8:52 a.m.
Alla packages are downloaded, but when I get the following warning:
Errore: Il pacchetto libmpg123-1.22.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm non è firmato
(unsigned)
but it is not installed
[root@pcdesktop1 antonio]# rpm -qa libmpg123-1.22.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
[root@pcdesktop1 antonio]#
then
[root@pcdesktop1 antonio]# dnf system-upgrade reboot
Errore: system is not ready for upgrade
How o I proceed??
Tnx
Antonio Montagnani
Linux Fedora 23 (Workstation)
inviato da Gmail
9:07 a.m.
On 06/21/16 21:52, Antonio M wrote:
Alla packages are downloaded, but when I get the following warning:
Errore: Il pacchetto libmpg123-1.22.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm non è firmato (unsigned)
but it is not installed
[root@pcdesktop1 antonio]# rpm -qa libmpg123-1.22.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
[root@pcdesktop1 antonio]#
then
[root@pcdesktop1 antonio]# dnf system-upgrade reboot
Errore: system is not ready for upgrade
How o I proceed??
libmpg123 is a package from rpmfusion-free. Seems that one of their packages may have a
new dependency that isn't accounted for in their F24 repos.
You could try disabling all the rpmfusion repos and try again to upgrade.
--
You're Welcome Zachary Quinto
10:45 a.m.
Il giorno mar, 21/06/2016 alle 22.07 +0800, Ed Greshko ha scritto:
You could try disabling all the rpmfusion repos and try again to
upgrade.
This is not the solution.
If I disable rpmfusion repo the update fails:
package mencoder-1.2.1-2.fc23.x86_64 requires
libavcodec.so.56()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed.
package mlt-6.0.0-2.fc23.x86_64 requires libavcodec.so.56()(64bit), but none of the
providers can be installed
(try to add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting packages)
If I use '--allowerasing', all software from rpmfusion will be
removed.
And this is not what I want.
Then, for now, I'm not able to upgrade to f24.
Me too have this problem with another package from rpmfusion (freetype-
freeworld), then I have post a message to rpmfusion-user list and now
wait ....
Thanks
--
Dario Lesca
(inviato dal mio Linux Fedora 23 Workstation)
9:41 p.m.
On 06/21/16 23:45, Dario Lesca wrote:
Il giorno mar, 21/06/2016 alle 22.07 +0800, Ed Greshko ha scritto:
> You could try disabling all the rpmfusion repos and try again to
> upgrade.
This is not the solution.
If I disable rpmfusion repo the update fails:
You're not talking about the same issue as the OP.
Anyway I did try to update a system here and the OP's issue came up for me and I read
the
error message properly and simply added the --nogpgcheck to the dnf command.
> package mencoder-1.2.1-2.fc23.x86_64 requires libavcodec.so.56()(64bit), but none of
the providers can be installed.
> package mlt-6.0.0-2.fc23.x86_64 requires libavcodec.so.56()(64bit), but none of the
providers can be installed
> (try to add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting
packages)
If I use '--allowerasing', all software from rpmfusion will be
removed.
And this is not what I want.
Then, for now, I'm not able to upgrade to f24.
Me too have this problem with another package from rpmfusion (freetype-
freeworld), then I have post a message to rpmfusion-user list and now
wait ....
Thanks
--
You're Welcome Zachary Quinto
10:36 p.m.
On 06/21/2016 07:41 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
Anyway I did try to update a system here and the OP's issue came
up for me and I read the
error message properly and simply added the --nogpgcheck to the dnf command.
That works, but it's terrible practice. Those packages are (probably)
downloaded over http, so they're vulnerable to MITM attacks that replace
them with, or inject malware.
Allow the system to remove the rpmfusion packages, and then reinstall
what you need afterward. It works AND it's secure.
10:43 p.m.
On 06/22/16 11:36, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 06/21/2016 07:41 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
> Anyway I did try to update a system here and the OP's issue came up for me and I
read the
> error message properly and simply added the --nogpgcheck to the dnf command.
That works, but it's terrible practice. Those packages are (probably) downloaded
over
http, so they're vulnerable to MITM attacks that replace them with, or inject
malware.
Allow the system to remove the rpmfusion packages, and then reinstall what you need
afterward. It works AND it's secure.
Generally speaking, yes. But considering the flux rpmfusion is in these days and I
deemed
the risk rather low.
--
You're Welcome Zachary Quinto
10:59 p.m.
On 06/21/2016 08:43 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
Generally speaking, yes. But considering the flux rpmfusion is in
these days and I deemed
the risk rather low.
I'll admit that the risk is hypothetical, but what does rpmfusion's flux
have to do with the risk of allowing unsigned packages?
(Bearing in mind, that flag is global. You told dnf to ignore
signatures for all package, on all repos.)
11:12 p.m.
On 06/22/16 11:59, Gordon Messmer wrote:
I'll admit that the risk is hypothetical, but what does
rpmfusion's flux
have to do with the risk of allowing unsigned packages?
It was only one package that was unsigned, and it came from rpmfusion, and they are in
the
middle of putting up an new infrastructure. So not unthinkable a package had slipped
thru
unsigned.
(Bearing in mind, that flag is global. You told dnf to ignore
signatures for all package, on all repos.)
Yes, except that it was just the one package and, while I did not mention it, I checked
some of the downloaded rpm's in the cache. Yes, it probably would have been a
"better"
idea to disable the gpgcheck in the rpmfusion repo.
--
You're Welcome Zachary Quinto
11:27 p.m.
On 06/21/2016 09:12 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 06/22/16 11:59, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> I'll admit that the risk is hypothetical, but what does rpmfusion's flux
> have to do with the risk of allowing unsigned packages?
It was only one package that was unsigned, and it came from rpmfusion, and they are in
the
middle of putting up an new infrastructure. So not unthinkable a package had slipped
thru
unsigned.
dnf stops at the first unsigned package. All the rpmfusion F24 packages
are currently in the updates-testing repository and are unsigned.
11:31 p.m.
On 06/22/16 12:27, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 06/21/2016 09:12 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 06/22/16 11:59, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>
>> I'll admit that the risk is hypothetical, but what does rpmfusion's flux
>> have to do with the risk of allowing unsigned packages?
>
> It was only one package that was unsigned, and it came from rpmfusion, and they are
in the
> middle of putting up an new infrastructure. So not unthinkable a package had slipped
thru
> unsigned.
dnf stops at the first unsigned package. All the rpmfusion F24 packages are currently
in the updates-testing repository and are unsigned.
Right, and that is why I suggested I should have disable just the rpmfusion check.
In any event.... If you are worried, don't upgrade. If you're not worried,
upgrade.
Your choice.
--
You're Welcome Zachary Quinto
12:04 a.m.
a silly question, how do you understand that a package is signed in any
repo?? apart from the warning of dnf, of course....
Antonio Montagnani
Linux Fedora 24 (Workstation)
inviato da Gmail
2016-06-22 6:31 GMT+02:00 Ed Greshko <ed.greshko(a)greshko.com>:
On 06/22/16 12:27, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 06/21/2016 09:12 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> On 06/22/16 11:59, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>>
>>> I'll admit that the risk is hypothetical, but what does rpmfusion's
flux
>>> have to do with the risk of allowing unsigned packages?
>>
>> It was only one package that was unsigned, and it came from rpmfusion,
and they are in the
>> middle of putting up an new infrastructure. So not unthinkable a
package had slipped thru
>> unsigned.
>
> dnf stops at the first unsigned package. All the rpmfusion F24 packages
are currently
> in the updates-testing repository and are unsigned.
Right, and that is why I suggested I should have disable just the
rpmfusion check.
In any event.... If you are worried, don't upgrade. If you're not
worried, upgrade.
Your choice.
--
You're Welcome Zachary Quinto
--
users mailing list
users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
12:15 a.m.
On 06/21/2016 10:04 PM, Antonio M wrote:
a silly question, how do you understand that a package is signed in
any
repo?? apart from the warning of dnf, of course....
That would be the primary way. Otherwise, if you have rpmdevtools
installed, you can download the rpm and run rpmdev-checksig on it.
That's what I used to check some rpms from rpmfusion to determine that
they aren't signed.
12:19 a.m.
On 06/22/16 13:15, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 06/21/2016 10:04 PM, Antonio M wrote:
> a silly question, how do you understand that a package is signed in any
> repo?? apart from the warning of dnf, of course....
>
That would be the primary way. Otherwise, if you have rpmdevtools installed, you can
download the rpm and run rpmdev-checksig on it. That's what I used to check some
rpms
from rpmfusion to determine that they aren't signed.
Or you could run rpm -K rpmfile
This shows the output of a signed rpm
[root@meimei ~]# rpm -K aime-8.20160504-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
aime-8.20160504-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm: rsa sha1 (md5) pgp md5 OK
This shows the output of a non-signed rpm
[egreshko@acer ~]$ rpm -K libmpg123-1.22.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
libmpg123-1.22.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm: sha1 md5 OK
--
You're Welcome Zachary Quinto
12:43 a.m.
On 06/21/2016 10:19 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 06/22/16 13:15, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 06/21/2016 10:04 PM, Antonio M wrote:
>> a silly question, how do you understand that a package is signed in any
>> repo?? apart from the warning of dnf, of course....
>>
> That would be the primary way. Otherwise, if you have rpmdevtools installed, you
can
> download the rpm and run rpmdev-checksig on it. That's what I used to check some
rpms
> from rpmfusion to determine that they aren't signed.
>
Or you could run rpm -K rpmfile
This shows the output of a signed rpm
[root@meimei ~]# rpm -K aime-8.20160504-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
aime-8.20160504-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm: rsa sha1 (md5) pgp md5 OK
This shows the output of a non-signed rpm
[egreshko@acer ~]$ rpm -K libmpg123-1.22.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
libmpg123-1.22.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm: sha1 md5 OK
Oh, that's right, you can check it with rpm and I have used that.
However, rpmdev-checksig will give you a bit more info:
python /bin/rpmdev-checksig nss-3.21.0-1.1.fc23.i686.rpm
nss-3.21.0-1.1.fc23.i686.rpm: RSA/SHA256 - 34ec9cba -
<fedora-23-primary(a)fedoraproject.org>
python /bin/rpmdev-checksig a52dec-0.7.4-19.fc24.x86_64.rpm
a52dec-0.7.4-19.fc24.x86_64.rpm: MD5 - None - <None>
You currently have to run it with python directly because there's a bug
where the #! line has python3, but then it throws an exception. If you
run it with python2, it works.
12:47 a.m.
I find amusing that when I check a package in the Dnf list also packages
installed from UnitedRpms are listed as installed from System!!!! Is it
right?? I suppose no
Antonio Montagnani
Linux Fedora 24 (Workstation)
inviato da Gmail
2016-06-22 7:43 GMT+02:00 Samuel Sieb <samuel(a)sieb.net>:
On 06/21/2016 10:19 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 06/22/16 13:15, Samuel Sieb wrote:
>
> On 06/21/2016 10:04 PM, Antonio M wrote:
>>
>>> a silly question, how do you understand that a package is signed in any
>>> repo?? apart from the warning of dnf, of course....
>>>
>>> That would be the primary way. Otherwise, if you have rpmdevtools
>> installed, you can
>> download the rpm and run rpmdev-checksig on it. That's what I used to
>> check some rpms
>> from rpmfusion to determine that they aren't signed.
>>
>>
> Or you could run rpm -K rpmfile
>
> This shows the output of a signed rpm
>
> [root@meimei ~]# rpm -K aime-8.20160504-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
> aime-8.20160504-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm: rsa sha1 (md5) pgp md5 OK
>
> This shows the output of a non-signed rpm
>
> [egreshko@acer ~]$ rpm -K libmpg123-1.22.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
> libmpg123-1.22.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm: sha1 md5 OK
>
> Oh, that's right, you can check it with rpm and I have used that.
However, rpmdev-checksig will give you a bit more info:
python /bin/rpmdev-checksig nss-3.21.0-1.1.fc23.i686.rpm
nss-3.21.0-1.1.fc23.i686.rpm: RSA/SHA256 - 34ec9cba - <
fedora-23-primary(a)fedoraproject.org>
python /bin/rpmdev-checksig a52dec-0.7.4-19.fc24.x86_64.rpm
a52dec-0.7.4-19.fc24.x86_64.rpm: MD5 - None - <None>
You currently have to run it with python directly because there's a bug
where the #! line has python3, but then it throws an exception. If you run
it with python2, it works.
--
users mailing list
users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
12:55 a.m.
On 06/21/2016 10:47 PM, Antonio M wrote:
I find amusing that when I check a package in the Dnf list also
packages
installed from UnitedRpms are listed as installed from System!!!! Is it
right?? I suppose no
How did you install it? And what command are you using to check that?
# dnf info driconf
Installed Packages
Name : driconf
Repo : @System
From repo : fedora
Because it's installed, it's showing info from the @System repo, but it
also shows that it originally came from the fedora repo.
1:23 a.m.
I installed by Yum Extender (Dnf) i.e. the graphical interface, and the
list that I am referring to is the list in the graphical interface, not in
the terminal, that I used a short ago
$ dnf info vlc
Ultima verifica della scadenza dei metadati: 0:22:02 fa il Wed Jun 22
08:00:25 2016.
Pacchetti installati
Nome : vlc
Arch : x86_64
Epoca : 0
Versione : 3.0.0
Rilascio : 6.20160608gitbb83680.fc24
Dim. : 4.2 M
Repo : @System
Dal repo : unitedrpms
Sommario : The cross-platform open-source multimedia framework, player
and
: server
URL : http://www.videolan.org
Licenza : GPLv2+
Descrizione : VLC media player is a highly portable multimedia player and
: multimedia framework capable of reading most audio and video
: formats as well as DVDs, Audio CDs VCDs, and various streaming
: protocols. It can also be used as a media converter or a
server to
: stream in uni-cast or multi-cast in IPv4 or IPv6 on networks.
Antonio Montagnani
Linux Fedora 24 (Workstation)
inviato da Gmail
2016-06-22 7:55 GMT+02:00 Samuel Sieb <samuel(a)sieb.net>:
On 06/21/2016 10:47 PM, Antonio M wrote:
> I find amusing that when I check a package in the Dnf list also packages
> installed from UnitedRpms are listed as installed from System!!!! Is it
> right?? I suppose no
>
> How did you install it? And what command are you using to check that?
# dnf info driconf
Installed Packages
Name : driconf
Repo : @System
From repo : fedora
Because it's installed, it's showing info from the @System repo, but it
also shows that it originally came from the fedora repo.
--
users mailing list
users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
2:54 a.m.
On 06/21/2016 11:23 PM, Antonio M wrote:
I installed by Yum Extender (Dnf) i.e. the graphical interface, and
the
list that I am referring to is the list in the graphical interface, not
in the terminal, that I used a short ago
$ dnf info vlc
Repo : @System
Dal repo : unitedrpms
I wouldn't be surprised if the graphical interface would show the first
one, but here you can see that it did come from unitedrpms.
9:19 a.m.
Hi Antonio,
Den 2016-06-21 kl. 15:52, skrev Antonio M:
Alla packages are downloaded, but when I get the following warning:
Errore: Il pacchetto libmpg123-1.22.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm non è firmato
(unsigned)
but it is not installed
[root@pcdesktop1 antonio]# rpm -qa libmpg123-1.22.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
This package is from rpmfusion-free, so ask on that list.
[root@pcdesktop1 antonio]#
then
[root@pcdesktop1 antonio]# dnf system-upgrade reboot
Errore: system is not ready for upgrade
How o I proceed??
Tnx
Antonio Montagnani
Linux Fedora 23 (Workstation)
inviato da Gmail
--
users mailing list
users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
--
Regards
Jon Ingason
12:53 p.m.
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 03:52:30PM +0200, Antonio M wrote:
Alla packages are downloaded, but when I get the following warning:
Errore: Il pacchetto libmpg123-1.22.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm non è firmato
(unsigned)
but it is not installed
[root@pcdesktop1 antonio]# rpm -qa libmpg123-1.22.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
[root@pcdesktop1 antonio]#
then
[root@pcdesktop1 antonio]# dnf system-upgrade reboot
Errore: system is not ready for upgrade
How o I proceed??
You'll find this helpful:
https://fedoramagazine.org/upgrading-fedora-23-workstation-to-fedora-24/#...
--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com
1:33 p.m.
Try to disable rpmfusion repo, before upgrading and then..
sudo dnf config-manager –set-disabled rpmfusion-free
sudo dnf config-manager –set-disabled rpmfusion-nonfree
sudo dnf config-manager –set-disabled rpmfusion-free-updates
sudo dnf config-manager –set-disabled rpmfusion-nonfree-updates
sudo dnf system-upgrade download –releasever=24 –allowerasing
I hope this will work
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Paul W. Frields <stickster(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 03:52:30PM +0200, Antonio M wrote:
> Alla packages are downloaded, but when I get the following warning:
> Errore: Il pacchetto libmpg123-1.22.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm non è firmato
> (unsigned)
>
> but it is not installed
> [root@pcdesktop1 antonio]# rpm -qa libmpg123-1.22.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
> [root@pcdesktop1 antonio]#
>
> then
> [root@pcdesktop1 antonio]# dnf system-upgrade reboot
> Errore: system is not ready for upgrade
>
> How o I proceed??
You'll find this helpful:
https://fedoramagazine.org/upgrading-fedora-23-workstation-to-fedora-24/#...
--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com
--
users mailing list
users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
2:25 p.m.
very useful indeed!!! tnx to all
Antonio Montagnani
Linux Fedora 24 (Workstation)
inviato da Gmail
2016-06-21 19:53 GMT+02:00 Paul W. Frields <stickster(a)gmail.com>:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 03:52:30PM +0200, Antonio M wrote:
> Alla packages are downloaded, but when I get the following warning:
> Errore: Il pacchetto libmpg123-1.22.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm non è firmato
> (unsigned)
>
> but it is not installed
> [root@pcdesktop1 antonio]# rpm -qa libmpg123-1.22.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
> [root@pcdesktop1 antonio]#
>
> then
> [root@pcdesktop1 antonio]# dnf system-upgrade reboot
> Errore: system is not ready for upgrade
>
> How o I proceed??
You'll find this helpful:
https://fedoramagazine.org/upgrading-fedora-23-workstation-to-fedora-24/#...
--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com
--
users mailing list
users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
3:34 p.m.
I'm glad it working. You’re welcome, I was happy to do it. I know you’d do
the same for me and someone else.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Antonio M <antonio.montagnani(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
very useful indeed!!! tnx to all
Antonio Montagnani
Linux Fedora 24 (Workstation)
inviato da Gmail
2016-06-21 19:53 GMT+02:00 Paul W. Frields <stickster(a)gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 03:52:30PM +0200, Antonio M wrote:
> > Alla packages are downloaded, but when I get the following warning:
> > Errore: Il pacchetto libmpg123-1.22.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm non è firmato
> > (unsigned)
> >
> > but it is not installed
> > [root@pcdesktop1 antonio]# rpm -qa libmpg123-1.22.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
> > [root@pcdesktop1 antonio]#
> >
> > then
> > [root@pcdesktop1 antonio]# dnf system-upgrade reboot
> > Errore: system is not ready for upgrade
> >
> > How o I proceed??
>
> You'll find this helpful:
>
>
https://fedoramagazine.org/upgrading-fedora-23-workstation-to-fedora-24/#...
>
>
> --
> Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
> gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
> http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
> The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com
> --
> users mailing list
> users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
> Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
>
--
users mailing list
users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
2884
days inactive
2885
days old
24 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Antonio M -
Dario Lesca -
Dev -
Ed Greshko -
Gordon Messmer -
Jon Ingason -
Paul W. Frields -
Samuel Sieb