Re: How to handle ABI breakage in Rawhide
Florian Weimer wrote: > That's not actually true, though, and it does not make much sense. If > upstream commits to an ABI, versioning is not even required technically. Hardly any upstream actually commits to an ABI *forever*. Even if the ABI has not changed for 10 years, that does not mean that at some point a new ABI will not be implemented. Even glibc has a soversion (which has not changed for years, but it has one). Kevin Kofler ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: rpm bug for multiple README.md or LICENSE.md in EPEL 8 and Fedora
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 8:09 PM Maxwell G wrote:
>
> On Monday, December 6, 2021 6:43:57 PM CST Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 3:59 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 05/12/2021 04:07, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> > > > This breaks building RPMs for EPEL 8 or Fedora, because the '%doc' and
> > > > '%license' macros strip off the subdirectories of the files and
> > > > install them directly at the top of the docdir.
> > >
> > > You should deal with them manually.
> > >
> > > Example:
> > > https://github.com/rpmfusion/tg_owt/blob/master/tg_owt.spec#L124-L161
> > > https://github.com/rpmfusion/tg_owt/blob/master/tg_owt.spec#L178-L179
> >
> > Simply put, "no". Manually organizing component names for more than
> > 300 README files and more than 100 LICENSE files does not seem a wise
> > use of anyone's package compilation time.
> >
> > If it's necessary, I could see doing something like this instead, or
> > using a local macro
> >
> > cp -D ansible_collections/foo/bar/baz/README.md
> > %{buildroot}%{defaultdocdir}/%{package}-%{version}/foo/bbar/baz/README.md
> >
> > I'll still want to separate '%license" files from "%doc", which means
> > I won't just be able to use:
> >
> > %doc %{defaultdocdir}/%{package}-%{version
>
> The specfile that Vitaly linked also marks the license files with `%license`.
I'm staring at that pull request, which is similar to my tesstable
.spec file in various ways. Mind you, in my testing setup, I use:
BuildRequires: ansible-core >= 2.11.0
BuildRequires: ansible-core < 2.13.0
Requires: ansible-core >= 2.11.0
Requires: ansible-core < 2.13.0
ansible-5.x works well with ansible-core 2.11, the 2.12 requirement
and the related python 3.8 requirement seem to be spurious for the
pypo.org published ansible tarball of hundreds of ansible galaxy
modules.
The suggestion there that those dependencies should be autogenerated
does not and will not work because of the mislabeling of the tarball
with all the actualy core python modules called "ansible" within the
"ansible-core" tarball and RPM, and mislabeling of the moe than 100
ansible_collections python submodules as the new "ansible" tarball.
And yes, I'm being a bit harsh about that split and calling it a
mislabeling, since it's inconsistent and breaks automated processing.
___
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 on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2009895] perl-Mozilla-CA-20211001 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2009895 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version|perl-Mozilla-CA-20211001-1. |perl-Mozilla-CA-20211001-1. |fc36|fc36 ||perl-Mozilla-CA-20211001-1. ||fc35 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2021-12-07 02:06:16 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-8bd8a04c22 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 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=2009895 ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2029100] perlbrew-0.94 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029100 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-954d818d4e has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-954d818d4e` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-954d818d4e 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=2029100 ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: rpm bug for multiple README.md or LICENSE.md in EPEL 8 and Fedora
On Monday, December 6, 2021 6:43:57 PM CST Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 3:59 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
> wrote:
> >
> > On 05/12/2021 04:07, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> > > This breaks building RPMs for EPEL 8 or Fedora, because the '%doc' and
> > > '%license' macros strip off the subdirectories of the files and
> > > install them directly at the top of the docdir.
> >
> > You should deal with them manually.
> >
> > Example:
> > https://github.com/rpmfusion/tg_owt/blob/master/tg_owt.spec#L124-L161
> > https://github.com/rpmfusion/tg_owt/blob/master/tg_owt.spec#L178-L179
>
> Simply put, "no". Manually organizing component names for more than
> 300 README files and more than 100 LICENSE files does not seem a wise
> use of anyone's package compilation time.
>
> If it's necessary, I could see doing something like this instead, or
> using a local macro
>
> cp -D ansible_collections/foo/bar/baz/README.md
> %{buildroot}%{defaultdocdir}/%{package}-%{version}/foo/bbar/baz/README.md
>
> I'll still want to separate '%license" files from "%doc", which means
> I won't just be able to use:
>
> %doc %{defaultdocdir}/%{package}-%{version
The specfile that Vitaly linked also marks the license files with `%license`.
--
Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns: He/Him/His
PGP Key Fingerprint: f57c76e5a238fe0a628e2ecef79e4e25e8c661f8
PGP Keyserver: hkp://keyserver.ubuntu.com
gotmax@e.email
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
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 on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: rpm bug for multiple README.md or LICENSE.md in EPEL 8 and Fedora
Dec 4, 2021 9:09:24 PM Nico Kadel-Garcia :
> I've been trying to bundle the current ansible-5.0.1 release as an RPM
> for Fedora and EPEL use. Leaving aside the peculiar decisions to
> replace the pypi.org "ansible" tarball with a tarball of roughly 150
> modules from the "ansiblee-collections" repos, and moving the actual
> ansible software to a distinct python tarball called "ansible-core"
> without changing the source repo or the actual critical installed
> python modules, the new "ansible" has more than 300 files called
> "README.md" and more than 100 files called "LICENSE.md".
>
> This breaks building RPMs for EPEL 8 or Fedora, because the '%doc' and
> '%license' macros strip off the subdirectories of the files and
> install them directly at the top of the docdir.
>
> Basicely these only generate one file:
>
> %doc README.md
> %doc dir1/README.md
> %doc dir2/README.md
>
> %license LICENSE.md
> %license dir1/LICENSE
> %license dir2/LICENSE.md
>
> When compiled, these would only produce:
>
> /usr/share/doc/package-%{fersion}/README.md
> /usr/share/doc/package-%{fersion}/LICENSE.md
>
> RHEL 7 didn't have this problem. I'm not sure if other folks have
> noticed this for tools that are built with multiple internal tarballs.
> The new "ansible" tarball is fairly unique ints authors insistance on
> putting more than one hundred distinct third party packages in the
> same master tarball. But for now, this is going to cause a license and
> documentation problem in packaging it due to an "optimization" of
> stripping out the directory names of document files and licenses.
>
> Does anyone know a decent workaround, or a specfile setting to disable
> this filename stripping and restore the RHEL 7 behavior?
> ___
> 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 on the list, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Take a look at this PR[1] on Fedora's `ansible` package for a potential
solution.
Thanks,
Maxwell
[1]: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ansible/pull-request/19
--
Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns: He/Him/His
PGP Key Fingerprint: f57c76e5a238fe0a628e2ecef79e4e25e8c661f8
gotmax@e.email
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 on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: rpm bug for multiple README.md or LICENSE.md in EPEL 8 and Fedora
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 3:59 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 05/12/2021 04:07, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> > This breaks building RPMs for EPEL 8 or Fedora, because the '%doc' and
> > '%license' macros strip off the subdirectories of the files and
> > install them directly at the top of the docdir.
>
> You should deal with them manually.
>
> Example:
> https://github.com/rpmfusion/tg_owt/blob/master/tg_owt.spec#L124-L161
> https://github.com/rpmfusion/tg_owt/blob/master/tg_owt.spec#L178-L179
Simply put, "no". Manually organizing component names for more than
300 README files and more than 100 LICENSE files does not seem a wise
use of anyone's package compilation time.
If it's necessary, I could see doing something like this instead, or
using a local macro
cp -D ansible_collections/foo/bar/baz/README.md
%{buildroot}%{defaultdocdir}/%{package}-%{version}/foo/bbar/baz/README.md
I'll still want to separate '%license" files from "%doc", which means
I won't just be able to use:
%doc %{defaultdocdir}/%{package}-%{version}
___
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 on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: F36 Change: Users are administrators by default in the installer GUI. (Self-Contained Change proposal)
On 06/12/2021 23:53, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 12/6/21 09:47, Sérgio Basto wrote: On Mon, 2021-12-06 at 12:12 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 11:59:05AM +, Sérgio Basto wrote: Correct me, if I'm wrong, people to avoid put password in every sudo command, modify sudo to not ask password . And this behavior is a big hole of security , if user is compromised, attacker will have root access for free. I imagine some people do that, but it's certainly not the default. well I'm asking if is not a common behavior ? It's not a common behaviour that I've heard of. Some other distros cache the authentication so that you don't have to enter the password again within a certain period of time. That's a nice option. Just like Fedora does you mean? In fact as far as I know it's the upstream default for sudo! Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: F36 Change: Users are administrators by default in the installer GUI. (Self-Contained Change proposal)
On 12/6/21 09:47, Sérgio Basto wrote: On Mon, 2021-12-06 at 12:12 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 11:59:05AM +, Sérgio Basto wrote: Correct me, if I'm wrong, people to avoid put password in every sudo command, modify sudo to not ask password . And this behavior is a big hole of security , if user is compromised, attacker will have root access for free. I imagine some people do that, but it's certainly not the default. well I'm asking if is not a common behavior ? It's not a common behaviour that I've heard of. Some other distros cache the authentication so that you don't have to enter the password again within a certain period of time. That's a nice option. ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: F36 Change: Users are administrators by default in the installer GUI. (Self-Contained Change proposal)
On 12/1/21 08:13, mkol...@redhat.com wrote: AFAIK it always added the user to the wheel group. AFAIK there is just one special root account and you can't change its username. You can change the root username. Some people have done that for security purposes. However, it's possible that some applications try to use the root username instead of just uid 0, but I don't know of any. ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: License change: linode-cli
Dec 6, 2021 4:08:02 PM Mikel Olasagasti : > [...] > Just updated linode-cli to use the new v4 client that changed the > license to BSD. > [...] For the record, the previous license was `Artistic or GPLv2`, which is less permissive. Here is a link to the commit: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/linode-cli/c/3bf1f53d77b896a0605ca26b1eed641812a54a1c?branch=rawhide Thanks, Maxwell -- Maxwell G (@gotmax23) Pronouns: He/Him/His PGP Key Fingerprint: f57c76e5a238fe0a628e2ecef79e4e25e8c661f8 gotmax@e.email 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
License change: linode-cli
Hi all, Just updated linode-cli to use the new v4 client that changed the license to BSD. Kind regards, Mikel Olasagasti (mikelo2) ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Fedora-Cloud-35-20211206.0 compose check report
No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 1/8 (aarch64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Cloud-35-20211205.0): ID: 1078849 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 base_service_manipulation@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1078849 Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-35-20211205.0): ID: 1077889 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1077889 ID: 1077897 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1077897 Passed openQA tests: 7/8 (x86_64), 6/8 (aarch64) -- Mail generated by check-compose: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Mock config for epel-next-9-x86_64, No march for argument: fedpkg-minimal
On 06. 12. 21 20:52, Ben Beasley wrote:
Interestingly, I’m able to do local EPEL9 builds on F35 by using “fedpkg
--release epel9 mockbuild”, which seems to use an environment called
“epel9-candidate-${ARCH}”. I haven’t looked into where that comes from. It
doesn’t correspond to anything in /etc/mock.
I believe it comes from Koji and is rather slow. Try fedpkg mock-config.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Mock config for epel-next-9-x86_64, No march for argument: fedpkg-minimal
Interestingly, I’m able to do local EPEL9 builds on F35 by using “fedpkg
--release epel9 mockbuild”, which seems to use an environment called
“epel9-candidate-${ARCH}”. I haven’t looked into where that comes from.
It doesn’t correspond to anything in /etc/mock.
– Ben
On 12/6/21 12:36, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 11:32 AM Kevin Fenzi > wrote:
On Sun, Dec 05, 2021 at 01:30:38PM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> Is this a known issue or is there a package I need to update? I'm
on F35.
It's sadly expected... we need to get fedpkg-minimal pushed out into
epel9. There's a bug on it:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2007051
Hopefully it will go through soon...
Ok. No worries. I have a few requests for EL 9 branches of some of my
packages and don’t want to request them until I can build them locally.
Thanks,
Richard
___
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 on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
___
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 on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers
On 06. 12. 21 12:00, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 06. 12. 21 11:42, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: Could we get rid of the limit "Too many dependencies for wsdl4j, not all listed here" in the long reports? I don't really care how big that text file is in my browser. I can try, but the report might run for a long time. Will check. I've tried to raise the limit from 20 to 200 and then even to 2000, but the problem is it will eventually list everything. Now it seems that everybody is affected by wsdl4j: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/orphans-2021-12-06-2000.txt Is such report even useful? -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Anyone interested in helping to convert the Ubuntu Discourse Docker setup to Fedora Podman?
People, I cloned this: https://github.com/discourse/discourse_docker and did a "podman build" on the Dockerfile and it made it to step 39 (of 59) before stopping with a complaint about a missing dir . . It would be great to get a Fedora Podman Discourse container going (in a separate exercise some time ago I was able to get a development-only version going but I eventually gave up on the too-hard production version) - anyone interested in helping / advising? Thanks, Phil. -- Philip Rhoades PO Box 896 Cowra NSW 2794 Australia E-mail: p...@pricom.com.au ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: F36 Change: Make Rescue Mode Work With Locked Root (System-Wide Change proposal)
Once upon a time, Ben Cotton said: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FixRescueMode > > == Summary == > Fedora defaults to locking the root account, which is needed by > single-user mode. This Change uses `sulogin --force` so the password > request is bypassed under this circumstance. Thanks! -- Chris Adams ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2027884] perl-HTML-Template-Pro-0.9522 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2027884 Upstream Release Monitoring changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|perl-HTML-Template-Pro-0.95 |perl-HTML-Template-Pro-0.95 |21 is available |22 is available --- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- Latest upstream release: 0.9522 Current version/release in rawhide: 0.9521-1.fc36 URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/HTML-Template-Pro 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://fedoraproject.org/wiki/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/7119/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2027884 ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: F36 Change: Users are administrators by default in the installer GUI. (Self-Contained Change proposal)
On Mon, 2021-12-06 at 12:12 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 11:59:05AM +, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > Correct me, if I'm wrong, people to avoid put password in every > > sudo > > command, modify sudo to not ask password . And this behavior is a > > big > > hole of security , if user is compromised, attacker will have root > > access for free. > > I imagine some people do that, but it's certainly not the default. well I'm asking if is not a common behavior ? > Users could also configure their systems to allow an empty root > password. > They also shouldn't do that. > > -- > Matthew Miller > > Fedora Project Leader > ___ > 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 on the list, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure -- Sérgio M. B. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Mock config for epel-next-9-x86_64, No march for argument: fedpkg-minimal
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 11:32 AM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Sun, Dec 05, 2021 at 01:30:38PM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote: > > Is this a known issue or is there a package I need to update? I'm on F35. > > It's sadly expected... we need to get fedpkg-minimal pushed out into > epel9. There's a bug on it: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2007051 > > Hopefully it will go through soon... Ok. No worries. I have a few requests for EL 9 branches of some of my packages and don’t want to request them until I can build them locally. Thanks, Richard ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
F36 Change: Make Rescue Mode Work With Locked Root (System-Wide Change proposal)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FixRescueMode == Summary == Fedora defaults to locking the root account, which is needed by single-user mode. This Change uses `sulogin --force` so the password request is bypassed under this circumstance. == Owner == * Name: [[User:Salimma|Michel Alexandre Salim]] * Email: mic...@michel-slm.name * Name: [[User:Ngompa|Neal Gompa]] * Email: ngomp...@gmail.com * Name: [[User:Davdunc|David Duncan]] * Email: davd...@amazon.com == Detailed Description == Users typically only use single-user mode in case the normal boot is not working. In the unfortunate situation that it happens, under the current setup they cannot recover without booting from a Fedora live image or another image, or by overriding `init=`, because our single-user mode requires a root password, and by default we lock the root account. A more user-friendly setup is to allow the password to be bypassed in case it's not set. This does not pose an increased security risk: - you can already boot with `init=/sysroot/bin/bash` anyway - anyone with physical access to a machine can probably compromise it - you can enforce the need for a root password in single-user mode by setting it This change will be implemented by pre-installing an RPM containing systemd overrides for `emergency.service` and `rescue.service`, similar to the [https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-config/commit/eb74f2ea3e9b453902315539e4f327481162c4f8 CoreOS implementation], so users and editions/variants can opt out by removing this or omitting it from their default installation. == Benefit to Fedora == This Change provides a better out-of-the-box user experience in case they need to rescue their system, by making the rescue option presented in the bootloader actually work. == Scope == * Proposal owners: Ship the needed configuration change in a systemd subpackage. Test and verify that it works, then work with editions and spins to test and enable this by default by making `systemd` `Recommends: (systemd-rescue-defaults if dracut-config-rescue)` * Other developers: Test this and opt-out if necessary (eg cloud doesn't have a rescue initramfs so the package is deadweight). On variants where dracut-config-rescue is installed but an opt out is desired, excluding the package from installation will prevent it being installed on systemd upgrades * Release engineering: [https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10422 #10422] * Policies and guidelines: N/A (not needed for this Change) * Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change) * Alignment with Objectives: N/A == Upgrade/compatibility impact == Upgrades would pull in this automatically, see [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ExcludeFromWeakAutodetect] == How To Test == - `dnf install systemd-rescue-defaults` - reboot and verify rescue mode works == User Experience == Rescue mode works out of the box, without resorting to overriding init= or using a live media. == Dependencies == - most changes will be done in the `systemd` package - for variants that need to opt out we'll need to modify their kickstart files == Contingency Plan == * Contingency mechanism: if the `Recommends` have been added to systemd, remove it and potentially add an `Obsoletes:` to remove older known-bad versions of `rescue-defaults` * Contingency deadline: Beta freeze * Blocks release? No == Documentation == The built-in rescue mode now works out of the box without needing to use a live image. For added security you can set a root password. -- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Fedora Program Manager Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis ___ devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
F36 Change: Make Rescue Mode Work With Locked Root (System-Wide Change proposal)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FixRescueMode == Summary == Fedora defaults to locking the root account, which is needed by single-user mode. This Change uses `sulogin --force` so the password request is bypassed under this circumstance. == Owner == * Name: [[User:Salimma|Michel Alexandre Salim]] * Email: mic...@michel-slm.name * Name: [[User:Ngompa|Neal Gompa]] * Email: ngomp...@gmail.com * Name: [[User:Davdunc|David Duncan]] * Email: davd...@amazon.com == Detailed Description == Users typically only use single-user mode in case the normal boot is not working. In the unfortunate situation that it happens, under the current setup they cannot recover without booting from a Fedora live image or another image, or by overriding `init=`, because our single-user mode requires a root password, and by default we lock the root account. A more user-friendly setup is to allow the password to be bypassed in case it's not set. This does not pose an increased security risk: - you can already boot with `init=/sysroot/bin/bash` anyway - anyone with physical access to a machine can probably compromise it - you can enforce the need for a root password in single-user mode by setting it This change will be implemented by pre-installing an RPM containing systemd overrides for `emergency.service` and `rescue.service`, similar to the [https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-config/commit/eb74f2ea3e9b453902315539e4f327481162c4f8 CoreOS implementation], so users and editions/variants can opt out by removing this or omitting it from their default installation. == Benefit to Fedora == This Change provides a better out-of-the-box user experience in case they need to rescue their system, by making the rescue option presented in the bootloader actually work. == Scope == * Proposal owners: Ship the needed configuration change in a systemd subpackage. Test and verify that it works, then work with editions and spins to test and enable this by default by making `systemd` `Recommends: (systemd-rescue-defaults if dracut-config-rescue)` * Other developers: Test this and opt-out if necessary (eg cloud doesn't have a rescue initramfs so the package is deadweight). On variants where dracut-config-rescue is installed but an opt out is desired, excluding the package from installation will prevent it being installed on systemd upgrades * Release engineering: [https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10422 #10422] * Policies and guidelines: N/A (not needed for this Change) * Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change) * Alignment with Objectives: N/A == Upgrade/compatibility impact == Upgrades would pull in this automatically, see [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ExcludeFromWeakAutodetect] == How To Test == - `dnf install systemd-rescue-defaults` - reboot and verify rescue mode works == User Experience == Rescue mode works out of the box, without resorting to overriding init= or using a live media. == Dependencies == - most changes will be done in the `systemd` package - for variants that need to opt out we'll need to modify their kickstart files == Contingency Plan == * Contingency mechanism: if the `Recommends` have been added to systemd, remove it and potentially add an `Obsoletes:` to remove older known-bad versions of `rescue-defaults` * Contingency deadline: Beta freeze * Blocks release? No == Documentation == The built-in rescue mode now works out of the box without needing to use a live image. For added security you can set a root password. -- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Fedora Program Manager Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Mock config for epel-next-9-x86_64, No march for argument: fedpkg-minimal
On Sun, Dec 05, 2021 at 01:30:38PM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote: > Is this a known issue or is there a package I need to update? I'm on F35. It's sadly expected... we need to get fedpkg-minimal pushed out into epel9. There's a bug on it: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2007051 Hopefully it will go through soon... 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: F36 Change: Users are administrators by default in the installer GUI. (Self-Contained Change proposal)
On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 11:59:05AM +, Sérgio Basto wrote: > Correct me, if I'm wrong, people to avoid put password in every sudo > command, modify sudo to not ask password . And this behavior is a big > hole of security , if user is compromised, attacker will have root > access for free. I imagine some people do that, but it's certainly not the default. Users could also configure their systems to allow an empty root password. They also shouldn't do that. -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2029516] New: Please branch and build perl-Any-URI-Escape in epel9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029516 Bug ID: 2029516 Summary: Please branch and build perl-Any-URI-Escape in epel9 Product: Fedora EPEL Version: epel8 Status: NEW Component: perl-Any-URI-Escape Assignee: emman...@seyman.fr Reporter: tdaw...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: emman...@seyman.fr, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Please branch and build perl-Any-URI-Escape in epel9. If you do not wish to maintain perl-Any-URI-Escape in epel9, or do not think you will be able to do this in a timely manner, I would be happy to be a co-maintainer of the package. I have tested and the rawhide package builds in EPEL9 without any changes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029516 ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: How to handle ABI breakage in Rawhide
* Otto Urpelainen: > Vitaly Zaitsev via devel kirjoitti 6.12.2021 klo 11.01: >> On 06/12/2021 03:39, Bernie Innocenti via devel wrote: >>> What are the current Fedora packaging guideline regarding ABI >>> stability of shared libraries? >> The package maintainer should ask upstream to bump the soversion >> field and if it is rejected, bump it manually in downstream. > > And here is the reference for this: Packaging Guidelines, section > "Downstream .so name Versioning" [1]. It is notable that the same > section also says this: "Under no circumstances should the unversioned > library be shipped in Fedora." That's not actually true, though, and it does not make much sense. If upstream commits to an ABI, versioning is not even required technically. The Mozilla NSS library is one such example, but there are probably others. Thanks, Florian ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers
It's also deprecated as of I believe 3.11, so I've made sure there are upstream bugs filed to migrate to berkeleydb for both consumers, gramps and exaile. -- Gwyn Ciesla she/her/hers in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, December 6th, 2021 at 9:01 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 06. 12. 21 15:50, Gwyn Ciesla via devel wrote: > > > > python-bsddb3 orphan 1 weeks ago > > > > > > Taken. > > Thanks. > > Note that ti was orphaned because of: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2019310 > > -- > > Miro Hrončok > > > Phone: +420777974800 > > IRC: mhroncok signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Fedora elections voting now open
This is your final reminder that voting closes promptly at 23:59 UTC on Thursday 9 December. On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 7:08 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > > Voting in the Fedora Linux 35 elections is now open. Go to the > Elections app[1] to cast your vote. Voting closes at 23:59 UTC on > Thursday 9 December. Don't forget to claim your "I Voted" badge when > you cast your ballot. Links to candidate interviews are in the > Elections app and on the Community Blog[2]. > > [1] https://elections.fedoraproject.org/ > [2] https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/f35-elections-voting-now-open/ -- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Fedora Program Manager Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis ___ devel-announce mailing list -- devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Fedora elections voting now open
This is your final reminder that voting closes promptly at 23:59 UTC on Thursday 9 December. On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 7:08 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > > Voting in the Fedora Linux 35 elections is now open. Go to the > Elections app[1] to cast your vote. Voting closes at 23:59 UTC on > Thursday 9 December. Don't forget to claim your "I Voted" badge when > you cast your ballot. Links to candidate interviews are in the > Elections app and on the Community Blog[2]. > > [1] https://elections.fedoraproject.org/ > [2] https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/f35-elections-voting-now-open/ -- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Fedora Program Manager Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis ___ devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers
On 06. 12. 21 15:50, Gwyn Ciesla via devel wrote: python-bsddb3 orphan 1 weeks ago Taken. Thanks. Note that ti was orphaned because of: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2019310 -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Fedora-Rawhide-20211206.n.0 compose check report
No missing expected images. Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check! 1 of 43 required tests failed, 4 results missing openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING** below Failed openQA tests: 4/208 (x86_64), 8/142 (aarch64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20211205.n.0): ID: 1078001 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default_upload **GATING** URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1078001 ID: 1078046 Test: aarch64 Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz base_service_manipulation@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1078046 ID: 1078074 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso install_repository_hd_variation@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1078074 ID: 1078149 Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_with_swap@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1078149 ID: 1078227 Test: aarch64 universal install_cyrillic_language@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1078227 Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20211205.n.0): ID: 1077993 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_login URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1077993 ID: 1078029 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso release_identification URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1078029 ID: 1078055 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso anaconda_help@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1078055 ID: 1078093 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso server_cockpit_basic@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1078093 ID: 1078122 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz gedit@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1078122 ID: 1078127 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz eog@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1078127 ID: 1078216 Test: aarch64 universal install_arabic_language@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1078216 Soft failed openQA tests: 7/208 (x86_64), 3/142 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) New soft failures (same test not soft failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20211205.n.0): ID: 1078033 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso gedit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1078033 ID: 1078111 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz install_arm_image_deployment_upload@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1078111 Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20211205.n.0): ID: 1077983 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso eog URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1077983 ID: 1077998 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso gedit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1077998 ID: 1078032 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso evince URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1078032 ID: 1078034 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso eog URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1078034 ID: 1078044 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1078044 ID: 1078136 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1078136 ID: 1078183 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_server_domain_controller URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1078183 ID: 1078232 Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_server_domain_controller@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1078232 Passed openQA tests: 181/208 (x86_64), 131/142 (aarch64) New passes (same test not passed in Fedora-Rawhide-20211205.n.0): ID: 1078040 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 base_services_start URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1078040 ID: 1078056 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso install_standard_partition_ext4@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1078056 ID: 1078059 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso support_server@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1078059 ID: 1078075 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso install_repository_nfs_graphical@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1078075 ID: 1078084 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso server_role_deploy_domain_controller@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1078084 ID: 1078094 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso realmd_join_cockpit@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1078094 ID: 1078099 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso server_realmd_join_kickstart@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1078099 ID: 1078113 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz desktop_printing@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1078113 ID: 1078121 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz evince@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1078121 ID: 1078128 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz desktop_update_graphical@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1078128 ID: 1078205 Test: x86_64 universal install_simple_encrypted@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1078205 ID: 1078213 Test: x86_64 universal install_rescue_encrypted@uefi URL:
Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers
> python-bsddb3 orphan 1 weeks ago Taken. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers
The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life Note: If you received this mail directly you (co)maintain one of the affected packages or a package that depends on one. Please adopt the affected package or retire your depending package to avoid broken dependencies, otherwise your package will fail to install and/or build when the affected package gets retired. Request package ownership via the *Take* button in he left column on https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ Full report available at: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/orphans-2021-12-06.txt grep it for your FAS username and follow the dependency chain. For human readable dependency chains, see https://packager-dashboard.fedoraproject.org/ For all orphaned packages, see https://packager-dashboard.fedoraproject.org/orphan Package (co)maintainers Status Change Java-WebSocket orphan4 weeks ago PyPAMorphan, tmraz 3 weeks ago apache-rat mizdebsk, orphan 0 weeks ago arduino-ctagsorphan4 weeks ago asl orphan4 weeks ago bytelist lef, orphan 4 weeks ago chaos-client go-sig, orphan4 weeks ago chck fale, orphan, zvetlik 4 weeks ago concurrent-trees hhorak, orphan4 weeks ago conky-managerorphan4 weeks ago couchdb orphan4 weeks ago crlfuzz go-sig, orphan4 weeks ago direvent orphan1 weeks ago dummy-test-package-rubinoasaleh, orphan, packagerbot, 4 weeks ago patrikp, scoady, wwoods erlang-exometer_core orphan4 weeks ago erlang-protobuffsorphan4 weeks ago erlang-riak_api bowlofeggs, erlang-maint-sig, 4 weeks ago orphan erlang-riak_core bowlofeggs, erlang-maint-sig, 4 weeks ago orphan erlang-triq orphan4 weeks ago fennel epel-packagers-sig, lua- 4 weeks ago packagers-sig, orphan gdata-sharp moezroy, orphan, tpokorra 4 weeks ago gnu-getopt dwalluck, mizdebsk, orphan4 weeks ago golang-github-beevik-ntp go-sig, orphan4 weeks ago golang-github-ema-qdisc go-sig, orphan4 weeks ago golang-github-mdlayher-wifi go-sig, orphan4 weeks ago golang-github-soundcloud-runit go-sig, orphan4 weeks ago icedtea-web jvanek, omajid, orphan0 weeks ago javadocofflinesearch orphan1 weeks ago js-termynal orphan0 weeks ago jsap orphan4 weeks ago kexi kde-sig, orphan 2 weeks ago komparator orphan4 weeks ago latex-mk orphan4 weeks ago libgaiagraphics orphan4 weeks ago librfid orphan4 weeks ago mingw-colord-gtk gnome-sig, orphan 4 weeks ago naabugo-sig, orphan4 weeks ago netcfberrange, orphan 5 weeks ago nuclei go-sig, orphan4 weeks ago oci-kvm-hook orphan4 weeks ago pam_mountlupinix, orphan, steve4 weeks ago passengerkanarip, orphan 4 weeks ago perl-OpenOffice-UNO filabrazilska, orphan, scenek 4 weeks ago plantuml gil, orphan 2 weeks ago plasma-applet-redshift-control kde-sig, lupinix, orphan 4 weeks ago postgres-decoderbufs fjanus, hhorak,
Fedora rawhide compose report: 20211206.n.0 changes
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20211205.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20211206.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 2 Added packages: 2 Dropped packages:1 Upgraded packages: 48 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 1.12 MiB Size of dropped packages:803.91 KiB Size of upgraded packages: 9.57 GiB Size of downgraded packages: 0 B Size change of upgraded packages: 15.56 MiB Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B = ADDED IMAGES = = DROPPED IMAGES = Image: Astronomy_KDE live x86_64 Path: Labs/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Astronomy_KDE-Live-x86_64-Rawhide-20211205.n.0.iso Image: Security live x86_64 Path: Labs/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Security-Live-x86_64-Rawhide-20211205.n.0.iso = ADDED PACKAGES = Package: dqlite-1.9.0-1.fc36 Summary: Embeddable, replicated and fault tolerant SQL engine RPMs:dqlite dqlite-devel Size:430.40 KiB Package: raft-0.11.2-1.fc36 Summary: C implementation of the Raft consensus protocol RPMs:raft raft-benchmark raft-devel raft-doc Size:721.55 KiB = DROPPED PACKAGES = Package: wireless-tools-1:29-28.fc35 Summary: Wireless ethernet configuration tools RPMs:wireless-tools wireless-tools-devel Size:803.91 KiB = UPGRADED PACKAGES = Package: NLopt-2.7.1-3.fc36 Old package: NLopt-2.7.1-1.fc36 Summary: Open-Source library for nonlinear optimization RPMs: NLopt NLopt-devel NLopt-doc guile-NLopt octave-NLopt python3-NLopt Size: 3.83 MiB Size change: 5.61 KiB Changelog: * Sun Dec 05 2021 Bj??rn Esser - 2.7.1-2 - Explicitly set configuration options - Enable Fortran code - Drop "-fpermissive" compiler flag * Sun Dec 05 2021 Bj??rn Esser - 2.7.1-3 - Build against guile22 Fixes rhbz#2008436 Package: arpwatch-14:3.1-35.fc36 Old package: arpwatch-14:3.1-34.fc36 Summary: Network monitoring tools for tracking IP addresses on a network RPMs: arpwatch Size: 1.58 MiB Size change: 4.04 KiB Changelog: * Sun Dec 05 2021 Benjamin A. Beasley 14:3.1-35 - Generate ethercodes.dat from latest oui.csv Package: artifacts-0.0.20211205-1.fc36 Old package: artifacts-0.0.20211012-1.fc36 Summary: Collection of digital forensic artifacts RPMs: artifacts Size: 81.12 KiB Size change: 1.85 KiB Changelog: * Sun Dec 05 2021 Fabian Affolter 0.0.20211205-1 - Update to latest upstream release 20211205 (closes rhbz#2020957) Package: baresip-1.1.0-6.fc36 Old package: baresip-1.1.0-5.fc36 Summary: Modular SIP user-agent with audio and video support RPMs: baresip baresip-aac baresip-alsa baresip-codec2 baresip-ctrl_dbus baresip-g722 baresip-g726 baresip-gsm baresip-gst baresip-gst_video baresip-gtk baresip-jack baresip-mpa baresip-mqtt baresip-omx baresip-opus baresip-plc baresip-portaudio baresip-pulse baresip-rst baresip-sdl baresip-snapshot baresip-sndfile baresip-speex_pp baresip-tools baresip-v4l2 baresip-vp8 baresip-vp9 baresip-x11 baresip-x11grab Size: 6.55 MiB Size change: 12.23 KiB Changelog: * Sun Dec 05 2021 Richard Shaw - 1.1.0-6 - Rebuild for codec2 1.0.1. Package: binaryen-103-1.fc36 Old package: binaryen-102-1.fc36 Summary: Compiler and toolchain infrastructure library for WebAssembly RPMs: binaryen Size: 12.60 MiB Size change: 886.95 KiB Changelog: * Sun Dec 05 2021 Dominik Mierzejewski 103-1 - update to 103 (#2028875) Package: calibre-5.33.2-1.fc36 Old package: calibre-5.32.0-1.fc36 Summary: E-book converter and library manager RPMs: calibre Size: 69.52 MiB Size change: -159.35 KiB Changelog: * Sun Dec 05 2021 Zbigniew J??drzejewski-Szmek 5.33.2-1 - Version 5.33.2. Fixes rhbz#2028729 Package: ccache-4.5.1-1.fc36 Old package: ccache-4.4.2-1.fc36 Summary: C/C++ compiler cache RPMs: ccache Size: 2.74 MiB Size change: 32.09 KiB Changelog: * Sun Dec 05 2021 Orion Poplawski - 4.5.1-1 - Update to 4.5.1 Package: cfitsio-4.0.0-1.fc36 Old package: cfitsio-3.490-4.fc35 Summary: Library for manipulating FITS data files RPMs: cfitsio cfitsio-devel cfitsio-docs cfitsio-static fpack Size: 11.69 MiB Size change: 59.44 KiB Changelog: * Fri Dec 03 2021 Sergio Pascual - 4.0.0-1 - New upstream version 4.0.0 Package: codec2-1.0.1-1.fc36 Old package: codec2-1.0.0-1.fc35.2 Summary: Next-Generation Digital Voice for Two-Way Radio RPMs: codec2 codec2-devel Size: 3.85 MiB Size change: 23.17 KiB Changelog: * Sun Dec 05 2021 Richard Shaw - 1.0.1-1 - Update to 1.0.1. Package: cswrap-2.1.0-1.fc36 Old package: cswrap-2.0.1-1.fc36 Summary: Generic compiler wrapper RPMs: csexec cswrap Size: 1.79 MiB Size change: 10.59 KiB Changelog: * Fri Dec 03 2021 Kamil Dudka 2.1.0-1 - update to latest upstream Package: dummy-test-package-gloster-0-6134.fc36 Old package: dummy-te
Re: F36 Change: Users are administrators by default in the installer GUI. (Self-Contained Change proposal)
On Wed, 2021-12-01 at 21:40 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 09:29:43AM -0600, Brandon Nielsen wrote: > > On 11/29/21 1:33 PM, Ben Cotton wrote: > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Users_are_admins_by_default_in_Anaconda > > > > > > = Users are administrators by default in the installer GUI = > > > > > > == Summary == > > > > > > The Anaconda installer GUI will have the administrative rights > > > checkbox on the User screen ticked by default. > > > > > > == Owner == > > > > > > * Name: [[User:Vladimirslavik| Vladimir Slavik]] > > > * Email: vsla...@redhat.com > > > > > > > > > == Detailed Description == > > > > > > Currently, the Anaconda installer GUI presents an unticked > > > checkbox > > > "Make this user administrator" on the user setup screen by > > > default. > > > This means users have to discover the control, understand its > > > meaning, > > > and consciously decide to change the value from the default one. > > > > > > > [Snip] > > > > I find this wording confusing, and I've been using Linux for at > > least 15 > > years now. I think if we're making changes to reduce user confusion > > we may > > want to change the wording as well? > > > > Perhaps a better wording would be "Grant user administrator > > privileges > > (allow sudo)"? Something to make it clear the resulting user isn't > > root, but > > can act as root. Correct me, if I'm wrong, people to avoid put password in every sudo command, modify sudo to not ask password . And this behavior is a big hole of security , if user is compromised, attacker will have root access for free. > +1. The explanation can be even longer: maybe "(e.g. allow sudo as > root, > access to all logs, and other administrative actions)". If you're > finding > the existing wording unclear, many other people are most likely too. > > 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 on the list, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure -- Sérgio M. B. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
No FESCo meeting today (2021-12-06), but some announcements
Hi folks, we have nothing on the agenda, so I'm cancelling today's meeting. See you next week. #2700 F36 Change: ELN-Extras https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2700 APPROVED (+7, 0, -0) #2701 F36 Change: Unit Names in Systemd Messages https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2701 APPROVED (+7,0,-0) #2702 F36 Change: Remove Wire Extensions Support https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2702 APPROVED (+6,0,-0) #2703 F37 Change: RetireARMv7 https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2703 APPROVED (+7,0,-0) 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: F36 Change: Users are administrators by default in the installer GUI. (Self-Contained Change proposal)
Thank you, I have added feedback from this discussion to the Change page. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Users_are_admins_by_default_in_Anaconda#Feedback (This does not mean the discussion is over, just that there was enough to go and edit the page.) Best, VS On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 8:35 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Users_are_admins_by_default_in_Anaconda > > = Users are administrators by default in the installer GUI = > > == Summary == > > The Anaconda installer GUI will have the administrative rights > checkbox on the User screen ticked by default. > > == Owner == > > * Name: [[User:Vladimirslavik| Vladimir Slavik]] > * Email: vsla...@redhat.com > > > == Detailed Description == > > Currently, the Anaconda installer GUI presents an unticked checkbox > "Make this user administrator" on the user setup screen by default. > This means users have to discover the control, understand its meaning, > and consciously decide to change the value from the default one. > > However, computer usage by individuals is heavily skewed towards > single user machines where the (sole) user has administrative powers > over the machine by invoking `sudo`. This has been always reflected by > the design of the screen, which allows only a single user to be > created. The GNOME first time setup also creates a single user - and > makes them an administrator without asking. > > The proposed change merely changes the default GUI state to be in line > with this expectation. > > Further, this change of defaults complements the default for root > account. The redesign of root setup screen in Fedora 35 makes it clear > that root should be left locked. This change makes it clear that the > user should be the administrator. Together, these defaults will let > the user satisfy all user account options by filling in nothing more > than the user name and the password (twice to confirm). > > > == Benefit to Fedora == > > One less footgun in the installer for entry-level users. They will be > able to rely on defaults and achieve the expected outcome. > > == Scope == > > * Proposal owners: Isolated change - adjust Anaconda code to do so as > suggested here. Low effort. > * Other developers: No changes needed. > * Release engineering: Different defaults ''could'' impact installer > testing. [https://pagure.io/releng/issues #Releng issue number] > * Policies and guidelines: N/A > * Trademark approval: N/A > * Alignment with Objectives: None. > > == Upgrade/compatibility impact == > > No impact. Installation implies teardown of previous system, including > users. > > == How To Test == > > Start Anaconda installer for the Server variant, open the user setup > screen, "Make this user administrator" is checked = pass. > > Should be variant / spin / hardware agnostic, with the caveat that the > presence of user screen is configurable, so in many cases the screen > is not reachable. > > Kickstart installs are not affected. > > == User Experience == > > Users installing Fedora will no longer be forced to spend time > deciding how to arrange the administrative powers (they, root, both?) > and configuring that. They will be able to fill in user name and > password and the default configuration will be valid. They can give in > to the power of defaults. > > For users that want to configure the system differently from the > majority use case, the controls to do so are still as they were, only > the defaults are different. > > For those installing Fedora manually often, muscle memory for user > screen will break, as the checkbox will no longer have to be toggled. > > == Dependencies == > > None. > > == Contingency Plan == > > Any Fedora QA and OpenQA changes reflecting this will have to be > reverted. Other than that, there is no technical or process > requirement for this change, so no impact. The change does not happen > and previous defaults remain. > > * Contingency mechanism: N/A > * Contingency deadline: N/A > * Blocks release? No > > == Documentation == > > * https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/pull/3719 > > == Release Notes == > > In the User spoke, the "Make this user administrator" checkbox is now > checked by default. This improves installation experience for users > who do not know and need to rely on the default values to guide them. > > > -- > Ben Cotton > He / Him / His > Fedora Program Manager > Red Hat > TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis > ___ > 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 on the list, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure > -- Vladimír Slávik Software Engineer,
Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers
On Mon, 2021-12-06 at 11:17 +, Mat Booth wrote: > On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 10:43, Richard W.M. Jones > wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 11:21:34AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > Full report available at: > > > https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/orphans-2021-12-06.txt > > > grep it for your FAS username and follow the dependency chain. > > > > Could we get rid of the limit > > > > "Too many dependencies for wsdl4j, not all listed here" > > > > in the long reports? I don't really care how big that text file is > > in > > my browser. > > > > > For human readable dependency chains, > > > see https://packager-dashboard.fedoraproject.org/ > > > For all orphaned packages, > > > see https://packager-dashboard.fedoraproject.org/orphan > > > > This is nicer, not sure if I've seen this before. > > > > Looks like the main breakage is: > > > > mingw-nsis -> scons -> fop -> tomcat -> wsdl4j > > > > That gets increasingly weird. NSIS is an installer builder for > > Windows (fine), scons is a Python-based build system (also fine), > > fop is a documentation formatting tool, tomcat is an application > > server (!) > > > > So I wonder why a Python-based build system relies on a Java-based > > application server. > > > > Well, for whatever reason, upstream fop contains a servlet > implementation (which requires an app server) but we don't even build > or ship this servlet in our fop package. > > I removed an unnecessary BR on 'servlet' from the fop package: > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fop/c/fba0361894999fbf17c8672e96d4dc95cc06314f?branch=rawhide > > Does that add more sanity to the dep chain? Since is a new package we need to wait for a new "Fedora rawhide compose" , we got an email notification on devel mailing list with subject: Fedora rawhide compose report: mmdd.n.0 changes after that, we can check https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/orphans.txt the first line have the date of the report, (timezone is CET (central European time)) Best regards -- Sérgio M. B. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: F36 Change: Users are administrators by default in the installer GUI. (Self-Contained Change proposal)
Thanks, I have edited the release note on the proposal page. VS On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 5:23 PM Jiri Konecny wrote: > > Dne 01. 12. 21 v 16:16 Jonathan Wakely napsal(a): > > On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 at 19:36, Ben Cotton wrote: > >> == Release Notes == > >> > >> In the User spoke, the "Make this user administrator" checkbox is now > >> checked by default. This improves installation experience for users > >> who do not know and need to rely on the default values to guide them. > > What's the context of this text? Is it in a section that is > > specifically about anaconda? Because "the User spoke" isn't very > > meaningful on its own. Arguably talking about spokes at all isn't very > > meaningful for end users who are reading the release notes. I did a > > double-take when reading it, until remembered that's the anaconda > > terminology, and I've been using anaconda for years and years. > Yes, you are correct it's the Anaconda context. Good point, maybe it > would be good to change the proposal a bit to clarify that? > > Jirka > > ___ > > 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 on the list, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure > ___ > 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 on the list, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure > -- Vladimír Slávik Software Engineer, Platform Engineering Red Hat Czech, s.r.o. ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers
On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 10:43, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 11:21:34AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > Full report available at: > > https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/orphans-2021-12-06.txt > > grep it for your FAS username and follow the dependency chain. > > Could we get rid of the limit > > "Too many dependencies for wsdl4j, not all listed here" > > in the long reports? I don't really care how big that text file is in > my browser. > > > For human readable dependency chains, > > see https://packager-dashboard.fedoraproject.org/ > > For all orphaned packages, > > see https://packager-dashboard.fedoraproject.org/orphan > > This is nicer, not sure if I've seen this before. > > Looks like the main breakage is: > > mingw-nsis -> scons -> fop -> tomcat -> wsdl4j > > That gets increasingly weird. NSIS is an installer builder for > Windows (fine), scons is a Python-based build system (also fine), > fop is a documentation formatting tool, tomcat is an application > server (!) > > So I wonder why a Python-based build system relies on a Java-based > application server. > Well, for whatever reason, upstream fop contains a servlet implementation (which requires an app server) but we don't even build or ship this servlet in our fop package. I removed an unnecessary BR on 'servlet' from the fop package: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fop/c/fba0361894999fbf17c8672e96d4dc95cc06314f?branch=rawhide Does that add more sanity to the dep chain? -- Mat Booth http://fedoraproject.org/get-fedora ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: cmake on Rawhide is broken
Dne 03. 12. 21 v 19:07 Tom Hughes via devel napsal(a):
On 03/12/2021 17:48, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Fri, 2021-12-03 at 17:25 +, Tom Hughes via devel wrote:
On 03/12/2021 17:16, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
On 03/12/2021 17:41, Miro Hrončok wrote:
The bundled openssl in opae worries me still, but that's not causing
issues in dependency resolution any more.
I think FESCo should create a strict policy on bundling cryptographic
libraries.
Well bundling a binary from upstream is already against policy
so I don't see how that helps.
The problem isn't a lack of policy, it's that the packager didn't
notice those files or didn't realise they weren't allowed.
So the opae-2.0.0 tarball has libcrypto embedded-in what is the process
now ?
This stuff is used for a Python tool that is used to sign some binary,
almost certainly there is absolutely no reason to bundle libcrypto, the
tool should probably be unbundled and turned into a regular python
module opae depends on.
It has an openssl.py that dlopen's the so:
def _find_openssl_so(self, version, *paths):
candidates = list(paths)
crypto = util.find_library('crypto')
if crypto:
candidates.insert(0, crypto)
for c in candidates:
dll = CDLL(c)
So that might already find the system one if you have it
but probably only if you have openssl-devel installed to
get the .so link with no version.
But dropping the binaries and doing a relatively minor
patch to that is likely all that is needed.
Or just symlink ...
Vít
Do we know who is the current maintainer?
The changelog seem to imply Intel dropped it into Fedora and never
maintained it after Sep 17 2020 ...
Well src.fpo says trix aka Tom Rix is the maintainer.
Tom
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital 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 on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers
On 06. 12. 21 11:42, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: Could we get rid of the limit "Too many dependencies for wsdl4j, not all listed here" in the long reports? I don't really care how big that text file is in my browser. I can try, but the report might run for a long time. Will check. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2029100] perlbrew-0.94 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029100 --- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-954d818d4e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-954d818d4e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029100 ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers
On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 10:42:37AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 11:21:34AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > Full report available at: > > https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/orphans-2021-12-06.txt > > grep it for your FAS username and follow the dependency chain. > > Could we get rid of the limit > > "Too many dependencies for wsdl4j, not all listed here" > > in the long reports? I don't really care how big that text file is in > my browser. > > > For human readable dependency chains, > > see https://packager-dashboard.fedoraproject.org/ > > For all orphaned packages, > > see https://packager-dashboard.fedoraproject.org/orphan > > This is nicer, not sure if I've seen this before. > > Looks like the main breakage is: > > mingw-nsis -> scons -> fop -> tomcat -> wsdl4j > > That gets increasingly weird. NSIS is an installer builder for > Windows (fine), scons is a Python-based build system (also fine), > fop is a documentation formatting tool, tomcat is an application > server (!) > > So I wonder why a Python-based build system relies on a Java-based > application server. > > In scons, flipping the switch: > > # Install prebuilt documentation > -%bcond_with prebuilt_doc > +%bcond_with prebuilt_doc I mean +%bcond_without (which makes it build _with_ prebuilt docs). > > would be one possible way to fix this by dropping a lot of > dependencies like fop, ghostscript, sphinx, etc. Are we allowed to > ship prebuilt PDFs and HTML docs? > > Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com virt-builder quickly builds VMs from scratch http://libguestfs.org/virt-builder.1.html ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2029100] perlbrew-0.94 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029100 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In Version||perlbrew-0.94-1.fc36 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029100 ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers
On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 11:21:34AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > Full report available at: > https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/orphans-2021-12-06.txt > grep it for your FAS username and follow the dependency chain. Could we get rid of the limit "Too many dependencies for wsdl4j, not all listed here" in the long reports? I don't really care how big that text file is in my browser. > For human readable dependency chains, > see https://packager-dashboard.fedoraproject.org/ > For all orphaned packages, > see https://packager-dashboard.fedoraproject.org/orphan This is nicer, not sure if I've seen this before. Looks like the main breakage is: mingw-nsis -> scons -> fop -> tomcat -> wsdl4j That gets increasingly weird. NSIS is an installer builder for Windows (fine), scons is a Python-based build system (also fine), fop is a documentation formatting tool, tomcat is an application server (!) So I wonder why a Python-based build system relies on a Java-based application server. In scons, flipping the switch: # Install prebuilt documentation -%bcond_with prebuilt_doc +%bcond_with prebuilt_doc would be one possible way to fix this by dropping a lot of dependencies like fop, ghostscript, sphinx, etc. Are we allowed to ship prebuilt PDFs and HTML docs? Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc. http://people.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers
The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life Note: If you received this mail directly you (co)maintain one of the affected packages or a package that depends on one. Please adopt the affected package or retire your depending package to avoid broken dependencies, otherwise your package will fail to install and/or build when the affected package gets retired. Request package ownership via the *Take* button in he left column on https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ Full report available at: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/orphans-2021-12-06.txt grep it for your FAS username and follow the dependency chain. For human readable dependency chains, see https://packager-dashboard.fedoraproject.org/ For all orphaned packages, see https://packager-dashboard.fedoraproject.org/orphan Package (co)maintainers Status Change Java-WebSocket orphan4 weeks ago PyPAMorphan, tmraz 3 weeks ago apache-rat mizdebsk, orphan 0 weeks ago arduino-ctagsorphan4 weeks ago asl orphan4 weeks ago bytelist lef, orphan 4 weeks ago chaos-client go-sig, orphan4 weeks ago chck fale, orphan, zvetlik 4 weeks ago concurrent-trees hhorak, orphan4 weeks ago conky-managerorphan4 weeks ago couchdb orphan4 weeks ago crlfuzz go-sig, orphan4 weeks ago direvent orphan1 weeks ago dummy-test-package-rubinoasaleh, orphan, packagerbot, 4 weeks ago patrikp, scoady, wwoods erlang-exometer_core orphan4 weeks ago erlang-protobuffsorphan4 weeks ago erlang-riak_api bowlofeggs, erlang-maint-sig, 4 weeks ago orphan erlang-riak_core bowlofeggs, erlang-maint-sig, 4 weeks ago orphan erlang-triq orphan4 weeks ago fennel epel-packagers-sig, lua- 4 weeks ago packagers-sig, orphan gdata-sharp moezroy, orphan, tpokorra 4 weeks ago gnu-getopt dwalluck, mizdebsk, orphan4 weeks ago golang-github-beevik-ntp go-sig, orphan4 weeks ago golang-github-ema-qdisc go-sig, orphan4 weeks ago golang-github-mdlayher-wifi go-sig, orphan4 weeks ago golang-github-soundcloud-runit go-sig, orphan4 weeks ago icedtea-web jvanek, omajid, orphan0 weeks ago javadocofflinesearch orphan1 weeks ago js-termynal orphan0 weeks ago jsap orphan4 weeks ago kexi kde-sig, orphan 2 weeks ago komparator orphan4 weeks ago latex-mk orphan4 weeks ago libgaiagraphics orphan4 weeks ago librfid orphan4 weeks ago mingw-colord-gtk gnome-sig, orphan 4 weeks ago naabugo-sig, orphan4 weeks ago netcfberrange, orphan 5 weeks ago nuclei go-sig, orphan4 weeks ago oci-kvm-hook orphan4 weeks ago pam_mountlupinix, orphan, steve4 weeks ago passengerkanarip, orphan 4 weeks ago perl-OpenOffice-UNO filabrazilska, orphan, scenek 4 weeks ago plantuml gil, orphan 2 weeks ago plasma-applet-redshift-control kde-sig, lupinix, orphan 4 weeks ago postgres-decoderbufs fjanus, hhorak,
Fedora-Cloud-34-20211206.0 compose check report
No missing expected images. Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-34-20211205.0): ID: 1077905 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1077905 ID: 1077913 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1077913 Passed openQA tests: 7/8 (x86_64), 7/8 (aarch64) -- Mail generated by check-compose: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2029100] perlbrew-0.94 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029100 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|iarn...@gmail.com, | |jples...@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=2029100 ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2029042] perl-CPAN-Checksums-2.14 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029042 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-CPAN-Checksums-2.14-1. ||fc36 Last Closed||2021-12-06 09:40:18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029042 ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: How to handle ABI breakage in Rawhide
Vitaly Zaitsev via devel kirjoitti 6.12.2021 klo 11.01: On 06/12/2021 03:39, Bernie Innocenti via devel wrote: What are the current Fedora packaging guideline regarding ABI stability of shared libraries? The package maintainer should ask upstream to bump the soversion field and if it is rejected, bump it manually in downstream. And here is the reference for this: Packaging Guidelines, section "Downstream .so name Versioning" [1]. It is notable that the same section also says this: "Under no circumstances should the unversioned library be shipped in Fedora." As for notifying about abi changes in packages, see the Updates policy [2]. These items are relevant: * When a proposed update contains an ABI or API change: notify a week in advance both the devel list and maintainers directly (using the packagename-maintain...@fedoraproject.org alias) whose packages depend on yours to rebuild or offer to do these rebuilds for them. * Use a side-tag when dealing with mass builds of many packages, so they can land at the same time. See Rawhide Gating/Multi Builds. Otto [1]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_downstream_so_name_versioning [2]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/ ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2029042] perl-CPAN-Checksums-2.14 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2029042 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|jples...@redhat.com,| |mmasl...@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=2029042 ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: New openssh in Rawhide can't connect to RHEL 6 servers
On Sun, Dec 05, 2021 at 08:22:19PM -0500, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 8:15 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > > openssh 8.8p1 (just released in Rawhide) cannot connect to older > > servers. The error is: > > > > Unable to negotiate with [server] port 22: no matching host key type > > found. Their offer: ssh-rsa,ssh-dss > > > > It seems like the cut-off point is RHEL <= 6 broken, RHEL >= 7 is OK. > > RHEL 6 is obsolete for more than the last year: retaining > compatibility with obsolete distributions of an operating system is > work that likely no one is pursuing. I used to do that sort of thing, > but no one is paying me for it right now. That sort of thing used to > be available at repoforge, but that repo stopped getting updates some > time ago. RHEL 6 is still under ELS until 30 June 2024. There's also old equipment with ssh servers that cannot be upgraded. Anyway my main concern was the it was hard to find information about this error or how to fix it, so I'm documenting that. Rich. > > I eventually found a workaround/solution to this deep in an Arch > > thread: > > > > https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=2006291#p2006291 > > > > or the equivalent on the command line: > > > > ssh -o HostKeyAlgorithms=+ssh-rsa -o PubkeyAcceptedAlgorithms=+ssh-rsa > > rhel6 > > So. you can set it up in ~/.ssh/config for specific remote hosts as > needed? > > > Both config options seem to be necessary. > > > > Rich. > > > > > > -- > > Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat > > http://people.redhat.com/~rjones > > Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com > > virt-builder quickly builds VMs from scratch > > http://libguestfs.org/virt-builder.1.html > > ___ > > 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 on the list, report it: > > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure > ___ > 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 on the list, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com virt-builder quickly builds VMs from scratch http://libguestfs.org/virt-builder.1.html ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: New openssh in Rawhide can't connect to RHEL 6 servers
On Sun, Dec 05, 2021 at 07:23:50PM -0800, Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 12/5/21 05:15, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > >openssh 8.8p1 (just released in Rawhide) cannot connect to older > >servers. > ... > >or the equivalent on the command line: > > ssh -o HostKeyAlgorithms=+ssh-rsa -o PubkeyAcceptedAlgorithms=+ssh-rsa > > rhel6 > > > That's also documented in the release notes for 8.8, under > "Potentially-incompatible changes": > > https://www.openssh.com/txt/release-8.8 > > Though I'm surprised that's new; I'd have thought it would have > stopped working in Fedora 33 with > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/StrongCryptoSettings2 > > The change proposal says that Fedora disabled SHA-1 hashes, which > seems like the same change that's documented in OpenSSH 8.8. Had > this host opted out of the Fedora strong crypto policy? "host" == client? No: $ update-crypto-policies --show DEFAULT Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com virt-df lists disk usage of guests without needing to install any software inside the virtual machine. Supports Linux and Windows. http://people.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-df/ ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: How to handle ABI breakage in Rawhide
On 06/12/2021 03:39, Bernie Innocenti via devel wrote: What are the current Fedora packaging guideline regarding ABI stability of shared libraries? The package maintainer should ask upstream to bump the soversion field and if it is rejected, bump it manually in downstream. -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org) ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: rpm bug for multiple README.md or LICENSE.md in EPEL 8 and Fedora
On 05/12/2021 04:07, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: This breaks building RPMs for EPEL 8 or Fedora, because the '%doc' and '%license' macros strip off the subdirectories of the files and install them directly at the top of the docdir. You should deal with them manually. Example: https://github.com/rpmfusion/tg_owt/blob/master/tg_owt.spec#L124-L161 https://github.com/rpmfusion/tg_owt/blob/master/tg_owt.spec#L178-L179 -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org) ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Fedora-Cloud-35-20211206.0 compose check report
No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 1/8 (aarch64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Cloud-35-20211205.0): ID: 1077896 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 base_service_manipulation@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1077896 Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-35-20211205.0): ID: 1077889 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1077889 ID: 1077897 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1077897 Passed openQA tests: 7/8 (x86_64), 6/8 (aarch64) -- Mail generated by check-compose: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
