Hi,
I'm a big fan of neovim (emacs users jump to 'emacs:' ;-). neovim has support
for the Language Server Protocol and there is a nice plugin called 'null-ls'
[1] which allows you to hook linters and formatters into neovim.
I've added support for rpmspec in 'null-ls' so you can get feedback
Il 21/02/22 22:09, Fabio Valentini ha scritto:
> Hi!
> I would recommend that you use the standard source handling as
> documented on the SourceURL page.
> The forge macros are no longer actively maintained or developed, the
> last fix / update they received was almost two years ago.
> The
OLD: Fedora-36-20220220.n.0
NEW: Fedora-36-20220221.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 32
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 103
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 37.94 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20220220.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20220221.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 2
Added packages: 33
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 112
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 31.03 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0
On 2/21/22 22:17, Ian McInerney via devel wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 2:15 AM Demi Marie Obenour
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/21/22 14:16, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
>>> On 21/02/2022 19:25, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
FIDO keys are significantly more secure than OTPs, and FAS should get
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
5 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-5af404a521
varnish-4.0.5-2.el7
3 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-dc3bd1f656
llvm13-13.0.1-1.el7 rust-1.58.1-1.el7
The following
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2055942
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-1250db3bf0 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053474
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-52cd305c2e has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034031
Bug 2034031 depends on bug 2031268, which changed state.
Bug 2031268 Summary: ImageMagick for EPEL 9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031268
What|Removed |Added
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031800
Bug 2031800 depends on bug 2031268, which changed state.
Bug 2031268 Summary: ImageMagick for EPEL 9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031268
What|Removed |Added
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031753
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 2:15 AM Demi Marie Obenour
wrote:
> On 2/21/22 14:16, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > On 21/02/2022 19:25, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> >> FIDO keys are significantly more secure than OTPs, and FAS should get
> >> support for them. OTPs are still phishable, whereas
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053474
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #5 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2055942
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-0e5115d99f has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2055942
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #5 from
On 2/21/22 14:16, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 21/02/2022 19:25, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
>> FIDO keys are significantly more secure than OTPs, and FAS should get
>> support for them. OTPs are still phishable, whereas FIDO2 generally
>> isn’t.
>
> OTP is absolutely free. FIDO2 requires
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056250
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-75d9ca78f3 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056253
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-2632f36aeb has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
4 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-5af404a521
varnish-4.0.5-2.el7
2 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-dc3bd1f656
llvm13-13.0.1-1.el7 rust-1.58.1-1.el7
The following
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056250
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056253
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from
On Sun, 2022-02-20 at 15:37 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> 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
On 2/21/22 15:09, Fabio Valentini wrote:
So, if you plan to package releases / tags from your GitHub project,
just use what's documented here:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags
Glad I asked. Thanks!
--
On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 9:55 PM Ian Pilcher wrote:
>
> Can anyone suggest a good (simple) example SPEC file that I can
> reference as an example of how to use the forgemeta macro?
>
> I'm trying to build SPEC files for a couple of personal GitHub-hosted
> projects, and I'd like to make them as
Can anyone suggest a good (simple) example SPEC file that I can
reference as an example of how to use the forgemeta macro?
I'm trying to build SPEC files for a couple of personal GitHub-hosted
projects, and I'd like to make them as robust as possible. Even though
I have no current plans to try
On Monday, February 21, 2022 2:58:43 PM EST Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > if (arg2) {
> > arg1->bar = (char [])(char *)memcpy(malloc((size)*sizeof(char)), (const
> > char *)(arg2), sizeof(char)*(size));
> > } else {
> > arg1->bar = 0;
> > }
> >
> > which results in
> >
> > error: cast specifies
On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 01:22:53PM -0500, Steve Grubb wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a FTBFS package, audit, that has a strange problem that I'd like to
> run by the devel list. It is a common idiom in the kernel to do something
> like:
>
> struct foo{
> unsigned int barlen;
> char
This idiom is known as “flexible array member,” and it is standardized since
C99. The “bar[0]” syntax you mention is a GCC extension predating C99.
I’m not that familiar with the nuances of SWIG, but it looks like SWIG doesn’t
understand this at all, and is treating “bar” as a pointer member
On 21/02/2022 19:25, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
FIDO keys are significantly more secure than OTPs, and FAS should get
support for them. OTPs are still phishable, whereas FIDO2 generally
isn’t.
OTP is absolutely free. FIDO2 requires the purchase of a special
hardware token.
--
Sincerely,
Dear maintainers.
Based on the current fail to build from source policy, the following packages
should be retired from Fedora 36 approximately one week before branching.
However, 5 weekly reminders are required and I forgot to start this sooner,
hence the retirement will happen in 1 week, i.e.
The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they
are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure
that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life
Note: If
On 2/20/22 19:08, Adam Williamson wrote:
> 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
>>
Hello,
I have a FTBFS package, audit, that has a strange problem that I'd like to
run by the devel list. It is a common idiom in the kernel to do something
like:
struct foo{
unsigned int barlen;
char bar[];
};
There are about 80 instances of this in the kernel headers. When
On Thu, 2022-02-17 at 13:46 -0500, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> Your email made me look at this upstream
> (https://github.com/packit/specfile). It looks interesting! I wonder
> if we could use it more broadly (like for pyrpkg). It reminds me of
> https://github.com/containerbuildsystem/dockerfile-parse .
On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 8:35 AM Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
> This is not ready for general consumption but we plan to have something
> to submit to Rawhide in a month or so. Enrolling IPA users into this
> would be similar to already existing RADIUS proxy authentication path in
> FreeIPA.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2046804
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|perl-File-RsyncP: FTBFS in |perl-File-RsyncP: FTBFS in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053474
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-52cd305c2e has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-52cd305c2e
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053474
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2055942
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-Test-PostgreSQL-1.29-1 |perl-Test-PostgreSQL-1.29-1
Hello,
I've been working on a Python library for RPM spec file manipulation [1]. I've
packaged it as python-specfile in Fedora [2],
however, PyPI doesn't accept the name "specfile". I've opened an issue [3], but
there hasn't been any development so far.
Would you be able to help me? Or should I
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2055462
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Fixed In Version|
All current versions of *Fedora* have CMake 3.20 or later, so you
shouldn’t have any problems there.
When packaging for EPEL, you rely on the package versions that were
released with the corresponding version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
RHEL aims to provide long-term stability, so these
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051426
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051424
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2054290
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2055942
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-c2a14c4347 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-c2a14c4347
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2055942
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-1250db3bf0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-1250db3bf0
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2055942
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-0e5115d99f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-0e5115d99f
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2055942
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2055942
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|ppi...@redhat.com |
Doc Type|---
Also it's possible to use gopass which is able to store the OTP seed secured by
GPG and keep the GPG keys on a Yubikey to ensure their safety.
Best,
Fale
On Mon, Feb 21, 2022, at 11:03, Björn Persson wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > However, it supports Google Authenticator-style OTPs. Folks
Adam Williamson wrote:
> 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 preferred being able to use a yubikey so
> I don't always have to open an app on my phone and retype a six
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-34-20220220.0):
ID: 1139139 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2054290
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Doc Type|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2055936
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version||perl-XML-Generator-1.09-1.f
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-35-20220220.0):
ID: 1139007 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
On su, 20 helmi 2022, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
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.
> From: Roberto Sassu via devel [mailto:devel@lists.fedoraproject.org]
> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2022 4:27 PM
[...]
> Unlike the previous version of DIGLIM, this one does not
> have any dependency (I just had to add rpmplugin.h in
> the rpm-devel package).
>
> It can be configured with two
> From: David Sastre [mailto:d.sastre.med...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2022 11:56 PM
> (Secure Boot is concerned only with verifying the trustworthiness of the
> bootloader.
> From https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/kernel_lockdown.7.html:
> The Kernel Lockdown feature is
59 matches
Mail list logo
