Re: F29 hidden GRUB, problem testing and how to unhide

F8 and Esc should work. The change page [1] mentions also holding shift. It also mentions "sudo grub2-editenv - unset menu_auto_hide". But it is interesting that: 1. it does not work 2. it does not unhide itself after failed boot. Both sounds as a bugs to me. V. [1] https://fedoraproject.o

Fedora 29-20180917.n.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 3/132 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm) ID: 281610 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_notifications_postinstall URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/281610 ID: 281626 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_postinstall URL: https

Fedora 29 compose report: 20180917.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-29-20180916.n.0 NEW: Fedora-29-20180917.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:3 Dropped images: 1 Added packages: 0 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 0 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 0 B Size of dropped packages:0 B Size of upgraded

F29 hidden GRUB, problem testing and how to unhide

I've got a Fedora 29 Silverblue installation in a VM. First boot I see the GRUB menu, and after that it's hidden. And I can't figure out how to unhide it. Boot is failing before I get multiuser login or ssh, so extracting information to troubleshoot/bug report isn't possible. Repeatedly pressing o

mpi/fortran with -Wl,--as-needed

Hi, I saw that -Wl,--as-needed would be enabled by default on Fedora 29, it seems that we can't build a simple fortran program with this flag either on Fedora 28 or 29 with openmpi at least. Is this an MPI bug? Is this flag supposed to work in this context? Any help here would be really welcome: h

Fedora Atomic Host Two Week Release Announcement: 28.20180917.0

A new Fedora Atomic Host update is available via an OSTree update: Version: 28.20180917.0 Commit(x86_64): 17b11d74047ded1264a57555a64ae6fc5d02a332c556679bfcf32864fc91f11e Commit(aarch64): 95cdc6d02ed7f3645bdd513b07b2c2db9b04e91d8aae897fa88e378285a2b551 Commit(ppc64le): ca3012e5792f84499783510e5

Re: Heads Up: python2 is marked as deprecated

On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 4:12 PM Kevin Kofler wrote: > We CANNOT just drop half of the distribution just because upstream > arbitrarily decided to desupport its widely used language interpreter in > favor of an incompatible new major version. > Well, to be fair the writing has been on the wall fo

Re: Proposal to modify release criteria for fwraid

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 9:56 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2018-09-17 at 17:25 +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 2:45 PM Stephen Gallagher >> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 5:16 AM Petr Šabata wrote: >> > >> > > I hope this won't just mean we discover the proble

Re: Am I allowed to package this?

On Sun, 2018-09-16 at 10:17 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 14-09-18 20:03, Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Fri, 2018-09-14 at 19:37 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On 09/13/2018 07:59 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2018-09-13 at 16:07 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > >

Re: Proposal to modify release criteria for fwraid

On Mon, 2018-09-17 at 08:56 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2018-09-17 at 17:25 +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 2:45 PM Stephen Gallagher > > wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 5:16 AM Petr Šabata wrote: > > > > > > > I hope this won't just mean we discover t

Re: Build ID conflict?!?

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 8:27 AM Richard Shaw wrote: > On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 5:10 PM Jerry James wrote: > >> On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 3:02 PM Richard Shaw >> wrote: >> > Working on a new package and tried to install it only to get: >> > >> > Error: Transaction check error: >> > file /usr/lib/

Re: Proposal to modify release criteria for fwraid

On Mon, 2018-09-17 at 17:25 +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 2:45 PM Stephen Gallagher > wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 5:16 AM Petr Šabata wrote: > > > > > I hope this won't just mean we discover the problems later, in practice. > > > > The policy of Fedora QA is to r

Re: Proposal to modify release criteria for fwraid

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 2:45 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 5:16 AM Petr Šabata wrote: > > > > > I hope this won't just mean we discover the problems later, in practice. > > > The policy of Fedora QA is to run all of the GA-blocking tests at Beta as > well. > My goal has

Re: Schedule for Monday's FESCo Meeting (2018-09-17)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 = #fedora-meeting-1: FESCO (2018-09-17) = Meeting started by sgallagh at 15:00:06 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2018-09

Re: What does 141 mean?

Tony Nelson wrote: > No, but googling "kinit 141" leads to > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1537866 > which suggests trying the kinit command twice in a row. I would think I must have tried at least twice the first time I had this problem, but at least that thread gives me some ideas

Re: What does 141 mean?

Jan Pazdziora wrote: > Can you check the current time on the problematic machine? Is it in > sync? It looks pretty well synced I think: chronyc> sources 210 Number of sources = 18 MS Name/IP address Stratum Poll Reach LastRx Last sample =

Re: Build ID conflict?!?

On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 5:10 PM Jerry James wrote: > On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 3:02 PM Richard Shaw wrote: > > Working on a new package and tried to install it only to get: > > > > Error: Transaction check error: > > file /usr/lib/.build-id/67/7d4bdbbde390cc49fddb539cceb06ccb80efd6 from > instal

[Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines. - The Python packaging guidelines have been updated to reflect the fact that Python 2 is deprecated. All relevant information for legacy Python 2 packaging has been moved to the appendix. Together with this change, the rule for naming

Re: Proposal to modify release criteria for fwraid

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 5:16 AM Petr Šabata wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:22:12AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > At yesterday's F29 Go/No-Go meeting, we discussed the blocker status > > of BZ #1628192 - Fedora 29 installation cannot see a firmware RAID > > device. While the blocker cr

Schedule for Monday's FESCo Meeting (2018-09-17)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo meeting Monday at 15:00UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto or run: date -d '2

Re: Changes in packages workflow vs. modular Fedora

On 17.9.2018 12:36, Petr Šabata wrote: On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 11:07:50PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 13.9.2018 22:44, Petr Šabata wrote: On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 04:43:15PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: Hi, I was thinking about this for a while and I got the impression that this is something I

Re: Changes in packages workflow vs. modular Fedora

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 11:07:50PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 13.9.2018 22:44, Petr Šabata wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 04:43:15PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I was thinking about this for a while and I got the impression that this > > > is > > > something I don't

Re: Managing stream (arbitrary) branch and module lifecycles

On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 03:35:50PM +0200, Adam Samalik wrote: > This is a summary of a recent thread [1]. > > Traditional branches (such as "f29") have their EOL (end of life) encoded > in the name. But what about stream branches [2] (such as "2.4" or "latest")? > > Stream branches of RPM package

NoScript: dropping legacy version (for SeaMonkey et al.)

Dear list, as mozilla-noscript maintainer I'm dropping the NPAPI/legacy version of the add-on from the package. I've never actually used it with SeaMonkey and I don't have any free time to test it. Upstream announced a long time ago that it will be supported only until September 2018, when Firefox

Re: Proposal to modify release criteria for fwraid

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:22:12AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > At yesterday's F29 Go/No-Go meeting, we discussed the blocker status > of BZ #1628192 - Fedora 29 installation cannot see a firmware RAID > device. While the blocker criteria clearly states that this should be > a blocker for Beta

Re: What does 141 mean?

On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 11:53:08PM +0200, Björn Persson wrote: > I have a Kerberos authentication problem. > > On one computer running Fedora 27, I run kinit to authenticate to the > Fedora servers. After I enter my passphrase, kinit returns exit status > 141. Then I run "fedpkg build", and get th

Re: Possibly non-responsive maintainer: hguemar

Dne 17.9.2018 v 09:48 Haïkel napsal(a): > Le lun. 17 sept. 2018 à 08:12, Mattia Verga a écrit > : >>> Le dim. 16 sept. 2018 à 11:27, Fabio Valentini >> a écrit : >>> >>> >>> The policy mention that you have to try contacting the maintainer >>> *first*, you never sent me an email or pinged me on

Re: Possibly non-responsive maintainer: hguemar

Le lun. 17 sept. 2018 à 08:12, Mattia Verga a écrit : > > > Le dim. 16 sept. 2018 à 11:27, Fabio Valentini > a écrit : > > > > > > The policy mention that you have to try contacting the maintainer > > *first*, you never sent me an email or pinged me on irc. > > I don't like this kind of passive-a

[Bug 1629605] New: perl-Code-TidyAll-0.71 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1629605 Bug ID: 1629605 Summary: perl-Code-TidyAll-0.71 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-Code-TidyAll Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee: jples.