The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
6 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-49ef288135
stb-0-0.39.20231011gitbeebb24.el8
6 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-799d16fa93
suricata-6.0.15-1.el8
5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2207950
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version||perl-Frontier-RPC-0.07b4p1-
I have an update for libunibreak ready and plan to release that for
rawhide in a week (or slightly later).
The new version bumps libunibreak from so.3 to so.5.
I also intend to drop building for i686.
The following packages depend on libunibreak:
$ fedrq wr -s libunibreak-devel
On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 10:49:36AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 11:05:33AM -0400, Christopher wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 7:50 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > >
> > > FWIW, from what I can recall, yum used to check all packages, but this
> > > resulted in tons of people
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246773
--- Comment #2 from Dick Franks ---
Q: Is the perl version available to the build process necessarily the same as
the perl included in the distribution?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
On Fri, 2023-09-29 at 23:20 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-09-29 at 23:42 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 29. 09. 23 23:38, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > On 29. 09. 23 20:32, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > > Recent build of some packages like opencv and an
On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 11:05:33AM -0400, Christopher wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 7:50 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> > FWIW, from what I can recall, yum used to check all packages, but this
> > resulted in tons of people complaining because they did not want it to
> > check their local
Minutes:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2023-11-01/fedora_coreos_meeting.2023-11-01-16.31.html
Minutes (text):
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2023-11-01/fedora_coreos_meeting.2023-11-01-16.31.txt
Log:
The Fedora Linux 39 Final Go/No-Go[1] meeting is scheduled for
Thursday 2 November at 1700 UTC in #fedora-meeting (on IRC, not
Matrix). At this time, we will determine the status of F39 Final
for the 7 November target date[2]. For more information about the
Go/No-Go meeting, see the wiki[3].
[1]
The Fedora Linux 39 Final Go/No-Go[1] meeting is scheduled for
Thursday 2 November at 1700 UTC in #fedora-meeting (on IRC, not
Matrix). At this time, we will determine the status of F39 Final
for the 7 November 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=2247491
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247491
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jples...@redhat.com,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246773
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jples...@redhat.com
Doc
> Christopher writes:
>> $ wget mypackage.rpm
>> $rpm --checksig mypackage.rpm
> the whole point of
> using DNF to install a local file is for consistency of using the same
> command as for repo packages, not manually altering the RPM database
> outside of YUM/DNF (that results in a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247441
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247279
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 5:53 AM Paul Howarth wrote:
>
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 12:48:31 -0400
> Christopher wrote:
> > I'm actually a bit concerned about this thread, because I assumed DNF4
> > and DNF5 would check signatures by default today, and that it would
> > only skip if `--nogpgcheck` was
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247441
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #1 from
On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 7:50 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> FWIW, from what I can recall, yum used to check all packages, but this
> resulted in tons of people complaining because they did not want it to
> check their local packages. So, a localpkg_gpgcheck option was added and
> set to false. dnf4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247279
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247483
Bug ID: 2247483
Summary: perl-PAR-1.019 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-PAR
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
jplesnik merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Math-BigInt` that you
are following.
Merged pull-request:
``
2.00 bump (rhbz#2247279)
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Math-BigInt/pull-request/7
___
perl-devel mailing list --
jplesnik opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Math-BigInt` that
you are following:
``
2.00 bump (rhbz#2247279)
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Math-BigInt/pull-request/7
___
perl-devel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247279
--- Comment #1 from Jitka Plesnikova ---
The main change in this version is merge the Math-BigRat distribution into the
Math-BigInt distribution.
This merge eliminates the problems that users have experienced when
incompatible versions of
OLD: Fedora-39-20231031.n.0
NEW: Fedora-39-20231101.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:7
Dropped images: 2
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 6
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of upgraded
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245998
--- Comment #5 from static ---
Thanks. I tested the test RPM of perl-Mail-POP3Client on EL9 and it worked. I
was able to check a pop3 server for email with it just like I did in EL7.
Looks good to me.
--
You are receiving this mail
On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 2:19 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> Dne 31. 10. 23 v 18:21 Kalev Lember napsal(a):
>
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 5:47 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>>
>> How it conflicts?
>>
>> %files
>>
>> %license LICENSE
>>
>> %files doc
>>
>> %license LICENSE
>>
>> should not create any
On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 12:48:31 -0400
Christopher wrote:
> I'm actually a bit concerned about this thread, because I assumed DNF4
> and DNF5 would check signatures by default today, and that it would
> only skip if `--nogpgcheck` was passed as an option. If it sometimes
> skips the GPG check without
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247441
Bug ID: 2247441
Summary: perl-CGI-4.60 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-CGI
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247279
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|mspa...@redhat.com, |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246931
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246931
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #1 from
Dne 31. 10. 23 v 18:21 Kalev Lember napsal(a):
On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 5:47 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
How it conflicts?
%files
%license LICENSE
%files doc
%license LICENSE
should not create any conflicts. And this is recomended way to do it.
I guess the conflicts
33 matches
Mail list logo
