On 26. 04. 22 17:50, Michael J Gruber wrote:
Hi there,
with an unchanged spec file, I'm getting some new errors from rpminspect now.
And by unchanged spec file, you mean by updating the package to a new version
and not changing anything else, or literally by building the same package
version
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 9/229 (x86_64), 8/161 (aarch64)
ID: 1242529 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1242529
ID: 1242534 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso gnome_text_editor
URL: https://openqa.fedor
Hi,
Neal Gompa wrote:
> I don't know if it's been mentioned,
IIRC, Chris Murphy did.
> but until very recently, pretty
> much all TianoCore based UEFI implementations failed to boot
> protective MBR marked GPT partitions.
> [...]
> https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/commit/b3db0cb1f8d163f22b769c2
On Wed, 2022-04-27 at 03:57 +, rawh...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
> According to the schedule [1], Fedora 36 Candidate RC-1.2 is now
> available for testing. Please help us complete all the validation
> testing! For more information on release validation testing, see:
> https://fedoraproject.org/
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 1:25 PM Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden
wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> There is an ancient version of Puppet in EPEL-7. Version 3.6 has been
> EOL for ages now. https://binford2k.com/2016/11/22/puppet-3.x-eol/ has a
> nice EOL overview:
>
> * Puppet 3 - 2016-12-31
> * Puppet 4 -
I believe it may be time to retire puppet from EPEL 7. The presented
reasons are fair in my opinion.
The el7 users can easily migrate over to higher versions either using the
self-contained package offered by Puppet Labs, or can install the
aforementioned rh-ruby26 and then install puppet >=6 via
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 5/161 (aarch64), 4/229 (x86_64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-36-20220424.n.0):
ID: 1242112 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso install_vnc_server@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1242112
ID: 1242130 Test: aarch64 S
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 5:17 PM Thomas Schmitt wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Brian C. Lane wrote:
> > If this fixes the boot issues with the XPS 15 then it's probably worth
> > using this instead of the 'clean' GPT method and then revisit later once
> > BIOS support finally goes away.
>
> (Now i am not sure
Hi,
Brian C. Lane wrote:
> If this fixes the boot issues with the XPS 15 then it's probably worth
> using this instead of the 'clean' GPT method and then revisit later once
> BIOS support finally goes away.
(Now i am not sure whether i shall hope for a significant test result.)
It should be note
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 02:49:26PM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 2:10 PM Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden
wrote:
Hello everyone,
There is an ancient version of Puppet in EPEL-7. Version 3.6 has been
EOL for ages now. https://binford2k.com/2016/11/22/puppet-3.x-eol/ has a
n
OLD: Fedora-36-20220424.n.0
NEW: Fedora-36-20220425.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:2
Dropped images: 0
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
26. huhtikuuta 2022 10.23.23 GMT+03:00 Michal Josef Spacek
kirjoitti:
>Hi all,
>
>We have asterisk FTBFS for long time
>(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1977579)
>And we have asterisk not upgraded for long time.
>We have many of CVEs in bugzilla (mostly fixed in upstream).
>
>I prepar
On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 10:43:39AM +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i uploaded a new GNU xorriso development tarball for the next experiment
> with the Dell XPS 15 L502X of Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski.
I followed your instructions and confirmed that this method still works
with qemu bios
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 2:10 PM Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden
wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> There is an ancient version of Puppet in EPEL-7. Version 3.6 has been
> EOL for ages now. https://binford2k.com/2016/11/22/puppet-3.x-eol/ has a
> nice EOL overview:
>
> * Puppet 3 - 2016-12-31
> * Puppet 4 -
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 8:25 PM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
> > 4. This is not a policy, but just a guide, an outdated one. Updates
> > policy does not require maintainers to use side tags in this case.
>
> The Updates Policy is not relevant for Rawhide. What is relevant is that
> Rawhide rules
On Tue, 2022-04-26 at 16:02 +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> > Do you have any evidence for this claim that the update will break any
> > package? If so, please share it.
>
> You wrote yourself: "The new major version introduces API break and packages
> may need to
Hello everyone,
There is an ancient version of Puppet in EPEL-7. Version 3.6 has been
EOL for ages now. https://binford2k.com/2016/11/22/puppet-3.x-eol/ has a
nice EOL overview:
* Puppet 3 - 2016-12-31
* Puppet 4 - 2018-10-??
* Puppet 5 - 2021-02-??
Puppet 6 requires a newer Ruby version tha
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 7:05 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 08:02:25PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > rust-ab_glyph orphan, rust-sig 0 weeks
> > ago
> > rust-alsa orphan, rust-sig 0 week
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 08:02:25PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> rust-ab_glyph orphan, rust-sig 0 weeks ago
> rust-alsa orphan, rust-sig 0 weeks ago
> rust-alsa-sys orphan, rust-sig 0 week
Hi there,
with an unchanged spec file, I'm getting some new errors from rpminspect now.
That's why I'm wondering whether something has changed or I've missed a change
to be followed in spec. There are two issues:
Auto-generated library dependencies (f35 f36 f37):
https://osci-jenkins-1.ci.fedor
Le mar. 12 avr. 2022 à 10:04, Miro Hrončok a écrit :
>
> The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they
> are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure
> that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason:
> https://fedorapro
Dear all,
You are kindly invited to the meeting:
Fedora Source-git SIG on 2022-04-27 from 14:30:00 to 15:30:00 GMT
At meet.google.com/mic-otnv-kse
The meeting will be about:
Meeting of the Fedora source-git SIG
Agenda:
https://pagure.io/fedora-source-git/sig/issues?tags=meeting&status=Open
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2078705
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-da0f45d444 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
--adv
Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> Do you have any evidence for this claim that the update will break any
> package? If so, please share it.
You wrote yourself: "The new major version introduces API break and packages
may need to be ported to work with the new version." So it has to be assumed
that depen
Missing expected images:
Minimal raw-xz armhfp
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
1 of 43 required tests failed, 4 results missing
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
below
Failed openQA tests: 9/231 (x86_64), 19/161 (aarch64)
New failures (sam
Adding onto this, as I mentioned an additional step, I can also imagine
defining some macros which would be used in the .spec file. We could
have a simple generic one that would be available within rpm with the
extension possibility of each working group defining their own macros
which they wou
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20220425.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20220426.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 24
Dropped packages:21
Upgraded packages: 72
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 2.78 MiB
Size of dropped packages
> Dne 25. 04. 22 v 10:41 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
>
> We already have signature of source files as additional source.
Do you mean the 'sources' file?
1) This is dist-git feature, external to RPM, which is quite unfortunate.
2) There are certainly requests to include this into .spec file:
https://
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:51 AM Vít Ondruch I also assume that the CI you're talking about already calls spectool
> to download package sources for new versions
I don't think that Koji simple CI nor Zuul does this.
BTW sorry, I just noticed that I have not received ~5 mail from this thread. I
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:49 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2022-04-22 at 11:35 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 22. 04. 22 9:16, Aurelien Bompard wrote:
> > > Hey folks!
> > >
> > > We're having a look at FMN these days, and we're trying to design its
> > > replacement in our Fedora Mess
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-34-20220425.0):
ID: 1240777 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 11:49 AM Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 10:08 AM David Bold
> wrote:
> >
>
> > I think it does require some changes to CI, otherwise, this will execute
> > untrusted code when all it was supposed to do is download. I do
> > currently assume that I can
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 11:50 AM Panu Matilainen wrote:
>
> On 4/7/22 19:13, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RPM-4.18
> >
> > == Summary ==
> > Update RPM to the [https://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.18.0 4.18] release.
> >
>
> FWIW, this is in rawhide now. Submitted yester
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 10:08 AM David Bold wrote:
>
> I think it does require some changes to CI, otherwise, this will execute
> untrusted code when all it was supposed to do is download. I do
> currently assume that I can run `spectool -g` on an untrusted spec to
> look at the source code, wit
On 4/7/22 19:13, Ben Cotton wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RPM-4.18
== Summary ==
Update RPM to the [https://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.18.0 4.18] release.
FWIW, this is in rawhide now. Submitted yesterday already but some
bodhi/koji delay caused it to only go live today AFAICS.
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 1:38 PM Mattia Verga via devel
wrote:
>
> Il 24/04/22 22:06, Mikolaj Izdebski ha scritto:
> > On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 1:56 AM Fabio Valentini
> > wrote:
> >> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 7:26 PM Mikolaj Izdebski
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 9:32 AM Mattia Verga
Hello!
I'd say we need to move forward with it. Looks good to me.
вт, 26 апр. 2022 г. в 10:07, Michal Josef Spacek :
>
> Hi all,
>
> We have asterisk FTBFS for long time
> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1977579)
> And we have asterisk not upgraded for long time.
> We have many of CVE
Missing expected images:
Iot dvd x86_64
Iot dvd aarch64
Failed openQA tests: 2/15 (aarch64)
ID: 1240526 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1240526
ID: 1240539 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso release_identification@uefi
URL: https
On 4/25/22 13:42, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:51 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
2) Standalone script does not solve the main issue and that is a way CI could obtain the tarball.
Of course you mentioned "with support for extraction in spectool", but that is also part
of the issue
Hi all,
We have asterisk FTBFS for long time
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1977579)
And we have asterisk not upgraded for long time.
We have many of CVEs in bugzilla (mostly fixed in upstream).
I prepared PR for fix and upgrade of 18 version in rawhide.
(https://src.fedoraproject.o
I took mcrcon. Co-maintainers welcome.
Paul.
___
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
41 matches
Mail list logo
