On 15.03.2020 23:12, Marius Schwarz wrote:
> I knew someone would bring this up: TMP does not protect your drive,
> as you could boot with "init=/bin/bash 1"
You should enable UEFI Secure Boot, create your CA, install systemd-boot
and sign it with your CA.
TPM 2.0 protect full boot chain using
On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 11:12:43PM +0100, Marius Schwarz wrote:
> Am 15.03.20 um 13:32 schrieb Vitaly Zaitsev via devel:
> > On 14.03.2020 13:05, Marius Schwarz wrote:
> >> If you encrypt the fedora ( or any ) installation with luks, as
> >> security of a mobile device indicates, you end up withou
Am 16.03.20 um 09:15 schrieb Tomasz Torcz:
>> I knew someone would bring this up: TMP does not protect your drive,
>> as you could boot with "init=/bin/bash 1" .
>How do you do that WITHOUT KEYBOARD? This thread is about very
> specific situation, please do not forget that when generalisin
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the
FESCo meeting Monday at 15:00UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.freenode.net.
To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto
or run:
date -d '2020-03-16 15:00 UTC'
Links to all issues to be
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 4:18 AM Andrew Hughes wrote:
>
>
>
> On 15/03/2020 14:02, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > Hi everybody,
> >
> > The latest java-1.8.0-openjdk update for rawhide (the first build with
> > GCC 10) seems to have introduced some serious problems - including
> > crashes and segmentat
Dne 14. 03. 20 v 10:14 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> On 14. 03. 20 8:16, Dan Čermák wrote:
>> However, I am not an expert on RPM macro evaluation and kinda worried
>> that this uses the clang version that is present on the system building
>> the srpm, which might not be the version that I want? Or is
On 16. 03. 20 11:22, Vít Ondruch wrote:
I always thought that one should not call `rpm` during rpmbuild.
I remember this from when I learned packaging.
In one of the slides (possibly by spot, but not sure), there was:
"never call rmp from rpm"
(There was a picture, Ghostbusters - Don't C
On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 11:22:40 +0100
Vít Ondruch wrote:
> I always thought that one should not call `rpm` during rpmbuild.
> Nevertheless I am not sure what was the reason? Probably locking of
> RPM db? Can somebody elaborate?
It couldn't be guaranteed to work in the case that the buildroot was
pop
No missing expected images.
Passed openQA tests: 1/1 (x86_64)
--
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedorap
FWIW a small variation of this problem also affects AFL:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/american-fuzzy-lop/c/6d5fd7f4d7b90adf6e975a7de7e57dc335300655?branch=master
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1813541
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read
Dne 16. 03. 20 v 11:38 Paul Howarth napsal(a):
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 11:22:40 +0100
> Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> I always thought that one should not call `rpm` during rpmbuild.
>> Nevertheless I am not sure what was the reason? Probably locking of
>> RPM db? Can somebody elaborate?
> It couldn't be g
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20200314.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20200316.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 10
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 84
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 13.52 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0
Missing expected images:
Iot dvd aarch64
Iot dvd x86_64
Failed openQA tests: 2/8 (x86_64)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-33-20200313.0):
ID: 546772 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/546772
ID: 546773 Test:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 12:22:10PM -0800, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> > On February 25, 2020 3:38 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >
> >
> > In the previous mass build LWT FTBFS because the tests failed on POWER
> > and s/390 (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1792780). There is also a new
> > ver
Hello,
I'm working on update of tipcutils from 2.2.0 to 3.0.4. This will bring
a license change: GPLv2 was dropped upstream, BDS license remains.
Sincerely
Peter
--
Peter Hanecak
http://hany.sk/~hany/
GnuPG: http://hany.sk/~hany/gpg/475DFC4C.txt
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digit
OLD: Fedora-32-20200315.n.0
NEW: Fedora-32-20200316.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 0
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of upgraded
Subject: Fonts packaging guidelines change status
On Sat, 7 Mar 2020, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> WHAT IS IT ALL ABOUT
>
> On 2020-02-13, FPC approved a rewrite of our fonts packaging
> guidelines.
and again that was published on the 14th removing some top
matter through the Section mark: NEW PA
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/StrongCryptoSettings2
== Summary ==
We update the current system-wide crypto policy to further disable
legacy cryptographic protocols (TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1), weak
Diffie-Hellman key exchange sizes (1024 bit), and use of the SHA-1
hash in signatures.
== Owner
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Sqlite_Rpmdb
== Summary ==
Change format of the RPM database from Berkeley DB to a new Sqlite format.
== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:pmatilai| Panu Matilainen]] [[User:ffesti|Florian Festi]]
* Email: pmati...@redhat.com ffe...@redhat.com
== Detailed Description
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RPM-4.16
== Summary ==
Update RPM to the 4.16.0 release.
== Owner ==
* Name: User:pmatilai, User:ffesti
* Email: pmati...@redhat.com,ffe...@redhat.com
== Detailed Description ==
RPM 4.16 contains numerous improvements over previous versions
* New database
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MAKE43
== Summary ==
Rebase GNU make in Fedora 33 from make version 4.2 to make version 4.3.
== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:djdelorie| DJ Delorie]]
* Email: d...@redhat.com
== Detailed Description ==
Make 4.3 was released on January 19th 2020. It includes ma
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F33MingwEnvToolchainUpdate
== Summary ==
Update the MinGW base environment and toolchain to the latest upstream
stable releases.
== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:smani|Sandro Mani]]
* Email: manisan...@gmail.com
== Detailed Description ==
The following packages
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 5:26 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> I have upgraded to Fedora 32 today and after a while I have noticed that
> `repoquery --whatrequires` yields incomplete results.
>
> From Fedora 31:
>
> $ dnf --refresh repoquery --repo=rawhide{,-source} --whatrequires
> python3-flaky
> pip
Meeting started by zbyszek at 15:00:56 UTC. The full logs are available
at
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2020-03-16/fesco.2020-03-16-15.00.log.html
.
Meeting summary
---
* init process (zbyszek, 15:00:59)
* #2356 Fedora 31: Reset eclipse stream for all (once) or
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:24 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Sqlite_Rpmdb
>
> == Summary ==
> Change format of the RPM database from Berkeley DB to a new Sqlite format.
>
> == Owner ==
> * Name: [[User:pmatilai| Panu Matilainen]] [[User:ffesti|Florian Festi]]
> * E
On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 03:57:09PM -0600, Jerry James wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 3:46 PM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> wrote:
> > My scratch builds are failing on s390x:
> > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=42450592
> > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskI
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 10:38:07AM +, Paul Howarth wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 11:22:40 +0100
> Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > I always thought that one should not call `rpm` during rpmbuild.
> > Nevertheless I am not sure what was the reason? Probably locking of
> > RPM db? Can somebody elaborate?
>
On 16/03/20 11:23 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F33MingwEnvToolchainUpdate
== Summary ==
Update the MinGW base environment and toolchain to the latest upstream
stable releases.
== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:smani|Sandro Mani]]
* Email: manisan...@gmail.com
== De
Tomasz Torcz writes:
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 11:12:43PM +0100, Marius Schwarz wrote:
>> Am 15.03.20 um 13:32 schrieb Vitaly Zaitsev via devel:
>> > On 14.03.2020 13:05, Marius Schwarz wrote:
>> >> If you encrypt the fedora ( or any ) installation with luks, as
>> >> security of a mobile device
On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 10:35:03AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2020-03-09 at 11:49 -0400, David Cantrell wrote:
> > /etc/rpminspect/rpminspect.conf
>
> So that is a global config file...
> RFE: move it under /usr, and only look for overrides in /etc.
> 99% of users should not modify t
On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 05:45:34PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 10:35:03AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2020-03-09 at 11:49 -0400, David Cantrell wrote:
>
> > > /etc/rpminspect/rpminspect.conf
> >
> > So that is a global config file...
> > RFE: move
On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 at 13:56, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> Tomasz Torcz writes:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 11:12:43PM +0100, Marius Schwarz wrote:
> >> Am 15.03.20 um 13:32 schrieb Vitaly Zaitsev via devel:
> >> > On 14.03.2020 13:05, Marius Schwarz wrote:
> >> >> If you encrypt the fedora ( or a
Il giorno dom, 15/03/2020 alle 15.02 +0100, Fabio Valentini ha scritto:
> Hi everybody,
>
> The latest java-1.8.0-openjdk update for rawhide (the first build
> with
> GCC 10) seems to have introduced some serious problems - including
> crashes and segmentation faults during package builds for Java
Il giorno dom, 15/03/2020 alle 14.44 +0100, Fabio Valentini ha scritto:
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 2:37 PM Alexander Bokovoy <
> aboko...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On su, 15 maalis 2020, Guido Aulisi wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I’m going to ask a FESCo exception for python2 for package
> > > ardour5.
Hi everybody,
It's that time of the semi-year again, and I again found multiple
instances of packages that have updates for rawhide and f31/f30, but
no bodhi update for fedora 32.
In most cases, the updated package was built on fedora 32 (a koji
build was successful), but no bodhi update was crea
On 16. 03. 20 21:30, Fabio Valentini wrote:
3) python-matplotlib-3.1.3-1.fc31 is going to f31 stable:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-188dd2b161
The update to 3.1.3 has been built for f33 and f31, but not for f32.
The 3.1.3 changes aren't even merged from master into the f32 b
Another idea, since util-linux 2.35 is only on Fedora 32+, how about
- %triggerpostun -- fedora-release < 32
+ %triggerpostun -- util-linux < 2.35
%systemd_post fstrim.timer
--
Chris Murphy
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they
are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure
that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life
Note: If
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 09:30:51PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> It's that time of the semi-year again, and I again found multiple
> instances of packages that have updates for rawhide and f31/f30, but
> no bodhi update for fedora 32.
>
> In most cases, the updated package was
Hi all,
a new version fedpkg-1.38 is released.
Currently, Fedora 30, 31, 32 and Rawhide packages are in the stable
repository, feel free to try other waiting distributions (el6, epel7) in
Bodhi.
Release description:
Feature documentation, changelog and fixes description can be seen here:
https://
Hi all,
a new version fedpkg-1.38 is released.
Currently, Fedora 30, 31, 32 and Rawhide packages are in the stable
repository, feel free to try other waiting distributions (el6, epel7) in
Bodhi.
Release description:
Feature documentation, changelog and fixes description can be seen here:
https://
No missing expected images.
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
2 of 43 required tests failed
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
below
Failed openQA tests: 15/171 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20200314.
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 6/171 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-32-20200315.n.0):
ID: 547006 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_background
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/547006
ID: 547015 Test: arm Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz
i
43 matches
Mail list logo
