Hat employees?
>
> https://github.com/linux-application-whitelisting/fapolicyd
And Swid?
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/adelton/swid/
-
perl-Test-File-1.44.4-1.fc34 changed license from perl (GPL+ or
Artistic) to Artistic 2.0.
Paul.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://
perl-RPC-XML-0.81-1.fc34 changed license from (Artistic 2.0 or LGPLv2) to
((Artistic 2.0 or Artistic or LGPLv2) and (Artistic 2.0 or LGPLv2)).
-- Petr
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To u
I'm only aware of one package still depending on this archaic version
of libmodulemd (fedmod, which is porting to libmodulemd 2.x), so I
plan to retire the libmodulemd1 package from Fedora immediately
following the Fedora 34 branching.
___
devel mailing l
Once upon a time, Miroslav Lichvar said:
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 08:30:39AM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> > Once upon a time, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek said:
> > > #2517 F34 Change: ntp replacement
> > > https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2517
> > > APPROVED (+5, 0, 0)
> >
> > I changed my stratum 1
We did some more troubleshooting of AMD Radeon issues on ppc64
As with Nouveau, it looks like a change from 64k to 4k page size got it
working again with RX 5700. I suspect it will be similar for RX 6800 if
we can get some of them, they are a good complement for the compute power.
The issue is
On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 12:11:43 +0100
Marius Schwarz wrote:
> we need an urgent build of 2.3.13 as the CVE-2020-24386 got public.
>
> I saw in Koji that the first build failed on the 4th Jan for F32 and
> F33.
>
> Can someone pls help and invest this, as it's a critical security
> issue.
The test s
- Original Message -
> From: "Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek"
> To: "Jakub Cajka"
> Cc: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 11:10:58 AM
> Subject: Re: Fedora 34 Change: Golang 1.16 (System-Wide Change proposal)
>
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 0
On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 06:07:40AM -0500, Elliott Sales de Andrade wrote:
> As a first order estimate, it's rather straightforward to grab the
> spec tarball and count the number of Patch lines in each one (which
> ignores any fanciness with Lua or conditionals, and doesn't really say
> if they are
Hi,
we need an urgent build of 2.3.13 as the CVE-2020-24386 got public.
I saw in Koji that the first build failed on the 4th Jan for F32 and F33.
Can someone pls help and invest this, as it's a critical security issue.
Best regards,
Marius Schwarz
_
On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 at 05:12, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 04:49:03AM -0500, Jakub Cajka wrote:
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > > From: "Josh Boyer"
> > > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
> > >
> > > Cc: "Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek"
> >
On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 01:27:40AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Ben Cotton wrote:
> > == Summary ==
> > We want to add signatures to individual files that are part of shipped
> > RPMs. These signatures will use the Linux IMA (Integrity Measurement
> > Architecture) scheme, which means the
On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 04:49:03AM -0500, Jakub Cajka wrote:
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Josh Boyer"
> > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
> >
> > Cc: "Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek"
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 9:45:28 PM
> > Subject: Re: Fedora 34 C
- Original Message -
> From: "Josh Boyer"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Cc: "Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek"
> Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 9:45:28 PM
> Subject: Re: Fedora 34 Change: Golang 1.16 (System-Wide Change proposal)
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 2:40 P
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64), 1/7 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-32-20210104.0):
ID: 752302 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
I corrected a license tag of perl-Gnome2-1.048 from "LGPLv2" to "LGPLv2+".
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code o
On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 07:16:44AM -, Wolfgang Stoeggl via devel wrote:
> > git push origin :master
> > (This deletes the old ‘master’ branch)
>
> git push origin :master
> remote: Branch deletion is not allowed
> remote: Denied push for ref 'refs/heads/master' for user '**'
> remote: All
On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 08:30:39AM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek said:
> > #2517 F34 Change: ntp replacement
> > https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2517
> > APPROVED (+5, 0, 0)
>
> I changed my stratum 1 server from ntpd to chronyd+ntp-refclock... had a
> few
53 matches
Mail list logo
