Re: Questions about new free-only FFMPEG in Fedora repos
On Monday, February 28, 2022 3:45:55 AM CET Ian McInerney via devel wrote: > I noticed in the electron thread that we now have FFMPEG 5.0 in the > official Fedora repos, but this will of course mean that certain codecs are > removed due to legal concerns. This prompts a few questions though: > > 1) How are these removed codecs handled in the library? Can we link an > upstream application against FFMPEG in Fedora now and have it gracefully > fail when it tries to access a non-free codec that was removed, or does the > removal of these codecs create a different API that upstream applications > would have to code around? e.g. does it mean they have to add conditional > compilation for the specific codecs they need to use from FFMPEG instead of > just around FFMPEG itself? FFMPEG has an API to query if support for a codec is compiled in or not. Applications should check if the codec they want to use is available. If an application just crashes, bugs should be reported that they should make correct use of the FFMPEG API. > 2) Is there an easily accessible list of the enabled codecs we can point > upstreams to when talking about this? Applications should not care about our lists as it might change in future. They should use the API of ffmpeg to check if a codec is available or not. I hope that helps :-) ___ 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: Questions about new free-only FFMPEG in Fedora repos
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 10:05 PM Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 3:00 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > > > We do also have OpenH264 support enabled via dlopening the library, so > > if the openh264 package is present on the system, it'll "just work" > > and provide H.264 support. If it is not installed, it'll return the > > correct error for applications to handle. > > As I recall from when it was originally made available, > the openh264 codec that Cisco is making available > only supports the base necessary for WebRTC, and > not the complete H.264 capabilities. Has that changed? Yes. It has supported the standard and high profiles for a while now. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Questions about new free-only FFMPEG in Fedora repos
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 3:00 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > We do also have OpenH264 support enabled via dlopening the library, so > if the openh264 package is present on the system, it'll "just work" > and provide H.264 support. If it is not installed, it'll return the > correct error for applications to handle. As I recall from when it was originally made available, the openh264 codec that Cisco is making available only supports the base necessary for WebRTC, and not the complete H.264 capabilities. Has that changed? ___ 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: Questions about new free-only FFMPEG in Fedora repos
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 2:46 AM Ian McInerney via devel wrote: > 1) How are these removed codecs handled in the library? Can we link an > upstream application against FFMPEG in Fedora now and have it gracefully fail > when it tries to access a non-free codec that was removed, or does the > removal of these codecs create a different API that upstream applications > would have to code around? e.g. does it mean they have to add conditional > compilation for the specific codecs they need to use from FFMPEG instead of > just around FFMPEG itself? If an app uses the approved API, it will request the library to return the codec refs (avcodec_find_decoder_by_name for example), and if the codec is not found the library should report the failure. Some apps may be using different approaches (for various reasons some apps have sometimes chosen to access internal functions directly), and may need to change. And, of course, if the app requires one of the IP encumbered codecs that have been removed, that app is not going to work with the Fedora libraries. ___ 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: Questions about new free-only FFMPEG in Fedora repos
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 9:46 PM Ian McInerney via devel wrote: > > I noticed in the electron thread that we now have FFMPEG 5.0 in the official > Fedora repos, but this will of course mean that certain codecs are removed > due to legal concerns. This prompts a few questions though: > > 1) How are these removed codecs handled in the library? Can we link an > upstream application against FFMPEG in Fedora now and have it gracefully fail > when it tries to access a non-free codec that was removed, or does the > removal of these codecs create a different API that upstream applications > would have to code around? e.g. does it mean they have to add conditional > compilation for the specific codecs they need to use from FFMPEG instead of > just around FFMPEG itself? > The libavcodec library will tell the application requesting a codec if it's available. If it's not available, it'll return an error and the application should handle the returned error. > 2) Is there an easily accessible list of the enabled codecs we can point > upstreams to when talking about this? > Yes, there's a list in the packaging itself. Decoders: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ffmpeg/blob/rawhide/f/enable_decoders Encoders: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ffmpeg/blob/rawhide/f/enable_encoders Note that hardware codecs for some codecs do not work unless the required hardware enablement driver software is present in Fedora, which will not be available in base Fedora for obvious reasons for some codecs. The libavcodec library will return an error correctly in those circumstances as well. We do also have OpenH264 support enabled via dlopening the library, so if the openh264 package is present on the system, it'll "just work" and provide H.264 support. If it is not installed, it'll return the correct error for applications to handle. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Questions about new free-only FFMPEG in Fedora repos
I noticed in the electron thread that we now have FFMPEG 5.0 in the official Fedora repos, but this will of course mean that certain codecs are removed due to legal concerns. This prompts a few questions though: 1) How are these removed codecs handled in the library? Can we link an upstream application against FFMPEG in Fedora now and have it gracefully fail when it tries to access a non-free codec that was removed, or does the removal of these codecs create a different API that upstream applications would have to code around? e.g. does it mean they have to add conditional compilation for the specific codecs they need to use from FFMPEG instead of just around FFMPEG itself? 2) Is there an easily accessible list of the enabled codecs we can point upstreams to when talking about this? Thanks, -Ian ___ 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: nodejs-electron
On 2/27/22 02:32, Andreas Schneider wrote: > On Sunday, 27 February 2022 01:37:08 CET Demi Marie Obenour wrote: >> On 2/26/22 02:21, Andreas Schneider wrote: >>> On Friday, 25 February 2022 14:02:11 CET Neal Gompa wrote: I think this is probably one of those things that would be worth forming a SIG on. An Electron SIG could help with Electron and all Electron-based applications that come into Fedora. >>> >>> That would be fine by me. The most obvious application would be Element >>> (Matrix). https://element.io/ >> >> How do you plan to rebuild all of the NPM dependencies? “Just use >> what is in node_modules” runs into the problem that what is in >> node_modules often isn’t actually source code. Yes, I know that most >> other packagers are likely using this approach, but it doesn’t meet >> Fedora’s “everything must be built from source” requirement. > > With signal I replaced the binary node modules with source ones. I also make > sure that there are no shared libraries or prebuild .node file around. > > Most of the time a `node-gyp rebuild` is what you need to rebuild the > binaries. Sadly, that isn’t sufficient. node_modules/ will often contain minified JavaScript, CSS, HTML, or some combination, and minified files aren’t source code. All of the minified files will need to be regenerated from non-minified versions. -- Sincerely, Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers) OpenPGP_0xB288B55FFF9C22C1.asc Description: OpenPGP public key 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: F37 Change: Curl-minimal as default (System-Wide Change proposal)
On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 09:05:50AM +0100, Kamil Dudka wrote: > On Thursday, February 24, 2022 3:37:56 PM CET Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 8:58 AM Richard W.M. Jones > wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 02:28:08PM +0100, Kamil Dudka wrote: > > > > On Thursday, February 24, 2022 1:35:38 PM CET Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > > > Did you discuss modularising curl itself upstream? > > > > > > > > It was added to their wish list but I do not remember anybody working > > > > on > it: > > > > https://github.com/curl/curl/commit/8204844f > > > > > > > > > > That would be a better idea. > > > > > > > > Not necessarily. Each approach has its pros and cons. > > > > > > I'm intrigued by what you think the cons would be. AFAICT if curl was > > > modular in this way already we wouldn't be discussing this proposal at > > > all, > > > but a different and better one around packaging splits. > > > > It would also avoid the usability nightmare that comes with trying to > > trigger switching implementations. This is a very big hammer that > > basically tells people that we're crippling curl by default for users > > and it has very large network effects across the entire distribution. > > It's quite one thing to use curl-minimal for containers where people > > expect tools to be broken in the endless pursuit of smaller base > > images, but when real people need to use real systems in complex > > configurations, having a reduced functionality curl by default is just > > going to lead to support nightmares and complaints about random > > breakages in applications on Fedora. > > Installations that need libcurl-full will have it installed. There is no > problem there. You could hardly find a default that will fit everybody's > taste. This seems to be an argument for always installing full curl. BTW there *is* a worthwhile security enhancement that we should make to packages that use curl. We should audit programs to ensure they always call CURLOPT_PROTOCOLS[1] to specify exactly the protocols they expect. This avoids certain attacks where an evil webserver redirects to a less tested / exploitable protocol, and exploits the client through this. We had a qemu CVE related to this (CVE-2013-0249). Rich. [1] https://curl.se/libcurl/c/CURLOPT_PROTOCOLS.html -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com Fedora Windows cross-compiler. Compile Windows programs, test, and build Windows installers. Over 100 libraries supported. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW ___ 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: nodejs-electron
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 2:04 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > On 27/02/2022 19:03, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > > Unless H.266 (VVC) takes off, and we get to > > start the cycle all over again until 2040 or > > so (rough estimate on patent expiration). > > H.266 is not popular. Most video services (Youtube, Twitch, etc.) have > started to switch to the royalty-free AV1 codec. > H.265 (HEVC) is not popular for similar reasons. The drive toward AV1 is almost entirely because HEVC has been a huge mess for video services to use. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: nodejs-electron
On 27/02/2022 19:03, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: Unless H.266 (VVC) takes off, and we get to start the cycle all over again until 2040 or so (rough estimate on patent expiration). H.266 is not popular. Most video services (Youtube, Twitch, etc.) have started to switch to the royalty-free AV1 codec. -- 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-IoT-36-20220227.0 compose check report
No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 1/15 (aarch64) Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-36-20220225.0): ID: 1151175 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1151175 Soft failed openQA tests: 1/16 (x86_64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-IoT-36-20220225.0): ID: 1151159 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1151159 Passed openQA tests: 15/16 (x86_64), 14/15 (aarch64) Installed system changes in test aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default_upload@uefi: System load changed from 0.27 to 0.16 Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1148428#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1151176#downloads -- 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: nodejs-electron
On Sunday, 27 February 2022 10:06:17 CET Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 27/02/2022 08:23, Andreas Schneider wrote:
>
> > You don't have to. You can point electron builder to your system electron
> > and
it will use that. Then you just do not package the electron files.
> > All you need is the resources directory.
>
>
> You must run electron-builder on Fedora Koji. Pre-built packages are not
> allowed.
You should not package electron at all with your package! You should use the
nodejs-electron in the distribution and just point it to the sources to load:
cat <%{buildroot}%{_bindir}/signal-desktop
#!/bin/sh
export NODE_ENV=production
exec %{_bindir}/electron %{_libdir}/%{name}/resources/app.asar "\$@"
EOF
chmod +x %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/signal-desktop
___
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-IoT-37-20220227.0 compose check report
Missing expected images: Iot dvd aarch64 Iot dvd x86_64 Failed openQA tests: 2/15 (aarch64), 2/16 (x86_64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-IoT-37-20220222.0): ID: 1151153 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso release_identification@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1151153 Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-37-20220222.0): ID: 1151128 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1151128 ID: 1151129 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default_upload URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1151129 ID: 1151144 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1151144 Passed openQA tests: 13/15 (aarch64), 1/16 (x86_64) New passes (same test not passed in Fedora-IoT-37-20220222.0): ID: 1151145 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default_upload@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1151145 ID: 1151146 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_zezere_server@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1151146 ID: 1151147 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso base_system_logging@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1151147 ID: 1151148 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_zezere_ignition@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1151148 ID: 1151149 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso base_reboot_unmount@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1151149 ID: 1151150 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_greenboot@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1151150 ID: 1151151 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_rpmostree_overlay@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1151151 ID: 1151152 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_rpmostree_rebase@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1151152 ID: 1151154 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso base_selinux@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1151154 ID: 1151155 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso base_services_start@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1151155 ID: 1151156 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso base_service_manipulation@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1151156 ID: 1151157 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso podman@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1151157 ID: 1151158 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso podman_client@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1151158 Skipped non-gating openQA tests: 13 of 31 Installed system changes in test x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default@uefi: Used mem changed from 195 MiB to 235 MiB Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1143369#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1151130#downloads -- 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: Updating c4core to 0.1.9 in Rawhide
I am sure you are correct that this would be fine in practice, although technically the Updates Policy[1] currently has no exception to the notification requirements for cases where one is very sure that nobody will be affected by an API/ABI change. (I neglected to mention that c4fs will have to be rebuilt in a side tag with c4core, but c4fs is also under my control and is also used only for a future rapidyaml package, so there is still no consequence to other packages.) [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/#_rawhide On Sun, Feb 27, 2022, at 6:06 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 02:00:08PM -0500, Ben Beasley wrote: >> The c4core package will be updated to 0.1.9 in Rawhide in one week >> (2022-03-05), or slightly later, with an accompanying .so version bump. This >> shouldn’t affect any packages, as c4core is a leaf package. (It will be a >> dependency for rapidyaml once that is packaged.) > > I think you can just do it immediately… Only packagers read this list, > so even if, hypothetically, a user had a rawhide installation with > some program linked to this library, the notificiation and delay does > not help them anyway. > > 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 ___ 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: multiply revision of the same package in rawhide installation(s)
Am 27.02.22 um 13:00 schrieb Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek: Such duplicate packages usually happen when an upgrade is interrupted. Are you sure you didn't have an upgrade fail at some point? AFAIK, some failed, due to lack of free space, but all other run throu without errors, when they finally started. Is there an easy way to find and erase the old packages reliable? package-cleanup --cleandupes Thx, 460 replaces happend after this cmd. best regards, Marius ___ 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-36-20220227.n.0 compose check report
No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 14/161 (aarch64), 5/229 (x86_64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-36-20220226.n.0): ID: 1150857 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso anaconda_help@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150857 ID: 1150865 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso support_server@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150865 ID: 1150876 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso install_repository_nfsiso_variation@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150876 ID: 1150877 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso server_freeipa_replication_master@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150877 ID: 1150900 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso realmd_join_cockpit@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150900 ID: 1151084 Test: aarch64 universal install_shrink_ext4@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1151084 ID: 1151087 Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_2_server_domain_controller@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1151087 ID: 1151105 Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_2_realmd_client@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1151105 Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-36-20220226.n.0): ID: 1150808 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_login URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150808 ID: 1150812 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso apps_startstop URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150812 ID: 1150835 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso gnome_text_editor URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150835 ID: 1150926 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz gnome_text_editor@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150926 ID: 1150977 Test: aarch64 Workstation-upgrade gnome_text_editor@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150977 ID: 1150991 Test: x86_64 universal install_arabic_language URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150991 ID: 1151010 Test: x86_64 universal install_asian_language URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1151010 ID: 1151066 Test: aarch64 universal install_arabic_language@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1151066 ID: 1151078 Test: aarch64 universal install_asian_language@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1151078 ID: 1151108 Test: aarch64 Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz install_arm_image_deployment_upload@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1151108 ID: 1151117 Test: aarch64 Server-raw_xz-raw.xz install_arm_image_deployment_upload@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1151117 Soft failed openQA tests: 15/229 (x86_64), 11/161 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-36-20220226.n.0): ID: 1150796 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso eog URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150796 ID: 1150833 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso eog URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150833 ID: 1150841 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150841 ID: 1150928 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz eog@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150928 ID: 1150939 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150939 ID: 1150940 Test: x86_64 Workstation-upgrade upgrade_desktop_64bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150940 ID: 1150962 Test: aarch64 Workstation-upgrade upgrade_desktop_64bit@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150962 ID: 1150965 Test: aarch64 Workstation-upgrade eog@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150965 ID: 1150985 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_desktop_64bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150985 ID: 1150986 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_desktop_encrypted_64bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150986 ID: 1150987 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_kde_64bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150987 ID: 1150995 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_desktop_encrypted_64bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150995 ID: 1151005 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_server_64bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1151005 ID: 1151015 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_server_domain_controller URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1151015 ID: 1151016 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_kde_64bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1151016 ID: 1151017 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_server_domain_controller URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1151017 ID: 1151023 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_realmd_client URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1151023 ID: 1151024 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_server_64bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1151024 ID: 1151054 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_realmd_client URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1151054 ID: 115106
Fedora-Rawhide-20220227.n.0 compose check report
Missing expected images: Minimal raw-xz armhfp Compose PASSES proposed Rawhide gating check! All required tests passed Failed openQA tests: 21/231 (x86_64), 24/161 (aarch64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20220226.n.1): ID: 1150369 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso unwanted_packages URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150369 ID: 1150379 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_login URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150379 ID: 1150380 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso apps_startstop URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150380 ID: 1150482 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso server_cockpit_basic@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150482 ID: 1150533 Test: x86_64 Workstation-upgrade desktop_printing URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150533 ID: 1150647 Test: aarch64 universal install_blivet_software_raid@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150647 ID: 1150707 Test: aarch64 Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz install_arm_image_deployment_upload@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150707 Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20220226.n.1): ID: 1150342 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso modularity_tests URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150342 ID: 1150360 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso evince URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150360 ID: 1150364 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso gnome_text_editor URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150364 ID: 1150374 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_update_graphical URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150374 ID: 1150377 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso eog URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150377 ID: 1150383 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso anaconda_help URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150383 ID: 1150389 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_login URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150389 ID: 1150393 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso apps_startstop URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150393 ID: 1150416 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso gnome_text_editor URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150416 ID: 1150451 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso install_repository_hd_variation@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150451 ID: 1150462 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso modularity_tests@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150462 ID: 1150483 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso realmd_join_cockpit@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150483 ID: 1150499 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz unwanted_packages@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150499 ID: 1150501 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz desktop_printing_builtin@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150501 ID: 1150502 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz desktop_update_graphical@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150502 ID: 1150504 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz evince@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150504 ID: 1150509 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz gnome_text_editor@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150509 ID: 1150511 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz eog@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150511 ID: 1150512 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz desktop_browser@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150512 ID: 1150528 Test: x86_64 Workstation-upgrade gnome_text_editor URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150528 ID: 1150537 Test: x86_64 Workstation-upgrade desktop_fprint URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150537 ID: 1150540 Test: x86_64 Workstation-upgrade apps_startstop URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150540 ID: 1150541 Test: x86_64 Workstation-upgrade desktop_login URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150541 ID: 1150548 Test: aarch64 Workstation-upgrade eog@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150548 ID: 1150551 Test: aarch64 Workstation-upgrade desktop_browser@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150551 ID: 1150552 Test: aarch64 Workstation-upgrade desktop_printing_builtin@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150552 ID: 1150553 Test: aarch64 Workstation-upgrade desktop_printing@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150553 ID: 1150560 Test: aarch64 Workstation-upgrade gnome_text_editor@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150560 ID: 1150561 Test: aarch64 Workstation-upgrade desktop_update_graphical@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150561 ID: 1150563 Test: aarch64 Workstation-upgrade evince@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150563 ID: 1150564 Test: x86_64 universal install_european_language URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150564 ID: 1150574 Test: x86_64 universal install_arabic_language URL: h
Fedora 36 compose report: 20220227.n.0 changes
OLD: Fedora-36-20220226.n.0 NEW: Fedora-36-20220227.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:2 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 0 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 0 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 0 B Size of dropped packages:0 B Size of upgraded packages: 0 B Size of downgraded packages: 0 B Size change of upgraded packages: 0 B Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B = ADDED IMAGES = Image: KDE raw-xz aarch64 Path: Spins/aarch64/images/Fedora-KDE-36-20220227.n.0.aarch64.raw.xz Image: Silverblue dvd-ostree aarch64 Path: Silverblue/aarch64/iso/Fedora-Silverblue-ostree-aarch64-36-20220227.n.0.iso = DROPPED IMAGES = = ADDED PACKAGES = = DROPPED PACKAGES = = UPGRADED PACKAGES = = DOWNGRADED PACKAGES = ___ 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: multiply revision of the same package in rawhide installation(s)
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 12:37:19PM +0100, Marius Schwarz wrote: > > Hi, > > having run "rpm -qa | uniq -d -w 10 | sort " , I got some packages two or > three times installed, and I'm not sure, that it is intended: > > Device: pinephone ( rawhide ) > Update Status: 2021-02-27 fully upgraded > rpm database: rebuild before running it > > This could be caused by the process, how the release changes happen. I have > run the same command on a system upgraded continuously from f15 to f34, I > could not detect any doubles, except the kernel depending packages like > kernel-core, nvidia etc. . Such duplicate packages usually happen when an upgrade is interrupted. Are you sure you didn't have an upgrade fail at some point? > Is there an easy way to find and erase the old packages reliable? package-cleanup --cleandupes 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
multiply revision of the same package in rawhide installation(s)
Hi, having run "rpm -qa | uniq -d -w 10 | sort " , I got some packages two or three times installed, and I'm not sure, that it is intended: Device: pinephone ( rawhide ) Update Status: 2021-02-27 fully upgraded rpm database: rebuild before running it This could be caused by the process, how the release changes happen. I have run the same command on a system upgraded continuously from f15 to f34, I could not detect any doubles, except the kernel depending packages like kernel-core, nvidia etc. . Is there an easy way to find and erase the old packages reliable? An incomplete list: geolite2-country-20191217-4.fc34.noarch geolite2-country-20191217-5.fc35.noarch geolite2-country-20191217-6.fc36.noarch python3-gobject-base-3.42.0-1.fc36.aarch64 python3-gobject-base-3.42.0-3.fc36.aarch64 device-mapper-1.02.175-5.fc35.aarch64 device-mapper-1.02.175-6.fc35.aarch64 hunspell-en-GB-0.20140811.1-19.fc35.noarch hunspell-en-GB-0.20140811.1-20.fc35.noarch hunspell-en-GB-0.20140811.1-22.fc36.noarch python-unversioned-command-3.10.1-1.fc36.noarch python-unversioned-command-3.10.2-3.fc36.noarch pkgconf-1.7.4-2.fc35.aarch64 pkgconf-1.8.0-1.fc35.aarch64 pkgconf-1.8.0-2.fc36.aarch64 filesystem-3.16-1.fc36.aarch64 filesystem-3.16-2.fc36.aarch64 onboard-data-1.4.1-25.fc35.noarch onboard-data-1.4.1-26.fc36.noarch ncurses-base-6.2-7.20210508.fc35.noarch ncurses-base-6.2-8.20210508.fc35.noarch ncurses-base-6.2-9.20210508.fc36.noarch libXrender-0.9.10-14.fc34.aarch64 libXrender-0.9.10-15.fc35.aarch64 libXrender-0.9.10-16.fc36.aarch64 libX11-common-1.7.3.1-1.fc36.noarch libX11-common-1.7.3.1-2.fc36.noarch libkcapi-1.3.1-3.fc35.aarch64 libkcapi-1.3.1-4.fc36.aarch64 libcdio-2.1.0-4.fc34.aarch64 libcdio-2.1.0-5.fc35.aarch64 libcdio-2.1.0-6.fc36.aarch64 ___ 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: nodejs-electron
On 27/02/2022 10:51, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: Wow, going off-topic here, but that's great news that should have been highlighted and announced. There will be great news when the H.264 and H.265 patents finally expire. -- 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-34-20220227.0 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-34-20220226.0): ID: 1150693 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150693 ID: 1150706 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150706 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
Re: Updating c4core to 0.1.9 in Rawhide
On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 02:00:08PM -0500, Ben Beasley wrote: > The c4core package will be updated to 0.1.9 in Rawhide in one week > (2022-03-05), or slightly later, with an accompanying .so version bump. This > shouldn’t affect any packages, as c4core is a leaf package. (It will be a > dependency for rapidyaml once that is packaged.) I think you can just do it immediately… Only packagers read this list, so even if, hypothetically, a user had a rawhide installation with some program linked to this library, the notificiation and delay does not help them anyway. 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
Fedora rawhide compose report: 20220227.n.0 changes
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20220226.n.1 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20220227.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:1 Dropped images: 1 Added packages: 0 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 9 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 0 B Size of dropped packages:0 B Size of upgraded packages: 9.81 MiB Size of downgraded packages: 0 B Size change of upgraded packages: 13.74 KiB Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B = ADDED IMAGES = Image: Container_Base docker s390x Path: Container/s390x/images/Fedora-Container-Base-Rawhide-20220227.n.0.s390x.tar.xz = DROPPED IMAGES = Image: Xfce raw-xz aarch64 Path: Spins/aarch64/images/Fedora-Xfce-Rawhide-20220226.n.1.aarch64.raw.xz = ADDED PACKAGES = = DROPPED PACKAGES = = UPGRADED PACKAGES = Package: dummy-test-package-gloster-0-7386.fc37 Old package: dummy-test-package-gloster-0-7381.fc37 Summary: Dummy Test Package called Gloster RPMs: dummy-test-package-gloster Size: 448.06 KiB Size change: 261 B Changelog: * Sat Feb 26 2022 packagerbot - 0-7382 - rebuilt * Sat Feb 26 2022 packagerbot - 0-7383 - rebuilt * Sun Feb 27 2022 packagerbot - 0-7384 - rebuilt * Sun Feb 27 2022 packagerbot - 0-7385 - rebuilt * Sun Feb 27 2022 packagerbot - 0-7386 - rebuilt Package: minetestmapper-20220221-1.fc37 Old package: minetestmapper-20200328-7.fc36 Summary: Generates a overview image of a minetest map RPMs: minetestmapper Size: 278.01 KiB Size change: -30.72 KiB Changelog: * Sat Feb 26 2022 Link Dupont - 20220221-1 - Update to 2022-02-21 Package: mqttcli-0.2.3-1.fc37 Old package: mqttcli-0.2.2-2.fc36 Summary: Simple MQTT CLI pub/sub client RPMs: mqttcli Size: 8.05 MiB Size change: 20.08 KiB Changelog: * Sat Feb 26 2022 Link Dupont - 0.2.3-1 - Update to 0.2.3 Package: python-dbus-client-gen-0.5-7.fc37 Old package: python-dbus-client-gen-0.5-6.fc36 Summary: Library for Generating D-Bus Client Code RPMs: python3-dbus-client-gen Size: 24.82 KiB Size change: -75 B Changelog: * Sat Feb 26 2022 mulhern - 0.5-7 - Add gating tests Package: python-dbus-python-client-gen-0.8-8.fc37 Old package: python-dbus-python-client-gen-0.8-6.fc37 Summary: Python Library for Generating dbus-python Client Code RPMs: python3-dbus-python-client-gen Size: 26.69 KiB Size change: 115 B Changelog: * Sat Feb 26 2022 mulhern - 0.8-7 - Add gating tests * Sat Feb 26 2022 mulhern - 0.8-8 - Fix gating tests Package: python-hs-dbus-signature-0.07-8.fc37 Old package: python-hs-dbus-signature-0.07-7.fc36 Summary: Hypothesis Strategy for Generating Arbitrary DBus Signatures RPMs: python3-hs-dbus-signature Size: 15.85 KiB Size change: -69 B Changelog: * Sat Feb 26 2022 mulhern - 0.07.8 - Add gating tests Package: python-zict-2.1.0-1.fc37 Old package: python-zict-2.0.0-7.fc36 Summary: Mutable mapping tools RPMs: python3-zict Size: 27.97 KiB Size change: 338 B Changelog: * Sun Feb 27 2022 Elliott Sales de Andrade 2.0.0-11 - Switch to latest Python macros * Sun Feb 27 2022 Elliott Sales de Andrade 2.1.0-1 - Update to latest version (#2058817) Package: sway-systemd-0.2.2-1.fc37 Old package: sway-systemd-0.2.1-2.fc36 Summary: Systemd integration for Sway session RPMs: sway-systemd Size: 17.90 KiB Size change: 659 B Changelog: * Sat Feb 26 2022 Aleksei Bavshin - 0.2.2-1 - Update to 0.2.2 Package: xfce4-notifyd-0.6.3-1.fc37 Old package: xfce4-notifyd-0.6.2-4.fc36 Summary: Simple notification daemon for Xfce RPMs: xfce4-notifyd Size: 960.50 KiB Size change: 23.18 KiB Changelog: * Sat Feb 26 2022 Mukundan Ragavan 0.6.3-1 - local build = DOWNGRADED PACKAGES = ___ 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: nodejs-electron
Il 25/02/22 10:53, Andreas Schneider ha scritto: > This was possible because we finally have ffmpeg [3] in Fedora. Wow, going off-topic here, but that's great news that should have been highlighted and announced. There are several packages that have some functionalities disabled because ffmpeg was never been available in Fedora and this is a game changer. Mattia ___ 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: nodejs-electron
On 27/02/2022 08:23, Andreas Schneider wrote: You don't have to. You can point electron builder to your system electron and it will use that. Then you just do not package the electron files. All you need is the resources directory. You must run electron-builder on Fedora Koji. Pre-built packages are not allowed. -- 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: nodejs-electron
On Saturday, 26 February 2022 14:19:40 CET Sérgio Basto wrote: > On Fri, 2022-02-25 at 08:02 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 4:54 AM Andreas Schneider > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hello! > > > > > > Over the past 8 month, I've been working on getting Electron [1] > > > built on > > > Fedora. Yesterday I was finally able to do the first working build > > > for Fedora > > > Rawhide [2]. This was possible because we finally have ffmpeg [3] in > > > Fedora. > > > My use for Electron is that I want to run signal-desktop [4] on > > > Fedora. You > > > can get electron and signal-packages packages for it at [5]. > > > > > > Is there interest to bring nodejs-electron into Fedora and if yes, > > > would > > > someone be interested to maintain it? I don't have the time to > > > maintain it but > > > I'm happy to help as a co-maintainer. > > > > > > > > > I think this is probably one of those things that would be worth > > forming a SIG on. An Electron SIG could help with Electron and all > > Electron-based applications that come into Fedora. > > > > > I built and use element-desktop ( > https://github.com/vector-im/element-desktop#readme ) on my desktop , I > spent 2 or 3 days on hacking the build , at the end I build an rpm with > electon-builder ... conclusion we may need also pack electon-builder. You don't have to. You can point electron builder to your system electron and it will use that. Then you just do not package the electron files. All you need is the resources directory. What you need to do is to identify if element uses binary npm modules and you need to replace them with the sources. Andreas ___ 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-35-20220227.0 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-35-20220226.0): ID: 1150283 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150283 ID: 1150296 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1150296 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
