Re: Help with systemd/cgroup task limits in koji

Am 21.02.23 um 07:41 schrieb Florian Weimer: * Kevin Fenzi: Greetings. We are running into some anoying limits on koji builds of chromium. First, since a long time ago, the koji.service file we are using has: TasksMax=infinity But yet, chromium was failing, seemingly hitting a task limit.

Re: Changes to Bugzilla API key requirements

I wont be using the API again due to the 30 day limit. If they change the password requirement again I will dump redhat bugzilla! ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 39 Boost 1.81 rebuilds starting Monday 2022-02-20

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 12:51 PM Thomas Rodgers wrote: > The f39-boost side tag builds have finished. > > The following packages are new FTBFS likely due to the Boost update - > - mapnik [[https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172635][PR2172635]] > Boost.Phoenix related > -

Re: Feedback wanted for a proposed improvement to RPM's ELF dependency generator

On 2023-02-22 19:17, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: I see the value of the proposal, but I am worried that it may run into issues with upstream packages using very weird library version numbers, so I am not yet convinced that it is really a good idea.I In case it helps: I started with the

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 39 Boost 1.81 rebuilds starting Monday 2022-02-20

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 8:33 PM Thomas Rodgers wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 2:41 PM Mamoru TASAKA > wrote: > >> Thomas Rodgers wrote on 2023/02/23 5:51: >> > The f39-boost side tag builds have finished. >> > >> > The following packages are new FTBFS likely due to the Boost update - >> >

Re: Self Introduction: Dalton Hubble

Dalton, You have a famous name - are you related? Phil. On 2023-02-23 16:19, Dalton Hubble wrote: Hey folks, I'm an engineer working in the Go, cloud, and infrastructure space. I've been a Linux user for a while, a Fedora user for the last ~8 years, and used to work for CoreOS. I maintain a

Self Introduction: Dalton Hubble

Hey folks, I'm an engineer working in the Go, cloud, and infrastructure space. I've been a Linux user for a while, a Fedora user for the last ~8 years, and used to work for CoreOS. I maintain a few open source Go libraries, maintain a Kubernetes distro, and operate the AS207563 network. When I

Re: Unannounced .so version bump (F38/F39): openexr2

I rebuilt bcd, luxcorender is failing on it. On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 7:43 PM Ben Beasley wrote: > The openexr2 compat package was just updated from 2.5.7 to 2.5.8 in > F39/Rawhide. This included a bump of the “imfsover,” the .so version for > the libIlmImf-2_5 and libIlmImfUtil-2_5 libraries. >

Re: Changes to Bugzilla API key requirements

Ben Cotton wrote: > Red Hat Bugzilla has introduced a 12 month lifetimes for API keys. You > must replace your API keys at least once a year. Additionally, any API > key that is not used for 30 days will be suspended but can be > re-enabled on the account's preferences tab. So Red Hat Bugzilla

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 39 Boost 1.81 rebuilds starting Monday 2022-02-20

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 2:41 PM Mamoru TASAKA wrote: > Thomas Rodgers wrote on 2023/02/23 5:51: > > The f39-boost side tag builds have finished. > > > > The following packages are new FTBFS likely due to the Boost update - > > > > The following packages FTBFS but the build logs provide no useful

Unannounced .so version bump (F38/F39): openexr2

The openexr2 compat package was just updated from 2.5.7 to 2.5.8 in F39/Rawhide. This included a bump of the “imfsover,” the .so version for the libIlmImf-2_5 and libIlmImfUtil-2_5 libraries. The following packages will need to be rebuilt in F39/Rawhide. - CTL - aqsis - bcd - kde-runtime -

Re: Feedback wanted for a proposed improvement to RPM's ELF dependency generator

Gordon Messmer wrote: > I'm not sure if that means that you are opposed to the proposal, or to > the idea of truncating the version numbers, or something else entirely. > :) I see the value of the proposal, but I am worried that it may run into issues with upstream packages using very weird

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing report

The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing: Age URL 3 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-66548f784b openssl11-1.1.1k-5.el7 0 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-acd256a168 gssntlmssp-1.2.0-1.el7 The following builds have

[Bug 2172742] New: perl-Geo-ShapeFile-3.02 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172742 Bug ID: 2172742 Summary: perl-Geo-ShapeFile-3.02 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-Geo-ShapeFile Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

[Bug 2172742] perl-Geo-ShapeFile-3.02 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172742 --- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- Scratch build failed. Details below: BuilderException: Build failed: Command '['rpmbuild', '-D', '_sourcedir .', '-D', '_topdir .', '-bs', '/var/tmp/thn-_9b4in17/perl-Geo-ShapeFile.spec']'

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 39 Boost 1.81 rebuilds starting Monday 2022-02-20

imath is listed as a prerequisite for OpenImageIO, but not openvdb. Fixed now. On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 4:05 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 23. 02. 23 0:56, Richard Shaw wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 2:52 PM Thomas Rodgers > > wrote: > > > > The f39-boost side

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 39 Boost 1.81 rebuilds starting Monday 2022-02-20

Looks like I missed capturing some dependencies in the Makefile that drives these rebuilds. I'll adjust accordingly for the next time we update Boost. On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 3:57 PM Richard Shaw wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 2:52 PM Thomas Rodgers > wrote: > >> The f39-boost side tag

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 04:44:29PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > We could merge current repos into the newly created one from pungi, but > > it would be a vast amount of work. It would mean all repodata would need > > to be regenerated. That said, it could be done, but no one has had the > > cycles

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 39 Boost 1.81 rebuilds starting Monday 2022-02-20

On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 02:08:09AM +0100, Iñaki Ucar wrote: > I've pushed a fix for rstudio to rawhide. Can you please send a build > to the side tag? The side tag has been merged back in. Just build in rawhide as normal. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 39 Boost 1.81 rebuilds starting Monday 2022-02-20

I've pushed a fix for rstudio to rawhide. Can you please send a build to the side tag? Iñaki On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 at 21:52, Thomas Rodgers wrote: > > The f39-boost side tag builds have finished. > > The following packages are new FTBFS likely due to the Boost update - > - mapnik

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 39 Boost 1.81 rebuilds starting Monday 2022-02-20

On 23. 02. 23 1:05, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 23. 02. 23 0:56, Richard Shaw wrote: On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 2:52 PM Thomas Rodgers > wrote:     The f39-boost side tag builds have finished.     The following packages FTBFS but the build logs provide no useful

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 39 Boost 1.81 rebuilds starting Monday 2022-02-20

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 6:05 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 23. 02. 23 0:56, Richard Shaw wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 2:52 PM Thomas Rodgers > > wrote: > > > > The f39-boost side tag builds have finished. > > > > The following packages FTBFS but the build

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 39 Boost 1.81 rebuilds starting Monday 2022-02-20

On 23. 02. 23 0:56, Richard Shaw wrote: On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 2:52 PM Thomas Rodgers > wrote: The f39-boost side tag builds have finished. The following packages FTBFS but the build logs provide no useful information - - OpenImageIO

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 39 Boost 1.81 rebuilds starting Monday 2022-02-20

On 22. 02. 23 21:51, Thomas Rodgers wrote: The f39-boost side tag builds have finished. The following packages are new FTBFS likely due to the Boost update - - mapnik [[https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172635][PR2172635

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 39 Boost 1.81 rebuilds starting Monday 2022-02-20

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 2:52 PM Thomas Rodgers wrote: > The f39-boost side tag builds have finished. > > The following packages FTBFS but the build logs provide no useful > information - > - OpenImageIO [[ > https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3952/97793952/build.log][build.log > ]]

[Bug 2172713] New: F39FailsToInstall: perl-Alien-pkgconf

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172713 Bug ID: 2172713 Summary: F39FailsToInstall: perl-Alien-pkgconf Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-Alien-pkgconf Assignee: ppi...@redhat.com

[Bug 2172714] New: F39FailsToInstall: perl-PkgConfig-LibPkgConf

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172714 Bug ID: 2172714 Summary: F39FailsToInstall: perl-PkgConfig-LibPkgConf Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-PkgConfig-LibPkgConf Assignee:

Re: HyperKitty broken References and In-Reply-To headers

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 3:11 PM Maxwell G wrote: > > On Wed Feb 22, 2023 at 20:20 +0100, Björn Persson wrote: > > That's just one example of how difficult it is to write a correct email > > parser. It's even a rather simple case compared to the monstrosities > > that are allowed in valid email

[Bug 2172670] New: perl-HTTP-Daemon-6.15 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172670 Bug ID: 2172670 Summary: perl-HTTP-Daemon-6.15 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-HTTP-Daemon Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

Re: Inactive packager check for F38

On Wed, 2023-02-15 at 14:02 -0500, Ben Cotton wrote: > In accordance with FESCo's Inactive Packager Policy[1], packagers > that > have been identified as inactive have a ticket in the > find-inactive-packagers repo[2]. One week after the final release, > packagers who remain inactive will be

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 39 Boost 1.81 rebuilds starting Monday 2022-02-20

Thomas Rodgers wrote on 2023/02/23 5:51: The f39-boost side tag builds have finished. The following packages are new FTBFS likely due to the Boost update - The following packages FTBFS but the build logs provide no useful information - - blender [[

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers

Raphael Groner wrote on 2023/02/23 6:11: Hi, why are those packages orphan? lxsession-edit, lxpolkit and parcellite? Is LXDE spin officially dead, what's current maintainer or do we still need mentioned packages as additional option? lxsession-edit, lxpolkit is now built from

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 12:49 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > It does have advantages for sure. > > Pros: > * can dnf downgrade easily. > * can choose not to upgrade something thats a big change you aren't > ready for. > > I don't know enough about RPM packaging or DNF CoW to say either way, but I

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 1:40 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > The reason it behaves this way is because koji has no concept of 'newer > version' or 'older version'. It has only when a valid build was tagged > into a tag, and pungi operates on that with 'give me the latest tagged > packages in these

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers

> Think LXDE is pretty much dead and LXqt is much more alive as it seems now That does not answer my question. Again: Who takes responsible for LXDE spin, as we still have in Fedora officially? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 at 15:56, Daniel Alley wrote: > Well, regarding the "based on something", you can hand off a list of > packages to createrepo_c with --pkglist, and avoid the need to download > files with --update + --skip-stat. Unfortunately that doesn't help you > with the package file

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers

Hey! Think LXDE is pretty much dead and LXqt is much more alive as it seems now On 2/22/23, Raphael Groner wrote: > Hi, > > why are those packages orphan? lxsession-edit, lxpolkit and parcellite? Is > LXDE spin officially dead, what's current maintainer or do we still need > mentioned packages

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers

Hi, why are those packages orphan? lxsession-edit, lxpolkit and parcellite? Is LXDE spin officially dead, what's current maintainer or do we still need mentioned packages as additional option? Regards, Raphael ___ devel mailing list --

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 08:12:01PM +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > So, does that mean that every time a compose is performed pungi > downloads all RPMs tagged with a specific tag in a directory and then it > operates on those to create repository metadata? Or it just downloads > the rpms

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 12:43:20PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > It's not "broken" just because it doesn't do what you would like it to > > do. Please can we not disparage other peoples work? > > > > The reason it behaves this way is because koji has no concept of 'newer > > version' or

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

Well, regarding the "based on something", you can hand off a list of packages to createrepo_c with --pkglist, and avoid the need to download files with --update + --skip-stat. Unfortunately that doesn't help you with the package file management. In a vacuum --baseurl would help here because

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 39 Boost 1.81 rebuilds starting Monday 2022-02-20

The f39-boost side tag builds have finished. The following packages are new FTBFS likely due to the Boost update - - mapnik [[https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172635][PR2172635]] Boost.Phoenix related - credentials-fetcher [[

Re: Changes to Bugzilla API key requirements

To make things slightly worse, it looks like an API key that is manually “un-revoked” will be revoked again the next day if it is not also *actually used*. So the 30 days are evaluated every day based on time since the last API call, and “un-revoking” the key does not count as using it. On

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Wed, 2023-02-22 at 10:40 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 06:18:23AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 3:48 PM Matthew Miller > > wrote: > > > > > > I was asked to weigh in on https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7215 as a > > > priority. Last time we talked

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

Il 22/02/23 19:46, Kevin Fenzi ha scritto: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 08:37:00AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> It's also been a long time since I've seen any benefit. >> >> Can anyone summarise quickly why delta RPMs don't work? It seems like >> they "obviously" should be possible, because

Re: HyperKitty broken References and In-Reply-To headers

On Wed Feb 22, 2023 at 20:20 +0100, Björn Persson wrote: > That's just one example of how difficult it is to write a correct email > parser. It's even a rather simple case compared to the monstrosities > that are allowed in valid email syntax. It doesn't help that Fedora's mailman3 setup is

Re: Changes to Bugzilla API key requirements

I think this should be sufficient (according original e-mail): ``` curl "https://bugzilla.redhat.com//rest/user/1?exclude_fields=name; -H "Authorization: Bearer YOUR_API_KEY" ``` But do you really want to ask users to put this to their cron? On 2/22/23 18:05, Fabio Valentini wrote: Does

Re: HyperKitty broken References and In-Reply-To headers

Eike Rathke wrote: > On Wednesday, 2023-02-22 00:46:19 +0200, Otto Liljalaakso wrote: > > > Ok, I found the other parts of the thread now. > > Something strange is going on here - it seems that when Arthur replies, > > threading breaks and I see separate subthreads in Thunderbird. > > Also

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 12:51:54PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Kevin Fenzi said: > > Pros: > > * can dnf downgrade easily. > > This assumes the N-1 release is working though, which is not always > valid when there's an issue (sometimes release N doesn't work, so > there's

Fedora CoreOS Meeting Minutes 2023-02-22

Minutes: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2023-02-22/fedora_coreos_meeting.2023-02-22-16.30.html Minutes (text): https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2023-02-22/fedora_coreos_meeting.2023-02-22-16.30.txt Log:

Re: FTBFS bug filed, build already deleted

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 09:21:37AM -0500, Scott Talbert wrote: > On Wed, 22 Feb 2023, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > > Julian Sikorski wrote: > > > FTBFS bug was filed against mame [1]. Unfortunately, the corresponding > > > build [2] has already been deleted. This is not ideal from maintainer

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

Once upon a time, Kevin Fenzi said: > Pros: > * can dnf downgrade easily. This assumes the N-1 release is working though, which is not always valid when there's an issue (sometimes release N doesn't work, so there's release N+1 that still has a problem, but then release N-1 would be gone). >

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 05:38:23AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > I fear the only way to fix it is to get pungi to merge entire repos, and > > I don't think thats anything that pungi wants to be on the hook for > > doing. > > But there are more things than just

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 08:37:00AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > It's also been a long time since I've seen any benefit. > > Can anyone summarise quickly why delta RPMs don't work? It seems like > they "obviously" should be possible, because there must be a lot of > commonality in the

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 06:18:23AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 3:48 PM Matthew Miller > wrote: > > > > I was asked to weigh in on https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7215 as a > > priority. Last time we talked about this we didn't really get anywhere... > > > >

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 05:13:26PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 04:44:31PM -0500, Stephen Smoogen wrote: > > So do we kill it for: > > > > F39/F40 and beyond? > > F38 and beyond? > > X-date and all releases? > > My normal response would be... well, I missed the F38

Re: %dnl macro not available for epel-8 builds?

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 09:25:15AM -0600, Ron Olson wrote: > Hi all, > > I submitted a scratch build of Swift to Koji for EPEL 8 and it pretty much > immediately failed, and looking at root.log I found: > > DEBUG util.py:443: error: line 71: Unknown tag: %dnl Source31: >

Re: FTBFS bug filed, build already deleted

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 02:27:47PM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 06:46:31PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 6:43 PM Julian Sikorski wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > FTBFS bug was filed against mame [1]. Unfortunately, the corresponding >

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 06:18:23AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > Please don't try to equate those things to DeltaRPMs, unless you're > trying to equate their general uselessness. OSTree and Neal, hyperbole like "general uselessness" is not appropriate in talking about other people's work. In any

Re: Test upgrades from F37 to F38 - it will take you just a minute

On Wed, 2023-02-22 at 10:30 +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Do you want to make Fedora 38 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and > try to run: > > dnf --releasever=38 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f38 \ > --enablerepo=updates-testing \ > $(rpm -q fedora-repos-modular >/dev/null &&

Re: Changes to Bugzilla API key requirements

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 5:44 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 22. 02. 23 17:27, Ben Cotton wrote: > > I just found out about this change yesterday. I suspect it's a > > security-driven requirement, so I don't know how much room there will > > be for changes. I'll pass this on to the Bugzilla team

Re: Changes to Bugzilla API key requirements

On 22. 02. 23 17:27, Ben Cotton wrote: I just found out about this change yesterday. I suspect it's a security-driven requirement, so I don't know how much room there will be for changes. I'll pass this on to the Bugzilla team and see what they say. I suspect the same. Maybe accounts without

Re: Self Introduction: Riya Bisht

Dear Riya Bisht, Welcome to Fedora! With your interest and experience with Qt and package mangers, I would suggest you have a look at the Fedora Kinoite 'spin'. It combines KDE with a very modern package management system based on containers. I'm sure they would appreciate your involvement and

Re: Changes to Bugzilla API key requirements

st 22. 2. 2023 o 17:27 Ben Cotton napísal(a): > Yes, as I understand it, this will make abrt difficult to use. > Historically, we get about 2500 bug reports via abrt per release. > That's roughly a quarter of reports per release on average. On the > other hand, we're not particularly good at

Re: Test upgrades from F37 to F38 - it will take you just a minute

On Wed, 2023-02-22 at 10:30 +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > dnf --releasever=38 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f38 \ >  --enablerepo=updates-testing \ >  $(rpm -q fedora-repos-modular >/dev/null && echo -- > enablerepo=updates-testing-modular) \ >  --assumeno distro-sync I got Error:

Re: Changes to Bugzilla API key requirements

Yes, as I understand it, this will make abrt difficult to use. Historically, we get about 2500 bug reports via abrt per release. That's roughly a quarter of reports per release on average. On the other hand, we're not particularly good at fixing abrt-reported bugs. Here's the resolution (excluding

Re: Changes to Bugzilla API key requirements

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 10:46:12AM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote: > Red Hat Bugzilla has introduced a 12 month lifetimes for API keys. You > must replace your API keys at least once a year. Additionally, any API > key that is not used for 30 days will be suspended but can be > re-enabled on the

Re: Changes to Bugzilla API key requirements

Am I missing something, or does this basically break ABRT for users, since that has required an API key rather than a username and password for some time, and it’s not usual to report bugs with ABRT even as often as once a month? It doesn’t seem reasonable to have to go manually reset an API

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On 2/22/23 10:39, Ben Cotton wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 3:48 PM Matthew Miller > wrote: >> >> What we're doing now — as has been the case for several years, already noted >> in the previous discussion — has very little end-user value. Also as noted >> in that thread (as in the ticket)...

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

I agree with the idea that Ben suggested of not enabling deltas by default and giving users the option until a certain time where it can be phased out fully. I remember in my personal experience that delta slowed down update durations. On Wed, 22 Feb 2023, 15:40 Ben Cotton, wrote: > On Tue,

Re: Changes to Bugzilla API key requirements

Hi Ben, Does this make sense? Lot of people (outside of redhat) are using API keys just for abrt, so when something crashes they can report bug to bugzilla. I report about 1-2 bugs /year, and it would be inconvenient for me for every bugreport to regenerate/reactivate API keys. I would do

Re: Unretiring a package

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 4:43 PM Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > > According to > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement_Process/#claiming > > unretiring a package requires review if retired for more than eight weeks. > According to releng, the package slim

Changes to Bugzilla API key requirements

If you did not see the bugzilla-announce-list post[1], there are new requirements for API keys in Red Hat Bugzilla: Red Hat Bugzilla has introduced a 12 month lifetimes for API keys. You must replace your API keys at least once a year. Additionally, any API key that is not used for 30 days will

Changes to Bugzilla API key requirements

If you did not see the bugzilla-announce-list post[1], there are new requirements for API keys in Red Hat Bugzilla: Red Hat Bugzilla has introduced a 12 month lifetimes for API keys. You must replace your API keys at least once a year. Additionally, any API key that is not used for 30 days will

Unretiring a package

According to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement_Process/#claiming unretiring a package requires review if retired for more than eight weeks. According to releng, the package slim has been retired for 6+ weeks. Do I still need to ask for review of this

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 3:48 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > > What we're doing now — as has been the case for several years, already noted > in the previous discussion — has very little end-user value. Also as noted > in that thread (as in the ticket)... that's unfortunate, because it did > bring

Re: Test upgrades from F37 to F38 - it will take you just a minute

On 2/22/23 10:28 AM, Steven A. Falco wrote: I got the following errors: Error:  Problem 1: package opencolorio1-1.1.1-3.fc37.x86_64 requires libyaml-cpp.so.0.6()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed   - yaml-cpp-0.6.3-7.fc37.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository  

Re: Test upgrades from F37 to F38 - it will take you just a minute

I got the following errors: Error: Problem 1: package opencolorio1-1.1.1-3.fc37.x86_64 requires libyaml-cpp.so.0.6()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed - yaml-cpp-0.6.3-7.fc37.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository - problem with installed package

%dnl macro not available for epel-8 builds?

Hi all, I submitted a scratch build of Swift to Koji for EPEL 8 and it pretty much immediately failed, and looking at root.log I found: DEBUG util.py:443: error: line 71: Unknown tag: %dnl Source31:

HyperKitty broken References and In-Reply-To headers (was: fedpkg: Failed to get repository name from Git url or pushurl)

Hi, On Wednesday, 2023-02-22 00:46:19 +0200, Otto Liljalaakso wrote: > Ok, I found the other parts of the thread now. > Something strange is going on here - it seems that when Arthur replies, > threading breaks and I see separate subthreads in Thunderbird. > Also lists.fedoraproject.org seems to

Self Introduction: Riya Bisht

Hello everyone, I am a junior computer science student from India and have been using Linux as my main OS for about a year now.I love how Fedora works and would like to help this community by contributing. As I am new to the Fedora ecosystem and to get acquainted with it, I would like to start

Re: FTBFS bug filed, build already deleted

On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 06:46:31PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 6:43 PM Julian Sikorski wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > FTBFS bug was filed against mame [1]. Unfortunately, the corresponding > > build [2] has already been deleted. This is not ideal from maintainer > >

Re: FTBFS bug filed, build already deleted

On Wed, 22 Feb 2023, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: Julian Sikorski wrote: FTBFS bug was filed against mame [1]. Unfortunately, the corresponding build [2] has already been deleted. This is not ideal from maintainer perspective as it effectively is a bug with no info provided whatsoever. Not to

Re: Creating a F37 remix/spin LiveCD without a desktop environment (Resolved)

I wanted to say that Neil is correct, below. Apparently, some packages were not being pulled in, and that was creating the problems. So, things appear to have changed a little bit, but in general,not that much for non-DE setups. Best wishes! On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 09:25:50 PM CST,

Re: Test upgrades from F37 to F38 - it will take you just a minute

I just tried on a second PC, and I see this too on this one: Lmodx86_64 8.7.18-1.fc38 fedora258 k Seems Lmod is of a lower version on Fedora 38 as well, compared to Fedora 37. Le mer. 22 févr. 2023, à 04 h 30, Miroslav

Re: Test upgrades from F37 to F38 - it will take you just a minute

Did this 16th February and it worked then, other then a few packages missing in F38 that was in F37 then mostly Google Fonts and RPM Fusion stuff On 2/22/23, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Do you want to make Fedora 38 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and > try to run: > > # Run this only if

Fedora 38 compose report: 20230222.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-38-20230221.n.1 NEW: Fedora-38-20230222.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:2 Dropped images: 2 Added packages: 0 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 0 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 0 B Size of dropped packages:0 B Size of upgraded

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

Dislike -1 On 2/22/23, Steve Cossette wrote: > Yeah I'd say +1 from here too. Was just wondering about this yesterday. > > Le mer. 22 févr. 2023, 05 h 52, Kamil Paral a écrit : > >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 9:48 PM Matthew Miller >> wrote: >> >>> But, I think it's time to move on. We have

Re: Test upgrades from F37 to F38 - it will take you just a minute

On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 at 12:03, Steve Cossette wrote: > Downgrading: > fwupd x86_64 1.8.10-1.fc38 fedora 1.8 > M Mea culpa. I'm doing a new upstream release tomorrow, and will build both as 1.8.11-1 -- I guess the drawbacks of %autorelease. From an upgrade

[Test-Announce] Fedora 38 Branched 20230222.n.0 nightly compose nominated for testing

Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event for Fedora 38 Branched 20230222.n.0. Please help run some tests for this nightly compose if you have time. For more information on nightly release validation testing, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki

Orphaning python-clikit

Hello, I've orphaned python-clikit package. This was originally a part of poetry stack, but they switched to python-cleo. Since no other package depends on it, there is no need to keep it in the distro. $ repoquery -q --repo=rawhide{,-source} --whatrequires python3-clikit (nothing) Have a

Re: Test upgrades from F37 to F38 - it will take you just a minute

Same here, lower version numbers for the following packages: Downgrading: fwupd x86_64 1.8.10-1.fc38 fedora 1.8 M fwupd-plugin-flashrom x86_64 1.8.10-1.fc38 fedora 26 k fwupd-plugin-modem-manager x86_64 1.8.10-1.fc38

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

Yeah I'd say +1 from here too. Was just wondering about this yesterday. Le mer. 22 févr. 2023, 05 h 52, Kamil Paral a écrit : > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 9:48 PM Matthew Miller > wrote: > >> But, I think it's time to move on. We have ostree and various >> container-delta approaches. We should

[Bug 2171938] perl-Module-CoreList-5.20230220 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2171938 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2023-6bc7a45238 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing

[Bug 2171927] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20230220 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2171927 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2023-955263a37a has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing

Update of catch to Catch2 v3

As discussed a few weeks ago the Catch testing framework has a slightly weird naming scheme, namely: * Catch (v1.x, actually a branch in Catch2 repository) * Catch2 v2.x * Catch2 v3.x Since Catch2 was released we have had catch1 and catch packages to support both v1.x and v2.x users. I have

[Bug 2171938] perl-Module-CoreList-5.20230220 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2171938 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #3 from

[Bug 2171927] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20230220 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2171927 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #3 from

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 3:48 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > > I was asked to weigh in on https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7215 as a > priority. Last time we talked about this we didn't really get anywhere... > >

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 3:37 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > It's also been a long time since I've seen any benefit. > > Can anyone summarise quickly why delta RPMs don't work? It seems like > they "obviously" should be possible, because there must be a lot of > commonality in the content of

  1   2   >