Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

Il 22/01/24 19:07, Stephen Gallagher ha scritto: > tl;dr: Buildroot overrides should be restricted to releng members and > packagers should use on-demand side-tags instead. > > I'm fully in agreement with such proposal. Do note however that there's currently no way to restrict BRO usage in Bodhi,

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

Il 22/01/24 19:39, blinxen ha scritto: > > I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that > are not covered by side tags > > One use case that I sometimes encounter is requiring a newer version for > a dependency, > that is submitted to Bodhi with a side-tag. Since the

[Bug 2259771] New: perl-Verilog-Perl-3.482 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259771 Bug ID: 2259771 Summary: perl-Verilog-Perl-3.482 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-Verilog-Perl Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

[Bug 2256404] perl-DateTime-Format-Atom-1.6.0 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256404 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-49288a76dd has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing report

The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing: Age URL 6 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-fbdcbc3c7a python-templated-dictionary-1.4-1.el7 3 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-cc00d17a57 monit-5.30.0-2.el7 3

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 9 updates-testing report

The following Fedora EPEL 9 Security updates need testing: Age URL 6 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-8a05d0e402 python-templated-dictionary-1.4-1.el9 3 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-0d11a63127 chromium-120.0.6099.224-1.el9 3

[Bug 2256404] perl-DateTime-Format-Atom-1.6.0 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256404 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from

Planning to unretire rust-zopfli and rust-oxipng

As required by the Package Retirement Process[1], this email announces that I plan to unretire the rust-zopfli and rust-oxipng packages. Both were retired because they were “no longer needed,” but I would like to package the oxipng command-line tool, which is similar to the existing optipng

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

On 22. 01. 24 20:20, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 2:11 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: In the meantime, if we otherwise disabled free-access buildroot overrides, this would definitely be grounds for granting an exception. How would that work? Would I ask FESCo every time I need to

Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2024-01-22)

= # #meeting:fedoraproject.org: fesco = Meeting started by @jistone:fedora.im at 2024-01-22 19:30:53 Meeting summary --- * TOPIC: #3145 Delay mass rebuild for Fedora 40 until f40-build-side-81394 side-tag is

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

* Stephen Gallagher: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 1:55 PM Florian Weimer wrote: >> >> * Stephen Gallagher: >> >> > I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that >> > are not covered by side tags. If you know of any, please speak up. >> >> The overrides are more discoverable:

Re: Fedora Linux 40 Change Proposal Submission Deadlines have now passed

After being helpfully told how to move the wiki page without needing to create a new one, the typo has now been fixed. On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 5:37 PM Aoife Moloney wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 11:02 PM Elliott Sales de Andrade < > quantum.anal...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 18,

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 2:11 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 22. 01. 24 20:04, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 1:55 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > >> > >> On 22. 01. 24 19:07, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > >>> I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that > >>>

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

On 22. 01. 24 20:04, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 1:55 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: On 22. 01. 24 19:07, Stephen Gallagher wrote: I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that are not covered by side tags. If you know of any, please speak up. Every time

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 07:39:52PM +0100, blinxen wrote: > > I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that are > not covered by side tags > > One use case that I sometimes encounter is requiring a newer version for a > dependency, > that is submitted to Bodhi with a

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

On Mon Jan 22, 2024 at 13:07 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > tl;dr: Buildroot overrides should be restricted to releng members and > packagers should use on-demand side-tags instead. Previous discussion from December 2022:

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 1:55 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 22. 01. 24 19:07, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that > > are not covered by side tags. If you know of any, please speak up. > > Every time somebody asks this, I say: Pull

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 1:55 PM Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Stephen Gallagher: > > > I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that > > are not covered by side tags. If you know of any, please speak up. > > The overrides are more discoverable: > >

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 1:53 PM Florian Weimer wrote: > > * blinxen: > > >> I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that > > are not covered by side tags > > > > One use case that I sometimes encounter is requiring a newer version > > for a dependency, that is submitted

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

* Stephen Gallagher: > I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that > are not covered by side tags. If you know of any, please speak up. The overrides are more discoverable: With side tags, you really have to

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

On 22. 01. 24 19:07, Stephen Gallagher wrote: I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that are not covered by side tags. If you know of any, please speak up. Every time somebody asks this, I say: Pull Requests CI I opened https://pagure.io/fedora-ci/general/issue/240

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

* blinxen: >> I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that > are not covered by side tags > > One use case that I sometimes encounter is requiring a newer version > for a dependency, that is submitted to Bodhi with a side-tag. Since > the build is in a side-tag, I can't

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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259686 Bug ID: 2259686 Summary: perl-LWP-Protocol-https-6.12 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-LWP-Protocol-https Keywords:

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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259685 Bug ID: 2259685 Summary: perl-libwww-perl-6.74 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-libwww-perl Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

> I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that are not covered by side tags One use case that I sometimes encounter is requiring a newer version for a dependency, that is submitted to Bodhi with a side-tag. Since the build is in a side-tag, I can't access it without

Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

tl;dr: Buildroot overrides should be restricted to releng members and packagers should use on-demand side-tags instead. I'd like to ascertain whether there are any remaining use-cases for which buildroot overrides are preferable to (or necessary instead of) on-demand side-tags. We've had support

Heads up: openQA update test failures due to ongoing FAS outage

Due to the ongoing FAS outage - https://status.fedoraproject.org/ - many updates failed openQA testing, because part of the openQA web browser test happens to be to open https://accounts.fedoraproject.org and check it looks as expected. Obviously right now it does not. As this is not a

Re: Fedora Linux 40 Change Proposal Submission Deadlines have now passed

On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 11:02 PM Elliott Sales de Andrade < quantum.anal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 4:33 PM Aoife Moloney wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Please note that we are now past all change proposal submission >> deadlines. Thank you to all who have submitted changes to

Re: Fedora Linux 37 is EOL

Ok I have re-ran the script again, this time it finished so I believe all F37 bugs are now closed . If you come across any open ones, do let me know and I will re-run the autoclose script. Thanks! Aoife On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 8:22 PM Sandro wrote: > On 15-01-2024 09:52, Vít Ondruch wrote: >

Re: HEADSUP boost and tbb rebuilds starting in a side tag

On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 at 13:24, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 at 12:10, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > > > On Saturday, 20 January 2024 at 17:59, Tom Hughes via devel wrote: > > > On 20/01/2024 16:07, Jerry James wrote: > > > > > > > Upstream has this in

Re: Module needs a non-packaged module, how to?

V Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 02:03:50PM -, Johan Vromans napsal(a): > For the next release of my ChordPro application (fedora package `chordpro`, > CPAN module `App::Music::ChordPro`) it needs a CPAN module that is not > packaged: `JavaScript::QuickJS`. > > How to proceed? I have no intentions to

Re: GCC 14 error for asio

On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 12:23:27PM +0100, Julian Sikorski wrote: > asio started failing to build with gcc-14 [1]. The error is: Seems (thanks Patrick for reducing and analyzing it) it is a GCC bug, https://gcc.gnu.org/PR113544 Hopefully it will be fixed soon. Jakub --

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

Hi Antoine Antoine Zellmeyer via devel writes: > Thanks ! I'll follow this issue. Great. I posted a fix. It would be helpful if you could test that it works for your case. Specifically, it would be helpful to hear back that it: - imports the certificate, and - you are able to install

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20240122.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20240121.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20240122.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:5 Dropped images: 3 Added packages: 1 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 73 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 17.73 KiB Size of dropped packages:0 B

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

Thanks ! I'll follow this issue. And sorry for the duplicate thread, double clicked on the send button by mistake and it seems to have created a duplicate ^^' -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

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

Hi Antoine, Antoine Zellmeyer via devel writes: > Following Fedora’s migration to Sequoia PGP, it seems that it isn’t possible > to import an expired signing key anymore. > > rpm --import https://some.domain/public-keys/SOME_EXPIRED_RPM_KEY.public > error: Certificate : > The certificate is

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

Following Fedora’s migration to Sequoia PGP, it seems that it isn’t possible to import an expired signing key anymore. rpm --import https://some.domain/public-keys/SOME_EXPIRED_RPM_KEY.public error: Certificate : The certificate is expired: The primary key is not live error:

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

Following Fedora’s migration to Sequoia PGP, it seems that it isn’t possible to import an expired signing key anymore. rpm --import https://some.domain/public-keys/SOME_EXPIRED_RPM_KEY.public error: Certificate : The certificate is expired: The primary key is not live error:

[Bug 2259542] slic3r-1.3.0-31.fc40 FTBFS: /usr/include/c++/14/limits:2100:30: error: exponent has no digits

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259542 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|---

[Bug 2259590] F40FailsToInstall: slic3r

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259590 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||slic3r-1.3.0-32.fc40

[Bug 2259590] F40FailsToInstall: slic3r

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259590 Bug 2259590 depends on bug 2259542, which changed state. Bug 2259542 Summary: slic3r-1.3.0-31.fc40 FTBFS: /usr/include/c++/14/limits:2100:30: error: exponent has no digits https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259542 What

Re: HEADSUP boost and tbb rebuilds starting in a side tag

On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 at 12:10, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > On Saturday, 20 January 2024 at 17:59, Tom Hughes via devel wrote: > > On 20/01/2024 16:07, Jerry James wrote: > > > > > Upstream has this in src/tbb/CMakeLists.txt: > > > > > > if (CMAKE_SIZEOF_VOID_P EQUAL 8) > > >

[rpms/slic3r] PR #12: Fix FTBFS with GCC 14

churchyard merged a pull-request against the project: `slic3r` that you are following. Merged pull-request: `` Fix FTBFS with GCC 14 `` https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/slic3r/pull-request/12 -- ___ perl-devel mailing list --

[Bug 2259590] F40FailsToInstall: slic3r

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259590 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1) > Asking the compiler to be strict then undefining the macro that says it's > being strict is just wrong. Please get this fixed upstream. Should have been

[rpms/slic3r] PR #12: Fix FTBFS with GCC 14

zuul commented on the pull-request: `Fix FTBFS with GCC 14` that you are following: `` Build failed. More information on how to proceed and troubleshoot errors available at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zuul-based-ci

[Bug 2259590] F40FailsToInstall: slic3r

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259590 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jwak...@redhat.com --- Comment #1

[Bug 2256404] perl-DateTime-Format-Atom-1.6.0 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256404 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-49288a76dd has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-49288a76dd -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list

[Bug 2256404] perl-DateTime-Format-Atom-1.6.0 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256404 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-84c7425777 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-84c7425777 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list

[Bug 2256404] perl-DateTime-Format-Atom-1.6.0 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256404 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||perl-DateTime-Format-Atom-1

[Bug 2259542] slic3r-1.3.0-31.fc40 FTBFS: /usr/include/c++/14/limits:2100:30: error: exponent has no digits

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259542 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Link ID|

[rpms/slic3r] PR #12: Fix FTBFS with GCC 14

churchyard opened a new pull-request against the project: `slic3r` that you are following: `` Fix FTBFS with GCC 14 `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/slic3r/pull-request/12 -- ___ perl-devel mailing list --

Re: F40 Change Proposal: Optimized Binaries for the AMD64 Architecture (System-Wide)

* Panu Matilainen: > Using something path-based will also exclude EVERYTHING started with a > shebang. I guess we didn't want to optimize those > Python/Perl/Ruby/whatnot scripts here? > > A path based approach isn't anywhere near worth the mess it creates. A > humble opinion. I'm not sure if

[Bug 2259590] F40FailsToInstall: slic3r

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259590 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value

[Bug 2259542] slic3r-1.3.0-31.fc40 FTBFS: /usr/include/c++/14/limits:2100:30: error: exponent has no digits

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259542 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||2259590 Referenced Bugs:

[Bug 2259542] slic3r-1.3.0-31.fc40 FTBFS: /usr/include/c++/14/limits:2100:30: error: exponent has no digits

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259542 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from Miro

[Bug 2259590] F40FailsToInstall: slic3r

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259590 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||2258089 Referenced Bugs:

[Bug 2259590] New: F40FailsToInstall: slic3r

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259590 Bug ID: 2259590 Summary: F40FailsToInstall: slic3r Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: slic3r Assignee: mhron...@redhat.com Reporter:

[Bug 2259465] perl-DateTime-Format-RFC3339-1.8.0 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259465 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||perl-DateTime-Format-RFC333

[Bug 2259465] perl-DateTime-Format-RFC3339-1.8.0 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259465 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Comment #3 from

[Bug 2256404] perl-DateTime-Format-Atom-1.6.0 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2256404 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Doc Type|---

[Bug 2259542] New: slic3r-1.3.0-31.fc40 FTBFS: /usr/include/c++/14/limits:2100:30: error: exponent has no digits

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259542 Bug ID: 2259542 Summary: slic3r-1.3.0-31.fc40 FTBFS: /usr/include/c++/14/limits:2100:30: error: exponent has no digits Product: Fedora Version: rawhide

Re: F40 Change Proposal: Optimized Binaries for the AMD64 Architecture (System-Wide)

On 1/19/24 18:58, Robert Marcano via devel wrote: On 12/28/23 1:25 PM, Robert Marcano wrote: On 12/28/23 12:58 PM, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Aoife Moloney said: Systemd will be modified to insert the additional directories into the `$PATH` environment variable (affecting all

[Bug 2259541] New: perl-XML-DifferenceMarkup-1.05-33.fc40 FTBFS: perl-libxml-sax.c:1411:47: error: invalid conversion from ‘const xmlError*’ {aka ‘const _xmlError*’} to ‘xmlErrorPtr’ {aka ‘_xmlError*’

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259541 Bug ID: 2259541 Summary: perl-XML-DifferenceMarkup-1.05-33.fc40 FTBFS: perl-libxml-sax.c:1411:47: error: invalid conversion from ‘const xmlError*’ {aka ‘const _xmlError*’} to

[Bug 2259537] New: perl-WWW-Curl-4.17-35.fc40 FTBFS: curlopt-constants.c:19:58: error: ‘return’ with no value, in function returning non-void

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259537 Bug ID: 2259537 Summary: perl-WWW-Curl-4.17-35.fc40 FTBFS: curlopt-constants.c:19:58: error: ‘return’ with no value, in function returning non-void Product: Fedora

[Bug 2259535] New: perl-DBD-Firebird-1.34-8.fc40 FTBFS: Firebird.xs:1277:13: error: passing argument 1 of ‘isc_event_block’ from incompatible pointer type

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259535 Bug ID: 2259535 Summary: perl-DBD-Firebird-1.34-8.fc40 FTBFS: Firebird.xs:1277:13: error: passing argument 1 of ‘isc_event_block’ from incompatible pointer type Product: