On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 12:37:40AM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> Peter Hutterer writes:
> > xfd
>
> I use this a lot; what is the modern replacement for it?
I was about to say gnome-font-viewer but that doesn't seem to list the old X
fonts (or requires conversion or something). So, tbh, I'm not
Peter Hutterer writes:
> xfd
I use this a lot; what is the modern replacement for it?
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
According to the schedule [1], Fedora 34 Candidate RC-1.1 is now
available for testing. Please help us complete all the validation
testing! For more information on release validation testing, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan
Test coverage information for the
The harmonyseq package changed from “GPLv3+” to “GPLv3+ and CC0” due to the
downstream addition of an AppData XML file under the latter license
(https://github.com/rafalcieslak/harmonySEQ/issues/5).
___
devel mailing list --
Now that the XorgUtilityDeaggregation [1] is complete, I'm planning to
retire a set of old X utilities that I think don't need to be in Fedora:
oclock
xbiff
xload
xman
xrefresh
xlogo
xpr
xfd
viewres
listres
xconsole
This is a very conservative list of packages, there are likely more
that should
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951972
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-5c48be891a 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
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 3:07 PM Dave Love
wrote:
> For what it's worth, there's a conman build for x86_64 and aarch64 in
> the loveshack/livhpc copr (untested).
> ___
> epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 10:49:16PM +0200, Robert-André Mauchin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On the old account system, when I sponsored someone into the "packager"
> group, they were automatically added to the "fedorabugs" group. This is not
> the case anymore, is it a bug or a feature?
It's a bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951955
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-95f5894eaa 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
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
13 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-f08dc6b4c1
gnuchess-6.2.7-5.el7
13 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-13ed778e19
singularity-3.7.3-1.el7
12
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951972
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #4 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951955
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-521060f43c 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
Hello,
On the old account system, when I sponsored someone into the "packager"
group, they were automatically added to the "fedorabugs" group. This is
not the case anymore, is it a bug or a feature?
Globally I don't really like the new system. On a big group like:
* Frank Ch. Eigler:
> Unfortunately, in the absence of per-file signatures generated by the
> build system, and securely distributed out-of-band, I can't think of any
> way to provide client-side verifiability of a debuginfod type service.
> That's independent of any particular level of server
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 4:09 PM Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> A direct way would be for someone to koji-download the given rpm, and
> hand-extract/compare the files. (It's obviously not economical.)
>
> > Thus, the debuginfod server becomes a juicy target.
>
> Yes. The Changes FAQ section
"Sampson Fung" writes:
> The first run, giving my "Try"s, takes much longer than the second run, which
> gives no "Trys".
> Just from impression:
> 1st run: From run to download finish, I will say it takes about 5+ minutes.
> 2nd run: ~1 minute
> For each "Try" given, the delay is not obvious
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2021-04-22 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.freenode.net.
Local time information (via. uitime):
= Day: Thursday ==
2021-04-22 09:00 PDT US/Pacific
2021-04-22
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek writes:
> OTOH, the debuginfo files distributed through the debuginfod server
> are not signed and there is no direct way to verify that they match
> the (signed) contents of the debuginfo package.
A direct way would be for someone to koji-download the given rpm,
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 03:15:23PM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>
> Björn Persson writes:
>
> >> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27758
> >
> > The design you propose there won't improve anything for anyone. If the
> > hash is computed on the debuginfo server, then an attacker
IP addresses sent by gmail.
Thanks for the reminder for the new URL.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
I have run the same debug session using two different machines.
The first run, giving my "Try"s, takes much longer than the second run, which
gives no "Trys".
Just from impression:
1st run: From run to download finish, I will say it takes about 5+ minutes.
2nd run: ~1 minute
For each "Try"
Björn Persson writes:
>> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27758
>
> The design you propose there won't improve anything for anyone. If the
> hash is computed on the debuginfo server, then an attacker who can make
> the server serve malicious debuginfo can also make it serve
It is just a short delay then the "Try" suggestion is given.
My first run using my Notebook takes quite some time.
A few hours later, I run again using my Desktop, this time is very fast and no
"Try" given.
___
devel mailing list --
Hi everyone,
Since we anticipate a Fedora Linux 34 release candidate request today,
I am moving the Go/No-Go meeting from Thursday to Friday. This will
allow the QA team more time to perform validation tests.
The Fedora Linux 34 Final Go/No-Go[1] meeting is scheduled for Friday
23 April at 1700
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 11:01:14PM -0400, Felix Kaechele wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I think this has been discussed at committee meetings before: nginx's
> procedure of immediately dropping a release series when a new one hits the
> stable branches is essentially forcing us to upgrade along with it,
Hi everyone,
Since we anticipate a Fedora Linux 34 release candidate request today,
I am moving the Go/No-Go meeting from Thursday to Friday. This will
allow the QA team more time to perform validation tests.
The Fedora Linux 34 Final Go/No-Go[1] meeting is scheduled for Friday
23 April at 1700
Björn Persson writes:
> I was wondering what the user experience would be like in such a
> situation. Could you estimate how long you had to wait in total? Was
> there a long delay before each "Timer expired" message, or only one
> delay?
Each outright-hung request could entail a
"FUNG Chi Chuen Sampson" writes:
> Downloading separate debug info for /lib64/liblzma.so.5...
> Download failed: Timer expired. Continuing without debug info for
> /lib64/libbrotlicommon.so.1.
> Missing separate debuginfo for /lib64/libbrotlicommon.so.1
> [...]
By the way, if you were using
sampsonfung wrote:
> While trying to collect a backtrace for org.gnome.Tetravex, I got this in gdb:
> [...]
> Download failed: Timer expired. Continuing without debug info for
> /lib64/libzstd.so.1.
> Missing separate debuginfo for /lib64/libzstd.so.1
> Try: dnf --enablerepo='*debug*' install
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 12:05:09 +0200, Antonio T. sagitter wrote:
> PETSc-3.15 is built in side-tag f35-build-side-40112
> Please, rebuild your own related package.
Thanks:
> > python-steps-0:3.5.0-5.fc33.src
Done: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=66426528
--
Thanks,
On Fri, 2021-04-16 at 09:32 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 9:19 AM Pierre-Yves Chibon <
> pin...@pingoured.fr> wrote:
> > zoglesby is maintainer of rpms/publican-fedora
> >
> Huh. That still exists? What a throwback!
publican-fedora is not marked as retired on
Hi,
OFFLIST as it's not directly pertinent to your specific distro pkgs.
but, since you're packaging, fwiw, I take a very different approach than
distro-pkgd atm,
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pgfed/nginx-mainline/fedora-33-x86_64/02142389-nginx/nginx.spec
that puts
Dear Fedorans,
Nginx 1.20.0 stable was just released and I took the opportunity to
squash some long standing open bugs while updating the package.
The new release is on it's way to updates-testing right now.
I would like to encourage some extra testing for this release as there
is one
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 3/189 (x86_64), 3/127 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-34-20210420.n.0):
ID: 864104 Test: x86_64 Everything-boot-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864104
ID: 864192 Test: aarch64
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 11:26:10AM +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
> Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> > Björn Persson writes:
> >
> > > · How is it verified that files received from debuginfo servers have not
> > > been tampered with?
> >
> > Following up further to this, we're planning to add optional
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1952135
Bug ID: 1952135
Summary: perl-Module-ScanDeps-1.31 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Module-ScanDeps
Keywords: FutureFeature,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951972
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version||perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951972
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951955
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #4 from
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 2/16 (x86_64), 3/15 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-IoT-34-20210420.0):
ID: 864434 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso base_services_start
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864434
ID: 864436 Test: x86_64
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951972
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951955
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-62f7e9758e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-62f7e9758e
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951955
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-521060f43c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-521060f43c
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951955
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-521060f43c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-521060f43c
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951955
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
OLD: Fedora-34-20210420.n.0
NEW: Fedora-34-20210421.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:2
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 37
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:89.19 KiB
Size
Hi Felix,
First off, thank you for maintaining the EPEL7 nginx, especially when you
no longer use it on EPEL7.
To me, it looks like you have addressed everything you should in the email,
and there shouldn't be anything else you need to do.
That being said, I've missed things before so maybe give
No missing expected images.
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
6 of 43 required tests failed, 1 result missing
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
below
Failed openQA tests: 18/189 (x86_64), 12/127 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 03:25:01PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> Good Morning Everyone,
>
> When we rolled out the new AAA solution a few weeks ago, some accounts have
> not
> been migrated:
> - Accounts that have been set inactive by their owner
> - Accounts that are disabled
> - Accounts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1950383
Michal Josef Spacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Doc Type|---
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20210420.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20210421.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:3
Dropped images: 3
Added packages: 5
Dropped packages:3
Upgraded packages: 84
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 2.79 MiB
Size of dropped packages:1.52
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951955
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951955
Bug ID: 1951955
Summary: perl-Module-CoreList-5.20210420 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Module-CoreList
Keywords:
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)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-32-20210419.0):
ID: 863668 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
FUNG Chi Chuen Sampson wrote:
> While trying to collect a backtrace for org.gnome.Tetravex, I got this in gdb:
>
> ===
>
> Downloading separate debug info for /lib64/liblzma.so.5...
> Download failed: Timer expired. Continuing without debug info for
> /lib64/libbrotlicommon.so.1.
> Missing
Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Björn Persson writes:
>
> > · How is it verified that files received from debuginfo servers have not
> > been tampered with?
>
> Following up further to this, we're planning to add optional client-side
> hash-verification of cached content, to provide some
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951911
Bug ID: 1951911
Summary: perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-X509-1.904 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-X509
Keywords:
There really isn't a reason, it is a quick and dirty code I did to have a
proof of concept. Feel free to fix it.
L.
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 10:52 AM KUNAL PRAKASH
wrote:
> Hello again Lukas Brabec,
> I have one query that despite of having state store which contain all the
> state. Why we are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951972
Bug ID: 1951972
Summary: perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20210420 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases
Keywords:
On 31. 03. 21 21:52, Ben Cotton wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RPM-4.17
== Summary ==
Update RPM to the [https://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.17.0 4.17] release.
== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:pmatilai|Panu Matilainen]]
* Email: [pmati...@redhat.com]
== Detailed Description ==
RPM
Hello again Lukas Brabec,
I have one query that despite of having state store which contain all the
state. Why we are passing state as a props to component like Timeline.js,
Event.js etc. Why don't we use mapStateToProps for directly using the
particular state that component want to use.
On 21. 04. 21 9:58, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 21. 04. 21 0:14, Robert-André Mauchin wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to help someone package a GUI in Python that is using
Pyproject. The project needs to add a desktop file, an appdata file
and also a "binary" to launch the GUI.
So far I have managed to drop
On 21. 04. 21 0:14, Robert-André Mauchin wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to help someone package a GUI in Python that is using
Pyproject. The project needs to add a desktop file, an appdata file
and also a "binary" to launch the GUI.
So far I have managed to drop the library files in %python3_sitelib.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951911
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
Unable to resolve the hostname for one of the package's Source URLs
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
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)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-33-20210420.0):
ID: 863449 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2021/04/21/report-389-ds-base-2.0.4-20210421git4559a89c0.fc33.x86_64.html
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
Hi there,
I think this has been discussed at committee meetings before: nginx's
procedure of immediately dropping a release series when a new one hits
the stable branches is essentially forcing us to upgrade along with it,
unless someone is willing to backport patches.
I personally am not
67 matches
Mail list logo
