On 02/12/2015 07:54 AM, Fedora Rawhide Report wrote:
Compose started at Thu Feb 12 10:59:03 UTC 2015
xorg-x11-server-1.17.1-1.fc22
Shouldn't we be seeing fc23 builds now in rawhide?
--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division
On Thu, 2015-02-12 at 04:38 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
> File /var/cache/yum/i386/22/fedora/metalink.xml does not exist
> Could not parse metalink
> https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/metalink?repo=fedora-22&arch=i386 error was
> No repomd file
Things are always a bit dicey around branch time. Mirr
The following Fedora 20 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
132
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-11969/krb5-1.11.5-16.fc20
85
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-15371/rubygem-actionpack-4.0.0-5.fc20
84
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDOR
The following Fedora 21 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
85
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-15342/rubygem-actionpack-4.1.5-2.fc21
84
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-15413/rubygem-sprockets-2.12.1-3.fc21
62
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/u
On 02/12/2015 04:19 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
On 02/05/2015 12:36 PM, Brian C. Lane wrote:
Next to impossible? Really? I've find it easy to come up with passwords
that work. We even report libpwquality's reason for any failures.
I tried it today with the images built for anaconda dnf test day [1]
Adam Williamson composed on 2015-02-11 23:39 (UTC-0800):
> On Thu, 2015-02-12 at 07:30 +, Russel Winder wrote:
>> This morning's update included trying to switch me from Rawhide to
>> Branched, is this normal immediately after a release branch?
> I *think* that's what the fedora-release pac
> On 02/05/2015 12:36 PM, Brian C. Lane wrote:
> > Next to impossible? Really? I've find it easy to come up with passwords
> > that work. We even report libpwquality's reason for any failures.
I tried it today with the images built for anaconda dnf test day [1]. The
results are very much differen
