Re: modules signatures !

On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 10:46 AM Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Wed, 2025-02-26 at 11:18 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 01:29:51PM -0500, Jason Montleon wrote: > > > I have had a bug open for awhile on this with no response: > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=23

Re: [Test Week] Fedora Linux Kernel 5.16 2022-01-23 through 2022-01-29

On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 3:38 AM Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > Lo! > > On 20.01.22 09:38, Sumantro Mukherjee wrote: > > > > I would like to invite all of you to participate in the Kernel 5.16 > > Test week is happening from 2022-01-23 to 2022-01-29. It's > > fairly simple, head over to the wiki [0]

Re: [Test Week] Fedora Linux Kernel 5.13 2021-07-11 through 2021-07-18

On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 1:22 PM Brandon Nielsen wrote: > > Linked test day image[0] has not been updated. > > [0] - https://jforbes.fedorapeople.org/testweek/ It never is until the Friday before test week, as I like to get the newest revision. Then it tends to get updated once or twice during test

Re: A question about upgrading kernels, again

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 12:51 PM stan via test wrote: > > On Mon, 10 May 2021 03:49:33 -0400 > Francisco Tissera wrote: > > > When trying to install fedora 34's repository packages, I get across > > errors that I have to fix by adding the --allowerasing flag, or the > > --skipbroken one. > > > >

Re: In Fedora 34, cannot install "C Development Tools and Libraries"

On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 7:00 AM Qiyu Yan wrote: > 王 臣 于 2021年2月14日周日 下午8:02写道： > >> In Fedora 34 Fedora nightlies , >> dnf -y groupinstall "C Development Tools and Libraries" "Development >> Tools" >> notice an error. >> > I guess it is due to unannounced sob

Re: some basic Rawhide kernel questions

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 5:25 PM David wrote: > As of today, my install still uses the version below > for the kernel > > 5.6.0-0.rc7.git1.1.fc33.x86_64 > > ( and is running great, in my opinion ) > > But in today's Rawhide compose announcement of upgraded > packages, the kernel was listed as

Re: Discussion: what would not blocking on btrfs look like?

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 8:00 PM Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:17 PM Adam Williamson > wrote: > > > So, there was recently a Thing where btrfs installs were broken, and > > this got accepted as a release blocker: > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733388 > > S

Re: Discussion: what would not blocking on btrfs look like?

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 2:17 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > > Hey folks! > > So, there was recently a Thing where btrfs installs were broken, and > this got accepted as a release blocker: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733388 > > The bug was fixed, so that's fine, but along the way,

Re: Fedora 31 Beta blocker status email #3

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 12:04 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > > Action summary > > > Accepted blockers > - > 1. dracut-modules-olpc — Cannot be installed due to unsatisfied > 'bitfrost' dependency — NEW > ACTION: dracut-modules-olpc to resolve dependency on desired bitf