[Bug 2258864] perl-App-Cme-1.040 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258864

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2024-e877252833 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-e877252833


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258864

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202258864%23c1
--
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Staled PRs at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/

[Miroslav Suchý]

During my work on SPDX migration I filed hundreds of pull request and as part of that work I always check if there is 
already open PRs for a package.


It surprised me how many packages has open PR. I understand when there is open PR with blocker or ongoing discussion. 
But I have seen PRs that are open for year+ without any comment from anyone.


I understood that it may happen that you miss the notification. Or postponed the work because you were busy and later 
forget about it... Lots of valid reasons.


I want to point to nice feature of Pagure - it can show you PR where you can 
act on:

https://src.fedoraproject.org/user/msuchy/requests?type=actionable=open

(your account icon -> My Pull Request -> PR I can act on)

Please check it, maybe you will discover some PR that is waiting on your 
feedback and you are not aware of it.

--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: HELP! What's up with OpenVDB?

[Mamoru TASAKA]

Richard Shaw wrote on 2024/01/25 12:43:

So with the tbb[1] update OpenVDB is one of the stragglers having issues
that need to be addressed before I can build OpenImageIO.

Looking at the releng rebuilt attempt it failed on ppc64le. I kicked off
the build again[2] and this time it failed on s390x:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3860/112313860/build.log

Just to check I did a local build for x86_64 and it completed, though I
noted it only seemed to use about 3 cores of my 8 core / 12 thread
processor. It had this on the cmake line:

%cmake_build %limit_build -m 8192

But I haven been unable to decipher its exact purpose since google cannot
find where `%limit_build` is documented.

Thanks,
Richard

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036372
[2] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=112313794




See:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/build-constraints-rpm-macros/blob/rawhide/f/macros.build-constraints

The macro attemps to reduce parallel make jobs when the build needs
more memory than usual.

Your [2] ppc64le build log actually says:

g++: fatal error: Killed signal terminated program cc1plus
compilation terminated.
gmake[2]: *** [openvdb/openvdb/CMakeFiles/openvdb_shared.dir/build.make:625: 
openvdb/openvdb/CMakeFiles/openvdb_shared.dir/instantiations/GridOperators.cc.o]
 Error 1
gmake[2]: *** Deleting file 
'openvdb/openvdb/CMakeFiles/openvdb_shared.dir/instantiations/GridOperators.cc.o'
gmake[2]: Leaving directory 
'/builddir/build/BUILD/openvdb-11.0.0/redhat-linux-build'
gmake[1]: *** [CMakeFiles/Makefile2:261: 
openvdb/openvdb/CMakeFiles/openvdb_shared.dir/all] Error 2
gmake[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs

So perhaps g++ process was killed by OOM.

Regards,
Mamoru
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in February

[Orion Poplawski]

On 1/24/24 13:05, Miro Hrončok wrote:

On 24. 01. 24 19:00, Ralf Corsépius wrote:



Am 24.01.24 um 17:38 schrieb Miro Hrončok:

 Package  (co)maintainers




 freefem++ (maintained by: cicku, corsepiu)
 freefem++-openmpi-4.14-3.fc40.x86_64 requires 
libmpi.so.40()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64)


WTH is this? Your script seems broken.


This is a 2-level deep dependency on a package that fails to build.

Thanks for your feedback. Occasionally, "my" script is broken, but what 
you reported is not actually incorrect. See further.



nor did it fail to build.


It did not. It depends on openmpi which depends on infinipath-psm which 
fails to build.


The openmpi dependency on infinipath-psm was vestigial and has been 
removed with openmpi-5.0.1-3.fc40.



--
Orion Poplawski
he/him/his  - surely the least important thing about me
IT Systems Manager 720-772-5637
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane   or...@nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 https://www.nwra.com/



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

HELP! What's up with OpenVDB?

[Richard Shaw]

So with the tbb[1] update OpenVDB is one of the stragglers having issues
that need to be addressed before I can build OpenImageIO.

Looking at the releng rebuilt attempt it failed on ppc64le. I kicked off
the build again[2] and this time it failed on s390x:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3860/112313860/build.log

Just to check I did a local build for x86_64 and it completed, though I
noted it only seemed to use about 3 cores of my 8 core / 12 thread
processor. It had this on the cmake line:

%cmake_build %limit_build -m 8192

But I haven been unable to decipher its exact purpose since google cannot
find where `%limit_build` is documented.

Thanks,
Richard

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036372
[2] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=112313794
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2259685] perl-libwww-perl-6.75 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259685

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2024-6a4c997a02 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh
--advisory=FEDORA-2024-6a4c997a02`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-6a4c997a02

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259685

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202259685%23c5
--
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2258287] perl-libwww-perl-6.73 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258287



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2024-6a4c997a02 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh
--advisory=FEDORA-2024-6a4c997a02`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-6a4c997a02

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258287

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202258287%23c4
--
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2259686] perl-LWP-Protocol-https-6.12 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259686

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2024-f7de5f3f99 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh
--advisory=FEDORA-2024-f7de5f3f99`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-f7de5f3f99

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259686

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202259686%23c3
--
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2258649] perl-SQL-Translator-1.65 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258649



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2024-ea7c6ef21f has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh
--advisory=FEDORA-2024-ea7c6ef21f`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-ea7c6ef21f

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258649

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202258649%23c4
--
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2260267] New: perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20240120 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260267

Bug ID: 2260267
   Summary: perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20240120 is available
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases
  Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
  Assignee: jples...@redhat.com
  Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: iarn...@gmail.com, jples...@redhat.com,
mspa...@redhat.com, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Releases retrieved: 5.20240120
Upstream release that is considered latest: 5.20240120
Current version/release in rawhide: 5.20231230-1.fc40
URL: https://metacpan.org/dist/CPAN-Perl-Releases/

Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/


More information about the service that created this bug can be found at:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Upstream_Release_Monitoring


Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging
changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your
responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still
correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added
upstream.


Based on the information from Anitya:
https://release-monitoring.org/project/5881/


To change the monitoring settings for the project, please visit:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260267

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202260267%23c0
--
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Cached Package Review Tracker - Tickets that passed automated review

[Michel Lind]

Hi Jakub,

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 09:33:37PM +0100, Jakub Kadlcik wrote:
> Hello,
> if you use the Cached Package Review Tracker
> https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/
> there is a new "feature" that you may find useful.
> 
> Fedora Review Service runs the fedora-review tool on every new Bugzilla
> ticket. If no errors are found, the ticket is marked with a special
> keyword. Such tickets are then displayed in the "New tickets that passed CI
> checks" section of the cached tracker.
> https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/triaged.html
> 
> They are also highlighted in the "New Fedora tickets" section
> https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/reviewable.html
> (see the color legend)
> 
> The presumption is - if a ticket passes all fedora-review checks, it is
> probably in relatively good shape and the package review could be quick and
> simple.
>
Amazing, thank you!

-- 
Michel Lind (né Salim)
identities: https://keyoxide.org/5dce2e7e9c3b1cffd335c1d78b229d2f7ccc04f2


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in February

[Jerry James]

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 2:28 PM Michel Lind  wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 10:35:09AM -0700, Jerry James wrote:
> > I fixed cl-asdf in Rawhide.
> Mind building it in F39 and F38 too? It fails to build there and there
> is one bug open for each

Sure, I can do that.  What we really ought to do is remove all
dependencies on this package and retire it.  It is ASDF 2.x.  AFAIK,
both ecl and sbcl ship with ASDF 3.x.  I'm not sure about gcl.

Anyway, that will take more work than I have time for right now.  I'll
add it to my TODO list.
-- 
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in February

[Michel Lind]

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 10:35:09AM -0700, Jerry James wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 9:39 AM Miro Hrončok  wrote:
> > Based on the current fail to build from source policy, the following 
> > packages
> > should be retired from Fedora 40 approximately one week before branching.
> [snip]
> > cl-asdf green
> 
> I fixed cl-asdf in Rawhide.
Mind building it in F39 and F38 too? It fails to build there and there
is one bug open for each

Thanks,

-- 
Michel Lind (né Salim)
identities: https://keyoxide.org/5dce2e7e9c3b1cffd335c1d78b229d2f7ccc04f2


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in February

[Michel Lind]

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 05:53:52PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 24. 01. 24 17:50, Michel Lind wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 05:38:59PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > Dear maintainers.
> > > 
> > > Based on the current fail to build from source policy, the following 
> > > packages
> > > should be retired from Fedora 40 approximately one week before branching.
> > > 
> > [snip]
> > > golang-github-eclesh-welford abulimov, dcavalca, go-sig
> > I fixed this one last week - curious how it ended up on the
> > list?
> 
> No successful Rawhide build.
> 
Aha, thanks.

golang-github-google-gopacket is now built on Rawhide and stable
releases. Checking welford now.

-- 
Michel Lind (né Salim)
identities: https://keyoxide.org/5dce2e7e9c3b1cffd335c1d78b229d2f7ccc04f2


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Modern C i686 failures

[Michael J Gruber]

Yaakov Selkowitz venit, vidit, dixit 2024-01-24 21:01:39:
> The GCC 14 and Modern C changes have caused a large number of build
> failures.  No surprise there, but in particular though, a lot of these
> failures have only occurred on i686, e.g.  uint64_t (aka long long
> unsigned int) doesn't match long unsigned int *, etc.
> 
> A few examples:
> 
> gnome-keyring: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=112010040
> ldns: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=112074780
> ledmon: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=112074925
> libfabric: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=112077476
> libgphoto2: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=112078167
> 
> Granted, in some cases this can be motivation to retire i686 leaves,
> but for those that are not leaves, they now need to be fixed for i686
> to complete the mass rebuild.
> 
> Given the increasingly limited usage of i686 in Fedora (not to mention
> CentOS Stream and RHEL), is it actually worth the effort to "fix" all
> the code just for 32-bit compatibility?  Or perhaps it's better if we
> focus on issues that pertain to our primary (64-bit) architectures?

That is an understandable impulse.

OTOH, I saw time_t vs int issues as well as uint64 vs int which were a
mismatch between ondisk (file format) and in-memeory data. Fixing these
now means getting ready for potential changes of time_t and similar -
unless you "fix" these things by wrong casts just to quell gcc, of
course. I just whish this had come upon us earlier in the cycle.

Cheers,
Michael
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in February

[Miro Hrončok]

On 24. 01. 24 19:00, Ralf Corsépius wrote:



Am 24.01.24 um 17:38 schrieb Miro Hrončok:

Dear maintainers.

Based on the current fail to build from source policy, the following packages
should be retired from Fedora 40 approximately one week before branching.

5 weekly reminders are required, hence the retirement will happen
approximately in 5 weeks, i.e. around 2024-02-28.
Since this is unfortunately after the branching,
packages will be retired on rawhide and f40.

I apologize for starting this process a bit later than required again.
Unfortunately, I had other work obligations.
Volunteers to take over this are always welcome.

Policy: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/


The packages in rawhide were not successfully built at least since Fedora 37.

This report is based on dist tags.

Packages collected via:
https://github.com/hroncok/fedora-report-ftbfs-retirements/blob/master/ftbfs-retirements.ipynb

If you see a package that was built, please let me know.
If you see a package that should be exempted from the process,
please let me know and we can work together to get a FESCo approval for that.

If you see a package that can be rebuilt, please do so.

 Package  (co)maintainers




 freefem++ (maintained by: cicku, corsepiu)
 freefem++-openmpi-4.14-3.fc40.x86_64 requires 
libmpi.so.40()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64)


WTH is this? Your script seems broken.


This is a 2-level deep dependency on a package that fails to build.

Thanks for your feedback. Occasionally, "my" script is broken, but what you 
reported is not actually incorrect. See further.



Neither is cicku a maintainer of freefem++


They are listed as such at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/freefem++


nor did it fail to build.


It did not. It depends on openmpi which depends on infinipath-psm which fails 
to build.


Actually 
this package had been built several times in recent months/weeks. Koji lists it 
as having been rebuilt today!


Correct.


And while we are at it: Why is cicku still listed as a maintainer?


I don't know.

He was removed from Fedora by force due to a FESCO decision many years ago. I 
don't recall the details, but this can easily be 10 years ago.


Then, perhaps the removal was not complete.

--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Modern C i686 failures

[Yaakov Selkowitz]

The GCC 14 and Modern C changes have caused a large number of build
failures.  No surprise there, but in particular though, a lot of these
failures have only occurred on i686, e.g.  uint64_t (aka long long
unsigned int) doesn't match long unsigned int *, etc.

A few examples:

gnome-keyring: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=112010040
ldns: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=112074780
ledmon: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=112074925
libfabric: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=112077476
libgphoto2: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=112078167

Granted, in some cases this can be motivation to retire i686 leaves,
but for those that are not leaves, they now need to be fixed for i686
to complete the mass rebuild.

Given the increasingly limited usage of i686 in Fedora (not to mention
CentOS Stream and RHEL), is it actually worth the effort to "fix" all
the code just for 32-bit compatibility?  Or perhaps it's better if we
focus on issues that pertain to our primary (64-bit) architectures?

-- 
Yaakov Selkowitz
Principal Software Engineer - Emerging RHEL
Red Hat, Inc.
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Interesting difference between Koji and COPR (_isa macro)

[Miroslav Suchý]

Dne 24. 01. 24 v 18:02 Dan Horák napsal(a):

It seems like %{?_isa} is not defined for noarch packages in Koji but it
is in COPR. Is that a known problem/feature?

it could be because COPR always does an archful build (like plain mock
builds do), while koji knows noarch is a separate arch


Mock does not understand "noarch" build. It always run on machine with an arch. Just the 
result can be name "noarch".

This is first time I hear about this problem.

When you hit something like this, it is always good start to reproduce it 
localy with mock.

Config from Koji can be retrieved using:

   fedpkg mock-config

in specific branch of dist-git.

Config from Copr can be retrieved using:

copr-cli mock-config myproject fedora-rawhide-x86_64

and you can test it as

  mock -f ./config.cfg foo.src.rpm

--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Fedora CoreOS Meeting Minutes 2024-01-24

[Dusty Mabe]

Text Log: 
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting-1_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2024-01-24/fedora-coreos-meeting.2024-01-24-16.30.log.txt
HTML Log: 
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting-1_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2024-01-24/fedora-coreos-meeting.2024-01-24-16.30.log.html
Text Minutes: 
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting-1_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2024-01-24/fedora-coreos-meeting.2024-01-24-16.30.txt
HTML Minutes: 
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting-1_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2024-01-24/fedora-coreos-meeting.2024-01-24-16.30.html

=
# #meeting-1:fedoraproject.org: fedora_coreos_meeting
=

Meeting started by @dustymabe:matrix.org at 2024-01-24 16:30:20



Meeting summary
---
* TOPIC: Action items from last meeting (@dustymabe:matrix.org, 16:34:51)
* INFO: there are no action items from the [last 
meeting](https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting-1_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2024-01-17/fedora-coreos-meeting.2024-01-17-16.29.html)
 (@dustymabe:matrix.org, 16:35:35)
* TOPIC: Switch to using OSBuild for most CoreOS boot image building 
(@dustymabe:matrix.org, 16:36:13)
* LINK: https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/1653 
(@dustymabe:matrix.org, 16:36:21)
* AGREED: We will roll out disk image building using OSBuild to our 
`rawhide` mechanical stream first (this is a non-user facing stream). Then we 
will roll out OSBuild to the `next` stream and let it soak there for some time. 
We may choose to switch over `testing` before the rebase to F40, but we won't 
do it until F40 has at least reached `next` at F40 beta time. 
(@dustymabe:matrix.org, 16:52:30)
* TOPIC: fwupd enabled by default in VM builds (@dustymabe:matrix.org, 16:53:43)
* LINK: https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/1650 
(@dustymabe:matrix.org, 16:53:50)
* LINK: https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/1623 
(@dustymabe:matrix.org, 16:54:49)
* INFO: we need someone to take a dedicated look at fwupd on Fedora CoreOS 
to fix any related issues (@dustymabe:matrix.org, 17:03:21)
* TOPIC: tracker: Fedora 40 changes considerations (@dustymabe:matrix.org, 
17:05:49)
* LINK: https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/1626 
(@dustymabe:matrix.org, 17:05:55)
* INFO: 124. Golang 1.22 (@dustymabe:matrix.org, 17:06:31)
* LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/golang1.22 
(@dustymabe:matrix.org, 17:06:39)
* ACTION: spresti to investigate if there are actions we need to take to 
pre-test golang 1.22 before it hits rawhide (@dustymabe:matrix.org, 17:13:00)
* INFO: 125. Enable IPv4 Address Conflict Detection by default 
(@dustymabe:matrix.org, 17:13:44)
* LINK: 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Enable_IPv4_Address_Conflict_Detection 
(@dustymabe:matrix.org, 17:13:51)
* ACTION: dustymabe to open an issue for further investigating `Enable IPv4 
Address Conflict Detection` (@dustymabe:matrix.org, 17:19:48)
* INFO: topic 126. LLVM 18 (@dustymabe:matrix.org, 17:20:12)
* LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/LLVM-18 
(@dustymabe:matrix.org, 17:20:24)
* INFO: for LLVM this should not affect us or should be transparent to us 
(@dustymabe:matrix.org, 17:21:00)
* INFO: topic 127. Remove Python Mock Usage (@dustymabe:matrix.org, 
17:21:50)
* LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RemovePythonMockUsage 
(@dustymabe:matrix.org, 17:22:00)
* INFO: in our CoreOS org we don't really ship any python packages in 
Fedora so there should be no work for us to do. (@dustymabe:matrix.org, 
17:22:50)
* INFO: 128. Change Firefox desktop file (@dustymabe:matrix.org, 17:23:07)
* LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RenameFirefoxDesktopFile 
(@dustymabe:matrix.org, 17:23:13)
* INFO: Nothing to do. We don't ship Firefox. (@dustymabe:matrix.org, 
17:23:26)
* INFO: 129. Assign individual, stable MAC addresses for Wi-Fi connections 
(@dustymabe:matrix.org, 17:23:45)
* LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/StableSSIDMACAddress 
(@dustymabe:matrix.org, 17:23:54)
* ACTION: jlebon to open an issue for F40 communications 
(@dustymabe:matrix.org, 17:27:20)
* INFO: we don't ship wifi enabled by default in FCOS but we do know people 
layer it in. We should highlight this change to our users when communicating 
F40 changes. (@dustymabe:matrix.org, 17:28:12)
* TOPIC: open floor (@dustymabe:matrix.org, 17:29:17)
* INFO: jlebon filed 
https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/1655 (@jlebon:fedora.im, 
17:29:51)
* ACTION: fifofonix to coordinate with travier a time to collaborate and 
understand the problems more (@dustymabe:matrix.org, 17:31:27)
* ACTION: fifofonix to coordinate with travier a time to collaborate and 
understand the problems related to fwupd more (@dustymabe:matrix.org, 17:31:36)

Meeting ended at 2024-01-24 17:33:53

Action items

* spresti to investigate if 

Re: List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in February

[Jerry James]

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 9:39 AM Miro Hrončok  wrote:
> Based on the current fail to build from source policy, the following packages
> should be retired from Fedora 40 approximately one week before branching.
[snip]
> cl-asdf green

I fixed cl-asdf in Rawhide.
-- 
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2259686] perl-LWP-Protocol-https-6.12 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259686

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2024-f7de5f3f99 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-f7de5f3f99


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259686

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202259686%23c2
--
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Interesting difference between Koji and COPR (_isa macro)

[Dan Horák]

On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 17:56:40 +0100
Lumír Balhar  wrote:

> Hello.
> 
> Today I found out an interesting difference between Koji and COPR. 
> autowrap package has this in its specfile:
> 
> Requires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-Cython%{?_isa}
> 
> Which is incorrect for noarch package but hold on. The resulting package 
> from Koji requires:
> 
> python3-Cython
> 
> but in COPR, the result requires:
> 
> python3-Cython(x86-64)
> 
> and that breaks subsequent builds in COPR because python3-Cython does 
> not provide python3-Cython(x86-64).
> 
> In other words, if I rebuild autowrap in COPR and some other build later 
> tries to install it, the installation fails because nothing provides 
> python3-Cython(x86-64).
> 
> It seems like %{?_isa} is not defined for noarch packages in Koji but it 
> is in COPR. Is that a known problem/feature?

it could be because COPR always does an archful build (like plain mock
builds do), while koji knows noarch is a separate arch


Dan
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[rpms/perl-LWP-Protocol-https] PR #4: 0.12 bump

[Michal Josef Špaček]

mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-LWP-Protocol-https` 
that you are following.

Merged pull-request:

``
0.12 bump
``

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-LWP-Protocol-https/pull-request/4
--
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Interesting difference between Koji and COPR (_isa macro)

[Lumír Balhar]

Hello.

Today I found out an interesting difference between Koji and COPR. 
autowrap package has this in its specfile:


Requires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-Cython%{?_isa}

Which is incorrect for noarch package but hold on. The resulting package 
from Koji requires:


python3-Cython

but in COPR, the result requires:

python3-Cython(x86-64)

and that breaks subsequent builds in COPR because python3-Cython does 
not provide python3-Cython(x86-64).


In other words, if I rebuild autowrap in COPR and some other build later 
tries to install it, the installation fails because nothing provides 
python3-Cython(x86-64).


It seems like %{?_isa} is not defined for noarch packages in Koji but it 
is in COPR. Is that a known problem/feature?


Thank you.

Lumír

P.S.: fix for autowrap: 
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/autowrap/pull-request/3

--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in February

[Miro Hrončok]

On 24. 01. 24 17:50, Michel Lind wrote:

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 05:38:59PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:

Dear maintainers.

Based on the current fail to build from source policy, the following packages
should be retired from Fedora 40 approximately one week before branching.


[snip]

golang-github-eclesh-welford abulimov, dcavalca, go-sig

I fixed this one last week - curious how it ended up on the
list?


No successful Rawhide build.


https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=golang-github-eclesh-welford

https://bugz.fedoraproject.org/golang-github-eclesh-welford shows no bug open
(though I noticed it just failed in the mass rebuild)


This report is not based on bugzillas, only Rawhide builds.

--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in February

[Michel Lind]

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 05:38:59PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Dear maintainers.
> 
> Based on the current fail to build from source policy, the following packages
> should be retired from Fedora 40 approximately one week before branching.
> 
[snip]
> golang-github-eclesh-welford abulimov, dcavalca, go-sig
I fixed this one last week - curious how it ended up on the
list?

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=golang-github-eclesh-welford

https://bugz.fedoraproject.org/golang-github-eclesh-welford shows no bug open
(though I noticed it just failed in the mass rebuild)

Best,

-- 
Michel Lind (né Salim)
identities: https://keyoxide.org/5dce2e7e9c3b1cffd335c1d78b229d2f7ccc04f2


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Orphaning python-represent

[Lumír Balhar]

Hello.

I'm going to orphan python-represent. I updated it to the latest version 
so if you take it, there is nothing to be done now. It's a leaf package 
and I don't have any use for it.


Have a nice day.

Lumír
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2258649] perl-SQL-Translator-1.65 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258649



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2024-ea7c6ef21f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-ea7c6ef21f


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258649

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202258649%23c3
--
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in February

[Miro Hrončok]

Dear maintainers.

Based on the current fail to build from source policy, the following packages
should be retired from Fedora 40 approximately one week before branching.

5 weekly reminders are required, hence the retirement will happen
approximately in 5 weeks, i.e. around 2024-02-28.
Since this is unfortunately after the branching,
packages will be retired on rawhide and f40.

I apologize for starting this process a bit later than required again.
Unfortunately, I had other work obligations.
Volunteers to take over this are always welcome.

Policy: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/


The packages in rawhide were not successfully built at least since Fedora 37.

This report is based on dist tags.

Packages collected via:
https://github.com/hroncok/fedora-report-ftbfs-retirements/blob/master/ftbfs-retirements.ipynb

If you see a package that was built, please let me know.
If you see a package that should be exempted from the process,
please let me know and we can work together to get a FESCo approval for that.

If you see a package that can be rebuilt, please do so.

Package  (co)maintainers

cl-asdf green
erlang-jose bowlofeggs, erlang-maint-sig, jcline, peter
fwtsbenzea
ghdlsailer
git-secrets  keesdejong
golang-github-acme-lego  eclipseo, go-sig
golang-github-eclesh-welford abulimov, dcavalca, go-sig
golang-github-gatherstars-com-jwzeclipseo, go-sig
golang-github-genuinetools-pkg   eclipseo, go-sig
golang-github-gobs-prettyeclipseo, go-sig
golang-github-google-gopacketgo-sig, salimma
golang-github-jhillyerd-enmime   eclipseo, go-sig
golang-github-pierrre-compareeclipseo, go-sig
golang-github-smartystreets-goconvey alexsaezm, go-sig, jchaloup
golang-gopkg-square-jose-2   alexsaezm, go-sig
golang-gvisoreclipseo, elmarco, go-sig
golang-opentelemetry-otel-0.20   alexsaezm, go-sig
golang-sigs-k8s-kustomizedcavalca, go-sig
golang-vitesseclipseo, go-sig
infinipath-psm   honli
j4-dmenu-desktop ibotty
jackson-dataformats-binary   mbooth
jackson-dataformats-text mbooth
java-1.8.0-openjdk-aarch32   akasko, jvanek
jreenrdieter
kdevelop-pg-qt   jgrulich, kde-sig, rdieter, than
libdeltacloudclalance
libva-v4l2-request   kwizart, rathann
lmms thm
lxc  hguemar, sagarun, thm
mingw-clucenegreghellings
mingw-cppunitkwizart
mingw-dirac  kwizart
mingw-speexdsp   janisozaur
nbd-runner   xiubli
nodejs-generic-pool  patches, piotrp
ofononjha, thunderbirdtr
openni-primesensecottsay, jkastner, rmattes
pcmciautils  harald
pesign-test-app  javierm, nfrayer, pjones, rwood
pthsem   ixs
rust-drg jbtrystram, rust-sig
telepathy-gabble aperezbios
yaksazbyszek

The following packages require above mentioned packages:
Depending on: cl-asdf (5)
common-lisp-controller (maintained by: green)
common-lisp-controller-7.4-26.fc39.noarch requires cl-asdf

emacs-slime (maintained by: bkreuter, salimma)
emacs-slime-2:2.28-2.fc39.noarch requires common-lisp-controller
emacs-slime-2:2.28-2.fc39.src requires common-lisp-controller

sbcl (maintained by: green, rdieter)
sbcl-2.3.11-1.fc40.src requires common-lisp-controller
sbcl-2.3.11-1.fc40.x86_64 requires common-lisp-controller

maxima (maintained by: jamatos, rdieter)
maxima-5.45.1-6.fc40.src requires sbcl

wxMaxima (maintained by: jamatos, rdieter)
wxMaxima-20.12.1-10.fc39.x86_64 requires maxima

Depending on: erlang-jose (1)
erlang-p1_acme (maintained by: bowlofeggs, erlang-maint-sig, peter)
erlang-p1_acme-1.0.8-6.fc38.noarch requires erlang-jose
erlang-p1_acme-1.0.8-6.fc38.src requires erlang-jose

Depending on: golang-github-eclesh-welford (1)
	golang-github-facebook-time (maintained by: abulimov, dcavalca, go-sig, 
leoleovich, salimma)
		golang-github-facebook-time-0^20240118git2f194ba-1.fc40.src requires 
golang(github.com/eclesh/welford)
		golang-github-facebook-time-devel-0^20240118git2f194ba-1.fc40.noarch requires 

[Bug 2258649] perl-SQL-Translator-1.65 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258649

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version||perl-SQL-Translator-1.65-1.
   ||fc40
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
 Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
Last Closed||2024-01-24 16:27:14



--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2024-0ba10eb4c0 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258649

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202258649%23c2
--
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[rpms/perl-LWP-Protocol-https] PR #4: 0.12 bump

[Michal Josef Špaček]

mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: 
`perl-LWP-Protocol-https` that you are following:
``
0.12 bump
``

To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-LWP-Protocol-https/pull-request/4
--
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2258649] perl-SQL-Translator-1.65 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258649

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2024-0ba10eb4c0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-0ba10eb4c0


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258649

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202258649%23c1
--
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[rpms/perl-LWP-Protocol-https] PR #3: 0.12 bump

[Michal Josef Špaček]

mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-LWP-Protocol-https` 
that you are following.

Merged pull-request:

``
0.12 bump
``

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-LWP-Protocol-https/pull-request/3
--
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2260127] New: perl-XML-LibXML-2.0210 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260127

Bug ID: 2260127
   Summary: perl-XML-LibXML-2.0210 is available
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: perl-XML-LibXML
  Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
  Assignee: jples...@redhat.com
  Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: jples...@redhat.com, ka...@ucw.cz, mspa...@redhat.com,
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org,
rhug...@redhat.com, rstr...@redhat.com
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Releases retrieved: 2.0210
Upstream release that is considered latest: 2.0210
Current version/release in rawhide: 2.0209-3.fc40
URL: https://metacpan.org/release/XML-LibXML

Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/


More information about the service that created this bug can be found at:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Upstream_Release_Monitoring


Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging
changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your
responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still
correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added
upstream.


Based on the information from Anitya:
https://release-monitoring.org/project/3527/


To change the monitoring settings for the project, please visit:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-XML-LibXML


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260127

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202260127%23c0
--
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Sequoia PGP : What are the options for expired third party GPG signing keys?

[Antoine Zellmeyer via devel]

Hi Neal

Sorry for the late answer, It seems to be working :) I was able to import and 
install packages signed with this certificate.

Thanks again,
Antoine
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[rpms/perl-LWP-Protocol-https] PR #3: 0.12 bump

[Michal Josef Špaček]

mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: 
`perl-LWP-Protocol-https` that you are following:
``
0.12 bump
``

To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-LWP-Protocol-https/pull-request/3
--
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2259686] perl-LWP-Protocol-https-6.12 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259686

Michal Josef Spacek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value



--- Comment #1 from Michal Josef Spacek  ---
Changes:

6.12  2024-01-22 17:51:31Z
- Enable MultiHomed for IO::Socket::SSL (GH#61) (ℕicolas ℝ.)
- Making it possible to use IPv6 in https call through https proxy
  environment (in case of using CONNECT method to create a tunnel) (GH#74)
  (Dmitriy Shamatrin)

For rawhide and F39


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259686

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202259686%23c1
--
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2259685] perl-libwww-perl-6.75 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259685

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2024-6a4c997a02 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-6a4c997a02


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259685

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202259685%23c4
--
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Can't update from fedora 39 to rawhide

[Guinevere Larsen]

On 24/01/2024 16:00, Osama Albahrani via devel wrote:
I think this was reported in 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243872



Indeed it was. Thank you, and sorry for the noise

--
Cheers,
Guinevere Larsen
She/Her/Hers



On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 9:53 AM Guinevere Larsen  
wrote:


On 24/01/2024 14:09, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 13:04, Guinevere Larsen
 wrote:
>> Hi Fedora list!
>>
>> I'm trying to upgrade a VM from fedora 39 to rawhide but
running dnf
>> system-upgrade download --releasever=rawhide fails. the offending
>> package seems to be "grubby-8.40-73.fc39", which conflicts with
>> sdubby-1.0-5.fc40. Is this a known issue? Does anyone know a
workaround?
>> If not, where do I properly report this?
> You could probably explicitly exclude sdubby.

That works. I didn't know you could exclude packages...

Still I think this should probably be reported somewhere

-- 
Cheers,

Guinevere Larsen
She/Her/Hers
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue


--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2259685] perl-libwww-perl-6.75 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259685

Upstream Release Monitoring  
changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|perl-libwww-perl-6.74 is|perl-libwww-perl-6.75 is
   |available   |available



--- Comment #3 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
Releases retrieved: 6.75
Upstream release that is considered latest: 6.75
Current version/release in rawhide: 6.74-1.fc40
URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/libwww-perl/

Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/


More information about the service that created this bug can be found at:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Upstream_Release_Monitoring


Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging
changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your
responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still
correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added
upstream.


Based on the information from Anitya:
https://release-monitoring.org/project/3024/


To change the monitoring settings for the project, please visit:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-libwww-perl


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259685

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202259685%23c3
--
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[rpms/perl-libwww-perl] PR #54: 6.74 bump

[Michal Josef Špaček]

mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-libwww-perl` that you 
are following.

Merged pull-request:

``
6.74 bump
``

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-libwww-perl/pull-request/54
--
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Can't update from fedora 39 to rawhide

[Osama Albahrani via devel]

I think this was reported in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243872


On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 9:53 AM Guinevere Larsen  wrote:

> On 24/01/2024 14:09, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 13:04, Guinevere Larsen 
> wrote:
> >> Hi Fedora list!
> >>
> >> I'm trying to upgrade a VM from fedora 39 to rawhide but running dnf
> >> system-upgrade download --releasever=rawhide fails. the offending
> >> package seems to be "grubby-8.40-73.fc39", which conflicts with
> >> sdubby-1.0-5.fc40. Is this a known issue? Does anyone know a workaround?
> >> If not, where do I properly report this?
> > You could probably explicitly exclude sdubby.
>
> That works. I didn't know you could exclude packages...
>
> Still I think this should probably be reported somewhere
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Guinevere Larsen
> She/Her/Hers
> --
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Can't update from fedora 39 to rawhide

[Guinevere Larsen]

On 24/01/2024 14:09, Peter Robinson wrote:

On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 13:04, Guinevere Larsen  wrote:

Hi Fedora list!

I'm trying to upgrade a VM from fedora 39 to rawhide but running dnf
system-upgrade download --releasever=rawhide fails. the offending
package seems to be "grubby-8.40-73.fc39", which conflicts with
sdubby-1.0-5.fc40. Is this a known issue? Does anyone know a workaround?
If not, where do I properly report this?

You could probably explicitly exclude sdubby.


That works. I didn't know you could exclude packages...

Still I think this should probably be reported somewhere

--
Cheers,
Guinevere Larsen
She/Her/Hers
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2259685] perl-libwww-perl-6.74 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259685



--- Comment #2 from Michal Josef Spacek  ---
+ F39


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259685

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202259685%23c2
--
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[rpms/perl-libwww-perl] PR #54: 6.74 bump

[Michal Josef Špaček]

mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-libwww-perl` that 
you are following:
``
6.74 bump
``

To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-libwww-perl/pull-request/54
--
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Fedora 40 Mass Rebuild *finish* delayed

[Troy Dawson]

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 2:01 AM Miroslav Suchý  wrote:

> Dne 24. 01. 24 v 10:51 Aoife Moloney napsal(a):
> >
> > All other milestones remain the same at this time and the published
> schedule[4] has been updated to reflect these changes.
>
> https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-40/f-40-key-tasks.html
>
> Branching is set to 2024-02-06 while mass rebuilds are supposed to finish
> by 2024-02-20. That means we will branch
> during mass rebuilds?
>
> Historically we always branched *after* the mass rebuilds finishes.
>

The proposal that passed was this.
"Delay the F40 schedule 1 week for everything up to and including the start
of the Beta Freeze"
Branching falls into the list of tasks that is affected by one week.
Although they didn't change the schedule yet (and you aren't the first to
notice that) it has been pushed back a week.
So branching *should* be 2024-02-13

Troy
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Announcement: Retiring zlib and minizip-compat from Rawhide

[Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho]

The zlib-ng-compat and minizip-ng-compat packages have been in Rawhide for
more than a month.
Considering things have been working well, we believe it's time to retire the
zlib and minizip-compat packages.

This step should not cause any changes, because zlib-ng-compat and
minizip-ng-compat already obsoleted them.
However, if you find any issues, please contact us.

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ZlibNGTransition
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MinizipNGTransition

-- 
Tulio Magno
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Can't update from fedora 39 to rawhide

[Peter Robinson]

On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 13:04, Guinevere Larsen  wrote:
>
> Hi Fedora list!
>
> I'm trying to upgrade a VM from fedora 39 to rawhide but running dnf
> system-upgrade download --releasever=rawhide fails. the offending
> package seems to be "grubby-8.40-73.fc39", which conflicts with
> sdubby-1.0-5.fc40. Is this a known issue? Does anyone know a workaround?
> If not, where do I properly report this?

You could probably explicitly exclude sdubby.
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Can't update from fedora 39 to rawhide

[Guinevere Larsen]

Hi Fedora list!

I'm trying to upgrade a VM from fedora 39 to rawhide but running dnf 
system-upgrade download --releasever=rawhide fails. the offending 
package seems to be "grubby-8.40-73.fc39", which conflicts with 
sdubby-1.0-5.fc40. Is this a known issue? Does anyone know a workaround? 
If not, where do I properly report this?


Thanks everyone!

--
Cheers,
Guinevere Larsen
She/Her/Hers
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Fedora 40 Mass Rebuild *finish* delayed

[Sérgio Basto]

On Wed, 2024-01-24 at 05:05 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 5:01 AM Miroslav Suchý 
> wrote:
> > 
> > Dne 24. 01. 24 v 10:51 Aoife Moloney napsal(a):
> > > 
> > > All other milestones remain the same at this time and the
> > > published schedule[4] has been updated to reflect these changes.
> > 
> > https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-40/f-40-key-tasks.html
> > 
> > Branching is set to 2024-02-06 while mass rebuilds are supposed to
> > finish by 2024-02-20. That means we will branch
> > during mass rebuilds?
> > 
> > Historically we always branched *after* the mass rebuilds finishes.
> > 
> 
> Branching is supposed to move until after mass rebuild is done.

I hope so , we need clarify when branching will happen , I'm aware of 3
soname bump for post-mass-rebuild, protobuf [1] , opencv and jpegxl

[1] 
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/protobuf/pull-request/26
thank you 

> -- 
> 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
> --
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue


-- 
Sérgio M. B.
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: gtk3 update breaks multiple packages

[Leigh Scott]

> P.S.: opening three threads for a single thing with identical text is
> not nice. It can confuse archive readers, not finding answers they
> might be looking for. Try to avoid that in the future, please.


Chromium did the duplicates :-(
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: gtk3 update breaks multiple packages

[Milan Crha]

On Wed, 2024-01-24 at 12:53 +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> You missed reading the first NEWS entry ("* Fix a crash introduced in
> the X11 changes in 3.24.40") and quoted the third only.

Hi,
you are right. That's quite embarrassing. I'm sorry about that. No idea
how I could overlook it. My fault.
Bye,
Milan

--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: gtk3 update breaks multiple packages

[Michael J Gruber]

Am Mi., 24. Jan. 2024 um 12:40 Uhr schrieb Milan Crha :
>
> On Wed, 2024-01-24 at 11:34 +0100, Leigh Scott wrote:
> > see
> > https://github.com/GNOME/gtk/commit/77ebdd85091833a7869ece48c3114fa6d9966321
>
> Hi,
> all the bugs you referenced crash in X11 code. The above NEWS file
> commit specifically says it's for Wayland.
>
> What am I missing here, please? Did you pick a wrong commit? What was
> the commit supposed to proof, please?

You missed reading the first NEWS entry ("* Fix a crash introduced in
the X11 changes in 3.24.40") and quoted the third only.

Now, whether that diff fixes our problems can only be "proved" by
rebasing our package or picking those commits and testing.

Michael
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: gtk3 update breaks multiple packages

[Milan Crha]

On Wed, 2024-01-24 at 11:34 +0100, Leigh Scott wrote:
> see
> https://github.com/GNOME/gtk/commit/77ebdd85091833a7869ece48c3114fa6d9966321

Hi,
all the bugs you referenced crash in X11 code. The above NEWS file
commit specifically says it's for Wayland.

What am I missing here, please? Did you pick a wrong commit? What was
the commit supposed to proof, please?

Bye,
Milan

P.S.: opening three threads for a single thing with identical text is
not nice. It can confuse archive readers, not finding answers they
might be looking for. Try to avoid that in the future, please.
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: gtk3 update breaks multiple packages

[Neal Gompa]

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 5:25 AM Leigh Scott  wrote:
>
> Why isn't gtk3 a critical path package?
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260068
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260073
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260074
>
>
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-5d8ac182bf

If it was, how would we test this? We need a GTK 3 desktop that has
OpenQA tests so the affected commit would have been caught earlier:
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gtk/-/commit/5de743572ed0d41ab881816c06bc918c23419886

We don't currently have tests for desktops other than GNOME and KDE
Plasma, so there's no way we would have known until after the fact.
OpenQA tests are how we gate these kinds of things. While KDE Plasma
has one GTK3 application tested (abrt), it is not affected by this
issue since it doesn't interact with the gtk-layer-shell stuff.




--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Another mass rebuild blocker: glibc qsort regression

[Florian Weimer]

* Florian Weimer:

> * Florian Weimer:
>
>> * Florian Weimer:
>>
>>> There's a regression in qsort that needs to be fixed before the mass
>>> rebuild can be restarted:
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>> I'm going to work on this with priority.
>>>
>>> Posting this here because Fedora infrastructure is having authentication
>>> troubles.  Please relay as appropriate.
>>
>> I was wrong, just because qsort is on the stack trace doesn't mean it's
>> another qsort bug. 8-/
>>
>> It's back with Jakub for analysis from the GCC side.
>
> Sorry, still can't comment on the releng ticket—it's unclear at this
> point whether this bug impacts the mass rebuild.  (Probably not.)
> In any case, we don't have a fix yet.

It's a long-standing issue in ruby (I can reproduce it on Fedora 38).
It was merely exposed by a missed optimization in glibc.

Thanks,
Florian
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: gtk3 update breaks multiple packages

[Leigh Scott]

I have unpushed the f38 build.

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-68a2dba357
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: gtk3 update breaks multiple packages

[Leigh Scott]

see https://github.com/GNOME/gtk/commit/77ebdd85091833a7869ece48c3114fa6d9966321
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

gtk3 update breaks multiple packages

[Leigh Scott]

Why isn't gtk3 a critical path package?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260068
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260073
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260074


https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-5d8ac182bf
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

gtk3 update breaks multiple packages

[Leigh Scott]

Why isn't gtk3 a critical path package?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260068
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260073
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260074


https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-5d8ac182bf
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

gtk3 update breaks multiple packages

[Leigh Scott]

Why isn't gtk3 a critical path package?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260068
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260073
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260074


https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-5d8ac182bf
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Fedora 40 Mass Rebuild *finish* delayed

[Neal Gompa]

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 5:01 AM Miroslav Suchý  wrote:
>
> Dne 24. 01. 24 v 10:51 Aoife Moloney napsal(a):
> >
> > All other milestones remain the same at this time and the published 
> > schedule[4] has been updated to reflect these changes.
>
> https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-40/f-40-key-tasks.html
>
> Branching is set to 2024-02-06 while mass rebuilds are supposed to finish by 
> 2024-02-20. That means we will branch
> during mass rebuilds?
>
> Historically we always branched *after* the mass rebuilds finishes.
>

Branching is supposed to move until after mass rebuild is done.



-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[EPEL-devel] Re: Bundling newer 3rd party binaries than are packaged separately

[David Trudgian via epel-devel]

Many thanks for clarifying the bundling of 3rd party binaries.

> On 23 Jan 2024, at 21:18, Stephen Gallagher  wrote:
> 
> If you are bundling any software, you need to `Provides:
> bundled(software)`. This is so we can easily locate affected packages
> when e.g. a security issue necessitates fixing it.

I will make sure to include those. Also CC’ing Dave Dykstra who maintains the 
apptainer package I referenced earlier in my original email. As I understand 
it, he will need to add the Provides for the binaries currently bundled 
(without corresponding Provides) in the apptainer packaging.

> Also, since it wasn't clear from your text above: It's (generally)
> alright under these circumstances to bundle the extra packages, but
> you need to meet certain requirements:
> 
> * The code that you're bundling still has to be built in Fedora. That
> probably means compiling it as part of your SingularityCE build. You
> may not ship code that was compiled somewhere else (e.g. upstream).

This will be the case. The 3rd party binaries are built from source within the 
SingularityCE build.

> * If you are shipping executables exclusively for use with your
> package, make sure they are properly namespaced in
> /usr/libexec/singularityce (or similar). This is to ensure that no
> other package accidentally tries to use your bundled version.

This is also the case. The binaries are installed into a specific libexec dir.

Thanks again,

Dave Trudgian
--
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Fedora 40 Mass Rebuild *finish* delayed

[Miroslav Suchý]

Dne 24. 01. 24 v 10:51 Aoife Moloney napsal(a):


All other milestones remain the same at this time and the published schedule[4] 
has been updated to reflect these changes.


https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-40/f-40-key-tasks.html

Branching is set to 2024-02-06 while mass rebuilds are supposed to finish by 2024-02-20. That means we will branch 
during mass rebuilds?


Historically we always branched *after* the mass rebuilds finishes.


--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Fedora 40 Mass Rebuild *finish* delayed

[Aoife Moloney]

During Monday's FESCo meeting[1][2], 22nd Jan 2024, FESCo approved a
request[3] to delay the finish date of the mass rebuild, and all other
associated tasks up to and including the start of the Beta Freeze, by one
week.

The Mass Rebuild is now targeted to be completed by February 20th.

The Beta Freeze is now targeted to begin on February 27th.

All other milestones remain the same at this time and the published
schedule[4] has been updated to reflect these changes.

[1]
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2024-01-22/fesco.2024-01-22-19.30.html
[2]
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2024-01-22/fesco.2024-01-22-19.30.log.html
[3] https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3145
[4] https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-40/f-40-key-tasks.html



Kind regards,
Aoife
-- 

Aoife Moloney

Fedora Operations Architect

Fedora Project

Matrix: @amoloney:fedora.im

IRC: amoloney
--
___
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Fedora 40 Mass Rebuild *finish* delayed

[Aoife Moloney]

During Monday's FESCo meeting[1][2], 22nd Jan 2024, FESCo approved a
request[3] to delay the finish date of the mass rebuild, and all other
associated tasks up to and including the start of the Beta Freeze, by one
week.

The Mass Rebuild is now targeted to be completed by February 20th.

The Beta Freeze is now targeted to begin on February 27th.

All other milestones remain the same at this time and the published
schedule[4] has been updated to reflect these changes.

[1]
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2024-01-22/fesco.2024-01-22-19.30.html
[2]
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2024-01-22/fesco.2024-01-22-19.30.log.html
[3] https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3145
[4] https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-40/f-40-key-tasks.html



Kind regards,
Aoife
-- 

Aoife Moloney

Fedora Operations Architect

Fedora Project

Matrix: @amoloney:fedora.im

IRC: amoloney
--
___
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[rpms/perl-libwww-perl] PR #53: 6.74 bump

[Michal Josef Špaček]

mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-libwww-perl` that you 
are following.

Merged pull-request:

``
6.74 bump
``

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-libwww-perl/pull-request/53
--
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: GNOME package builds this cycle

[Kalev Lember]

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 7:01 PM Florian Weimer  wrote:

> I think I fixed up the RPM spec files of the Vala packages that didn't
> do the required rebuilds with Fedora's patched Vala compiler (roughly:
> run touch **.vala, add BuildRequires: vala, as appropriate).  I changed
> packages only if I saw build failures, so if rebases happen (or file
> systems with different modification time resolution), it's possible that
> more RPM spec files need to be adjusted to re-run the Vala compiler.
>
> The latest upstream submission of the Vala workaround (5ed94310) has
> Clang support:
>
>codegen: Emit diagnostics pragmata for GCC 14, Clang 16 compatibility
>
>
> But I don't think we need this in Fedora, so I haven't imported it yet.
>

Thanks for sorting all that out! David says that he's going to keep an eye
out for build failures related to Vala.

-- 
Kalev
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue