On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 06:09:16PM -0500, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> > I tried to rebuild them all except chromium which I suspect would take
> > too much space and time. Only ardour6, audacity, and xmms2 failed, for
> > unrelated reasons.
> >
> All the packages on your list except the 4 you
> dnf --releasever=37 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f37 \
> --enablerepo=updates-testing \
> $(rpm -q fedora-repos-modular >/dev/null && echo
> --enablerepo=updates-testing-modular) \
> --assumeno distro-sync
Problem 1: problem with installed package mkdocs-1.2.3-2.fc36.noarch
- mkdocs-
Miroslav Lichvar wrote on 2022/09/15 16:14:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 06:09:16PM -0500, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
I tried to rebuild them all except chromium which I suspect would take
too much space and time. Only ardour6, audacity, and xmms2 failed, for
unrelated reasons.
All the packages
On 2022-09-14 20:17, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
On 2022-09-14 07:01, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Hello folks!
luya dlib
dlib
@bizdelnick @luya
ASSIGNED https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2098694
Bundles old pybind11 which is not Python 3.11 compatible,
needs to be unbundled or at least updated.
Upstr
Hi
I'm planning to retire mkdocs and python-mkdocs-redirects the coming
weekend. mkdocs is currently FTI in F37 and F38. The reason is
incompatibility with python-markdown-3.4.x, which upstream will not
address in the immediate future [1]. Given that mkdocs is a leaf package
and no other pack
Works fine for me.
Removing:
kernel x86_64 5.19.4-200.fc36
@updates 0
kernel-corex86_64 5.19.4-200.fc36
@updates 92 M
kernel-modules
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 9:52 PM Alexander Ploumistos <
alex.ploumis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The only issues I've encountered were related to nautilus extensions.
> Bugs are open for all of them and I submitted a PR for an rpmfusion
> package.
>
> However, I think that for people on Workstation who
On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 4:02 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Hello folks!
>
> We are approaching Fedora 37 Final Freeze, which will start on 2022-10-04.
>
> There are still 33 packages in Fedora 37 that will need to be rebuilt with
> Python 3.11 in order to be installable (most of them). I propose to re
> On 15.9.2022 1:11 EEST Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Hi,
> where did you get signal-desktop and nodejs-electron ?
> is not is any known repo that I'm aware
Hi,
signal-desktop package for Fedora is from openSUSE repo. I installed it using
the following commands.
dnf config-manager --add-repo
http
Hi,
I just got a question about how should I track the removal of "Provides and
Obsoletes" from the new minizip-ng package.
We've decided to remove them in Fedora 42, but it's impossible to remember
to do it for 2 years.
There is no way to file a Bugzilla to Fedora 42 yet.
Is there some place wh
On Thu, 15 Sep 2022 13:10:41 +0200
Lukas Javorsky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just got a question about how should I track the removal of "Provides and
> Obsoletes" from the new minizip-ng package.
>
> We've decided to remove them in Fedora 42, but it's impossible to remember
> to do it for 2 years.
> T
Hi!
On Wednesday, 14 September 2022 at 16:01, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Hello folks!
>
> We are approaching Fedora 37 Final Freeze, which will start on 2022-10-04.
>
> There are still 33 packages in Fedora 37 that will need to be rebuilt with
> Python 3.11 in order to be installable (most of them).
On Wed, 14 Sept 2022 at 18:36, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-09-14 at 15:11 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2022-09-14 at 10:25 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 14 2022 at 06:58:12 AM +, Tommy Nguyen
> > > wrote:
> > > > I'm not entirely convinced. See thi
If you test upgrades from f36 to f37 currently, you get:
webkit2gtk4.0.x86_64 2.37.91-1.fc37 replaces webkit2gtk3.x86_64 2.36.7-1.fc36
webkit2gtk4.1.x86_64 2.37.91-1.fc37 installed as upgrade
webkit2gtk5.0.x86_64 2.37.91-1.fc37 installed as upgrade
That surely is confusing, unless you've been rea
On 9/15/22 08:57, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sept 2022 at 18:36, Simo Sorce wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2022-09-14 at 15:11 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2022-09-14 at 10:25 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14 2022 at 06:58:12 AM +, Tommy Nguyen
wrote:
Ben Cotton kirjoitti 29.8.2022 klo 21.30:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/StrongCryptoSettings3Forewarning2
== Summary ==
Cryptographic policies will be tightened in Fedora ''38''-39,
SHA-1 signatures will no longer be trusted by default.
Fedora ''38'' will do a "jump scare", introducing
On Thu, 2022-09-15 at 16:18 +0300, Otto Liljalaakso wrote:
> To test this, I did enable TEST-FEDORA39 on my system, first
> installed
> as Fedora 24, now running 36. For some rpm and dnf operations, I get
> the
> following kind of errors:
>
> error: rpmdbNextIterator: skipping h# 740
> Head
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 3:53 AM Kevin Kofler via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the latest webkitgtk package now uses the following subpackage names:
> * webkit2gtk4.0 and webkit2gtk4.1 are for GTK 3,
> * webkit2gtk5.0 are for GTK 4.
>
> As you can see, the WebKitGTK sover
Hello
On 14/09/2022 17:01, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Hello folks!
We are approaching Fedora 37 Final Freeze, which will start on
2022-10-04.
There are still 33 packages in Fedora 37 that will need to be rebuilt
with Python 3.11 in order to be installable (most of them). I propose
to retire the n
Thing is, it's confusing for every distro to use different names for
the same thing, like we did for webkit2gtk-4.0. But we seem to have all
standardized on using the pkg-config version for the package name now.
Consistency with other distros is worth a lot.
On Thu, Sep 15 2022 at 03:33:12 PM
On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 08:39:56AM -0700, John Reiser wrote:
> On 9/5/22 19:45, Daniel Micay wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 10:19:51AM -0700, John Reiser wrote:
> > > > Bottom line opinion: hardened_malloc ... costs too much.
> > >
> > > Attempting to be constructive: Psychologically, I might
Tommy Nguyen kirjoitti 15.9.2022 klo 16.28:
On Thu, 2022-09-15 at 16:18 +0300, Otto Liljalaakso wrote:
To test this, I did enable TEST-FEDORA39 on my system, first
installed
as Fedora 24, now running 36. For some rpm and dnf operations, I get
the
following kind of errors:
error: rpmdbNextItera
> On Sep 15, 2022, at 10:26 AM, Otto Liljalaakso
> wrote:
>
> Tommy Nguyen kirjoitti 15.9.2022 klo 16.28:
>>> On Thu, 2022-09-15 at 16:18 +0300, Otto Liljalaakso wrote:
>>> To test this, I did enable TEST-FEDORA39 on my system, first
>>> installed
>>> as Fedora 24, now running 36. For some rp
Hi all,
I've virtually attended OpenPrinting Micro Conference on Linux Plumbers
2022 and took notes about our latest development - the notes are in
attachment.
From the development field the highlight is that *we don't release CUPS
2.5 (and 3.0) until we have full OAuth support*, which will
I didn't notice that this package got orphaned then retired. I plan to
maintain it (I'm the author of the code, but somebody else added it to
Fedora so I just let them do the maintenance, which never really
needed any work).
I've submitted a ticket to unretire it.
_
On 15/09/2022 13:35, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
1. install snapd
No. Thanks.
Please build regular RPMs.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le
As I'm implementing this, I'm realizing that it probably only makes
sense to have the default version of Node.js on each Fedora release
provide the unversioned-command. Otherwise it becomes really hard to
ensure that the RPM macros like %{nodejs_sitelib} refer to the correct
location. So I think I'
On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 09:26:36AM +0300, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
>
> Proven packagers seem to be a fair category to address. Also packagers
> responsible for security-related bits of the distribution. Compilers?
Well, as others noted in this thread, any packager has a lot of power.
They can ad
On 15. 09. 22 19:14, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
As I'm implementing this, I'm realizing that it probably only makes
sense to have the default version of Node.js on each Fedora release
provide the unversioned-command. Otherwise it becomes really hard to
ensure that the RPM macros like %{nodejs_sitel
On 9/14/22 03:51, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
On 13/09/2022 23:50, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
Another option is a TPM-based authenticator. Would this be acceptable?
No. TPM 2.0 chip is a *proprietary* black box. Some of them have known
critical security vulnerabilities[1].
OK, but so i
On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 5:55 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 09:26:36AM +0300, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
> >
> > Proven packagers seem to be a fair category to address. Also packagers
> > responsible for security-related bits of the distribution. Compilers?
Perhaps any packager w
On Thu, 2022-09-15 at 10:55 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 09:26:36AM +0300, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
> >
> > Proven packagers seem to be a fair category to address. Also packagers
> > responsible for security-related bits of the distribution. Compilers?
>
> Well, as others n
On Thu, 2022-09-15 at 18:36 +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 5:55 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 09:26:36AM +0300, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
> > >
> > > Proven packagers seem to be a fair category to address. Also packagers
> > > responsible for secur
I'm unable to figure out why, but running the command:
sudo dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=37
on my main system (with RPMFusion and some copr repos enabled)
consistently causes dnf to segfault. The crashing function appears to
be solver_addbestrules. In either case, I'm submitting a bug
On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 6:58 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> There's a kind of "surprising" property of the critical path list too -
> it contains some things you might not expect.
I was (initially) thinking of the critical-path-base list,
but you are right that the critical path is in the eyes of
t
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
On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:22 AM Jerry James wrote:
> ANTLR4 4.11.1 has been released. It includes an soname bump in the
> C++ runtime, and a non-backwards compatible change in the Java
> runtime. I plan to update next week. I will rebuild all dependent
> packages, unless the maintainers prefer
Thanks for the info and yeah, that seemed to do the trick in enabling
it, but unfortunately it still works, in that I am able to build the
package successfully without errors. :\
On 13 Sep 2022, at 14:55, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 3:36 PM Ron Olson
wrote:
Unfortunately I ca
Tommy Nguyen kirjoitti 15.9.2022 klo 17.40:
On Sep 15, 2022, at 10:26 AM, Otto Liljalaakso wrote:
So maybe it is just that, for Fedora 36 at least, RPM Fusion it not compatible
with the new crypto settings.
I also see the following key ids in the errors I reported in the original
message.
On 9/15/22 13:55, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 09:26:36AM +0300, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
>>
>> Proven packagers seem to be a fair category to address. Also packagers
>> responsible for security-related bits of the distribution. Compilers?
>
> Well, as others noted in this thread,
On Thu, 2022-09-15 at 14:08 +0300, Timo Saarinen wrote:
> > On 15.9.2022 1:11 EEST Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > Hi,
> > where did you get signal-desktop and nodejs-electron ?
> > is not is any known repo that I'm aware
>
> Hi,
>
> signal-desktop package for Fedora is from openSUSE repo. I installe
if we can have chromium-src-devel ...
> > > But, one thing that could be done to simplify things would be 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
On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 11:54:13AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2022-09-15 at 10:55 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 09:26:36AM +0300, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
> > >
> > > Proven packagers seem to be a fair category to address. Also packagers
> > > responsible for s
On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 04:34:08PM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> On 9/15/22 13:55, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 09:26:36AM +0300, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
> >>
> >> Proven packagers seem to be a fair category to address. Also packagers
> >> responsible for security-related bi
On Wed, 2022-09-14 at 16:01 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> datagrepper
> @ralph
> ASSIGNED https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2098691
> Upstream (Fedora Infra) pins dependencies aggressively,
> needs to be relaxed downstream (also Fedora Infra) as a workaround.
> Maybe persuade upstream into not doing th
I support this plan, and I will retire mkdocs-markdownextradata-plugin as well.
– Ben Beasley (FAS music)
On Thu, Sep 15, 2022, at 4:14 AM, Sandro Mani wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'm planning to retire mkdocs and python-mkdocs-redirects the coming
> weekend. mkdocs is currently FTI in F37 and F38. The reas
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20220914.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20220915.n.1
= SUMMARY =
Added images:8
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 7
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 170
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 493.42 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0
On Thu, 2022-09-15 at 16:47 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > datanommer-commands
> > @ralph
> > ASSIGNED https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2098693
> > Seems to have been updated in dist-git to a version with missing
> > dependencies?
>
> Looking into this one now.
OK, this is fixed now, though I
On Thu, 2022-09-15 at 22:42 +0300, Otto Liljalaakso wrote:
> RPM Fusion Fedora 37 repository seems to be all SHA256 already.
Thanks for doing the research. I plan on upgrading to the F37 beta
soon. Have you done so already and what are your results?
___
$ sudo dnf --releasever=37 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f37
--enablerepo=updates-testing $(rpm -q fedora-repos-modular >/dev/null && echo
--enablerepo=updates-testing-modular) --assumeno distro-sync
Fedora 37 - x86_64 6.7 MB/s | 81 MB 00:11
Fedora 37 openh264
On Thu, 2022-09-15 at 22:42 +0300, Otto Liljalaakso wrote:
> Tommy Nguyen kirjoitti 15.9.2022 klo 17.40:
> >
> > > On Sep 15, 2022, at 10:26 AM, Otto Liljalaakso
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > So maybe it is just that, for Fedora 36 at least, RPM Fusion it
> > > not compatible with the new crypto se
51 matches
Mail list logo
