On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 1:49 AM Otto Urpelainen wrote:
>
> Nico Kadel-Garcia kirjoitti 5.12.2021 klo 5.07:
> > I've been trying to bundle the current ansible-5.0.1 release as an RPM
> > for Fedora and EPEL use. Leaving aside the peculiar decisions to
> > replace the pypi.org "ansible" tarball with
On Friday, 3 December 2021 18:40:12 CET Aleksei Bavshin wrote:
> On 12/3/21 03:15, Andreas Schneider wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, December 2, 2021 9:07:06 PM CET Aleksei Bavshin wrote:
> >
> >> `smallbitvec` deps are only needed for benchmark, so the test suite is
> >> actually passing without these
Nico Kadel-Garcia kirjoitti 5.12.2021 klo 5.07:
I've been trying to bundle the current ansible-5.0.1 release as an RPM
for Fedora and EPEL use. Leaving aside the peculiar decisions to
replace the pypi.org "ansible" tarball with a tarball of roughly 150
modules from the "ansiblee-collections" repo
On Sun, Dec 05, 2021 at 03:27:49AM +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> Now that CentOS Stream 9 is announced as
> available, is there a schedule for when EPEL-9
> branches can be made, and when one can
> (start to) ask others to build for EPEL-9
yes, yesterday.
See the announcement:
https://lists.f
Aarggh, I had a cat attacking my hands at one moment. I meant:
/usr/share/doc/%}package}-%{version}/README.md
/usr/share/doc/%{package}-%{version}/LICENSE.md
On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 10:07 PM Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>
> I've been trying to bundle the current ansible-5.0.1 rele
No missing expected images.
Compose PASSES proposed Rawhide gating check!
All required tests passed
Failed openQA tests: 6/208 (x86_64), 14/142 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20211203.n.0):
ID: 1077002 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso anaconda_help
URL: https://op
Now that CentOS Stream 9 is announced as
available, is there a schedule for when EPEL-9
branches can be made, and when one can
(start to) ask others to build for EPEL-9
(it would be nice if a number of the EPEL-9
packages were preliminarily ready at the time
of the EL-9 formal release (just, perhap
I've been trying to bundle the current ansible-5.0.1 release as an RPM
for Fedora and EPEL use. Leaving aside the peculiar decisions to
replace the pypi.org "ansible" tarball with a tarball of roughly 150
modules from the "ansiblee-collections" repos, and moving the actual
ansible software to a dis
On Sat, Dec 04, 2021 at 04:53:09PM -0500, Neal Becker wrote:
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=79571245
Yes. I am not sure whats causing it. I updated and rebooted the
kojipkgs01/02 vm's (to pick up new kernel and also new host qemu).
if you see it again or more often, feel f
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20211203.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20211204.n.1
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 6
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 96
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 282.40 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0
Davide Cavalca via devel wrote:
> To clarify: RPM does support files validation, but fs-verity is more
> than just that. With RPM, the validation only happens on install time,
> and when one runs rpm -V manually. With fs-verity, the validation
> happens on-demand whenever a block of a file that ori
Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> -1. RPM already supports files validation and this feature will waste
> file system space.
I agree with you.
This is yet another "feature" that increases both the size of RPMs and, if
enabled by default, the size of default installations. We need to stop
tolera
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=79571245
Thanks,
Neal
___
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/
Hi all,
The rust-tiny_http package will have a different license after the
update from version 0.6.2 (ASL 2.0 only) to version 0.8.2 (MIT or ASL
2.0). Since the old License remains as an option, I do not expect this
to cause any effects in Fedora.
Fabio
___
On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 at 17:09, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 03, 2021 at 06:08:49PM +, Davide Cavalca via devel wrote:
> > Broadly speaking, fs-verity makes it possible to ensure that files that
> > were installed via an RPM have not been modified. It is useful in
> > environments wh
On Friday, 03 December 2021 at 18:49, Davide Cavalca via devel wrote:
[...]
> About filesystem usage: unless you install rpm-plugin-fsverity (which
> is not and will not be installed by default), there is no disk space
> increase for verity-signed RPM packages. If you do install rpm-plugin-
> fsver
> * at build time, we compute the Merkle tree for the files within a
> package, then sign it and ship it as part of the rpm metadata;
[...]
> Note that the Merkle tree
> is ''not'' shipped with the RPM itself (only its signature is)
In that case, "ship it" above should be changed to "ship the si
On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 02:36:52PM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
> An alternative allowlisting-based configuration method and a matching
> GnuTLS API extension to control it currently under development:
> https://gitlab.com/gnutls/gnutls/-/merge_requests/1427. The change
> will turn the interface upside
18 matches
Mail list logo
