On 7/5/20 4:47 AM, nick...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
My name is Nikolay Nikolov. I'm a software developer and free/open
source enthusiast. I've been using Linux since Red Hat Linux 5.0. After
Red Hat Linux 9, I upgraded to Fedora Core 1 and I've used every Fedora
version since then. :) I'm a core
On Saturday, July 4, 2020 8:10:49 PM MST Solomon Peachy wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 05:24:05PM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> > There are still new systems built today that only support BIOS, and
> > vendors
> > providing systems factory-configured for BIOS boot on hardware that does
> >
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2020/07/05/report-389-ds-base-1.4.4.3-20200704git017fda0.fc32.x86_64.html
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 05:24:05PM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> There are still new systems built today that only support BIOS, and vendors
> providing systems factory-configured for BIOS boot on hardware that does
> support UEFI.
Lots of hardware has a very long tail -- For example,
The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
3 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-b1a8a3c29a
putty-0.74-1.el6
The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 6 updates-testing
python-gnupg-0.4.6-1.el6
Details about builds:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1847506
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-Rose-DB-Object-0.819-1 |perl-Rose-DB-Object-0.819-1
Hello,
My name is Nikolay Nikolov. I'm a software developer and free/open
source enthusiast. I've been using Linux since Red Hat Linux 5.0. After
Red Hat Linux 9, I upgraded to Fedora Core 1 and I've used every Fedora
version since then. :) I'm a core developer of the Free Pascal Compiler
(
On Saturday, July 4, 2020 6:05:19 AM MST Richard Shaw wrote:
> I've been needing to lighten my packaging load for some time now so I
> wanted to ask, will someone, who preferably knows a little haskell (I
> don't), like to help maintain hedgewars? Or even take it over?
>
> My kids don't play it
On Saturday, July 4, 2020 8:59:09 AM MST Lennart Poettering wrote:
> You can always enter its UI if you like, which is useful if the OS you
> come from doesn't support the interfaces as well as Linux does.
That should really be the default, as with the default, sane, bootloader..
> BTW, I think
On Saturday, July 4, 2020 9:19:34 AM MST Lennart Poettering wrote:
> If it way my decision I'd propose the following as the path to the
> future:
>
> 1. Unify/standardize on the boot loader spec, not the boot loader
>
> 2. Let's use UEFI as model and make MBR boots more alike UEFI then the
>
On Saturday, July 4, 2020 6:44:55 AM MST Solomon Peachy wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 01:24:46PM -, ziba wrote:
> > Fedora should absolutely CONTINUE supporting BIOS boot (sometimes wrongly
> > labeled "legacy BIOS").
>
> Yep, Fedora should continue supporting BIOS boot at least for the
On Friday, July 3, 2020 10:11:53 PM MST Alexey Avramov wrote:
> >it should be disabled so it doesn't kill our software
>
>
> What should people who suffer from the fact that the kernel's OOM killer
> does not work, and they are forced to hard reboot (and lose unsaved data)
> the computer when
On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 3:29 PM Scott Schmit wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 10:37:43AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:29 PM Scott Schmit wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 03:40:11PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > > > Databases and VM images are things btrfs
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 01:33:37PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On 6/29/20 12:23 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > Maybe not a desktop question, but do you know btrfs's change
> > attribute/i_version status? Does it default to bumping i_version on
> > each change, or does that still need to be opted
On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 09:48:04AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 06:37:09PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 8:10 AM Milan Crha wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > > I'm sorry for a late notice, the 3.37.3 release (will be done today) of
> > > the
On 7/3/20 9:37 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
To give the nodatacow suggestion a try:
## shutdown the database
# mkdir /var/lib/mysql2
# chattr +C /var/lib/mysql2
# cp /var/lib/mysql/* /var/lib/mysql2/
# rm /var/lib/mysql/
# mv /var/lib/mysql2/ /var/lib/mysql/
## resume operation
To avoid possible
On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 10:37:43AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:29 PM Scott Schmit wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 03:40:11PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > > Databases and VM images are things btrfs is bad at out of the box.
> > > Most of this has to do with
On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 05:20:48PM +0200, Iñaki Ucar wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jul 2020 at 16:20, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> >
> > > > Would the maintainer consider switching the whole thing to LGPLv3?
> > > > This would preserve the freeness of his code and be much less hassle
> > > > for
On 7/4/20 11:54 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 12:28 PM Samuel Sieb wrote:
It is available on F31, I have it installed. When I checked the
version, I found that it's a module, so you wouldn't see it in that
location. You can just dnf install it and it will work.
# rpm -q
On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 12:53 PM Randy Barlow
wrote:
>
> On 7/3/20 12:41 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > # rm -rf/var/lib/mysql/
> >
> >> # mv/var/lib/mysql2/ /var/lib/mysql/
> >> ## resume operation
> > BTW this should be proofread/sanity checked, especially because
> > there's an rm command (that
On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 12:28 PM Samuel Sieb wrote:
>
> On 7/4/20 1:35 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Wed, 1 Jul 2020 09:34:18 +0530
> > Sumantro Mukherjee escreveu:
> >> [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:F33_SwapOnZRAM
> >
> > Hmm... it mentions that Fedora 31 would be ok for
On 7/3/20 12:41 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
# rm -rf/var/lib/mysql/
# mv/var/lib/mysql2/ /var/lib/mysql/
## resume operation
BTW this should be proofread/sanity checked, especially because
there's an rm command (that will fail in the original).
You also might need a restorecon after this, since
Igor has now built new packages in koji for fc31, fc32, and fc33. I
expect we'll use those for the test day. Thanks Igor!
--
Chris Murphy
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 10:19 AM Lennart Poettering wrote:
> If it way my decision I'd propose the following as the path to the
> future:
>
> 1. Unify/standardize on the boot loader spec, not the boot loader
>
> 2. Let's use UEFI as model and make MBR boots more alike UEFI then the
>other way
On 7/4/20 1:35 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
Em Wed, 1 Jul 2020 09:34:18 +0530
Sumantro Mukherjee escreveu:
[0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:F33_SwapOnZRAM
Hmm... it mentions that Fedora 31 would be ok for the tests, but
the zram-generator package is not available on Fedora 31:
On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 06:37:09PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 8:10 AM Milan Crha wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> > I'm sorry for a late notice, the 3.37.3 release (will be done today) of
> > the evolution-data-server has a soname version bump on the
> > libedataserver
On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 8:10 AM Milan Crha wrote:
>
> Hello,
> I'm sorry for a late notice, the 3.37.3 release (will be done today) of
> the evolution-data-server has a soname version bump on the
> libedataserver library. It has a change on an EWebDAVSession API, which
> I do not think is
On Mi, 01.07.20 17:19, Javier Martinez Canillas (jav...@dowhile0.org) wrote:
> > Note that the spec has extension points (i.e. it's permissible to add
> > new fields without this breaking the spec), but turning it into a
> > programming lnaguage is wy outside of it...
> >
>
> I wouldn't
If no one else speaks up soon, I'll take it.
\--
Gwyn Ciesla
she/her/hers
\
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love
\-d. bowie
Sent from ProtonMail mobile
\ Original Message
On Jul 4,
On Do, 02.07.20 17:24, Alex Thomas (karlth...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Question about systemd-boot vs GRUB2.
> One of the current stumbling blocks is the lack of LUKS2 support in
> GRUB2. Does sytemd-boot support LUKS2?
No it does not. Why would you encrypt your kernel/initrd?
On UEFI you have to
On 04.07.20 17:59, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> btw, sd-boot has a few tricks up its sleeve: if during boot you keep
> "w" pressed down it will automatically boot into windows, similar if
> you keep "l" pressed down it will automaticall boot into linux, "a"
> will boot into macos, all without
On Do, 02.07.20 15:30, Brandon Nielsen (niels...@jetfuse.net) wrote:
> I don't think removing BIOS support _today_ is the right answer either. I
> have BIOS only hardware kicking around, and quite a bit of my UEFI hardware
> still supports legacy BIOS booting as well (though I don't use it).
>
>
On Sat, 2020-07-04 at 09:44 -0400, Solomon Peachy wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 01:24:46PM -, ziba wrote:
> > Fedora should absolutely CONTINUE supporting BIOS boot (sometimes
> > wrongly
> > labeled "legacy BIOS").
>
> Yep, Fedora should continue supporting BIOS boot at least for the
>
Am Mi., 1. Juli 2020 um 00:52 Uhr schrieb Jerry James :
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 4:01 PM Tom Callaway wrote:
> > lua-event seems to be broken because of broken deps unrelated to Lua 5.4:
> > nothing provides perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.30.1) needed by
> > perl-Monotone-1.1-34.fc32.x86_64, so I left
Sergio Belkin wrote:
> So the question is: in this case I can override the Fedora compiler flags?
Just append -Wno-error=format-security, and if you want to get this out of
the build log entirely, also -Wno-format-security. You don't have to
actually remove any of the Fedora flags, appended
On Sa, 04.07.20 11:39, Mauricio Tavares (raubvo...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 11:30 AM Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mi, 01.07.20 22:10, Neal Gompa (ngomp...@gmail.com) wrote:
> >
> > > This could still work. But you really shouldn't accept butt-ugliness
> > > from any
On Mi, 01.07.20 22:55, John M. Harris Jr (joh...@splentity.com) wrote:
> Lennart,
>
> We don't need more systemd-bloat just to boot our systems. However your
> bootloader works, it doesn't really matter if it's not up to snuff with GRUB2.
> When it supports LUKS, LVM, LUKS+LVM, a recovery console
On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 11:30 AM Lennart Poettering wrote:
>
> On Mi, 01.07.20 22:10, Neal Gompa (ngomp...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> > This could still work. But you really shouldn't accept butt-ugliness
> > from any user-facing technology, even sd-boot.
>
> Dude, maybe what is "butt-ugly" and what
On Mi, 01.07.20 22:10, Neal Gompa (ngomp...@gmail.com) wrote:
> This could still work. But you really shouldn't accept butt-ugliness
> from any user-facing technology, even sd-boot.
Dude, maybe what is "butt-ugly" and what isn't is in the eye of the
beholder, and maybe if you want to spend the
On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 11:20 AM Lennart Poettering wrote:
>
> On Mi, 01.07.20 21:06, Neal Gompa (ngomp...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> > The user-interactive portion of sd-boot is *awful*. I know our GRUB
> > looks ugly by default these days too, but it doesn't have to be, and
> > most distros actually
On Do, 02.07.20 12:46, Peter Robinson (pbrobin...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 12:19 AM Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
> wrote:
> >
> > On 30.6.2020 22:38, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > > Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> > >> sd-boot is already installed on end users system, is light weight
> > >>
On Sat, 4 Jul 2020 at 16:20, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> > > Would the maintainer consider switching the whole thing to LGPLv3?
> > > This would preserve the freeness of his code and be much less hassle
> > > for everyone involved, with no interpretation of new legal texts required.
>
On Mi, 01.07.20 21:06, Neal Gompa (ngomp...@gmail.com) wrote:
> The user-interactive portion of sd-boot is *awful*. I know our GRUB
> looks ugly by default these days too, but it doesn't have to be, and
> most distros actually do make it look semi-decent.
BTW, the current look of systemd-boot
On Mi, 01.07.20 22:09, John M. Harris Jr (joh...@splentity.com) wrote:
> GRUB2 supports UEFI well, probably better than systemd-bloat. At the same
> time, it's much more flexible in other aspects, providing users with the
> ability to boot their system in a number of situations that systemd-bloat
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 06:26:23PM +0200, Tomas Hrnciar wrote:
Hello everyone,
there are plenty of Python packages in Fedora currently using setuptools at
buildtime but not all of them are BuildRequiring it explicitly. This only works
because python3-devel (transitively) depends on
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 06:26:23PM +0200, Tomas Hrnciar wrote:
Hello everyone,
there are plenty of Python packages in Fedora currently using setuptools at
buildtime but not all of them are BuildRequiring it explicitly. This only works
because python3-devel (transitively) depends on
On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 06:11:08PM +0200, Iñaki Ucar wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 at 16:15, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 09:50:47AM +0200, Iñaki Ucar wrote:
> > > On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 at 18:39, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 01. 07. 20 16:24, Ben
On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 01:24:46PM -, ziba wrote:
> Fedora should absolutely CONTINUE supporting BIOS boot (sometimes wrongly
> labeled "legacy BIOS").
Yep, Fedora should continue supporting BIOS boot at least for the next
few years. This question will surely be revisited after the
On Saturday, 4 July 2020 15:09:06 CEST Chenxiong Qi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could anyone please review the package python-json?
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853829
>
> Thanks!
>
A few minor things to fix and you're good to go.
___
Hi, I am participating in https://github.com/codito/gnome-pomodoro/issues/456
thread and it was mentioned by @mbooth101 to ask for advice here.
Is it possible to build gnome-pomodoro on Centos 8.2?
I am a total newb at building packages, and this is my first attempt. The best
possible result
> This post is just to gather feed back why Fedora should still continue
> to support legacy BIOS boot as opposed to stop supporting it
Fedora should absolutely CONTINUE supporting BIOS boot (sometimes wrongly
labeled "legacy BIOS").
Some of the finest hardware around uses trusty BIOS and
Hi,
Could anyone please review the package python-json?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853829
Thanks!
--
Regards,
Chenxiong Qi
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
I've been needing to lighten my packaging load for some time now so I
wanted to ask, will someone, who preferably knows a little haskell (I
don't), like to help maintain hedgewars? Or even take it over?
My kids don't play it anymore, which was my original reason for taking it.
Thanks,
Richard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853803
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853803
--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
the-new-hotness/release-monitoring.org's scratch build of
perl-Module-Signature-0.87-1.fc32.src.rpm for rawhide completed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=46563346
--
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853803
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
Created attachment 1699910
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1699910=edit
[patch] Update to 0.87 (#1853803)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853803
Bug ID: 1853803
Summary: perl-Module-Signature-0.87 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Module-Signature
Keywords: FutureFeature,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853802
Bug ID: 1853802
Summary: font selection is broken on
perl-Tk-804.035-1.fc32.x86_64
Product: Fedora
Version: 32
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 21:03:09 -0600
Jerry James wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 12:06 PM Susi Lehtola
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 10:54:16 -0600
> > Jerry James wrote:
> > > openblas-serial: use if the application is multithreaded
> > > openblas-threads: use if the application is
On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 10:35:19AM +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Wed, 1 Jul 2020 09:34:18 +0530
> Sumantro Mukherjee escreveu:
>
> > Hey Testers,
> >
> > Monday, 2020-07-06 will be SwapOnZRAM Test Day[0]!
> >
> > This Test Day will focus on SwapOnZRAM[1]. Swap partition is useful,
>
Em Wed, 1 Jul 2020 09:34:18 +0530
Sumantro Mukherjee escreveu:
> Hey Testers,
>
> Monday, 2020-07-06 will be SwapOnZRAM Test Day[0]!
>
> This Test Day will focus on SwapOnZRAM[1]. Swap partition is useful,
> except when it's slow. Zram is a RAM drive that uses compression.
> Create a
Releng is resposible for this at docker hub.
So, i filed out a report at releng a while a go.
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9541
Not sure when the update will be happen.
cheers,
Wolfgang
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
Le vendredi 03 juillet 2020 à 11:09 -0700, PGNet Dev a écrit :
>
> %define _build_timestamp %( date +%Y%m%d_%H%M%S )
>
You’re hitting rpm macro expansion and the fact someone added %S as
alias to%SOURCE in recent rpm versions (source management is an unholly
mess in original rpm and
Le vendredi 03 juillet 2020 à 08:24 -0700, PGNet Dev a écrit :
>
>
> On 7/3/20 12:01 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > You added some processing that depends on the git command (that
> > forgemeta does not use) but forgot to BuildRequire the package
> > providing that command.
>
> It's _clearly_
64 matches
Mail list logo
