Dear Fedora contributors,
the localization change for Fedora 34 [1] is available in staging:
https://languages.stg.fedoraproject.org
The goal: "Provide a public website for end users and contributors, containing
Fedora Workstation translation progress and useful files for translators (as an
On Fri, 2021-03-26 at 17:39 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 08:42:51AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Can you do a Koji scratch build? This is easier for me to test in
> > openQA (I already have the tooling set up to schedule tests on scratch
> > builds, it
perhaps you should look at how ceph has dealt with a similar issue,
they set the max number of cpus based on the system ram.
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ceph/blob/rawhide/f/ceph.spec#_1246
Dennis
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 7:49 PM Michel Alexandre Salim
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> This idea came
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1943227
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-2414aff513 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 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=1941319
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-2414aff513 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 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=1943595
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1941319
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-fe4fac3c55 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=1943227
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-fe4fac3c55 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
(resending through lists.fp.o, since I'm not actually subscribed atm, so it was
rejected)
I was one of the people who experienced the problem with 246.12-1.fc33
on F33. With that version, I was able to resolve google.com and
fedoraproject.org just fine, but it seemed I wasn't able to resolve
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1890795
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1943227
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #6 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1941319
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-0e593b8b25 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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=1934824
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|slic3r-1.3.0-19.fc35|slic3r-1.3.0-19.fc35
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1934824
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|slic3r-1.3.0-19.fc35|slic3r-1.3.0-19.fc35
Hi all,
This idea came about when I'm debugging build issues with mcrouter,
which turns out to be due to build jobs failing to allocate memory and
getting terminated without aborting the entire compilation, causing
link issues when empty or corrupted objects are encountered:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1941071
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In
Christopher wrote:
> * Unlike many other implementations, there is no backup code option
> (GitHub, Google, others, provide 10 one-time use backup codes you can
> use in case you don't have access to your authenticator app; these can
> be regenerated after a successful login).
It seems that the
On pe, 26 maalis 2021, Charalampos Stratakis wrote:
Hi all.
Some time ago there was a discussion from the Fedora Packaging
Committee [0] about automatically disallowing the usage of RPATH in
Fedora to bring it in-line with the packaging guidelines[1].
Essentially a package MUST remove the RPATH
On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 at 16:47, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 09:34:49PM +0100, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> > Dnia Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 03:26:53PM -0500, Brandon Nielsen napisał(a):
> > > On 3/26/21 3:24 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 02:48:39PM -0400,
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 09:34:49PM +0100, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> Dnia Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 03:26:53PM -0500, Brandon Nielsen napisał(a):
> > On 3/26/21 3:24 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 02:48:39PM -0400, Christopher wrote:
> > [Snip]
> > > > * In many places, including
On 3/26/21 3:36 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 03:26:53PM -0500, Brandon Nielsen wrote:
This is pretty common in my experience; it seems like password managers
should support this pattern.
I can't say I have ever appended an OTP to a regular password, and I
use 2FA
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 04:24:29PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 02:48:39PM -0400, Christopher wrote:
> > The new accounts site is awesome. But, the 2FA system does seem to be
> > a bit annoying.
>
> Can you file this as a ticket at
>
On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 at 16:27, Brandon Nielsen wrote:
> On 3/26/21 3:24 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 02:48:39PM -0400, Christopher wrote:
> [Snip]
> >> * In many places, including accounts.fedoraproject.org, in order to
> >> log in, you have to append the OTP to your
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 03:26:53PM -0500, Brandon Nielsen wrote:
> >This is pretty common in my experience; it seems like password managers
> >should support this pattern.
>
> I can't say I have ever appended an OTP to a regular password, and I
> use 2FA everywhere I can.
Maybe more so on the
Dnia Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 03:26:53PM -0500, Brandon Nielsen napisał(a):
> On 3/26/21 3:24 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 02:48:39PM -0400, Christopher wrote:
> [Snip]
> > > * In many places, including accounts.fedoraproject.org, in order to
> > > log in, you have to append
On 3/26/21 3:24 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 02:48:39PM -0400, Christopher wrote:
[Snip]
* In many places, including accounts.fedoraproject.org, in order to
log in, you have to append the OTP to your password, so it doesn't
really play nice with password managers.
This
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 02:48:39PM -0400, Christopher wrote:
> The new accounts site is awesome. But, the 2FA system does seem to be
> a bit annoying.
Can you file this as a ticket at
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issues? I got bitten by basically
all the same things, and I think we can
On Fr, 26.03.21 19:50, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 01:27:46PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > I'm using the copr build in f34. It seems to be working but the ipv6
> > ipv4 flip on successive runs as if there's some kind of race in
> > reporting
The license of giada has changed from “GPLv3+ and MIT and CC0 and BSD” to
“GPLv3+ and MIT and BSD” since json/nlohmann_json/“JSON for Modern C++” was
unbundled. (It in turn bundled Hedley, which is where the CC0 part of the
license field came from.)
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 03:53:39PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> I have just tried https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/ and it is
> certainly welcome refresh.
>
> Congrats and thx to all involved.
+100!
Zbyszek
___
devel mailing list --
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 01:27:46PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> I'm using the copr build in f34. It seems to be working but the ipv6
> ipv4 flip on successive runs as if there's some kind of race in
> reporting one or the other first? Is that relevant?
That's a feature!
I'm using the copr build in f34. It seems to be working but the ipv6
ipv4 flip on successive runs as if there's some kind of race in
reporting one or the other first? Is that relevant?
[chris@fmac ~]$ resolvectl query google.com
google.com: 2607:f8b0:400f:805::200e -- link: enp2s0f0
Kevin Fenzi kirjoitti 26.3.2021 klo 18.07:
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 09:25:28AM +0200, Otto Urpelainen wrote:
Richard W.M. Jones kirjoitti 25.3.2021 klo 20.56:
Thanks - it is working now.
I have similar but different problem which still happens:
1. Open pagure.io or src.fedoraproject.org
2.
Hi All,
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 2:15 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 10:55:40PM +, Aoife Moloney wrote:
> > I am beyond pleased to announce that the Fedora Accounts Team has reached
> > the point in our deployment that critical path services have been
> > configured to
The new accounts site is awesome. But, the 2FA system does seem to be
a bit annoying.
* It can't be disabled, so you can't try it out and later change your mind.
* Unlike many other implementations, there is no backup code option
(GitHub, Google, others, provide 10 one-time use backup codes you
Missing expected images:
Iot dvd aarch64
Iot dvd x86_64
Failed openQA tests: 1/16 (x86_64), 3/15 (aarch64)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-35-20210322.0):
ID: 831566 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso base_services_start
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/831566
ID:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 10:55:40PM +, Aoife Moloney wrote:
> I am beyond pleased to announce that the Fedora Accounts Team has reached
> the point in our deployment that critical path services have been
> configured to the new solution and end user impact should be little to
> none, so we are
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 06:51:56PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 26. 03. 21 18:24, Charalampos Stratakis wrote:
> >python2.7churchyard cstratak torsava vstinner
>
> I was curious. The error is:
>
> 0001: file '/usr/lib64/python2.7/lib-dynload/pyexpat.so' contains a standard
>
On 26. 03. 21 18:24, Charalampos Stratakis wrote:
python2.7churchyard cstratak torsava vstinner
I was curious. The error is:
0001: file '/usr/lib64/python2.7/lib-dynload/pyexpat.so' contains a standard
rpath '/usr/lib64' in [/usr/lib64]
And the cause is... our own patch
On Fri, Mar 26 2021 at 01:24:35 PM -0400, przemek klosowski via devel
wrote:
As to the issues with F5, I see that it rewrites /etc/hosts
You can ask them to fix their software according to my instructions
here:
I've been having problems with DNS resolution in F33 as well: I use F5
VPN (work requirement).
I tried your nsswitch recipe, but got some errors:
authselect apply-changes
[error] [/etc/nsswitch.conf] is not a symbolic link!
[error] [/etc/nsswitch.conf] was not created by authselect!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1943595
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 08:42:51AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Can you do a Koji scratch build? This is easier for me to test in
> openQA (I already have the tooling set up to schedule tests on scratch
> builds, it cannot do it for COPR builds). Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1943595
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-6483127319 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-6483127319
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
Hi all.
Some time ago there was a discussion from the Fedora Packaging Committee [0]
about automatically disallowing the usage of RPATH in Fedora to bring it
in-line with the packaging guidelines[1]. Essentially a package MUST remove the
RPATH entry from its binaries and/or .so files if it is
ppisar closed without merging a pull-request against the project:
`perl-PPIx-Regexp` that you
are following.
Closed pull-request:
``
Tests
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-PPIx-Regexp/pull-request/1
___
perl-devel mailing list --
Hi,
On 3/26/21 11:26 AM, Uwe Klotz wrote:
> Hi Hans,
>
> I started working on an update of the PortAudio package and hope to publish a
> PR soon.
Great, thank you.
Regards,
Hans
> On 22.03.21 23:06, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> While working on bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1943595
--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar ---
An enhancement release suitable for Fedora ≥ 34.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list --
ppisar opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-PPIx-Regexp` that
you are following:
``
Tests
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-PPIx-Regexp/pull-request/1
___
perl-devel mailing list --
=
#fedora-meeting: ELN (2021-03-26)
=
Meeting started by sgallagh at 16:02:28 UTC. The full logs are available
at
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2021-03-26/eln.2021-03-26-16.02.log.html
.
Meeting summary
On Fri, 2021-03-26 at 09:23 -0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-03-25 at 22:55 +, Aoife Moloney wrote:
> > Evening/Morning all,
> >
> > I am beyond pleased to announce that the Fedora Accounts Team has
> > reached the point in our deployment that critical path services have
>
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 1/16 (x86_64), 2/15 (aarch64)
ID: 831324 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso base_services_start
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/831324
ID: 831339 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso base_services_start@uefi
URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1943595
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
> I need to run fedpkg –-release f srpm instead of fedpkg srpm
This shouldn't be needed, as fedpkg was patched to properly handle "rawhide &
"main" branch names over a month ago. Perhaps your fedpkg is out of date?
___
devel mailing list --
On Thu, 2021-03-25 at 22:55 +, Aoife Moloney wrote:
> Evening/Morning all,
>
> I am beyond pleased to announce that the Fedora Accounts Team has
> reached the point in our deployment that critical path services have
> been configured to the new solution and end user impact should be
> little
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 10:55:40PM +, Aoife Moloney wrote:
> Evening/Morning all,
>
> I am beyond pleased to announce that the Fedora Accounts Team has reached
> the point in our deployment that critical path services have been
> configured to the new solution and end user impact should be
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 09:25:28AM +0200, Otto Urpelainen wrote:
> Richard W.M. Jones kirjoitti 25.3.2021 klo 20.56:
> >
> > Thanks - it is working now.
>
> I have similar but different problem which still happens:
>
> 1. Open pagure.io or src.fedoraproject.org
> 2. Log In
> 3. The new account
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 09:40:24PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> fedpkg updates are also failing now:
>
> $ fedpkg update
> Could not execute update: Could not generate update request:
> ServerError(https://id.fedoraproject.org/api/v1/, 500, Error returned from
> our POST to ipsilon.)
On Fri, 2021-03-26 at 09:16 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we have been trying to figure out the issue where resolved sometimes
> does not resolve certain names [1], e.g. 'google.com'. Unfortunately,
> the issue is only reproducible for some people (most likely it depends
>
Huge, huge thanks to everyone who worked on this; it was well communicated,
surprisingly non-disruptive given the scope and impact, and it works!
--
Gwyn Ciesla
she/her/hers
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love
-d. bowie
Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event
for Fedora 34 Branched 20210326.n.0. Please help run some tests for this
nightly compose if you have time. For more information on nightly
release validation testing, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64), 1/7 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
ID: 830426 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/830426
ID: 830433 Test: aarch64
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927466
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
CC|
On 3/25/21 11:28 PM, William Brown wrote:
On 25 Mar 2021, at 17:49, thierry bordaz wrote:
On 3/25/21 3:20 AM, William Brown wrote:
On 25 Mar 2021, at 12:00, Mark Reynolds wrote:
On 3/24/21 8:32 PM, William Brown wrote:
I think maybe it could be easy to visualise it.
We have time
snapshotdate20200827
+%global snapshotdate20210326
Name: fctxpd
Version:0.2
-Release:3.%{snapshotdate}git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}
+Release:4.%{snapshotdate}git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}
Summary:Fibrechannel transport daemon
License:GPLv2+
@@ -58,6 +58,9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1943227
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 11/127 (aarch64), 7/189 (x86_64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-34-20210323.n.0):
ID: 830828 Test: aarch64 Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz base_services_start@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/830828
ID: 830829 Test:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1943227
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-0e593b8b25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-0e593b8b25
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1943227
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-fe4fac3c55 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-fe4fac3c55
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1890795
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #2 from
Hi,
we have been trying to figure out the issue where resolved sometimes
does not resolve certain names [1], e.g. 'google.com'. Unfortunately,
the issue is only reproducible for some people (most likely it depends
on the dns server or other network topology details…).
One of the patches that
I have just tried https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/ and it is
certainly welcome refresh.
Congrats and thx to all involved.
Vít
Dne 25. 03. 21 v 23:55 Aoife Moloney napsal(a):
Evening/Morning all,
I am beyond pleased to announce that the Fedora Accounts Team has
reached the point in our
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2021/03/26/report-389-ds-base-2.0.3-20210326git741e7a72a.fc33.x86_64.html
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1943227
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-2414aff513 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-2414aff513
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
No missing expected images.
Compose PASSES proposed Rawhide gating check!
All required tests passed
Failed openQA tests: 11/189 (x86_64), 11/127 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20210322.n.0):
ID: 830151 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso realmd_join_cockpit
URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1943595
Bug ID: 1943595
Summary: perl-PPIx-Regexp-0.079 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-PPIx-Regexp
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
global commit c4dba7f21f8549b3cdd844b05613bb7ca1135619
%global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7})
-%global snapshotdate20200827
+%global snapshotdate20210326
Name: fctxpd
Version:0.2
-Release:3.%{snapshotdate}git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}
+Release:
Richard W.M. Jones kirjoitti 25.3.2021 klo 20.56:
Thanks - it is working now.
I have similar but different problem which still happens:
1. Open pagure.io or src.fedoraproject.org
2. Log In
3. The new account system asks to approve the request, approve it
4. Redirected back to pagure.io: Page
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1921203
--- Comment #5 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
Skipping the scratch build because an SRPM could not be built: ['rpmbuild',
'-D', '_sourcedir .', '-D', '_topdir .', '-bs',
'/var/tmp/thn-o6tq6bt9/perl-Graph.spec'] returned 1: b'error:
On 2021-03-22 at 17:11 -0600, Jerry James wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> There is no reason anybody should remember, but last summer I
> mentioned 3 tools that I really wanted to help me deal with
> packaging
> issues. The first was opam2rpm, which I started work on last
> fall.
> It isn't done by a
> On 25 Mar 2021, at 17:49, thierry bordaz wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/25/21 3:20 AM, William Brown wrote:
>>
>>> On 25 Mar 2021, at 12:00, Mark Reynolds wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/24/21 8:32 PM, William Brown wrote:
>>> I think maybe it could be easy to visualise it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64), 1/7 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
ID: 830094 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/830094
ID: 830101 Test: aarch64
fedpkg updates are also failing now:
$ fedpkg update
Could not execute update: Could not generate update request:
ServerError(https://id.fedoraproject.org/api/v1/, 500, Error returned from our
POST to ipsilon.)
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
I'm on PTO tomorrow, so you get this a day early. Lucky you!
Action summary
Accepted blockers
-
1. sddm — logout after switch returns the user to console instead of sddm — NEW
ACTION: sddm maintainers to diagnose and fix issue
2. shim — include new
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745564
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
Fixed In
Evening/Morning all,
I am beyond pleased to announce that the Fedora Accounts Team has reached
the point in our deployment that critical path services have been
configured to the new solution and end user impact should be little to
none, so we are now officially out of outage!
For a while we
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1941284
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1921203
Upstream Release Monitoring
changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|perl-Graph-0.9718 is|perl-Graph-0.9720 is
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885423
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
CC|
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 09:54:11AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25 2021 at 09:26:19 AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro
> wrote:
> >For now, keep nss-myhostname at the start of the line, right after
> >files. We will probably need to find a way to either (a) fix
> >systemd-resolved to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1931125
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1943227
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
OLD: Fedora-34-20210323.n.0
NEW: Fedora-34-20210326.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 50
Dropped packages:2
Upgraded packages: 177
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 20.65 MiB
Size of dropped packages:1.39 MiB
On 22. 03. 21 15:50, Neal Gompa wrote:
Hey all,
Hey Neal, thanks for bringing this up.
Things have changed in Python runtime packaging since we started
introducing alternative Python versions years ago. For one, we now
always have fully versioned source packages, and now we have a flag
for
94 matches
Mail list logo
