On Thu, 2021-12-16 at 17:27 -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> == Scope ==
> * Proposal owners:
> ** Maintain the following patch sets for the Linux kernel, and
> possibly have them accepted in the upstream kernel:
> ***
> [//lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/20210409114313.4073-1-roberto.sa...@huawei.co
On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 10:51 PM Michel Alexandre Salim
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 02:35:56PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > ocaml-atdorphan1 weeks
> > ago
>
> Mea culpa, this is one that slips through the crack while I was on
> parental
Matthew Miller wrote:
> 1. There is a mechanism for users to add their own digest lists, if they
>want. The change proposal could be a little more clear on how this
>would work.
There is no way I am going to jump through hoops to whitelist software I
compiled myself, or installed from a t
On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 05:50:25PM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> But being allowed to run custom or self-developed software is a core feature
> of Free Software. If that stops working in the name of "security", Fedora is
> no better than iOS (where Apple also claims the restrictions are
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 09:54:39AM +0900, Mamoru TASAKA wrote:
> Hello:
>
> Looks like glibc-2.34.9000-33.fc36 was tagged into f36 buildroot on
> 2021-12-18,
> but very recently untagged from f36 buildroot.
> Many binary rpms rebuilt recently have "Requires: glibc >= 2.34.9000-33.fc36"
> ( for ex
> On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 05:34:52AM -, Reon Beon via devel wrote:
>
> Well, thats the list of all failed builds in koji. There's various
> different reasons for each of them to have failed...
>
> For example, the kf* ones at the top right now are due to a missing
> kaccounts-integration-deve
Hello:
Looks like glibc-2.34.9000-33.fc36 was tagged into f36 buildroot on 2021-12-18,
but very recently untagged from f36 buildroot.
Many binary rpms rebuilt recently have "Requires: glibc >= 2.34.9000-33.fc36"
( for example firefox has:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=2865595
On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 6:34 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
>
> The best way would be to file bugs in the Red Hat Bugzilla for this.
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora&version=35&component=kernel
>
Thank you! I created
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035833 for the
On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 6:31 PM Kevin Anderson wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I was curious what the process is for requesting patches to be
> backported for the Fedora kernel release.
>
> There was a iwlwifi issue that would cause firmware resets and cause
> performance to significantly degrade to around
Hello,
I was curious what the process is for requesting patches to be
backported for the Fedora kernel release.
There was a iwlwifi issue that would cause firmware resets and cause
performance to significantly degrade to around ~500Kb/s till the
interface was brought down and then up again. Upstr
On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 05:34:52AM -, Reon Beon via devel wrote:
> What exactly is wrong?
>
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/builds?state=3&order=-build_id
Well, thats the list of all failed builds in koji. There's various
different reasons for each of them to have failed...
For example
On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 06:37:59PM +0800, Zamir SUN wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm updating the whole LXQt desktop to 1.0.0 in rawhide, and I've built the
> packages in the side tag f36-build-side-49104. The following package
> contains library with a soname bump
>
> liblxqt (liblxqt.so.1)
> liblxqt-global
On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 08:18:17AM -0500, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 1:10 AM Dan Čermák
> wrote:
> >
> It wouldn't be the first time software has been deliberately broken by
> well-intended kernel security changes. Remember when systemd decided
> to cancel all backgrounded
Am 26.12.21 um 20:51 schrieb Matthew Miller:
Marius, are the different language packs updated continually and separately,
or is there one versioned set of all of them released at intervals? Is it a
case where everything is regenerated, or are additions incremental? (And do
they _replace_ or just
On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 08:44:17PM +0100, Matthias Runge wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 at 23:32, Reon Beon via devel
> > wrote:
> > Update?
> > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8455
> >
> >
> > I am going to be overly blunt here. Messages like this do NOT help.
> > 1. Most of
On 12/27/21 03:37, Martin Gansser wrote:
{standard input}: Assembler messages:
{standard input}: Internal error (Segmentation fault).
Please report this bug.
Any hints ?
If it's repeatable, I would suggest following that message.
___
devel mailing li
> On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 at 23:32, Reon Beon via devel
> wrote:
> Update?
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8455
>
>
> I am going to be overly blunt here. Messages like this do NOT help.
> 1. Most of the people who are paid to work on this are on break for 1/2 of
> December and so
On Sunday, 26 December 2021 11:25:21 GMT Roberto Sassu via devel wrote:
> > From: Dan Čermák [mailto:dan.cer...@cgc-instruments.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2021 7:10 AM
> > Ben Cotton writes:
> >
> > *snip*
> > > == Upgrade/compatibility impact ==
> > > The user should ensure that softwar
Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 1:10 AM Dan Čermák
> wrote:
>>
>> Ben Cotton writes:
>>
>> *snip*
>>
>> > == Upgrade/compatibility impact ==
>> > The user should ensure that software (not updated) from the old
>> > distribution is packaged and the package header is signed, or
On Sun, 26 Dec 2021 at 23:32, Reon Beon via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Update?
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8455
I am going to be overly blunt here. Messages like this do NOT help.
1. Most of the people who are paid to work on this are on break for 1/2 of
On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 04:31:34AM -, Reon Beon via devel wrote:
> Update?
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8455
Please be patient. It is the end of the year and holidays for many people.
--
Matthew Miller
Fedora Project Leader
___
On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 1:10 AM Dan Čermák
wrote:
>
> Ben Cotton writes:
>
> *snip*
>
> >
> > It will also make Fedora able to detect tampering of its components at
> > a more privileged level, the kernel, without the interference of user
> > space programs. Once tampering has been detected, the
Hi,
compiling qmplay2 21.12.24 [1] fails on Fedora 35 with the following error
messages:
FAILED: src/qmplay2/CMakeFiles/libqmplay2.dir/NotifiesFreedesktop.cpp.o
/usr/bin/g++ -DDBUS_SUSPEND -DNOTIFIES_FREEDESKTOP -DQMPLAY2SHAREDLIB_LIBRARY
-DQMPLAY2_LIBASS -DQT_CORE_LIB -DQT_DBUS_LIB -DQT_GUI_L
Hi,
I'm updating the whole LXQt desktop to 1.0.0 in rawhide, and I've built
the packages in the side tag f36-build-side-49104. The following package
contains library with a soname bump
liblxqt (liblxqt.so.1)
liblxqt-globalkeys (liblxqt-globalkeys.so.1,liblxqt-globalkeys-ui.so.1)
I hope I did
Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> $ license-validate-v'GPL or (MIT and BSD)'
> No terminal defined for 'G' at line 1 col 1
Approximately nobody will understand "No terminal defined for 'G'". Can
the error message be improved?
Björn Persson
pgp5AIXhmHYUH.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signatur
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/compose/rawhide/
This link works
On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 6:35 AM Reon Beon via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> What exactly is wrong?
>
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/builds?state=3&order=-build_id
> __
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-34-20211226.0):
ID: 1091496 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-35-20211226.0):
ID: 1091480 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
28 matches
Mail list logo
