On 11/6/19 7:11 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 10:00:17PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote:
Le mardi 05 novembre 2019 à 19:45 +0100, Tomasz Torcz a écrit :
I don't agree with centralisation. You should run your own DoH
endpoint,
using Google's, Cloudflare's or
Hi Marius,
I maintain BIND and some similar stuff. More or less, there is already
implementation quite similar to what you have described. Already in
Fedora: stubby [1]. It has central list of several resolvers and uses
them in round-robin fashion. Does not make specific order.
However, the
More below.
On 8/20/19 6:40 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On 8/20/19 7:37 AM, Petr Mensik wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I could not find a safe way to upgrade also this time. I found update
>> F32 [1], but not corresponding F31 just adding new key. I am missing
>> update simil
Hi Adrian,
I think this redirection is cause of breakage on rawhide machines. I
think we must be able to first serve separate repositories. Only then it
can proceed to increase of version in new rawhide.
My point is, n+1 has to be always signed by old key served in fedora and
updates
Hi!
I could not find a safe way to upgrade also this time. I found update
F32 [1], but not corresponding F31 just adding new key. I am missing
update similar to [2], just for F31 that once was Rawhide. It should be
version 31-0.5
I found and reopened one old bug [3]. I do not think this is just
Hi!
Is it still valid request to add update-desktop-database into %post,
like mentioned by fedora-review tool [1]? Almost at the end of the
comment. I were not able to find any information about it in Package
Guidelines. Should that hint be removed from fedora-review or should be
documentation
Unbound is rebuilt on master.
Please bump and rebuild dependent packages.
On 10/02/2018 02:15 PM, Petr Mensik wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I am planning to push new unbound 1.8.0 into rawhide. It changes SONAME
> libunbound.so.2 to libunbound.so.8.
>
> Dependent packages are:
> aster
Hi!
I am planning to push new unbound 1.8.0 into rawhide. It changes SONAME
libunbound.so.2 to libunbound.so.8.
Dependent packages are:
asterisk
getdns
gnutls-dane
libreswan
netresolve-backends-ubdns
I have prepared COPR repo with new build:
Hi,
that update was made by me. I am really sorry I completely missed soname
change when preparing that update. What I wanted to fix was that ldns
package did not build with OpenSSL 1.1. That would require a change
in opendnssec as well. But would not create conflict that would prevent
That sounds like way to use (sort of) certificates again. With updated realmd
package I can now save fedora account password into Gnome keyring. But...
I thought about it yesterday, but did not dare to ask. Are not password less
strong kind of authentication that keys? We have SSH keys, we had
Sure, I am really missing this information written on the wiki page. The secret
is, they are in the DNS record. If you try
$ host -t URI _kerberos.fedoraproject.org
you might get it. But some DNS servers seem to have trouble with this record.
As Red Hat defaults have dns_lookup_realm = false,
11 matches
Mail list logo
