Hi everyone,
Can anyone explain what is the difference between the following two
approaches for rebuilding GCC SRPM on RISC-V Fedora image. Here I have
changed the gcc.spec file.
*Method-1:*
%ifarch riscv64
--with-arch=rv64g --enable-multilib --with-multilib-list=lp64
%endif
*Result:*
#error "
I took python-i3ipc; I have a package with dependency on it.
Thanks for maintaining it all these years!
On 3/18/21 12:44 PM, Michael Šimáček wrote:
Hi,
Due to lack of time and motivation I've just orphaned the following packages
which are now free to take:
pasystray
clipit
python-i3ipc
rnv
Re
Hi,
Due to lack of time and motivation I've just orphaned the following packages
which are now free to take:
pasystray
clipit
python-i3ipc
rnv
Regards,
Michael Simacek
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email
The Fedora Linux 34 Beta RC1.3 compose[1] is GO and will be shipped
live on Tuesday, 23 March 2021.
For more information please check the Go/No-Go meeting minutes[2] or log [3].
Thank you to everyone who has and still is working on this release!
The Final Freeze
begins on 6 April.
[1] https://dl
Il 17/03/21 16:51, Robert-André Mauchin ha scritto:
> Hello!
>
> I have a dozen or more packages waiting to be reviewed and I'm looking for
> someone to
> help in exchange of some of yours.
>
I'll try to work on some of them in the weekend, I already own you a
couple of reviews, at least.
BTW, I
Missing expected images:
Iot dvd x86_64
Iot dvd aarch64
Failed openQA tests: 3/16 (x86_64), 2/15 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-IoT-35-20210317.0):
ID: 820578 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso podman
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/820578
ID: 820579 T
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 5:33 PM Mattia Verga via devel
wrote:
>
> Il 17/03/21 11:41, Vít Ondruch ha scritto:
> >
> > I think the problem is that the groups can be removed from package only
> > by the main admin. If the main admin is non-responsive, then the whole
> > group is kind of hostage. Ever
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 4/126 (aarch64), 3/187 (x86_64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-34-20210317.n.0):
ID: 820151 Test: aarch64 Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz
install_arm_image_deployment_upload@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/820151
ID: 820
Great News! Much appreciated!
David Duncan
http://about.me/davdunc
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 9:37 PM Christoph Karl wrote:
>
> Am 14.03.21 um 23:32 schrieb clime:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have just finished port of libravatar.org service to server provided
> > by Fedora. Big thanks to the Fedora proj
OLD: Fedora-34-20210317.n.0
NEW: Fedora-34-20210318.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
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
The real issue is not orphaning itself but the possibility to take the
package right away and get full access access for any package in the
distribution.
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 2:46 PM Kalev Lember wrote:
>
> On 3/18/21 11:29, Pavel Zhukov wrote:
> > Even worse. Every packager (not a member of p
On 3/18/21 11:29, Pavel Zhukov wrote:
Even worse. Every packager (not a member of package) is able to orphan
*any* package and drop the main admin there. Just verified it.
I went ahead and filed this as
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/9745
--
Kalev
_
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 9:11 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 9:04 AM Matthew Miller
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 01:24:29PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > If we want to have this now in the remix, I would say we could take
> > > generic-release and modify it for our
No missing expected images.
Compose PASSES proposed Rawhide gating check!
All required tests passed
Failed openQA tests: 15/126 (aarch64), 10/187 (x86_64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20210317.n.0):
ID: 819845 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso support_server@uefi
URL: ht
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 9:04 AM Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 01:24:29PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > If we want to have this now in the remix, I would say we could take
> > generic-release and modify it for our needs and ship that instead of
> > fedora-release.
> >
> > I'm no
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 01:24:29PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> If we want to have this now in the remix, I would say we could take
> generic-release and modify it for our needs and ship that instead of
> fedora-release.
>
> I'm not sure that it's up to date tho... :(
>
> At one point it was nice
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 08:47:00AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> I don't see anything explicit. There's:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_and_directory_ownership
> which talks about a package owning all it's files, but it doesn't
> explicitly say no to this.
Also t
> is to add the contents of the patch to the existing (empty)
> linux-kernel-test.patch
> file.
Thanks! It looks like this method works.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedorapro
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20210317.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20210318.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:3
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 21
Dropped packages:4
Upgraded packages: 83
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 73.09 MiB
Size of dropped packages
Hi,
On 3/18/21 12:42 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> In kernel 5.10.x, it was enough to add the line for example "Patch 990:
>> example.patch" to apply the patch.
>> Now in 5.11.x it looks like this method doesn't work.
>
> You can still do that for a local build, you also need to have an
> ApplyOp
> In kernel 5.10.x, it was enough to add the line for example "Patch 990:
> example.patch" to apply the patch.
> Now in 5.11.x it looks like this method doesn't work.
You can still do that for a local build, you also need to have an
ApplyOptionalPatch line, see the "ApplyOptionalPatch
patch-%{sta
In kernel 5.10.x, it was enough to add the line for example "Patch 990:
example.patch" to apply the patch.
Now in 5.11.x it looks like this method doesn't work.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel
Even worse. Every packager (not a member of package) is able to orphan
*any* package and drop the main admin there. Just verified it.
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 11:25 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 18. 03. 21 11:14, Pavel Zhukov wrote:
> > So... Looks like the ex-admin of the package was able to orph
On 18. 03. 21 11:14, Pavel Zhukov wrote:
So... Looks like the ex-admin of the package was able to orphan one
somehow and by doing this drop the current admin from the member
list. Looks like a bug if not a security hole for me.
An "admin" can remove admins. I don't think that is necessarily a
So... Looks like the ex-admin of the package was able to orphan one
somehow and by doing this drop the current admin from the member
list. Looks like a bug if not a security hole for me.
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 11:07 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 18. 03. 21 11:03, Pavel Zhukov wrote:
> > landgr
On 18. 03. 21 11:03, Pavel Zhukov wrote:
landgraf (it's me) have not done this :) and pavlix transferred the
package to me ~3 years ago.
I've been the default bug assignee for this component since then.
In that case, no idea. The pagure admins might have some kind of information
about who made
landgraf (it's me) have not done this :) and pavlix transferred the
package to me ~3 years ago.
I've been the default bug assignee for this component since then.
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 10:59 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 18. 03. 21 10:48, Pavel Zhukov wrote:
> > I've got an email from bugzilla a
On 18. 03. 21 10:48, Pavel Zhukov wrote:
I've got an email from bugzilla and noticed that the cyrus-imapd
package was orphaned and pagure confirmed that.
The package was built in rawhide, upgraded to the newest version and
there are not fail to install bugs opened. So the reason for this
action i
I've got an email from bugzilla and noticed that the cyrus-imapd
package was orphaned and pagure confirmed that.
The package was built in rawhide, upgraded to the newest version and
there are not fail to install bugs opened. So the reason for this
action is not unclear for me.
Can somebody (Miro?)
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-32-20210317.0):
ID: 819714 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
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-33-20210317.0):
ID: 819647 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
31 matches
Mail list logo
