OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20240508.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20240509.n.2
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 7
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 120
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 10.90 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0
The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
6 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-6327fb701b
stb-0-0.45.20240213gitae721c5.el8
2 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-f7310355bb
djvulibre-3.5.28-5.el8
The following
I am resuming this discussion because today I was about to run such
command on another machine and in the preview of packages that would
have been removed there were important packages like:
- firefox
- ffmpeg
- libreoffice suite
and many others. It's a pretty destructive behaviour for such
We have 3 outages scheduled next week for Monday, Tuesday and wed:
OpenShift upgrade
We will be upgrading our production OpenShift cluster that runs many of our
applications.
Normally, this would just be a 0 downtime event, but in this case we are
switching
networking models, so we need to
We have 3 outages scheduled next week for Monday, Tuesday and wed:
OpenShift upgrade
We will be upgrading our production OpenShift cluster that runs many of our
applications.
Normally, this would just be a 0 downtime event, but in this case we are
switching
networking models, so we need to
I've had a few reports that my mkksiso tool isn't working with the
Fedora DVDs. I've managed to track down what's going on, but I don't
really have a workaround for it other than fixing pungi. The details are
in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2278677
FWIW it works fine with the
Jonathan Wright via devel wrote:
> My latest commit to rawhide adds signature verification and updates the
> source URL to https.
>
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mdadm/c/c8d54b071aea9605ab75f3c5ff67d44d306e7fb2?branch=rawhide
A comment in the spec file says:
# keyring should be
* Kenneth Goldman:
> Is it possible for a .spec file to clone a github.com repo rather than
> download a tarball? Can someone link to a working example?
There is Packit, which I think can be configured in such a way that you
can work with sources directly. The service pushes auto-generated
Hello, Susan.
On Thursday, 09 May 2024 at 20:53, Susan LeGendre-McGhee wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I'd like to introduce myself to the community. @bgurney reviewed and
> approved my first package at
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2273535. As such, I'm now
> looking for someone to
Hey all,
I'd like to introduce myself to the community. @bgurney reviewed and
approved my first package at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2273535. As such, I'm now
looking for someone to sponsor me. My official request for sponsorship is
at
It looks to me like all tests in Fedora CI are currently failing. I
think this is due to a new release of testing-farm having issues. It
seems like all tests fail somewhere between Jenkins and testing-farm;
Jenkins sends a request to testing-farm, and if you find the log of
that request - e.g.
Am 09.05.24 um 17:21 schrieb Nico Kadel-Garcia:
On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 4:36 PM Kenneth Goldman wrote:
Is it possible for a .spec file to clone a github.com repo rather than
download a tarball? Can someone link to a working example?
Git clones are bulky, with the entire history of a project
On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 11:21:11AM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 4:36 PM Kenneth Goldman wrote:
> >
> > Is it possible for a .spec file to clone a github.com repo rather than
> > download a tarball? Can someone link to a working example?
>
> Git clones are bulky, with
On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 4:36 PM Kenneth Goldman wrote:
>
> Is it possible for a .spec file to clone a github.com repo rather than
> download a tarball? Can someone link to a working example?
Git clones are bulky, with the entire history of a project rather than
merely the state of the repo at
On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 10:38:05AM -0700, Brad Smith wrote:
> I help maintain a package where upstream changed the process to
> generate installed documentation. In version 1.30 and newer, the spec
> file needs to use process A; in versions older than 1.30 (e.g. 1.29.x,
> etc) the spec file needs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165567
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version||perl-Sub-Exporter-Lexical-1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2230255
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|38 |40
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1716324
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|38 |39
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053941
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|38 |40
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2279842
Bug ID: 2279842
Summary: perl-Text-Bidi-2.18-9.fc41 FTBFS: t/get_mirror_char.t
fails with fribidi 1.0.14
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
20 matches
Mail list logo
