November 2020 - openSUSE Bugs - openSUSE Mailing Lists

[Bug 1178389] Package Management - Use of versions tab with retracted packages not particularly intuitive.
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 03 Nov '20

03 Nov '20

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178389 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178389#c7 --- Comment #7 from Stefan Hundhammer <shundhammer(a)suse.com> --- See also https://yast.opensuse.org/blog/2020-01-24/sprint-92#doomsday-preparations-r… https://github.com/libyui/libyui-qt-pkg/pull/82 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1178389] Package Management - Use of versions tab with retracted packages not particularly intuitive.
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 03 Nov '20

03 Nov '20

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178389 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178389#c6 Stefan Hundhammer <shundhammer(a)suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |INVALID Flags|needinfo?(shundhammer@suse. | |com) | --- Comment #6 from Stefan Hundhammer <shundhammer(a)suse.com> --- The behaviour is intentional. Having a retracted version of a package installed is pretty much a worst case scenario, and things tend to go downhill from there: Manual interaction will be required, and the user needs to have some knowledge which course of action is best for his specific situation. It is possible that the retracted version is actively harmful; then it should carefully be replaced by a version that is not harmful. However, it is also possible that the retracted version is only harmful or just undesired in other cases that do not affect this user; in that case, it might be a sound choice to simply keep the retracted version and wait until a newer, improved version is released, which most likely will be automatically installed with one of the next package updates. Our role (the role of the YaST package selector) is a pretty passive one here: We do our best to bring the problem to the user's attention, but it is the user who needs to choose a course of action. We do not proactively attempt to change the system; it is up to the user to choose that if so desired. So, while the best non-retracted version is preselected in the versions tab, the user still has to initiate updating to that version. In all likelihood that will be a package downgrade with all the potential problems that might entail. So, we don't try to be clever here and attempt to auto-fix the problem; we might do more harm than good. Verdict: This behaves as specified; this is not a bug, it is intentional. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1175104] python-acoular build seg fault at PyList_GetItem for ppc64le
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 03 Nov '20

03 Nov '20

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175104 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175104#c3 Marketa Calabkova <mcalabkova(a)suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mcalabkova(a)suse.com --- Comment #3 from Marketa Calabkova <mcalabkova(a)suse.com> --- https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/845717 There's a new version. Let's see whether update fixes it :) . -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1178332] zypper: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib64/libzypp.so.1722: undefined symbol: _ZN4YAML6detail9node_data12empty_scalarB5cxx11E
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 03 Nov '20

03 Nov '20

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178332 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178332#c17 --- Comment #17 from Olaf Hering <ohering(a)suse.com> --- https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/845714 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1178394] New: YaST Qt UI: Resolving Keyboard Shortcut Conflicts Ignores Menu Item Enabled/Disabled State
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 03 Nov '20

03 Nov '20

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1178394 Bug ID: 1178394 Summary: YaST Qt UI: Resolving Keyboard Shortcut Conflicts Ignores Menu Item Enabled/Disabled State Classification: openSUSE Product: openSUSE Tumbleweed Version: Current Hardware: All OS: Other Status: NEW Severity: Normal Priority: P5 - None Component: YaST2 Assignee: yast2-maintainers(a)suse.de Reporter: shundhammer(a)suse.com QA Contact: jsrain(a)suse.com Found By: --- Blocker: --- When the content of a YaST dialog changes and keyboard shortcut conflicts are resolved, all menu items of a MenuBar are enabled, even though they are explicitly disabled internally. This affects only the Qt UI. Found by Ancor during development of https://trello.com/c/MRJhR5x6/2080-1-partitioner-disable-menu-entries-from-… -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 3

[Bug 1178389] Package Management - Use of versions tab with retracted packages not particularly intuitive.
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 03 Nov '20

03 Nov '20

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178389 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1178389#c5 Josef Reidinger <jreidinger(a)suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jreidinger(a)suse.com Flags| |needinfo?(shundhammer@suse. | |com) --- Comment #5 from Josef Reidinger <jreidinger(a)suse.com> --- HuHa: it looks like initial state is not properly set. I think you implemented this one? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1172292] [META] Support for 64-bit processors on motherboards with 32-bit UEFI (mixed-mode support)
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 03 Nov '20

03 Nov '20

1 0

[Bug 1177358] EFI system partition: VFAT or FAT16 or FAT12 or FAT32?
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 03 Nov '20

03 Nov '20

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177358 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177358#c4 Ancor Gonzalez Sosa <ancor(a)suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |IN_PROGRESS --- Comment #4 from Ancor Gonzalez Sosa <ancor(a)suse.com> --- Working on this right now. The CURRENT criteria to decide the EFI sizes is this[1]: When proposing a new EFI partition in x86 - when aiming for the recommended size * does not enforce FAT32 or 16 (FAT size will be decided by mkfs.vfat) * requires /boot/efi to be exactly 500 MiB large - when aiming for the minimal size * does not enforce FAT32 or 16 (FAT size will be decided by mkfs.vfat) * requires /boot/efi to be at least 256 MiB * requires /boot/efi to be at most 500 MiB When proposing a new EFI partition in aarch64 (including Raspberry Pi) - when aiming for the recommended size * does not enforce FAT32 or 16 (FAT size will be decided by mkfs.vfat) * requires /boot/efi to be exactly 256 MiB large - when aiming for the minimal size * does not enforce FAT32 or 16 (FAT size will be decided by mkfs.vfat) * requires /boot/efi to be exactly 256 MiB large I'm changing that to work like this: When proposing a new EFI partition in x86 - when aiming for the recommended size * requires /boot/efi it to use FAT32 * requires /boot/efi to be at least 256 MiB * requires /boot/efi to be at most 512 MiB - when aiming for the minimal size * does not enforce FAT32 or 16 (FAT size will be decided by mkfs.vfat) * requires /boot/efi to be at least 128 MiB * requires /boot/efi to be at most 512 MiB When proposing a new EFI partition in aarch64 (including Raspberry Pi) - when aiming for the recommended size * does not enforce FAT32 or 16 (FAT size will be decided by mkfs.vfat) * requires /boot/efi to be exactly 128 MiB large - when aiming for the minimal size * does not enforce FAT32 or 16 (FAT size will be decided by mkfs.vfat) * requires /boot/efi to be exactly 128 MiB large [1] Extracted from the automatically-generated document at https://github.com/yast/yast-storage-ng/blob/master/doc/boot-requirements.md -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1177936] VUL-0: chromium: update to 86.0.4240.111
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 03 Nov '20

03 Nov '20

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177936 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177936#c7 --- Comment #7 from OBSbugzilla Bot <bwiedemann+obsbugzillabot(a)suse.com> --- This is an autogenerated message for OBS integration: This bug (1177936) was mentioned in https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/845668 Backports:SLE-15-SP2 / chromium+gn -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1178296] /usr/etc/skel handling completely broken
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 03 Nov '20

03 Nov '20

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1178296 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1178296#c19 Stefan Dirsch <sndirsch(a)suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #19 from Stefan Dirsch <sndirsch(a)suse.com> --- Closing as such. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0