Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, May 10, 2023, at 7:36 PM, Owen Taylor wrote: > > > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 5:34 PM Chris Murphy wrote: >> __ >> >> >> On Wed, May 10, 2023, at 2:24 PM, Owen Taylor wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 12:02 PM Neal Gompa wrote: >>> Now, there's a second problem with

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, May 10, 2023, at 7:11 PM, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Chris Murphy said: >> Read-only drivers, which are the only drivers under discussion here, aren't >> a per se problem because they can't modify the file system. So they have no >> complaints about that. > > But those

HEADS UP: gdal-3.7.0 coming to rawhide

Hi I'm preparing the gdal-3.7.0 update which carries a soname bump. Il build it in the f39-build-side-67536 side-tag, and rebuild the following dependencies:    GMT    mapserver    liblas    python-fiona    postgis    merkaartor    R-rgdal    bes    saga    qmapshack    PDAL    ncl    vfrnav

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing report

The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing: Age URL 5 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-0989e83e8a chromium-113.0.5672.63-1.el7 4 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-7f7029b90d tcpreplay-4.4.3-3.el7 The following builds

[Bug 2192251] ctstream-33 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2192251 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|ctstream-33-1.fc39 |ctstream-33-1.fc39

[Bug 2192251] ctstream-33 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2192251 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|ctstream-33-1.fc39 |ctstream-33-1.fc39

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing report

The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing: Age URL 55 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1e00c3d01e cutter-re-2.2.0-1.el8 rizin-0.5.1-1.el8 5 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-f44d817bc9 chromium-113.0.5672.63-1.el8 4

[Bug 2192251] ctstream-33 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2192251 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|ctstream-33-1.fc39 |ctstream-33-1.fc39

[Bug 2192251] ctstream-33 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2192251 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|ctstream-33-1.fc39 |ctstream-33-1.fc39

[Bug 2192251] ctstream-33 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2192251 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|ctstream-33-1.fc39 |ctstream-33-1.fc39

[Bug 2192251] ctstream-33 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2192251 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

> On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 5:34 PM Chris Murphy wrote: > > > In this idea, the dm-verity parition/file would only be accessed from the > initrd, once we have enough kernel to ability to interact with physical > storage, understand partitions, initialize dm-verity, and read *a* > partition, but

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 5:34 PM Chris Murphy wrote: > > > On Wed, May 10, 2023, at 2:24 PM, Owen Taylor wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 12:02 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > > Now, there's a second problem with reading everything from the ESP - it's > slow for two reasons. First, because read

Re: F39 Proposal: LIBFFI34 static trampolines (System-Wide Change)

Jens-Ulrik Petersen writes: > I have just now pushed fixes for all ghc*, so can you try to rebuild > them again in your repo? That's a good question, to which I know not the answer. Fred? Can MPB be told to retest a specific set of packages? Or do I have to start from scratch and/or do them

Re: Stuck package - golang-github-prometheus-node-exporter

I'll try to push this along - there's a build error that needs resolving (but not at 2:30 AM) see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112130 Anyone from the golang list want to take a look? -fuller On 02/05/2023 19:25, Pat Riehecky wrote: golang-github-prometheus-node-exporter seems

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Once upon a time, Chris Murphy said: > Read-only drivers, which are the only drivers under discussion here, aren't a > per se problem because they can't modify the file system. So they have no > complaints about that. But those read-only drivers are incomplete and problematic, especially as

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2023-05-09)

Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > So you folks were not happy with the feedback on the mailing list, so you > just made up a poll somewhere else. [snip] > Was that poll ever announced on the mailing list? Or did you just expect > people to magically notice it has popped up in the FESCo ticket?

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2023-05-09)

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > Nope, that is actually not true. Matthew posted some stats in the > fesco ticket [1], and the stats were fairly evenly split > (supportive or open, neutral, opposed or concerned). In fact, > "opposed" is the least popular option. So you folks were not happy

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, May 10, 2023, at 5:21 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > So to add to this. I happen to be at LFSMMBPF at the moment, the Linux > File System summit (among other things) where all the Linux FS people > meet. I spoke to a couple of FS maintainers here, and well, let me > make this very

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mi, 10.05.23 14:32, Neal Gompa (ngomp...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 2:24 PM Owen Taylor wrote: > >> As soon as you throw UKIs in the mix, you've completely broken that > >> because now the absolutely most valuable code for your system is in a > >> "hostile" environment. At

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mi, 10.05.23 12:00, Neal Gompa (ngomp...@gmail.com) wrote: > This proposal isn't better. Neither Windows nor macOS put critical > operating system code in the ESP, and we shouldn't either. This is nonsense. I am not sure what definition of "critical" you have, but the ESP is the entrypoint to

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, May 10, 2023, at 2:24 PM, Owen Taylor wrote: > > > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 12:02 PM Neal Gompa wrote: >> > Now, there's a second problem with reading everything from the ESP - it's > slow for two reasons. First, because read speeds when going through the > firmware are much slower

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mi, 10.05.23 15:13, Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) wrote: > > We're generally looking toward encrypting subvolumes individually > > using the upcoming Btrfs native encryption capability rather than > > using LUKS. That allows us to > > How do you establish trust in the underlying

[EPEL-devel] Re: apptainer 1.1.8-1 has an incompatible change for apptainer-suid users

We discussed this in the weekly EPEL Steering Committee meeting. We broke this into two separate votes. *Allow the epel 7 update : Passed* Votes: All who voted, voted in favor of this. Notes: No notes. *Allow the epel 8 and 9 update - with a stern warning : Passed* Votes: 4 for, 2 against, 1

Re: memtest86plus v6.00

On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 5:28 PM Jonathan Steffan wrote: > * Location of shipped bins -- is there a better place now? I went with simple. > > The active discussion about BiggerESP is relevant to this decision. It's even directly asserted that RPMs should not be managing content in /boot.

Fedora CoreOS Meeting Minutes 2023-05-10

Minutes: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2023-05-10/fedora_coreos_meeting.2023-05-10-16.30.html Minutes (text): https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2023-05-10/fedora_coreos_meeting.2023-05-10-16.30.txt Log:

Re: F39 Proposal: Make Toolbx a release-blocking deliverable and have release-blocking test criteria (System-Wide Change)

On Tue, 9 May 2023, 17:51 Kevin Fenzi, wrote: > Just a general answer/info here at the bottom of the thread... > > I realize our container build pipeline is not great, but it's currently > working and I will keep it working until we replace it. > > I agree we should replace it, and there's lots

Re: F39 Proposal: Make Toolbx a release-blocking deliverable and have release-blocking test criteria (System-Wide Change)

On Tue, 9 May 2023, 15:42 Debarshi Ray via devel, < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Hey Clement, > > On Tue, 2023-05-09 at 09:45 +0200, Clement Verna wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 8 May 2023 at 22:11, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 07:57:30PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

> On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 2:24 PM Owen Taylor > fsverity is separate from fscrypt. We can apply filesystem authentication > today. fsverity does not protect metadata, and most importantly it does not protect the filesystem superblock. It has its uses, but this is not it. > No. It initializes

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 2:24 PM Owen Taylor wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 12:02 PM Neal Gompa wrote: >> >> >> This proposal isn't better. Neither Windows nor macOS put critical >> operating system code in the ESP, and we shouldn't either. But you >> want to put kernels in the ESP?

Re: fedora 38 - in witch timespan a net iso is build..??

On 5/9/23 05:10, André verwijs wrote: installed Fedora with "Fedora-Everything-netinst-x86_64-38-1.6.iso" but hat small issues. (firewall packages) In witch timespan will a new iso be build..?? At least use the latest updates for this (or any other) installation iso... An issue with the

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 2:00 PM Chris Murphy wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2023, at 12:15 PM, Ben Cotton wrote: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BiggerESP > > > This change will increase the minimum size of the ESP to be 500MB, > > which is also the same value used by Microsoft for

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 12:02 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > This proposal isn't better. Neither Windows nor macOS put critical > operating system code in the ESP, and we shouldn't either. But you > want to put kernels in the ESP? That's the wrong approach too. > > As soon as you throw UKIs in the

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, May 10, 2023, at 9:42 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > You are arguing here into two opposing directions. One one hand you > want to chainload multiple kernels+initrd (claiming this was a good idea out > of the problem of sizing ESP/XBOOTLDR sufficientlly), and then on the > other hand

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, Apr 24, 2023, at 12:15 PM, Ben Cotton wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BiggerESP > This change will increase the minimum size of the ESP to be 500MB, > which is also the same value used by Microsoft for Windows 10 and > newer. Issue 1: Currently anaconda calls mkdosfs

Re: disabling yum modular repos by default?

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 07:09:49PM +0200, Peter Boy wrote: Am 10.05.2023 um 18:45 schrieb Kevin Fenzi : On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 12:21:51PM +0800, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote: Thanks for all the helpful comments and feedback, though more is still welcome of course. So I am leaning now towards

Re: disabling yum modular repos by default?

> And that is just one example. Another example is changes in languages such as > Ruby, where application programmes sometimes cannot keep up with the changes. > Same is true for httpd or tomcat - just some other examples. I am in the Ruby SIG. In the case of Ruby, I don't think we have the

Re: soname bump: libtraceevent and libtracefs

Any update on the rv tool ( tools/verification/rv)? Thanks John Kacur On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 5:01 PM Justin Forbes wrote: > On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 2:45 PM John Kacur wrote: > > > > There is a new tool that is dependent on these libs too. Also from > Daniel Bristot (rtla) > >

Re: disabling yum modular repos by default?

> Am 10.05.2023 um 18:45 schrieb Kevin Fenzi : > > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 12:21:51PM +0800, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote: >> Thanks for all the helpful comments and feedback, >> though more is still welcome of course. >> So I am leaning now towards not installing fedora-repos-modular by default

pghmcfc pushed to rpms/perl-Ref-Util (rawhide). "SPDX migration (..more)"

Notification time stamped 2023-05-10 16:57:36 UTC From 645ca7c417022b4883e3e6da5b3af403946ddf81 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Paul Howarth Date: May 10 2023 16:55:50 + Subject: SPDX migration Also: - Use %license unconditionally - Use author-independent source URL --- diff --git

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 11:37:34AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Daniel P. Berrangé said: > > If the idea to allow a UKI to contain multiple alternate, signed, > > cmdline line profiles gets accepted > > Are those of us who need boot-time kernel options (e.g. for hardware >

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mi, 10.05.23 11:20, Simo Sorce (s...@redhat.com) wrote: > It sounds reasonable for sure. > The only concern is, given Microsoft creates at most 500MB ESP > partitions, are we sure all UEFI systems out there will not choke on a > 1GB one? Well, I don't really think we have a reason to believe

Re: disabling yum modular repos by default?

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 12:21:51PM +0800, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote: > Thanks for all the helpful comments and feedback, > though more is still welcome of course. > So I am leaning now towards not installing fedora-repos-modular by default > (rather than disabling the modular repos by default):

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

> On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 03:52:51PM -, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > If the idea to allow a UKI to contain multiple alternate, signed, > cmdline line profiles gets accepted [1], then a "rescue" image > won't neccessarily need to be a separate image anymore. There could > just be an alternative

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Once upon a time, Daniel P. Berrangé said: > If the idea to allow a UKI to contain multiple alternate, signed, > cmdline line profiles gets accepted Are those of us who need boot-time kernel options (e.g. for hardware workarounds or such) just screwed in the signed command-line cases? -- Chris

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 12:00:36PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 11:12 AM Simo Sorce wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2023-05-09 at 12:37 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 12:31 PM Lennart Poettering > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Di, 09.05.23 08:22, Neal Gompa

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 3:56 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > At least in the upstream kiwi project, we encountered problems making > bigger ESPs because not all UEFI implementations handle FAT32 (despite > it being part of the spec). In particular, there were a few server > boards and especially AWS EC2

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 11:12 AM Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Tue, 2023-05-09 at 12:37 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 12:31 PM Lennart Poettering > > wrote: > > > > > > On Di, 09.05.23 08:22, Neal Gompa (ngomp...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > > > > I've been asked to consider

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 03:52:51PM -, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > On Tue, 2023-05-09 at 18:32 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > > It sounds reasonable for sure. > > The only concern is, given Microsoft creates at most 500MB ESP > > partitions, are we sure all UEFI systems out there will not

[Test-Announce] Fedora-IoT 39 RC 20230510.0 nightly compose nominated for testing

Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event for Fedora-IoT 39 RC 20230510.0. Please help run some tests for this nightly compose if you have time. For more information on nightly release validation testing, see:

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 11:21 AM Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Tue, 2023-05-09 at 18:32 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > On Di, 09.05.23 09:20, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) > > wrote: > > > > > > == Summary == > > > > > > > > This change will increase the minimum size of the

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

> On Tue, 2023-05-09 at 18:32 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > It sounds reasonable for sure. > The only concern is, given Microsoft creates at most 500MB ESP > partitions, are we sure all UEFI systems out there will not choke on a > 1GB one? > > Can't we reduce the number of kernels by

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Leslie Satenstein    Some end-user feedback. I believe in the KISS approach (Keep It Simple S). I would consider /boot as a btrfs volume, and not a sub-volume, but why bother? For me, it being a btrfs partition is definitely not a priority or urgency, as I use rsync for

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, 2023-05-09 at 18:32 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Di, 09.05.23 09:20, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote: > > > > == Summary == > > > > > > This change will increase the minimum size of the ESP to be 500MB, > > > which is also the same value used by Microsoft

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Flatpaks without Modules (System-Wide Change)

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 9:48 AM Florian Weimer wrote: > * Aoife Moloney: > > > There are two types of Flatpak containers - > > runtimes - which contain unmodified Fedora packages, > > and applications - which contain Fedora packages rebuilt to relocate > > them from /usr to /app. > > Is this

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, 2023-05-09 at 12:37 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 12:31 PM Lennart Poettering > wrote: > > > > On Di, 09.05.23 08:22, Neal Gompa (ngomp...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > > I've been asked to consider converting /boot to a Btrfs subvolume so > > > that it no longer has a

Re: Review of Python packages needed

I'd like to take this two packages reviews and will review them in the next one or two days. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:

Re: fedora 38 - in witch timespan a net iso is build..??

On Tue, 09 May 2023 12:10:49 - André verwijs wrote: > installed Fedora with "Fedora-Everything-netinst-x86_64-38-1.6.iso" > but hat small issues. (firewall packages) In witch timespan will a > new iso be build..?? At least use the latest updates for this (or > any other) installation iso...

Review of Python packages needed

Hello, I need help getting the following two Python packages reviewed – they are dependencies of matrix-synapse: * python-immutabledict * python-hiredis Please let me know what

Re: C-specific compiler parameters (was: Update on Changes/PortingToModernC)

Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 12:09:10AM +0200, Björn Persson wrote: > > Florian Weimer wrote: > > > I am going to explore a way to land -Werror=implicit-int > > > -Werror=implicit-function-declaration among the default compiler flags. > > > There's a bit of an issue because the

[EPEL-devel] Re: Bug 2188992 - Please branch and build sscep in epel8

I just noticed this went to the the wrong mailling list. Not many people are going to see this on epel-devel-owners. On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 7:02 AM Stephen Smoogen wrote: > > > On Wed, 10 May 2023 at 09:46, Troy Dawson wrote: > >> For those EPEL maintainers deciding on whether to take this or

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Flatpaks without Modules (System-Wide Change)

* Aoife Moloney: > There are two types of Flatpak containers - > runtimes - which contain unmodified Fedora packages, > and applications - which contain Fedora packages rebuilt to relocate > them from /usr to /app. Is this relocation still required? Thanks, Florian

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Di, 09.05.23 15:22, Chris Murphy (li...@colorremedies.com) wrote: > > > On Tue, May 9, 2023, at 2:47 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 01:31:01PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > >> Once upon a time, Chris Murphy said: > >> > What about the increasing growth in

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Flatpaks without Modules (System-Wide Change)

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 8:06 AM Milan Crha wrote: > On Wed, 2023-05-10 at 11:54 +0100, Aoife Moloney wrote: > > Additionally a couple of packages (evolution-data-services and > > tracker-miners) are set up so they can be > > built with an application-specific D-Bus prefix. Evolution has: > > > >

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Di, 09.05.23 15:04, Chris Murphy (li...@colorremedies.com) wrote: > > This makese no sense. If you want /boot to just be a subvolume of the > > rootfs btrfs, then this would imply it's also covered by the same > > security choices, i.e. encryption. We want to bind that sooner or > > later to

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, 10 May 2023 at 11:55, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > Especially not by making some small change contingent on moonshot proposals. > But I think that a) the current proposal is just a band-aid, and > b) to make things better we don't need to make huge changes. Okay, please open a

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Di, 09.05.23 12:37, Neal Gompa (ngomp...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 12:31 PM Lennart Poettering > wrote: > > > > On Di, 09.05.23 08:22, Neal Gompa (ngomp...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > > I've been asked to consider converting /boot to a Btrfs subvolume so > > > that it no

Re: disabling yum modular repos by default?

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 8:39 PM Debarshi Ray via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2023-05-09 at 12:31 +0800, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote: > If we do decide to disable the fedora-cisco-openh264 repository on the > base fedora OCI image, then we might have to enable it

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Flatpaks without Modules (System-Wide Change)

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 11:54:39AM +0100, Aoife Moloney wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FlatpaksWithoutModules > For each Fedora release, we'll have two additional targets > > f39-flatpak-runtime (inherits f39), tags: f39-flatpak-runtime-build, > f39-flatpak-runtime > f39-app

Re: disabling yum modular repos by default?

Hey Jens, On Tue, 2023-05-09 at 12:31 +0800, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote: > ps I think it would be a good idea to disable the cisco-h264 repo too > by default in the fedora container image, and maybe also for headless > Fedora editions. If we do decide to disable the fedora-cisco-openh264

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Flatpaks without Modules (System-Wide Change)

On Wed, 2023-05-10 at 11:54 +0100, Aoife Moloney wrote: > Additionally a couple of packages (evolution-data-services and > tracker-miners) are set up so they can be > built with an application-specific D-Bus prefix. Evolution has: > >   buildopts: >     rpms: >   macros: | >    

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20230510.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20230509.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20230510.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 2 Added packages: 4 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 85 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 603.81 KiB Size of dropped packages:0

[EPEL-devel] Re: Ansible in EPEL 9

On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 11:24 PM Maxwell G wrote: > > Hello EPEL users and developers, > > > RHEL 9.2 was released today, > so I have updated ansible in EPEL 9 from 6.3.0 to 7.2.0 to match RHEL > 9.2's ansible-core bump from 2.13.3 to 2.14.2. > Each ansible major version is tied to a specific

Re: disabling yum modular repos by default?

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 01:07:55PM +0200, Jun Aruga (he / him) wrote: > > "No fedora-repos-modular in default installation" ? > > I feel that's a better way than disabling (enabled=0) module repos by default. To clarify: I fully agree. My earlier comment was about how to better reflect this in

Re: disabling yum modular repos by default?

> "No fedora-repos-modular in default installation" ? I feel that's a better way than disabling (enabled=0) module repos by default. /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-modular.repo /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-updates-modular.repo #enabled=1 enabled=0 For people who want to use the modularity, once they

F39 Change Proposal: Flatpaks without Modules (System-Wide Change)

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FlatpaksWithoutModules This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved by the Fedora Engineering Steering

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 01:20:54PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: > On Tue, 9 May 2023 at 10:22, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: > > This is both too much and not enough. > > Right; and I think a different Fedora feature proposal would be a good > idea for the version of Fedora when we switch

F39 Change Proposal: Flatpaks without Modules (System-Wide Change)

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FlatpaksWithoutModules This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved by the Fedora Engineering Steering

Re: F39 Proposal: LIBFFI34 static trampolines (System-Wide Change)

On 5/9/23 21:27, DJ Delorie wrote: Jarek Prokop writes: Are the libffi/rebuilt packages available anywhere for us to experiment with? MPB uses COPR, so.. "before" builds:https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/djdelorie/libffi-3.4.4.checker/ "after"

[Test-Announce] Fedora 39 Rawhide 20230510.n.0 nightly compose nominated for testing

Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event for Fedora 39 Rawhide 20230510.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

Re: it builds in copr epel-9 (with RHEL-9) but fail to build on koji

On Wed, 2023-05-10 at 09:44 +0200, Petr Pisar wrote: > V Tue, May 09, 2023 at 09:20:30PM +0100, Sérgio Basto napsal(a): > > I tested with Centos Stream 9. > > xvfb-run have been fixed somehow in Centos Stream first, > > CentOS Stream is a preview of the next RHEL minor release. It works > as >

Re: F39 Proposal: LIBFFI34 static trampolines (System-Wide Change)

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 3:13 AM DJ Delorie wrote: > Jens-Ulrik Petersen writes: > MPB uses BuildRequires to collect all packages that *might* be affected > by your change. It builds all those packages with and without your > change, and lets you know what you broke. In this case, one broke

Re: disabling yum modular repos by default?

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 12:21:51PM +0800, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote: > Thanks for all the helpful comments and feedback, > though more is still welcome of course. > So I am leaning now towards not installing fedora-repos-modular by default > (rather than disabling the modular repos by default):

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2023-05-09)

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 01:26:37AM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > * #2989 Proposal to adjust Changes Policy to use Fedora Discussion > > instead of the devel list (zbyszek, 17:03:21) > > * AGREED: APPROVED (+6, 0, 0): > > Subsequent Fedora

Re: F39 proposal: BiggerESP (Self-Contained Change proposal)

> > /boot/efi is clearly not ideal for a number of reasons, but this is what > > we have today and changing this opens up another can of worms. For > > starters this will stop working: > > > > # rpm -ql shim-x64 > > /boot/efi/EFI/BOOT/BOOTX64.EFI > > /boot/efi/EFI/BOOT/fbx64.efi > >

Re: it builds in copr epel-9 (with RHEL-9) but fail to build on koji

V Tue, May 09, 2023 at 09:20:30PM +0100, Sérgio Basto napsal(a): > I tested with Centos Stream 9. > xvfb-run have been fixed somehow in Centos Stream first, CentOS Stream is a preview of the next RHEL minor release. It works as designed. > any idea how xvfb-ruu was fixed ? I'd like understand

[rpms/perl-Type-Tiny] PR #1: Add conditions for build with/without big frameworks

corsepiu commented on the pull-request: `Add conditions for build with/without big frameworks` that you are following: `` I am hesitant, because I fail to understand the rationale behind it and am close to consider it "featuritis". `` To reply, visit the link below

[rpms/perl-Type-Tiny] PR #1: Add conditions for build with/without big frameworks

mspacek commented on the pull-request: `Add conditions for build with/without big frameworks` that you are following: `` @corsepiu Is it ok for you or not? :-) `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Type-Tiny/pull-request/1

[Bug 2196756] perl-Class-Autouse-2.01-34.fc39 FTBFS: Can't locate inc/Module/Install/DSL.pm

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2196756 --- Comment #2 from Jitka Plesnikova --- *** Bug 2196757 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2196756

[Bug 2196757] perl-Class-Autouse: FTBFS: Can't locate inc/Module/Install/DSL.pm in @INC

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2196757 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|---

[Bug 2196756] perl-Class-Autouse-2.01-34.fc39 FTBFS: Can't locate inc/Module/Install/DSL.pm

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2196756 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jples...@redhat.com --- Comment

[Bug 2196757] perl-Class-Autouse: FTBFS: Can't locate inc/Module/Install/DSL.pm in @INC

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2196757 --- Comment #1 from Jitka Plesnikova --- I created a pull request with a possible fix: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Class-Autouse/pull-request/1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 2196757] New: perl-Class-Autouse: FTBFS: Can't locate inc/Module/Install/DSL.pm in @INC

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2196757 Bug ID: 2196757 Summary: perl-Class-Autouse: FTBFS: Can't locate inc/Module/Install/DSL.pm in @INC Product: Fedora Version: rawhide URL:

[Bug 2196756] perl-Class-Autouse-2.01-34.fc39 FTBFS: Can't locate inc/Module/Install/DSL.pm

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2196756 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||2168842 |

[Bug 2196756] New: perl-Class-Autouse-2.01-34.fc39 FTBFS: Can't locate inc/Module/Install/DSL.pm

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2196756 Bug ID: 2196756 Summary: perl-Class-Autouse-2.01-34.fc39 FTBFS: Can't locate inc/Module/Install/DSL.pm Product: Fedora Version: rawhide URL:

[rpms/perl-Class-Autouse] PR #1: Update Makefile.PL to not use Module::Install::DSL

jplesnik opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Class-Autouse` that you are following: `` Update Makefile.PL to not use Module::Install::DSL `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Class-Autouse/pull-request/1

[Bug 2113577] perl-IO-Async: FTBFS in Fedora rawhide/f37: t/70future-io.t fails: Nothing was ready after 10 second wait; called at /builddir/build/BUILD/IO-Async-0.801/blib/lib/IO/Async/Test.pm line 2

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2113577 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|perl-IO-Async: FTBFS in |perl-IO-Async: FTBFS in

[Bug 2196755] perl-IO-Async-0.802-2.fc39 FTBFS: A build dependency on Test::Future::IO::Impl is not declared

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2196755 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||2168842 |

[Bug 2196755] New: perl-IO-Async-0.802-2.fc39 FTBFS: A build dependency on Test::Future::IO::Impl is not declared

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2196755 Bug ID: 2196755 Summary: perl-IO-Async-0.802-2.fc39 FTBFS: A build dependency on Test::Future::IO::Impl is not declared Product: Fedora Version: rawhide OS: Linux