No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 6/189 (x86_64), 2/127 (aarch64)
ID: 864891 Test: x86_64 Everything-boot-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864891
ID: 864914 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_login
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/t
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 12:37:40AM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> Peter Hutterer writes:
> > xfd
>
> I use this a lot; what is the modern replacement for it?
I was about to say gnome-font-viewer but that doesn't seem to list the old X
fonts (or requires conversion or something). So, tbh, I'm not sur
Peter Hutterer writes:
> xfd
I use this a lot; what is the modern replacement for 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.fedor
According to the schedule [1], Fedora 34 Candidate RC-1.1 is now
available for testing. Please help us complete all the validation
testing! For more information on release validation testing, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan
Test coverage information for the curr
The harmonyseq package changed from “GPLv3+” to “GPLv3+ and CC0” due to the
downstream addition of an AppData XML file under the latter license
(https://github.com/rafalcieslak/harmonySEQ/issues/5).
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.or
Now that the XorgUtilityDeaggregation [1] is complete, I'm planning to
retire a set of old X utilities that I think don't need to be in Fedora:
oclock
xbiff
xload
xman
xrefresh
xlogo
xpr
xfd
viewres
listres
xconsole
This is a very conservative list of packages, there are likely more
that should b
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 10:49:16PM +0200, Robert-André Mauchin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On the old account system, when I sponsored someone into the "packager"
> group, they were automatically added to the "fedorabugs" group. This is not
> the case anymore, is it a bug or a feature?
It's a bug. Alread
Hello,
On the old account system, when I sponsored someone into the "packager"
group, they were automatically added to the "fedorabugs" group. This is
not the case anymore, is it a bug or a feature?
Globally I don't really like the new system. On a big group like:
https://accounts.fedoraproje
* Frank Ch. Eigler:
> Unfortunately, in the absence of per-file signatures generated by the
> build system, and securely distributed out-of-band, I can't think of any
> way to provide client-side verifiability of a debuginfod type service.
> That's independent of any particular level of server cod
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 4:09 PM Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> A direct way would be for someone to koji-download the given rpm, and
> hand-extract/compare the files. (It's obviously not economical.)
>
> > Thus, the debuginfod server becomes a juicy target.
>
> Yes. The Changes FAQ section discusses
"Sampson Fung" writes:
> The first run, giving my "Try"s, takes much longer than the second run, which
> gives no "Trys".
> Just from impression:
> 1st run: From run to download finish, I will say it takes about 5+ minutes.
> 2nd run: ~1 minute
> For each "Try" given, the delay is not obvious t
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2021-04-22 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.freenode.net.
Local time information (via. uitime):
= Day: Thursday ==
2021-04-22 09:00 PDT US/Pacific
2021-04-22 1
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek writes:
> OTOH, the debuginfo files distributed through the debuginfod server
> are not signed and there is no direct way to verify that they match
> the (signed) contents of the debuginfo package.
A direct way would be for someone to koji-download the given rpm, and
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 03:15:23PM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>
> Björn Persson writes:
>
> >> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27758
> >
> > The design you propose there won't improve anything for anyone. If the
> > hash is computed on the debuginfo server, then an attacker w
IP addresses sent by gmail.
Thanks for the reminder for the new URL.
___
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-US
I have run the same debug session using two different machines.
The first run, giving my "Try"s, takes much longer than the second run, which
gives no "Trys".
Just from impression:
1st run: From run to download finish, I will say it takes about 5+ minutes.
2nd run: ~1 minute
For each "Try" giv
Björn Persson writes:
>> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27758
>
> The design you propose there won't improve anything for anyone. If the
> hash is computed on the debuginfo server, then an attacker who can make
> the server serve malicious debuginfo can also make it serve hashes
It is just a short delay then the "Try" suggestion is given.
My first run using my Notebook takes quite some time.
A few hours later, I run again using my Desktop, this time is very fast and no
"Try" given.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedorap
Hi everyone,
Since we anticipate a Fedora Linux 34 release candidate request today,
I am moving the Go/No-Go meeting from Thursday to Friday. This will
allow the QA team more time to perform validation tests.
The Fedora Linux 34 Final Go/No-Go[1] meeting is scheduled for Friday
23 April at 1700 U
Björn Persson writes:
> I was wondering what the user experience would be like in such a
> situation. Could you estimate how long you had to wait in total? Was
> there a long delay before each "Timer expired" message, or only one
> delay?
Each outright-hung request could entail a $DEBUGINFOD_TIM
"FUNG Chi Chuen Sampson" writes:
> Downloading separate debug info for /lib64/liblzma.so.5...
> Download failed: Timer expired. Continuing without debug info for
> /lib64/libbrotlicommon.so.1.
> Missing separate debuginfo for /lib64/libbrotlicommon.so.1
> [...]
By the way, if you were using th
sampsonfung wrote:
> While trying to collect a backtrace for org.gnome.Tetravex, I got this in gdb:
> [...]
> Download failed: Timer expired. Continuing without debug info for
> /lib64/libzstd.so.1.
> Missing separate debuginfo for /lib64/libzstd.so.1
> Try: dnf --enablerepo='*debug*' install
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 12:05:09 +0200, Antonio T. sagitter wrote:
> PETSc-3.15 is built in side-tag f35-build-side-40112
> Please, rebuild your own related package.
Thanks:
> > python-steps-0:3.5.0-5.fc33.src
Done: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=66426528
--
Thanks,
Regards,
On Fri, 2021-04-16 at 09:32 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 9:19 AM Pierre-Yves Chibon <
> pin...@pingoured.fr> wrote:
> > zoglesby is maintainer of rpms/publican-fedora
> >
> Huh. That still exists? What a throwback!
publican-fedora is not marked as retired on
https://src.fed
Hi,
OFFLIST as it's not directly pertinent to your specific distro pkgs.
but, since you're packaging, fwiw, I take a very different approach than
distro-pkgd atm,
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pgfed/nginx-mainline/fedora-33-x86_64/02142389-nginx/nginx.spec
that puts ru
Dear Fedorans,
Nginx 1.20.0 stable was just released and I took the opportunity to
squash some long standing open bugs while updating the package.
The new release is on it's way to updates-testing right now.
I would like to encourage some extra testing for this release as there
is one behavi
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 3/189 (x86_64), 3/127 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-34-20210420.n.0):
ID: 864104 Test: x86_64 Everything-boot-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864104
ID: 864192 Test: aarch64 S
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 11:26:10AM +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
> Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> > Björn Persson writes:
> >
> > > · How is it verified that files received from debuginfo servers have not
> > > been tampered with?
> >
> > Following up further to this, we're planning to add optional
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 2/16 (x86_64), 3/15 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-IoT-34-20210420.0):
ID: 864434 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso base_services_start
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864434
ID: 864436 Test: x86_64 IoT-
OLD: Fedora-34-20210420.n.0
NEW: Fedora-34-20210421.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:2
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 37
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:89.19 KiB
Size of
No missing expected images.
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
6 of 43 required tests failed, 1 result missing
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
below
Failed openQA tests: 18/189 (x86_64), 12/127 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 03:25:01PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> Good Morning Everyone,
>
> When we rolled out the new AAA solution a few weeks ago, some accounts have
> not
> been migrated:
> - Accounts that have been set inactive by their owner
> - Accounts that are disabled
> - Accounts m
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20210420.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20210421.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:3
Dropped images: 3
Added packages: 5
Dropped packages:3
Upgraded packages: 84
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 2.79 MiB
Size of dropped packages:1.52
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-32-20210419.0):
ID: 863668 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
FUNG Chi Chuen Sampson wrote:
> While trying to collect a backtrace for org.gnome.Tetravex, I got this in gdb:
>
> ===
>
> Downloading separate debug info for /lib64/liblzma.so.5...
> Download failed: Timer expired. Continuing without debug info for
> /lib64/libbrotlicommon.so.1.
> Missing sepa
Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Björn Persson writes:
>
> > · How is it verified that files received from debuginfo servers have not
> > been tampered with?
>
> Following up further to this, we're planning to add optional client-side
> hash-verification of cached content, to provide some protection
On 31. 03. 21 21:52, Ben Cotton wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RPM-4.17
== Summary ==
Update RPM to the [https://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.17.0 4.17] release.
== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:pmatilai|Panu Matilainen]]
* Email: [pmati...@redhat.com]
== Detailed Description ==
RPM 4.17
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-33-20210420.0):
ID: 863449 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
38 matches
Mail list logo
