Re: LLVM Packaging Ideas for Fedora 41
On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 9:35 PM Tom Stellard wrote: > > Hi, > > After each Fedora release we do a retrospective with the LLVM package > maintainers > and talk about how we can improve the LLVM packages[1] in Fedora. We've come > up > with some ideas for Fedora 41 that we'd like to share to raise awareness and > get feedback. Right now these are just ideas, and we plan to write up a > formal > change proposal once we have decided which of these we are going to implement: > Here's some feedback below for each of these ideas. > * Spec file merge. We plan to merge the clang, compiler-rt, and libomp > packages > in with llvm and have them be sub-packages of the llvm package. This will > allow > us to use the build configuration recommended by upstream and also make it > possible > to optimize the packages using Profile-Guided Optimizations (PGO). > Are these actually released together or are they separately developed and lifecycled? If it's the latter, this would make things much more complex down the road because you'll have to deal with a lot of the weirdness that Nodejs deals with by having to subpackage with different versions and trying to keep the release values coherent so that every NVR of every subpackage is correctly unique. It's not worth it in that case. > * Build compat packages (e.g. llvm18) as early as possible. When we package > a new > major release of llvm, we create a compat package so that packages that aren't > compatible with the new version can still use the old version. In the past, > we've > waited to introduce the compat packages until the new version of LLVM was > ready > (typically during the Beta Freeze). However, this proved to be an issue this > release for packages the were ready to switch to the compat packages early in > the release cycle, but then had to wait for Beta freeze. > This is definitely a good idea. It would also mean you can ship the new version faster in Rawhide and use the corpus to properly influence upstream to do the right things before they enter stabilization. Right now, everyone finds out too late and there's never enough time to fix it. > * Switch to python-style compat/main packages. In order to make the > packaging more > consistent between the main package (e.g. llvm) and the compat package (e.g. > llvm18), > we would retire the un-versioned dist-git for llvm, and create a new > versioned dist-git > for each new release (e.g. llvm19, llvm20, llvm21 etc.). We would then > designate one > of these as the 'main version', and that version would produce binary rpms > that look > like the current main package (i.e. llvm-libs instead of llvm19-libs). > Ehh? I guess? I don't think this buys us that much. > * Invert the order of compat/main packages. Instead of having the compat > package be > the old version, and the main package be the new version, we would have the > compat package > be newer and the main package be older. This would allow us to introduce a > new version of > llvm without impacting other packages that depend on the main version of LLVM. > I don't like this idea, it makes things harder to reason about and doesn't actually solve any problems. You also have to do new package reviews for each new version instead of using the compatibility package exception to branch older releases into compatibility packages. -- 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
LLVM Packaging Ideas for Fedora 41
Hi, After each Fedora release we do a retrospective with the LLVM package maintainers and talk about how we can improve the LLVM packages[1] in Fedora. We've come up with some ideas for Fedora 41 that we'd like to share to raise awareness and get feedback. Right now these are just ideas, and we plan to write up a formal change proposal once we have decided which of these we are going to implement: * Spec file merge. We plan to merge the clang, compiler-rt, and libomp packages in with llvm and have them be sub-packages of the llvm package. This will allow us to use the build configuration recommended by upstream and also make it possible to optimize the packages using Profile-Guided Optimizations (PGO). * Build compat packages (e.g. llvm18) as early as possible. When we package a new major release of llvm, we create a compat package so that packages that aren't compatible with the new version can still use the old version. In the past, we've waited to introduce the compat packages until the new version of LLVM was ready (typically during the Beta Freeze). However, this proved to be an issue this release for packages the were ready to switch to the compat packages early in the release cycle, but then had to wait for Beta freeze. * Switch to python-style compat/main packages. In order to make the packaging more consistent between the main package (e.g. llvm) and the compat package (e.g. llvm18), we would retire the un-versioned dist-git for llvm, and create a new versioned dist-git for each new release (e.g. llvm19, llvm20, llvm21 etc.). We would then designate one of these as the 'main version', and that version would produce binary rpms that look like the current main package (i.e. llvm-libs instead of llvm19-libs). * Invert the order of compat/main packages. Instead of having the compat package be the old version, and the main package be the new version, we would have the compat package be newer and the main package be older. This would allow us to introduce a new version of llvm without impacting other packages that depend on the main version of LLVM. If anyone has any feedback on these ideas we'd like to hear it and are happy to discuss these more. Thanks, Tom [1] LLVM Packages are: llvm, clang, compiler-rt, libomp, lld, lldb, llvm-test-suite, libclc, llvm-bolt, libcxx, mlir, flang, python-lit, and polly. -- ___ 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 2277236] perl-experimental-0.032 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277236 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-026376c7d6 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-026376c7d6` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-026376c7d6 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=2277236 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277236%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 2277213] perl-Devel-Size-0.84 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277213 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-f07625085d has been pushed to the Fedora 40 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-f07625085d` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-f07625085d 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=2277213 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277213%23c6 -- ___ 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 2277224] perl-File-MimeInfo-0.35 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277224 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-904bfe90c9 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-904bfe90c9` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-904bfe90c9 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=2277224 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277224%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: systemd 256~rc1 in rawhide
On Fri, 2024-04-26 at 18:59 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > eOn Fr, 26.04.24 09:05, Adam Williamson (adamw...@fedoraproject.org) wrote: > > > On Fri, 2024-04-26 at 07:36 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > systemd-256~rc1 is building in rawhide. This is a major update, > > > in development for 5 months. We've been doing continuous builds > > > and testing of the development versions in rawhide, but bugs > > > are possible (even likely). Plese report issues in bugzilla or > > > here. > > > > It doesn't boot. That seems like an issue. :D > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-54b3646daf#comment-3506797 > > I guess this is triggered by the new ProtectSystem= feature that you > can configure in /etc/systemd/system.conf. See NEWS file. > > It ensures that /usr/ is marked ready-only during earliest > initialization in PID 1. It defaults to off on the final system, but > to on in initrds, and that appears to trip off dracut. > > I don't know why dracut wants to write around in /usr/, but it seems > very wrong it tries to do that. > > Anyway, a quick work-around is to set the knob to false in the > initrd. But a proper fix is to make dracut not patch around in /usr/ > during runtime. Writing to /usr/ should be off limits for anything > that isn't really a package manager (and maybe very few other > exceptions). Well, it really wants to write to /lib , not to /usr. But of course, on Fedora, /lib is /usr/lib . The specific error I can see in the openQA output is triggered here: https://github.com/dracutdevs/dracut/blob/master/modules.d/98dracut-systemd/parse-root.sh#L28 $hookdir , there, is /lib/dracut/hooks . This is a mechanism used all through dracut - it writes hooks into that directory under all sorts of circumstances. I don't know how disruptive it would be to make it a different directory. CCing pvalena. Another thing I discovered testing this locally: the bug only shows up once the initramfs is regenerated. If you just update systemd alone and reboot, system boots fine. As it happens, all the openQA tests run into the bug because there is a kernel update available since their base disk images were last regenerated, so in the same update transaction as the systemd update being tested, they get a kernel update, and the initramfs gets regenerated. But even if that weren't the case, we would have caught the bug with the advisory_boot test, which rebuilds the initramfs after installing the update and tests that the system still boots, specifically to catch cases like this. -- Adam Williamson (he/him/his) Fedora QA Fedora Chat: @adamwill:fedora.im | Mastodon: @ad...@fosstodon.org https://www.happyassassin.net -- ___ 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 2276541] perl-JSON-Path-1.0.6 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2276541 Upstream Release Monitoring changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|perl-JSON-Path-1.0.5 is |perl-JSON-Path-1.0.6 is |available |available --- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- Releases retrieved: 1.0.6 Upstream release that is considered latest: 1.0.6 Current version/release in rawhide: 1.0.4-3.fc40 URL: https://metacpan.org/release/JSON-Path/ 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/15651/ To change the monitoring settings for the project, please visit: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-JSON-Path -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2276541 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202276541%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 2277217] perl-Test2-Suite-0.000162 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277217 Michal Josef Spacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2024-04-26 19:07:40 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277217 -- ___ 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: Feedback wanted: Testing side-tag for switching dnf5 in Rawhide
On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 11:16:28AM GMT, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2024-04-26 at 08:56 +0200, Jan Kolarik wrote: > > Hi Kevin, > > > > Personally, I think this is a beta requirement. > > > > > > > IIUC the Fedora 41 Beta requirement is to successfully upgrade the system > > from Fedora 40, as mentioned here: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_upgrade_dnf_current_workstation. > > So this still relates to the dnf4 package, which is used in Fedora 40. I > > expect this will become relevant for dnf5 at the Fedora 42 Beta. > > Yup, that makes sense to me. The upgrade is all run by the previous > release's DNF, not the new release's DNF. Yeah, sorry... I agree, I was confused. :) kevin 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
[Bug 2277396] New: perl-Business-ISBN-Data-20240426.001 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277396 Bug ID: 2277396 Summary: perl-Business-ISBN-Data-20240426.001 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-Business-ISBN-Data 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, p...@city-fan.org, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Releases retrieved: 20240426.001 Upstream release that is considered latest: 20240426.001 Current version/release in rawhide: 20240420.001-1.fc41 URL: https://metacpan.org/dist/Business-ISBN-Data/ 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/2674/ To change the monitoring settings for the project, please visit: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Business-ISBN-Data -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277396 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277396%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: [HEADS-UP] openexr so name bump heading Rawhide and f40
Hi Ben,
Thanks a lot for your help. The update is submitted to bodhi for Rawhide.
@Richard Shaw my fault about not giving you heads up
about the planned openexr update. My apologies. Will do in future.
Best regards
Josef Ridky
Senior Software Engineer
Core Services Team
Red Hat Czech, s.r.o.
On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 3:48 PM Ben Beasley wrote:
> Josef,
>
> I finished rebuilding everything in the side tag f41-build-side-88169.
> Please create the Bodhi update.
>
> The packages cinelerra-gg and olive are RPMFusion packages, so there is
> nothing to do in Fedora; any coordination you want to do with RPMFusion is
> up to you.
>
> For the curious, further details follow below.
>
> – Ben Beasley (FAS music)
>
>
>
> I double-checked the packages that were in your original list but not in
> the output of "fedrq wrsrc -s openexr":
> - The CTL package BuildRequires the compat package openexr2 instead,
> so it did not need to be rebuilt.
>
> - The synfig package also BuildRequires the compat package, and one
> can see that it links the compat libraries (e.g. libIlmImf-2_5.so.26), but
> it does depend *indirectly* on the current openexr via its dependencies. I
> think it did not need to be rebuilt, but an attempt was made to rebuild it
> in the side tag, which failed because the dependencies were not rebuilt yet
> – so I rebuilt it again, successfuly.
>
> - The cinelerra-gg and olive packages belong to RPMFusion, so there is
> nothing to do in Fedora.
>
> - The synfigstudio package really did need to be rebuilt! The source
> RPM does not depend on openexr, but the binary packages do.
>
> To look for other cases like synfigstudio, I tried this:
>
> fedrq wr openexr-libs | xargs repoquery --repo=rawhide --qf
> '%{source_name}'
>
> Other than synfigstudio, all of the resulting packages were in the
> original list.
> On 4/25/24 11:20 AM, Ben Beasley wrote:
>
> The side tag is nearly complete. I have finished rebuilding all of the
> packages in “my” list for openexr except Blender (which I’ll tackle soon).
>
> I discovered that an ABI-incompatible update was committed to the Rawhide
> branch for OpenColorIO, but never built, about two months ago. Since I
> needed to rebuild OpenColorIO in the side tag, I raised the issue[1] with
> the OpenColorIO maintainer and—after a quick, successful trial-run in
> COPR—we ultimately decided to include the OpenColorIO update in side tag
> rather than trying to revert it before rebuilding.
>
> Therefore, OpenImageIO, krita, and luxcorerender received a second rebuild
> commit for OpenColorIO 2.3.2 and a second build in the side tag. The
> calligra and usd packages are also rebuilding for OpenColorIO 2.3.2 in the
> side tag. Once everything else is done, I will build Blender.
>
> Finally, I will double-check the packages that were in Josef’s list but
> not mine (CTL, cinelerra-gg, olive, synfig, and synfigstudio; libjxl is
> just a binary package of jpegxl), to make sure I haven’t missed any
> additional packages that really do need to be rebuilt.
>
> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2239262#c15
> On 4/24/24 8:13 AM, Ben Beasley wrote:
>
> I rebuilt openvdb. I am finding that the dependency chains in this set of
> packages are even longer than I expected. Considering that, and how “heavy”
> some of these packages are – and in the interest of not keeping this side
> tag open for too long – I am going to go ahead and start using
> provenpackager privilege to carefully work through the packages that can be
> rebuilt with a simple release bump. (Hopefully that means all of them!)
>
>
> On 4/23/24 7:21 PM, Ben Beasley wrote:
>
> I get a slightly larger list with fedrq:
>
> $ fedrq wrsrc -s openexr -F name
> CImg
> Field3D
> ImageMagick
> OpenColorIO
> OpenEXR_Viewers
> OpenImageIO
> OpenSceneGraph
> YafaRay
> blender
> darktable
> enblend
> freeimage
> gdal
> gegl04
> gimp
> gmic
> gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free
> hugin
> jpegxl
> kdelibs3
> kf5-kimageformats
> kf6-kimageformats
> kio-extras
> kio-extras-kf5
> krita
> luxcorerender
> ogre
> opencv
> openvdb
> pfstools
> povray
> prusa-slicer
> vigra
> vips
>
> I BCC’d all of the foo-maintain...@fedoraproject.org aliases in case
> anyone missed the original email.
>
> I am happy to work as provenpackager to help with some of these rebuilds,
> but I want to allow a *little* time for anyone who wants to rebuild their
> own package.
>
> That said, I’m going to go ahead and rebuild some of the packages that are
> in or adjacent to the Blender stack, because I co-maintain a few of them
> and have recently had to touch a few more of them due to other ABI changes
> – also, there are some long dependency chains involved.
> On 4/22/24 12:33 PM, Josef Řídký wrote:
>
> Well good news, the F40 rebuild is not needed. It looks like there was an
> issue with proper bug report reference.
>
> Sorry for the disturbance about that in F40. But the Rawhide rebuild is
> still in place so please use
SPDX Statistics - L'Aigle meteorite edition
Hot news: Automated migration of "trivial" conversions is in process. I migrated bunch of licenses that are only seldomly used. The bigger group (GPL*) are waiting at the starting line, but Jilayne asked me to wait a moment as she wants to check few things. I expect that the progress resumes after Red Hat summit (May 6-9). Two weeks ago we had: * 23901spec files in Fedora * 30551license tags in all spec files * 10964 tags have not been converted to SPDX yet * 4964 tags can be trivially converted using `license-fedora2spdx` * Progress: 64,11% ░░ 100% ELN subset: 100 out of 2397 packages are not converted yet (progress 95.83%) Today we have: * 23943spec files in Fedora * 30600license tags in all spec files * 10639 tags have not been converted to SPDX yet * 4689 tags can be trivially converted using `license-fedora2spdx` * Progress: 65,23% ░░ 100% ELN subset: 94 out of 2394 packages are not converted yet (progress 96.07%) Graph of these data with the burndown chart: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QVMEzXWML-6_Mrlln02axFAaRKCQ8zE807rpCjus-8s/edit?usp=sharing The list of packages needed to be converted is here: https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/packages-without-spdx-final.txt List by package maintainers is here https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/packages-without-spdx-final-maintainers.txt List of packages from ELN subset that needs to be converted: https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/eln-not-migrated.txt New version of fedora-license-data has been released. With: 7 new licenses (plus two public domain declarations). 10 licenses are waiting to be review by SPDX.org (and then to be added to fedora-license-data) https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/?label_name%5B%5D=SPDX%3A%3Ablocked Legal docs and especially https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/ was updated too. License analysis of remaining packages: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/spdx-reports/ New projection when we will be finished is 2025-04-06 (+5 days from last report). Pure linear approximation. If your package does not have neither git-log entry nor spec-changelog entry mentioning SPDX and you know your license tag matches SPDX formula, you can put your package on ignore list https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/ignore-packages.txt Either pull-request or direct email to me is fine. Why L'Aigle meteorite? On today's date at 1803 meteorite fell upon the town L'Aigle in France. More than 3000 fragments reached ground. Previously scientists believed that meteorites were terrestrial. But this event brought first evidence that meteorites are extraterrestrial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Aigle_(meteorite)# Miroslav -- ___ 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: Feedback wanted: Testing side-tag for switching dnf5 in Rawhide
On Wed, 2024-04-24 at 22:56 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2024-04-25 at 07:42 +0200, Jan Kolarik wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > > > We've prepared a side-tag for testing Rawhide with dnf5 as the default > > package manager. Instructions for installing the packages from the side-tag > > can be found at the following link [1]. > > > > Please provide feedback in Bodhi or on this mailing list regarding the use > > cases you're familiar with from the existing dnf command, and share your > > experience with this new version. > > > > If there's no negative feedback regarding any critical functionality, we > > plan to push the packages from the side-tag to Rawhide next week. > > > > [1] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-8a41ea93a2 > > The update failed a couple of openQA tests. I will take a closer look > into the reason in the morning, I'm busy reneedling things for the GTK > update at present. Just to follow up on this: the Kiwi container build test failure pointed to some changes that will be required to the Fedora kiwi config when this change lands. I have filed a PR for that - https://pagure.io/fedora-kiwi-descriptions/pull-request/46 - which should only be merged when this update is getting pushed. I tweaked the openQA test to make those changes on-the-fly when testing this update, and now it passes. By inference it occurred to me to check the osbuild configs also and I found a likely-required change there, so I sent a PR for that - https://github.com/osbuild/images/pull/637 - which has been merged. We would need the osbuild folks to deploy that change to prod before this update lands in Rawhide, otherwise some osbuild-driven image builds will most likely start to fail. The Cockpit update test failures turned out to be just stricter defaults in the new dnf exposing a bug in how the openQA tests handle the advisory repo (the side repo that contains the packages from the update under testing). I fixed that, and now the tests pass. -- Adam Williamson (he/him/his) Fedora QA Fedora Chat: @adamwill:fedora.im | Mastodon: @ad...@fosstodon.org https://www.happyassassin.net -- ___ 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: Feedback wanted: Testing side-tag for switching dnf5 in Rawhide
On Fri, 2024-04-26 at 08:56 +0200, Jan Kolarik wrote: > Hi Kevin, > > Personally, I think this is a beta requirement. > > > > IIUC the Fedora 41 Beta requirement is to successfully upgrade the system > from Fedora 40, as mentioned here: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_upgrade_dnf_current_workstation. > So this still relates to the dnf4 package, which is used in Fedora 40. I > expect this will become relevant for dnf5 at the Fedora 42 Beta. Yup, that makes sense to me. The upgrade is all run by the previous release's DNF, not the new release's DNF. -- Adam Williamson (he/him/his) Fedora QA Fedora Chat: @adamwill:fedora.im | Mastodon: @ad...@fosstodon.org https://www.happyassassin.net -- ___ 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: Feedback wanted: Testing side-tag for switching dnf5 in Rawhide
Hi Jan, On Fri Apr 26, 2024 at 08:46 +0200, Jan Kolarik wrote: > Hi Maxwell, > > This contains an update to dnf 5.2.0 which has breaking API changes. I did > > not > > see these communicated anywhere and the Change Proposal did not mention > > that > > the update would include a major version bump at the same time as the > > switch to > > dnf5 as default. > > > > You're right; we missed this. I'm sorry about that. Our initial intention > wasn't to do a major version bump, but implementing the new functionality > without breaking ABI and API would have required a lot of extra work. That makes sense. I'm sorry if I was a bit harsh here. > Would it be possible to provide a testing Copr ... > > > > Sure, as mentioned earlier, there's a dnf5-testing COPR specifically for > these purposes: > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/rpmsoftwaremanagement/dnf5-testing. It looks like the packages in that Copr Obsolete dnf4, while I want to keep using dnf4 on my f39 machine. I built my own dnf5 package without the dnf5_obsoletes_dnf bcond locally, but it'd be nice to have pre-built RPMs for that. > ... and a porting guide so API users can fix their software > > before this is pushed to rawhide? > > > > We'll add a section about the API changes between dnf5 versions 5.1 and > 5.2, and we'll reach out to the several teams affected by this. That would be great! It looks like work on this has started in https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf5/pull/1456. Thank you. > We'll also ensure that the builds for our reverse dependencies are > passing with this update. We definitely don't want to push this before > these projects are fixed. > Still, I hope no harm has been done yet. That's actually the purpose of > this side-tag, to identify any gaps we may have missed while working on the > switch. The 5.2.0.0 API changes aren't significant, there are though many > ABI-breaking changes. Yeah, as long as we make sure everything is ported before the side tag is merged, we should be good to go. I saw some patches for dnf 5.2.0 compatibility in ansible upstream, so we may just need to backport those. As for fedrq, I have a WIP patch to add compatibility for dnf 5.2.0. The only thing I have not been able to figure out is [1]. I assume stable Fedoras will keep dnf 5.1.0, so the plan is to maintain compatibility with those for now so users can still opt in to the libdnf5 backend. [1] https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf5/issues/1450. Thanks, Maxwell -- ___ 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: systemd 256~rc1 in rawhide
eOn Fr, 26.04.24 09:05, Adam Williamson (adamw...@fedoraproject.org) wrote: > On Fri, 2024-04-26 at 07:36 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > Hi, > > > > systemd-256~rc1 is building in rawhide. This is a major update, > > in development for 5 months. We've been doing continuous builds > > and testing of the development versions in rawhide, but bugs > > are possible (even likely). Plese report issues in bugzilla or > > here. > > It doesn't boot. That seems like an issue. :D > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-54b3646daf#comment-3506797 I guess this is triggered by the new ProtectSystem= feature that you can configure in /etc/systemd/system.conf. See NEWS file. It ensures that /usr/ is marked ready-only during earliest initialization in PID 1. It defaults to off on the final system, but to on in initrds, and that appears to trip off dracut. I don't know why dracut wants to write around in /usr/, but it seems very wrong it tries to do that. Anyway, a quick work-around is to set the knob to false in the initrd. But a proper fix is to make dracut not patch around in /usr/ during runtime. Writing to /usr/ should be off limits for anything that isn't really a package manager (and maybe very few other exceptions). Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Berlin -- ___ 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: systemd 256~rc1 in rawhide
On Fri, 2024-04-26 at 07:36 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > Hi, > > systemd-256~rc1 is building in rawhide. This is a major update, > in development for 5 months. We've been doing continuous builds > and testing of the development versions in rawhide, but bugs > are possible (even likely). Plese report issues in bugzilla or > here. It doesn't boot. That seems like an issue. :D https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-54b3646daf#comment-3506797 -- Adam Williamson (he/him/his) Fedora QA Fedora Chat: @adamwill:fedora.im | Mastodon: @ad...@fosstodon.org https://www.happyassassin.net -- ___ 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 2277375] New: Please branch and build perl-Fuse for EPEL8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277375 Bug ID: 2277375 Summary: Please branch and build perl-Fuse for EPEL8 Product: Fedora EPEL Version: epel8 Status: NEW Component: perl-Fuse Severity: medium Assignee: jples...@redhat.com Reporter: or...@nwra.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: jples...@redhat.com, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Please branch and build perl-Fuse in epel8. If you do not wish to maintain perl-Fuse in epel8, or do not think you will be able to do this in a timely manner, the EPEL Packagers SIG would be happy to be a co-maintainer of the package; please add the epel-packagers-sig group through https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Fuse/addgroup and grant it commit access, or collaborator access on epel* branches. I would also be happy to be a co-maintainer (FAS: orion). I can be the primary contact for EPEL (FAS: orion). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277375 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277375%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: Thanks to my FESCo friends! ♥
On 26/04/2024 15.41, Major Hayden wrote: Hey there, I'm incredibly thankful for all of the support I've received while serving on the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee (FESCo) since Fedora 38 in 2022. So many of you have taught me so many things and given me so much valuable feedback. ♥️ With that said, I won't be nominating myself for the Fedora 40 election cycle. I remember getting a ping from Ben Cotton on IRC back in 2022 when he suggested I run for FESCo. The immediate feeling was "I'm not worthy!"[0] and Ben didn't put up with that for long. He was incredibly encouraging and after asking a few other coworkers for advice, I decided to go for it! If you're interested in running for a FESCo seat, *you should*. It's a tough job that requires you to combine your knowledge and experience along with a walk in someone else's shoes that wants to make a change. You will work with awesome people. You will learn plenty of new things. You will make difficult choices. All of this work will make Fedora, and its growing ecosystem, a little better than it was the day before. That's what makes it all worthwhile. I wish the Fedora 40 FESCo nominees all the best and thanks again to everyone who supported me along the way. (And no, I'm not leaving Fedora. You can still expect plenty of mediocre changes from me in upcoming releases!) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne%27s_World_(film) -- Major Hayden Thank you for your service !!! Best, Chris -- ___ 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 2261451] perl-WWW-Google-Contacts: FTBFS in Fedora rawhide/f40
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2261451 Maxwell G changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Status|NEW |CLOSED Last Closed||2024-04-26 14:28:50 --- Comment #5 from Maxwell G --- Automation has figured out the package is retired in Fedora Rawhide. If you like it to be unretired, please open a ticket at https://pagure.io/releng/new_issue?template=package_unretirement -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2261451 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202261451%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
Re: [HEADS-UP] openexr so name bump heading Rawhide and f40
Josef,
I finished rebuilding everything in the side tag f41-build-side-88169.
Please create the Bodhi update.
The packages cinelerra-gg and olive are RPMFusion packages, so there is
nothing to do in Fedora; any coordination you want to do with RPMFusion
is up to you.
For the curious, further details follow below.
– Ben Beasley (FAS music)
I double-checked the packages that were in your original list but not in
the output of "fedrq wrsrc -s openexr":
- The CTL package BuildRequires the compat package openexr2
instead, so it did not need to be rebuilt.
- The synfig package also BuildRequires the compat package, and one
can see that it links the compat libraries (e.g. libIlmImf-2_5.so.26),
but it does depend *indirectly* on the current openexr via its
dependencies. I think it did not need to be rebuilt, but an attempt was
made to rebuild it in the side tag, which failed because the
dependencies were not rebuilt yet – so I rebuilt it again, successfuly.
- The cinelerra-gg and olive packages belong to RPMFusion, so there
is nothing to do in Fedora.
- The synfigstudio package really did need to be rebuilt! The
source RPM does not depend on openexr, but the binary packages do.
To look for other cases like synfigstudio, I tried this:
fedrq wr openexr-libs | xargs repoquery --repo=rawhide --qf
'%{source_name}'
Other than synfigstudio, all of the resulting packages were in the
original list.
On 4/25/24 11:20 AM, Ben Beasley wrote:
The side tag is nearly complete. I have finished rebuilding all of the
packages in “my” list for openexr except Blender (which I’ll tackle soon).
I discovered that an ABI-incompatible update was committed to the
Rawhide branch for OpenColorIO, but never built, about two months ago.
Since I needed to rebuild OpenColorIO in the side tag, I raised the
issue[1] with the OpenColorIO maintainer and—after a quick, successful
trial-run in COPR—we ultimately decided to include the OpenColorIO
update in side tag rather than trying to revert it before rebuilding.
Therefore, OpenImageIO, krita, and luxcorerender received a second
rebuild commit for OpenColorIO 2.3.2 and a second build in the side
tag. The calligra and usd packages are also rebuilding for OpenColorIO
2.3.2 in the side tag. Once everything else is done, I will build Blender.
Finally, I will double-check the packages that were in Josef’s list
but not mine (CTL, cinelerra-gg, olive, synfig, and synfigstudio;
libjxl is just a binary package of jpegxl), to make sure I haven’t
missed any additional packages that really do need to be rebuilt.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2239262#c15
On 4/24/24 8:13 AM, Ben Beasley wrote:
I rebuilt openvdb. I am finding that the dependency chains in this
set of packages are even longer than I expected. Considering that,
and how “heavy” some of these packages are – and in the interest of
not keeping this side tag open for too long – I am going to go ahead
and start using provenpackager privilege to carefully work through
the packages that can be rebuilt with a simple release bump.
(Hopefully that means all of them!)
On 4/23/24 7:21 PM, Ben Beasley wrote:
I get a slightly larger list with fedrq:
$ fedrq wrsrc -s openexr -F name
CImg
Field3D
ImageMagick
OpenColorIO
OpenEXR_Viewers
OpenImageIO
OpenSceneGraph
YafaRay
blender
darktable
enblend
freeimage
gdal
gegl04
gimp
gmic
gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free
hugin
jpegxl
kdelibs3
kf5-kimageformats
kf6-kimageformats
kio-extras
kio-extras-kf5
krita
luxcorerender
ogre
opencv
openvdb
pfstools
povray
prusa-slicer
vigra
vips
I BCC’d all of the foo-maintain...@fedoraproject.org aliases in case
anyone missed the original email.
I am happy to work as provenpackager to help with some of these
rebuilds, but I want to allow a *little* time for anyone who wants
to rebuild their own package.
That said, I’m going to go ahead and rebuild some of the packages
that are in or adjacent to the Blender stack, because I co-maintain
a few of them and have recently had to touch a few more of them due
to other ABI changes – also, there are some long dependency chains
involved.
On 4/22/24 12:33 PM, Josef Řídký wrote:
Well good news, the F40 rebuild is not needed. It looks like there
was an issue with proper bug report reference.
Sorry for the disturbance about that in F40. But the Rawhide
rebuild is still in place so please use f41-build-side-88169 for
rebuild of dependent packages.
Best regards
Josef Ridky
Senior Software Engineer
Core Services Team
Red Hat Czech, s.r.o.
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 6:11 PM Josef Řídký wrote:
Hi Ben,
thanks for the notice. I'll fill the FESCO ticket right away
and wait for their decision. So let's call F40 only (not
Rawhide) side tags builds on hold till the decision is made.
Best regards
Josef Ridky
Senior Software Engineer
Core Services Team
Red Hat Czech, s.r.o.
On Mon, Apr
Thanks to my FESCo friends! ♥️
Hey there, I'm incredibly thankful for all of the support I've received while serving on the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee (FESCo) since Fedora 38 in 2022. So many of you have taught me so many things and given me so much valuable feedback. ♥️ With that said, I won't be nominating myself for the Fedora 40 election cycle. I remember getting a ping from Ben Cotton on IRC back in 2022 when he suggested I run for FESCo. The immediate feeling was "I'm not worthy!"[0] and Ben didn't put up with that for long. He was incredibly encouraging and after asking a few other coworkers for advice, I decided to go for it! If you're interested in running for a FESCo seat, *you should*. It's a tough job that requires you to combine your knowledge and experience along with a walk in someone else's shoes that wants to make a change. You will work with awesome people. You will learn plenty of new things. You will make difficult choices. All of this work will make Fedora, and its growing ecosystem, a little better than it was the day before. That's what makes it all worthwhile. I wish the Fedora 40 FESCo nominees all the best and thanks again to everyone who supported me along the way. (And no, I'm not leaving Fedora. You can still expect plenty of mediocre changes from me in upcoming releases!) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne%27s_World_(film) -- Major Hayden -- ___ 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-Test2-Suite] PR #42: 0.000162 bump
mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Test2-Suite` that you are following. Merged pull-request: `` 0.000162 bump `` https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Test2-Suite/pull-request/42 -- ___ 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-Test2-Suite] PR #42: 0.000162 bump
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Test2-Suite` that you are following: `` 0.000162 bump `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Test2-Suite/pull-request/42 -- ___ 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 2277217] perl-Test2-Suite-0.000162 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277217 Michal Josef Spacek changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from Michal Josef Spacek --- Changes: 0.000162 2024-04-25 14:57:23+01:00 Europe/Lisbon - Fix #292 and #270 0.000161 2024-04-25 12:05:32+01:00 Europe/Lisbon - Fix #289: some checks could leak across array bounds - Fix #285: Mocking around missing symbols 0.000160 2024-04-25 11:18:36+01:00 Europe/Lisbon - Fix #291: done_testing under AsyncSubtest does not make sense - Fix #275: prototypes for around/after/before - Fix #288: Merge PR for #275 - Fix #290: Extra docs for srand API changes, only rawhide -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277217 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277217%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 2277236] perl-experimental-0.032 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277236 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||perl-experimental-0.032-1.f ||c41 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Last Closed||2024-04-26 11:27:17 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-5ea4218812 (perl-experimental-0.032-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 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=2277236 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277236%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 2277236] perl-experimental-0.032 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277236 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-026376c7d6 (perl-experimental-0.032-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-026376c7d6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277236 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277236%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
[Bug 2277236] perl-experimental-0.032 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277236 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-5ea4218812 (perl-experimental-0.032-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-5ea4218812 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277236 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277236%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 2277224] perl-File-MimeInfo-0.35 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277224 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-File-MimeInfo-0.35-1.f ||c41 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2024-04-26 10:54:18 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-95f9cd387b (perl-File-MimeInfo-0.35-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 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=2277224 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277224%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 2277224] perl-File-MimeInfo-0.35 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277224 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-904bfe90c9 (perl-File-MimeInfo-0.35-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-904bfe90c9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277224 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277224%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
[Bug 2277224] perl-File-MimeInfo-0.35 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277224 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-95f9cd387b (perl-File-MimeInfo-0.35-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-95f9cd387b -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277224 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277224%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 2277236] perl-experimental-0.032 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277236 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|jples...@redhat.com,| |mspa...@redhat.com, | |ppi...@redhat.com | Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277236 -- ___ 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 2277213] perl-Devel-Size-0.84 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277213 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |ERRATA Fixed In Version||perl-Devel-Size-0.84-1.fc41 Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Last Closed||2024-04-26 10:33:20 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-dd2c6d2a45 (perl-Devel-Size-0.84-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 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=2277213 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277213%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 2277213] perl-Devel-Size-0.84 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277213 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-f07625085d (perl-Devel-Size-0.84-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-f07625085d -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277213 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277213%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 2277224] perl-File-MimeInfo-0.35 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277224 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC|jples...@redhat.com,| |ktdre...@ktdreyer.com, | |mspa...@redhat.com, | |p...@city-fan.org | Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277224 -- ___ 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 2277213] perl-Devel-Size-0.84 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277213 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-dd2c6d2a45 (perl-Devel-Size-0.84-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-dd2c6d2a45 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277213 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277213%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
Re: Feedback wanted: Testing side-tag for switching dnf5 in Rawhide
Jan Kolarik venit, vidit, dixit 2024-04-26 08:56:48: > Hi Kevin, > > Personally, I think this is a beta requirement. > > > > IIUC the Fedora 41 Beta requirement is to successfully upgrade the system > from Fedora 40, as mentioned here: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_upgrade_dnf_current_workstation. > So this still relates to the dnf4 package, which is used in Fedora 40. I > expect this will become relevant for dnf5 at the Fedora 42 Beta. > > So, how do you rate the chances of having something ready by beta > > freeze? > > > > Talking about "something", there's already a system-upgrade command > available in this dnf5 version from the side-tag :) However, as I mentioned > earlier, it hasn't been thoroughly tested yet; that's our goal for the > upcoming months. Hi folks, I'm afraid I added to the confusion via a typo. I wondered specifically about the update F41->F42 because F40->F41 seemed to be off the table: > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 7:55 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 11:42:57AM GMT, Jan Kolarik wrote: > > > Hello Michael, > > > > > > Does this mean that distro-upgrade from F41 to F42 is supposed to work > > > > at F41 release time (ideally at beta time)? No typo in "F41 to F42", but this functionality needs to be ready by F42 (!) release time, ideally at beta time, so that it can be used and tested. If we consider "dnf5 distro-upgrade" to be a feature then it has to be there by F41 feature freeze time actually. And that is why - if dnf5 as default comes to rawhide now, which is leading up to F41 - we have to be reasonably sure that the distro-upgrade feature will be ready in time for the next (F41) feature freeze. 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
systemd 256~rc1 in rawhide
Hi, systemd-256~rc1 is building in rawhide. This is a major update, in development for 5 months. We've been doing continuous builds and testing of the development versions in rawhide, but bugs are possible (even likely). Plese report issues in bugzilla or here. Zbyszek -- ___ 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: Feedback wanted: Testing side-tag for switching dnf5 in Rawhide
Hi Kevin, Personally, I think this is a beta requirement. > IIUC the Fedora 41 Beta requirement is to successfully upgrade the system from Fedora 40, as mentioned here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_upgrade_dnf_current_workstation. So this still relates to the dnf4 package, which is used in Fedora 40. I expect this will become relevant for dnf5 at the Fedora 42 Beta. So, how do you rate the chances of having something ready by beta > freeze? > Talking about "something", there's already a system-upgrade command available in this dnf5 version from the side-tag :) However, as I mentioned earlier, it hasn't been thoroughly tested yet; that's our goal for the upcoming months. Regards, Jan On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 7:55 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 11:42:57AM GMT, Jan Kolarik wrote: > > Hello Michael, > > > > Does this mean that distro-upgrade from F41 to F42 is supposed to work > > > at F41 release time (ideally at beta time)? > > > > > > > Yes, the system-upgrade functionality should be available before the > Fedora > > 41 > > release date. We're planning extensive testing for this, including a > Fedora > > Testing Day. > > Personally, I think this is a beta requirement. > > Lots of people upgrade around then to get on the new release, and also > having it available to test then is pretty important. > > Thats just my opinon... QE might have different opinions. > > > While our goal is to deliver the final system-upgrade functionality > before > > the stable release, > > some adjustments may be made during the Fedora 41 lifecycle to ensure > > smoother > > upgrades from F41 to F42. Before executing the system-upgrade, users are > > anyway > > advised to ensure that all installed packages are fully updated. > > So, how do you rate the chances of having something ready by beta > freeze? > > kevin > -- > ___ > 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: Feedback wanted: Testing side-tag for switching dnf5 in Rawhide
Hi Maxwell, This contains an update to dnf 5.2.0 which has breaking API changes. I did > not > see these communicated anywhere and the Change Proposal did not mention > that > the update would include a major version bump at the same time as the > switch to > dnf5 as default. > You're right; we missed this. I'm sorry about that. Our initial intention wasn't to do a major version bump, but implementing the new functionality without breaking ABI and API would have required a lot of extra work. Would it be possible to provide a testing Copr ... > Sure, as mentioned earlier, there's a dnf5-testing COPR specifically for these purposes: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/rpmsoftwaremanagement/dnf5-testing. ... and a porting guide so API users can fix their software > before this is pushed to rawhide? > We'll add a section about the API changes between dnf5 versions 5.1 and 5.2, and we'll reach out to the several teams affected by this. We'll also ensure that the builds for our reverse dependencies are passing with this update. We definitely don't want to push this before these projects are fixed. Still, I hope no harm has been done yet. That's actually the purpose of this side-tag, to identify any gaps we may have missed while working on the switch. The 5.2.0.0 API changes aren't significant, there are though many ABI-breaking changes. Thanks, Jan On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 5:29 PM Maxwell G wrote: > Hi Jan, > > On Thu Apr 25, 2024 at 07:42 +0200, Jan Kolarik wrote: > > We've prepared a side-tag for testing Rawhide with dnf5 as the default > > package manager. Instructions for installing the packages from the > side-tag > > can be found at the following link [1]. > > > [1] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-8a41ea93a2 > > Thank you for the announcement. I appreciate the oppurtunity to test the > update before it's pushed to rawhide. > > This contains an update to dnf 5.2.0 which has breaking API changes. I did > not > see these communicated anywhere and the Change Proposal did not mention > that > the update would include a major version bump at the same time as the > switch to > dnf5 as default. This update completely breaks fedrq due to the removed > methods. ansible, lorax, and osbuild also depend on libdnf5. Have these > applications had a chance to port to the new API? Would it be possible to > provide a testing Copr and a porting guide so API users can fix their > software > before this is pushed to rawhide? > > Best, > Maxwell > -- > ___ > 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 2277213] perl-Devel-Size-0.84 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277213 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|jples...@redhat.com,| |mspa...@redhat.com, | |robinlee.s...@gmail.com | Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277213 -- ___ 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
