Hello everyone,
I'm an embedded systems developer by day, mostly designing embedded h/w,
and depending on workloads sometimes the s/w that runs on top.
At 63 I've been around a while. My first contact with Linux was Red Hat
5.1 Manhattan and I ran a RHEL 3 taroon DNS/Mail/Web server for a num
The following Fedora 33 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
226 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-c3d587d52c
shim-15.4-1
11 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ac23d9e47f
freerdp-2.4.1-1.fc33 gnome-boxes-3.38.2-3.fc33
gnome-remote-desktop-0.1.9-3.f
On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 09:38:51 -0700
stan via test wrote:
> I will open a bugzilla against glibc, if there isn't already one
> opened.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025651
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscrib
On Sun, 2021-11-21 at 17:18 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 07:38:26PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > * As I understand the semantics now, "CommonBugs" keyword means "maybe
> > common bug?" and "CommonBugs + properly-formatted URL in the whiteboard
> > field" means "act
On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 00:42:42 -0800
Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 11/21/21 13:38, stan via test wrote:
> > Compiled the server, xinit, and xauth packages locally, made no
> > difference. I think that lets glibc off the hook. The line that is
> > different from when an X start succeeds is:
> > xf86Enab
No missing expected images.
Compose PASSES proposed Rawhide gating check!
All required tests passed
Failed openQA tests: 7/208 (x86_64), 7/142 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20211121.n.0):
ID: 1068187 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso support_server
URL: https://op
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20211121.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20211122.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 36
Dropped packages:2
Upgraded packages: 83
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 50.95 MiB
Size of dropped packages
On 11/21/21 13:38, stan via test wrote:
Compiled the server, xinit, and xauth packages locally, made no
difference. I think that lets glibc off the hook. The line that is
different from when an X start succeeds is:
xf86EnableIOPorts: failed to set IOPL for I/O (Operation not permitted)
Don't kn
