On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 5:43 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 23:58:54 -
> "Michael Woon" wrote:
>
>> Hello devel,
>>
>> Hello ruben, fab, mhlavink, kevin, jskarvad, xaeth,
>>
>>
>> I have a quick question about the collectd packages for Fedora /
>> Epel. By default, the spec has
Missing expected images:
Workstation live i386
Cloud_base raw-xz x86_64
Cloud_base raw-xz i386
Atomic raw-xz x86_64
Kde raw-xz armhfp
Minimal raw-xz armhfp
Workstation live x86_64
Failed openQA tests: 27/80 (x86_64), 3/16 (i386)
ID: 25972 Test: x86_64 Everything-boot-iso install_default@ue
Hi,
Last release we implemented[1] new way of installing langpacks
packages using RPM's weak dependency feature. Therefore, I would like
to retire dnf langpacks plugin package called dnf-langpacks in
rawhide(f25+).
Those who still want to know what is current way of installing
language packa
On 06/13/2016 07:09 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
glibc upstream, during development of the 2.24 release, introduced new
symbol versions recvmsg@GLIBC_2.24, sendmsg@GLIBC_2.24 (and
recvmmsg@GLIBC_2.24, sendmmsg@GLIBC_2.24 on 64-bit architectures), in
order to fix some minor POSIX compliance issue. (
To implement some Fedora 25 changes (split NSS (Name Service Switch)
subpackages, libcrypt without NSS (Mozilla Network Security Services)
library depdencies), I added additional subpackages to the glibc
packages, namely:
- libcrypt
- libcrypt-nss
- nss_db
- nss_hesiod
- nss_nis
The expectati
Michael Stahl wrote:
> the only safe way to provide a compat openssl package is as a -devel
> package that only contains a static library :P
Even then, you need to mark all the symbols as hidden if you do not want
them to get exported from shared libraries linking to it. (And of course the
stati
