Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, May 10, 2023, at 7:36 PM, Owen Taylor wrote: > > > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 5:34 PM Chris Murphy wrote: >> __ >> >> >> On Wed, May 10, 2023, at 2:24 PM, Owen Taylor wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 12:02 PM Neal Gompa wrote: >>> Now, there's a second problem with re

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, May 10, 2023, at 7:11 PM, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Chris Murphy said: >> Read-only drivers, which are the only drivers under discussion here, aren't >> a per se problem because they can't modify the file system. So they have no >> complaints about that. > > But those read

HEADS UP: gdal-3.7.0 coming to rawhide

Hi I'm preparing the gdal-3.7.0 update which carries a soname bump. Il build it in the f39-build-side-67536 side-tag, and rebuild the following dependencies:    GMT    mapserver    liblas    python-fiona    postgis    merkaartor    R-rgdal    bes    saga    qmapshack    PDAL    ncl    vfrnav

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

> On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 5:34 PM Chris Murphy wrote: > > > In this idea, the dm-verity parition/file would only be accessed from the > initrd, once we have enough kernel to ability to interact with physical > storage, understand partitions, initialize dm-verity, and read *a* > partition, but po

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 5:34 PM Chris Murphy wrote: > > > On Wed, May 10, 2023, at 2:24 PM, Owen Taylor wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 12:02 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > > Now, there's a second problem with reading everything from the ESP - it's > slow for two reasons. First, because read sp

Re: F39 Proposal: LIBFFI34 static trampolines (System-Wide Change)

Jens-Ulrik Petersen writes: > I have just now pushed fixes for all ghc*, so can you try to rebuild > them again in your repo? That's a good question, to which I know not the answer. Fred? Can MPB be told to retest a specific set of packages? Or do I have to start from scratch and/or do them ma

Re: Stuck package - golang-github-prometheus-node-exporter

I'll try to push this along - there's a build error that needs resolving (but not at 2:30 AM) see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112130 Anyone from the golang list want to take a look? -fuller On 02/05/2023 19:25, Pat Riehecky wrote: golang-github-prometheus-node-exporter seems

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Once upon a time, Chris Murphy said: > Read-only drivers, which are the only drivers under discussion here, aren't a > per se problem because they can't modify the file system. So they have no > complaints about that. But those read-only drivers are incomplete and problematic, especially as fil

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2023-05-09)

Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > So you folks were not happy with the feedback on the mailing list, so you > just made up a poll somewhere else. [snip] > Was that poll ever announced on the mailing list? Or did you just expect > people to magically notice it has popped up in the FESCo ticket? Sorry

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2023-05-09)

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > Nope, that is actually not true. Matthew posted some stats in the > fesco ticket [1], and the stats were fairly evenly split > (supportive or open, neutral, opposed or concerned). In fact, > "opposed" is the least popular option. So you folks were not happy wit

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, May 10, 2023, at 5:21 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > So to add to this. I happen to be at LFSMMBPF at the moment, the Linux > File System summit (among other things) where all the Linux FS people > meet. I spoke to a couple of FS maintainers here, and well, let me > make this very clear:

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mi, 10.05.23 14:32, Neal Gompa (ngomp...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 2:24 PM Owen Taylor wrote: > >> As soon as you throw UKIs in the mix, you've completely broken that > >> because now the absolutely most valuable code for your system is in a > >> "hostile" environment. At lea

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mi, 10.05.23 12:00, Neal Gompa (ngomp...@gmail.com) wrote: > This proposal isn't better. Neither Windows nor macOS put critical > operating system code in the ESP, and we shouldn't either. This is nonsense. I am not sure what definition of "critical" you have, but the ESP is the entrypoint to

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, May 10, 2023, at 2:24 PM, Owen Taylor wrote: > > > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 12:02 PM Neal Gompa wrote: >> > Now, there's a second problem with reading everything from the ESP - it's > slow for two reasons. First, because read speeds when going through the > firmware are much slower t

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mi, 10.05.23 15:13, Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) wrote: > > We're generally looking toward encrypting subvolumes individually > > using the upcoming Btrfs native encryption capability rather than > > using LUKS. That allows us to > > How do you establish trust in the underlying fil

Re: memtest86plus v6.00

On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 5:28 PM Jonathan Steffan wrote: > * Location of shipped bins -- is there a better place now? I went with simple. > > The active discussion about BiggerESP is relevant to this decision. It's even directly asserted that RPMs should not be managing content in /boot. https://f

Fedora CoreOS Meeting Minutes 2023-05-10

Minutes: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2023-05-10/fedora_coreos_meeting.2023-05-10-16.30.html Minutes (text): https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2023-05-10/fedora_coreos_meeting.2023-05-10-16.30.txt Log: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2023

Re: F39 Proposal: Make Toolbx a release-blocking deliverable and have release-blocking test criteria (System-Wide Change)

On Tue, 9 May 2023, 17:51 Kevin Fenzi, wrote: > Just a general answer/info here at the bottom of the thread... > > I realize our container build pipeline is not great, but it's currently > working and I will keep it working until we replace it. > > I agree we should replace it, and there's lots o

Re: F39 Proposal: Make Toolbx a release-blocking deliverable and have release-blocking test criteria (System-Wide Change)

On Tue, 9 May 2023, 15:42 Debarshi Ray via devel, < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Hey Clement, > > On Tue, 2023-05-09 at 09:45 +0200, Clement Verna wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 8 May 2023 at 22:11, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 07:57:30PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski- >

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

> On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 2:24 PM Owen Taylor > fsverity is separate from fscrypt. We can apply filesystem authentication > today. fsverity does not protect metadata, and most importantly it does not protect the filesystem superblock. It has its uses, but this is not it. > No. It initializes

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 2:24 PM Owen Taylor wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 12:02 PM Neal Gompa wrote: >> >> >> This proposal isn't better. Neither Windows nor macOS put critical >> operating system code in the ESP, and we shouldn't either. But you >> want to put kernels in the ESP? That's

Re: fedora 38 - in witch timespan a net iso is build..??

On 5/9/23 05:10, André verwijs wrote: installed Fedora with "Fedora-Everything-netinst-x86_64-38-1.6.iso" but hat small issues. (firewall packages) In witch timespan will a new iso be build..?? At least use the latest updates for this (or any other) installation iso... An issue with the ins

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 2:00 PM Chris Murphy wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2023, at 12:15 PM, Ben Cotton wrote: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BiggerESP > > > This change will increase the minimum size of the ESP to be 500MB, > > which is also the same value used by Microsoft for Wind

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 12:02 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > This proposal isn't better. Neither Windows nor macOS put critical > operating system code in the ESP, and we shouldn't either. But you > want to put kernels in the ESP? That's the wrong approach too. > > As soon as you throw UKIs in the mix,

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, May 10, 2023, at 9:42 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > You are arguing here into two opposing directions. One one hand you > want to chainload multiple kernels+initrd (claiming this was a good idea out > of the problem of sizing ESP/XBOOTLDR sufficientlly), and then on the > other hand yo

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, Apr 24, 2023, at 12:15 PM, Ben Cotton wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BiggerESP > This change will increase the minimum size of the ESP to be 500MB, > which is also the same value used by Microsoft for Windows 10 and > newer. Issue 1: Currently anaconda calls mkdosfs on

Re: disabling yum modular repos by default?

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 07:09:49PM +0200, Peter Boy wrote: Am 10.05.2023 um 18:45 schrieb Kevin Fenzi : On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 12:21:51PM +0800, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote: Thanks for all the helpful comments and feedback, though more is still welcome of course. So I am leaning now towards n

Re: disabling yum modular repos by default?

> And that is just one example. Another example is changes in languages such as > Ruby, where application programmes sometimes cannot keep up with the changes. > Same is true for httpd or tomcat - just some other examples. I am in the Ruby SIG. In the case of Ruby, I don't think we have the capa

Re: soname bump: libtraceevent and libtracefs

Any update on the rv tool ( tools/verification/rv)? Thanks John Kacur On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 5:01 PM Justin Forbes wrote: > On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 2:45 PM John Kacur wrote: > > > > There is a new tool that is dependent on these libs too. Also from > Daniel Bristot (rtla) > > tools/verificat

Re: disabling yum modular repos by default?

> Am 10.05.2023 um 18:45 schrieb Kevin Fenzi : > > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 12:21:51PM +0800, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote: >> Thanks for all the helpful comments and feedback, >> though more is still welcome of course. >> So I am leaning now towards not installing fedora-repos-modular by default >>

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 11:37:34AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Daniel P. Berrangé said: > > If the idea to allow a UKI to contain multiple alternate, signed, > > cmdline line profiles gets accepted > > Are those of us who need boot-time kernel options (e.g. for hardware > workar

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mi, 10.05.23 11:20, Simo Sorce (s...@redhat.com) wrote: > It sounds reasonable for sure. > The only concern is, given Microsoft creates at most 500MB ESP > partitions, are we sure all UEFI systems out there will not choke on a > 1GB one? Well, I don't really think we have a reason to believe t

Re: disabling yum modular repos by default?

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 12:21:51PM +0800, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote: > Thanks for all the helpful comments and feedback, > though more is still welcome of course. > So I am leaning now towards not installing fedora-repos-modular by default > (rather than disabling the modular repos by default): als

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

> On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 03:52:51PM -, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > If the idea to allow a UKI to contain multiple alternate, signed, > cmdline line profiles gets accepted [1], then a "rescue" image > won't neccessarily need to be a separate image anymore. There could > just be an alternative cmd

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Once upon a time, Daniel P. Berrangé said: > If the idea to allow a UKI to contain multiple alternate, signed, > cmdline line profiles gets accepted Are those of us who need boot-time kernel options (e.g. for hardware workarounds or such) just screwed in the signed command-line cases? -- Chris

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 12:00:36PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 11:12 AM Simo Sorce wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2023-05-09 at 12:37 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 12:31 PM Lennart Poettering > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Di, 09.05.23 08:22, Neal Gompa (n

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 3:56 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > At least in the upstream kiwi project, we encountered problems making > bigger ESPs because not all UEFI implementations handle FAT32 (despite > it being part of the spec). In particular, there were a few server > boards and especially AWS EC2 t

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 11:12 AM Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Tue, 2023-05-09 at 12:37 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 12:31 PM Lennart Poettering > > wrote: > > > > > > On Di, 09.05.23 08:22, Neal Gompa (ngomp...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > > > > I've been asked to consider conver

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 03:52:51PM -, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > On Tue, 2023-05-09 at 18:32 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > > It sounds reasonable for sure. > > The only concern is, given Microsoft creates at most 500MB ESP > > partitions, are we sure all UEFI systems out there will not

[Test-Announce] Fedora-IoT 39 RC 20230510.0 nightly compose nominated for testing

Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event for Fedora-IoT 39 RC 20230510.0. Please help run some tests for this nightly compose if you have time. For more information on nightly release validation testing, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_pl

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 11:21 AM Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Tue, 2023-05-09 at 18:32 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > On Di, 09.05.23 09:20, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) > > wrote: > > > > > > == Summary == > > > > > > > > This change will increase the minimum size of the ESP

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

> On Tue, 2023-05-09 at 18:32 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > It sounds reasonable for sure. > The only concern is, given Microsoft creates at most 500MB ESP > partitions, are we sure all UEFI systems out there will not choke on a > 1GB one? > > Can't we reduce the number of kernels by havin

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Leslie Satenstein    Some end-user feedback. I believe in the KISS approach (Keep It Simple S). I would consider /boot as a btrfs volume, and not a sub-volume, but why bother? For me, it being a btrfs partition is definitely not a priority or urgency, as I use rsync for backup/restore

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, 2023-05-09 at 18:32 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Di, 09.05.23 09:20, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote: > > > > == Summary == > > > > > > This change will increase the minimum size of the ESP to be 500MB, > > > which is also the same value used by Microsoft fo

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Flatpaks without Modules (System-Wide Change)

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 9:48 AM Florian Weimer wrote: > * Aoife Moloney: > > > There are two types of Flatpak containers - > > runtimes - which contain unmodified Fedora packages, > > and applications - which contain Fedora packages rebuilt to relocate > > them from /usr to /app. > > Is this relo

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, 2023-05-09 at 12:37 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 12:31 PM Lennart Poettering > wrote: > > > > On Di, 09.05.23 08:22, Neal Gompa (ngomp...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > > I've been asked to consider converting /boot to a Btrfs subvolume so > > > that it no longer has a f

Re: Review of Python packages needed

I'd like to take this two packages reviews and will review them in the next one or two days. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs

Re: fedora 38 - in witch timespan a net iso is build..??

On Tue, 09 May 2023 12:10:49 - André verwijs wrote: > installed Fedora with "Fedora-Everything-netinst-x86_64-38-1.6.iso" > but hat small issues. (firewall packages) In witch timespan will a > new iso be build..?? At least use the latest updates for this (or > any other) installation iso...

Review of Python packages needed

Hello, I need help getting the following two Python packages reviewed – they are dependencies of matrix-synapse: * python-immutabledict * python-hiredis Please let me know what you

Re: C-specific compiler parameters (was: Update on Changes/PortingToModernC)

Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 12:09:10AM +0200, Björn Persson wrote: > > Florian Weimer wrote: > > > I am going to explore a way to land -Werror=implicit-int > > > -Werror=implicit-function-declaration among the default compiler flags. > > > There's a bit of an issue because the

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Flatpaks without Modules (System-Wide Change)

* Aoife Moloney: > There are two types of Flatpak containers - > runtimes - which contain unmodified Fedora packages, > and applications - which contain Fedora packages rebuilt to relocate > them from /usr to /app. Is this relocation still required? Thanks, Florian __

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Di, 09.05.23 15:22, Chris Murphy (li...@colorremedies.com) wrote: > > > On Tue, May 9, 2023, at 2:47 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 01:31:01PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > >> Once upon a time, Chris Murphy said: > >> > What about the increasing growth in linu

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Flatpaks without Modules (System-Wide Change)

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 8:06 AM Milan Crha wrote: > On Wed, 2023-05-10 at 11:54 +0100, Aoife Moloney wrote: > > Additionally a couple of packages (evolution-data-services and > > tracker-miners) are set up so they can be > > built with an application-specific D-Bus prefix. Evolution has: > > > >

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Di, 09.05.23 15:04, Chris Murphy (li...@colorremedies.com) wrote: > > This makese no sense. If you want /boot to just be a subvolume of the > > rootfs btrfs, then this would imply it's also covered by the same > > security choices, i.e. encryption. We want to bind that sooner or > > later to th

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, 10 May 2023 at 11:55, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > Especially not by making some small change contingent on moonshot proposals. > But I think that a) the current proposal is just a band-aid, and > b) to make things better we don't need to make huge changes. Okay, please open a _ne

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Di, 09.05.23 12:37, Neal Gompa (ngomp...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 12:31 PM Lennart Poettering > wrote: > > > > On Di, 09.05.23 08:22, Neal Gompa (ngomp...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > > I've been asked to consider converting /boot to a Btrfs subvolume so > > > that it no longer

Re: disabling yum modular repos by default?

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 8:39 PM Debarshi Ray via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2023-05-09 at 12:31 +0800, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote: > If we do decide to disable the fedora-cisco-openh264 repository on the > base fedora OCI image, then we might have to enable it separatel

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Flatpaks without Modules (System-Wide Change)

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 11:54:39AM +0100, Aoife Moloney wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FlatpaksWithoutModules > For each Fedora release, we'll have two additional targets > > f39-flatpak-runtime (inherits f39), tags: f39-flatpak-runtime-build, > f39-flatpak-runtime > f39-app (i

Re: disabling yum modular repos by default?

Hey Jens, On Tue, 2023-05-09 at 12:31 +0800, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote: > ps I think it would be a good idea to disable the cisco-h264 repo too > by default in the fedora container image, and maybe also for headless > Fedora editions. If we do decide to disable the fedora-cisco-openh264 repositor

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Flatpaks without Modules (System-Wide Change)

On Wed, 2023-05-10 at 11:54 +0100, Aoife Moloney wrote: > Additionally a couple of packages (evolution-data-services and > tracker-miners) are set up so they can be > built with an application-specific D-Bus prefix. Evolution has: > >   buildopts: >     rpms: >   macros: | >     %_eds_dbus

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20230510.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20230509.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20230510.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 2 Added packages: 4 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 85 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 603.81 KiB Size of dropped packages:0

Re: disabling yum modular repos by default?

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 01:07:55PM +0200, Jun Aruga (he / him) wrote: > > "No fedora-repos-modular in default installation" ? > > I feel that's a better way than disabling (enabled=0) module repos by default. To clarify: I fully agree. My earlier comment was about how to better reflect this in th

Re: disabling yum modular repos by default?

> "No fedora-repos-modular in default installation" ? I feel that's a better way than disabling (enabled=0) module repos by default. /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-modular.repo /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-updates-modular.repo #enabled=1 enabled=0 For people who want to use the modularity, once they instal

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 01:20:54PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: > On Tue, 9 May 2023 at 10:22, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: > > This is both too much and not enough. > > Right; and I think a different Fedora feature proposal would be a good > idea for the version of Fedora when we switch

F39 Change Proposal: Flatpaks without Modules (System-Wide Change)

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FlatpaksWithoutModules This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved by the Fedora Engineering Steering C

Re: F39 Proposal: LIBFFI34 static trampolines (System-Wide Change)

On 5/9/23 21:27, DJ Delorie wrote: Jarek Prokop writes: Are the libffi/rebuilt packages available anywhere for us to experiment with? MPB uses COPR, so.. "before" builds:https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/djdelorie/libffi-3.4.4.checker/ "after" builds:https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/

[Test-Announce] Fedora 39 Rawhide 20230510.n.0 nightly compose nominated for testing

Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event for Fedora 39 Rawhide 20230510.n.0. Please help run some tests for this nightly compose if you have time. For more information on nightly release validation testing, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki

Re: it builds in copr epel-9 (with RHEL-9) but fail to build on koji

On Wed, 2023-05-10 at 09:44 +0200, Petr Pisar wrote: > V Tue, May 09, 2023 at 09:20:30PM +0100, Sérgio Basto napsal(a): > > I tested with Centos Stream 9. > > xvfb-run have been fixed somehow in Centos Stream first, > > CentOS Stream is a preview of the next RHEL minor release. It works > as > des

Re: F39 Proposal: LIBFFI34 static trampolines (System-Wide Change)

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 3:13 AM DJ Delorie wrote: > Jens-Ulrik Petersen writes: > MPB uses BuildRequires to collect all packages that *might* be affected > by your change. It builds all those packages with and without your > change, and lets you know what you broke. In this case, one broke (cj

Re: disabling yum modular repos by default?

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 12:21:51PM +0800, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote: > Thanks for all the helpful comments and feedback, > though more is still welcome of course. > So I am leaning now towards not installing fedora-repos-modular by default > (rather than disabling the modular repos by default): als

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2023-05-09)

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 01:26:37AM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > * #2989 Proposal to adjust Changes Policy to use Fedora Discussion > > instead of the devel list (zbyszek, 17:03:21) > > * AGREED: APPROVED (+6, 0, 0): > > Subsequent Fedora Ch

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

> > /boot/efi is clearly not ideal for a number of reasons, but this is what > > we have today and changing this opens up another can of worms. For > > starters this will stop working: > > > > # rpm -ql shim-x64 > > /boot/efi/EFI/BOOT/BOOTX64.EFI > > /boot/efi/EFI/BOOT/fbx64.efi > >

Re: it builds in copr epel-9 (with RHEL-9) but fail to build on koji

V Tue, May 09, 2023 at 09:20:30PM +0100, Sérgio Basto napsal(a): > I tested with Centos Stream 9. > xvfb-run have been fixed somehow in Centos Stream first, CentOS Stream is a preview of the next RHEL minor release. It works as designed. > any idea how xvfb-ruu was fixed ? I'd like understand the