Hi all,
You might be aware that there is a CentOS category on the Fedora
Discourse instance:
https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/c/centos/71
There have been some discussions about having a dedicated Discourse
instance for CentOS. Discourse has a lot of advantages, such as better
moderation and integration with our accounts system. But I understand
that many people are comfortable with their existing workflows.
There's no point in running Discourse if it doesn't get enough buy-in.
So I'm asking for input on using Discourse for various things:
* Project announcements, like events, meetings, and infra changes
* Activity reports, such as for SIGs and events
* User support, replacing forums.centos.org
* Development of Stream itself, basically centos-devel
* Development of stuff inside SIGs
* Replacement for the comments section of the blog
* Alternatively, just replacing the blog entirely
* Something else I'm not thinking of
Thanks,
Shaun McCance
CentOS Community Architect
Red Hat Open Source Program Office
Am 08.10.22 um 16:24 schrieb Leon Fauster:
> Hey folks, I wonder if anyone also suffers from the following:
>
> I updated the BIOS/Firmware of a DELL notebook from 1.8 to 1.9. and
> after this the latest C9S
>
> kernel-5.14.0-171.el9.x86_64
>
> can't be booted anymore (secure boot on) but the two older ones do boot:
>
> kernel-5.14.0-165.el9.x86_64
> kernel-5.14.0-168.el9.x86_64
>
> The grub error message when trying to boot kernel-5.14.0-171.el9.x86_64
> looks like:
>
> error: ../../grub-core/kern/efi/sb.c:183:bad shim signature.
> error: ../../grub-core/loader/i386/efi/linux.c:259:you need to load the
> kernel first.
>
> I wonder how this happens. The firmware is classified as bug-fix update.
>
> Not sure if DBX list was update. fwupdmgr shows "Current version: 83"
> If so, it does not make sense that older kernels can be used to boot the
> system. So, a big question mark how to solve this issue? Any hints ...?
>
>
> # sha256sum /boot/efi/EFI/BOOT/BOOTX64.EFI
> 3ae459e79408b5287ce70c5b86ddcc92c243c7442d6769a330390598b7a351b1
> /boot/efi/EFI/BOOT/BOOTX64.EFI
>
It seems that the kernel-5.14.0 of the release 17X-series
do not get signed with the CentOS key anymore!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2138019
TLDR:
/boot/vmlinuz-5.14.0-16*
versus
/boot/vmlinuz-5.14.0-17*
shows
The signer's common name is CentOS Secure Boot Signing 201
versus
The signer's common name is Red Hat Test Certificate
Is this issue already receiving the right attention?
--
Thanks
Leon
Hi all,
The CentOS Board is looking at renaming Dojos, our series of free mini-
conferences. Please give your input on this Discussion post:
https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/renaming-centos-dojos/43351
Note that Fedora and CentOS share an accounts system, so if you have a
CentOS account, you already have a login for Fedora Discussion.
Thanks,
Shaun
Hi all,
I've uploaded the recordings of last week's board meeting:
https://youtu.be/FA0ddn-IWes
If you'd like to discuss any issues with the board, we'll have an open
board office hours this Thursday, October 20, at 14:00 UTC:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87623425120
Thanks,
Shaun
When EPEL-8 was launched, it came with some support for modules with the
hope that a module ecosystem could be built from Fedora packages using RHEL
modules as an underlying tool. This has never happened and we have ended up
with a muddle of modular packages which will 'build' but may not install or
even run on an EL-8 system. Attempts to fix this and work within how EPEL
is normally built have been tried for several years by different people but
have not worked.
At this point we are saying that this experiment with modules in EPEL has
not worked and we will focus our resources on what does work.
Schedule of EPEL 8 Module Retirement:
Next Week:
- epel-release will be updated.
-- epel-modular will set enabled = 0
-- epel-modular full name will have "Deprecated" in it
October 31 2022:
- The EPEL 8 modules will be archived and removed.
-- The mirror manager will be pointed to the archive.
- Packagers will no longer be able to build EPEL 8 modules.
After October 31st (Actual date to be determined):
- epel-release will be updated again.
-- epel-modular repo configs will be removed.
Questions and Answers:
Question: Will I still be able to access the modules after October 31st?
Answer: It is not recommended, because the modules will not get any
security or bug fixes, but yes. They will be in the Fedora archives,
and the mirror managers will point at them.
Question: What will you be dressed as on Halloween?
Answer (Troy): A Penguin
EPEL Steering Committee
[1] - https://pagure.io/epel/issue/198
Gratitude for this e-mail, i'm a software developer, with works C, C++,Lua,
Python
and i hope so much to contribute community
i'm Ramon, and i looking for some experience with linux and software
development
cordially thanks