Am 29.12.20 um 00:36 schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
Yeah, workaround for now:
sudo update-crypto-policies --set FEDORA:32
No ...
# update-crypto-policies --set FEDORA:32
Error: Unknown policy: FEDORA
best regards,
Marius Schwarz
___
devel mailing list --
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64), 1/7 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
ID: 748067 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/748067
ID: 748074 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Ba
Am 29.12.20 um 10:27 schrieb Marius Schwarz:
Am 29.12.20 um 00:36 schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
Yeah, workaround for now:
sudo update-crypto-policies --set FEDORA:32
No ...
# update-crypto-policies --set FEDORA:32
Error: Unknown policy: FEDORA
Workaround for now on Rawhides Pinephone:
update-cry
Hi,
We'd like to announce the public testing of Syngrafias, an Asciidoctor
collaboration tool - a service for Fedora documentation maintainers aiming
to
provide an environment where they can collaborate by sharing their workspace
among multiple contributors with active synchronization of edits at
On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 2:21 PM Derek Pressnall
wrote:
>
(snip)
Welcome to Fedora!
>
> Meanwhile, a couple additional questions. Right now I have a template
> of the spec file in the project's Git repo. Should the spec file be
> in its own repo (or possibly an orphaned branch of this repo)?
On 12/29/20 2:01 PM, Nasir Hussain wrote:
Hi,
We'd like to announce the public testing of Syngrafias, an Asciidoctor
collaboration tool - a service for Fedora documentation maintainers
aiming to
provide an environment where they can collaborate by sharing their workspace
among multiple contrib
All packages were rebuilt successfully except julia. It is FTBFS due to the
GCC 11.0 upgrade (so it is FTBFS for quite some time already).
The update is on the way to Rawhide and I don't plan to push this update to
stable releases (unless somebody asks for it).
Have fun during these holidays!
___
The license of ocaml-ptmap has been corrected from "LGPLv2+ with
exceptions" to "LGPLv2 with exceptions" in the version of the package
now building in Rawhide.
--
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.or
On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 10:27:06AM +0100, Marius Schwarz wrote:
> Am 29.12.20 um 00:36 schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
> >
> > Yeah, workaround for now:
> >
> > sudo update-crypto-policies --set FEDORA:32
> >
>
> No ...
>
> # update-crypto-policies --set FEDORA:32
> Error: Unknown policy: FEDORA
Sorry,
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20201228.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20201229.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 4
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 121
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 1.70 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 11:45 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> I wrote in the update that in my opinion the solution for this bug
> can't involve expecting add-ons to suddenly get re-signed en masse, or
> users to change their local configuration. It needs to keep working as
> it did before. If the po
Missing expected images:
Iot dvd x86_64
Iot dvd aarch64
Failed openQA tests: 1/16 (x86_64), 5/15 (aarch64)
ID: 748384 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso base_services_start
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/748384
ID: 748393 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis@uefi
URL:
Missing expected images:
Xfce raw-xz armhfp
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: 11/180 (x86_64), 5/122 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in F
Hi all,
I am looking for feedback and review on fedora-comps#569, which adds new
package groups, an environment, and category for the i3 window manager:
https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/pull-request/569
This is the first time I have made edits to the comps file. So a sanity
check to make sure
rpmlint complains (which I fully expected from reading the packaging
guidelines) about my spec file being named "pick-v4.0.0.spec" instead of
"pick.spec".
What's the best way to manage spec files for different versions? git tags in
the repo? directories with version info? something else?
Ben
I think it's entirely up to you.
The source tree in Fedora uses "main" for the Rawhide version of the
package and f32, f33, etc. for releases. Also, the %changelog in the SPEC
file is in a way an immediate history of the SPEC file, including
versioning and revisions.
I usually keep external SPEC
On 12/28/20 3:51 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
I really don't see we have much of a choice here. X11 is eventually going away
and Wayland is the path forward.
...
If you notice issues, please open bugs.
I have an open bz about reliable wayland crashes:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?
On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 5:01 pm, przemek klosowski via devel
wrote:
This is an old bug currently assigned to gnome-session. Should I
reassign it to Wayland?
Please don't. That is an X11-specific bug; you can see the top 10
frames of the backtrace are all X11 code. I will reassign it to mutter
On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 09:19:17PM +, FreedomBen via devel wrote:
> rpmlint complains (which I fully expected from reading the packaging
> guidelines) about my spec file being named "pick-v4.0.0.spec" instead of
> "pick.spec".
> What's the best way to manage spec files for different versions?
Thanks Andy, that's helpful.
Re: Matthew, at this point I only need one spec file version per
Fedora/CentOS/RHEL version (mostly depends on which version of gcc is installed
in the target distro), IOW it's totally fine for only one version to be
available.
With this package in the past they ma
On Monday, 28 December 2020 at 03:38, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 06:43:23PM -0700, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 12:33 AM Dridi Boukelmoune
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > The weakest point in the current system is really the FAS password. If
> > > > you have a packager'
On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 12:00:47AM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Monday, 28 December 2020 at 03:38, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 06:43:23PM -0700, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 12:33 AM Dridi Boukelmoune
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The wea
On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 10:48:53PM +, FreedomBen via devel wrote:
> Re: Matthew, at this point I only need one spec file version per
> Fedora/CentOS/RHEL version (mostly depends on which version of gcc is
> installed in the target distro), IOW it's totally fine for only one
> version to be avai
On Saturday, 26 December 2020 at 22:36, Mark E. Fuller wrote:
> Am Samstag, dem 26.12.2020 um 22:10 +0100 schrieb Dominik 'Rathann'
> Mierzejewski:
[eclipse-photran missing from F33+]
> > It was retired 7 months ago after being orphaned[1]. To bring it
> > back, you'd have to become the new maintai
On 12/29/20 5:20 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
I don't think this GNOME bug is in any way related to the topic of
whether KDE should default to Wayland
So I am confused---I thought it is a problem in Wayland, perhaps in its
X11 emulation but still Wayland. Yes, the app is misbehaving, bu
On 12/20/20 7:45 PM, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Neal Gompa wrote:
>> QtWebEngine *is* Chromium, so it would make sense that it exhibits the
>> same problem.
> To be clear (and I know you know this, but your readers might not know),
> QtWebEngine (qt5-qtwebengine) and Chromium (chromium) are
On 12/29/20 4:25 PM, przemek klosowski via devel wrote:
On 12/29/20 5:20 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
I don't think this GNOME bug is in any way related to the topic of
whether KDE should default to Wayland
So I am confused---I thought it is a problem in Wayland, perhaps in its
X11 emul
On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 11:32 PM Dan Čermák
wrote:
> The spec file is mostly good, I'd suggest a few changes though:
> - use macros instead of hardcoded paths, e.g. %_bindir instead of
> /usr/bin/
> - don't disable the debug package generation, Fedora packages must
> include debuginfo versions
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64), 1/7 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
ID: 748414 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/748414
ID: 748421 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Ba
29 matches
Mail list logo
