> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/polkit_recommends_pkla_pkexec
> See in progress PR: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/polkit/pull-request/2
From a comment in the PR:
> IMHO making polkit-pkla-compat optional is seriously risky. The
> configuration can contain “if user=foo deny” entries,
Thanks a lot for creating this. It wasn't nice experience after running
`restorecon -Rv /` -- yeah, now I know you shouldn't do that on SB.
Jirka
Dne 16. 02. 22 v 18:12 Ben Cotton napsal(a):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Silverblue_Kinoite_readonly_sysroot
== Summary ==
This change
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 10:00 PM Diego Herrera wrote:
>
> Hi. I was checking if the scrcpy software [1] could get packaged, but to
> continue I need to know how to package an APK package file. For context, this
> project consists on a Linux client and an Android server app that is uploaded
> as
On Wed, 2022-02-16 at 22:50 -0500, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> On 2/16/22 18:05, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2022-02-16 at 14:20 -0500, Steven A. Falco wrote:
> > > On 2/16/22 01:58 PM, Dan Horák wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 13:53:04 -0500
> > > > "Steven A. Falco" wrote:
> > > >
> >
On Sun, 2022-02-13 at 14:11 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Hey,
> apparently some ELF files are identical between Fedora's pypy3.7-libs
> and
> pypy3.8-libs packages.
>
> On Fedora 34, this leads to installation conflict:
>
> Error: Transaction test error:
> file /usr/lib/.build-id/39/208b4f57a
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:12:59PM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
> == Summary ==
>
> This change is about enabling an opt-in ostree feature that re-mounts
> `/sysroot` as read only to avoid accidental changes.
>
> Users and administrators are not expected to directly interact with
> the content availa
On 16/02/2022 21:57, Diego Herrera wrote:
I was checking if the scrcpy software [1] could get packaged, but to
continue I need to know how to package an APK package file.
All Fedora packages must be build from sources. You can't package and
redistribute precompiled APK/JAR files.
It must be
Thank you for contributing to Fedora. At the request[1] of Christopher
King (FAS bunnyapocalypse), I have sponsored you to the packager group
as a co-maintainer[2] for the lutris package.
Welcome, and happy packaging!
[1] https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/issue/522
[2]
https://docs.fedorap
Thank you very much! I will not let you down!
Le jeu. 17 févr. 2022, à 09 h 04, Ben Beasley a
écrit :
> Thank you for contributing to Fedora. At the request[1] of Christopher
> King (FAS bunnyapocalypse), I have sponsored you to the packager group
> as a co-maintainer[2] for the lutris package.
On 2/17/22 06:46 AM, Stephen Snow wrote:
On Wed, 2022-02-16 at 22:50 -0500, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
On 2/16/22 18:05, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2022-02-16 at 14:20 -0500, Steven A. Falco wrote:
On 2/16/22 01:58 PM, Dan Horák wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 13:53:04 -0500
"Steven A. Falco"
This is covered by the Updates Policy[1]. There is quite a bit written
there about why an incompatible update might or might not be allowed in
a stable release. It also specifically addresses security updates[2],
and describes how you can petition FESCo for an exception, either for a
particular
On 2/17/22 09:58 AM, Ben Beasley wrote:
This is covered by the Updates Policy[1]. There is quite a bit written there
about why an incompatible update might or might not be allowed in a stable
release. It also specifically addresses security updates[2], and describes how
you can petition FESCo
On 2/16/22 15:57, Diego Herrera wrote:
> Hi. I was checking if the scrcpy software [1] could get packaged, but to
> continue I need to know how to package an APK package file. For context,
> this project consists on a Linux client and an Android server app that is
> uploaded as an APK package by th
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 10:26:54 -0500
"Steven A. Falco" wrote:
> On 2/17/22 09:58 AM, Ben Beasley wrote:
> > This is covered by the Updates Policy[1]. There is quite a bit written
> > there about why an incompatible update might or might not be allowed in a
> > stable release. It also specifically
As a reminder: Beta freeze begins on 22 February and the current
target Beta release date is 15 March.
Action summary
Accepted blockers
-
1. anaconda — When running anaconda on Wayland with two keyboard
layouts configured, hitting any modifier key with the se
On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:27 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
> Now that we've reached the branch point, it's time to start doing
> weekly blocker summaries again! Beta freeze begins on 22 February and
> the current target Beta release date is 15 March.
>
> Action summary
>
>
> Accepted
Il 15/02/22 11:15, Sandro Mani ha scritto:
> Hi
>
> I've submitted the two packages which are missing dependencies for review,
> which I'd appreciate if someone could review, as mingw-python-requests and
> mingw-python-OWSLib are currently FailsToInstall:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:51:13PM -0500, Stephen Snow wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-02-16 at 09:13 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2022-02-16 at 11:21 -0500, Stephen Snow wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > I don't mean to jump in the midle here, and I am just tossing out
> > > an
> > > idea for considera
Missing expected images:
Iot dvd aarch64
Iot dvd x86_64
Failed openQA tests: 2/15 (aarch64), 3/16 (x86_64)
ID: 1133200 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1133200
ID: 1133260 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis
URL: https://
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:09 AM Nikola Forró wrote:
> Hello,
>
> is there anybody willing to review python-specfile [1]?
Your email made me look at this upstream
(https://github.com/packit/specfile). It looks interesting! I wonder
if we could use it more broadly (like for pyrpkg). It reminds me o
On Thu, 2022-02-17 at 19:22 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:51:13PM -0500, Stephen Snow wrote:
> > On Wed, 2022-02-16 at 09:13 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2022-02-16 at 11:21 -0500, Stephen Snow wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > > I don't mean to jum
[resent w/o 500+ kBytes file attached]
Hello,
I've got a very suspiciously looking compilation issues while building
PSPP package. All other arches are good except for ppc64le. Just grep
for "error:" in the build log.
* https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=82939449
* https://kojipk
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Cloud-35-20220216.0):
ID: 1133606 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1133606
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (aarch64)
(Tests
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (aarch64), 1/8 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-34-20220216.0):
ID: 1133009 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi
URL: http
* Peter Lemenkov:
> I've got a very suspiciously looking compilation issues while building
> PSPP package. All other arches are good except for ppc64le. Just grep
> for "error:" in the log attached.
>
> * https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=82939449
> * https://kojipkgs.fedoraproje
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 20:06:48 +0100
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Peter Lemenkov:
>
> > I've got a very suspiciously looking compilation issues while building
> > PSPP package. All other arches are good except for ppc64le. Just grep
> > for "error:" in the log attached.
> >
> > * https://koji.fedorap
On Wed, 2022-02-16 at 13:55 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:38 PM Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mi, 16.02.22 12:12, Ben Cotton (bcot...@redhat.com) wrote:
> >
> > > `pkexec` and `pkla-compat`
> > > ([https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/polkit-pkla-compat package]) a
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 2:28 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-02-16 at 13:55 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:38 PM Lennart Poettering
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mi, 16.02.22 12:12, Ben Cotton (bcot...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > >
> > > > `pkexec` and `pkla-compat`
> >
On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 6:01:48 PM EST Adam Williamson wrote:
> I just tried this, actually, for giggles. Two reasons it's a non-
> starter: it prompts for the root password, not for my user password
> (my user is an 'admin' so far as sudo etc. are concerned, but
> apparently not an 'admin'
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:14 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/polkit_recommends_pkla_pkexec
> [..]
> `pkexec` and `pkla-compat`
> ([https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/polkit-pkla-compat package]) are
> legacy tools that are no longer needed on a desktop and increase
On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 09:17:41 -0800
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-02-16 at 12:12 -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/polkit_recommends_pkla_pkexec
> >
> > == Summary ==
> > Split `pkexec` from the polkit package and make it a recommended
> > only sub-packag
Missing expected images:
Minimal raw-xz armhfp
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: 106/231 (x86_64), 64/161 (aarch64)
New failures
On 17.02.22 18:36, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
Il 15/02/22 11:15, Sandro Mani ha scritto:
Hi
I've submitted the two packages which are missing dependencies for
review, which I'd appreciate if someone could review, as
mingw-python-requests and mingw-python-OWSLib are currently
FailsToInst
On Thu, 2022-02-17 at 15:29 -0500, Owen Taylor wrote:
>
> I just tried this, actually, for giggles. Two reasons it's a non-
> > starter: it prompts for the root password, not for my user password (my
> > user is an 'admin' so far as sudo etc. are concerned, but apparently
> > not an 'admin' so far
OLD: Fedora-36-20220216.n.0
NEW: Fedora-36-20220217.n.1
= SUMMARY =
Added images:16
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 13
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 187
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 32.21 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size
Hi folks! I'm proposing we cancel the QA meeting on Monday. It's a
public holiday where I live, so I won't be around to run the meeting.
I'll plan for one the following week.
If you think there is something important to discuss this week, you
can volunteer to run the meeting by sending out an anno
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20220217.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20220217.n.1
= SUMMARY =
Added images:7
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 6
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 118
Downgraded packages: 1
Size of added packages: 10.59 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 14/229 (x86_64), 17/161 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-36-20220216.n.0):
ID: 1133953 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso support_server
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1133953
ID: 1133974 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd
(same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20220217.n.0):
ID: 1134484 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 base_update_cli@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1134484
ID: 1134728 Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_realmd_client@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1134728
Hi All: I am Yunmei Li and I am working at Zilliz as a DevOps engineer. I am an
active contributor to the Milvus Vector Database project. Zilliz is an
open-source software company dedicated to unstruc___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.o
# F36 Blocker Review meeting
# Date: 2022-02-21
# Time: 17:00 UTC
# Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.libera.chat
Hi folks! We have 4 proposed Beta blockers and 8 proposed Final blockers
to review, so let's have a review meeting on Monday. Note I will not be
around to lead it, Frantisek Zatl
41 matches
Mail list logo
