Hi, Thanks for your suggestion, and I will rework my package based on your
comments. A question by the way: I built an epel package on CentOS7, my package
will depend on cmake 3.18 when it is building___
devel mailing list --
On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 04:43:13PM -0800, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 20, 2022, 16:09 Adam Williamson
> wrote:
>
> > It used to support these, but the support was lost with the recent
> > rewrite. However, it supports Google Authenticator-style OTPs. Folks
> > with infra privileges on
Hi all,
I am currently trying to open a UI / UX review of the FMN /
Notifications system and just chasing isome raw feedback on how you
all get notifications (email / IRC / or otherwise) when developing /
packaging / working on Fedora.
Please check out the following discussion thread to log your
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2032428
Bug 2032428 depends on bug 2048959, which changed state.
Bug 2048959 Summary: Add perl-GraphViz to EPEL9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048959
What|Removed |Added
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048959
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version||perl-GraphViz-2.24-19.el9
On Sun, Feb 20, 2022, 16:09 Adam Williamson
wrote:
> It used to support these, but the support was lost with the recent
> rewrite. However, it supports Google Authenticator-style OTPs. Folks
> with infra privileges on their accounts (like me) are already required
> to use these. It works fine. I
On Sun, 2022-02-20 at 16:42 +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> Unfortunately, last I checked, the FAS account
> system did not support adding something
> like a FIDO2 security key to an account(**).
> Even if it did, I suspect not all the other parts
> of the system would support FIDO keys.
It used
On Sun, 2022-02-20 at 20:26 +, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
> I've just pushed zchunk-1.2.0 to all active Fedora branches, and it's
> passed the (admittedly non-comprehensive) zchunk test suite, but I'm
> seeing 2 OpenQA failed tests in Bodhi:
>
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056250
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-41f918f7db has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-41f918f7db
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056250
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-75d9ca78f3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-75d9ca78f3
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056250
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
Hi
Following recent discussions and to reduce the maintenance burden, I'm
planning to start merging native and mingw packages. Initially, I'll be
looking at these packages where I maintain both variants:
eigen3 mingw-eigen3
enchant2 mingw-enchant2
freeimage mingw-freeimage
gdal mingw-gdal
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 92/229 (x86_64), 60/161 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-36-20220219.n.0):
ID: 1138743 Test: x86_64 Workstation-upgrade gnome_text_editor
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1138743
ID: 1138820 Test: x86_64
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056250
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056253
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Fixed
I've just pushed zchunk-1.2.0 to all active Fedora branches, and it's
passed the (admittedly non-comprehensive) zchunk test suite, but I'm
seeing 2 OpenQA failed tests in Bodhi:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e4bcaeea7a
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 3/16 (x86_64), 2/15 (aarch64)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-36-20220219.0):
ID: 1138947 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1138947
ID: 1138948 Test: x86_64
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056253
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #1 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056253
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #1 from
OLD: Fedora-36-20220219.n.0
NEW: Fedora-36-20220220.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 1
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 107
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 10.51 KiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size
Il 20/02/22 18:51, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel ha scritto:
> On 20/02/2022 11:31, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
>> So, where -fPIE/-fPIC are supposed to be injected in build flags?
> $ rpm -E %optflags
> -O2 -flto=auto -ffat-lto-objects -fexceptions -g -grecord-gcc-switches
> -pipe -Wall
Il 20/02/22 19:10, Peter Robinson ha scritto:
>> I'm running a package review request for a package which uses suid and
>> rpmlint complaints that it is not using hardened build flags. However,
>> the specfile doesn't explicitly disable them with %undefine _hardened_build.
>>
>> Looking at the
> I'm running a package review request for a package which uses suid and
> rpmlint complaints that it is not using hardened build flags. However,
> the specfile doesn't explicitly disable them with %undefine _hardened_build.
>
> Looking at the build log of this one [1] I see that export CFLAGS and
On 20/02/2022 11:31, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
So, where -fPIE/-fPIC are supposed to be injected in build flags?
$ rpm -E %optflags
-O2 -flto=auto -ffat-lto-objects -fexceptions -g -grecord-gcc-switches
-pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
-Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS
Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> Security keys are the only form of 2fa that is immune to
> phishing attacks.
U2F and FIDO2 are said to be immune to phishing. HOTP, TOTP and various
proprietary challenge-respone protocols are not immune.
Björn Persson
pgp_7IhtLa4JI.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital
Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
> Il 19/02/22 19:38, Björn Persson ha scritto:
> > Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >> I think it'd be better to check the status weekly and only require
> >> account reconfirmation if the quarantine status is detected ⌊N / 7 - 1⌋
> >> times in a row (where
On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 4:01 PM Demi Marie Obenour
wrote:
> I think we should also require security key-based 2fa for all
> packagers.
In a previous discussion on this topic that was
suggested (and at least partially rejected(*)).
Many (larger) orgs have decided that issuing
hardware security
On 2/20/22 05:00, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
> Il 19/02/22 19:38, Björn Persson ha scritto:
>> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>>> I think it'd be better to check the status weekly and only require
>>> account reconfirmation if the quarantine status is detected ⌊N / 7 - 1⌋
>>> times in a row
On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 8:21 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Once I remove the Obsoletes line from Fedora, should I worry about merging
> that
> commit to the epel9 branch or not? Logic dictates that the Obsolete should
> remain in EPEL 9 forever, but I wonder if there is a policy/rule of thumb.
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056240
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 at 15:55, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 3:21 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have a Fedora package that I've recently also branched for EPEL 9.
> >
> > The (so called) binary package used to be called "python3-tox", but has
> been
> > renamed to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056253
Bug ID: 2056253
Summary: perl-Module-CoreList-5.20220220 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Module-CoreList
Keywords:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056250
Bug ID: 2056250
Summary: perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20220220 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases
Keywords:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056240
Upstream Release Monitoring
changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|perl-MCE-1.877 is available |perl-MCE-1.878 is
Missing expected images:
Minimal raw-xz armhfp
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
4 of 43 required tests failed, 4 results missing
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
below
Failed openQA tests: 24/231 (x86_64), 26/161 (aarch64)
New failures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056224
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version||perl-Sereal-4.023-1.fc36
On 20. 02. 22 8:09, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sun, 2022-02-20 at 00:39 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 16. 02. 22 9:03, Adam Williamson wrote:
Full version: gnome-shell and mutter 42~beta builds were run yesterday.
For Fedora 36 they were done in a sidetag, but for Rawhide, no sidetag
yet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056222
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056223
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (aarch64), 1/8 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
New soft failures (same test not soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-34-20220219.0):
ID: 1138074 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi
URL:
Missing expected images:
Iot dvd x86_64
Iot dvd aarch64
Failed openQA tests: 3/16 (x86_64), 2/15 (aarch64)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-37-20220219.0):
ID: 1138115 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1138115
ID: 1138116
I'm running a package review request for a package which uses suid and
rpmlint complaints that it is not using hardened build flags. However,
the specfile doesn't explicitly disable them with %undefine _hardened_build.
Looking at the build log of this one [1] I see that export CFLAGS and
other
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20220219.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20220220.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 1
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 118
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 10.59 KiB
Size of dropped packages:0
Il 19/02/22 19:38, Björn Persson ha scritto:
> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>> I think it'd be better to check the status weekly and only require
>> account reconfirmation if the quarantine status is detected ⌊N / 7 - 1⌋
>> times in a row (where N=quarantine length in days).
> It will be
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056240
Bug ID: 2056240
Summary: perl-MCE-1.877 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-MCE
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-35-20220219.0):
ID: 1137653 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
46 matches
Mail list logo
