done with my DNF5 testing for this test week, and will continue with
some GNOME 45 Beta testing in around 15 minutes
Den ons 16 aug. 2023 kl 09:43 skrev Luna Jernberg :
>
> Helped out a bit more today
>
> Den tis 15 aug. 2023 kl 09:05 skrev Luna Jernberg :
> >
> > Not attending today, being sick,
Helped out a bit more today
Den tis 15 aug. 2023 kl 09:05 skrev Luna Jernberg :
>
> Not attending today, being sick, will attend later during the week
> again if i feel better
>
> 2023-08-13 15:16 GMT+02:00, Luna Jernberg :
> > Have helped a bit today and yesterday, will try to help next week too
Not attending today, being sick, will attend later during the week
again if i feel better
2023-08-13 15:16 GMT+02:00, Luna Jernberg :
> Have helped a bit today and yesterday, will try to help next week too
> if i am not too busy
>
> Den fre 11 aug. 2023 kl 05:27 skrev Sumantro Mukherjee
> :
>>
>>
Have helped a bit today and yesterday, will try to help next week too
if i am not too busy
Den fre 11 aug. 2023 kl 05:27 skrev Sumantro Mukherjee :
>
> Hey Folks,
>
> DNF 5 landed in rawhide sometime back and has now been taken off F39
> schedule. DNF 5 awaits testing and feedback before it can be
On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 11:47 PM Onyeibo Oku wrote:
>
>
> Yes! This is something I'd like to do, considering that DNF5 frustrated me
> last
> week. Do we get badges for this one?
Hey Onyeibo,
No, Sorry the badges system is broken and is being built from scratch
by Fedora Infra
at this moment a
Yes! This is something I'd like to do, considering that DNF5 frustrated me last
week. Do we get badges for this one?
On Fri Aug 11, 2023 at 4:26 AM WAT, Sumantro Mukherjee wrote:
> Hey Folks,
>
> DNF 5 landed in rawhide sometime back and has now been taken off F39
> schedule. DNF 5 awaits testi
On Sat, 2022-10-29 at 01:29 +, George R Goffe via test wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been seeing this problem for a few days now.
>
> I start a "normal" dnf upgrade that fails to complete because something in
> dnf or perhaps a script that triggers an oom-kill event.
>
> I have seen this in a VM ho
On Fri, 2022-03-04 at 07:14 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> It is planned to fix it: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2765
Oh. Great.
Thank you.
A.
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedora
On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 6:46 AM Alessio wrote:
>
> It is not the first time that performing a system-upgrade from 35 to
> 36, I get:
>
> Error:
> Problem: problem with installed package mlocate-0.26-31.fc35.x86_64
> - package plocate-1.1.15-2.fc36.x86_64 conflicts with mlocate
> provided by mloc
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:00 AM stan via test
wrote:
>
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 12:50:56 -0700
> stan wrote:
>
> > I am running rawhide. When I do a dnf update, it goes at normal
> > speed, but the verify step takes a long time. I had an update of 789
> > MB, and it took ~ 30 minutes to verify. A
On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 12:50:56 -0700
stan wrote:
> I am running rawhide. When I do a dnf update, it goes at normal
> speed, but the verify step takes a long time. I had an update of 789
> MB, and it took ~ 30 minutes to verify. A 123 MB kernel install took
> between 10 and 15 minutes to verify.
On 4/1/21 8:25 AM, wang_chen wrote:
dnf -y groupinstall "C Development Tools and Libraries" "Development Tools"
Fedora Modular 34 - x86_64 - Test Updates
On 4/1/19 2:00 PM, Brandon Johnson wrote:
I ran into this as well just today upgrading a test system 29 to 30. Was a bug
ever opened for this? I can go hunt for it or open a new one but Id rather
just add to the existing...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1625259
I ran into thi
Brandon Johnson composed on 2019-04-01 17:00 (UTC-0400):
> Was a bug ever opened for this?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1667300
--
Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science.
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!
Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-
I ran into this as well just today upgrading a test system 29 to 30. Was a bug
ever opened for this? I can go hunt for it or open a new one but Id rather
just add to the existing...
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/dnf/yum/rpmtrans.py", line 260, in
Adam Williamson composed on 2019-03-21 12:23 (UTC-0700):
> Did you check librepo?
Nothing appeared to suggest any such package exists, but it &/or its
python3-librepo
sibling was indeed the solution. Thank you! :-D
> This kind of piecemeal updating is not supported, so it doesn't really
> affec
On Thu, 2019-03-21 at 12:42 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
> Adam Williamson composed on 2019-03-21 10:28 (UTC-0400):
>
> > On Thu, 2019-03-21 at 04:45 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
> > > Host fi965
> > > happened again :~(
> > Well, people did make some suggestions before - notably including
> > libdnf, w
Adam Williamson composed on 2019-03-21 10:28 (UTC-0400):
> On Thu, 2019-03-21 at 04:45 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
>> Host fi965
>> happened again :~(
> Well, people did make some suggestions before - notably including
> libdnf, which you don't seem to have done this time. Why didn't you try
> tha
On Thu, 2019-03-21 at 04:45 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
> Host fi965
> happened again :~(
Well, people did make some suggestions before - notably including
libdnf, which you don't seem to have done this time. Why didn't you try
that? If it worked it would have suggested some kind of not-
sufficientl
Host fi965
happened again :~(
Felix Miata composed on 2019-03-11 02:26 (UTC-0400):
> Not enough freespace to download everything in advance and install/upgrade
> 1100+ packages before
> deleting everything. So after set-disabled rawhide and rawhide-modular I did
> my usual attempt to
> bunch pa
Felix Miata composed on 2019-01-12 22:24 (UTC-0400):
> Output messages (partial, typed):
> []
> Preparing:
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> file /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/dnf/yum/rpmtrans.py, line 260 in
> callback
> self._elemProgress(key,amount)
> ...line 303, in _elemProgress
> tr
On 3/11/19 07:26, Felix Miata wrote:
Not enough freespace to download everything in advance and install/upgrade
1100+ packages before
deleting everything. So after set-disabled rawhide and rawhide-modular I did my
usual attempt to
bunch packages via .bash_history:
# dnf update dnf* rpm* syste
On Sat, 2019-01-12 at 22:24 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
> Output messages (partial, typed):
> []
> Preparing:
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> file /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/dnf/yum/rpmtrans.py, line 260 in
> callback
> self._elemProgress(key,amount)
> ...line 303, in _elemProgress
> tr
Thanks for the answer, but unfortunately it is not good enough.
Currently mirror manager is trying to wrong repos, and dnf/software
center keeps failing on installing/updating software creating a very
bad experience for any user that tries to use it.
I don't want to change the repo file to solve it
On 10/27/18 6:38 PM, Pablo Daniel Estigarribia Davyt wrote:
Unique issue I have noticed is with dnf when trying to install/update
software.
I get "error to sync cache" many times.
Also I got errors like:
[MIRROR] kernel-modules-4.18.16-300.fc29.x86_64.rpm: Status code: 404
for
http://mirror.
On 03/10/18 21:15, Alessio Ciregia wrote:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 3:40 PM pmkel...@frontier.com
wrote:
I tried to run the dnf test day cases, but didn't have much luck. The
Similar issue here.
# dnf update --refresh
Fedora Modular 29 - x86_64 15 kB/s | 20 kB 00:01
Fe
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 3:40 PM pmkel...@frontier.com
wrote:
>
> I tried to run the dnf test day cases, but didn't have much luck. The
Similar issue here.
# dnf update --refresh
Fedora Modular 29 - x86_64 15 kB/s | 20 kB 00:01
Fedora Modular 29 - x86_64 - Updates
On Sat, 2017-11-11 at 16:08 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
> Chris Murphy composed on 2017-11-11 13:39 (UTC-0700):
>
> > Felix Miata wrote:
> > > Must be more than one problem with grub dependencies. Every one of my
> > > (BIOS/MBR-only) F26 to F27 upgrades added grub packages, without any
> > > compl
Chris Murphy composed on 2017-11-11 14:17 (UTC-0700):
> Felix Miata wrote:
>> dnf upgrade --releasever=27
> I do not grok that command, for upgrades (F26 -> F27) you use
> something like this:
> $ sudo dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever 27
> And by default this includes
On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
> Chris Murphy composed on 2017-11-11 13:39 (UTC-0700):
>
>> Felix Miata wrote:
>
>>> Must be more than one problem with grub dependencies. Every one of my
>>> (BIOS/MBR-only) F26 to F27 upgrades added grub packages, without any
>>> complaints,
Chris Murphy composed on 2017-11-11 13:39 (UTC-0700):
> Felix Miata wrote:
>> Must be more than one problem with grub dependencies. Every one of my
>> (BIOS/MBR-only) F26 to F27 upgrades added grub packages, without any
>> complaints,
>> even though no F26 grub* rpms were installed, needed or wa
On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
> Chris Murphy composed on 2017-11-11 12:35 (UTC-0700):
>
>> Chris Murphy wrote:
>
>>> $ sudo dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=27
>
>>> Error:
>>> Problem: package grub2-efi-modules-1:2.02-0.40.fc26.x86_64 requires
>>> grub2-t
Chris Murphy composed on 2017-11-11 12:35 (UTC-0700):
> Chris Murphy wrote:
>> $ sudo dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=27
>> Error:
>> Problem: package grub2-efi-modules-1:2.02-0.40.fc26.x86_64 requires
>> grub2-tools = 1:2.02-0.40.fc26, but none of the providers can be
>> ins
On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> But in order to get dnf system-upgrade to proceed, I had to remote
> both grub2 and grub2-efi-modules packages.
s/remote/remove
--
Chris Murphy
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:41 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> $ sudo dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=27
>
> Error:
> Problem: package grub2-efi-modules-1:2.02-0.40.fc26.x86_64 requires
> grub2-tools = 1:2.02-0.40.fc26, but none of the providers can be
> installed
> - grub2-tools-1:
On Mon, 2017-10-09 at 09:38 +0200, Charles-Antoine Couret wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It's already reported:
>
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1498207
>
>
Lovely! Thanks!
--
Thanks,
Regards,
Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD"
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha
signature.asc
Descript
Hi,
It's already reported:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1498207
Have a nice day,
Regards,
Charles-Antoine Couret
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Sun, 2017-08-06 at 14:21 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 06:16:43PM +0100, Russel Winder wrote:
> > > I think `dnf distro-sync` should do it.
> >
> > I tried that but can't remember the exact output. It didn't do
> > anything
> > positive though. :-(
>
> Maybe with --bes
Felix Miata composed on 2017-07-21 03:12 (UTC-0400):
> On Intel P4 host gx280 with 2GB RAM tonight this happened about 2/3 through
> dnf
> update on both F25 and F26 installations, F26 the latter. Last package's
> scriptlet completed for udisks2. Last line before segfault is upgrading
> gstreamer
On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 06:16:43PM +0100, Russel Winder wrote:
> > I think `dnf distro-sync` should do it.
> I tried that but can't remember the exact output. It didn't do anything
> positive though. :-(
Maybe with --best and --allow-erasing?
--
Matthew Miller
Fedora Project Leader
___
On Sun, 2017-08-06 at 07:49 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
[…]
> I think `dnf distro-sync` should do it.
I tried that but can't remember the exact output. It didn't do anything
positive though. :-(
--
Russel.
=
Dr Russe
On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 10:33:49AM +0100, Russel Winder wrote:
> If there are one or two I remove the newest version manually and then
> do the upgrade again. For 835 I am not about to even start this
> process. "dnf remove --duplicates" refused to work because some of the
> duplicates were protect
On Sat, 2017-07-22 at 01:31 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
> Bug 1394862's status is CLOSED ERRATA. According to
> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/errata?s=t
> errata means:
>
> "1.plural of erratum.
> 2.a list of errors and their corrections inserted, usually on a separate page
> or
> slip of paper,
Samuel Sieb composed on 2017-07-22 09:58 (UTC-0700):
> Felix Miata wrote:
>> What I wish is to limit the search to bugs filed against F25 or F26, so I
>> goto
>> the "Version:" select list only to find it contains approximately 2,053
>> selections from which to choose (I saved
>> https://bugzil
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
>
> Bug 1394862's status is CLOSED ERRATA. According to
> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/errata?s=t
> errata means:
>
> "1.plural of erratum.
> 2.a list of errors and their corrections inserted, usually on a separate page
> or
> slip of pape
On 07/21/2017 10:31 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
What I wish is to limit the search to bugs filed against F25 or F26, so I goto
the "Version:" select list only to find it contains approximately 2,053
selections from which to choose (I saved https://bugzilla.redhat.com/query.cgi
to disk and found the op
Samuel Sieb composed on 2017-07-21 21:40 (UTC-0700):
> Felix Miata wrote:
>> My BRC searches have a habit of either timing out or producing mostly
>> summaries
>> with what to me is incomprehensible babble, and that only after great
>> difficulty
>> finding one or more Fedora versions to actual
On 07/21/2017 05:44 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
My BRC searches have a habit of either timing out or producing mostly summaries
with what to me is incomprehensible babble, and that only after great difficulty
finding one or more Fedora versions to actually select from its endless version
select list.
On Sat, 2017-07-22 at 06:04 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 07/22/17 05:47, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 13:41 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> > > On 07/21/2017 12:28 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > Note that apparently manually rebuilding the DB can result in it having
> > > > the
On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 20:16 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
> Adam Williamson composed on 2017-07-21 12:28 (UTC-0700):
>
> > On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 08:54 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> > > Felix Miata wrote:
>
> ...
> > > > Jul 21 02:18:18 gx280 kernel: dnf[5909]: segfault at ae738a35 ip
> > > > b573218e
Samuel Sieb composed on 2017-07-21 13:43 (UTC-0700):
> Felix Miata wrote:
>> On F26 as soon as I sent my OP I rebooted, did dnf clean all, rpm
>> --rebuilddb,
>> dnf update, dnf distro-sync, then shut down and went to bed. Distro-sync did
>> nothing but remove 225 packages.
>> I did similar wit
Adam Williamson composed on 2017-07-21 12:28 (UTC-0700):
> On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 08:54 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
>> Felix Miata wrote:
...
>> > Jul 21 02:18:18 gx280 kernel: dnf[5909]: segfault at ae738a35 ip b573218e
>> > sp
>> > bfe6d090 error 4 in libdb-5.3.so (deleted)[b55f2000+1d1000]
>> T
On 07/22/17 05:47, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 13:41 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
>> On 07/21/2017 12:28 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> Note that apparently manually rebuilding the DB can result in it having
>>> the wrong SELinux label, so you should also run this afterwards (as
>>>
On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 13:41 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 07/21/2017 12:28 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Note that apparently manually rebuilding the DB can result in it having
> > the wrong SELinux label, so you should also run this afterwards (as
> > root):
> >
> > restorecon -RFv /var/lib/rpm
On 07/21/2017 10:16 AM, Felix Miata wrote:
On F26 as soon as I sent my OP I rebooted, did dnf clean all, rpm --rebuilddb,
dnf update, dnf distro-sync, then shut down and went to bed. Distro-sync did
nothing but remove 225 packages.
I did similar with F25, but don't remember particulars other tha
On 07/21/2017 12:28 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Note that apparently manually rebuilding the DB can result in it having
the wrong SELinux label, so you should also run this afterwards (as
root):
restorecon -RFv /var/lib/rpm
Interesting, I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere else in any of the
On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 08:54 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 07/21/2017 12:12 AM, Felix Miata wrote:
> > On Intel P4 host gx280 with 2GB RAM tonight this happened about 2/3 through
> > dnf
> > update on both F25 and F26 installations, F26 the latter. Last package's
> > scriptlet completed for udisks
Samuel Sieb composed on 2017-07-21 08:54 (UTC-0700):
> Felix Miata wrote:
>> On Intel P4 host gx280 with 2GB RAM tonight this happened about 2/3 through
>> dnf
>> update on both F25 and F26 installations, F26 the latter. Last package's
>> scriptlet completed for udisks2. Last line before segfaul
On 07/21/2017 12:12 AM, Felix Miata wrote:
On Intel P4 host gx280 with 2GB RAM tonight this happened about 2/3 through dnf
update on both F25 and F26 installations, F26 the latter. Last package's
scriptlet completed for udisks2. Last line before segfault is upgrading
gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free.
- Original Message -
> From: "Adam Williamson"
> To: "For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases"
>
> Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 9:21:46 PM
> Subject: Re: DNF 2.0 Annoucement email awaits moderator approval
> [test-annou...@lists.fedorap
On Mon, 2017-05-08 at 03:54 -0400, Sumantro Mukherjee wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: test-announce-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > To: sumuk...@redhat.com
> > Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2017 12:51:20 AM
> > Subject: Your message to test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org awaits
>
On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Richard Ryniker wrote:
> I seem to have touched a sore spot on Mr. Murphy, and apologize if I
> have unintentionally irritated him.
What annoys me is that people want to have things two ways. Basically
they want what they want because they want it, which simply isn
I seem to have touched a sore spot on Mr. Murphy, and apologize if I
have unintentionally irritated him. If he is the designer of the
offline update mechanism, and I correctly perceive the implications of
his explanation, then I do scold him for failure to mitigate the
damage that might occur to a
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Richard Ryniker wrote:
> I am unhappy with the suggestion that the semantics of kernel parameters
> may depend on some notion about how "temporary" they are. If a kernel
> parameter is specified, it is present; if not specified, it is absent.
3 isn't even a kernel
I am unhappy with the suggestion that the semantics of kernel parameters
may depend on some notion about how "temporary" they are. If a kernel
parameter is specified, it is present; if not specified, it is absent.
It is proper to design parameter syntax and default values to favor
common usage.
Felix Miata composed on 2016-08-30 18:44 (UTC-0400):
I'm still waiting to see evidence that the
upgrade process is actually proceeding, at least 35 minutes after having
"Reached target System Update" show up on the screen.
Success. E7500 Core2Duo 2.93GHz CPU. About 54 minutes long boot accordi
Chris Murphy composed on 2016-08-30 16:13 (UTC-0600):
Anything that overrides default.target is supposed to be temporary. To
Not everything gets used as it's "supposed to be" used. With a dozen or more
installations spread across dozens of machines, a digit in a stanza
constitutes a keyword
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
> Chris Murphy composed on 2016-08-30 15:31 (UTC-0600):
>
>> Felix Miata wrote:
>
>
>>> What I was looking for is the process that triggers "offline updates
>>> mode".
>>> If it involves the bootloader, I know whatever it may be simply doesn't
>>
Chris Murphy composed on 2016-08-30 15:31 (UTC-0600):
Felix Miata wrote:
What I was looking for is the process that triggers "offline updates mode".
If it involves the bootloader, I know whatever it may be simply doesn't
exist. This is a multiboot installation, so no Fedora bootloader is invo
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
> Kamil Paral composed on 2016-08-30 06:24 (UTC-0400):
>
>>> Following the instructions on
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DNF_system_upgrade
>>> eventually I reached
>>> dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=25
>>> which apparent
Kamil Paral composed on 2016-08-30 06:24 (UTC-0400):
>> Following the instructions on
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DNF_system_upgrade
>> eventually I reached
>> dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=25
>> which apparently completed without error, ending by directing to run
>> dnf
> Following the instructions on
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DNF_system_upgrade
> eventually I reached
> dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=25
> which apparently completed without error, ending by directing to run
> dnf system-upgrade reboot.
> So, I did, and it booted normally.
On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> I'm not sure what kind of snapshot this refers to. I have done two dnf
> system upgrades from 23 to 24 on Btrfs, I don't recall seeing any Btrfs
> snapshots, but that's a weak statement.
The earlier version of this man page refers to Btrfs
On Sun, Jul 31, 2016, 2:57 PM Felix Miata wrote:
> Chris Murphy composed on 2016-07-31 12:43 (UTC-0400):
>
> > Felix Miata wrote:
>
> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DNF_system_upgrade quote: "This will
> >> reboot your machine immediately. The system should boot again into
> >> Fedora using th
Chris Murphy composed on 2016-07-31 12:43 (UTC-0400):
Felix Miata wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DNF_system_upgrade quote: "This will
reboot your machine immediately. The system should boot again into
Fedora using the same kernel, but this time, the upgrade process appears
on the boot
On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 3:11 AM, Felix Miata wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DNF_system_upgrade
> quote:
> "This will reboot your machine immediately. The system should boot again
> into Fedora using the same kernel, but this time, the upgrade process
> appears on the boot screen. "
>
> NA
On Sun, 2016-04-10 at 18:59 +0100, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-04-10 at 11:35 -0400, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> >
> > Can you try this?
> >
> > SSLCertificateFile/etc/letsencrypt/live/www.russel.org.uk/cert.pe
> > m
> > SSLCertificateKeyFile /etc/letsencrypt/live/www.russel.org.uk/privkey
On 04/09/2016 07:35 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
I have experimental evidence that dnf fails using https if the
repository site certificate is a Let's Encrypt one. Is this a bug or a
feature?
Have you correctly included the certificate chain? If not, your browser
might have the required intermedi
On Sun, 2016-04-10 at 11:35 -0400, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> Can you try this?
>
> SSLCertificateFile/etc/letsencrypt/live/www.russel.org.uk/cert.pe
> m
> SSLCertificateKeyFile /etc/letsencrypt/live/www.russel.org.uk/privkey
> .pem
> SSLCertificateChainFile /etc/letsencrypt/live/www.russel.org.uk
l Winder"
> To: test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 4:41:33 PM
> Subject: Re: DNF and https
>
> On Sun, 2016-04-10 at 08:55 -0400, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> >
> […]
> > how did you set SSL there? I guess a bit wrongly..
>
>
On Sun, 2016-04-10 at 08:55 -0400, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
>
[…]
> how did you set SSL there? I guess a bit wrongly..
SSLEngine on
SSLCertificateFile "/etc/letsencrypt/live/www.russel.org.uk/cer
t.pem"
SSLCertificateKeyFile "/etc/letsencrypt/live/www.russel.org.uk/
privkey.pe
it works
correctly - Let's Encrypt Authority X1
Please show settings of your webserver..
- Original Message -
> From: "Russel Winder"
> To: test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 1:38:48 PM
> Subject: Re: DNF and https
>
> On Sat, 2016
On Sat, 2016-04-09 at 15:54 +0100, Pawel Bogucki wrote:
> Do you have a public repo with such cert for testing?
https://www.winder.org.uk/Fedora-RPMs/
should be accessible from everywhere.
> On 9 April 2016 at 15:35, Russel Winder wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have experimental evidence tha
On Sat, 2016-04-09 at 15:54 +0100, Pawel Bogucki wrote:
> Do you have a public repo with such cert for testing?
You could try one of the repos I have lying around
www.happyassassin.net , as I just flipped that over to LE.
https://www.happyassassin.net/repos/doom/ should do.
--
Adam Williamson
Fed
Do you have a public repo with such cert for testing?
On 9 April 2016 at 15:35, Russel Winder wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have experimental evidence that dnf fails using https if the
> repository site certificate is a Let's Encrypt one. Is this a bug or a
> feature?
>
> --
> Russel.
>
> =
The tracker bug of this issue is at:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265336
You don't need to yield to yum, dnf still works.
--
Yours sincerely,
Christopher Meng
http://awk.io
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailm
Adam Williamson wrote:
>On Tue, 2015-09-29 at 15:04 +0100, Ron Yorston wrote:
>> I really don't much like dnf: its default behaviour seems off compared
>> to yum and I have less trust in it than I did yum.
>
>It was just a bug, in a pre-release piece of software.
My opinion of dnf is not based so
On Tue, 2015-09-29 at 16:57 +0200, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
> IMHO primary problem I can see here with dnf is -
> it's pushed to rawhide with no testing by it's developers.
It has a fairly large test suite, in fact. It just didn't catch this
issue.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC:
On Tue, 2015-09-29 at 15:04 +0100, Ron Yorston wrote:
> Lukas Brabec wrote:
> > It seems that dnf-1.1.2-2 from updates-testing was broken, it
> > didn't check the repos properly. I downgraded the dnf (and all
> > dependencies) with yum-deprecated to dnf-1.1.1-2 and it works now.
>
> Thanks for the
Dne 29.9.2015 v 16:04 Ron Yorston napsal(a):
Lukas Brabec wrote:
It seems that dnf-1.1.2-2 from updates-testing was broken, it
didn't check the repos properly. I downgraded the dnf (and all
dependencies) with yum-deprecated to dnf-1.1.1-2 and it works now.
Thanks for the hint. Downgrading dnf
On Tue, 2015-09-29 at 15:04 +0100, Ron Yorston wrote:
> Thanks for the hint. Downgrading dnf from 1.1.2-2 to 1.1.1-2
> resulted
> in 'dnf update' finding 214MB of updates, which is more like what I
> was
> expecting. I see that dnf-1.1.2-2 wasn't among them.
Probably a faulty update which is why
Lukas Brabec wrote:
>It seems that dnf-1.1.2-2 from updates-testing was broken, it
>didn't check the repos properly. I downgraded the dnf (and all
>dependencies) with yum-deprecated to dnf-1.1.1-2 and it works now.
Thanks for the hint. Downgrading dnf from 1.1.2-2 to 1.1.1-2 resulted
in 'dnf upda
Hi,
I encountered probably the same problem with dnf-1.1.2-2,
command 'dnf update --refresh' reported nothing to do, but
'yum-deprecated update' wanted to download the updates.
It seems that dnf-1.1.2-2 from updates-testing was broken, it
didn't check the repos properly. I downgraded the dnf (and
On Ter, 2015-09-29 at 11:51 +0100, Ron Yorston wrote:
> I installed the F23 beta last week when it first came out. There were
> 483MB of updates on 23rd September. I didn't use it again until today.
> I was expecting another bumper load of updates, GNOME 3.18 in particular.
>
> However, 'dnf upd
On Sex, 2015-09-11 at 14:25 +0200, Dario Lesca wrote:
> Il giorno gio, 10/09/2015 alle 18.50 -0400, Donavan Lance ha scritto:
> > using the new 'dnf system-upgrade' utility
>
> I have try this kind of update, but:
>
> > [root@dodo:~]# rpm -q dnf
> > dnf-1.1.1-2.fc22.noarch
> > [root@dodo:~]# dnf
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 02:25:08PM +0200, Dario Lesca wrote:
> Il giorno gio, 10/09/2015 alle 18.50 -0400, Donavan Lance ha scritto:
> > using the new 'dnf system-upgrade' utility
>
> I have try this kind of update, but:
>
> > [root@dodo:~]# rpm -q dnf
> > dnf-1.1.1-2.fc22.noarch
> > [root@dodo:~
@Dario: Accidentally hit the send button too early, you can also use
"dnf install 'dnf-command(system-upgrade)'".
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Donavan Lance wrote:
> You need to install 'dnf-plugin-system-upgrade'
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Dario Lesca wrote:
>> Il giorno gio, 10/0
You need to install 'dnf-plugin-system-upgrade'
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Dario Lesca wrote:
> Il giorno gio, 10/09/2015 alle 18.50 -0400, Donavan Lance ha scritto:
>> using the new 'dnf system-upgrade' utility
>
> I have try this kind of update, but:
>
>> [root@dodo:~]# rpm -q dnf
>> dnf-
Il giorno gio, 10/09/2015 alle 18.50 -0400, Donavan Lance ha scritto:
> using the new 'dnf system-upgrade' utility
I have try this kind of update, but:
> [root@dodo:~]# rpm -q dnf
> dnf-1.1.1-2.fc22.noarch
> [root@dodo:~]# dnf system-upgrade
> No such command: system-upgrade. Please use /bin/dnf
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 18:50 -0400, Donavan Lance wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>> This feels like a bug to me but before reporting one I wanted to
>> check
>> here and see if anyone else has encountered this or knows anything
>> about it.
>
1 - 100 of 169 matches
Mail list logo
