I have an update for libunibreak ready and plan to release that for
rawhide in a week (or slightly later).
The new version bumps libunibreak from so.3 to so.5.
I also intend to drop building for i686.
The following packages depend on libunibreak:
$ fedrq wr -s libunibreak-devel
coolreader-3.2
On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 10:49:36AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 11:05:33AM -0400, Christopher wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 7:50 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > >
> > > FWIW, from what I can recall, yum used to check all packages, but this
> > > resulted in tons of people com
On Fri, 2023-09-29 at 23:20 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-09-29 at 23:42 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 29. 09. 23 23:38, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > On 29. 09. 23 20:32, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > > Recent build of some packages like opencv and an ol
On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 11:05:33AM -0400, Christopher wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 7:50 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> > FWIW, from what I can recall, yum used to check all packages, but this
> > resulted in tons of people complaining because they did not want it to
> > check their local packages
Minutes:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2023-11-01/fedora_coreos_meeting.2023-11-01-16.31.html
Minutes (text):
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2023-11-01/fedora_coreos_meeting.2023-11-01-16.31.txt
Log:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2023-11
The Fedora Linux 39 Final Go/No-Go[1] meeting is scheduled for
Thursday 2 November at 1700 UTC in #fedora-meeting (on IRC, not
Matrix). At this time, we will determine the status of F39 Final
for the 7 November target date[2]. For more information about the
Go/No-Go meeting, see the wiki[3].
[1] h
> Christopher writes:
>> $ wget mypackage.rpm
>> $rpm --checksig mypackage.rpm
> the whole point of
> using DNF to install a local file is for consistency of using the same
> command as for repo packages, not manually altering the RPM database
> outside of YUM/DNF (that results in a warning
On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 5:53 AM Paul Howarth wrote:
>
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 12:48:31 -0400
> Christopher wrote:
> > I'm actually a bit concerned about this thread, because I assumed DNF4
> > and DNF5 would check signatures by default today, and that it would
> > only skip if `--nogpgcheck` was pas
On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 7:50 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> FWIW, from what I can recall, yum used to check all packages, but this
> resulted in tons of people complaining because they did not want it to
> check their local packages. So, a localpkg_gpgcheck option was added and
> set to false. dnf4 sti
OLD: Fedora-39-20231031.n.0
NEW: Fedora-39-20231101.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:7
Dropped images: 2
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 6
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of upgraded
On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 2:19 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> Dne 31. 10. 23 v 18:21 Kalev Lember napsal(a):
>
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 5:47 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>>
>> How it conflicts?
>>
>> %files
>>
>> %license LICENSE
>>
>> %files doc
>>
>> %license LICENSE
>>
>> should not create any conflic
On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 12:48:31 -0400
Christopher wrote:
> I'm actually a bit concerned about this thread, because I assumed DNF4
> and DNF5 would check signatures by default today, and that it would
> only skip if `--nogpgcheck` was passed as an option. If it sometimes
> skips the GPG check without
12 matches
Mail list logo
