Re: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

[Maxwell G]

On Fri May 19, 2023 at 22:59 +0200, Michal Domonkos wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 05:37:06PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > Nevertheless I do believe if the librpm changed its API then every
> > package which _BuildRequires_ rpm-devel should be rebuilt, just to
> > check the change doesn't affect them.
>
> Yes, we were primarily focusing on runtime dependencies now so that Rawhide
> isn't broken when the side-tag is pushed, however any API incompatibility in
> the packages that BuildRequire rpm-devel would just be pushed back to the
> earliest moment they're rebuilt in Rawhide by their maintainers.
>
> So I also think that ideally we should try rebuilding those ourselves to
> identify potential issues while 4.19 is not yet in Rawhide.
>
> I'll talk to my team on Monday, we'll perhaps do just that.  A quick check 
> with
>
> dnf repoquery --release=rawhide --disablerepo="*" --enablerepo="*-source" 
> \
>   --arch=src --whatrequires rpm-devel
>
> shows a couple of additional packages that weren't covered in this thread so
> far

I guess I'll plug fedrq [1] here, as this type of situation (a long
thread about how to properly use dnf repoquery to find reverse
dependencies) is one of my motivations for writing that tool :).

If you're looking for any package that requires (any virtual provide) of
rpm-libs or rpm-devel at buildtime or runtime, this query will get you
there:

$ fedrq wr -X -F source rpm-devel rpm-libs

...


The `-F source` option prints out a single deduplicated list of source
package name. If a package in the final query is a source package, the
`source` formatter spits out the package {NAME} and if the package is a
binary RPM, it spits out the package's {SOURCE_NAME}.

`-X` is short for `--exclude-subpackages` and will make sure rpm itself
doesn't show up in the output ;).

You can pass `-b rawhide` to explicitly query the rawhide repositories,
but that's already the default (unless you change it in the config file).

fedrq of course supports the .so name based queries, but I think it's
much better to unintentionally rebuild a couple packages that don't
*need* to be rebuilt and potentially find an FTBFS in advanced than to
unintentionally miss something.

[1] https://fedrq.gtmx.me/

--
Best,

Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns: He/They
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2203031] Upgrade perl-Crypt-URandom to 0.38

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2203031

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version|perl-Crypt-URandom-0.38-1.f |perl-Crypt-URandom-0.38-1.f
   |c39 |c39
   |perl-Crypt-URandom-0.38-1.f |perl-Crypt-URandom-0.38-1.f
   |c38 |c38
   |perl-Crypt-URandom-0.38-1.f |perl-Crypt-URandom-0.38-1.f
   |c37 |c37
   ||perl-Crypt-URandom-0.38-1.e
   ||l8



--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-756430111b has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable
repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2203031
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

[Reon Beon via devel]

RPM 4.19 release (Q3) final

Will we see this in Fedora 38 or the next version?
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[EPEL-devel] Re: KDE broken on CentOS Stream 9

[Troy Dawson]

I have a new update set.  This is just the packages failing to install with
the updated qt5.  The qt5 packages are updated to match the versions that
are now in RHEL.  All other packages are still the same versions and
patches as before, just with their release bumped and then rebuilt.
These are now working on all of my tests.  And willit is showing that
everything is installing correctly.  So I think this time I got it right.

To test:
  dnf --enablerepo=epel-next-testing clean all
  dnf --enablerepo=epel-next-testing update

To give karma:
  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-NEXT-2023-22498da84c


On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 8:58 AM Troy Dawson  wrote:

> KDE is still not able to be upgraded in CentOS Stream 9.
> This is my fault.
> I tried to combine the rebuilds needed for the new qt5, with updating the
> rest of the KDE Plasma Desktop.  This didn't go well.
> I will be removing the updates from epel-next-testing and starting again
> with just the packages that need a rebuild due to the qt5 update.
>
> I'm sorry for the inconvenience, and appreciate the patience you have
> shown.
>
> Troy
>
> On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 7:11 AM Troy Dawson  wrote:
>
>> There is a new qt5 update in CentOS Stream 9.  This update will be going
>> out when RHEL 9.3 is released six months from now.  Again, that is RHEL
>> 9.3, NOT 9.2.
>>
>> I am currently rebuilding KDE for CentOS Stream 9.  This will take some
>> time to rebuild and make it through testing.  I am suspecting it will not
>> be in stable until May 18.
>>
>> It is a known issue that is being resolved.  No need for further bugs.
>> If you have already created a bug, please cc me (tdaw...@redhat.com) on
>> it, because most of the bugs do not get assigned to me.
>>
>> Thank You
>> Troy
>>
>>
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

[Michal Domonkos]

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 05:37:06PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Nevertheless I do believe if the librpm changed its API then every
> package which _BuildRequires_ rpm-devel should be rebuilt, just to
> check the change doesn't affect them.

Yes, we were primarily focusing on runtime dependencies now so that Rawhide
isn't broken when the side-tag is pushed, however any API incompatibility in
the packages that BuildRequire rpm-devel would just be pushed back to the
earliest moment they're rebuilt in Rawhide by their maintainers.

So I also think that ideally we should try rebuilding those ourselves to
identify potential issues while 4.19 is not yet in Rawhide.

I'll talk to my team on Monday, we'll perhaps do just that.  A quick check with

dnf repoquery --release=rawhide --disablerepo="*" --enablerepo="*-source" \
  --arch=src --whatrequires rpm-devel

shows a couple of additional packages that weren't covered in this thread so
far:

fastfetch
gcc
gdb
grub2
grubby
javapackages-bootstrap
ocaml-dose3
sblim-cmpi-rpm
xmvn-generator

-- 
Michal Domonkos / RPM dev team / Red Hat, Inc.
___
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: SPDX Statistics - SPDX Hackfest edition

[Miroslav Suchý]

Dne 19. 05. 23 v 13:01 Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a):

https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/ignore-packages.txt

Either pull-request or email to me is fine.

The 'yajl' package uses the ISC license, and the Fedora & SPDX names
match, so no update is required. Please add to the ignore list.


Added. Thank you.

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

Re: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

[Michal Domonkos]

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 06:44:16PM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote:
> I rebuild most of the packages
> 

Thank you!  Much appreciated.

> I left out:
> 
> freeipa - upstream confirmed that no ebuild is needed

Yup, nice find.

> rust-rpm-sequoia - I believe there is no dependency on rpm and no rebuild
>is needed. Can Michal explain why it is on his list? 

This one got there by accident, please ignore it.  Our original query consisted
of --qf '%{sourcerpm}' --whatrequires 'librpm*.so.*' which obviously matches
librpm_sequoia.so, too, and that one's required by rpm-sequoia-devel, which in
turn is a binary package built from rust-rpm-sequoia, hence showing on the
original list.

> rpm-git-tag-sort-1.0-12.fc39 - fails to build for in unrelated reaon.
>I have developed a fix and proposed it the
>package maintainer and to the upstream.
>I can apply it if there will be no action.

OK, sounds good.  Yeah, I noticed the failure too when doing a scratch build
but didn't have the capacity to investigate further, hoping the maintainer
would eventually get it sorted.  If we could speed that up by proposing a fix,
that's great, of course, so thank you!

> annobin - a racing update: annobin-12.10-2.fc39
> gnome-software - a racing update: gnome-software-44.1-2.fc39
> systemtap - a racing update: systemtap-4.9-1.fc39

Actually, gnome-software has been rebuilt for our side-tag:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=2203034

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

[Bug 2177932] perl-Net-DNS-1.38 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177932



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-358730b089 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-358730b089


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177932
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2177932] perl-Net-DNS-1.38 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177932



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-2281c8febc has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-2281c8febc


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177932
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2177932] perl-Net-DNS-1.38 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177932

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |MODIFIED



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-89983fc0ef has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-89983fc0ef


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177932
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Fwd: SPDX Statistics - SPDX Hackfest edition

[Jilayne Lovejoy]

On 5/19/23 4:03 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:

On 19. 05. 23 4:28, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
Packages from this list 
https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/eln-not-migrated.txt
that were worked on during or as a result of the hackfest are listed 
below. If you are a package maintainer of a package that was worked 
on, you may see a pull request for updating the License field of the 
spec file.


python*


There are 384 such packages on the list. Did somebody manage to work 
on 384 packages during a single hackfest, or is this a mistake?


It says packages "from this list" - not all of them, no! And then the 
original email listed which ones were worked on... :)

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

[Bug 2208530] perl-Software-License-0.104003 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208530

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
   Fixed In Version||perl-Software-License-0.104
   ||003-1.fc39
Last Closed||2023-05-19 17:34:22



--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-500d87723f has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208530
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2208530] perl-Software-License-0.104003 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208530

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-500d87723f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-500d87723f


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208530
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: ppc64le builds taking ages

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 05:19:01PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> 
> I've been experiencing similar issues with ppc64le koji builds for the
> past few weeks. They are now by far the slowest architecture, and
> sometimes the build tasks are seemingly just "hanging" or "stuck",
> often for half an hour or longer. Most frequently the tasks look
> locked up doing disk IO, for example, during dnf's or rpm's
> transaction checks (i.e. when installing the buildroot or build
> dependencies).

Often when this happens, it's because the virthost that builder is on
has gone unresponsive and I have to reboot it and bring everything back
up. ;( So, from the koji hub view nothing is happening until the builder
is back up and realizes it should do that build and starts it over.

> I've seen tasks frequently get stuck at "dnf: Running transaction
> check" for *ages* (i.e. 30 minutes or longer), and after the builds on
> all other architectures were long done, they *sometimes* un-stuck
> themselves after a while and the build progressed (albeit very very
> slowly). At other times, the builds were just stuck completely - in
> these cases I've asked releng to free the ppc64le build to restart it,
> and that solved the problem (most of the time) ...
> 
> Asking on the fedora-infra IRC / Matrix channel, nirik mentioned that
> it might be caused by recent kernels (6.1 or 6.2), with 6.3 looking
> better at first glance.

yeah, this has been something we have seen with f37 (and now f38) on the
virthosts. It's really hard to isolate since there's not really any logs
when it happens. ;( 

That said, yes, I did try one of them with a 6.3 kernel and it seemed to
be better (but also this problem only seems sporadic, making it even
harder to isolate). 

I'm prepped all of them with 6.3 now, but I don't want to do reboots
right now since all of: gcc, webkitgtk, ceph, llvm are building away
right now. I'll try and do so this weekend. 

If that doesn't help, I think the next thing to do would be to decrease
vm density. We were fine in the past with 10 vm's per virthost, but
perhaps if we drop to 8 or so it would take some of the pressure off.

Thanks for all the feedback everyone...Hopefully we can get it back to
normal soon. 

kevin


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

[Bug 2208530] perl-Software-License-0.104003 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208530

Paul Howarth  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
   Assignee|emman...@seyman.fr  |p...@city-fan.org




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208530
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: [Fedocal] Reminder meeting : ELN SIG

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 8:00 AM  wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> You are kindly invited to the meeting:
>ELN SIG on 2023-05-19 from 12:00:00 to 13:00:00 US/Eastern
>At fedora-meet...@irc.libera.chat
>
> The meeting will be about:
>

=
#fedora-meeting: ELN (2023-05-19)
=


Meeting started by sgallagh at 16:00:23 UTC. The full logs are available
at
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2023-05-19/eln.2023-05-19-16.00.log.html
.



Meeting summary
---
* init process  (sgallagh, 16:00:23)

* Agenda  (sgallagh, 16:03:03)
  * Agenda Item: Status of the ELN compose and rebuilds  (sgallagh,
16:03:26)

* Status of the ELN compose and rebuilds  (sgallagh, 16:04:51)
  * Compose is working again since yesterday.  (sgallagh, 16:05:07)
  * dropped ~70 SRPMs from runtime set and another ~200 from the
buildroot in the last two weeks  (yselkowitz[m], 16:07:04)
  * dropped ~70 SRPMs from runtime set and another ~200 from the
buildroot in the last two weeks  (yselkowitz[m], 16:07:25)
  * LINK:

https://pagure.io/fedora-rust/rust2rpm/blob/main/f/rust2rpm/templates/crate.spec
(decathorpe, 16:15:43)
  * LINK: https://github.com/fedora-eln/eln/issues/124   (yselkowitz[m],
16:16:25)
  * creating eln branches for vendoring deps in rust-based RHEL packages
(yselkowitz[m], 16:24:39)
  * that will help drop ~600 SRPMs from ELN buildroot  (yselkowitz[m],
16:25:04)
  * still working on unwanted python build deps  (yselkowitz[m],
16:29:56)
  * LINK: https://github.com/fedora-eln/eln/issues/125   (yselkowitz[m],
16:30:00)
  * LINK: https://github.com/fedora-eln/eln/issues/115   (yselkowitz[m],
16:30:07)
  * ACTION: Michel Alexandre Salim to propose `%bcond`s for docs and
tests as packaging best practices to the FPC  (sgallagh, 16:48:38)

* ELN and CentOS Stream tags in discussion.fp.o  (sgallagh, 16:53:00)
  * LINK:

https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/how-to-request-a-new-team-tag-or-a-team-workflows-subcategory/35557/16
(bstinson, 16:54:05)
  * Davide Cavalca will be presenting on Meta's use of ELN at Devconf.cz
(sgallagh, 17:01:12)

Meeting ended at 17:02:43 UTC.




Action Items

* Michel Alexandre Salim to propose `%bcond`s for docs and tests as
  packaging best practices to the FPC




Action Items, by person
---
* **UNASSIGNED**
  * Michel Alexandre Salim to propose `%bcond`s for docs and tests as
packaging best practices to the FPC




People Present (lines said)
---
* sgallagh (57)
* yselkowitz[m] (39)
* michel (24)
* decathorpe (14)
* bstinson (12)
* zodbot (11)
* davide (7)
* tdawson (5)
* yselkowitz (0)




Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.4

.. _`MeetBot`: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zodbot#Meeting_Functions
___
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: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

[Petr Pisar]

V Fri, May 19, 2023 at 12:24:15PM +0200, Michal Domonkos napsal(a):
> We're currently preparing an update to RPM 4.19 ALPHA for Rawhide in a
> side-tag.  The new version features a soname bump:
> 
> librpm.so.9 -> librpm.so.10
> librpmio.so.9 -> librpmio.so.10
> 
> The following packages link against the above libraries and thus will need to
> be rebuilt:
> 
[...]
> We would like to kindly ask the owners to issue a rebuild against our 
> side-tag.
> The command to do this is:
> 
> fedpkg build --target f39-build-side-67564
> 
I rebuild most of the packages
 and these
I left out:

freeipa - upstream confirmed that no ebuild is needed
rust-rpm-sequoia - I believe there is no dependency on rpm and no rebuild
   is needed. Can Michal explain why it is on his list? 

rpm-git-tag-sort-1.0-12.fc39 - fails to build for in unrelated reaon.
   I have developed a fix and proposed it the
   package maintainer and to the upstream.
   I can apply it if there will be no action.

annobin - a racing update: annobin-12.10-2.fc39
gnome-software - a racing update: gnome-software-44.1-2.fc39
systemtap - a racing update: systemtap-4.9-1.fc39

This last three already have a build finished in a different side tag or their
update is hang in Bodhi on failed CI tests. I'd like urge their maintainers to
expediate or cancel their updates. I do not want the rpm-4.19 rebuild to clash
with them.

Especially annobin is worrisome because of a cyclic dependency on gcc. 

-- Petr


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: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 02:32:19PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 02:13:43PM +0200, Michal Domonkos wrote:
> > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 01:03:43PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > I think you should also consider packages that build require
> > > rpm-devel.  libguestfs consumes the librpm API, so I'm not sure why it
> > > didn't make the list.
> > 
> > Correct, our original query was anything but comprehensible, as it turns 
> > out.
> > Sigh.  It didn't include the non-x86_64 arches and it didn't include 
> > rpm-libs,
> > as you noted (also not sure why it libguestfs wasn't picked up by the
> > soname-based query, though).
> 
> libguestfs has one library: /usr/lib64/libguestfs.so.0, and it doesn't
> link to librpm. So maybe it doesn't need to be recompiled?

I think there's a bug in our (slightly modified) dependency generator,
which I'm looking at.

Nevertheless I do believe if the librpm changed its API then every
package which _BuildRequires_ rpm-devel should be rebuilt, just to
check the change doesn't affect them.

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines.  Tiny program with many
powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc.
http://people.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[EPEL-devel] Re: apptainer 1.1.8-1 has an incompatible change for apptainer-suid users

[Dave Dykstra via epel-devel]

Carl,

You don't seem to have looked at this closely enough to understand.
This is not an ordinary security problem that can be worked around in a
compatible way.  The security vulnerability is the feature itself.
There's nothing that can be done about it short of disabling the feature.

Of course if there was a compatible way to deal with this security
vulnerability, we would have done it.

Dave

On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 10:34:40PM -0500, Carl George wrote:
> Tens of thousands of upstream projects are packaged into Fedora and
> EPEL.  If they can find ways to deliver security fixes while following
> Fedora and EPEL update policies, then apptainer can too.  Asking you
> to follow these policies is not a punishment.  If you're unwilling to
> follow these policies, then I agree with Troy that copr will be a
> better fit for apptainer.
> 
> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 11:51 AM Dave Dykstra via epel-devel
>  wrote:
> >
> > To Troy and the reset of the EPEL Steering Committee:
> >
> > Thank you very much for granting the request.
> >
> > The apptainer maintainers promise to do our best to avoid incompatible
> > updates in the future.  However if we discover another high severity
> > vulnerability in the setuid-root portion that cannot be worked around in
> > a compatible way, you will have put us into a very difficult position of
> > deciding between protecting the security of our users and making this
> > popular software more difficult for them to install.  It doesn't make
> > sense to me that packages should be punished for doing what they are
> > forced to do for good security.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 02:20:52PM -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
> > > We discussed this in the weekly EPEL Steering Committee meeting. We broke
> > > this into two separate votes.
> > >
> > > *Allow the epel 7 update : Passed*
> > > Votes: All who voted, voted in favor of this.
> > > Notes: No notes.
> > >
> > > *Allow the epel 8 and 9 update - with a stern warning : Passed*
> > > Votes: 4 for, 2 against, 1 abstaining -
> > > Notes: Although your argument was that these needed the same breaking
> > > configurations to prevent future security issues, that wasn't what swayed
> > > the votes. The first reason was that having older versions in epel 8 and 9
> > > causes more problems. The second reason was that we felt we didn't give 
> > > you
> > > a stern enough warning last time.
> > >
> > > *WARNING / ADVISEMENT / ATTENTION*
> > > This is the second time that apptainer has had breaking updates. The EPEL
> > > Steering Committee feels that if this happens again, then apptainer isn't 
> > > a
> > > good fit for EPEL. We will pull apptainer from EPEL and recommend that you
> > > release it in COPR  instead of EPEL.
> > > Please inform the upstream maintainers of this.
> > >
> > >
> > > Troy
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 7:29 AM Dave Dykstra  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Troy,
> > > >
> > > > If required, the epel8 & epel9 builds could have a patch added that
> > > > changes the default of the new "allow setuid-mount extfs" to be "yes"
> > > > instead of "no". That's all that would be required to disable the
> > > > incompatible change.
> > > >
> > > > But as I said, I think it's a bad idea to make this behavior different
> > > > on different OS versions.  Epel8 & 9 are still vulnerable to the same
> > > > general issue; even though they're likely to get patches for future low
> > > > or moderate level severity vulnerabilities, they don't get patches
> > > > quickly and so admins will have to turn this off for the period of time
> > > > between announcement and patch upstream.  Also the incompatibility is
> > > > going to only affect a small percentage of epel8 & 9 users, and they
> > > > should be able to quickly workaround it by adding the --userns option.
> > > >
> > > > The --userns option is already available everywhere.  Are you
> > > > suggesting that it default to --userns option behavior on epel8 & 9, at
> > > > least for ext3, when "allow setuid-mount extfs = no"?  I have thought
> > > > of that but I believe that we cannot mix the setuid mode and the
> > > > fuse2fs mount, at least not without a lot of major rework and careful
> > > > investigation of the security implications.  I don't think it would be
> > > > good to automatically switch fully to the --userns mode with a setuid
> > > > installation and "allow setuid-mount extfs = no", because then users
> > > > will get subtle differences with other behavior depending on whether or
> > > > not they are requesting something that is using an ext3 filesystem.
> > > >
> > > > Dave
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 06:47:04AM -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
> > > > > That makes it more clear for epel7.
> > > > > But it will be strange for epel7 to have a higher version than epel8 
> > > > > and
> > > > 9.
> > > > > Would the apptainer maintainers be willing to create an update that 
> > > > > has
> > > > the
> > > > > --userns 

Re: ppc64le builds taking ages

[Michael Catanzaro]

On Fri, May 19 2023 at 04:54:42 PM +0200, Dan Horák  
wrote:

seems the build got restarted, perhaps due OOM on the builder, and
actual build time was 12h, perhaps the builder or the vmhost were
overloaded. Do you see the long build times in recent builds too? Both
examples are from March.


I've encountered build cycle issues in the past: the build starts, 
proceeds for several hours, OOMs, restarts, repeat indefinitely. This 
is really harmful. It's important for builds to fail when something 
goes wrong. Restarting them automatically in an attempt to be robust is 
more harmful than helpful.


___
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: ppc64le builds taking ages

[Fabio Valentini]

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 5:07 PM Iñaki Ucar  wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 May 2023 at 16:55, Dan Horák  wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 19 May 2023 16:27:23 +0200
> > Iñaki Ucar  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Do we know why some ppc64le builds take so much? And with "so much" I
> > > mean 7-10x the time for a "normal" run. Examples: 2 hours for [1] vs.
> > > 20 hours for [2].
> > >
> > > And if we do know the cause, is there any way to predict it in order
> > > to avoid the %check section?
> > >
> > > [1] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=98395536
> > > [2] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=98395502
> >
> > seems the build got restarted, perhaps due OOM on the builder, and
> > actual build time was 12h, perhaps the builder or the vmhost were
> > overloaded. Do you see the long build times in recent builds too? Both
> > examples are from March.
>
> Here's one: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101326951
> Compared to: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101327166
>
> And I suspect this is the cause of the large number of random errors
> we've been experiencing with R packages recently. I think that the R
> check command has a timeout that is triggered when a ppc64le build
> takes too much (specifically when rebuilding package vignettes).
> Things seem to have gone back to normal as I noticed them and disabled
> vignette rebuilds in most (all?) of them. But these random extreme
> delays are annoying, especially in packages with heavy tests.

I've been experiencing similar issues with ppc64le koji builds for the
past few weeks. They are now by far the slowest architecture, and
sometimes the build tasks are seemingly just "hanging" or "stuck",
often for half an hour or longer. Most frequently the tasks look
locked up doing disk IO, for example, during dnf's or rpm's
transaction checks (i.e. when installing the buildroot or build
dependencies).

I've seen tasks frequently get stuck at "dnf: Running transaction
check" for *ages* (i.e. 30 minutes or longer), and after the builds on
all other architectures were long done, they *sometimes* un-stuck
themselves after a while and the build progressed (albeit very very
slowly). At other times, the builds were just stuck completely - in
these cases I've asked releng to free the ppc64le build to restart it,
and that solved the problem (most of the time) ...

Asking on the fedora-infra IRC / Matrix channel, nirik mentioned that
it might be caused by recent kernels (6.1 or 6.2), with 6.3 looking
better at first glance.

Fabio
___
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: ppc64le builds taking ages

[Iñaki Ucar]

On Fri, 19 May 2023 at 16:55, Dan Horák  wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 May 2023 16:27:23 +0200
> Iñaki Ucar  wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Do we know why some ppc64le builds take so much? And with "so much" I
> > mean 7-10x the time for a "normal" run. Examples: 2 hours for [1] vs.
> > 20 hours for [2].
> >
> > And if we do know the cause, is there any way to predict it in order
> > to avoid the %check section?
> >
> > [1] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=98395536
> > [2] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=98395502
>
> seems the build got restarted, perhaps due OOM on the builder, and
> actual build time was 12h, perhaps the builder or the vmhost were
> overloaded. Do you see the long build times in recent builds too? Both
> examples are from March.

Here's one: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101326951
Compared to: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101327166

And I suspect this is the cause of the large number of random errors
we've been experiencing with R packages recently. I think that the R
check command has a timeout that is triggered when a ppc64le build
takes too much (specifically when rebuilding package vignettes).
Things seem to have gone back to normal as I noticed them and disabled
vignette rebuilds in most (all?) of them. But these random extreme
delays are annoying, especially in packages with heavy tests.

Iñaki

-- 
Iñaki Úcar
___
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: ppc64le builds taking ages

[Dan Horák]

On Fri, 19 May 2023 16:27:23 +0200
Iñaki Ucar  wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Do we know why some ppc64le builds take so much? And with "so much" I
> mean 7-10x the time for a "normal" run. Examples: 2 hours for [1] vs.
> 20 hours for [2].
> 
> And if we do know the cause, is there any way to predict it in order
> to avoid the %check section?
> 
> [1] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=98395536
> [2] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=98395502

seems the build got restarted, perhaps due OOM on the builder, and
actual build time was 12h, perhaps the builder or the vmhost were
overloaded. Do you see the long build times in recent builds too? Both
examples are from March.


Dan
___
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: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 02:13:43PM +0200, Michal Domonkos wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 01:03:43PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > I think you should also consider packages that build require
> > rpm-devel.  libguestfs consumes the librpm API, so I'm not sure why it
> > didn't make the list.
> 
> Correct, our original query was anything but comprehensible, as it turns out.
> Sigh.  It didn't include the non-x86_64 arches and it didn't include rpm-libs,
> as you noted (also not sure why it libguestfs wasn't picked up by the
> soname-based query, though).

libguestfs has one library: /usr/lib64/libguestfs.so.0, and it doesn't
link to librpm. So maybe it doesn't need to be recompiled?

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

ppc64le builds taking ages

[Iñaki Ucar]

Hi,

Do we know why some ppc64le builds take so much? And with "so much" I
mean 7-10x the time for a "normal" run. Examples: 2 hours for [1] vs.
20 hours for [2].

And if we do know the cause, is there any way to predict it in order
to avoid the %check section?

[1] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=98395536
[2] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=98395502

-- 
Iñaki Úcar
___
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: Intern Introduction & Goals (Open 3D Engine)

[Nicholas Frizzell]

Thanks, I'm looking forward to contributing and working within the
open source community this summer.

> Have you packaged anything as an rpm before?

I have not set up an rpm package in particular before, but I've been
provided with a lot of good resources so hopefully it should be a good
learning opportunity.

On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 2:11 PM Benson Muite  wrote:
>
> On 5/18/23 16:30, Nicholas Frizzell wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > My name is Nicholas and I'm working this summer as an intern with Red
> > Hat. My primary objective this summer is to improve support for the
> > O3DE project (https://www.o3de.org/) in Fedora and eventually have it
> > packaged and available for install through the official repositories.
> > If anyone is interested in this topic or has any advice/suggestions to
> > help this project along feel free to reach out.
> Welcome to Fedora.  Thanks for improving the available 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, report it: 
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2208530] New: perl-Software-License-0.104003 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208530

Bug ID: 2208530
   Summary: perl-Software-License-0.104003 is available
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: perl-Software-License
  Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
  Assignee: emman...@seyman.fr
  Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: berra...@redhat.com, emman...@seyman.fr,
iarn...@gmail.com, p...@city-fan.org,
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Releases retrieved: 0.104003
Upstream release that is considered latest: 0.104003
Current version/release in rawhide: 0.104002-3.fc38
URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Software-License/

Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/


More information about the service that created this bug can be found at:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Upstream_Release_Monitoring


Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging
changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your
responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still
correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added
upstream.


Based on the information from Anitya:
https://release-monitoring.org/project/3325/


To change the monitoring settings for the project, please visit:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Software-License


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208530
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 02:13:43PM +0200, Michal Domonkos wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 01:03:43PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > Anyway I will rebuild supermin & libguestfs into the side tag shortly.
> 
> Thanks!

Done:

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101331894
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101331943

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines.  Tiny program with many
powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc.
http://people.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Orphaning rubygem-i18n_data

[Vít Ondruch]

Hi,

I don't have any usage for rubygem-i18n_data, therefore I have orphaned 
that package.



Vít



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

Re: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

[Michal Domonkos]

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 02:14:31PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> That is correct, I assumed folks on the packaging-team would be
> provenpackagers already, but apparently not so much.

Too many (false) assumptions were made when I was starting this thread.  One
learns by doing, I guess.

> > I think I even tried that with the koji CLI tool at some point and got an
> > error, however now that you asked, I tried again with fedpkg, and indeed, it
> > looks like I'm able to build others' packages.
> 
> You are.
> 
> > Still not sure if I can in fact push to dist-git...
> 
> You cannot. You need a provenpackager.

Thanks.  This was also confirmed by Petr Pisar in the meantime.

> If you don't have any, I suggest you contact one (e.g. me). It's quite faster
> and easier when the rebuild is swift rather than waiting (for how long?) for
> everybody to do the builds themselves.

Thanks for the offer, it seems like Petr has volunteered to do this for us,
though, so the rebuilds are already on the way.
___
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

Orphaning rubygem-file-tail

[Vít Ondruch]

Hi,

I don't have any use for rubygem-file-tail, therefore I have orphaned 
the package.



Vít



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

Re: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

[Miro Hrončok]

On 19. 05. 23 13:37, Michal Domonkos wrote:

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 12:33:41PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:

  rust-rpm-sequoia


This has a circular dependency on rpm?


Yup, this shouldn't have been on the list, it was an error on my side,
addressed in another reply to this thread.


We already did scratch builds ourselves and the packages passing against the
rawhide target also passed against the side-tag.


Could you please submit the real builds yourselves as well?


We assumed we wouldn't be able to push & build packages that we don't own, and
thought you'd have to a Proven Packager to be able to do that.


That is correct, I assumed folks on the packaging-team would be provenpackagers 
already, but apparently not so much.



I think I even tried that with the koji CLI tool at some point and got an
error, however now that you asked, I tried again with fedpkg, and indeed, it
looks like I'm able to build others' packages.


You are.


Still not sure if I can in fact push to dist-git...


You cannot. You need a provenpackager. If you don't have any, I suggest you 
contact one (e.g. me). It's quite faster and easier when the rebuild is swift 
rather than waiting (for how long?) for everybody to do the builds themselves.



--
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: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

[Michal Domonkos]

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 01:03:43PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I think you should also consider packages that build require
> rpm-devel.  libguestfs consumes the librpm API, so I'm not sure why it
> didn't make the list.

Correct, our original query was anything but comprehensible, as it turns out.
Sigh.  It didn't include the non-x86_64 arches and it didn't include rpm-libs,
as you noted (also not sure why it libguestfs wasn't picked up by the
soname-based query, though).

Doing all the above yields 3 additional packages:

freeipa
libguestfs
s390utils

> Anyway I will rebuild supermin & libguestfs into the side tag shortly.

Thanks!
___
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: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 01:02:23PM +0200, Michal Domonkos wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 01:00:28PM +0200, Michal Domonkos wrote:
> > Yup, I omitted the DNF stack deliberately from the original list as those
> > packages we've rebuilt ourselves already in the side-tag.  Same goes for 
> > some
> > other packages on the list like drpm which we also own.
> 
> Oh, and as for abrt* and rpminspect, those actually needed patching in order 
> to
> adapt them to the API/ABI changes in RPM 4.19 which we also already did
> (submitted upstream) so those are also intentionally left out of the list.

I think you should also consider packages that build require
rpm-devel.  libguestfs consumes the librpm API, so I'm not sure why it
didn't make the list.

Anyway I will rebuild supermin & libguestfs into the side tag shortly.

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
nbdkit - Flexible, fast NBD server with plugins
https://gitlab.com/nbdkit/nbdkit
___
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: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

[Michal Domonkos]

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 12:28:30PM +0200, Dan Horák wrote:
> I guess the list comes from an x86 system, thus it is incomplete.
> Please add s390utils there as well.

Indeed.  I'm going to sent a separate email to
s390utils-maintain...@fedoraproject.org.

I've just ran the same DNF query for the other arches (s390x, aarch64 and
ppc64le) to double-check, and there are no additional packages besides this
one.

I guess we should check all the arches next time.  Noted.

Thanks for noticing, Dan!

-- 
Michal Domonkos / RPM dev team / Red Hat, Inc.
___
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: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

[Petr Pisar]

V Fri, May 19, 2023 at 01:37:11PM +0200, Michal Domonkos napsal(a):
> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 12:33:41PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > We already did scratch builds ourselves and the packages passing against 
> > > the
> > > rawhide target also passed against the side-tag.
> > 
> > Could you please submit the real builds yourselves as well?
> 
> We assumed we wouldn't be able to push & build packages that we don't own, and
> thought you'd have to a Proven Packager to be able to do that.
> 
> I think I even tried that with the koji CLI tool at some point and got an
> error, however now that you asked, I tried again with fedpkg, and indeed, it
> looks like I'm able to build others' packages.
> 
> Still not sure if I can in fact push to dist-git - is there a way to verify
> that without actually pushing anything?  I've tried doing a "git push
> --dry-run" and that seemed to pass just fine...
> 
Any packager can build any package, but only proven packagers can push
commits.

I'm a proven packager, I can help you with pushing the release bumps into
dist-git repositories.

-- Petr


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

[Bug 2072972] Review Request: perl-IP-Geolocation-MMDB - Read MaxMind DB files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072972



--- Comment #3 from Andreas Vögele  ---
Hello Michal,

thanks a lot for the review. I've removed the MODULE_COMPAT requirement. I had
already updated the version and the license in Copr. Today's build with review
output in the "fedora-review" subfolder is here:

https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/voegelas/fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05934643-perl-IP-Geolocation-MMDB/

Kind regards,
Andreas

Spec URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/voegelas/fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05934643-perl-IP-Geolocation-MMDB/perl-IP-Geolocation-MMDB.spec
SRPM URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/voegelas/fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05934643-perl-IP-Geolocation-MMDB/perl-IP-Geolocation-MMDB-1.010-1.fc39.src.rpm
Description: A Perl module that reads MaxMind DB files and maps IP addresses to
location information such as country and city names
Fedora Account System Username: voegelas


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072972
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2072968] Review Request: perl-Alien-libmaxminddb - Find libmaxminddb

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072968



--- Comment #3 from Andreas Vögele  ---
Hello Michal,

thanks a lot for the review. I've removed the MODULE_COMPAT requirement. I had
already updated the version and the license in Copr. Today's build with review
output in the "fedora-review" subfolder is here:

https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/voegelas/fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05934631-perl-Alien-libmaxminddb/

Kind regards,
Andreas

Spec URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/voegelas/fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05934631-perl-Alien-libmaxminddb/perl-Alien-libmaxminddb.spec
SRPM URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/voegelas/fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05934631-perl-Alien-libmaxminddb/perl-Alien-libmaxminddb-1.012-1.fc39.src.rpm
Description: An Alien module for Perl that provides the C library libmaxminddb
to other modules
Fedora Account System Username: voegelas


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072968
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

[Michal Domonkos]

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 12:33:41PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >  rust-rpm-sequoia
> 
> This has a circular dependency on rpm?

Yup, this shouldn't have been on the list, it was an error on my side,
addressed in another reply to this thread.

> > We already did scratch builds ourselves and the packages passing against the
> > rawhide target also passed against the side-tag.
> 
> Could you please submit the real builds yourselves as well?

We assumed we wouldn't be able to push & build packages that we don't own, and
thought you'd have to a Proven Packager to be able to do that.

I think I even tried that with the koji CLI tool at some point and got an
error, however now that you asked, I tried again with fedpkg, and indeed, it
looks like I'm able to build others' packages.

Still not sure if I can in fact push to dist-git - is there a way to verify
that without actually pushing anything?  I've tried doing a "git push
--dry-run" and that seemed to pass just fine...

-- 
Michal Domonkos / RPM dev team / Red Hat, Inc.
___
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: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

[Michal Domonkos]

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 01:05:51PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification!

No problem, and again, thanks for bringing it up.  I should've included the
whole list from the start to avoid confusion :)

-- 
Michal Domonkos / RPM dev team / Red Hat, Inc.
___
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: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

[Fabio Valentini]

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 1:02 PM Michal Domonkos  wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 01:00:28PM +0200, Michal Domonkos wrote:
> > Yup, I omitted the DNF stack deliberately from the original list as those
> > packages we've rebuilt ourselves already in the side-tag.  Same goes for 
> > some
> > other packages on the list like drpm which we also own.
>
> Oh, and as for abrt* and rpminspect, those actually needed patching in order 
> to
> adapt them to the API/ABI changes in RPM 4.19 which we also already did
> (submitted upstream) so those are also intentionally left out of the list.

Thanks for the clarification!

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

[Bug 2208279] perl-Module-CPANfile-1.1004-16.fc39 FTBFS: t/from_prereqs.t fails with perl-CPAN-Meta-Requirements-2.142-1.fc39

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208279

Paul Howarth  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Link ID||Github
   ||Perl-Toolchain-Gang/CPAN-Me
   ||ta-Requirements/pull/38
 CC||p...@city-fan.org




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208279
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

[Michal Domonkos]

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 01:00:28PM +0200, Michal Domonkos wrote:
> Yup, I omitted the DNF stack deliberately from the original list as those
> packages we've rebuilt ourselves already in the side-tag.  Same goes for some
> other packages on the list like drpm which we also own.

Oh, and as for abrt* and rpminspect, those actually needed patching in order to
adapt them to the API/ABI changes in RPM 4.19 which we also already did
(submitted upstream) so those are also intentionally left out of the list.

-- 
Michal Domonkos / RPM dev team / Red Hat, Inc.
___
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: SPDX Statistics - SPDX Hackfest edition

[Daniel P . Berrangé]

On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 08:23:51AM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> If your package does not have neither git-log entry nor spec-changelog entry
> mentioning SPDX and you know your license tag matches SPDX formula, you can
> put your package on ignore list
> 
> https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/ignore-packages.txt
> 
> Either pull-request or email to me is fine.

The 'yajl' package uses the ISC license, and the Fedora & SPDX names
match, so no update is required. Please add to the ignore list.

If any other packages in Fedora exist with merely 'ISC' license they
also can potentially be ignored.

With regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com  -o-https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o-https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org-o-https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
___
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: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

[Michal Domonkos]

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 12:46:08PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> Notably, this list includes things like libdnf and dnf5, and does
> *not* include rust-rpm-sequoia.

Yup, I omitted the DNF stack deliberately from the original list as those
packages we've rebuilt ourselves already in the side-tag.  Same goes for some
other packages on the list like drpm which we also own.

As for rust-rpm-sequoia, indeed, that one got onto the list by accident.  In
fact, the query we used was similar to yours, it just incorporated globs and
some additional sed filtering:

$ repoquery --whatrequires "librpm*.so*" --qf "%{source_name}" \
  | sed -e 's/-[^-]*-[^-]*[.]rpm//' | sort -u

I guess the wildcards in there caused rpm-sequoia to show up too.

Thanks for noticing!

-- 
Michal Domonkos / RPM dev team / Red Hat, Inc.
___
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: 20230519.n.0 changes

[Fedora Rawhide Report]

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20230518.n.1
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20230519.n.0

= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images:  3
Added packages:  6
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages:   147
Downgraded packages: 0

Size of added packages:  14.68 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of upgraded packages:   1.98 GiB
Size of downgraded packages: 0 B

Size change of upgraded packages:   17.75 MiB
Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B

= ADDED IMAGES =

= DROPPED IMAGES =
Image: Silverblue dvd-ostree aarch64
Path: 
Silverblue/aarch64/iso/Fedora-Silverblue-ostree-aarch64-Rawhide-20230518.n.1.iso
Image: Kinoite dvd-ostree x86_64
Path: Kinoite/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Kinoite-ostree-x86_64-Rawhide-20230518.n.1.iso
Image: Kinoite dvd-ostree ppc64le
Path: Kinoite/ppc64le/iso/Fedora-Kinoite-ostree-ppc64le-Rawhide-20230518.n.1.iso

= ADDED PACKAGES =
Package: golang-github-dennwc-btrfs-0-0.1.20230510gita1f570b.fc39
Summary: Btrfs library in a pure Go
RPMs:golang-github-dennwc-btrfs-devel
Size:55.17 KiB

Package: libei-0.99.1-1.fc39
Summary: Library for Emulated Input
RPMs:libei libei-devel libei-utils libeis libeis-devel liboeffis 
liboeffis-devel
Size:910.01 KiB

Package: maturin-1.0.0~b7-1.fc39
Summary: Build and publish Rust crates as Python packages
RPMs:maturin
Size:12.64 MiB

Package: pyinstrument-4.4.0-4.fc39
Summary: Python profiler with colorful output
RPMs:pyinstrument pyinstrument-doc
Size:936.88 KiB

Package: rust-crossterm0.25-0.25.0-1.fc39
Summary: Crossplatform terminal library for manipulating terminals
RPMs:rust-crossterm0.25+bracketed-paste-devel 
rust-crossterm0.25+default-devel rust-crossterm0.25+event-stream-devel 
rust-crossterm0.25+futures-core-devel rust-crossterm0.25+serde-devel 
rust-crossterm0.25-devel
Size:155.88 KiB

Package: rust-spytools-0.1.4-1.fc39
Summary: Tools for spying on running processes
RPMs:rust-spytools+default-devel rust-spytools-devel
Size:24.50 KiB


= DROPPED PACKAGES =

= UPGRADED PACKAGES =
Package:  389-ds-base-2.4.1-1.fc39
Old package:  389-ds-base-2.4.0-1.fc39
Summary:  389 Directory Server (base)
RPMs: 389-ds-base 389-ds-base-devel 389-ds-base-libs 389-ds-base-snmp 
cockpit-389-ds python3-lib389
Size: 23.69 MiB
Size change:  2.53 MiB
Changelog:
  * Thu May 18 2023 Mark Reynolds  - 2.4.1-1
  - Bump version to 2.4.1
  - Issue 5770 - RFE - Extend Password Adminstrators to allow skipping password 
info updates
  - Issue 5768 - CLI/UI - cert checks are too strict, and other issues
  - Issue 5722 - fix compilation warnings (#5771)
  - Issue 5765 - Improve installer selinux handling
  - Issue 152  - RFE - Add support for LDAP alias entries
  - Issue 5052 - BUG - Custom filters prevented entry deletion (#5060)
  - Issue 5752 - RFE - Provide a history for LastLoginTime (#5753)
  - Issue 5722 - RFE When a filter contains 'nsrole', improve response time by 
rewriting the filter (#5723)
  - Issue 5704 - crash in sync_refresh_initial_content (#5720)
  - Issue 5738 - RFE - UI - Read/write replication monitor info to .dsrc file
  - Issue 5156 - build warnings (#5758)
  - Issue 5749 - RFE - Allow Account Policy Plugin to handle inactivity and 
expiration at the same time
  - Issue 5743 - Disabling replica crashes the server (#5746)
  - Issue 2562 - Copy config files into backup directory
  - Issue 5156 - fix build breakage from slapi-memberof commit
  - Issue 4758 - Add tests for WebUI


Package:  NetworkManager-1:1.43.8-1.fc39
Old package:  NetworkManager-1:1.43.7-1.fc39
Summary:  Network connection manager and user applications
RPMs: NetworkManager NetworkManager-adsl NetworkManager-bluetooth 
NetworkManager-cloud-setup NetworkManager-config-connectivity-fedora 
NetworkManager-config-server NetworkManager-dispatcher-routing-rules 
NetworkManager-initscripts-ifcfg-rh NetworkManager-initscripts-updown 
NetworkManager-libnm NetworkManager-libnm-devel NetworkManager-ovs 
NetworkManager-ppp NetworkManager-team NetworkManager-tui NetworkManager-wifi 
NetworkManager-wwan
Size: 25.55 MiB
Size change:  15.86 KiB
Changelog:
  * Wed May 17 2023 Beniamino Galvani  - 1:1.43.8-1
  - Update to 1.43.8 release (development)


Package:  PySolFC-2.20.1-2.fc39
Old package:  PySolFC-2.20.1-1.fc39
Summary:  A collection of solitaire card games
RPMs: PySolFC
Size: 37.79 MiB
Size change:  1.73 MiB
Changelog:
  * Thu May 18 2023 S??rgio Basto  - 2.20.1-2
  - Update cardsets_minimal_ver to 2.2.0


Package:  argparse-manpage-4.3-1.fc39
Old package:  argparse-manpage-4.2-1.fc39
Summary:  Build manual page from Python ArgumentParser object
RPMs: argparse-manpage python3-argparse-manpage 
python3-argparse-manpage+setuptools
Size: 88.53 KiB
Size change:  584 B
Changelog:
  * Thu May 18 2023 Pavel Raiskup  - 4.3-1
  - new upstream release, tomli dep instead of toml
https://github.com/praiskup/argparse-manpage

Re: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

[Fabio Valentini]

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 12:24 PM Michal Domonkos  wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> We're currently preparing an update to RPM 4.19 ALPHA for Rawhide in a
> side-tag.  The new version features a soname bump:
>
> librpm.so.9 -> librpm.so.10
> librpmio.so.9 -> librpmio.so.10
>
> The following packages link against the above libraries and thus will need to
> be rebuilt:
>
> anaconda
> annobin
> fapolicyd
> frr
> gnome-software
> libappstream-glib
> libdnf-plugin-swidtags
> libextractor
> libzypp
> net-snmp
> openscap
> PackageKit
> perl-RPM2
> perl-RPM-VersionCompare
> php-pecl-rpminfo
> rpm-git-tag-sort
> rpm-ostree
> rpmreaper
> rust-blsctl
> rust-rpm-sequoia
> satyr
> supermin
> systemtap
> transactional-update

Is this list accurate? There's a lot of things missing (and some that
I don't think should be on it).

$ repoquery --whatrequires "librpm.so.9()(64bit)" --whatrequires
"librpmio.so.9()(64bit)" --qf "%{source_name}"
(plus --arguments to run the query against rawhide + rawhide sources
repos) returns:

PackageKit
abrt
abrt-java-connector
anaconda
annobin
createrepo_c
deltarpm
dnf5
drpm
fapolicyd
frr
gnome-software
libappstream-glib
libdnf
libdnf-plugin-swidtags
libextractor
libmodulemd
libsolv
libzypp
microdnf
net-snmp
openscap
perl-RPM-VersionCompare
perl-RPM2
php-pecl-rpminfo
rpm
rpm-git-tag-sort
rpm-ostree
rpminspect
rpmreaper
rust-blsctl
satyr
scl-utils
supermin
systemtap
transactional-update

Notably, this list includes things like libdnf and dnf5, and does
*not* include rust-rpm-sequoia.

Fabio
___
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: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

[Miro Hrončok]

On 19. 05. 23 12:24, Michal Domonkos wrote:

Hi all,

We're currently preparing an update to RPM 4.19 ALPHA for Rawhide in a
side-tag.  The new version features a soname bump:

 librpm.so.9 -> librpm.so.10
 librpmio.so.9 -> librpmio.so.10

The following packages link against the above libraries and thus will need to
be rebuilt:

 anaconda
 annobin
 fapolicyd
 frr
 gnome-software
 libappstream-glib
 libdnf-plugin-swidtags
 libextractor
 libzypp
 net-snmp
 openscap
 PackageKit
 perl-RPM2
 perl-RPM-VersionCompare
 php-pecl-rpminfo
 rpm-git-tag-sort
 rpm-ostree
 rpmreaper
 rust-blsctl
 rust-rpm-sequoia


This has a circular dependency on rpm?


 satyr
 supermin
 systemtap
 transactional-update

We would like to kindly ask the owners to issue a rebuild against our side-tag.
The command to do this is:

 fedpkg build --target f39-build-side-67564

We already did scratch builds ourselves and the packages passing against the
rawhide target also passed against the side-tag.


Could you please submit the real builds yourselves as well?

--
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: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

[Dan Horák]

On Fri, 19 May 2023 12:24:15 +0200
Michal Domonkos  wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> We're currently preparing an update to RPM 4.19 ALPHA for Rawhide in a
> side-tag.  The new version features a soname bump:
> 
> librpm.so.9 -> librpm.so.10
> librpmio.so.9 -> librpmio.so.10
> 
> The following packages link against the above libraries and thus will need to
> be rebuilt:
> 
> anaconda
> annobin
> fapolicyd
> frr
> gnome-software
> libappstream-glib
> libdnf-plugin-swidtags
> libextractor
> libzypp
> net-snmp
> openscap
> PackageKit
> perl-RPM2
> perl-RPM-VersionCompare
> php-pecl-rpminfo
> rpm-git-tag-sort
> rpm-ostree
> rpmreaper
> rust-blsctl
> rust-rpm-sequoia
> satyr
> supermin
> systemtap
> transactional-update

I guess the list comes from an x86 system, thus it is incomplete.
Please add s390utils there as well.


Dan

> 
> We would like to kindly ask the owners to issue a rebuild against our 
> side-tag.
> The command to do this is:
> 
> fedpkg build --target f39-build-side-67564
> 
> We already did scratch builds ourselves and the packages passing against the
> rawhide target also passed against the side-tag.
> 
> Please let us know if we can help with that or with any unexpected build
> failures.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> -- 
> Michal Domonkos / RPM dev team / Red Hat, Inc.
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: 
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam, report it: 
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

[Michal Domonkos]

Hi all,

We're currently preparing an update to RPM 4.19 ALPHA for Rawhide in a
side-tag.  The new version features a soname bump:

librpm.so.9 -> librpm.so.10
librpmio.so.9 -> librpmio.so.10

The following packages link against the above libraries and thus will need to
be rebuilt:

anaconda
annobin
fapolicyd
frr
gnome-software
libappstream-glib
libdnf-plugin-swidtags
libextractor
libzypp
net-snmp
openscap
PackageKit
perl-RPM2
perl-RPM-VersionCompare
php-pecl-rpminfo
rpm-git-tag-sort
rpm-ostree
rpmreaper
rust-blsctl
rust-rpm-sequoia
satyr
supermin
systemtap
transactional-update

We would like to kindly ask the owners to issue a rebuild against our side-tag.
The command to do this is:

fedpkg build --target f39-build-side-67564

We already did scratch builds ourselves and the packages passing against the
rawhide target also passed against the side-tag.

Please let us know if we can help with that or with any unexpected build
failures.

Thank you!

-- 
Michal Domonkos / RPM dev team / Red Hat, Inc.
___
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: [Fedora-legal-list] Fwd: SPDX Statistics - SPDX Hackfest edition

[Karolina Surma]

Hello,

On 5/19/23 04:28, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
Speaking of Wednesday's hackfest... thanks to all who attended. It was a 
good session with worthwhile discussion and progress made on some ELN 
packages - yeah!


It'd be great to get feedback from those who attended or wanted to but 
couldn't on doing another one and timing (e.g., day of the week, same 
time of day or different time, etc.)


We started with a presentation and demo by David and some Q after 
that. This part was recorded and we'll make that video available as soon 
as we figure out the best way to do that.


Packages from this list 
https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/eln-not-migrated.txt
that were worked on during or as a result of the hackfest are listed 
below. If you are a package maintainer of a package that was worked on, 
you may see a pull request for updating the License field of the spec file.


zziplib
zsh
zvbi
zeromq
zimg
sscg
libipt
babeltrace
gdb
source-highlight
fedora-bookmarks
fedora-logos
fedora-release
fedora-repos
rpm
redhat-fonts
redhat-rpm-config
python*


Let me clarify: from the Python-related packages these were worked on:
libyaml
marshaparser
micropipenv




Thanks all!
Jilayne

On 5/17/23 12:24 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:

 Přeposlaná zpráva 
Předmět:SPDX Statistics - SPDX Hackfest edition
Datum:  Wed, 17 May 2023 08:23:51 +0200
Od: Miroslav Suchý 
Společnost: Red Hat Czech, s.r.o.
Komu: 	Development discussions related to Fedora 





Two weeks ago we had:


* 23000 spec files in Fedora (wow, nice round number :) )

* 29503license tags in all spec files

* 18744 tags have not been converted to SPDX yet

* 7157tags can be trivially converted using `license-fedora2spdx`

* Progress: 36% ░░░███ 100%

ELN subset:

* 1987 out of 4704 packages are not converted yet



Today we have:

* 23030 spec files in Fedora (wow, nice round number :) )

* 29532license tags in all spec files

* 18604 tags have not been converted to SPDX yet

* 7059tags can be trivially converted using `license-fedora2spdx`

* Progress: 37% ░░░███ 100%

ELN subset:

* 1907 out of 4567 packages are not converted yet

The list of packages needed to be converted is again here:

https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/packages-without-spdx-final.txt

List by package maintainers is here

https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/packages-without-spdx-final-maintainers.txt

List of packages from ELN subset that needs to be converted:

https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/eln-not-migrated.txt

New version of fedora-license-data has been released.

Legal docs and especially

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/

was updated too.

I updated the progress in this spreadsheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QVMEzXWML-6_Mrlln02axFAaRKCQ8zE807rpCjus-8s/edit?usp=sharing

New projection when we will be finished is 2024-08-19. Pure linear 
approximation.


If your package does not have neither git-log entry nor spec-changelog 
entry mentioning SPDX and you know your license tag matches SPDX 
formula, you can put your package on ignore list


https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/ignore-packages.txt

Either pull-request or email to me is fine.


Why SPDX Hackfest edition? Because **today** we organize hackfest 
where we show you example of conversion and you will have opportunity 
to talk to us (both lawyers and engineers).


https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/fedora-legal-spdx-hackfest/

Note: this was rescheduled so you may find two dates there. The valid 
one is 2023-05-17



Do you hesitate how to proceed with the migration? Please follow

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/update-existing-packages/

or attend SPDX office hours (see different thread in this mailing list)

Miroslav




___
legal mailing list --le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email tolegal-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/le...@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


--
Best regards,

Karolina Surma (she/her/hers)
Software Engineer
Python Maintenance Team, Red Hat

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Fwd: SPDX Statistics - SPDX Hackfest edition

[Miro Hrončok]

On 19. 05. 23 4:28, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote:
Packages from this list 
https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/eln-not-migrated.txt
that were worked on during or as a result of the hackfest are listed below. If 
you are a package maintainer of a package that was worked on, you may see a 
pull request for updating the License field of the spec file.


python*


There are 384 such packages on the list. Did somebody manage to work on 384 
packages during a single hackfest, or is this a mistake?


--
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: F39 Change Proposal: Retire AWS CLI version 1 package awscli (System Wide Change)

[Frank R Dana Jr.]

This is, admittedly, somewhat a case of me being pedantic, so take it with a 
grain of salt. But...

In the "Benefit to Fedora" section, the proposal currently reads:

> The benefit to Fedora is that users will have access to the most
> recent command line tooling for working with Amazon Web Services
> features and services. They will have access to new features of the
> CLI as well as consistency in the docker and AWS Cloudshell
> experiences. That means more consistency in pipeline requirements and
> other programmatic access

But... users ALREADY have all of those benefits, don't they? awscli2 is 
packaged and available, right now, even in the F38 repo. Users already *have 
access* to all of the benefits it brings.

The benefits here are really meant to be the benefits of the proposed change — 
IOW, the benefits of *retiring* awscli and *preventing* existing users from 
being able to continue using it instead of awscli2... not the benefits of 
making awscli2 available. 

I don't feel like the current "Benefits" section of the proposal really 
addresses that very well, at least as I read it. Fedora is perfectly capable of 
having both awscli and awscli2 in the repos simultaneously. (...In fact, it 
already does. Although I do notice that, because both packages install the same 
binaries (/usr/bin/aws and /usr/bin/aws_completer) and the same Python package 
('awscli'), it's impossible to have them both installed **together**. Which 
seems like it would make migration more difficult for existing users of awscli, 
since it sounds like there are likely to be some incompatibilities?)
___
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