date:20230822

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233000



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-2e6690438d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-2e6690438d


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233000

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202233000%23c3
___
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 2233000] perl-Module-CoreList-5.20230820 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233000



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-c53b6dfe97 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c53b6dfe97

--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-3b0b79931c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-3b0b79931c


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233000

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202233000%23c5
___
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 2233000] perl-Module-CoreList-5.20230820 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233000



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-c53b6dfe97 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-c53b6dfe97


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233000

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202233000%23c4
___
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 2231059] perl-Authen-SASL-2.1700 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231059



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-f8bc110213 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh
--advisory=FEDORA-2023-f8bc110213`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-f8bc110213

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231059

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202231059%23c4
___
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 2232998] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20230820 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232998



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-8869d53d5f has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh
--advisory=FEDORA-2023-8869d53d5f`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-8869d53d5f

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232998

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202232998%23c8
___
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 2232998] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20230820 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232998



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-43e311ad61 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh
--advisory=FEDORA-2023-43e311ad61`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-43e311ad61

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232998

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202232998%23c7
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-de...@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-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2232998] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20230820 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232998



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-3fba3ba3a5 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh
--advisory=FEDORA-2023-3fba3ba3a5`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-3fba3ba3a5

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232998

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202232998%23c6
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-de...@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-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: SPDX Statistics - Voyager 2 edition

2023-08-22 Thread Miroslav Suchý


Dne 22. 08. 23 v 22:55 Richard Fontana napsal(a):

The use of `+` is documented at
https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v2-draft/SPDX-license-expressions/
(there's probably a more recent version)


D.3 Simple license expressions

A simple  is composed one of the following:

An SPDX License List Short Form Identifier. For example: CDDL-1.0
An SPDX License List Short Form Identifier with a unary "+" operator
suffix to represent the current version of the license or any later
version. For example: CDDL-1.0+
An SPDX user defined license reference:
["DocumentRef-"1*(idstring)":"]"LicenseRef-"1*(idstring)


I believe CDDL-1.0 is like MPL-2.0 in having a built-in "later versions" clause.


Wow, this is new to me.

Do we want to have generally accepted? Or each case of + license needs to be 
evaluated separately?

--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
___
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 - Voyager 2 edition

On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 4:44 PM Fabio Valentini  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 10:39 PM Richard Fontana  wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 3:06 PM Fabio Valentini  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 1:21 PM Miroslav Suchý  wrote:
> >
> > > > rust-bitmaps warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please 
> > > > check
> > >
> > > This uses MPL-2.0 or later, denoted as "MPL-2.0+". It looks like an
> > > SPDX identifier, but it's not (there is no "-or-later" variant of
> > > MPL-2.0 in SPDX). I'll investigate and file an issue with upstream.
> >
> > Jilayne can correct me if I'm wrong, but I am pretty sure `MPL-2.0+`
> > is a valid and semantically meaningful SPDX identifier. It is arguably
> > redundant since MPL-2.0 permits downstream relicensing to later
> > versions.
>
> It's not on the list though:
> https://spdx.org/licenses/

The use of `+` is documented at
https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v2-draft/SPDX-license-expressions/
(there's probably a more recent version)

D.3 Simple license expressions

A simple  is composed one of the following:

An SPDX License List Short Form Identifier. For example: CDDL-1.0
An SPDX License List Short Form Identifier with a unary "+" operator
suffix to represent the current version of the license or any later
version. For example: CDDL-1.0+
An SPDX user defined license reference:
["DocumentRef-"1*(idstring)":"]"LicenseRef-"1*(idstring)

I believe CDDL-1.0 is like MPL-2.0 in having a built-in "later versions" clause.

> Also, cargo / crates.io even documents that licenses in crate metadata
> needs to be valid SPDX expressions and only things from SPDX license
> list are acceptable, so this isn't considered valid by crates.io

That is at least in some sense wrong, since the SPDX spec shows that
valid SPDX expressions include use of the `+` operator with SPDX
identifiers. I think in reality crates.io is redefining what "valid
SPDX expressions" means, though possibly not intentionally.

For Fedora, I think there are (quite rare) cases where the use of
postpositional `+` should be recognized as valid. I know of one
package (though I can't remember what it is now) that says its license
is the Apache License 2.0 or any later version -- this is validly
represented as `Apache-2.0+` in SPDX.

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

Re: SPDX Statistics - Voyager 2 edition

On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 10:39 PM Richard Fontana  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 3:06 PM Fabio Valentini  wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 1:21 PM Miroslav Suchý  wrote:
>
> > > rust-bitmaps warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please 
> > > check
> >
> > This uses MPL-2.0 or later, denoted as "MPL-2.0+". It looks like an
> > SPDX identifier, but it's not (there is no "-or-later" variant of
> > MPL-2.0 in SPDX). I'll investigate and file an issue with upstream.
>
> Jilayne can correct me if I'm wrong, but I am pretty sure `MPL-2.0+`
> is a valid and semantically meaningful SPDX identifier. It is arguably
> redundant since MPL-2.0 permits downstream relicensing to later
> versions.

It's not on the list though:
https://spdx.org/licenses/

Also, cargo / crates.io even documents that licenses in crate metadata
needs to be valid SPDX expressions and only things from SPDX license
list are acceptable, so this isn't considered valid by crates.io
either.

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: SPDX Statistics - Voyager 2 edition

On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 3:06 PM Fabio Valentini  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 1:21 PM Miroslav Suchý  wrote:

> > rust-bitmaps warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please 
> > check
>
> This uses MPL-2.0 or later, denoted as "MPL-2.0+". It looks like an
> SPDX identifier, but it's not (there is no "-or-later" variant of
> MPL-2.0 in SPDX). I'll investigate and file an issue with upstream.

Jilayne can correct me if I'm wrong, but I am pretty sure `MPL-2.0+`
is a valid and semantically meaningful SPDX identifier. It is arguably
redundant since MPL-2.0 permits downstream relicensing to later
versions.

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

Re: SPDX Statistics - Voyager 2 edition

On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 7:21 AM Miroslav Suchý  wrote:
>
> Dne 22. 08. 23 v 1:08 Fabio Valentini napsal(a):
>
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 9:11 AM Miroslav Suchý  wrote:
>
> New projection when we will be finished is 2025-01-11 (we are slowing down. 
> Again. :( ). Pure linear approximation.
>
> It might not be as bad as you think!
>
> All rust-* packages had been excluded from tracking since the start,
> so the progress I have been making hasn't been tracked, either. I'm
>
> They are excluded from processing. And are (and were) actually counted as 
> migrated from the first day.
>
> happy to say that as of now, all packages for Rust crates (~2300
> packages) have been updated to use SPDX license expressions (except
> those that have been FTBFS for a long time, which is about 2-3
> packages). Over the past few months I've been regenerating packaging
> for Rust crates with rust2rpm v24, which also included switching all
> crates that had been generated with rust2rpm < v22 to SPDX (also
> involved some license fixes / clarifications / problems with missing
> license files that are now fixed / etc., often working with upstream
> projects).
>
> This is great! I am very happy to hear that. Thank you for doing this.
>
> I run the statistics for rust-* only. And when I omit the reports with 
> "warning: valid as old and new and no changelong entry, please check" and 
> packages that are correctly converted I get:
>
> rust-below warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
> rust-bitmaps warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
> rust-bootupd - can be trivially converted to Apache-2.0
> rust-bootupd - can be trivially converted to Apache-2.0
> rust-btrd warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
> rust-btrd warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
> rust-cargo-c warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
> rust-coreos-installer - can be trivially converted to Apache-2.0
> rust-coreos-installer
> rust-coreos-installer
> rust-docopt warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
> rust-drg - can be trivially converted to Apache-2.0
> rust-dutree warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
> rust-dutree warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
> rust-gmp-mpfr-sys warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please 
> check
> rust-chrono-tz
> rust-ifcfg-devname warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please 
> check
> rust-ifcfg-devname warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please 
> check
> rust-im-rc warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
> rust-libslirp
> rust-nettle warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
> rust-nettle-sys warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please 
> check
> rust-procs
> rust-python3-sys warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please 
> check
> rust-rav1e warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
> rust-rav1e warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
> rust-rav1e warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
> rust-rpick warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
> rust-rpick warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
> rust-rustcat warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
> rust-sequoia-keyring-linter warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as 
> SPDX, please check
> rust-sequoia-octopus-librnp warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as 
> SPDX, please check
> rust-sequoia-sop warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please 
> check
> rust-sequoia-sq warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please 
> check
> rust-sequoia-sqv warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please 
> check
> rust-sized-chunks warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please 
> check
> rust-timebomb - can be trivially converted to Apache-2.0
> rust-tokei
> rust-tpm2-policy - can be trivially converted to EUPL-1.2
> rust-tree-sitter-cli
> rust-tree-sitter
> rust-varlink-cli
> rust-ybaas warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
> rust-ybaas warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
> rust-yubibomb warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
> rust-yubibomb warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
> rust-zbase32 warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
> rust-zincati - can be trivially converted to Apache-2.0
> rust-zincati
>
> I briefly checked few packages and found two reasons of these errors:
>
> 1) rust-coreos-installer:
>
> License:ASL 2.0 and MIT and zlib
>
> This is incorrect. The operator has to be upper case. I.e.:
>
> License:ASL 2.0 AND MIT AND zlib

Maybe more significantly, `ASL 2.0` is a Callaway name, not an SPDX

Re: SPDX Statistics - Voyager 2 edition

On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 10:28 PM Richard Fontana  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 9:08 AM Vít Ondruch  wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dne 22. 08. 23 v 13:21 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
> >
> > 2) rust-btrd:
> > License: GPL-2.0
> >
> > This is not on SPDX list, it should be either GPL-2.0-only or 
> > GPL-2.0-or-later
> >
> >
> > This is not on SPDX list *anymore*. It used to be valid identifier not long 
> > ago. I am afraid that this identifies is still accepted by e.g. RubyGems:
>
> I think more precisely `GPL-2.0` and its counterparts are valid but
> deprecated SPDX identifiers (still preferred in the Linux kernel in
> its use of SPDX identifiers in source files). Jilayne can give a more
> authoritative explanation if necessary. :) Anyway, for Fedora, I
> believe our assumption has been that we can get by without having to
> use `GPL-2.0`.

Does this mean that I can't have correct license identifiers for these
cases in Fedora unless I file upstream issues for all of them asking
them to clarify?

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: SPDX Statistics - Voyager 2 edition

On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 9:08 AM Vít Ondruch  wrote:
>
>
> Dne 22. 08. 23 v 13:21 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
>
> 2) rust-btrd:
> License: GPL-2.0
>
> This is not on SPDX list, it should be either GPL-2.0-only or GPL-2.0-or-later
>
>
> This is not on SPDX list *anymore*. It used to be valid identifier not long 
> ago. I am afraid that this identifies is still accepted by e.g. RubyGems:

I think more precisely `GPL-2.0` and its counterparts are valid but
deprecated SPDX identifiers (still preferred in the Linux kernel in
its use of SPDX identifiers in source files). Jilayne can give a more
authoritative explanation if necessary. :) Anyway, for Fedora, I
believe our assumption has been that we can get by without having to
use `GPL-2.0`.

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

Re: zlib-ng as a compat replacement for zlib

2023-08-22 Thread Jeremy Linton


Hi,

On 8/6/23 08:33, John Reiser wrote:

On 8/6/23 02:00, Peter Robinson wrote:

We tried to pull some of the optimisations in some time ago to the
Fedora package and they caused some issues with compatibility.


Please provide *any* documentation!  Such as: the dates the work was 
performed,

the participants, the nature of the issues, the "other side" of the problem
cases (the other packages, the use cases, etc.)


Waves, some of this was my fault.

example bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1582555
look at the zlib rpm history you will see things like:

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/zlib/c/71a74f9c8684dd99c0e0657f53affb90a3ca3219?branch=rawhide

there were a few others that were ignored, or we reverted part of the 
original set of 5 or 6 patches. The original patches were aarch64 + NEON 
optimizations, but there were a number of issues around unittests in 
various packages that zipped something then validated the results 
against a known crc/hash/etc which then failed because the hash changed, 
the size changed, padding issues, the optimized code touched valid parts 
of the buffer and tripped buffer poisoning logic, etc.


Turns out zlib is old school byte oriented and any slight behavioral 
change can result in compatibility issues. The first obvious 
optimization is to increase the fetched word/matching sizes, which 
maintain binary compatibility with the zlib format/decompressor but 
results in buffer len/compressed size deltas.


Of course some of these were potentially the fault of the patches, but 
you have to decide between perf or compatibility when writing these, and 
if the goal is faster, then the compatibility gets sacrificed.


Bugzilla is taking its time retrieving some of the BZs that were closed 
without fixes. So you will have to search for them yourself.


In the end most of the patches were dropped the uplift wasn't worth the 
effort of maintaining them downstream, when the effort can be better 
spent getting a 10X uplift using a more modern compression 
implementation (ex zstd/lz4/lzo/etc) that isn't written with so many 
byte oriented assumptions.






___
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

Re: SPDX Statistics - Voyager 2 edition

On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 9:05 PM Fabio Valentini  wrote:
>

(snip)

> Looks like there are 7 packages that I can fix later today:
>
> - rust-docopt
> - rust-procs
> - rust-rustcat
> - rust-tokei
> - rust-tree-sitter
> - rust-tree-sitter-cli
> - rust-varlink-cli

rust-docopt, rust-rustcat, rust-tokei, rust-timebomb, and
rust-varlink-cli are now fixed in rawhide.
tree-sitter and tree-sitter-cli require a more thorough license
review, and procs will be updated with the next update that I've
already prepared.

> There's four packages that use "MPL-2.0+" which is not a valid SPDX 
> identifier.
> Not sure what to do about them, since I don't want to ignore upstream
> license specification and change them to just "MPL-2.0".
>
> - rust-bitmaps
> - rust-cargo-c
> - rust-im-rc
> - rust-sized-chunks

I reported issues with upstream for the invalid MPL-2.0+ identifier:
https://github.com/bodil/bitmaps/issues/24
https://github.com/bodil/im-rs/issues/210
https://github.com/bodil/sized-chunks/issues/32

Turns out, cargo / crates.io also defines the license in crate
metadata as SPDX 2.1 license expressions:
https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/manifest.html#the-license-and-license-file-fields

So using an invalid one is not only a problem for us, but also for crates.io.

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: SPDX Statistics - Voyager 2 edition

2023-08-22 Thread Miroslav Suchý

Dne 22. 08. 23 v 21:05 Fabio Valentini napsal(a):

There's four packages that use "MPL-2.0+" which is not a valid SPDX identifier.
Not sure what to do about them, since I don't want to ignore upstream
license specification and change them to just "MPL-2.0".

I checked the sized-chunks

https://crates.io/crates/sized-chunks

And while the metadata states MPL-2.0+ the License file exactly match SPDX id "MPL-2.0". Changing it downstream is
correct way. But of course communicating it to upstream and change it in upstream metadata is even better. :)

The rest use valid SPDX identifiers but they're not recognized as such.
As others have already mentioned, the deprecated identifiers for
suffix-less GPL/LGPL variants should be accepted, or at most raise a
warning.

Having valid SPDX identifier is not enough. The identifier must be on SPDX list
**and** on fedora-license-data list

https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data

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

--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
___
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 - Voyager 2 edition

On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 1:21 PM Miroslav Suchý  wrote:
>
> Dne 22. 08. 23 v 1:08 Fabio Valentini napsal(a):
>
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 9:11 AM Miroslav Suchý  wrote:
>

(snip)

Thanks for running the checks! I looked at all the packages you listed.

> I run the statistics for rust-* only. And when I omit the reports with 
> "warning: valid as old and new and no changelong entry, please check" and 
> packages that are correctly converted I get:
>
> rust-below warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check

This is a case where one of the crates in the dependency tree uses the
deprecated "LGPL-2.1" identifier, which shows up in the binary
license.

> rust-bitmaps warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check

This uses MPL-2.0 or later, denoted as "MPL-2.0+". It looks like an
SPDX identifier, but it's not (there is no "-or-later" variant of
MPL-2.0 in SPDX). I'll investigate and file an issue with upstream.

> rust-bootupd - can be trivially converted to Apache-2.0
> rust-bootupd - can be trivially converted to Apache-2.0

rust-bootupd is built in a way that circumvents all our Rust packaging
mechanisms, it didn't show up in my lists.
It's also missing a license tag for the statically linked binary entirely.

> rust-btrd warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
> rust-btrd warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check

Uses valid but deprecated "GPL-2.0" identifier. Not sure why it's rejected.

> rust-cargo-c warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check

Has some MPL-2.0+ in the dependency tree, will investigate.

> rust-coreos-installer - can be trivially converted to Apache-2.0
> rust-coreos-installer
> rust-coreos-installer

This package is managed by the CoreOS guys and they're doing all sorts
of weird things in it. I didn't want to touch it.

> rust-docopt warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check

This looks like a typo: "MIT AND Unicode-DFS-2016 AND ((MIT OR
Apache-2.0) AND (Unlicense OR MIT)"
(misbalanced braces), will fix.

> rust-drg - can be trivially converted to Apache-2.0

FTBFS since ages ago, cannot fix.

> rust-dutree warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
> rust-dutree warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check

Uses valid but deprecated GPL-3.0 identifier.

> rust-gmp-mpfr-sys warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please 
> check

Uses valid but deprecated LGPL-3.0+ identifier. Could likely be
changed to LGPL-3.0-or-later, which is the replacement.

> rust-chrono-tz

Contains a copy of the Olson tzdata, which hasn't been converted to
SPDX yet. It's supposed to be in the "Public Domain".

> rust-ifcfg-devname warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please 
> check
> rust-ifcfg-devname warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please 
> check

Uses valid but deprecated GPL-3.0 identifier.

> rust-im-rc warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check

This is likely the culprit for all the other issues with MPL-2.0+.
I'll file an issue with upstream (which is pretty dead though).

> rust-libslirp

This package has been bitrotting for years, I did not want to touch it.

> rust-nettle warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
> rust-nettle-sys warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please 
> check

Both use "LGPL-3.0 OR GPL-2.0 OR GPL-3.0" which are all valid SPDX
identifiers, just deprecated.

> rust-procs

This one looks like it was generated with a version of rust2rpm that
*should* have switched it to SPDX, but it was apparently reverted to
Callaway identifiers.
I'll fix it with the next update, which is already lined up.

> rust-python3-sys warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please 
> check

This uses "Python-2.0", which is a valid, non-deprecated SPDX identifier.

> rust-rav1e warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
> rust-rav1e warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
> rust-rav1e warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check

Not sure why this is showing up. It looks valid to me:
"BSD-2-Clause AND ISC AND MIT AND (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND (Apache-2.0
WITH LLVM-exception OR Apache-2.0 OR MIT) AND (Unlicense OR MIT)"

> rust-rpick warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
> rust-rpick warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check

Uses valid but deprecated GPL-3.0 identifier.

> rust-rustcat warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check

Oh oh, this one is my fault. Looks like I pushed an unfinished spec
file. Will fix.

> rust-sequoia-keyring-linter warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as 
> SPDX, please check
> rust-sequoia-octopus-librnp warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as 
> SPDX, please check
> rust-sequoia-sop warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please

Re: zlib-ng as a compat replacement for zlib

2023-08-22 Thread Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho

Sorry, resending because the original message was rejected by the
mailing list.

Hi Lukas,

Lukas Javorsky  writes:
> Hi,
>
> I'm currently maintaining the zlib package across Fedora and Red Hat products.
>
> I like the proposal for the zlib-ng package, there are just a few questions 
> for @Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho  :
> 1) Just to clarify, do you want to have two separate packages (zlib-ng and 
> e.g. zlib-ng-compat) in Fedora? One with the `-DZLIB_COMPAT=ON` option 
> enabled and one without it?

Yes. While I do not have a personal preference, I believe it's important to 
provide the zlib-ng API for projects willing to use it instead of the zlib API.
I'm open to other suggestions too, including building zlib-ng twice and 
distributing them in different sub-packages as suggested by Michel.
Would you have any preferences?

> 2) What is your point of view on maintaining these packages? You will be the 
> main contact and I could be the secondary one?

LGTM.
Ali (in Cc.) has also demonstrated interest in this package too. I'd be happy 
to share this with both of you.

> 3) Same as 2) but for CentOS Stream and RHEL products?

Sorry, I'm afraid the decision on supporting RHEL products is beyond my pay 
grade.

> Next, I have a few scary scenarios in my head, which I'm not sure how would 
> be handled:

Please share all of them!
My experience maintaining long term libraries downstream is limited.

> 1) When we decide to migrate from zlib to zlib-ng and zlib-ng-compat, the 
> packages would still need to rewrite their code so they can use the pure (no 
> compat) zlib-ng functions and libraries. How many of the packages will be 
> able (and most importantly willing) to do that?

I disagree that packages "need to rewrite their code".
IMHO, most packages will probably keep using the zlib API and should magically 
link against the zlib-ng-compat package.

> 2) There are 271 RPMs dependent on zlib in ELN repo (there will be more in 
> the Fedora repo). It would mean that we would have to side-tag rebuild all of 
> them when switching to the zlib-ng-compat package. It may be challenging.

I'm planning to use the mass-prebuild tool on Copr first [1].

> If I understood something incorrectly please let me know, I'm trying to 
> understand it completely, what is the plan here. It will be needed to be 
> thoroughly documented in the Fedora Change.

Agreed.

> Overall, I think performance-wise this is a great idea. We just need to be 
> cautious about the compatibility.

Ack.

[1] https://gitlab.com/fedora/packager-tools/mass-prebuild

-- 
Tulio Magno
___
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: zlib-ng as a compat replacement for zlib

2023-08-22 Thread Michel Alexandre Salim

On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 09:29:08AM -0300, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho 
wrote:
> "Richard W.M. Jones"  writes:
> 
> > The background to this is I've spent far too long trying to optimize
> > the conversion of qcow2 files to raw files.  Most existing qcow2 files
> > that you can find online are zlib compressed, including the qcow2
> > images provided by Fedora.  Each cluster in the file is separately
> > compressed as a zlib stream, and qemu uses zlib library functions to
> > decompress them.  When downloading and decompressing these files, I
> > measured 40%+ of the total CPU time is doing zlib decompression.
> 
> This number may go even higher on s390x [1] because zlib-ng supports
> hardware acceleration.
> 
> qatzip [2] and libnxz [3] should provide performance on the same order of
> magnitude for Intel and Power9 processors, with the negative side of not
> using a single library.
> 
> > We already package zlib-ng in Fedora:
> >
> >   https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/zlib-ng/blob/rawhide/f/zlib-ng.spec
> >   https://github.com/zlib-ng/zlib-ng
> >
> > In my test zlib-ng is about 40% faster.
> >
> > Sadly zlib-ng is not compiled with the ZLIB_COMPAT option.  What this
> > means in practice is that the zlib functions have different names
> > (eg. zng_inflateInit instead of inflateInit).  It is not a drop-in
> > replacement for zlib and software would need to be adjusted to use it.
> >
> > However there is this bug / RFE to package the compat library.
> >
> >   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2145239
> >
> > It literally replaces /usr/lib64/libz.so.1, so pretty high stakes.  It
> > has the appropriate Provides/Conflicts.
> >
> > Anyway, 40% (or whatever, but significant) performance improvement
> > sounds good for a very widely used operation.
> >
> > So I'd like to ask Fedora ...
> >
> > What do we think about the opt in approach of adding a patch similar
> > to the one proposed in bug 2145239, where I think you could "simply"
> > install zlib-ng to get better performance with existing software?
> > ("simply" because it seems high risk of going wrong)
> 
> Wearing my zlib-ng fedora maintainer hat:
> I like the idea of this patch, although I think it needs a few changes.
> I'd like to merge it and add another package with the same source code,
> but different value for compat, i.e. package zlib-ng would still
> distribute the zlib-ng API while the new package would distribute the
> zlib-compatible API.

Would it help with maintenance, security issues etc. if we keep a single
package, and simply perform the build twice?

e.g. ncurses does this:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ncurses/blob/rawhide/f/ncurses.spec#_145-165

Best regards,

-- 
Michel Alexandre Salim
identities: https://keyoxide.org/5dce2e7e9c3b1cffd335c1d78b229d2f7ccc04f2


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 2231746] perl-ORLite-1.99 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231746

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version|perl-ORLite-1.99-1.fc39 |perl-ORLite-1.99-1.fc39
   |perl-ORLite-1.99-1.fc38 |perl-ORLite-1.99-1.fc38
   ||perl-ORLite-1.99-1.fc37



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-13ffb92621 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 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=2231746

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202231746%23c7
___
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 2231746] perl-ORLite-1.99 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231746

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
   Fixed In Version|perl-ORLite-1.99-1.fc39 |perl-ORLite-1.99-1.fc39
   ||perl-ORLite-1.99-1.fc38
 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
Last Closed||2023-08-22 17:16:14



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-0979368476 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 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=2231746

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202231746%23c6
___
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

Heads-up: llhttp 9.0.1 coming to Rawhide

2023-08-22 Thread Ben Beasley

In one week, 2023-08-29, I plan to update llhttp from 8.1.1 to 9.0.1 in 
F40/Rawhide[1]. This update contains some breaking API changes and 
breaks the ABI, bumping the SONAME version[2][3]. Most significantly, 
the compile-time LLHTTP_STRICT_MODE option is replaced with three new 
runtime flags.


The sole dependent package is python-aiohttp; I will rebuild it myself 
in a side tag, using a patch for llhttp 9.x support backported from an 
unreleased upstream commit[4].


I don’t plan to apply the python-aiohttp patch and the llhttp 9.0.1 
update to F39 at this time, with the understanding that this will 
constrain future python-aiohttp updates in F39: I would prefer to avoid 
getting ahead of upstream. I might reconsider this if an upstream 
release of python-aiohttp using llhttp 9.x happens by the end of the 
beta freeze, or if someone convinces me that keeping llhttp at 8.1.1 is 
the wrong approach. Input is welcome.


[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/llhttp/pull-request/15

[2] https://github.com/nodejs/llhttp/releases/tag/release%2Fv9.0.0

[3] https://github.com/nodejs/llhttp/releases/tag/release%2Fv9.0.1

[4] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-aiohttp/pull-request/27
___
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 Linux 39 Bodhi updates-testing activation & Beta freeze

2023-08-22 Thread Tomas Hrcka

Hi all,

Today's an important day on the Fedora Linux 39 schedule [1], with
several significant cut-offs. First of all, today is the Bodhi
updates-testing activation point [2]. That means that from now all
Fedora Linux 39 packages must be submitted to updates-testing and pass
the relevant requirements [3] before they will be marked as 'stable' and
moved to the Fedora Repository.

Today is also the Beta freeze [4]. This means that only packages which
fix accepted blocker or freeze exception bugs [5][6] will be marked as
'stable' and included in the Beta composes. Other builds will remain in
updates-testing until the Beta release is approved, at which point the
Beta freeze is lifted and packages can move to 'stable' as usual until
the Final freeze.

Today is also the Software String freeze [7], which means that strings
marked for translation in Fedora-translated projects should not now be
changed for Fedora Linux 39.

Finally, today is the 'completion deadline' Change Checkpoint [8],
meaning that Fedora Linux 39 Changes must now be 'feature complete or
close enough to completion that a majority of its functionality can be
tested'. All tracking bugs should be on ON_QA state or later to reflect
this.

Regards,
Tomas Hrcka
Fedora Release Engineering

[1] https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-39/f-39-key-tasks.html
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Bodhi_enabling
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Branched_release
[4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Milestone_freezes
[5] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process
[6] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process
[7] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering/StringFreezePolicy
[8] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Policy
___
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, 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

[EPEL-devel] [Fedocal] Reminder meeting : EPEL Steering Committee

2023-08-22 Thread tdawson

Dear all,

You are kindly invited to the meeting:
   EPEL Steering Committee on 2023-08-23 from 16:00:00 to 17:00:00 US/Eastern
   At fedora-meet...@irc.libera.chat

The meeting will be about:
This is the weekly EPEL Steering Committee Meeting.

A general agenda is the following:

#topic aloha

#topic EPEL Issues https://pagure.io/epel/issues
* https://pagure.io/epel/issues?tags=meeting=Open

#topic Old Business (if needed)

#topic General Issues / Open Floor




Source: https://calendar.fedoraproject.org//meeting/9854/

___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-de...@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-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Fedora Linux 39 Bodhi updates-testing activation & Beta freeze

2023-08-22 Thread Tomas Hrcka

Hi all,

Today's an important day on the Fedora Linux 39 schedule [1], with
several significant cut-offs. First of all, today is the Bodhi
updates-testing activation point [2]. That means that from now all
Fedora Linux 39 packages must be submitted to updates-testing and pass
the relevant requirements [3] before they will be marked as 'stable' and
moved to the Fedora Repository.

Today is also the Beta freeze [4]. This means that only packages which
fix accepted blocker or freeze exception bugs [5][6] will be marked as
'stable' and included in the Beta composes. Other builds will remain in
updates-testing until the Beta release is approved, at which point the
Beta freeze is lifted and packages can move to 'stable' as usual until
the Final freeze.

Today is also the Software String freeze [7], which means that strings
marked for translation in Fedora-translated projects should not now be
changed for Fedora Linux 39.

Finally, today is the 'completion deadline' Change Checkpoint [8],
meaning that Fedora Linux 39 Changes must now be 'feature complete or
close enough to completion that a majority of its functionality can be
tested'. All tracking bugs should be on ON_QA state or later to reflect
this.

Regards,
Tomas Hrcka
Fedora Release Engineering

[1] https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-39/f-39-key-tasks.html
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Bodhi_enabling
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Branched_release
[4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Milestone_freezes
[5] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process
[6] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process
[7] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering/StringFreezePolicy
[8] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Policy
___
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: RFC: PR to update exiv2 in Rawhide

2023-08-22 Thread Michel Alexandre Salim

On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 09:04:20PM +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 7:02 PM Michel Alexandre Salim
>  wrote:
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > exiv2 has had a new release for a few months now - 0.28.0 - which causes
> > an soname bump.
> >
> > I've put up a PR for the update -
> > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/exiv2/pull-request/3 - would
> > appreciate people taking a close look at this; I'll also prepare a COPR
> > with the dependent packages rebuilt
> >
> > In the meantime, there's a 0.27.7 bugfix release, any objection to
> > getting that packaged for stable releases?
> 
> 
> Per https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1979565#c12
> there appears to still be a pending legal review issue and
> you may need to scrub the sources of the BMFF parts before
> uploading to dist-git.
> 
> I believe legal was pinged recently as to the status of the
> BMFF question.
> 
> I have CC: the legal mailing list in case they have any
> input.

Hoo boy.

Probably best to wait a bit to hear from legal before proceeding,
agreed.

Thanks,

-- 
Michel Alexandre Salim
identities: https://keyoxide.org/5dce2e7e9c3b1cffd335c1d78b229d2f7ccc04f2


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 2233000] perl-Module-CoreList-5.20230820 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233000

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
   Fixed In Version||perl-Module-CoreList-5.2023
   ||0820-1.fc40
Last Closed||2023-08-22 15:22:32



--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-6c098e1fd8 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 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=2233000

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202233000%23c2
___
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 2233000] perl-Module-CoreList-5.20230820 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233000

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |MODIFIED



--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-6c098e1fd8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-6c098e1fd8


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233000

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202233000%23c1
___
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 2231059] perl-Authen-SASL-2.1700 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231059

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
 Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||perl-Authen-SASL-2.1700-1.f
   ||c40
Last Closed||2023-08-22 14:49:33



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-52669743de has been pushed to the Fedora 40 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=2231059

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202231059%23c3
___
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 2231059] perl-Authen-SASL-2.1700 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231059



--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-f8bc110213 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-f8bc110213


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231059

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202231059%23c2
___
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 2232998] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20230820 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232998



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-43e311ad61 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-43e311ad61


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232998

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202232998%23c4
___
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 2232998] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20230820 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232998



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-8869d53d5f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-8869d53d5f


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232998

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202232998%23c5
___
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 2232998] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20230820 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232998



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-3fba3ba3a5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-3fba3ba3a5


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232998

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202232998%23c3
___
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 2231059] perl-Authen-SASL-2.1700 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231059

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-52669743de has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-52669743de


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231059

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202231059%23c1
___
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 2232998] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20230820 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232998

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
   Fixed In Version||perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2
   ||0230820-1.fc40
Last Closed||2023-08-22 14:28:42



--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-8abf833350 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 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=2232998

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202232998%23c2
___
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 2232998] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20230820 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232998

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |MODIFIED



--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-8abf833350 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-8abf833350


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232998

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202232998%23c1
___
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

[rpms/perl-Authen-SASL] PR #1: 2.1700 bump; Package tests

2023-08-22 Thread Jitka Plesnikova


jplesnik merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Authen-SASL` that you 
are following.

Merged pull-request:

``
2.1700 bump; Package tests
``

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Authen-SASL/pull-request/1
___
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: SPDX Statistics - Voyager 2 edition

2023-08-22 Thread Neal Gompa

On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 9:12 AM Vít Ondruch  wrote:
>
>
> Dne 22. 08. 23 v 15:07 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
>
>
> Dne 22. 08. 23 v 13:21 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
>
> 2) rust-btrd:
> License: GPL-2.0
>
> This is not on SPDX list, it should be either GPL-2.0-only or GPL-2.0-or-later
>
>
> This is not on SPDX list *anymore*. It used to be valid identifier not long 
> ago. I am afraid that this identifies is still accepted by e.g. RubyGems:
>
> https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/blob/0339622c9b40d3ee2596b07f188d632bc396/lib/rubygems/util/licenses.rb#L249
>
>
> I have reported this to RubyGems upstream:
>
> https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/issues/6912
>
> BTW this is the script they use to pull the licenses:
>
> https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/blob/master/tool/generate_spdx_license_list.rb
>
> It obviously ignores the `isDeprecatedLicenseId` JSON field.
>

Technically, it should. Deprecated != Removed/Retired. They are still
valid identifiers.



-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[rpms/perl-Authen-SASL] PR #1: 2.1700 bump; Package tests

2023-08-22 Thread Jitka Plesnikova


jplesnik opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Authen-SASL` that 
you are following:
``
2.1700 bump; Package tests
``

To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Authen-SASL/pull-request/1
___
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 2233365] perl-Business-ISBN-Data-20230822.001 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233365

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version|perl-Business-ISBN-Data-202 |perl-Business-ISBN-Data-202
   |30822.001-1.fc40|30822.001-1.fc40
   ||perl-Business-ISBN-Data-202
   ||30822.001-1.fc39



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-53551e91f1 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=2233365

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202233365%23c4
___
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 2233365] perl-Business-ISBN-Data-20230822.001 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233365



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-53551e91f1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-53551e91f1


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233365

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202233365%23c3
___
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: SPDX Statistics - Voyager 2 edition

2023-08-22 Thread Vít Ondruch



Dne 22. 08. 23 v 15:07 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):



Dne 22. 08. 23 v 13:21 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):

|2) r||ust-btrd: License: ||GPL-2.0|

This is not on SPDX list, it should be either |GPL-2.0-only or 
||GPL-2.0-or-later|




This is not on SPDX list *anymore*. It used to be valid identifier not 
long ago. I am afraid that this identifies is still accepted by e.g. 
RubyGems:


https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/blob/0339622c9b40d3ee2596b07f188d632bc396/lib/rubygems/util/licenses.rb#L249



I have reported this to RubyGems upstream:

https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/issues/6912

BTW this is the script they use to pull the licenses:

https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/blob/master/tool/generate_spdx_license_list.rb

It obviously ignores the `isDeprecatedLicenseId` JSON field.


Vít




I suspect it is similar story for Cargo.


Vít



--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys

___
devel mailing list --devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email todevel-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


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

Re: SPDX Statistics - Voyager 2 edition

2023-08-22 Thread Vít Ondruch



Dne 22. 08. 23 v 13:21 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):

|2) r||ust-btrd: License: ||GPL-2.0|

This is not on SPDX list, it should be either |GPL-2.0-only or 
||GPL-2.0-or-later|




This is not on SPDX list *anymore*. It used to be valid identifier not 
long ago. I am afraid that this identifies is still accepted by e.g. 
RubyGems:


https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/blob/0339622c9b40d3ee2596b07f188d632bc396/lib/rubygems/util/licenses.rb#L249

I suspect it is similar story for Cargo.


Vít



--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys

___
devel mailing list --devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email todevel-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


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

Re: SPDX Statistics - Voyager 2 edition

2023-08-22 Thread Miroslav Suchý


Dne 22. 08. 23 v 1:08 Fabio Valentini napsal(a):

On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 9:11 AM Miroslav Suchý  wrote:

New projection when we will be finished is 2025-01-11 (we are slowing down. 
Again. :( ). Pure linear approximation.

It might not be as bad as you think!

All rust-* packages had been excluded from tracking since the start,
so the progress I have been making hasn't been tracked, either. I'm


They are excluded from processing. And are (and were) actually counted as 
migrated from the first day.


happy to say that as of now, all packages for Rust crates (~2300
packages) have been updated to use SPDX license expressions (except
those that have been FTBFS for a long time, which is about 2-3
packages). Over the past few months I've been regenerating packaging
for Rust crates with rust2rpm v24, which also included switching all
crates that had been generated with rust2rpm < v22 to SPDX (also
involved some license fixes / clarifications / problems with missing
license files that are now fixed / etc., often working with upstream
projects).


This is great! I am very happy to hear that. Thank you for doing this.

I run the statistics for rust-* only. And when I omit the reports with "warning: valid as old and new and no changelong 
entry, please check" and packages that are correctly converted I get:


rust-below warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
rust-bitmaps warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
rust-bootupd - can be trivially converted to Apache-2.0
rust-bootupd - can be trivially converted to Apache-2.0
rust-btrd warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
rust-btrd warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
rust-cargo-c warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
rust-coreos-installer - can be trivially converted to Apache-2.0
rust-coreos-installer
rust-coreos-installer
rust-docopt warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
rust-drg - can be trivially converted to Apache-2.0
rust-dutree warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
rust-dutree warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
rust-gmp-mpfr-sys warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please 
check
rust-chrono-tz
rust-ifcfg-devname warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please 
check
rust-ifcfg-devname warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please 
check
rust-im-rc warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
rust-libslirp
rust-nettle warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
rust-nettle-sys warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
rust-procs
rust-python3-sys warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please 
check
rust-rav1e warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
rust-rav1e warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
rust-rav1e warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
rust-rpick warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
rust-rpick warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
rust-rustcat warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
rust-sequoia-keyring-linter warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, 
please check
rust-sequoia-octopus-librnp warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, 
please check
rust-sequoia-sop warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please 
check
rust-sequoia-sq warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
rust-sequoia-sqv warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please 
check
rust-sized-chunks warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please 
check
rust-timebomb - can be trivially converted to Apache-2.0
rust-tokei
rust-tpm2-policy - can be trivially converted to EUPL-1.2
rust-tree-sitter-cli
rust-tree-sitter
rust-varlink-cli
rust-ybaas warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
rust-ybaas warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
rust-yubibomb warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
rust-yubibomb warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
rust-zbase32 warning: not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX, please check
rust-zincati - can be trivially converted to Apache-2.0
rust-zincati

I briefly checked few packages and found two reasons of these errors:

1) rust-coreos-installer:

|License: ASL 2.0 and MIT and zlib|

This is incorrect. The operator has to be upper case. I.e.:

|License: ASL 2.0 AND MIT AND zlib 2) r||ust-btrd: License: ||GPL-2.0|

This is not on SPDX list, it should be either |GPL-2.0-only or 
||GPL-2.0-or-later|

--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an

Re: zlib-ng as a compat replacement for zlib

2023-08-22 Thread Lukas Javorsky

Hi,

I'm currently maintaining the zlib package across Fedora and Red Hat
products.

I like the proposal for the zlib-ng package, there are just a few questions
for @Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho  :
1) Just to clarify, do you want to have two separate packages (zlib-ng and
e.g. zlib-ng-compat) in Fedora? One with the `-DZLIB_COMPAT=ON` option
enabled and one without it?
2) What is your point of view on maintaining these packages? You will be
the main contact and I could be the secondary one? Or do you have someone
else in your team who could take the responsibility and our team could
leave those packages to you?
3) Same as 2) but for CentOS Stream and RHEL products?

Next, I have a few scary scenarios in my head, which I'm not sure how would
be handled:
1) When we decide to migrate from zlib to zlib-ng and zlib-ng-compat, the
packages would still need to rewrite their code so they can use the pure
(no compat) zlib-ng functions and libraries. How many of the packages will
be able (and most importantly willing) to do that?
2) There are 271 RPMs dependent on zlib in ELN repo (there will be more in
the Fedora repo). It would mean that we would have to side-tag rebuild all
of them when switching to the zlib-ng-compat package. It may be challenging.

If I understood something incorrectly please let me know, I'm trying to
understand it completely, what is the plan here. It will be needed to be
thoroughly documented in the Fedora Change.

Overall, I think performance-wise this is a great idea. We just need to be
cautious about the compatibility.

On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 6:49 AM Daniel Alley  wrote:

> The zlib-ng 2.1 beta, apparently, has some significant further
> enhancements coming down the pipe.  So the potential is there for users to
> see improvements much greater than 40% eventually.
>
> https://www.phoronix.com/news/Zlib-ng-2.1-Beta
>
> "With zlib-ng 2.1 beta there is upwards of 56% faster decompression
> performance when using an AVX2-capable x86_64 CPU. In general the
> decompression performance should be a "lot faster" and headlines this new
> beta release."
>
> "Zlib-ng 2.1 has also been working on compression improvements from levels
> 3 to 9 while the speed-ups are more focused on the decompression side. The
> zlib-ng 2.1 beta update has also been enhancing its CMake build system,
> improved support for the Apple M1, enhanced the EmScripten support for
> compiling to JavaScript, and many other changes."
> ___
> 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
>

-- 
S pozdravom/ Best regards

Lukáš Javorský

Software Engineer, Core service - Databases

Red Hat 

Purkyňova 115 (TPB-C)

612 00 Brno - Královo Pole

ljavo...@redhat.com

___
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 2233365] perl-Business-ISBN-Data-20230822.001 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233365

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
   Fixed In Version||perl-Business-ISBN-Data-202
   ||30822.001-1.fc40
Last Closed||2023-08-22 10:19:17



--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-bbae777f23 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 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=2233365

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202233365%23c2
___
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 2233365] perl-Business-ISBN-Data-20230822.001 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233365

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-bbae777f23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-bbae777f23


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233365

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202233365%23c1
___
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 2233365] perl-Business-ISBN-Data-20230822.001 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233365

Paul Howarth  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
   Assignee|jples...@redhat.com |p...@city-fan.org
 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233365
___
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 2233365] New: perl-Business-ISBN-Data-20230822.001 is available