https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130630
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130625
Bug 2130625 depends on bug 2130630, which changed state.
Bug 2130630 Summary: Please branch and build perl-TestML in epel9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130630
What|Removed |Added
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130616
Bug 2130616 depends on bug 2130626, which changed state.
Bug 2130626 Summary: Please branch and build perl-Pegex in epel9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130626
What|Removed |Added
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130626
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Status|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130630
Bug 2130630 depends on bug 2130626, which changed state.
Bug 2130626 Summary: Please branch and build perl-Pegex in epel9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130626
What|Removed |Added
The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
5 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-15e4c3606e
ntfs-3g-2022.10.3-1.el8
5 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-be3947859f
heimdal-7.7.1-1.el8
1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144552
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144291
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-6883f12405 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=2144280
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-098103bf6a 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=2142938
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-0ae435577c has been pushed to the Fedora 36 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=2143735
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-0ae435577c has been pushed to the Fedora 36 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=2144280
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-839b138877 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 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=2144291
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-c314d1aa5a has been pushed to the Fedora 36 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=2143735
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144280
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #4 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142938
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-9285af6c70 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 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=2144291
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #4 from
On Mon, 2022-11-21 at 16:39 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > >
> > > We could do the same thing SUSE does and switch to calling
> > > scripts/tools to install into /boot and /boot/efi rather than doing it
> > > directly from RPM. That would simplify the logic of bootupd and allow
> > > it to just
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022, at 3:52 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> In particular, two reasons why an upgrade might be interrupted were raised:
> power being cut and the system crashing. Bootupd (or any other daemon) cannot
> do much about crashes so this isn't a good motivation. For power,
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 4:17 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 03:55:45PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 3:53 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FedoraSilverblueBootupd
> > > > ==
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 03:55:45PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 3:53 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> >
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FedoraSilverblueBootupd
> > > == Summary ==
> > >
> > > By design, ostree does not manage bootloader updates as they
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 3:53 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FedoraSilverblueBootupd
> > == Summary ==
> >
> > By design, ostree does not manage bootloader updates as they can not
> > (yet) happen in a transactional, atomic and safe fashion. Thus
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FedoraSilverblueBootupd
> == Summary ==
>
> By design, ostree does not manage bootloader updates as they can not
> (yet) happen in a transactional, atomic and safe fashion. Thus bootupd
> (https://github.com/coreos/bootupd) was created to solve this issue
The 1.6 series of both GSSDP and GUPnP was released a while ago, and the
1.6.2 releases contain an important fix for Rygel (which itself depends
on the 1.6 series in the latest version):
https://discourse.gnome.org/t/important-gssdp-gupnp-1-6-2/12394
As these versions bring new sonames, I
On Mon, 2022-11-21 at 12:43 -0500, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> On 11/21/22 09:23, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Sun, 2022-11-20 at 19:24 -0500, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> > > On 11/20/22 17:40, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 2022-11-20 at 17:22 -0500, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> > > > > On 11/20/22
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 12:45 PM Demi Marie Obenour
wrote:
>
> On 11/21/22 09:23, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Sun, 2022-11-20 at 19:24 -0500, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> >> On 11/20/22 17:40, Simo Sorce wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 2022-11-20 at 17:22 -0500, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> On 11/20/22
On 11/21/22 09:23, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Sun, 2022-11-20 at 19:24 -0500, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
>> On 11/20/22 17:40, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2022-11-20 at 17:22 -0500, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
On 11/20/22 07:24, Bojan Smojver via devel wrote:
> Now that nss 3.85 has been
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144552
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #2 from
On Mon, 2022-11-21 at 09:00 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was looking for a clear answer in the packaging docs to the question whether
> package nevr must be always higher in later releases. I recall people saying
> that
> now 'distro-upgrade' is the recommended upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144552
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144552
Bug ID: 2144552
Summary: Please branch and build perl-Archive-Peek in epel9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Archive-Peek
Assignee:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144551
Bug ID: 2144551
Summary: Please branch and build perl-Parse-CPAN-Packages in
epel9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144550
Bug ID: 2144550
Summary: Please branch and build perl-Net-Domain-TLD in epel9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Net-Domain-TLD
Assignee:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 12:43 PM Colin Walters wrote:
> - This proposal is explicitly trying to tie everything together. I think
> without the "bigger picture", it's actually *more* confusing. For example,
> just pushing the container images does little unless we invest in them as a
>
On Sun, 2022-11-20 at 19:24 -0500, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> On 11/20/22 17:40, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Sun, 2022-11-20 at 17:22 -0500, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> > > On 11/20/22 07:24, Bojan Smojver via devel wrote:
> > > > Now that nss 3.85 has been built, I thought I'd have a go at building
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144291
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-a0a906aca3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a0a906aca3
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144291
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-a0a906aca3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a0a906aca3
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144291
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-c314d1aa5a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-c314d1aa5a
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144291
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
V Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 10:18:29AM +0100, Than Ngo napsal(a):
> i cannot upload new tarball chromium-107.0.5304.110-clean.tar.xz (1.6GB) for
> chromium:
>
> fedpkg upload chromium-107.0.5304.110-clean.tar.xz
> Uploading: chromium-107.0.5304.110-clean.tar.xz
>
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20221120.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20221121.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 1
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 33
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 94.32 KiB
Size of dropped packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144291
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144280
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version||perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144280
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-839b138877 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-839b138877
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144280
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-463b5339a4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-463b5339a4
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144280
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #1 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144185
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144280
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|iarn...@gmail.com, |
Hello everyone,
Please join us at the next Open NeuroFedora team meeting on Monday 21st
November(today!) at 1300UTC in #fedora-neuro on Matrix or IRC
(Libera.chat). The meeting is a public meeting, and open for everyone
to attend. You can join us over:
Matrix:
On 09. 11. 22 20:07, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 08. 11. 22 22:36, Troy Dawson wrote:
Hi Miro,
You have explained the problem very well, and a possible solution.
But I'm a bit confused as to what you want to happen.
Is this a heads up, that you are going to change something?
Do you want us to
On Mon, 2022-11-21 at 09:00 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was looking for a clear answer in the packaging docs to the
> question whether
> package nevr must be always higher in later releases. I recall people
> saying that
> now 'distro-upgrade' is the recommended upgrade
Just to publish the result of the hidden 1:1 communication with Than Ngo:
The file is probably too big and there might be a limit on httpd.
For example, this version of httpd 2.4 newly introduces 1G limit:
https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/mod/core.html#limitrequestbody
But I don't have access to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143735
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-9285af6c70 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-9285af6c70
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143735
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-0ae435577c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-0ae435577c
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144185
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143735
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|jples...@redhat.com,|
Dne 20. 11. 22 v 13:24 Bojan Smojver via devel napsal(a):
PS. I am not the FF maintainer (obviously), so this is just for kicks.
Feel free to use Copr for such experiments
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/
Miroslav
___
devel mailing list --
Dne 21. 11. 22 v 10:00 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
So… has there been any change of the Guidelines on this and where is
the official policy documented?
AFAIK no. We stick to common sense. In good and bad meaning of that.
Miroslav
___
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143429
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version||perl-PDF-API2-2.044-1.fc38
Of course, relevant build overrides had to be provided, because
required version of nss was not in stable at the time I started these
scratch builds. Thought I'd mention it for completeness.
--
Bojan
___
devel mailing list --
On 20/11/2022 23:22, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
Has switching to bundled NSS been considered? For browsers anything
that holds up an update is very,*very* bad.
No. Bundling cryptographic libraries is a very, very bad idea.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
On 09. 11. 22 12:37, Petr Viktorin wrote:
tl;dr: Python 3.12 should be built with no-omit-frame-pointer if
upstream recommends it.
Hello,
You might be aware of a Fedora change proposal [0] (discussed on
fedora-devel [1] and FESCo [2]) are discussing turning on C compiler
flags that help
Weitergeleitete Nachricht
Betreff:Re: fedpkg upload broken
Datum: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 10:38:23 +0100
Von:Than Ngo
An: Ondrej Nosek
Am 21.11.22 um 10:29 schrieb Ondrej Nosek:
Hi,
I checked the functionality and for me, it worked.
Could you, please, run it
Dne 20. 11. 22 v 18:46 Ralf Corsépius napsal(a):
Why don't you extract the License-field from *.rpms and check if they comply to the new rules?
It would work for cases like GPLv2 -> GPL-2.0-only.
But you can have cases like:
MIT -> MIT
MIT -> MIT-Modern-Variant
so at the end you
Hi,
i cannot upload new tarball chromium-107.0.5304.110-clean.tar.xz (1.6GB)
for chromium:
fedpkg upload chromium-107.0.5304.110-clean.tar.xz
Uploading: chromium-107.0.5304.110-clean.tar.xz
100.0%
Could not execute
On Friday, 18 November 2022 at 19:41, Michael Dawson wrote:
> As Web Assembly (WASM) gains momentum we’d like to create a SIG as a
> place to collaborate to ensure that Fedora is a great platform to both
> build and run WASM workloads. This includes looking at the toolchains
> needed to build WASM
Hi,
I was looking for a clear answer in the packaging docs to the question whether
package nevr must be always higher in later releases. I recall people saying
that
now 'distro-upgrade' is the recommended upgrade method and the requirement of
keeping the upgrade path without downgrades isn't
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143429
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143099
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Status|ASSIGNED
69 matches
Mail list logo
