https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884870
Bug ID: 1884870
Summary: perl-File-Temp-0.2311 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-File-Temp
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884870
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
One or more of the new sources for this package are identical to the old
sources. It's likely this package does not use the version macro in its Source
URLs. If possible, please update the
Apology for the late reply. I had email issues from upstream community
recently. Somehow my Redhat Bugzilla account seems not accessible anymore
either. I recreated the account with the same email address
(l...@mellanox.com). Is this what's needed for this issue?
Thanks!
Liming
On October 2, 2020, at 11:04 PM, Ruki Wang wrote:
Hi, every one.
I am making rpm spec and doing tests on copr.
But on opensuse-leap-15.1-*, %set_build_flags still causes some problems.
+ %set_build_flags
/var/tmp/rpm-tmp.9RYL8i: line 32: fg: no job control
error: Bad exit status from
Hi, every one.
I am making rpm spec and doing tests on copr.
But on opensuse-leap-15.1-*, %set_build_flags still causes some problems.
+ %set_build_flags
/var/tmp/rpm-tmp.9RYL8i: line 32: fg: no job control
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.9RYL8i (%build)
Bad exit status from
The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
7 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-1790461e43
chromium-85.0.4183.121-1.el8
1 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-0f2bfced63
prosody-0.11.7-1.el8
The following builds
The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
6 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-7d1114b762
xawtv-3.105-2.el6
1 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-f853880b07
prosody-0.11.7-1.el6
The following builds have been
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882211
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-e901c1d17c has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884124
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-e901c1d17c has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882212
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-ad3c4ad1a6 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884123
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-ad3c4ad1a6 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
8 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-ea01d505c9
pdns-4.1.14-1.el7
6 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-a37e7c643e
xawtv-3.107-1.el7
4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882212
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-be513b3268 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884123
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-be513b3268 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884124
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-a525770475 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882211
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-a525770475 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880850
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-libwww-perl-6.48-1.fc3 |perl-libwww-perl-6.48-1.fc3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882183
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-libwww-perl-6.49-1.fc3 |perl-libwww-perl-6.49-1.fc3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880850
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-libwww-perl-6.48-1.fc3 |perl-libwww-perl-6.48-1.fc3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882183
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-libwww-perl-6.49-1.fc3 |perl-libwww-perl-6.49-1.fc3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882938
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882958
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In
On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 9:10 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> == How To Test ==
> The change could be tested by booting ISO images from the compose
> below. Regular Fedora test suite should be sufficient to verify this
> change.
>
On 10/1/20 11:05 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 2020-10-01 at 14:01 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 2020-10-01 at 19:47 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 01. 10. 20 19:20, Simo Sorce wrote:
and the policy affects all software on the system, not just thunderbird ...
Is it possible to workaround
On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 18:53, Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
> - golang-github-willf-bitset-devel is newer in 32 than in 33:
> 0:1.1.11-1.fc32 > 0:1.1.10-5.fc33
>
> Updated builds for f33 seem to have been missed by the maintainer, f34 and f32
> have version 1.1.11, but f33 doesn't.
>
Well, I have a
Hi everybody,
I've compiled an updated list of package downgrades when comparing
fedora 32 to fedora 33. Note that a lot of packages were either not
built for f33 at all (packagers missing the branch point?), or had no
bodhi update created for updates (packagers missing the bodhi
activation
Hi Rahul,
On Fri, 2020-10-02 at 17:30 -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 4:57 PM Boian Bonev wrote:
> > I didn't start that project, just improved it, and somehow changing
> > the
> >
> > name does not seem right to me :)
Here I mean the project name, which is
If you're already on Fedora 33 would you please help us test out the pending
updates
to our container runtimes and give a +1 or -1 in the bodhi update?
podman and friends:
- https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7b6058fec9
- sudo dnf upgrade --advisory
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884124
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #6 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884123
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #6 from
On 10/2/20 12:47 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 7:37 PM Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/2/20 12:32 PM, Ben Cotton wrote:
Beta is out! Time to focus on Final blockers.
Action summary
Accepted blockers
-
1. firefox — Firefox not using langpacks
Hi
On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 4:57 PM Boian Bonev wrote:
>
> I didn't start that project, just improved it, and somehow changing the
> name does not seem right to me :)
>
This isn't a minor change and the current name is a bit awkward and because
of a shared name, you have to deal with Conflicts
Hi Matthew,
On Fri, 2020-10-02 at 16:09 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
...
> > For start I have prepared iotop-c:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878529
>
> Looks pretty straightforward. One thing worth noting is that we
> discourage
> using "Conflicts:"
>
On Fri, 2020-10-02 at 10:50 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > I think I have another build ordering issue. Recently libevent had
> > a
> > soname bump and deps were built in a side tag. However, in ELN
> > openmpi-4.0.5-2.eln103 (which was the release bump for the libevent
> > rebuild) was
On 28/09/2020 16:20, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 03:07:39PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> 5. you can now use
>>
>> rsync --dry-run /mnt/sda1_non_raid /mnt/btrfs_new
>>
>> to see if every file on the sda1 side of the mirror matches what was
>> copied to Btrfs
>
> Add
F33 Blocker Review meeting
# Date: 2020-10-05
# Time: 16:00 UTC
# Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net
Hi folks! We have 5 proposed Final blockers and 4 proposed Final
freeze exceptions, so we'll have a Fedora 33 blocker review meeting on
Monday.
If you have time this weekend,
On Fri, 02 Oct 2020 18:11:45 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 15:58:51 +0200, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 at 09:41, Jan Kratochvil
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 14:50:39 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > > > = What I am NOT working on
> > > [...]
>
On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 10:56:09PM +0300, Boian Bonev wrote:
> I am involved with couple of open source projects and plan to package
> and maintain them for Fedora.
Hi! Welcome -- that's awesome!
> For start I have prepared iotop-c:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878529
Looks
Hello,
I am involved with couple of open source projects and plan to package
and maintain them for Fedora.
My packaging skills are far from perfect, but on the other hand, since
I am doing the upstream development+release it is convenient to do
both. It would be better if someone is interested
On 10/2/20 06:09, Lumír Balhar wrote:
Hello.
I have fully upgraded Fedora 33 on my laptop and when I try to use
podman and install httpd package into container, I get the following
error message:
Error unpacking rpm package httpd-2.4.46-1.fc32.x86_64
error: unpacking of archive failed on
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 23:42:56 +0200, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-09-28 at 16:50 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > For example during Fedora Package Review Process do some packages get
> > rejected because they would make the distribution too large? Not worth of
> > including such
On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 7:37 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
> On 10/2/20 12:32 PM, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > Beta is out! Time to focus on Final blockers.
> >
> > Action summary
> >
> >
> > Accepted blockers
> > -
> > 1. firefox — Firefox not using langpacks for
On 02.10.2020 20:33, Jeff Law wrote:
> I would suggest looking for any uses of -fPIE when compiling the C/C++
> sources. PIE allows local binding for some object acceses (and again,
> its local binding of objects that runs afoul of key aspects of the QT
> libraries).
Nothing here.
Full build
On 10/2/20 12:32 PM, Ben Cotton wrote:
Beta is out! Time to focus on Final blockers.
Action summary
Accepted blockers
-
1. firefox — Firefox not using langpacks for localization — ASSIGNED
ACTION: firefox maintainers to fix issue
2. sddm — login stuck
On 10/2/20 6:31 AM, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
On 01.10.2020 22:48, Jeff Law wrote:
What you want to do to fix this is force -fPIC into the build flags.
That inhibits local symbol resolution and the copy relocs that are so
problematical for QT. You can see examples of how to do this in
Beta is out! Time to focus on Final blockers.
Action summary
Accepted blockers
-
1. firefox — Firefox not using langpacks for localization — ASSIGNED
ACTION: firefox maintainers to fix issue
2. sddm — login stuck when changing users repeatedly (log out, log
Many thanks!
--Greg
On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 1:26 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 02. 10. 20 20:15, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 02. 10. 20 20:12, Neal Gompa wrote:
> >> On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 2:10 PM Greg Hellings
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I built an RC1 of my package into Rawhide about 3 weeks ago. I
On 02. 10. 20 20:15, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 02. 10. 20 20:12, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 2:10 PM Greg Hellings wrote:
I built an RC1 of my package into Rawhide about 3 weeks ago. I tried to build
RC3 today, but the build failed on the final steps. My package includes a
Python
On 02. 10. 20 20:12, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 2:10 PM Greg Hellings wrote:
I built an RC1 of my package into Rawhide about 3 weeks ago. I tried to build
RC3 today, but the build failed on the final steps. My package includes a
Python wrapper with Swig and the following file:
On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 2:10 PM Greg Hellings wrote:
>
> I built an RC1 of my package into Rawhide about 3 weeks ago. I tried to build
> RC3 today, but the build failed on the final steps. My package includes a
> Python wrapper with Swig and the following file:
>
>
I built an RC1 of my package into Rawhide about 3 weeks ago. I tried to
build RC3 today, but the build failed on the final steps. My package
includes a Python wrapper with Swig and the following file:
%{python3_sitearch}/_Sword.cpython-%{python3_version_nodots}*-%{_arch}-linux-gnu*.so
%{_arch}
On 02. 10. 20 16:05, Alexander Scheel wrote:
I've got a weird one:
Error:
Problem 1: package openssh-ldap-debuginfo-8.3p1-3.fc32.x86_64
requires openssh-debuginfo(x86-64) = 8.3p1-3.fc32, but none of the
providers can be installed
- openssh-debuginfo-8.3p1-3.fc32.x86_64 does not belong to a
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/16 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-IoT-33-20200928.0):
ID: 683688 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis
URL:
On 10/2/20 10:01 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/2/20 6:31 AM, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
On 01.10.2020 22:48, Jeff Law wrote:
What you want to do to fix this is force -fPIC into the build flags.
That inhibits local symbol resolution and the copy relocs that are so
problematical for QT. You
On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 10:17 AM Helg Green via devel
wrote:
> https://github.com/SimplestStudio/simplest-studio/blob/master/simplest-studio.spec
See the attached spec file, which gives me a successful build. I'll
walk through what I changed from top to bottom.
License: the name Fedora uses is
Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event
for Fedora-IoT 33 RC 20201002.0. Please help run some tests for this
nightly compose if you have time. For more information on nightly
release validation testing, see:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884617
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1766778
|
https://github.com/SimplestStudio/simplest-studio/blob/master/simplest-studio.spec
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
Take some time but All went smothly, so the unique problem I found was
with the following two packed I've had to remove:
1. copyq
Error:
Problema: conflicting requests
- nothing provides qt5-qtbase(x86-64) = 5.14.2 needed by copyq-3.12.0-
4.fc33.x86_64
2. openjfx - I've remove it and then
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 15:58:51 +0200, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 at 09:41, Jan Kratochvil
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 14:50:39 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > > = What I am NOT working on
> > [...]
> > > - Any other tool, project not mentioned above or other
> > >
On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 9:13 PM Carl George wrote:
>
> Here is my rough outline of the steps required to implement this proposal.
> I imagine things would happen roughly in this order, but some things could
> probably take place in parallel.
>
> 1. EPEL Steering Committee approves the proposal
>
On 10/2/20 6:31 AM, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
On 01.10.2020 22:48, Jeff Law wrote:
What you want to do to fix this is force -fPIC into the build flags.
That inhibits local symbol resolution and the copy relocs that are so
problematical for QT. You can see examples of how to do this in
On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 3:59 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Do you want to make Fedora 33 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time
> and try to run:
>
Error:
Problem: problem with installed package mosquitto-1.6.10-1.fc32.x86_64
- mosquitto-1.6.10-1.fc32.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
Greetings everyone.
I'd like to announce the revival of the Mobility SIG.
Current efforts are focusing on the pine64 pinephone,
but of course other mobile devices welcome.
We are planning an initial meeting:
2020-10-06 at 16UTC in #fedora-meeting on freenode.
There is a bridged chat room
Greetings everyone.
I'd like to announce the revival of the Mobility SIG.
Current efforts are focusing on the pine64 pinephone,
but of course other mobile devices welcome.
We are planning an initial meeting:
2020-10-06 at 16UTC in #fedora-meeting on freenode.
There is a bridged chat room
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884617
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|F32->F33 upgrade: package |F32->F33 upgrade: obsolete
Hey All,
Fedora 33 Cloud Test Day happening on Monday, October 5th, 2020!
A test day is an event where anyone can help make sure that changes in
Fedora are working well in the upcoming release. Fedora community
members often participate, but the public is welcome also. You only
need to be able
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OptimizeSquashFSOnDVDByRemovingEXT4FilesystemImageLayer
== Summary ==
Change the process of building installation images such that the
Squash filesystem image, which is present on netinstall and DVD ISO
images, doesn't contain the EXT4 filesystem image. As a
On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 7:19 AM Helg Green via devel
wrote:
> I rewrote the project in Debug mode in Qt Creator, but it doesn't help, the
> same error appears.
Where is your latest spec file? I'll take a look at it.
--
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OptimizeSquashFSOnDVDByRemovingEXT4FilesystemImageLayer
== Summary ==
Change the process of building installation images such that the
Squash filesystem image, which is present on netinstall and DVD ISO
images, doesn't contain the EXT4 filesystem image. As a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884617
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(jplesnik@redhat.c |
|om)
On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 1:50 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Do you want to make Fedora 33 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and
> try to run:
I get a handful of downgrades:
Downgrading:
appstream-data noarch 32-7.fc33fedora 17 M
mod_http2
> I think I have another build ordering issue. Recently libevent had a
> soname bump and deps were built in a side tag. However, in ELN
> openmpi-4.0.5-2.eln103 (which was the release bump for the libevent
> rebuild) was built before libevent-2.1.12-2.eln103 was. Now I'm getting
> spammed every
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884617
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 03:37:21PM +0200, Eugene Syromiatnikov wrote:
> > FFS, if Fedora is "bad" for doing these things, how is MacOS, iOS,
> > Android, or even Windows acceptible?
> >
> > (out-of-the-box, that is. because that's what we're talking about here)
>
> They are not, and that is
I've got a weird one:
Error:
Problem 1: package openssh-ldap-debuginfo-8.3p1-3.fc32.x86_64
requires openssh-debuginfo(x86-64) = 8.3p1-3.fc32, but none of the
providers can be installed
- openssh-debuginfo-8.3p1-3.fc32.x86_64 does not belong to a
distupgrade repository
- problem with
On Fri, 2020-10-02 at 00:50 +0200, Marius Schwarz wrote:
> Am 01.10.20 um 19:36 schrieb Simo Sorce:
> > That said,
> > if it really is an internal DNS and there are strong policies around it
> > I assume that the perimeter or the local machine firewall will be
> > configured to block UDP packets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884617
Ben Cotton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|CLOSED |NEW
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884617
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Resolution|---
On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 09:23:12AM -0400, Solomon Peachy wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 02:34:15PM +0200, Eugene Syromiatnikov wrote:
> > Only those that think that they are smarter that a user and ignore her/his
> > privacy.
>
> In other words, all of them?
>
> FFS, if Fedora is "bad" for
On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 02:34:15PM +0200, Eugene Syromiatnikov wrote:
> Only those that think that they are smarter that a user and ignore her/his
> privacy.
In other words, all of them?
FFS, if Fedora is "bad" for doing these things, how is MacOS, iOS,
Android, or even Windows acceptible?
I rewrote the project in Debug mode in Qt Creator, but it doesn't help, the
same error appears.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884617
Bug ID: 1884617
Summary: F32->F33 upgrade: package
perl-Crypt-Random-TESHA2-0.01-15.fc32.noarch requires
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.30.1), but none of the providers
On Friday, October 2, 2020 3:50:19 AM EDT Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> dnf --releasever=33 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f33 \
> --enablerepo=updates-testing --enablerepo=updates-testing-modular \
> distro-sync
Error:
Problem: problem with installed package
Hello everyone,
python-flit was updated to version 3.0.0 in rawhide. Flit now requires
metadata in pyproject.toml file instead of flit.init. We have fixed 2 Fedora
packages affected by this change so there is no action needed from your
side. This is just a heads up in case you will use Flit in
On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 07:16:38AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 12:34 am, Marius Schwarz
> wrote:
> >If you send a DNS REQUEST to a US DNS server from within a company
> >network, and with ipv6 the internal ip is sent out i learned lately, you
> >have sent personal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884606
Bug ID: 1884606
Summary: perl-Mojolicious-8.61 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Mojolicious
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
On Thu, 2020-10-01 at 20:10 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 01/10/2020 20:02, Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> > You mean Fedora 33 release notes ?
> > We already blocked things like TLS1.0/1.1 in previous Fedras, and that
> > had a larger impact on legacy enterprise laggards, I do not know if
> > this
On 01.10.2020 22:48, Jeff Law wrote:
> What you want to do to fix this is force -fPIC into the build flags.
> That inhibits local symbol resolution and the copy relocs that are so
> problematical for QT. You can see examples of how to do this in the
> clementine package.
Telegram Desktop
Hello,
I filed another change proposal, which is related to the original one:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OptimizeSquashFSOnDVDByRemovingEXT4FilesystemImageLayer
The new proposal does not change compression parameters of the SquashFS
image on DVD.
On 18/09/2020 12:54, Zbigniew
On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 12:34 am, Marius Schwarz
wrote:
If you send a DNS REQUEST to a US DNS server from within a company
network, and with ipv6 the internal ip is sent out i learned lately,
you
have sent personal data which is protected under the GDRP. It's not
unlikely to use company pcs
On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 09:50:19AM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Do you want to make Fedora 33 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and
> try to run:
Congratulations, this is overall the most problem-free upgrade I've
encountered at the beta stage!
On two different F32 x86_64 servers, a
On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 09:50:19AM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case, please
> report it against the appropriate package.
Error:
Problem: problem with installed package mosquitto-1.6.10-1.fc32.x86_64
-
On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 6:30 AM Richard Shaw wrote:
> Error:
> Problem 1: problem with installed package
> qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld-5.14.2-1.fc32.x86_64
> - qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld-5.14.2-1.fc32.x86_64 does not belong to a
> distupgrade repository
> - nothing provides
Error:
Problem 1: problem with installed package
qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld-5.14.2-1.fc32.x86_64
- qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld-5.14.2-1.fc32.x86_64 does not belong to a
distupgrade repository
- nothing provides qt5-qtwebengine(x86-64) = 5.15.0 needed by
* Miroslav Suchý:
> Do you want to make Fedora 33 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and
> try to run:
>
> # Run this only if you use default Fedora modules
> # next time you run any DNF command default modules will be enabled again
> sudo dnf module reset '*'
>
> sudo dnf
Hello.
I have fully upgraded Fedora 33 on my laptop and when I try to use
podman and install httpd package into container, I get the following
error message:
Error unpacking rpm package httpd-2.4.46-1.fc32.x86_64
error: unpacking of archive failed on file /usr/sbin/suexec;5f76fa6a:
cpio:
Hi,
I was in contact with Sebastian, who used to work for RH and maintained
several Fedora packages. However, due to chances in his live, he decided
to orphan his packages. Since he is not subscribed to fedora-devel ML,
I'm forwarding his email.
Vít
Přeposlaná zpráva
On Friday, October 2, 2020 10:05:11 AM WEST Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 02. 10. 20 10:59, José Abílio Matos wrote:
> > Problem 2: package hippo-canvas-0.3.0-28.fc30.x86_64 requires
> >
> > libcroco-0.6.so.3()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> >
> >-
On Friday, October 2, 2020 10:04:34 AM WEST Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Or a broken sed in %prep:
>
> sed -i 's/python/python3/' *.py
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871631
You are right, I arrived to the same conclusion. The sed call was required
with previous versions but
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
