On Mon, 2022-11-21 at 16:39 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > >
> > > We could do the same thing SUSE does and switch to calling
> > > scripts/tools to install into /boot and /boot/efi rather than doing it
> > > directly from RPM. That would simplify the logic of bootupd and allow
> > > it to just call
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022, at 3:52 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> In particular, two reasons why an upgrade might be interrupted were raised:
> power being cut and the system crashing. Bootupd (or any other daemon) cannot
> do much about crashes so this isn't a good motivation. For power, w
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 4:17 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 03:55:45PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 3:53 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FedoraSilverblueBootupd
> > > > == Sum
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 03:55:45PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 3:53 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> >
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FedoraSilverblueBootupd
> > > == Summary ==
> > >
> > > By design, ostree does not manage bootloader updates as they c
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 3:53 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FedoraSilverblueBootupd
> > == Summary ==
> >
> > By design, ostree does not manage bootloader updates as they can not
> > (yet) happen in a transactional, atomic and safe fashion. Thus
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FedoraSilverblueBootupd
> == Summary ==
>
> By design, ostree does not manage bootloader updates as they can not
> (yet) happen in a transactional, atomic and safe fashion. Thus bootupd
> (https://github.com/coreos/bootupd) was created to solve this issue
>
The 1.6 series of both GSSDP and GUPnP was released a while ago, and the
1.6.2 releases contain an important fix for Rygel (which itself depends
on the 1.6 series in the latest version):
https://discourse.gnome.org/t/important-gssdp-gupnp-1-6-2/12394
As these versions bring new sonames, I have
On Mon, 2022-11-21 at 12:43 -0500, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> On 11/21/22 09:23, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Sun, 2022-11-20 at 19:24 -0500, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> > > On 11/20/22 17:40, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 2022-11-20 at 17:22 -0500, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> > > > > On 11/20/22
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 12:45 PM Demi Marie Obenour
wrote:
>
> On 11/21/22 09:23, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Sun, 2022-11-20 at 19:24 -0500, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> >> On 11/20/22 17:40, Simo Sorce wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 2022-11-20 at 17:22 -0500, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> On 11/20/22 07:24
On 11/21/22 09:23, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Sun, 2022-11-20 at 19:24 -0500, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
>> On 11/20/22 17:40, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2022-11-20 at 17:22 -0500, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
On 11/20/22 07:24, Bojan Smojver via devel wrote:
> Now that nss 3.85 has been built,
On Mon, 2022-11-21 at 09:00 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was looking for a clear answer in the packaging docs to the question whether
> package nevr must be always higher in later releases. I recall people saying
> that
> now 'distro-upgrade' is the recommended upgrade me
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 12:43 PM Colin Walters wrote:
> - This proposal is explicitly trying to tie everything together. I think
> without the "bigger picture", it's actually *more* confusing. For example,
> just pushing the container images does little unless we invest in them as a
> derivat
On Sun, 2022-11-20 at 19:24 -0500, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> On 11/20/22 17:40, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Sun, 2022-11-20 at 17:22 -0500, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> > > On 11/20/22 07:24, Bojan Smojver via devel wrote:
> > > > Now that nss 3.85 has been built, I thought I'd have a go at building
V Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 10:18:29AM +0100, Than Ngo napsal(a):
> i cannot upload new tarball chromium-107.0.5304.110-clean.tar.xz (1.6GB) for
> chromium:
>
> fedpkg upload chromium-107.0.5304.110-clean.tar.xz
> Uploading: chromium-107.0.5304.110-clean.tar.xz
> ###
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20221120.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20221121.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 1
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 33
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 94.32 KiB
Size of dropped packages
Hello everyone,
Please join us at the next Open NeuroFedora team meeting on Monday 21st
November(today!) at 1300UTC in #fedora-neuro on Matrix or IRC
(Libera.chat). The meeting is a public meeting, and open for everyone
to attend. You can join us over:
Matrix: https://matrix.to/#/#neuro:fedorapr
On Mon, 2022-11-21 at 09:00 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was looking for a clear answer in the packaging docs to the
> question whether
> package nevr must be always higher in later releases. I recall people
> saying that
> now 'distro-upgrade' is the recommended upgrade m
Just to publish the result of the hidden 1:1 communication with Than Ngo:
The file is probably too big and there might be a limit on httpd.
For example, this version of httpd 2.4 newly introduces 1G limit:
https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/mod/core.html#limitrequestbody
But I don't have access to
Dne 20. 11. 22 v 13:24 Bojan Smojver via devel napsal(a):
PS. I am not the FF maintainer (obviously), so this is just for kicks.
Feel free to use Copr for such experiments
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/
Miroslav
___
devel mailing list -- devel
Dne 21. 11. 22 v 10:00 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
So… has there been any change of the Guidelines on this and where is
the official policy documented?
AFAIK no. We stick to common sense. In good and bad meaning of that.
Miroslav
___
devel
Of course, relevant build overrides had to be provided, because
required version of nss was not in stable at the time I started these
scratch builds. Thought I'd mention it for completeness.
--
Bojan
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.o
On 20/11/2022 23:22, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
Has switching to bundled NSS been considered? For browsers anything
that holds up an update is very,*very* bad.
No. Bundling cryptographic libraries is a very, very bad idea.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
___
Weitergeleitete Nachricht
Betreff:Re: fedpkg upload broken
Datum: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 10:38:23 +0100
Von:Than Ngo
An: Ondrej Nosek
Am 21.11.22 um 10:29 schrieb Ondrej Nosek:
Hi,
I checked the functionality and for me, it worked.
Could you, please, run it
Dne 20. 11. 22 v 18:46 Ralf Corsépius napsal(a):
Why don't you extract the License-field from *.rpms and check if they comply to the new rules?
It would work for cases like GPLv2 -> GPL-2.0-only.
But you can have cases like:
MIT -> MIT
MIT -> MIT-Modern-Variant
so at the end you wan
Hi,
i cannot upload new tarball chromium-107.0.5304.110-clean.tar.xz (1.6GB)
for chromium:
fedpkg upload chromium-107.0.5304.110-clean.tar.xz
Uploading: chromium-107.0.5304.110-clean.tar.xz
100.0%
Could not execute uplo
On Friday, 18 November 2022 at 19:41, Michael Dawson wrote:
> As Web Assembly (WASM) gains momentum we’d like to create a SIG as a
> place to collaborate to ensure that Fedora is a great platform to both
> build and run WASM workloads. This includes looking at the toolchains
> needed to build WASM
Hi,
I was looking for a clear answer in the packaging docs to the question whether
package nevr must be always higher in later releases. I recall people saying
that
now 'distro-upgrade' is the recommended upgrade method and the requirement of
keeping the upgrade path without downgrades isn't ther
27 matches
Mail list logo