[Bug 2258864] perl-App-Cme-1.040 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258864 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #1 from

Staled PRs at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/

During my work on SPDX migration I filed hundreds of pull request and as part of that work I always check if there is already open PRs for a package. It surprised me how many packages has open PR. I understand when there is open PR with blocker or ongoing discussion. But I have seen PRs that

Re: HELP! What's up with OpenVDB?

Richard Shaw wrote on 2024/01/25 12:43: So with the tbb[1] update OpenVDB is one of the stragglers having issues that need to be addressed before I can build OpenImageIO. Looking at the releng rebuilt attempt it failed on ppc64le. I kicked off the build again[2] and this time it failed on

Re: List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in February

On 1/24/24 13:05, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 24. 01. 24 19:00, Ralf Corsépius wrote: Am 24.01.24 um 17:38 schrieb Miro Hrončok: Package  (co)maintainers  freefem++ (maintained by:

HELP! What's up with OpenVDB?

So with the tbb[1] update OpenVDB is one of the stragglers having issues that need to be addressed before I can build OpenImageIO. Looking at the releng rebuilt attempt it failed on ppc64le. I kicked off the build again[2] and this time it failed on s390x:

[Bug 2259685] perl-libwww-perl-6.75 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259685 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from

[Bug 2258287] perl-libwww-perl-6.73 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258287 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-6a4c997a02 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

[Bug 2259686] perl-LWP-Protocol-https-6.12 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259686 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #3 from

[Bug 2258649] perl-SQL-Translator-1.65 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258649 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-ea7c6ef21f 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

[Bug 2260267] New: perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20240120 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260267 Bug ID: 2260267 Summary: perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20240120 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases Keywords:

Re: Cached Package Review Tracker - Tickets that passed automated review

Hi Jakub, On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 09:33:37PM +0100, Jakub Kadlcik wrote: > Hello, > if you use the Cached Package Review Tracker > https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/ > there is a new "feature" that you may find useful. > > Fedora Review Service runs the fedora-review tool on every

Re: List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in February

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 2:28 PM Michel Lind wrote: > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 10:35:09AM -0700, Jerry James wrote: > > I fixed cl-asdf in Rawhide. > Mind building it in F39 and F38 too? It fails to build there and there > is one bug open for each Sure, I can do that. What we really ought to do

Re: List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in February

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 10:35:09AM -0700, Jerry James wrote: > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 9:39 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > Based on the current fail to build from source policy, the following > > packages > > should be retired from Fedora 40 approximately one week before branching. > [snip] > >

Re: List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in February

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 05:53:52PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 24. 01. 24 17:50, Michel Lind wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 05:38:59PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > Dear maintainers. > > > > > > Based on the current fail to build from source policy, the following > > > packages > > >

Re: Modern C i686 failures

Yaakov Selkowitz venit, vidit, dixit 2024-01-24 21:01:39: > The GCC 14 and Modern C changes have caused a large number of build > failures. No surprise there, but in particular though, a lot of these > failures have only occurred on i686, e.g. uint64_t (aka long long > unsigned int) doesn't

Re: List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in February

On 24. 01. 24 19:00, Ralf Corsépius wrote: Am 24.01.24 um 17:38 schrieb Miro Hrončok: Dear maintainers. Based on the current fail to build from source policy, the following packages should be retired from Fedora 40 approximately one week before branching. 5 weekly reminders are required,

Modern C i686 failures

The GCC 14 and Modern C changes have caused a large number of build failures. No surprise there, but in particular though, a lot of these failures have only occurred on i686, e.g. uint64_t (aka long long unsigned int) doesn't match long unsigned int *, etc. A few examples: gnome-keyring:

Re: Interesting difference between Koji and COPR (_isa macro)

Dne 24. 01. 24 v 18:02 Dan Horák napsal(a): It seems like %{?_isa} is not defined for noarch packages in Koji but it is in COPR. Is that a known problem/feature? it could be because COPR always does an archful build (like plain mock builds do), while koji knows noarch is a separate arch Mock

Fedora CoreOS Meeting Minutes 2024-01-24

Text Log: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting-1_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2024-01-24/fedora-coreos-meeting.2024-01-24-16.30.log.txt HTML Log: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting-1_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2024-01-24/fedora-coreos-meeting.2024-01-24-16.30.log.html Text Minutes:

Re: List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in February

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 9:39 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > Based on the current fail to build from source policy, the following packages > should be retired from Fedora 40 approximately one week before branching. [snip] > cl-asdf green I fixed cl-asdf in Rawhide. -- Jerry

[Bug 2259686] perl-LWP-Protocol-https-6.12 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259686 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #2 from

Re: Interesting difference between Koji and COPR (_isa macro)

On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 17:56:40 +0100 Lumír Balhar wrote: > Hello. > > Today I found out an interesting difference between Koji and COPR. > autowrap package has this in its specfile: > > Requires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-Cython%{?_isa} > > Which is incorrect for noarch package but hold on.

[rpms/perl-LWP-Protocol-https] PR #4: 0.12 bump

mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-LWP-Protocol-https` that you are following. Merged pull-request: `` 0.12 bump `` https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-LWP-Protocol-https/pull-request/4 -- ___ perl-devel mailing list --

Interesting difference between Koji and COPR (_isa macro)

Hello. Today I found out an interesting difference between Koji and COPR. autowrap package has this in its specfile: Requires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-Cython%{?_isa} Which is incorrect for noarch package but hold on. The resulting package from Koji requires: python3-Cython but in

Re: List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in February

On 24. 01. 24 17:50, Michel Lind wrote: On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 05:38:59PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: Dear maintainers. Based on the current fail to build from source policy, the following packages should be retired from Fedora 40 approximately one week before branching. [snip]

Re: List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in February

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 05:38:59PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > Dear maintainers. > > Based on the current fail to build from source policy, the following packages > should be retired from Fedora 40 approximately one week before branching. > [snip] > golang-github-eclesh-welford

Orphaning python-represent

Hello. I'm going to orphan python-represent. I updated it to the latest version so if you take it, there is nothing to be done now. It's a leaf package and I don't have any use for it. Have a nice day. Lumír -- ___ devel mailing list --

[Bug 2258649] perl-SQL-Translator-1.65 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258649 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-ea7c6ef21f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-ea7c6ef21f -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list

List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in February

Dear maintainers. Based on the current fail to build from source policy, the following packages should be retired from Fedora 40 approximately one week before branching. 5 weekly reminders are required, hence the retirement will happen approximately in 5 weeks, i.e. around 2024-02-28. Since

[Bug 2258649] perl-SQL-Translator-1.65 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258649 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||perl-SQL-Translator-1.65-1.

[rpms/perl-LWP-Protocol-https] PR #4: 0.12 bump

mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-LWP-Protocol-https` that you are following: `` 0.12 bump `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-LWP-Protocol-https/pull-request/4 -- ___ perl-devel mailing

[Bug 2258649] perl-SQL-Translator-1.65 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258649 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #1 from

[rpms/perl-LWP-Protocol-https] PR #3: 0.12 bump

mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-LWP-Protocol-https` that you are following. Merged pull-request: `` 0.12 bump `` https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-LWP-Protocol-https/pull-request/3 -- ___ perl-devel mailing list --

[Bug 2260127] New: perl-XML-LibXML-2.0210 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260127 Bug ID: 2260127 Summary: perl-XML-LibXML-2.0210 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-XML-LibXML Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

Re: Sequoia PGP : What are the options for expired third party GPG signing keys?

Hi Neal Sorry for the late answer, It seems to be working :) I was able to import and install packages signed with this certificate. Thanks again, Antoine -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

[rpms/perl-LWP-Protocol-https] PR #3: 0.12 bump

mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-LWP-Protocol-https` that you are following: `` 0.12 bump `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-LWP-Protocol-https/pull-request/3 -- ___ perl-devel mailing

[Bug 2259686] perl-LWP-Protocol-https-6.12 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259686 Michal Josef Spacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Doc Type|---

[Bug 2259685] perl-libwww-perl-6.75 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259685 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from

Re: Can't update from fedora 39 to rawhide

On 24/01/2024 16:00, Osama Albahrani via devel wrote: I think this was reported in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243872 Indeed it was. Thank you, and sorry for the noise -- Cheers, Guinevere Larsen She/Her/Hers On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 9:53 AM Guinevere Larsen wrote:

[Bug 2259685] perl-libwww-perl-6.75 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259685 Upstream Release Monitoring changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|perl-libwww-perl-6.74 is|perl-libwww-perl-6.75 is

[rpms/perl-libwww-perl] PR #54: 6.74 bump

mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-libwww-perl` that you are following. Merged pull-request: `` 6.74 bump `` https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-libwww-perl/pull-request/54 -- ___ perl-devel mailing list --

Re: Can't update from fedora 39 to rawhide

I think this was reported in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243872 On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 9:53 AM Guinevere Larsen wrote: > On 24/01/2024 14:09, Peter Robinson wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 13:04, Guinevere Larsen > wrote: > >> Hi Fedora list! > >> > >> I'm trying to upgrade

Re: Can't update from fedora 39 to rawhide

On 24/01/2024 14:09, Peter Robinson wrote: On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 13:04, Guinevere Larsen wrote: Hi Fedora list! I'm trying to upgrade a VM from fedora 39 to rawhide but running dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=rawhide fails. the offending package seems to be "grubby-8.40-73.fc39",

[Bug 2259685] perl-libwww-perl-6.74 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259685 --- Comment #2 from Michal Josef Spacek --- + F39 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259685 Report this comment as SPAM:

[rpms/perl-libwww-perl] PR #54: 6.74 bump

mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-libwww-perl` that you are following: `` 6.74 bump `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-libwww-perl/pull-request/54 -- ___ perl-devel mailing list --

Re: Fedora 40 Mass Rebuild *finish* delayed

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 2:01 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Dne 24. 01. 24 v 10:51 Aoife Moloney napsal(a): > > > > All other milestones remain the same at this time and the published > schedule[4] has been updated to reflect these changes. > >

Announcement: Retiring zlib and minizip-compat from Rawhide

The zlib-ng-compat and minizip-ng-compat packages have been in Rawhide for more than a month. Considering things have been working well, we believe it's time to retire the zlib and minizip-compat packages. This step should not cause any changes, because zlib-ng-compat and minizip-ng-compat

Re: Can't update from fedora 39 to rawhide

On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 13:04, Guinevere Larsen wrote: > > Hi Fedora list! > > I'm trying to upgrade a VM from fedora 39 to rawhide but running dnf > system-upgrade download --releasever=rawhide fails. the offending > package seems to be "grubby-8.40-73.fc39", which conflicts with >

Can't update from fedora 39 to rawhide

Hi Fedora list! I'm trying to upgrade a VM from fedora 39 to rawhide but running dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=rawhide fails. the offending package seems to be "grubby-8.40-73.fc39", which conflicts with sdubby-1.0-5.fc40. Is this a known issue? Does anyone know a workaround? If

Re: Fedora 40 Mass Rebuild *finish* delayed

On Wed, 2024-01-24 at 05:05 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 5:01 AM Miroslav Suchý > wrote: > > > > Dne 24. 01. 24 v 10:51 Aoife Moloney napsal(a): > > > > > > All other milestones remain the same at this time and the > > > published schedule[4] has been updated to reflect

Re: gtk3 update breaks multiple packages

> P.S.: opening three threads for a single thing with identical text is > not nice. It can confuse archive readers, not finding answers they > might be looking for. Try to avoid that in the future, please. Chromium did the duplicates :-( -- ___ devel

Re: gtk3 update breaks multiple packages

On Wed, 2024-01-24 at 12:53 +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote: > You missed reading the first NEWS entry ("* Fix a crash introduced in > the X11 changes in 3.24.40") and quoted the third only. Hi, you are right. That's quite embarrassing. I'm sorry about that. No idea how I could overlook it.

Re: gtk3 update breaks multiple packages

Am Mi., 24. Jan. 2024 um 12:40 Uhr schrieb Milan Crha : > > On Wed, 2024-01-24 at 11:34 +0100, Leigh Scott wrote: > > see > > https://github.com/GNOME/gtk/commit/77ebdd85091833a7869ece48c3114fa6d9966321 > > Hi, > all the bugs you referenced crash in X11 code. The above NEWS file > commit

Re: gtk3 update breaks multiple packages

On Wed, 2024-01-24 at 11:34 +0100, Leigh Scott wrote: > see > https://github.com/GNOME/gtk/commit/77ebdd85091833a7869ece48c3114fa6d9966321 Hi, all the bugs you referenced crash in X11 code. The above NEWS file commit specifically says it's for Wayland. What am I missing here, please? Did

Re: gtk3 update breaks multiple packages

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 5:25 AM Leigh Scott wrote: > > Why isn't gtk3 a critical path package? > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260068 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260073 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260074 > > >

Re: Another mass rebuild blocker: glibc qsort regression

* Florian Weimer: > * Florian Weimer: > >> * Florian Weimer: >> >>> There's a regression in qsort that needs to be fixed before the mass >>> rebuild can be restarted: >>> >>> >>> >>> I'm going to work on this with priority. >>> >>> Posting

Re: gtk3 update breaks multiple packages

I have unpushed the f38 build. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-68a2dba357 -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:

Re: gtk3 update breaks multiple packages

see https://github.com/GNOME/gtk/commit/77ebdd85091833a7869ece48c3114fa6d9966321 -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:

gtk3 update breaks multiple packages

Why isn't gtk3 a critical path package? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260068 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260073 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260074 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-5d8ac182bf --

gtk3 update breaks multiple packages

Why isn't gtk3 a critical path package? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260068 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260073 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260074 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-5d8ac182bf --

gtk3 update breaks multiple packages

Why isn't gtk3 a critical path package? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260068 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260073 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260074 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-5d8ac182bf --

Re: Fedora 40 Mass Rebuild *finish* delayed

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 5:01 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > Dne 24. 01. 24 v 10:51 Aoife Moloney napsal(a): > > > > All other milestones remain the same at this time and the published > > schedule[4] has been updated to reflect these changes. > >

[EPEL-devel] Re: Bundling newer 3rd party binaries than are packaged separately

Many thanks for clarifying the bundling of 3rd party binaries. > On 23 Jan 2024, at 21:18, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > If you are bundling any software, you need to `Provides: > bundled(software)`. This is so we can easily locate affected packages > when e.g. a security issue necessitates

Re: Fedora 40 Mass Rebuild *finish* delayed

Dne 24. 01. 24 v 10:51 Aoife Moloney napsal(a): All other milestones remain the same at this time and the published schedule[4] has been updated to reflect these changes. https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-40/f-40-key-tasks.html Branching is set to 2024-02-06 while mass rebuilds are

Fedora 40 Mass Rebuild *finish* delayed

During Monday's FESCo meeting[1][2], 22nd Jan 2024, FESCo approved a request[3] to delay the finish date of the mass rebuild, and all other associated tasks up to and including the start of the Beta Freeze, by one week. The Mass Rebuild is now targeted to be completed by February 20th. The Beta

Fedora 40 Mass Rebuild *finish* delayed

During Monday's FESCo meeting[1][2], 22nd Jan 2024, FESCo approved a request[3] to delay the finish date of the mass rebuild, and all other associated tasks up to and including the start of the Beta Freeze, by one week. The Mass Rebuild is now targeted to be completed by February 20th. The Beta

[rpms/perl-libwww-perl] PR #53: 6.74 bump

mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-libwww-perl` that you are following. Merged pull-request: `` 6.74 bump `` https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-libwww-perl/pull-request/53 -- ___ perl-devel mailing list --

Re: GNOME package builds this cycle

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 7:01 PM Florian Weimer wrote: > I think I fixed up the RPM spec files of the Vala packages that didn't > do the required rebuilds with Fedora's patched Vala compiler (roughly: > run touch **.vala, add BuildRequires: vala, as appropriate). I changed > packages only if I