Re: deltarpm usefulness?
On 2021-11-06 21:15, Sumit Bhardwaj wrote: It is not always about speed. There are still plenty of places in the world where people are on limited data plans and to them using delta rpms makes a lot of sense. They can work with slow speeds but not with high data expenses. So i feel turning it on by default and having a setting to turn it off is still a sane choice. Just my 2 cents. Did you read the other replies? It doesn't save much and some have said it causes even more downloading. And it's even worse if there's a long time between updates, which is more likely for someone in that situation. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Possibly off topic: Slack will discontinue packaging for Fedora
Stephen John Smoogen writes: > I believe those need to be tied into a couple of other questions > 1. How does any organization work with these various prominent vendors? I doubt that this is a very useful question as stated. Even near-peers like Red Hat itself and Ubuntu are probably corporate customers of Slack. Is Fedora? If not, that's going to color the conversation a different hue (ie, the answer may be the same, but I bet they'll try a lot harder to soften the wording), even though all of these organizations are also going to be representing a user base. So I would say to focus on closer peers like Centos and Debian as (a) better case studies and (b) potential allies. Your other three questions are right on. > 2. What are the interests of said vendors and what are they focusing > on for customer growth? > 3. Why did these prominent vendors decide to focus on OS A and B > versus A and B and C and ... > 4. What barriers are there for making it work for OS C/D/E/F Steve ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2020898] New: perl-Moose-2.2201 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020898 Bug ID: 2020898 Summary: perl-Moose-2.2201 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-Moose Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee: emman...@seyman.fr Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: emman...@seyman.fr, iarn...@gmail.com, lkund...@v3.sk, mspa...@redhat.com, p...@city-fan.org, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Latest upstream release: 2.2201 Current version/release in rawhide: 2.2200-1.fc36 URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Moose/ Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/ More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/6197/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020898 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: deltarpm usefulness?
It is not always about speed. There are still plenty of places in the world where people are on limited data plans and to them using delta rpms makes a lot of sense. They can work with slow speeds but not with high data expenses. So i feel turning it on by default and having a setting to turn it off is still a sane choice. Just my 2 cents. Regards, Sumit Bhardwaj On Sun, Nov 7, 2021, 9:33 AM wrote: > Send devel mailing list submissions to > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via email, send a message with subject or > body 'help' to > devel-requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > devel-ow...@lists.fedoraproject.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of devel digest..."Today's Topics: > >1. Re: deltarpm usefulness? (Gary Buhrmaster) > > > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Gary Buhrmaster > To: Development discussions related to Fedora < > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2021 02:30:30 + > Subject: Re: deltarpm usefulness? > On Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 2:22 AM Demi Marie Obenour > wrote: > > > I have almost always seen it *increase* download times, > > In my experience, while the download times may > be (slightly) reduced, on a number of my (slower) > systems, the rebuild of the rpm itself took longer > then it would have taken to download the full rpm. > > As with all else, your mileage WILL > vary.___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure > ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2020025] perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX-0.17 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020025 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-294ece8510 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 --advisory=FEDORA-2021-294ece8510` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-294ece8510 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020025 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: deltarpm usefulness?
On Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 2:22 AM Demi Marie Obenour wrote: > I have almost always seen it *increase* download times, In my experience, while the download times may be (slightly) reduced, on a number of my (slower) systems, the rebuild of the rpm itself took longer then it would have taken to download the full rpm. As with all else, your mileage WILL vary. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: deltarpm usefulness?
On 11/6/21 6:47 AM, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Sat, Nov 6, 2021 at 3:43 AM Daniel Alley wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 10:03:50PM +0200, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote: >>> I do think we should drop drpms or make them more useful, but I don't >>> think there's any security angle here. (see below) >>> >>> drpms work by downloading the delta, then using it + the version you >>> have installed to recreate the signed rpm (just like you downloaded the >>> full signed update) and then the gpg signature is checked of that full rpm, >>> just like one you downloaded. If the drpm is tampered with it won't >>> reassemble and it will fall back to the full signed rpm. >> >> Sorry to resurrect this thread. >> >> Another issue - which is not per-se a security issue but it's still a >> problem - is that deltarpm uses md5 checksums pervasively. They're >> everywhere. And it uses its own implementation of md5 which doesn't respect >> FIPS, so even when the user has *explicitly* configured their system to not >> use md5 for anything security-relevant, libdeltarpm won't know or care. > > This is not true with libdrpm though, and that version is what > createrepo_c uses. Yes, but createrepo_c isn’t what runs on end-user devices. Sincerely, Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers) OpenPGP_0xB288B55FFF9C22C1.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: deltarpm usefulness?
On 11/6/21 7:42 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: > On 11/6/21 15:46, Marius Schwarz wrote: >> Am 11.08.21 um 22:03 schrieb Marek Marczykowski-Górecki: >>> - there is also argument that people's connection bandwidth nowadays >>> tends to be fast enough to make the package rebuilding actually >>> slower than downloading the whole package (but that really vary >>> between >>> different installations) >> >> Since we now have Linux on smartphonesd, i heavily disagree with this >> assumption and advocate to expand the drpm usage. > > Fedora on a smartphone is a very rare and niche case. It's something > that can be considered, but should not be a driver for the distro's > technology choices. Regardless, as the other points mentioned, I have > not seen any significant download saving from it anyway. I have almost always seen it *increase* download times, Sincerely, Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers) OpenPGP_0xB288B55FFF9C22C1.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2020025] perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX-0.17 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020025 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-3c20aa3f56 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 --advisory=FEDORA-2021-3c20aa3f56` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-3c20aa3f56 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020025 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2020025] perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX-0.17 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020025 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-b27e4f19bd has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-b27e4f19bd See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020025 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2020025] perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX-0.17 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020025 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-b79511a9ce 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 --advisory=FEDORA-2021-b79511a9ce` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-b79511a9ce See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020025 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2020025] perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX-0.17 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020025 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-47e7e66426 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-47e7e66426 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020025 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2020192] perl-DateTime-Tiny-1.07-12.fc36 FTBFS: Failed test '->locale ok' at t/02_main.t line 82.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020192 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|robinlee.s...@gmail.com |extras-orphan@fedoraproject ||.org --- Comment #1 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions --- This package has changed maintainer in Fedora. Reassigning to the new maintainer of this component. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020192 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: deltarpm usefulness?
On 11/6/21 15:46, Marius Schwarz wrote: Am 11.08.21 um 22:03 schrieb Marek Marczykowski-Górecki: - there is also argument that people's connection bandwidth nowadays tends to be fast enough to make the package rebuilding actually slower than downloading the whole package (but that really vary between different installations) Since we now have Linux on smartphonesd, i heavily disagree with this assumption and advocate to expand the drpm usage. Fedora on a smartphone is a very rare and niche case. It's something that can be considered, but should not be a driver for the distro's technology choices. Regardless, as the other points mentioned, I have not seen any significant download saving from it anyway. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: deltarpm usefulness?
Am 11.08.21 um 22:03 schrieb Marek Marczykowski-Górecki: - there is also argument that people's connection bandwidth nowadays tends to be fast enough to make the package rebuilding actually slower than downloading the whole package (but that really vary between different installations) Since we now have Linux on smartphonesd, i heavily disagree with this assumption and advocate to expand the drpm usage. best regards, Marius Schwarz ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: protobuf 3.19.0 update coming to rawhide
On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 02:02:11AM +0100, allan2016--- via devel wrote: > På Sat, 30 Oct 2021 17:59:15 +0200 > Adrian Reber skrev: > > Just after the protobuf update to 3.18.1 last week finished protobuf > > 3.19.0 was released and a request to update to that version was made. > > > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/protobuf/pull-request/7 > > > > At first I was 'not again', but as I still remember all the necessary > > commands I agreed to rebuild all dependencies again. > > > > So in about one week I will start the rebuild of all protobuf > > dependencies in rawhide. > > > > I made all builds in copr > > > > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/adrian/protobuf-3-19/packages/ > > > > and it seems all packages that were rebuilt for 3.18.1 are also > > rebuilding against 3.19.0. > > > > could you pls add evolution-data-server to this list ? > It uses libphonenumber - and got broken with the last update; > leaving all our phones unable to make calls. Thanks for the reminder. I have also rebuilt evolution-data-server. Adrian ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: protobuf 3.19.0 update coming to rawhide
On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 05:59:15PM +0200, Adrian Reber wrote: > Just after the protobuf update to 3.18.1 last week finished protobuf > 3.19.0 was released and a request to update to that version was made. > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/protobuf/pull-request/7 > > At first I was 'not again', but as I still remember all the necessary > commands I agreed to rebuild all dependencies again. > > So in about one week I will start the rebuild of all protobuf > dependencies in rawhide. > > I made all builds in copr > > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/adrian/protobuf-3-19/packages/ > > and it seems all packages that were rebuilt for 3.18.1 are also > rebuilding against 3.19.0. All builds have finished and the side tag was merged. Although everything was built successful in COPR for the real rebuild two rebuilds failed: * qgis * riemann-c-client (ppc64le only) Adrian ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Rawhide kernel crash
On Sat, 6 Nov 2021 at 09:42, edmond pilon wrote: > > Thanks for your reply. > > I have a GTX 1080 and 495.44 drivers. > The crash happens just after the same warning as you. > I'm running the 5.15 rc6 kernel without issue. > The boot problems started since 5.15 rc7 upgrade , and the only differences > between this versions are : > > - Enable CONFIG_FAIL_SUNRPC for debug builds (Justin M. Forbes) > - fedora: Disable fbdev drivers and use simpledrm instead (Javier Martinez > Canillas). > I would be careful to say that those are the only two differences. Those are the only changes that the Fedora kernel maintainers did on top of the other changes that the upstream kernel has in it: https://fossies.org/diffs/linux/5.15-rc6_vs_5.15-rc7/ It lists multiple changes in the drm drivers which could be causing that. > So i will try to build the kernel without the second patch and make a try. > Thanks again. > > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure -- Stephen J Smoogen. I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Flame wars in sci.astro.orion. I have seen SPAM filters overload because of Godwin's Law. All those moments will be lost in time... like posts on a BBS... time to shutdown -h now. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2020884] New: perl-PDL-2.058 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020884 Bug ID: 2020884 Summary: perl-PDL-2.058 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-PDL Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee: jples...@redhat.com Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: caillon+fedoraproj...@gmail.com, jakub.jedel...@gmail.com, jples...@redhat.com, ka...@ucw.cz, lkund...@v3.sk, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, rhug...@redhat.com, rstr...@redhat.com, sandm...@redhat.com, tjczep...@gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Latest upstream release: 2.058 Current version/release in rawhide: 2.57.0-1.fc36 URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/PDL/ Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/ More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/3205/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020884 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: deltarpm usefulness?
Yeah rsync would be nice for instead at least for repository refreshes. No? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: deltarpm usefulness?
That's a fair point, I was actually not aware that https://github.com/rpm-software-management/drpm contained a completely separate implementation of applydeltarpm. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Heads-up: python-starlette 0.17.0 coming to Rawhide in one week
In one week (2021-11-13), or slightly later, I will build python-starlette 0.17.0 in F36/Rawhide[1]. This release removes deprecated GraphQL support, which is formally a breaking change. I’ve tested rebuilding each of the following dependent packages using starlette 0.17.0 and confirmed they are unaffected: - python-authlib: FTBFS, pre-existing (20 test failures before and after python-starlette update) - python-databases: OK - python-fastapi: OK - python-respx: OK …so there should be no changes required as a result of this update. [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-starlette/pull-request/3 ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Fedora-Rawhide-20211106.n.0 compose check report
No missing expected images. Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check! 24 of 43 required tests failed, 17 results missing openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING** below Failed openQA tests: 108/206 (x86_64), 66/141 (aarch64) Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20211105.n.0): ID: 1054168 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso anaconda_help URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054168 ID: 1054171 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_repository_hd_variation URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054171 ID: 1054211 Test: x86_64 Everything-boot-iso memory_check URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054211 ID: 1054213 Test: x86_64 Everything-boot-iso memory_check@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054213 ID: 1054214 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso anaconda_help URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054214 ID: 1054222 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_notifications_live URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054222 ID: 1054238 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso anaconda_help URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054238 ID: 1054240 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_live URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054240 ID: 1054260 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso anaconda_help URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054260 ID: 1054298 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso anaconda_help@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054298 ID: 1054379 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_desktop_64bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054379 ID: 1054380 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_desktop_encrypted_64bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054380 ID: 1054383 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_server_domain_controller URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054383 ID: 1054397 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_kde_64bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054397 ID: 1054423 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_desktop_64bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054423 ID: 1054424 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_desktop_encrypted_64bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054424 ID: 1054432 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_kde_64bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054432 ID: 1054435 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_server_domain_controller URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054435 ID: 1054447 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_realmd_client URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054447 ID: 1054450 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_realmd_client URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054450 ID: 1054452 Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_2_desktop_64bit@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054452 ID: 1054454 Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_2_server_domain_controller@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054454 ID: 1054474 Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_server_domain_controller@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054474 ID: 1054479 Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_realmd_client@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054479 ID: 1054487 Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_desktop_64bit@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054487 ID: 1054489 Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_2_desktop_encrypted_64bit@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054489 ID: 1054499 Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_desktop_encrypted_64bit@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054499 ID: 1054500 Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_2_realmd_client@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054500 ID: 1054501 Test: x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default@uefi **GATING** URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054501 ID: 1054502 Test: x86_64 Everything-boot-iso install_default@uefi **GATING** URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054502 ID: 1054503 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default@uefi **GATING** URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054503 ID: 1054504 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default@uefi **GATING** URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054504 ID: 1054505 Test: aarch64 Server-boot-iso install_default@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054505 ID: 1054506 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_default@uefi **GATING** URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054506 ID: 1054507 Test: x86_64 universal install_delete_pata@uefi **GATING** URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054507 ID: 1054508 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso install_blivet_lvm_ext4@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054508 ID: 1054509 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso install_btrfs_preserve_home@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054509 ID: 1054510 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso install_repository_hd_variation@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054510 ID: 1054511 Test:
License change notice: rust-buffered-reader
Hi everybody, Between versions 1.0.0 and 1.1.0, the buffered-reader crate has been relicensed from GPLv2+ to LGPLv2+. Since the new license is compatible and has fewer restrictions, I do not expect this to cause any issues. The package version with the new license will soon be pushed as an update to Fedora 34+. Fabio ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Rawhide kernel crash
Thanks for your reply. I have a GTX 1080 and 495.44 drivers. The crash happens just after the same warning as you. I'm running the 5.15 rc6 kernel without issue. The boot problems started since 5.15 rc7 upgrade , and the only differences between this versions are : - Enable CONFIG_FAIL_SUNRPC for debug builds (Justin M. Forbes) - fedora: Disable fbdev drivers and use simpledrm instead (Javier Martinez Canillas). So i will try to build the kernel without the second patch and make a try. Thanks again. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: openbabel-3.1* in Rawhide
side-tag: f36-build-side-47471 On 11/5/21 21:33, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 9:23 PM Antonio T. sagitter wrote: On 10/24/21 15:11, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: Hello Antonio, On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 3:05 PM Antonio T. sagitter wrote: We are ready to push openbabel3 in Rawhide Will it be just Rawhide? Will you please let us know when the build is done in order to rebuild dependent packages? Within 24 hours i will create a side-tag in Rawhide. Thanks Antonio, I'll probably be able to do the rebuild on Sunday night. -- --- Antonio Trande Fedora Project mailto: sagit...@fedoraproject.org GPG key: 0xCC1CFEF30920C8AE GPG key server: https://keyserver1.pgp.com/ OpenPGP_0xCC1CFEF30920C8AE.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Fedora rawhide compose report: 20211106.n.0 changes
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20211105.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20211106.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 0 Dropped packages:5 Upgraded packages: 75 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 0 B Size of dropped packages:8.45 MiB Size of upgraded packages: 4.88 GiB Size of downgraded packages: 0 B Size change of upgraded packages: 1.53 MiB Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B = ADDED IMAGES = = DROPPED IMAGES = = ADDED PACKAGES = = DROPPED PACKAGES = Package: fedmod-0.6.4-2.fc35 Summary: Utilities for generating & maintaining modulemd files RPMs:fedmod Size:129.65 KiB Package: kdevelop-python-5.6.2-1.fc34 Summary: Python 3 Plugin for KDevelop RPMs:kdevelop-python Size:6.41 MiB Package: python-parallel-ssh-1.9.1-9.fc35 Summary: Asynchronous parallel SSH library RPMs:python3-parallel-ssh Size:527.26 KiB Package: python-ssh2-python-0.26.0-1.fc36 Summary: Super fast SSH library - bindings for libssh2 RPMs:python3-ssh2-python Size:1.12 MiB Package: waiverdb-1.3.0-2.fc35 Summary: Service for waiving results in ResultsDB RPMs:waiverdb waiverdb-cli waiverdb-common Size:283.98 KiB = UPGRADED PACKAGES = Package: archlinux-keyring-20211028-1.fc36 Old package: archlinux-keyring-20210902-1.fc36 Summary: GPG keys used by Arch distribution to sign packages RPMs: archlinux-keyring Size: 984.51 KiB Size change: 1.40 KiB Changelog: * Fri Nov 05 2021 Zbigniew J??drzejewski-Szmek 20211028-1 - Version 20211028 (#2018137) Package: awscli-1.21.12-1.fc36 Old package: awscli-1.21.11-1.fc36 Summary: Universal Command Line Environment for AWS RPMs: awscli Size: 2.11 MiB Size change: 66 B Changelog: * Fri Nov 05 2021 Gwyn Ciesla - 1.21.12-1 - 1.21.12 Package: bash-5.1.8-3.fc36 Old package: bash-5.1.8-2.fc36 Summary: The GNU Bourne Again shell RPMs: bash bash-devel bash-doc Size: 15.36 MiB Size change: 7.70 KiB Changelog: * Fri Nov 05 2021 Siteshwar Vashisht - 5.1.8-3 - Add a runtime option to enable history logging to syslog Resolves: #2020528 Package: btrfs-progs-5.15-1.fc36 Old package: btrfs-progs-5.14.91-1.fc36 Summary: Userspace programs for btrfs RPMs: btrfs-progs btrfs-progs-devel libbtrfs libbtrfsutil python3-btrfsutil Size: 6.60 MiB Size change: 323 B Changelog: * Fri Nov 05 2021 Neal Gompa - 5.15-1 - Update to 5.15 Package: clustershell-1.8.4-1.fc36 Old package: clustershell-1.8.3-8.fc35 Summary: Python framework for efficient cluster administration RPMs: clustershell python3-clustershell Size: 377.09 KiB Size change: 1.61 KiB Changelog: * Fri Nov 05 2021 Stephane Thiell 1.8.4-1 - update to 1.8.4 Package: cpuid-20211031-1.fc36 Old package: cpuid-20201006-2.fc35 Summary: Dumps information about the CPU(s) RPMs: cpuid Size: 131.59 KiB Size change: 3.97 KiB Changelog: * Tue Jan 26 2021 Fedora Release Engineering 20201006-3 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_34_Mass_Rebuild * Wed Jul 21 2021 Fedora Release Engineering 20201006-4 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_35_Mass_Rebuild * Fri Nov 05 2021 Fabian Affolter 20211031-1 - Update to latest upstream release 20211031 (closes rhbz#2018845) Package: crun-1.3-1.fc36 Old package: crun-1.2-1.fc36 Summary: OCI runtime written in C RPMs: crun Size: 863.11 KiB Size change: 7.63 KiB Changelog: * Fri Nov 05 2021 RH Container Bot - 1.3-1 - autobuilt 1.3 Package: debconf-1.5.79-1.fc36 Old package: debconf-1.5.77-1.fc36 Summary: Debian configuration management system RPMs: debconf debconf-LDAP debconf-doc debconf-gnome debconf-i18n debconf-utils python3-debconf Size: 772.03 KiB Size change: 4.89 KiB Changelog: * Sat Nov 06 2021 S??rgio Basto - 1.5.79-1 - Update debconf to 1.5.79 (#2016839) Package: digikam-7.3.0-4.fc36 Old package: digikam-7.3.0-3.fc36 Summary: A digital camera accessing & photo management application RPMs: digikam digikam-devel digikam-doc digikam-libs Size: 124.36 MiB Size change: -19.47 KiB Changelog: * Fri Nov 05 2021 Rex Dieter - 7.3.0-4 - rebuild (ImageMagick) Package: dracut-055-7.fc36 Old package: dracut-055-6.fc36 Summary: Initramfs generator using udev RPMs: dracut dracut-caps dracut-config-generic dracut-config-rescue dracut-live dracut-network dracut-squash dracut-tools Size: 2.41 MiB Size change: 5.08 KiB Changelog: * Thu Nov 04 2021 Jeremy Linton - 055-7 - Backport Upstream: 15398458 fix(90kernel-modules): add isp1760 USB controller Package: dummy-test-package-gloster-0-5656.fc36 Old package: dummy-test-package-gloster-0-5636.fc36 Summary: Dummy Test Package called Glos
Re: Rawhide kernel crash
It works ok here. $ inxi -SG System:Host: fedora Kernel: 5.15.0-60.fc36.x86_64 x86_64 bits: 64 Desktop: GNOME 41.0 Distro: Fedora release 35 (Thirty Five) Graphics: Device-1: NVIDIA GP107 [GeForce GTX 1050 Ti] driver: nvidia v: 495.44 Display: wayland server: X.Org 1.21.1.2 driver: loaded: nvidia unloaded: fbdev,modesetting,nouveau,vesa resolution: 3840x2160~60Hz OpenGL: renderer: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti/PCIe/SSE2 v: 4.6.0 NVIDIA 495.44 $ inxi -SG System:Host: fedora Kernel: 5.15.0-60.fc36.x86_64 x86_64 bits: 64 Desktop: Cinnamon 5.0.7 Distro: Fedora release 35 (Thirty Five) Graphics: Device-1: NVIDIA GP107 [GeForce GTX 1050 Ti] driver: nvidia v: 495.44 Display: x11 server: X.Org 1.20.11 driver: loaded: modesetting,nouveau,nvidia unloaded: fbdev,vesa resolution: 3840x2160~60Hz OpenGL: renderer: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti/PCIe/SSE2 v: 4.6.0 NVIDIA 495.44 I have one dmesg warning. [ 25.388168] simple-framebuffer simple-framebuffer.0: [drm] drm_plane_enable_fb_damage_clips() not called What card and driver version? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: deltarpm usefulness?
On Sat, Nov 6, 2021 at 3:43 AM Daniel Alley wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 10:03:50PM +0200, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote: > > I do think we should drop drpms or make them more useful, but I don't > > think there's any security angle here. (see below) > > > > drpms work by downloading the delta, then using it + the version you > > have installed to recreate the signed rpm (just like you downloaded the > > full signed update) and then the gpg signature is checked of that full rpm, > > just like one you downloaded. If the drpm is tampered with it won't > > reassemble and it will fall back to the full signed rpm. > > Sorry to resurrect this thread. > > Another issue - which is not per-se a security issue but it's still a problem > - is that deltarpm uses md5 checksums pervasively. They're everywhere. And > it uses its own implementation of md5 which doesn't respect FIPS, so even > when the user has *explicitly* configured their system to not use md5 for > anything security-relevant, libdeltarpm won't know or care. This is not true with libdrpm though, and that version is what createrepo_c uses. That said, it *is* also possible to create DeltaRPMs separately from using createrepo_c, especially by building upon libdrpm, we just haven't done it. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Rawhide kernel crash
Has anyone tried the last kernel-5.15.0-60.fc36. I have crashes at boot with this kernel since rc7 , with nvidia rpmfusion drivers . I think it's because of this fedora patch : fedora: Disable fbdev drivers and use simpledrm instead . I sent a bug report but still no answer . ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Fedora-Cloud-34-20211106.0 compose check report
No missing expected images. Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-34-20211105.0): ID: 1054145 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054145 ID: 1054146 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054146 Passed openQA tests: 7/8 (x86_64), 7/8 (aarch64) -- Mail generated by check-compose: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2020025] perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX-0.17 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020025 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-b27e4f19bd has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-b27e4f19bd -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020025 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2020025] perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX-0.17 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020025 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-47e7e66426 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-47e7e66426 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020025 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2020025] perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX-0.17 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020025 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-47e7e66426 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-47e7e66426 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-3c20aa3f56 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-3c20aa3f56 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020025 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2020025] perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX-0.17 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020025 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-294ece8510 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-294ece8510 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020025 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Fedora-Cloud-35-20211106.0 compose check report
No missing expected images. Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-35-20211105.0): ID: 1054129 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054129 ID: 1054130 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054130 Passed openQA tests: 7/8 (x86_64), 7/8 (aarch64) -- Mail generated by check-compose: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: deltarpm usefulness?
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 10:03:50PM +0200, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote: > I do think we should drop drpms or make them more useful, but I don't > think there's any security angle here. (see below) > > drpms work by downloading the delta, then using it + the version you > have installed to recreate the signed rpm (just like you downloaded the > full signed update) and then the gpg signature is checked of that full rpm, > just like one you downloaded. If the drpm is tampered with it won't > reassemble and it will fall back to the full signed rpm. Sorry to resurrect this thread. Another issue - which is not per-se a security issue but it's still a problem - is that deltarpm uses md5 checksums pervasively. They're everywhere. And it uses its own implementation of md5 which doesn't respect FIPS, so even when the user has *explicitly* configured their system to not use md5 for anything security-relevant, libdeltarpm won't know or care. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Fedora-Cloud-33-20211106.0 compose check report
No missing expected images. Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-33-20211105.0): ID: 1054113 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054113 ID: 1054114 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1054114 Passed openQA tests: 7/8 (x86_64), 7/8 (aarch64) -- Mail generated by check-compose: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
