Need help fixing python3-dlib

[Luya Tshimbalanga]

Hello team,

As noticed, dlib failed to build with pybind11, which needs a rebuild 
for Python 3.11[1]. Upstream [1] chose to wait for the official release, 
but is willing to get a fix to handle this particular issue.


Upstream repository is on https://github.com/davisking/dlib and the 
Fedora version on https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dlib/


Python maintainers are welcome to provide a patch upstream. Thanks in 
advance.


Reference:

[1] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=2007864

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

Re: Inactive packagers to be removed after the F37 release

[Gary Buhrmaster]

On Sun, Sep 4, 2022 at 1:06 AM Kevin Fenzi  wrote:

> Perhaps it would be better (although more noisy) to just mail all
> provenpackagers every cycle and ask if anyone would like to leave the
> group?

One should ask a PP (I am not so honored), but getting
an email every cycle (and requiring an affirmative response)
would be one of those reasons that I would consider a
loophole closure loophole bypass ("stop annoying me!").
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Inactive packagers to be removed after the F37 release

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Sat, Sep 03, 2022 at 05:40:28PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> 
> Gadzooks, foiled by the old loophole bypass loophole defense again?!

No one expects the... :) 

> No, seriously, I'm kinda assuming 'positive intent' here. It's not
> meant to catch someone trying to 'avoid' the check. More maybe just
> someone who got PP powers years ago but now just maintains one or two
> packages, but never thought about giving them up. Maybe if there are
> folks like that they'd be happy to drop the privileges so if they do
> lose their laptop or something, the consequences are more limited.

Could be. Actually builds isn't a good test either entirely. 
You could use your provenpackager powers to fix things for others and
let them do the builds, or use them for filing bodhi updates for
packages you didn't build that someone else didn't file...

Perhaps it would be better (although more noisy) to just mail all
provenpackagers every cycle and ask if anyone would like to leave the
group?

kevin


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

Re: Inactive packagers to be removed after the F37 release

[Adam Williamson]

On Sun, 2022-09-04 at 00:05 +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> 
> > But yeah, looking at that, one 'loophole' is it doesn't check if
> > they're actually needing *proven* packager powers - just packager
> > powers. If a proven packager is only building packages they have
> > explicit commit rights to, they may not need proven packager powers any
> > more?
> 
> True enough, although I think if someone is
> actually active, and building multiple packages
> (even if they have gotten explicit commit rights
> (either before or after getting PP powers)), that
> we would probably need quite an extended time
> frame (2+ years) to determine with some
> confidence (to avoid undue annoyance emails)
> that they no longer appear to need that group
> membership.  It would certainly be interesting
> to run a test to determine if any PP would fall
> into that category (and not the larger one of no
> builds at all) but I suspect that there would be
> a large number.  btw, it would seem that a way
> for a PP to avoid the annoyance emails under
> your loophole closing would be to drop explicit
> commit rights and use PP privs on some
> package (the loophole bypass loophole defense?)

Gadzooks, foiled by the old loophole bypass loophole defense again?!

No, seriously, I'm kinda assuming 'positive intent' here. It's not
meant to catch someone trying to 'avoid' the check. More maybe just
someone who got PP powers years ago but now just maintains one or two
packages, but never thought about giving them up. Maybe if there are
folks like that they'd be happy to drop the privileges so if they do
lose their laptop or something, the consequences are more limited.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA
IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha
https://www.happyassassin.net

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

Re: Inactive packagers to be removed after the F37 release

[Gary Buhrmaster]

On Sat, Sep 3, 2022 at 10:01 PM Adam Williamson
 wrote:

> Look, I'm getting old, okay? ;)

I am highly confident that everyone is getting
older (with the possible exception being if
your name is Benjamin Button).

> But yeah, looking at that, one 'loophole' is it doesn't check if
> they're actually needing *proven* packager powers - just packager
> powers. If a proven packager is only building packages they have
> explicit commit rights to, they may not need proven packager powers any
> more?

True enough, although I think if someone is
actually active, and building multiple packages
(even if they have gotten explicit commit rights
(either before or after getting PP powers)), that
we would probably need quite an extended time
frame (2+ years) to determine with some
confidence (to avoid undue annoyance emails)
that they no longer appear to need that group
membership.  It would certainly be interesting
to run a test to determine if any PP would fall
into that category (and not the larger one of no
builds at all) but I suspect that there would be
a large number.  btw, it would seem that a way
for a PP to avoid the annoyance emails under
your loophole closing would be to drop explicit
commit rights and use PP privs on some
package (the loophole bypass loophole defense?)
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

unannounced soname bump in libbpf

[Kevin Fenzi]

Greetings. 

Seems the latest rawhide build of libbpf bumps soname, breaking a number
of dependent packages. ;( 

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=2057060

According to the rawhide updates policy: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/#_rawhide

"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."

I've untagged that build from rawhide, can you please make a sidetag
(fedpkg request-sidetag) and tag that build in there and get all the
dependent packages rebuilt with it?

Let me know if you have any questions/need any help, happy to help out. 

kevin


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

Re: Inactive packagers to be removed after the F37 release

[Sandro]

On 04-09-2022 00:01, Adam Williamson wrote:

On Sat, 2022-09-03 at 13:04 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:

On Sat, Sep 03, 2022 at 12:24:11PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:


So, I have a probably-controversial idea for a follow-up on this.

Even after this sweep, we have 141 proven packagers. That's a lot of
people who can build almost anything in Fedora.

It should be possible to check whether a provenpackager has built any
package they don't have direct commit rights to in the last X months.

Should we construct that search, run it, and propose removing
provenpackager status from folks who aren't using it, to cut down that
set?


That policy was setup before this one for packagers. ;)

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Provenpackager_policy/


Look, I'm getting old, okay? ;)


As long as you can still discover such loopholes, it can't be that bad. ;)


But yeah, looking at that, one 'loophole' is it doesn't check if
they're actually needing *proven* packager powers - just packager
powers. If a proven packager is only building packages they have
explicit commit rights to, they may not need proven packager powers any
more?


So,

"members of the group who have not submitted a koji build in the last 
six months"


should be changed to

"members of the group who have not submitted a koji build requiring 
provenpackager permissions in the last six months"


Makes sense to me. Although, I'm not sure how much more work it is to 
get this audited.


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

Re: Inactive packagers to be removed after the F37 release

[Adam Williamson]

On Sat, 2022-09-03 at 13:04 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 03, 2022 at 12:24:11PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > 
> > So, I have a probably-controversial idea for a follow-up on this.
> > 
> > Even after this sweep, we have 141 proven packagers. That's a lot of
> > people who can build almost anything in Fedora.
> > 
> > It should be possible to check whether a provenpackager has built any
> > package they don't have direct commit rights to in the last X months.
> > 
> > Should we construct that search, run it, and propose removing
> > provenpackager status from folks who aren't using it, to cut down that
> > set?
> 
> That policy was setup before this one for packagers. ;) 
> 
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Provenpackager_policy/

Look, I'm getting old, okay? ;)

But yeah, looking at that, one 'loophole' is it doesn't check if
they're actually needing *proven* packager powers - just packager
powers. If a proven packager is only building packages they have
explicit commit rights to, they may not need proven packager powers any
more?
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA
IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha
https://www.happyassassin.net

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

Re: Users with commit rights in src.fp.o but no more in packager group

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Sat, Sep 03, 2022 at 02:01:59PM +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
> Il 26/08/22 07:17, David Tardon ha scritto:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, 2022-08-25 at 11:04 +0300, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
> >> On to, 25 elo 2022, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >>> We use the python-maint pseudo-account to be the default Bugzilla
> >>> assignee for Pythons, e.g.
> >>> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python3.11
> >>>
> >>> Note that it does *not* require the account to be listed in
> >>> maintainers or to have commit rights.
> >> Same for ipa-maint account.
> > Same for systemd-maint and dracut-maint.
> >
> > D.
> 
> So... wouldn't be better to have a consistent way across all packages to
> deal with these cases?

Sure, but Fedora has been around for many years, accross a bunch of
differnt applications and these things have never been completly set. 
:(

> What's better, a pseudo-user to be the main-admin of a package, or a
> real user to be the main-admin and just add the pseudo-user as the
> default assignee of bugs?

We discussed this back when we switched from pkgdb to pagure-dist-git
some. One thought at the time was that we make every package use a
pseutouser for main-admin, but there's downsides to that too. 
On the plus side it would allow us to get rid of 'main admin'.
> 
> Who owns the credentials of those pseudo-users? Also, Fedora Accounts
> user pages links to non-existent wiki pages... it would be nice to have
> a description about them (if there's a consensus of continue listing
> them as main-admin).

Many of them the group using them has the credentials, or no one at all. 

I'm not sure it's possible to get them all sorted, but I agree at least
a wiki page with info on them would be good to have at the very least.

kevin


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

Re: Updating asio in rawhide (and possibly F37) to 1.24.0

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Sat, Sep 03, 2022 at 08:51:13AM +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote:
> Given the lack of response, I tried to push the update anyway given the low
> risk of breakage due to it being header-only. Unfortunately, it turns out
> that my side-tag is gone. Documentation states:
> 
> Side tags are cleaned up 30 days after creation, or 14 days if they have not
> been used at all. Make sure and use your side tag before then.
> 
> Since I used my side tag, I have expected it to still be there. Could
> someone clarify? Does 14 days apply for any consecutive 14 days? The wording
> implies that building something for the side tag at any time would make it
> stay for 30 days.

Yes, thats what the intent is...

Odd. 

I am not sure what happened here. 
We cleanup side tags with: 

/usr/sbin/koji-sidetag-cleanup --empty-delay=14 --old-delay=30

So, it should have left this one alone for 30days, but it didn't. ;( 

Perhaps it's a koji bug... :( 

kevin


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

Re: Inactive packagers to be removed after the F37 release

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Sat, Sep 03, 2022 at 12:24:11PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> 
> So, I have a probably-controversial idea for a follow-up on this.
> 
> Even after this sweep, we have 141 proven packagers. That's a lot of
> people who can build almost anything in Fedora.
> 
> It should be possible to check whether a provenpackager has built any
> package they don't have direct commit rights to in the last X months.
> 
> Should we construct that search, run it, and propose removing
> provenpackager status from folks who aren't using it, to cut down that
> set?

That policy was setup before this one for packagers. ;) 

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Provenpackager_policy/

kevin


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

Re: Inactive packagers to be removed after the F37 release

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2022-08-18 at 17:28 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> Hello everyone!
> 
> I just completed the first run of FESCo's newly approved Inactive
> Packager Policy[1]. Packagers that have been identified as inactive
> have a ticket in the find-inactive-packagers repo[2]. One week after
> the F37 final release, packagers who remain inactive will be removed
> from the packager group. (Note that pagure.io is one of the systems
> checked for activity, so commenting on your ticket that you're still
> around will prevent you from showing up in the second round.)

So, I have a probably-controversial idea for a follow-up on this.

Even after this sweep, we have 141 proven packagers. That's a lot of
people who can build almost anything in Fedora.

It should be possible to check whether a provenpackager has built any
package they don't have direct commit rights to in the last X months.

Should we construct that search, run it, and propose removing
provenpackager status from folks who aren't using it, to cut down that
set?
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA
IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha
https://www.happyassassin.net

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

Re: How to get a new gilab.com/fedora sub-project?

[Maxwell G via devel]

Sep 3, 2022 4:18:19 AM Miro Hrončok :

We'd like to move https://gitlab.com/fberat/mass-prebuild/ into the 
Fedora namespace, ideally under something like:


https://gitlab.com/fedora/packager-tools/

What do we need to do?

Hi Miro,

You have to file an infra ticket. See [1].

It would be nice if we could change the process to be more self-service 
(i.e. give Fedora contributors permissions to do this themselves). That 
could come along with guidelines of what may be put under the Fedora 
namespace and how subgroups should be organized.



[1]: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issues?search_pattern=Gitlab&status=all

--
Best,

Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns: He/Him/His

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

Re: Planning to start unifying native and mingw packages

[Sandro Mani]

On 03.09.22 17:10, Richard Shaw wrote:

I'm trying to migrate fltk right now and running into an issue:

Processing files: fltk-debugsource-1.3.8-4.fc38.x86_64

RPM build warnings:

RPM build errors:
error: Could not open %files file 
/builddir/build/BUILD/fltk-1.3.8/debugsourcefiles.list: No such file 
or directory


Building the mingw packages seems to be interfering with the native build.


Can you point to the SPEC?

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

Re: Users with commit rights in src.fp.o but no more in packager group

[Mattia Verga via devel]

Il 26/08/22 07:17, David Tardon ha scritto:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2022-08-25 at 11:04 +0300, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
>> On to, 25 elo 2022, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>>> We use the python-maint pseudo-account to be the default Bugzilla
>>> assignee for Pythons, e.g.
>>> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python3.11
>>>
>>> Note that it does *not* require the account to be listed in
>>> maintainers or to have commit rights.
>> Same for ipa-maint account.
> Same for systemd-maint and dracut-maint.
>
> D.

So... wouldn't be better to have a consistent way across all packages to
deal with these cases?

What's better, a pseudo-user to be the main-admin of a package, or a
real user to be the main-admin and just add the pseudo-user as the
default assignee of bugs?

Who owns the credentials of those pseudo-users? Also, Fedora Accounts
user pages links to non-existent wiki pages... it would be nice to have
a description about them (if there's a consensus of continue listing
them as main-admin).

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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Fedora 37 compose report: 20220903.n.0 changes

[Fedora Rawhide Report]

OLD: Fedora-37-20220902.n.0
NEW: Fedora-37-20220903.n.0

= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images:  0
Added packages:  0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages:   13
Downgraded packages: 0

Size of added packages:  0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of upgraded packages:   741.80 MiB
Size of downgraded packages: 0 B

Size change of upgraded packages:   2.67 MiB
Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B

= ADDED IMAGES =

= DROPPED IMAGES =

= ADDED PACKAGES =

= DROPPED PACKAGES =

= UPGRADED PACKAGES =
Package:  anaconda-37.12.2-1.fc37
Old package:  anaconda-37.12.1-1.fc37
Summary:  Graphical system installer
RPMs: anaconda anaconda-core anaconda-dracut anaconda-gui 
anaconda-install-env-deps anaconda-install-img-deps anaconda-live anaconda-tui 
anaconda-widgets anaconda-widgets-devel
Size: 18.41 MiB
Size change:  -46.46 KiB
Changelog:
  * Thu Sep 01 2022 Martin Kolman  - 37.12.2-1
  - Run yelp under liveuser if possible (vslavik)


Package:  domoticz-2022.1-5.fc37
Old package:  domoticz-2022.1-2.fc37
Summary:  Open source Home Automation System
RPMs: domoticz
Size: 40.27 MiB
Size change:  731.74 KiB
Changelog:
  * Mon Jun 13 2022 Python Maint  - 2022.1-3
  - Rebuilt for Python 3.11

  * Thu Jul 21 2022 Fedora Release Engineering  - 
2022.1-4
  - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_37_Mass_Rebuild

  * Thu Aug 25 2022 Michael Cronenworth  - 2022.1-5
  - Python 3.11 support (RHBZ#2093917)


Package:  gnome-shell-43~beta-3.fc37
Old package:  gnome-shell-43~beta-2.fc37
Summary:  Window management and application launching for GNOME
RPMs: gnome-shell
Size: 6.79 MiB
Size change:  -3.31 KiB
Changelog:
  * Fri Sep 02 2022 Kalev Lember  - 43~beta-3
  - Add missing dep on gcr


Package:  kernel-5.19.6-300.fc37
Old package:  kernel-5.19.3-300.fc37
Summary:  The Linux kernel
RPMs: kernel kernel-core kernel-debug kernel-debug-core 
kernel-debug-devel kernel-debug-devel-matched kernel-debug-modules 
kernel-debug-modules-extra kernel-debug-modules-internal kernel-devel 
kernel-devel-matched kernel-doc kernel-modules kernel-modules-extra 
kernel-modules-internal
Size: 607.86 MiB
Size change:  435.61 KiB
Changelog:
  * Thu Aug 25 2022 Justin M. Forbes  [5.19.4-0]
  - Linux v5.19.4

  * Wed Aug 31 2022 Justin M. Forbes  [5.19.6-0]
  - Revert "block: freeze the queue earlier in del_gendisk" (Justin M. Forbes)
  - redhat/configs: aarch64: Turn on Apple Silicon configs for Fedora (Eric 
Curtin)
  - redhat/Makefile: Always set UPSTREAM (Prarit Bhargava)
  - Linux v5.19.6


Package:  kernel-headers-5.19.4-300.fc37
Old package:  kernel-headers-5.19.0-1.fc37
Summary:  Header files for the Linux kernel for use by glibc
RPMs: kernel-cross-headers kernel-headers
Size: 19.54 MiB
Size change:  -23.05 KiB
Changelog:
  * Thu Aug 25 2022 Justin M. Forbes  - 5.19.4-300
  - Linux v5.19.4


Package:  kernel-tools-5.19.4-300.fc37
Old package:  kernel-tools-5.19.0-1.fc37
Summary:  Assortment of tools for the Linux kernel
RPMs: bpftool kernel-tools kernel-tools-libs kernel-tools-libs-devel 
libperf libperf-devel perf python3-perf rtla
Size: 21.16 MiB
Size change:  36.98 KiB
Changelog:
  * Thu Aug 25 2022 Justin M. Forbes  - 5.19.4-300
  - Linux v5.19.4


Package:  python-aiohttp-socks-0.7.1-1.fc37
Old package:  python-aiohttp-socks-0.6.0-6.fc37
Summary:  SOCKS proxy connector for aiohttp
RPMs: python3-aiohttp-socks
Size: 27.34 KiB
Size change:  142 B
Changelog:
  * Wed Aug 10 2022 Ankur Sinha  - 0.7.1-1
  - Update to 0.7.1


Package:  python-falcon-4.0.0~^1.3816217-1.fc37
Old package:  python-falcon-3.0.1-2.fc36
Summary:  Fast ASGI+WSGI framework for building data plane APIs at scale
RPMs: python3-falcon
Size: 5.86 MiB
Size change:  534.17 KiB
Changelog:
  * Thu Jul 14 2022 Python Maint  - 3.0.1-3
  - Rebuilt for Python 3.11

  * Fri Jul 22 2022 Fedora Release Engineering  - 
3.0.1-4
  - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_37_Mass_Rebuild

  * Fri Aug 26 2022 Carl George  - 4.0.0~^1.3816217-1
  - Update to latest upstream snapshot
  - Resolves rhbz#2098905 rhbz#2113624 rhbz#2068564


Package:  python-matrix-nio-0.19.0-6.fc37
Old package:  python-matrix-nio-0.19.0-3.fc37
Summary:  A Matrix client library
RPMs: python3-matrix-nio
Size: 363.58 KiB
Size change:  100.67 KiB
Changelog:
  * Mon Jul 04 2022 Python Maint  0.19.0-4
  - Rebuilt for Python 3.11

  * Fri Jul 22 2022 Fedora Release Engineering  
0.19.0-5
  - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_37_Mass_Rebuild

  * Thu Aug 25 2022 Ankur Sinha (Ankur Sinha Gmail)  
0.19.0-6
  - fix: unpin jsonschema version


Package:  python-omemo-backend-signal-0.3.1~beta-1.fc37
Old package:  python-omemo-backend-signal-0.3.0~beta-3.fc37
Summary:  A backend 

[Test-Announce] Fedora 37 Branched 20220903.n.0 nightly compose nominated for testing

[rawhide]

Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event
for Fedora 37 Branched 20220903.n.0. Please help run some tests for this
nightly compose if you have time. For more information on nightly
release validation testing, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan

Notable package version changes:
anaconda - 20220831.n.0: anaconda-37.12.1-1.fc37.src, 20220903.n.0: 
anaconda-37.12.2-1.fc37.src

Test coverage information for the current release can be seen at:
https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/testcase_stats/37

You can see all results, find testing instructions and image download
locations, and enter results on the Summary page:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_37_Branched_20220903.n.0_Summary

The individual test result pages are:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_37_Branched_20220903.n.0_Installation
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_37_Branched_20220903.n.0_Base
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_37_Branched_20220903.n.0_Server
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_37_Branched_20220903.n.0_Cloud
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_37_Branched_20220903.n.0_Desktop
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_37_Branched_20220903.n.0_Security_Lab

Thank you for testing!
-- 
Mail generated by relvalconsumer: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/relvalconsumer
___
test-announce mailing list -- test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-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/test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Thunderbird 102 pushed to F36 stable

[Marius Schwarz]

Am 03.09.22 um 08:58 schrieb Mattia Verga via devel:

clearly happened here (pushed to stable just after 5 hours). I think
critpath updates should spend more time in testing, maybe we should
increase the critpath min karma to, at least, +5.



Judging from past critpath updates for several apps, I'm pretty sure, 
you won't get those many votes for both stable fedora releases.


bets regards,
Marius Schwarz

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

Re: Thunderbird 102 pushed to F36 stable

[Marius Schwarz]

Am 02.09.22 um 19:49 schrieb Mattia Verga via devel:

Here we go again: thunderbird 102 update was submitted to F36.

This new version was known to bring incompatible changes to several
addons, yet it has been submitted to a stable Fedora release with
autopush enable and just a karma threshold of 2. It took less than 5
hours from the time the update was submitted to the time the update was


and less than <24h for the first thunderbird 102 bugs to come in.

- addons not removeable
- safe-mode not working

I know it was a security update for 
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/advisories/mfsa2022-38/ 
,

so better safe and live with some minor bugs, than to be sorry.

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

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20220903.n.0 changes

[Fedora Rawhide Report]

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20220902.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20220903.n.0

= SUMMARY =
Added images:2
Dropped images:  2
Added packages:  5
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages:   72
Downgraded packages: 0

Size of added packages:  3.15 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of upgraded packages:   5.67 GiB
Size of downgraded packages: 0 B

Size change of upgraded packages:   235.29 MiB
Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B

= ADDED IMAGES =
Image: Jam_KDE live x86_64
Path: Labs/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Jam_KDE-Live-x86_64-Rawhide-20220903.n.0.iso
Image: SoaS raw-xz aarch64
Path: Spins/aarch64/images/Fedora-SoaS-Rawhide-20220903.n.0.aarch64.raw.xz

= DROPPED IMAGES =
Image: Comp_Neuro live x86_64
Path: Labs/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Comp_Neuro-Live-x86_64-Rawhide-20220902.n.0.iso
Image: KDE raw-xz aarch64
Path: Spins/aarch64/images/Fedora-KDE-Rawhide-20220902.n.0.aarch64.raw.xz

= ADDED PACKAGES =
Package: bitwise-0.43-1.fc38
Summary: Terminal based bit manipulator in ncurses
RPMs:bitwise
Size:163.67 KiB

Package: easyloggingpp-9.97.0^8489989git20210202-1.fc38
Summary: C++ logging library
RPMs:easyloggingpp-devel easyloggingpp-doc
Size:674.20 KiB

Package: python-aexpect-1.6.2-1.module_f38+15373+163d0782
Summary: A python library to control interactive applications
RPMs:python3-aexpect
Size:112.69 KiB

Package: python-avocado-82.2-1.module_f38+15373+163d0782
Summary: Framework with tools and libraries for Automated Testing
RPMs:python-avocado-bash python-avocado-common python-avocado-examples 
python3-avocado python3-avocado-plugins-glib python3-avocado-plugins-golang 
python3-avocado-plugins-loader-yaml python3-avocado-plugins-output-html 
python3-avocado-plugins-result-upload python3-avocado-plugins-resultsdb 
python3-avocado-plugins-varianter-cit python3-avocado-plugins-varianter-pict 
python3-avocado-plugins-varianter-yaml-to-mux
Size:1.06 MiB

Package: python-sqlglot-5.2.0-1.fc38
Summary: SQL Parser and Transpiler
RPMs:python3-sqlglot
Size:1.17 MiB


= DROPPED PACKAGES =

= UPGRADED PACKAGES =
Package:  abseil-cpp-20220623.1-2.fc38
Old package:  abseil-cpp-20220623.0-1.fc38
Summary:  C++ Common Libraries
RPMs: abseil-cpp abseil-cpp-devel
Size: 6.41 MiB
Size change:  2.16 KiB
Changelog:
  * Fri Sep 02 2022 Benjamin A. Beasley  - 20220623.1-2
  - Update to 20220623.1 (close RHBZ#2123181)


Package:  ansible-lint-1:6.5.2-1.fc38
Old package:  ansible-lint-1:6.5.1-1.fc38
Summary:  Best practices checker for Ansible
RPMs: python3-ansible-lint
Size: 411.73 KiB
Size change:  11.35 KiB
Changelog:
  * Fri Sep 02 2022 Parag Nemade  - 1:6.5.2-1
  - Update to 6.5.2 version (#2123638)


Package:  appstream-0.15.5-1.fc38
Old package:  appstream-0.15.4-2.fc37
Summary:  Utilities to generate, maintain and access the AppStream database
RPMs: appstream appstream-compose appstream-compose-devel 
appstream-devel appstream-qt appstream-qt-devel
Size: 12.27 MiB
Size change:  112.18 KiB
Changelog:
  * Fri Sep 02 2022 Rex Dieter  - 0.15.5-1
  - 0.15.5


Package:  bcm283x-firmware-20220826-1.ecc243c.fc38
Old package:  bcm283x-firmware-20220809-1.915a708.fc38
Summary:  Firmware for the Broadcom bcm283x/bcm2711 used in the Raspberry Pi
RPMs: bcm2711-firmware bcm2835-firmware bcm283x-firmware 
bcm283x-overlays
Size: 6.94 MiB
Size change:  5.01 KiB
Changelog:
  * Mon Aug 29 2022 Peter Robinson  - 
20220826-1.ecc243c
  - Update to latest firmware


Package:  borgmatic-1.7.1-1.fc38
Old package:  borgmatic-1.6.6-1.fc37
Summary:  Simple Python wrapper script for borgbackup
RPMs: borgmatic
Size: 230.59 KiB
Size change:  10.26 KiB
Changelog:
  * Sat Sep 03 2022 Felix Kaechele  - 1.7.1-1
  - update to 1.7.1


Package:  bpftrace-0.16.0-1.fc38
Old package:  bpftrace-0.15.0-2.fc37
Summary:  High-level tracing language for Linux eBPF
RPMs: bpftrace
Size: 14.13 MiB
Size change:  247.39 KiB
Changelog:
  * Fri Sep 02 2022 Augusto Caringi  - 0.16.0-1
  - Rebased to version 0.16.0


Package:  cfn-lint-0.63.2-2.fc38
Old package:  cfn-lint-0.63.2-1.fc38
Summary:  CloudFormation Linter
RPMs: cfn-lint
Size: 2.56 MiB
Size change:  -4.91 KiB
Changelog:
  * Fri Sep 02 2022 Benjamin A. Beasley  0.63.2-2
  - Support for jsonschema 4.x is now via upstream PR#2336


Package:  debootstrap-1.0.127-2.fc38
Old package:  debootstrap-1.0.127-1.fc37
Summary:  Debian GNU/Linux bootstrapper
RPMs: debootstrap
Size: 85.60 KiB
Size change:  210 B
Changelog:
  * Sat Sep 03 2022 S??rgio Basto  - 1.0.127-2
  - (#2119009) reading debian/rules seems that gettext is not required


Package:  evolution-3.45.3-1.fc38
Old package:  evolution-3.45.2-1.fc37
Summary:  Mail and calendar client for GNOME
RPMs: evolution evolution-bogofilter evolution-devel 
evolution-devel-docs

Packages going to be orphaned (was: Users with commit rights in src.fp.o but no more in packager group)

[Mattia Verga via devel]

I've filed a ticket [1] to fedora-infrastructure and @kevin is going to
remove commit rights from users which are no longer packagers.

There are a few packages which are going to be orphaned after the main
admin is removed. Here it is the list:

- bumpversion
- dia-CMOS
- dia-Digital
- dia-electric2
- dia-electronic
- drawtiming
- dnsviz
- ell
- espresso-ab
- fortune-mod
- hct
- kicad
- monobristol
- msimonson-anonymouspro-fonts
- sticky-notes
- ytalk

If you spotted any package you're willing to take as main admin, let
@kevin known by commenting on the ticket (or replying here, I suppose).
Otherwise the packages will enter the usual 6 weeks limbo before being
retired.

Mattia

[1] https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/10869

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

How to get a new gilab.com/fedora sub-project?

[Miro Hrončok]

Hello folks.

We'd like to move https://gitlab.com/fberat/mass-prebuild/ into the Fedora 
namespace, ideally under something like:


https://gitlab.com/fedora/packager-tools/

What do we need to do?

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

Re: Thunderbird 102 pushed to F36 stable

[Demi Marie Obenour]

On 9/3/22 04:42, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
> W dniu 3.09.2022 o 02:56, l...@fedoraproject.org pisze:
>>> Here we go again: thunderbird 102 update was submitted to F36.
>>>
>>> This new version was known to bring incompatible changes to several
>>> addons, yet it has been submitted to a stable Fedora release with
>>> autopush enable and just a karma threshold of 2. It took less than 5
>>> hours from the time the update was submitted to the time the update was
>>> pushed to stable.
>> Which addons are incompatible? Additionally, use "Addon Compatibility 
>> Check" for the purpose. The best practice is to contact these addons 
>> developers fixing their issues.
> After using Thunderbird for over 10 years I have a feeling that addons 
> developers more often abandon their addons when Thunderbird breaks 
> compatibility rather than continue working on them.

Can you name specific addons?

> More and more functionality present in addons goes away when Tb devs 
> remove apis used by addons.

Qubes OS used to have an addon, but it was broken when legacy extension
support was dropped.  Thunderbird 102 added the missing API (a hook
for attachment context menus) needed to implement the extension as
a stable WebExtension.
-- 
Sincerely,
Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers)
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Thunderbird 102 pushed to F36 stable

[Marcin Juszkiewicz]

W dniu 3.09.2022 o 02:56, l...@fedoraproject.org pisze:

Here we go again: thunderbird 102 update was submitted to F36.

This new version was known to bring incompatible changes to several
addons, yet it has been submitted to a stable Fedora release with
autopush enable and just a karma threshold of 2. It took less than 5
hours from the time the update was submitted to the time the update was
pushed to stable.


Which addons are incompatible? Additionally, use "Addon Compatibility 
Check" for the purpose. The best practice is to contact these addons 
developers fixing their issues.


After using Thunderbird for over 10 years I have a feeling that addons 
developers more often abandon their addons when Thunderbird breaks 
compatibility rather than continue working on them.


More and more functionality present in addons goes away when Tb devs 
remove apis used by addons.

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

Re: Thunderbird 102 pushed to F36 stable

[Demi Marie Obenour]

On 9/3/22 02:58, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
> Il 03/09/22 06:36, Demi Marie Obenour ha scritto:
>> On 9/2/22 13:49, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
>>> Here we go again: thunderbird 102 update was submitted to F36.
>>>
>>> This new version was known to bring incompatible changes to several
>>> addons, yet it has been submitted to a stable Fedora release with
>>> autopush enable and just a karma threshold of 2. It took less than 5
>>> hours from the time the update was submitted to the time the update was
>>> pushed to stable.
>>>
>>> Package maintainers should put more attention when pushing critical
>>> updates like this and avoid that the update being immediately pushed to
>>> stable.
>> Thunderbird 91 will go EOL eventually, assuming it has not done
>> so already.  As every Thunderbird update bring security fixes it is
>> not possible to guarantee that such an update will not be necessary
>> within the middle of a Fedora release.
>> --
>> Sincerely,
>> Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers)
> 
> I do not argue with that, I'm just saying (ranting) that, knowing 102
> likely breaks installed addons, it seems to me that at least an
> announcement on devel list prior to push it into a stable release would
> have been appreciated.
> 
> Moreover, thunderbird in on the critical path update list; Bodhi
> requires 14 days of testing for those packages, but it is set to require
> only +2 karma, so packagers easily bypass the testing phase, like it is
> clearly happened here (pushed to stable just after 5 hours). I think
> critpath updates should spend more time in testing, maybe we should
> increase the critpath min karma to, at least, +5.
For non-security, non-kernel, non-browser updates that would make sense.
For security patches, anything that makes them take even longer to get to
users is a bad idea.  This includes kernel and browser patches.
-- 
Sincerely,
Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers)
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue