On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 9:01 AM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
> Does dropping the 32-bit i686 build also imply you cannot use 32-bit
> containers on a 64-bit architecture? If so, will anybody notice? Since you
> did not use any special naming tricks (both package naming and file naming)
> to allow
On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 11:06 PM Maxwell G via devel
wrote:
>
> As for i686, you don't need extra paperwork thanks to exclude packages
> thanks to
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval.
> You just need to properly handle dependent packages. You cannot
> ExcludeArch a pa
On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 6:12 PM Stephen Smoogen wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 07:38, Dan Čermák
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Lokesh,
>>
>> Lokesh Mandvekar writes:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > We (podman upstream and fedora maintaine
On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 5:56 PM Peter Robinson wrote:
> There are still active users of Fedora IoT 36 on armhfp using
> containers so I suspect they may be unhappy of they go away before the
> F-36 EOL in the late May/early June timeframe.
I see. I guess we could leave armhfp be until then. Btw,
Hi,
We (podman upstream and fedora maintainers) are hoping to disable i686
and 32-bit arm builds for Podman and some related tools under
https://github.com/containers org. We would like to do this also for
released Fedora versions, and not just the upcoming ones.
What Fedora paperwork do we need
to
> > > > ship
> > > > a chromium-src-devel package in the chromium package that
> > > > electron
> > > > could pull in. That would tightly couple the chromium and
> > > > electron
> > > > packages, but it would mean that improvem
Resuming this thread as the podman and podman-desktop teams are
looking to get podman-desktop packaged in Fedora
But it's unlikely either team would be able to own the nodejs-electron dep.
Would the nodejs sig and/or fedora desktop team and/or chromium
maintainers be willing to package and own nod
Hi list,
I own the rhcontainerbot account. Apologies it took so long to respond to
this thread. A number of legitimate concerns have been raised about the
bot, so let me address those below on behalf of the Containers team.
1.
We have disabled all autobuilds for now.
2.
The podman
>
>
>
> What *is* the purpose of RH Container Bot? A google search shows various
> repos seemingly used by it, but why and how?
>
I had set it up to package and push updates to repos under
https://github.com/containers . The gitlab job can be found here:
https://gitlab.com/rhcontainerbot/pkg-build
>
> > * Sat Jun 19 2021 RH Container Bot
> - 0.7.8-2.dev.git5f666c1
> > - bump to 0.7.8
> > - autobuilt 5f666c1
>
I swear ... is rhcontainerbot at it again?
> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2624
>
> Both of those look like obvious mistakes, since they're not just
> "versioning snafu"s but rea
I fixed skopeo and fuse-overlayfs earlier today, so hopefully we should be good
on those soon.
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 01:00:58PM +0200, Miro Hron??ok wrote:
> Hello.
>
> The following packages are downgrades when I attempt upgrade from Fedora 32
> to Fedora 33:
>
> - containers-common (skopeo)
I'm looking to give up ownership of the docker-distribution package.
Current co-maintainers aren't keen on owning it either, but I heard
registry.fp.o depends on it.
So, just checking if anyone would like to own it before I orphan it.
--
Lokesh
IRC, GitHub: lsm5
GPG: 0xC7C3A0DD
https://keybase.io
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 11:02:27PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 10:02 PM Lokesh Mandvekar
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 06:50:51PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm confused by this podman build.
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 06:50:51PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
> I'm confused by this podman build. Especially so with my Packaging
> Committee hat on.
>
> - changelog message says it's version 10.1
> - %{version} is 0.10.1
> - github project has 0.10.1 tag, but its commit hash doesn't match
On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 01:22:46PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le samedi 30 juin 2018 à 12:46 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit :
> > Le vendredi 29 juin 2018 à 12:19 -0400, Lokesh Mandvekar a écrit :
> > > FWIW, a fun read from the debian pkg-go list about packaging docker
>
On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 12:46:28PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le vendredi 29 juin 2018 à 12:19 -0400, Lokesh Mandvekar a écrit :
> > FWIW, a fun read from the debian pkg-go list about packaging docker
> > https://www.mail-archive.com/pkg-go-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.ne
FWIW, a fun read from the debian pkg-go list about packaging docker
https://www.mail-archive.com/pkg-go-maintainers@alioth-lists.debian.net/msg00032.html
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 12:09:06PM -0400, Lokesh Mandvekar wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:43:11AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> &g
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:43:11AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:41 AM Lokesh Mandvekar
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 04:03:28PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > > Le 2018-06-29 14:31, Daniel Walsh a écrit :
> > >
> &
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 04:03:28PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le 2018-06-29 14:31, Daniel Walsh a écrit :
>
> Hi,
>
> > Users of OpenSHift Origin require CRI-O 1.10 right now. But
> > Kubernetes users want to try out the latest packages for kubernetes
> > 1.11 which would require CRI-O 1.11
Hi,
I'm looking at the per-product packaging doc at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Per-Product_Configuration
and I see that variants for all products are installed at package install time,
with
the ghost file pointing to the appropriate product variant.
Just wondering if there's a reas
Hi list, I'm working on packaging rocket for Fedora. There's a review request
open for it: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169966
There seem to be a few issues with it currently though, the major one being
using a non-distro-provided systemd (systemd v215):
- Building rocket involves
Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Lokesh Mandvekar
> wrote:
> > I've updated docker to 1.4.0 for fedora and fedora epel. This release fixes:
> > CVE-2014-9357: https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2014-9357
> > CVE-2014-9358: https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE
I've updated docker to 1.4.0 for fedora and fedora epel. This release fixes:
CVE-2014-9357: https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2014-9357
CVE-2014-9358: https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2014-9358
CVE-2014-9356: https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2014-9356
It'd be great if
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 09:56:32AM +0200, Václav Pavlín wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Dennis, could you please build Alpha base image with updated bash? (And
> probably also prepare F20 and Rawhide images so that we can really call the
> Fedora image official with all it's tags?)
Just to confirm, these 3 imag
al Message -
From: "Kashyap Chamarthy"
To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
Cc: "Lokesh Mandvekar"
Sent: Saturday, January 4, 2014 6:36:13 AM
Subject: Re: official fedora image for docker available
On 01/03/2014 10:46 PM, Lokesh Mandvekar wrote:
>
The official (unprefixed) fedora image for docker is now available here:
https://index.docker.io/_/fedora/
It has fedora 20 (via tags 20, heisenbug and latest) and rawhide.
--
Lokesh
pgpN3DQalvGCD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 04:04:19PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 02:15:07PM -0500, Lokesh Mandvekar wrote:
> > So, IP forwarding seems to be disabled by default in Fedora. docker-io
> > requires IP forwarding enabled
> >
> > With respect to p
So, IP forwarding seems to be disabled by default in Fedora. docker-io
requires IP forwarding enabled
With respect to packaging, we'd like to have docker-io installation set
sysctl values to enable IPv4 and IPv6 forwarding:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011680
I was told on #fedora
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 02:20:32PM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:44 AM, Lokesh Mandvekar wrote:
>
> > T.C.: thanks for the reviews. And I didn't know the fedora-review tool
> > existed. I'll review the first 2 for
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 09:57:41PM -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Lokeszoh Mandvekar wrote:
> > I'd like to offer a review swap.
>
> I've taken both. In return, you may choose from:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894724
> https://bugzilla.re
I'd like to offer a review swap.
Here are my review requests:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953379
and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947492
Let me know.
Thanks,
--
Lokesh
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/li
I mostly use cli programs (apart from web browsing, pdf readers and
the ocassional gimp). My netbook has just 1G RAM, so I try to use the
lightest programs wherever I can, and given the tools I've gotten used to, I
don't even
feel the need for more RAM (except when I'm forced to use Firefox). Here
Hi,
I'm a Computer Science PhD student at SUNY Buffalo (NY, USA). I've been a
Linux user for more than 6 years now. I just filed a package review request
for 'spectrwm', a tiling window manager inspired by xmonad and dwm. I've been
using it heavily for more than 2 years now on other distros and ju
33 matches
Mail list logo
