Hi,
Grub and Shim Test Day starts today
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2021-04-12_Grub_and_Shim_Test_Day
Special call out: No installation required! If you have (U)EFI x86_64
hardware, with or without Secure Boot, please create install media
using one of the provided special test ISOs, a
Hi,
Grub and Shim Test Day starts today
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2021-04-12_Grub_and_Shim_Test_Day
Special call out: No installation required! If you have (U)EFI x86_64
hardware, with or without Secure Boot, please create install media
using one of the provided special test ISOs, a
# F34 Blocker Review meeting
# Date: 2021-04-12
# Time: 16:00 UTC
# Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net
Hi folks! We have 5 proposed Final blockers and 6 proposed Final freeze
exceptions to review (as of now), so we'll have a Fedora 34 blocker
review meeting tomorrow.
If you have
# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting
# Date: 2021-04-12
# Time: 15:00 UTC
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto)
# Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net
Greetings testers!
We didn't meet for a couple of weeks, so let's check in on that and
see where we're at for the F34 re
El dom, 11 abr 2021 a las 23:11, Gwyn Ciesla via devel (<
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org>) escribió:
> Have you tried podman-compose? It's in the Fedora repos.
>
>
> --
> Gwyn Ciesla
> she/her/hers
>
> in your fear, seek only peace
> in your fear, se
Have you tried podman-compose? It's in the Fedora repos.
\--
Gwyn Ciesla
she/her/hers
\
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love
\-d. bowie
Sent from ProtonMail mobile
\ Original Message
On
Hi,
I'm playing around with podman and docker compose, so I've read the post at
https://www.redhat.com/sysadmin/podman-docker-compose.
The example with Gitea does not work, this the output:
sudo docker-compose up
descargas_elasticsearch_1 is up-to-date
Creating descargas_skydive-analyzer_1 ... er
I'd like to volunteer to pick up the Fedora Jam project and maintain it.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 4:29 PM Pete Batard wrote:
>
> On 2021.04.11 21:14, Robert Scheck wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, Neal Gompa wrote:
> >> To be absolutely clear, I completely agree with everything here.
> >> However, with GRUB being completely dysfunctional upstream and all the
> >> pressur
On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, Robert Scheck wrote:
> Anyway, as long as systemd-boot upstream does not seem to care much about
> whether vfat XBOOTLDR is working at all (even an EfiFs driver is loaded by
> UEFI itself; their own internal UEFI driver loader is not yet implemented),
> a discussion about EfiFs
On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, Neal Gompa wrote:
> To be absolutely clear, I completely agree with everything here.
> However, with GRUB being completely dysfunctional upstream and all the
> pressure from everyone else basically doing nothing, I don't know what
> else we're supposed to do. Outside of Fedora,
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 9:55 AM Michael Catanzaro
wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 10 2021 at 08:03:09 AM -0400, Owen Taylor
> wrote:
> > Did you notice that it also works for the Fedora Flatpaks (thanks,
> > Frank!) - basic proof of concept:
> >
> > $ flatpak run --command=sh --filesystem=home --share=ne
Missing expected images:
Minimal raw-xz armhfp
Xfce raw-xz armhfp
Failed openQA tests: 10/127 (aarch64), 11/189 (x86_64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-34-20210410.n.0):
ID: 852529 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso
install_repository_hd_variation@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedorapr
Missing expected images:
Minimal raw-xz armhfp
Xfce raw-xz armhfp
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
3 of 43 required tests failed
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
below
Failed openQA tests: 12/127 (aarch64), 15/189 (x86_64)
New failures (sa
Missing expected images:
Iot dvd aarch64
Iot dvd x86_64
Failed openQA tests: 2/16 (x86_64), 6/15 (aarch64)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-35-20210408.0):
ID: 852726 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso base_services_start
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/852726
ID: 8527
On 11.04.2021 15:22, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
So would "rpm -e". It's dangerous enough for the ordinary user to
remove those that I think it's worth keeping that protection in place.
The /etc/dnf/protected.d/{shim,grub2*}.conf files are part of the grub2*
and shim* packages. It is absolutely s
On 11.04.2021 03:12, Chris Murphy wrote:
As far as I'm aware, the only two things preventing sd-boot from
reading this directory is (a) this $BOOT currently doesn't have the
proper Extended Boot Loader partition type GUID, (b) it's ext4 and out
of the box the firmware can't read ext4.
That's wh
在 2021-04-11星期日的 15:59 +0200，Vitaly Zaitsev via devel写道：
> On 11.04.2021 03:19, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > That condition is met by efifs, ergo by wrapping GRUB file system
> > modules as EFI file system drivers.
>
> Is it possible to install such EFI filesystem drivers without
> patching
> UEFI BIO
On 11.04.2021 03:19, Chris Murphy wrote:
That condition is met by efifs, ergo by wrapping GRUB file system
modules as EFI file system drivers.
Is it possible to install such EFI filesystem drivers without patching
UEFI BIOS?
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 2:35 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 10.04.2021 20:32, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > Protected doesn't mean that it's impossible to remove
>
> Problem: The operation would result in removing the following protected
> packages: grub2-efi-x64, grub2-pc, grub2-tools-mini
OLD: Fedora-34-20210410.n.0
NEW: Fedora-34-20210411.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
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
Ordinarily, no. But in this case, since GRUB 2.06~rc1 is required to
solve major critical vulnerabilities and it's very difficult to pull
the patch set that fixes it (>115 patches!) backwards, GRUB got moved
forward instead.
GRUB 2.06~rc1 was pretty much released to release the patch set...
got
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 8:23 AM PGNet Dev wrote:
>
> tangentially related ...
>
> distro update on f33 from grub 2.04-release -> 2.06-rc (re)breaks Xen boot on
> EFI.
>
> already reopened the original bug, but a question:
>
> is it normal/expected to push an *rc* (grub 2.06-rc, in this case), to
tangentially related ...
distro update on f33 from grub 2.04-release -> 2.06-rc (re)breaks Xen boot on
EFI.
already reopened the original bug, but a question:
is it normal/expected to push an *rc* (grub 2.06-rc, in this case), to
'supported' fedora (33) *release*?
unreleased f34/rawhide I can
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 7:22 AM Pete Batard wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> On 2021.04.11 04:47, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 7:54 PM Robert Scheck
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 10 Apr 2021, Neal Gompa wrote:
> >>> We do have those packaged in Fedora:
> >>> https://src.fedoraproject
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 11:12 AM Kalev Lember wrote:
>
> On 4/10/21 8:46 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 07:33:42PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> >> - Would it be OK if I fix a few packages where there are missing
> >> *builds* for f34 as well?
> >> (Of course,
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20210410.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20210411.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 3
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 40
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size
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-32-20210410.0):
ID: 852055 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
On 4/10/21 8:46 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 07:33:42PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
- Would it be OK if I fix a few packages where there are missing
*builds* for f34 as well?
(Of course, only where it is obvious that the packager just forgot to
merge the same
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-33-20210410.0):
ID: 852041 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
30 matches
Mail list logo
