Hi folks! Just wanted to give an update on Fedora 35 status and beg for
testing :D
We are now down to either one or two blocker bugs. They are in quite
specific areas so the fixes will not be hugely impactful to anything
else. I'm hoping to be able to run an RC compose later today (Tuesday).
Howev
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-33-20211018.0):
ID: 1033145 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
Am 17.10.21 um 22:31 schrieb Robby Callicotte via devel:
On Sunday, October 17, 2021 3:05:13 PM CDT Dan Čermák wrote:
They are also much more intuitive to use for your average user/ newcomer
to Linux in contrast to a text interface (which will put them off when
compared to the Windows or Ubuntu
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 05:23:55PM +0200, mkol...@redhat.com wrote:
> As already mentioned, the installation image has grown and in some
> scenarios its size can directly impact RAM requirements, as the image
> needs to be downloaded and held in RAM at installation size (PXE boot
> with HTTP instal
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-34-20211018.0):
ID: 1033161 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
* Matthew Miller:
> It looks like %build_cflags is (literally defined as) %optflags, but I'm
> missing the latter. Is this documented in the packaging guidelines?
Documentation is in /usr/share/doc/redhat-rpm-config/buildflags.md.
Thanks,
Florian
___
On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 12:02:08 +0200
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Matthew Miller:
>
> > It looks like %build_cflags is (literally defined as) %optflags, but I'm
> > missing the latter. Is this documented in the packaging guidelines?
>
> Documentation is in /usr/share/doc/redhat-rpm-config/buildflag
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20211018.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20211019.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 3
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 84
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 194.65 KiB
Size of dropped packages
Hey all,
I'm Maxwell Huang-Hobbs. I've been using fedora as my daily
driver since 2015-ish and want to contribute to packaging.
I've previously made contributions to nixpkgs when I was using
nix-on-fedora, and I'm generally interested in packaging things
that impact my setup.
The thing that's s
On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 10:39 PM Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 10:22 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 08:51:46PM -0500, Maxwell G via devel wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > I have a couple comments/questions about this change.
> > >
> > > How
OLD: Fedora-35-20211018.n.0
NEW: Fedora-35-20211019.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 2
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:23.02 MiB
Size of
On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 11:09 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> Looks like several people have reinvented wheels here because Fedora
> doesn't really offer this.
I've wanted to make more use of virt-builder. Here is the bug that I
last encountered with this:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cg
On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 12:02:08PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Matthew Miller:
> > It looks like %build_cflags is (literally defined as) %optflags, but I'm
> > missing the latter. Is this documented in the packaging guidelines?
> Documentation is in /usr/share/doc/redhat-rpm-config/buildflags
Missing expected images:
Xfce raw-xz armhfp
Compose PASSES proposed Rawhide gating check!
All required tests passed
Failed openQA tests: 6/141 (aarch64), 2/206 (x86_64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20211018.n.0):
ID: 1033354 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso server_cockp
On Tue, 2021-10-19 at 07:33 +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > So in short the best current scenario is Anaconda booted in text
> > mode
> > from a USB stick or via PXE with NFS installation source - that
> > should
> > require the least amount of RAM at installation time.
> >
> > Still ev
Missing expected images:
Iot dvd aarch64
Iot dvd x86_64
Failed openQA tests: 1/16 (x86_64), 1/15 (aarch64)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-36-20211018.0):
ID: 1033955 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1033955
ID: 1033975
On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 7:00 AM wrote:
>
> You are kindly invited to the meeting:
>Prioritized bugs and issues on 2021-10-20 from 11:00:00 to 12:00:00
> America/Indiana/Indianapolis
>At fedora-meetin...@libera.chat
>
> More information available at:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US
I hit the same issue for the second time, therefore I strike coincidence.
I have machine upgraded from F34 to F35 (and actually upgraded every 6 month from Fedora-I-dunno). And after the upgrade
I do not see the sound devices. Therefore there is no sound.
For the first time it magically starte
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Openldap_25
== Summary ==
OpenLDAP upgrade from version 2.4.59 to the last upstream version
2.5.8 in Fedora.
== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:spichugi| Simon Pichugin]]
* Email: spich...@gmail.com
== Detailed Description ==
Upgrading OpenLDAP from version 2.4.59
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 9:55 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 9:51 AM Kaleb Keithley wrote:
> >
> >
> > There is a proposal[1] in upstream GlusterFS to drop 32-bit arches.
> > ...
>
> Kaleb, when this is determined upstream, can you please file this as a
> Fedora 32 (or whatever vers
and when I manually run "wireplumber" it shows:
Default Sink: alsa_output.pci-_00_1b.0.analog-stereo
Default Source: alsa_input.pci-_00_1b.0.analog-stereo
and the devices appear in KDE and I can play a sound.
I has the same issue (KDE and all), and fixed it with `systemctl --user
enab
On Tue, 2021-10-19 at 10:57 +0200, Marius Schwarz wrote:
> Am 17.10.21 um 22:31 schrieb Robby Callicotte via devel:
> > On Sunday, October 17, 2021 3:05:13 PM CDT Dan Čermák wrote:
> > > They are also much more intuitive to use for your average user/
> > > newcomer
> > > to Linux in contrast to a t
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 6/204 (x86_64), 4/141 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-35-20211018.n.0):
ID: 1033593 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_role_deploy_domain_controller
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1033593
ID: 1033596 Tes
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 3/15 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-IoT-34-20211002.0):
ID: 1034010 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_zezere_server@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1034010
ID: 1034015 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostre
This Friday is a Red Hat company holiday and most of us will not be
around for the meeting. We'll skip this one and pick it up again on
November 6th.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists
On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 12:14 PM Kaleb Keithley wrote:
>
> Where to I file a change proposal? Is that what's documented at [2]? It looks
> to me like it is well before any deadline according to [3].
>
> [2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/program_management/pgm_guide/changes/
Not quite. Tha
(replying from hyperkitty as I'm not subscribed to fedora-devel, hopefully this
works)
> How about this:
>
> * Have a single ansible dist git repo with a single spec file
> * The source would be https://pypi.org/project/ansible/
There couldn't be a single source because 'ansible' and 'ans
On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 3:36 PM David Moreau-Simard
wrote:
> (replying from hyperkitty as I'm not subscribed to fedora-devel, hopefully
> this works)
>
> > How about this:
> >
> > * Have a single ansible dist git repo with a single spec file
> > * The source would be https://pypi.org/projec
FWIW, I think the upstream renaming of ansible and ansible-core is something
that we just have to accept. But we have some flexibility in how this is
packaged in Fedora.
On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 09:34:34PM -, David Moreau-Simard wrote:
[> Richard Meggins wrote:]
> > * Produce multiple RPM pa
On Tue, 2021-10-19 at 00:03 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hi folks! Just wanted to give an update on Fedora 35 status and beg for
> testing :D
Just another quick update: RC1 is now building and will hopefully
arrive soon. There is one accepted blocker and two proposed blockers
not fixed in RC1,
30 matches
Mail list logo
