On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 12:33 PM Luya Tshimbalanga
wrote:
>
> Reading the comments, it seems the overlooked word is “depreciated” meaning
> users will have time to properly transition their hardware.
Transition to what though, another distro?
moving to new hw won't help maintain things for
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2022-04-07 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.libera.chat.
Local time information (via. uitime):
= Day: Thursday ==
2022-04-07 09:00 PDT US/Pacific
2022-04-07
I made a thread late last year inquirying about interest in ROCm packaging; in
that time I've introduced a few packages amd updated a few existing packages to
the latest version.
Right now, Fedora is just short of making good use of ROCm, as it needs a
frontend like OpenCL or HIP. I have a COPR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072835
Bug ID: 2072835
Summary: perl-Encode-3.17 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Encode
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
It seems like my needs are pretty common: Steam, Wine, misc games (OpenGL, SDL,
maybe vulkan, XWayland).
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
Reading the comments, it seems the overlooked word is “depreciated”
meaning users will have time to properly transition their hardware.
It seems the proposal suggests an opportunity to revisit the boot-loader
like the heavily downstream patched grub2 deeming too complex to
maintain in long
I have recently received dependency issues with a `yum update` on a
CentOS 7 server. I believe they are both epel packages (hwinfo and
libx86emu)
It looks like hwinfo wants to upgrade to hwinfo.x86_64 0:21.68-1.el7
from hwinfo.x86_64 0:21.47-6.el7. It looks like libx86emu is a
dependency
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 6:31 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 10:23 AM Justin Forbes wrote:
>
> > > Apple and Microsoft signing NVIDIA's proprietary driver doesn't at all
> > > indicate Apple and Microsoft trust the driver itself. It is trusting
> > > the providence of the blob,
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 8:48 AM Dusty Mabe
> What about squashfs? We use that for the live media, is that affected?
No, Squashfs uses unsigned 32-bit ints, which will roll over in 2106.
Phillip
---
Squashfs author and maintainer.
___
devel mailing
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 10:23 AM Justin Forbes wrote:
> > Apple and Microsoft signing NVIDIA's proprietary driver doesn't at all
> > indicate Apple and Microsoft trust the driver itself. It is trusting
> > the providence of the blob, in order to achieve an overall safer
> > ecosystem for their
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 6:06 PM Brian C. Lane wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 06:50:39PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 8:54 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
> > >syslinux goes away entirely
> >
> > If the installation media used BIOS GRUB, syslinux could still go
> > away. What
On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 06:50:39PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 8:54 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
> >syslinux goes away entirely
>
> If the installation media used BIOS GRUB, syslinux could still go
> away. What consideration has occurred to switch from syslinux to BIOS
> GRUB for
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 5:52 PM Eric Sandeen wrote:
>
> On 4/4/22 2:51 PM, Justin Forbes wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 11:47 AM Colin Walters wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi, creating a thread on this from:
> >> https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-config/pull/1650
> >>
> >> Basically I'd propose that
On 4/4/22 2:51 PM, Justin Forbes wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 11:47 AM Colin Walters wrote:
>>
>> Hi, creating a thread on this from:
>> https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-config/pull/1650
>>
>> Basically I'd propose that not just our default images have y2038-compatible
>> filesystem
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 5:37 PM Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
>
> On 4/6/22 16:59, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> > Demi Marie Obenour writes:
> >
> >> On 4/5/22 12:29, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Apr 5 2022 at 11:56:07 AM -0400, Robbie Harwood
> >>> wrote:
> Users wishing to use NVIDIA
Demi Marie Obenour writes:
> On 4/6/22 16:59, Robbie Harwood wrote:
>> Demi Marie Obenour writes:
>>
>>> On 4/5/22 12:29, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Tue, Apr 5 2022 at 11:56:07 AM -0400, Robbie Harwood
wrote:
> Users wishing to use NVIDIA hardware have the following options:
On 4/6/22 16:59, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> Demi Marie Obenour writes:
>
>> On 4/5/22 12:29, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 5 2022 at 11:56:07 AM -0400, Robbie Harwood
>>> wrote:
Users wishing to use NVIDIA hardware have the following options:
- Use nouveau (free, open
Demi Marie Obenour writes:
> On 4/6/22 06:43, Neal Gompa wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 12:04 AM Gary Buhrmaster
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 12:59 AM Demi Marie Obenour
>>> wrote:
On 4/5/22 19:38, Chris Murphy wrote:
> We either want users with NVIDIA hardware to
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski writes:
> On Wednesday, 06 April 2022 at 13:07, Richard Hughes wrote:
>> Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
>>
and on its way out. As it ages, maintainability has decreased, and
the status quo of maintaining both stacks in perpetuity is not viable
Demi Marie Obenour writes:
> On 4/5/22 12:29, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 5 2022 at 11:56:07 AM -0400, Robbie Harwood
>> wrote:
>>> Users wishing to use NVIDIA hardware have the following options:
>>>
>>> - Use nouveau (free, open source, cool)
>>> - Sign their own copy of the
On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 11:02:17AM -0400, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> "Andre Robatino" writes:
>
> > Those figures are recommended minimums, not requirements. I have a
> > single core F35 machine which works fine.
>
> It's important to note here that "works fine" isn't the same as "is
> supported".
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 5:51 PM Jared Dominguez wrote:
[snip]
>
> Per my reply to you yesterday, I would be grateful if you would list out
> examples here. This is the second time I've heard this, and it's not concrete
> enough for a constructive conversation on that topic.
>
>> 2. The
On Wed, Apr 6 2022 at 03:35:38 PM -0400, Jared Dominguez
wrote:
This seems like a strong assumption to me considering that aside from
the largest cloud providers (with whom Red Hat is directly working
with on UEFI boot features and bug reports), cloud providers are
using off-the-shelf
Hi,
On 4/6/22 16:23, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 10:18 AM Hans de Goede wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> > behalf of my employer (Red Hat)>
>>
>> On 4/5/22 16:52, Ben Cotton wrote:
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DeprecateLegacyBIOS
>>
>>
>>
>>> Fedora already requires a 2GHz
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 10:43 AM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 7:09 AM Alexander Sosedkin
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 1:00 PM Vít Ondruch wrote:
> ...
> > > Alexander,
> > >
> > > Could this be enabled in ELN? This is not really question but
> > > suggestion.
On 4/6/22 18:58, Antonio T. sagitter wrote:
Hi all.
This is the upgrade of some libraries in Rawhide:
petsc-3.17:
$ dnf repoquery --whatrequires 'libpetsc*.so*' --source | sort -u
bout++-4.4.0-2.fc35.src.rpm
dolfin-2019.1.0.post0-21.fc35.src.rpm
getdp-3.3.0-12.fc35.src.rpm
PETSc-3.17
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 4:09 PM Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
>
> On 4/6/22 06:43, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 12:04 AM Gary Buhrmaster
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 12:59 AM Demi Marie Obenour
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 4/5/22 19:38, Chris Murphy wrote:
> We
On 4/6/22 06:43, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 12:04 AM Gary Buhrmaster
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 12:59 AM Demi Marie Obenour
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/5/22 19:38, Chris Murphy wrote:
We either want users with NVIDIA hardware to be inside the Secure Boot
fold or
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2071865
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-1bbb291854 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=2062023
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #5 from
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 2:26 PM Michael Catanzaro
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6 2022 at 01:57:00 PM -0400, Neal Gompa
> wrote:
> > Moving past the Big Three(tm), the actual
> > cloud providers that matter from a Fedora context are the smaller
> > outfits that principally serve Linux users. These are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2071865
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-e63545a43c 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
* Adam Jackson:
> 2 - How is this our problem to solve? NVIDIA are the ones with the
> private source code.
Isn't it Fedora's decision to require kernel module signing when Secure
Boot is active? So it's actually us who create the problem in the first
place?
Thanks,
Florian
On Wed, Apr 6 2022 at 01:57:00 PM -0400, Neal Gompa
wrote:
Moving past the Big Three(tm), the actual
cloud providers that matter from a Fedora context are the smaller
outfits that principally serve Linux users. These are companies like
DigitalOcean, Linode (Akamai), Hetzner, VexxHost, and
Hi everyone,
The Fedora Linux 36 Final Go/No-Go meeting[1] is scheduled for
Thursday 14 April at 1700 UTC in #fedora-meeting. At this time, we
will determine the status of the F36 Final for the 19 April early
target date[2]. For more information about the Go/No-Go meeting, see
the wiki[3].
[1]
Hi everyone,
The Fedora Linux 36 Final Go/No-Go meeting[1] is scheduled for
Thursday 14 April at 1700 UTC in #fedora-meeting. At this time, we
will determine the status of the F36 Final for the 19 April early
target date[2]. For more information about the Go/No-Go meeting, see
the wiki[3].
[1]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1972955
Carl George 鸞 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1998160 (EPEL2RHEL)
Referenced
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 11:50 AM Jared Dominguez wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 8:20 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 8:04 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Dne 05. 04. 22 v 17:08 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
>> > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:54 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
>> > >>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2071865
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #5 from
Minutes:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2022-04-06/fedora_coreos_meeting.2022-04-06-16.30.html
Minutes (text):
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2022-04-06/fedora_coreos_meeting.2022-04-06-16.30.txt
Log:
Hi all.
This is the upgrade of some libraries in Rawhide:
petsc-3.17:
$ dnf repoquery --whatrequires 'libpetsc*.so*' --source | sort -u
bout++-4.4.0-2.fc35.src.rpm
dolfin-2019.1.0.post0-21.fc35.src.rpm
getdp-3.3.0-12.fc35.src.rpm
PETSc-3.17 needs superlu_dist-6.3.0 at least, so i
On 04. 04. 22 10:51, Frantisek Zatloukal wrote:
I'll handle all the rebuilds of packages BuildRequiring and Requiring
python-redis in a side-tag, I'll reply here with the exact side-tag once it
gets created if somebody wants to build their package there.
Is there any particular reason why the
On 06/04/2022 15:36, Chris Adams wrote:
One add to that: just because a system has UEFI doesn't mean it supports
all the same boot methods equally. I do a lot of network installs, and
early UEFI systems I tried had broken PXE support (not sure when this
may have changed, as I then didn't try
On Wed, Apr 6 2022 at 09:42:42 AM -0400, Christopher
wrote:
Is this a problem with GNOME Online Accounts, or is this a problem
with the KDC, or is this related to the use of 2FA/OTP? For the
password in the GNOME Online Accounts dialogue box, I entered my
Fedora password followed by my OTP.
Michael Catanzaro writes:
> Woah, what happened here? Why would any Fedora package ever disable
> pull requests?
I suspect it was an accident. I can't speak to why - if my
co-maintainers know, maybe they can - but it seems possible it got
toggled while someone was looking for something else in
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 6:51 PM Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> > I'm flattered, but I intend to drop vesa in F37 regardless of the
> > outcome of this particular change. The only supported way to get to
> > graphics with vesa is to use Xorg, and we sincerely want to be out of
> > the business of
On 4/5/22 11:11 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:47 AM stan via devel
wrote:
On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 15:58:14 -0500
Gregory Bartholomew wrote:
Of topic but related: I wish there was supported option to remove
the current rescue kernel,
Is echo "dracut_rescue_image=no" >
One more update.
On Wed, 2022-04-06 at 16:24 +, Nathanael Noblet wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I didn't think I needed i386 personally. In fact due to this
> thread I removed many i386 packages left on my machine. Just today I
> plugged in an 'IronKey' device. Its an encrypted USB drive. When
>
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 12:23 PM Justin Forbes wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 6:39 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 3:08 PM Jared Dominguez wrote:
> >
> > > The security of UEFI systems is immeasurably better. Standardized
> > > firmware updates, support for modern
Hello,
I didn't think I needed i386 personally. In fact due to this thread I
removed many i386 packages left on my machine. Just today I plugged in an
'IronKey' device. Its an encrypted USB drive. When plugged in a read only like
mount is mounted, like a CD. On it is a binary to unlock the
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 6:39 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 3:08 PM Jared Dominguez wrote:
>
> > The security of UEFI systems is immeasurably better. Standardized firmware
> > updates, support for modern secure TPMs, OS protection from firmware (SMM
> > mitigations), HTTP(S)
Hello Fedora developers,
I'm Andreas from Stuttgart in Germany. I'm a system administrator and
software developer, who moved his computers to Fedora about a year ago.
I've written a handful of Perl modules that I package at the Open Build
Service and Copr. I'd like to maintain some of these
On Wed, Apr 6 2022 at 11:11:37 AM -0400, Neal Gompa
wrote:
The grub2 package had pull requests disabled until last year. That's a
pretty obvious hammer to indicate patches are not welcome. That's why
I couldn't send PRs to add the protected.d files for grub and had to
wait for someone else to
On Wed, Apr 6 2022 at 08:16:09 AM -0400, Neal Gompa
wrote:
This is not a deprecation change, this is effectively a removal
change. By removing the packages and the tooling support for legacy
BIOS, it makes several scenarios (including recovery) harder.
Moreover, it puts the burden on people to
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 8:20 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 8:04 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dne 05. 04. 22 v 17:08 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
> > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:54 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
> > >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DeprecateLegacyBIOS
> > >>
> > >>
On 4/5/22 10:52 AM, Ben Cotton wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DeprecateLegacyBIOS
...
It is inevitable that legacy BIOS will be removed in a future release.
To ease this transition as best we can, there will be a period (of at
least one Fedora release) where it will be possible
Neal Gompa writes:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 10:59 AM Robbie Harwood wrote:
>> Neal Gompa writes:
>>
>>> 3. At various times, people have explicitly said "patches NOT
>>> welcome"
>>
>> I see no evidence of this having happened, and it's definitely not
>> something I've said.
>
> The grub2
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 1/15 (aarch64)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-36-20220405.0):
ID: 1213994 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1213994
Passed openQA tests: 14/15 (aarch64), 15/15 (x86_64)
On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 06:28:59 +0200
majid hussain wrote:
> could someone kindly tell me if my toshiba l750 machine has EFI
> support? i'm blind and efi/bios screens are in accessible.
This question is better suited to the user list rather than
this thread, but if your laptop came with windows 8
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 6/229 (x86_64), 11/161 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-36-20220405.n.0):
ID: 1213505 Test: x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1213505
ID: 1213649 Test: aarch64
Neal Gompa writes:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 7:14 AM John Boero wrote:
>>
>> I can fully understand why this would be done. As per the original
>> discussion when Peter Robinson mentioned a Spin to deprecate BIOS,
>> would anybody else be interested in helping with a Spin for legacy
>> BIOS
Chris Murphy writes:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 8:54 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
>> Legacy BIOS support is not removed, but new non-UEFI installation is
>> not supported on those platforms. This is a first step toward
>> eventually removing legacy BIOS support entirely.
>
> What is the distinction
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 10:59 AM Robbie Harwood wrote:
>
> Neal Gompa writes:
>
> > This is not a deprecation change, this is effectively a removal
> > change. By removing the packages and the tooling support for legacy
> > BIOS, it makes several scenarios (including recovery) harder.
> >
JT wrote:
> I realize some will have the attitude of "they can just not upgrade and
> keep using their old Fedora versions".
That's obviously not a solution for any Internet-connected computer.
Even if you communicate only by moving files on USB sticks or
diskettes, it's still dangerous to let
"Andre Robatino" writes:
> Those figures are recommended minimums, not requirements. I have a
> single core F35 machine which works fine.
It's important to note here that "works fine" isn't the same as "is
supported".
My reading of that document is that if one goes below what's laid out in
laolux laolux via devel wrote:
> I am willing to throw away my still working notebook, producing a little bit
> electronic waste when the time comes.
I'm not. It remains to be seen how long Fedora will continue to work on
my ten-year-old laptop, but when the time comes I will not trash it and
Neal Gompa writes:
> This is not a deprecation change, this is effectively a removal
> change. By removing the packages and the tooling support for legacy
> BIOS, it makes several scenarios (including recovery) harder.
> Moreover, it puts the burden on people to figure out if their hardware
>
Vít Ondruch writes:
> Maybe I don't correctly understand the "Legacy BIOS support is not
> removed, but new non-UEFI installation is not supported on those
> platforms." quoted from the the change description, but if you have your
> system installed, it should keep working. You just keep
On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 11:35:16 -0500
Gregory Bartholomew wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 9:40 PM Gordon Messmer
> wrote:
>
> > The ticket mentions Boot Repair, which is the first thing that
> > comes to mind: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Boot-Repair
>
>
> Boot repair is obviously tricky
majid hussain writes:
> hi,
> could someone kindly tell me if my toshiba l750 machine has EFI support?
> i'm blind and efi/bios screens are in accessible.
Easiest is probably to do:
ls /sys/firmware/efi
This tells you whether the machine booted using UEFI. anaconda will set
up a UEFI-capable
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 7:09 AM Alexander Sosedkin wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 1:00 PM Vít Ondruch wrote:
...
> > Alexander,
> >
> > Could this be enabled in ELN? This is not really question but
> > suggestion. It is unfortunate, that ELN, while intermediate step for c9s
> > does not have
On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 11:26:35 -0500
Gregory Bartholomew wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 9:47 AM stan via devel
> wrote:
> > I just manually remove the rescue vmlinuz and initramfs and
> > then run
> > /usr/lib/kernel/install.d/51-dracut-rescue.install add $(uname -r)
> > ""
Once upon a time, Alberto Abrao said:
> Also, let me state that many machines who'd be UEFI capable on paper
> are *not*: in my experience, many early UEFI machines (2009 up to
> 2014) have a very buggy implementation, to the point of being
> unusable and/or a terrible experience.
One add to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2062023
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #4 from
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 10:18 AM Hans de Goede wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> behalf of my employer (Red Hat)>
>
> On 4/5/22 16:52, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DeprecateLegacyBIOS
>
>
>
> > Fedora already requires a 2GHz dual core CPU at minimum (and therefore
> > mandates
Hi,
On 4/5/22 16:52, Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DeprecateLegacyBIOS
> Fedora already requires a 2GHz dual core CPU at minimum (and therefore
> mandates that machines must have been made after 2006).
But machines made between 2006-2012 generally did not have
Dne 06. 04. 22 v 14:31 Aurelien Bompard napsal(a):
* For other Fedora systems, we use Kerberos authentication, are there some
plans to add it?
Nope, there's no plan for that at the moment.
FYI We recently added the Kerberos support to Copr cli. You can steal the code
here:
F
On 2022-04-06 07:16, Neal Gompa wrote:
Moreover, it puts the burden on people to figure out if their hardware
can boot and install Fedora when we clearly haven't reached a critical
mass yet for doing so, like we did when we finally removed the i686
kernel build.
All points by Neal were
There are other ways to create bootable media, right? Does everything need to
be Koji+Lorax?
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
Attending today :)
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 3:19 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 6:07 AM wrote:
> >
> > You are kindly invited to the meeting:
> >Prioritized bugs and issues on 2022-04-06 from 10:00:00 to 11:00:00
> America/Indiana/Indianapolis
> >At
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2071590
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Status|NEW
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1980686
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
> * What is the expiration period? Or, can we set the expiration date ourselves?
What expiration do you mean? The buildroot override setting that
save_override() gives access to is really unrelated to authentication and you
probably don't need it if you didn't need it before.
If you mean when
> I wonder if kerberos going to be supported or not?
Not at this time.
Aurélien
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
In the past, I have used GNOME Online Accounts "Fedora Account" before to
maintain my Kerberos identity in my Fedora desktop so I can easily access
packager tooling without having to authenticate on the command-line
manually. However, this no longer seems to work. Now, I get
"Pre-authentication
Thank you for your quick answer Aurélien!
I hope this workflow can work for us.
Maybe a few related questions (sorry if it is documented somewhere, any
link is welcome):
* What is the expiration period? Or, can we set the expiration date
ourselves?
* Can we use multiple tokens in parallel to
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 6:59 AM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-04-05 at 22:34 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:04 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 11:01 PM Richard Shaw wrote:
> >
> > Google has failed me, how do I go about moving an existing build
Missing expected images:
Iot dvd x86_64
Iot dvd aarch64
Failed openQA tests: 4/15 (aarch64)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-37-20220404.0):
ID: 1213432 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1213432
ID: 1213434 Test:
I live in a 1st world country and have lots of new computers that this
change would not affect. However I still have some older computers that
fall outside the UEFI range and use only BIOS. I would still like to
keep these computers running and up to date so that they are secure and
have the most
Hey everyone!
Bodhi 6.0 will be published in a few days, and deployed to production a
couple weeks after the Fedora release. It has backwards-incompatible
changes, here's what you need to know.
== Authentication ==
Bodhi gained support for OpenID Connect (OIDC) authentication, like most of
OLD: Fedora-36-20220405.n.0
NEW: Fedora-36-20220406.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 2
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 45
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 55.94 KiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 4:06 AM laolux laolux via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> I have no strong opinion on this, and not much say anyways, but I thought
> I could share my little piece of info.
> My currently one and only computer is a 2012 MSI GE60 0ND, with a core
> i7-3630QM,
Missing expected images:
Minimal raw-xz armhfp
Compose PASSES proposed Rawhide gating check!
All required tests passed
Failed openQA tests: 7/231 (x86_64), 10/161 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20220405.n.2):
ID: 1213061 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso
I wonder if kerberos going to be supported or not?
Vít
Dne 06. 04. 22 v 12:37 Aurelien Bompard napsal(a):
Hey everyone!
Bodhi 6.0 will be published in a few days, and deployed to production
a couple weeks after the Fedora release. It has backwards-incompatible
changes, here's what you
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 12:15 PM Josh Boyer wrote:
> I agree 100%. I think this is actually getting to the crux of the
> issue, which is that while we have a lot of people that want BIOS
> support to continue, we effectively have nobody that wants to do the
> work to make it happen.
In a
Hey Frantisek!
Excellent questions!
> * Our users can use Packit via CLI and use their identity for Bodhi
> connections. With this, it's not nice, but doable to open a web-browser. (Not
> sure how this works in the containerised use-cases.)
The Bodhi CLI will display a URL that you'll have to
On Wednesday, 06 April 2022 at 13:07, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 at 11:20, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> wrote:
> > > and on its way out. As it ages, maintainability has decreased, and
> > > the status quo of maintaining both stacks in perpetuity is not viable
> > > for those
I'm shutting up now, because this comment from ngompa is, IMO, very
well/thoroughly said.
thx Neal!
On 4/6/22 8:16 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
If you really have a need to reinstall such machine, you'll take the F36
image and upgrade to F37+ and you should still be good.
This is not a deprecation
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 1:16 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 9:07 PM Demi Marie Obenour
> wrote:
> >
> > On 4/5/22 16:09, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > This problem also makes life miserable for people working with third
> > > party open source kernel modules too. As a live streamer,
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 8:04 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
>
> Dne 05. 04. 22 v 17:08 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
> > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:54 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DeprecateLegacyBIOS
> >>
> >> == Summary ==
> >> Make UEFI a hardware requirement for new Fedora
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
