On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 11:53 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 11:16 PM, Frantisek Zatloukal
> wrote:
>> What version of selinux-policy do you have? Make sure it's at least
>> selinux-policy-3.14.2-34.fc29.
>
> Well - almost ;-)
>
> $ dnf list installed | grep -i selinu
>
> Disabling selinux fixed it. I assume this is already in bugzilla.
> Thanks everyone!
>
Hello,
what do you mean by disabling SElinux? I do not recommend to disable it
completely. Instead, set it to "permissive" mode. With this settings,
SElinux will not be any obstacle to you, but it will still
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 11:16 PM, Frantisek Zatloukal
wrote:
> What version of selinux-policy do you have? Make sure it's at least
> selinux-policy-3.14.2-34.fc29.
Well - almost ;-)
$ dnf list installed | grep -i selinux
container-selinux.noarch
2:2.71-2.git5721d74.fc29@fedora
libsel
On Thu, 2018-09-13 at 23:57 -0700, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 11:53 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 11:16 PM, Frantisek Zatloukal
> > wrote:
> > > What version of selinux-policy do you have? Make sure it's at least
> > > selinux-policy-
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 9:26 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> Can anyone who is still struggling with DNF crashes on *basic*
> operations on F29 or Rawhide please reply, and provide a few details on
> what you're seeing and any workarounds or fixes you've found?
FWIW, I never hit such problem.
The on
At yesterday's F29 Go/No-Go meeting, we discussed the blocker status
of BZ #1628192 - Fedora 29 installation cannot see a firmware RAID
device. While the blocker criteria clearly states that this should be
a blocker for Beta, many of the people present at the meeting
disagreed, for a variety of rea
On 9/14/18 1:25 AM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
I've got a workstation that I'm testing with Fedora 29 Workstation. I
installed it over the network using the "everything boot" network
installer. Relative to other Linux systems, including Silverblue 28,
the system takes a long time to display
New f29-beta for armfhp. Just ran dnf update and caught this go across
the screen...
Running scriptlet: anaconda-widgets-29.24.1-1.fc29.armv7hl
173/190
/sbin/ldconfig: relative path `1' used to build cache
warning: %postun(anaconda-widgets-29.24.1-1.fc29.armv7hl) scriptlet
faile
OLD: Fedora-29-20180911.n.0
NEW: Fedora-29-20180912.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 3
Added packages: 3
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 103
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 90.43 MiB
Size of dropped packages:134.08 KiB
Si
> "RM" == Robert Moskowitz writes:
RM> New f29-beta for armfhp. Just ran dnf update and caught this go
RM> across the screen...
RM> /sbin/ldconfig: relative path `1' used to build cache
RM> warning: %postun(anaconda-widgets-29.24.1-1.fc29.armv7hl) scriptlet failed,
RM> exit status 1
Bizarr
On 9/14/18 2:43 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"RM" == Robert Moskowitz writes:
RM> New f29-beta for armfhp. Just ran dnf update and caught this go
RM> across the screen...
RM> /sbin/ldconfig: relative path `1' used to build cache
RM> warning: %postun(anaconda-widgets-29.24.1-1.fc29.armv7h
> "RM" == Robert Moskowitz writes:
RM> Where would I put a 36K output file?
Honestly I figured you would look at the output yourself to see if
anything stands out. Though you redirected stdout and not stderr,
and so the output you pasted showed the only error output by that
command anyway,
On 9/14/18 3:09 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"RM" == Robert Moskowitz writes:
RM> Where would I put a 36K output file?
Honestly I figured you would look at the output yourself to see if
anything stands out. Though you redirected stdout and not stderr,
and so the output you pasted showed
dnf update
Last metadata expiration check: 0:36:28 ago on Fri 14 Sep 2018 02:56:09
PM EDT.
Dependencies resolved.
Problem 1: cannot install the best update candidate for package
bubblewrap-0.3.0-2.fc29.armv7hl
- package bubblewrap-0.3.0-2.module_2123+73a9ef6f.armv7hl is disabled
Problem 2
On Fri, 2018-09-14 at 15:34 -0400, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> dnf update
> Last metadata expiration check: 0:36:28 ago on Fri 14 Sep 2018 02:56:09
> PM EDT.
> Dependencies resolved.
>
> Problem 1: cannot install the best update candidate for package
> bubblewrap-0.3.0-2.fc29.armv7hl
>- pack
Missing expected images:
Atomichost qcow2 x86_64
Atomichost raw-xz x86_64
Failed openQA tests: 3/132 (x86_64), 1/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
ID: 279984 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso
desktop_notifications_postinstall
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/279984
ID: 279991 Test: i386
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20180913.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20180914.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:2
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 5
Dropped packages:6
Upgraded packages: 121
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 2.20 MiB
Size of dropped packages
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 9/132 (x86_64), 2/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20180913.n.0):
ID: 280334 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso
desktop_notifications_postinstall
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/280334
ID: 28035
18 matches
Mail list logo