On Thu, Nov 10, 2022, at 6:08 PM, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> Ben Cotton writes:
>
>> By design, ostree does not manage bootloader updates as they can not
>> (yet) happen in a transactional, atomic and safe fashion.
>
> As we've talked about before, it's not possible to make updates
>
On Fri, Nov 11 2022 at 09:49:29 PM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
What about webkit2gtk4.0? Telegram Desktop can use 4.0, 4.1 and 5.0.
Maybe it will be better to switch to webkit2gtk4.x?
Better to use -4.1. That is stable and should be safe to depend on.
The -4.0 is the obsolete
On Fri, Nov 11 2022 at 10:02:39 PM +0100, Fabio Valentini
wrote:
Have you considered bumping to 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 ... for the continuously
expected ABI / soname bumps? Jumping by a major version number every
time kind of pollutes the namespace upwards unnecessarily, doesn't it?
Hi, there are no
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142173
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
Scratch build failed. Details below:
GenericError: File upload failed:
cli-build/1668203187.693843.xHlWaVGB/perl-IO-Tty-1.17-1.fc36.src.rpm
Traceback:
File
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142173
Bug ID: 2142173
Summary: perl-IO-Tty-1.17 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-IO-Tty
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
RHEL 8.7 was released earlier this week. Among other things, it has an
updated qt5 that needed many KDE packages to be rebuilt. In addition, it
is time for the yearly major update of KDE Plasma Desktop for epel8.
If you would like to test the KDE update, or if you are having troubles
updating
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022, 17:06 Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The webkit2gtk5.0 package in rawhide will be removed and replaced by
> webkitgtk6.0. Affected packages that will need to be patched to use the
> new API version and rebuilt are: evolution-data-server, gnome-builder,
>
On 11/11/2022 17:48, Neal Gompa wrote:
Vitaly Zaitsev is the maintainer. It hasn't moved to Fedora yet.
We can't move yet, because it requires openh264-devel at the build time.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
___
devel mailing
On 11/11/2022 17:44, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
I wasn't able to figure out the Fedora package name to contact the
maintainer. Do you know what it is?
I'm maintainer of the telegram-desktop package in RPM Fusion.
We'll have to patch the library version there and include a new build in the
Hi all,
https://gitlab.com/testing-farm/infrastructure/-/merge_requests/90/diffs
That would be the reason.
We would never think this would cause so much confusion, our bad :(
As the original issue is gone, we have reverted this workaround and I hope
it is resolved now.
Best regards,
/M
On Thu,
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 12:04 PM Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 09:59:49AM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > hi,
> > I'm upgrading libbpf to 1.0 and because it's changing the soname it
> > requires changes in dependent packages.
> >
> > You're receiving this email because you're
On Fri, 2022-11-11 at 12:42 -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022, at 5:53 AM, Petr Pisar wrote:
> >
> > Wouldn't be easier to admit that timesamps are nonsense and simply eradicate
> > all of them stamps from various data formats rather than trying to fake
> > them?
> > Simply
On 11-11-2022 19:17, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 11. 11. 22 17:24, Sandro wrote:
I'm not quite sure why pulling in an additional supplemental dependency would
be considered a breaking change. Is it because rpmlint behaves differently with
the new license definitions?
Yes. Suppose I am running a
On 11. 11. 22 17:24, Sandro wrote:
I'm not quite sure why pulling in an additional supplemental dependency would
be considered a breaking change. Is it because rpmlint behaves differently with
the new license definitions?
Yes. Suppose I am running a Fedora 36 system with rpmlint installed and
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022, at 5:53 AM, Petr Pisar wrote:
>
> Wouldn't be easier to admit that timesamps are nonsense and simply eradicate
> all of them stamps from various data formats rather than trying to fake them?
> Simply changing rpmbuild to set timestamp to 0 for all contained files, or
>
mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Tie-DataUUID` that you
are following.
Merged pull-request:
``
Package tests and update license to SPDX format
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Tie-DataUUID/pull-request/1
___
OK, I think telegram-desktop will actually be fine with no changes.
When webkit2gtk-5.0 disappears, it should just fall back to using the
stable GTK 3 version instead of the unstable GTK 4 version, which is
probably a good idea for now. If you really want to use the GTK 4 API
before it's
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Tie-DataUUID` that
you are following:
``
Package tests and update license to SPDX format
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Tie-DataUUID/pull-request/1
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 11:44 AM Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 11 2022 at 05:10:03 PM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
> wrote:
> > What about packages that use dlopen() like Telegram Desktop?
>
> Uh-oh, I didn't know about this... I did a repoquery and thought only
> GNOME was using
On Fri, Nov 11 2022 at 05:10:03 PM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
What about packages that use dlopen() like Telegram Desktop?
Uh-oh, I didn't know about this... I did a repoquery and thought only
GNOME was using it. :/ I guess this will require more coordination
after all. I found
On 11/11/22 3:15 AM, Simon Bachenberg wrote:
Ideally, I would like Fedora to become the standard Linux client of the
Deutsche Welle instead of Ubuntu. But I would also like to help make Fedora
even better and more popular.
Welcome Simon. I agree with you and I am glad you have joined us. :)
> As we've talked about before, it's not possible to make updates
> transactional. It involves, per spec and depending on processor
> architecture, updating multiple files in different directories,
> potentially on different filesystems entirely, one of which is fat32.
I should probably have
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 11:24 AM Sandro wrote:
>
> On 11-11-2022 13:56, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 11. 11. 22 13:07, Sandro wrote:
> >> On 11-11-2022 10:33, Neal Gompa wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:32 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:18 AM Sandro wrote:
>
On 11-11-2022 13:56, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 11. 11. 22 13:07, Sandro wrote:
On 11-11-2022 10:33, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:32 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:18 AM Sandro wrote:
On 11-11-2022 10:12, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:10 AM
V Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 02:05:11PM +0100, Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> > > As a result, more RPM packages will be reproducible:
> >
> > Where will this reproducibility stop? An RPM package itself carry a build
> > time in its RPM header. Are we also going to fake this time in the name of
> >
On 11/11/2022 17:05, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
The webkit2gtk5.0 package in rawhide will be removed and replaced by
webkitgtk6.0. Affected packages that will need to be patched to use the
new API version
What about packages that use dlopen() like Telegram Desktop?
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly
Hi,
The webkit2gtk5.0 package in rawhide will be removed and replaced by
webkitgtk6.0. Affected packages that will need to be patched to use the
new API version and rebuilt are: evolution-data-server, gnome-builder,
gnome-initial-setup. My plan is to handle all of these builds in a
side
On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 at 10:19, Kevin Kofler via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> > You can only refactor it when you have a steady set of requirements. The
> > code has been 'refactored' at least 4 times but what happens is that you
> > will get into about
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 8:46 AM Clemens Lang wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Alexander Sosedkin wrote:
>
> > In RPM world, I've even entertained an idea of having a subpackage for
> > auditability not unlike how we have debuginfo, since rebuilding a package
> > reproducibly requires builddep pinning. But if
On 11/11/22 07:52, Christoph Junghans wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 10:27 PM Orion Poplawski wrote:
On 11/6/22 07:31, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Saturday, 05 November 2022 at 21:27, Antonio T. sagitter wrote:
Hi all.
Many OpenMPI tests in RPM packaging are blocked for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142076
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142076
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #3 from
On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 10:27 PM Orion Poplawski wrote:
>
> On 11/6/22 07:31, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> > On Saturday, 05 November 2022 at 21:27, Antonio T. sagitter wrote:
> >> Hi all.
> >>
> >> Many OpenMPI tests in RPM packaging are blocked for unknown reason, no
> >> output or
* Alexander Sosedkin:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 2:03 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
>>
>> * Alexander Sosedkin:
>>
>> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 11:53 AM Petr Pisar wrote:
>> >> An RPM package itself carry a build time in its RPM header.
>> >> Are we also going to fake this time in the name of
>> >>
Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> You can only refactor it when you have a steady set of requirements. The
> code has been 'refactored' at least 4 times but what happens is that you
> will get into about 1/3rd of the way into it and find you have now to add
> a bunch of new requirements.
Sounds like
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142076
--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
the-new-hotness/release-monitoring.org's scratch build of
perltidy-20221112-1.fc36.src.rpm for rawhide completed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94052350
--
You are
Releases retrieved: 20221112
Upstream release that is considered latest: 20221112
Current version/release in rawhide: 2022-1.fc38
URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Perl-Tidy/
Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142076
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
Created attachment 1923781
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1923781=edit
Update to 20221112 (#2142076)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134967
Upstream Release Monitoring
changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|perl-Mojolicious-9.28 is|perl-Mojolicious-9.29 is
Hi,
Alexander Sosedkin wrote:
In RPM world, I've even entertained an idea of having a subpackage for
auditability not unlike how we have debuginfo, since rebuilding a package
reproducibly requires builddep pinning. But if that's avoidable, I’d
rather just not mix artifacts with meta.
Debian
On 11. 11. 22 14:18, Barry wrote:
Change log has the date of a change but no time.
What time of day and timezone is used? 00:00:00 UTC?
Changelogs can have times as well.
When they don't, they are considered 12:00 (noon) UTC:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 2:03 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Alexander Sosedkin:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 11:53 AM Petr Pisar wrote:
> >> An RPM package itself carry a build time in its RPM header.
> >> Are we also going to fake this time in the name of
> >> reproducibility?
> >
> > My
> On 10 Nov 2022, at 20:24, Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ReproducibleBuildsClampMtimes
>
> This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
> process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
> community feedback. This proposal
Something like this should work:
File: /usr/lib/rpm/fileattrs/perllib.attr
%__perllib_requires() %{lua:
if macros['1']:match('.+%.so$') and macros.perl_version then
print('perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_' .. macros.perl_version .. ')')
else
print('perl-libs')
end
}
On 11. 11. 22 11:53, Petr Pisar wrote:
V Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 03:23:49PM -0500, Ben Cotton napsal(a):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ReproducibleBuildsClampMtimes
== Summary ==
The `%clamp_mtime_to_source_date_epoch` RPM macro will be set to `1`.
When an RPM package is built, mtimes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130625
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #2 from
* Alexander Sosedkin:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 11:53 AM Petr Pisar wrote:
>> An RPM package itself carry a build time in its RPM header.
>> Are we also going to fake this time in the name of
>> reproducibility?
>
> My opinion: yes, please do (%use_source_date_epoch_as_buildtime).
> And fake the
On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 at 02:34, Demi Marie Obenour
wrote:
> On 11/10/22 21:02, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 12:52 AM Stephen Smoogen
> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 18:55 Neal Gompa wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I sympathize greatly here. It was a pain to wire up "logout" to the
On 11. 11. 22 13:07, Sandro wrote:
On 11-11-2022 10:33, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:32 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:18 AM Sandro wrote:
On 11-11-2022 10:12, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:10 AM Sandro wrote:
On 08-11-2022 15:06, David
On 11. 11. 22 13:13, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Something like this should work:
File: /usr/lib/rpm/fileattrs/perllib.attr
%__perllib_requires() %{lua:
if macros['1']:match('.+%.so$') and macros.perl_version then
The quotes around 1 are actually redundant here, I've realized after sending
On 10. 11. 22 21:57, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 10. 11. 22 21:23, Ben Cotton wrote:
The macro ''%perl_require_compat'' will evaluate the run-require based
on ''%{_target_cpu}''. The macro will be defined in the rpm
''perl-srpm-macros'' and the definition is:
`%perl_require_compat %[
On 11-11-2022 10:33, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:32 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:18 AM Sandro wrote:
On 11-11-2022 10:12, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:10 AM Sandro wrote:
On 08-11-2022 15:06, David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Nov 08, 2022
mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Text-Markdown` that
you are following.
Merged pull-request:
``
Package tests and update license to SPDX format
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Text-Markdown/pull-request/3
___
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20221110.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-2022.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:2
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 8
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 129
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 1.81 MiB
Size of dropped packages
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Text-Markdown`
that you are following:
``
Package tests and update license to SPDX format
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Text-Markdown/pull-request/3
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 11:53 AM Petr Pisar wrote:
>
> V Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 03:23:49PM -0500, Ben Cotton napsal(a):
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ReproducibleBuildsClampMtimes
> >
> > == Summary ==
> >
> > The `%clamp_mtime_to_source_date_epoch` RPM macro will be set to `1`.
> >
V Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 03:23:49PM -0500, Ben Cotton napsal(a):
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ReproducibleBuildsClampMtimes
>
> == Summary ==
>
> The `%clamp_mtime_to_source_date_epoch` RPM macro will be set to `1`.
> When an RPM package is built, mtimes of packaged files will be
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130630
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-b15398a7ea has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-b15398a7ea
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130630
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version||perl-TestML-0.54.05-15.el9
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:32 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:18 AM Sandro wrote:
> >
> > On 11-11-2022 10:12, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:10 AM Sandro wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 08-11-2022 15:06, David Cantrell wrote:
> > >>> On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:18 AM Sandro wrote:
>
> On 11-11-2022 10:12, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:10 AM Sandro wrote:
> >>
> >> On 08-11-2022 15:06, David Cantrell wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 09:45:57AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Should new package
On 11-11-2022 10:12, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:10 AM Sandro wrote:
On 08-11-2022 15:06, David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 09:45:57AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Should new package reviews (for Rawhide) now be rejected if they
don't have SPDX tags?
Yes,
Hi,
my name is Simon Bachenberg. I am 36 years old and live with my wife and our 5
children in Germany.
I started my career as a Java and PHP developer for 7 years. Since running PHP
applications on Windows servers is not fun, I started learning Linux. That's
how I came to work for Deutsche
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:10 AM Sandro wrote:
>
> On 08-11-2022 15:06, David Cantrell wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 09:45:57AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >> Should new package reviews (for Rawhide) now be rejected if they
> >> don't have SPDX tags?
> >
> > Yes, new packages going
On 08-11-2022 15:06, David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 09:45:57AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Should new package reviews (for Rawhide) now be rejected if they
don't have SPDX tags?
Yes, new packages going forward should use SPDX expressions in the
License tag.
When will
65 matches
Mail list logo
