[Test-Announce] [Now Playing] Intel Open CL Test Day

Hey All, We're hosting an Intel OpenCL Test Day[0] and we need your expertise! Join us on 2024-04-09 to put Intel's OpenCL through its paces. Your feedback will be invaluable in shaping the future of this technology. Together, let's push the boundaries of performance and innovation. Intel's

[Bug 2268717] perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX-0.18 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268717 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX-0.18- |perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX-0.18-

[Bug 2268717] perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX-0.18 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268717 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX-0.18- |perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX-0.18-

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 9 updates-testing report

The following Fedora EPEL 9 Security updates need testing: Age URL 5 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-3412a9098b editorconfig-0.12.7-1.el9 5 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-c6577bc2ed upx-4.2.3-1.el9 5

[Bug 2268717] perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX-0.18 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268717 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX-0.18- |perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX-0.18-

[Bug 2268717] perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX-0.18 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268717 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX-0.18- |perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX-0.18-

[Bug 2268717] perl-Spreadsheet-XLSX-0.18 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2268717 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version|

[Bug 2273765] perl-DateTime-Locale-1.41 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2273765 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-36bab3fae3 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing

[Bug 2273751] perl-Imager-1.024 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2273751 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-9c6f48a62b has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing

Help Needed for a tricky bug for Fedora Linux 40

Hi folks, There is a bug in the Fedora Blocker Bugs app that has a lot of us stumped on how to resolve it, so I wanted to highlight it in the hopes that someone might know how to either fix it or maybe even verify if a few of

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 5:22 PM Leon Fauster via devel wrote: > > Am 08.04.24 um 22:22 schrieb Michel Lind: > > On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 08:47:20PM +0200, Leon Fauster via devel wrote: > >> Am 08.04.24 um 20:12 schrieb Michel Lind: > >>> (this might require coordination with RH's Leapp

Fedora Linux 40 Go/No-Go Meeting: 2024-11-04

Happy Monday folks! On Thursday 11th April, the Fedora Linux 40 Final Go/No-Go meeting[1] will be held at 1700 UTC in #meeting:fedoraproject.org channel on Matrix. At this time, we will determine the status of the F40 Final release for the 16th April, which is the early target date[2]. For more

[Test-Announce] Fedora Linux 40 Go/No-Go Meeting: 2024-11-04

Happy Monday folks! On Thursday 11th April, the Fedora Linux 40 Final Go/No-Go meeting[1] will be held at 1700 UTC in #meeting:fedoraproject.org channel on Matrix. At this time, we will determine the status of the F40 Final release for the 16th April, which is the early target date[2]. For more

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

Am 08.04.24 um 22:22 schrieb Michel Lind: On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 08:47:20PM +0200, Leon Fauster via devel wrote: Am 08.04.24 um 20:12 schrieb Michel Lind: (this might require coordination with RH's Leapp developers and AlmaLinux's ELevate developers, to make sure those support

Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2024-04-08)

Text Log: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2024-04-08/fesco.2024-04-08-19.30.log.txt HTML Log: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2024-04-08/fesco.2024-04-08-19.30.log.html Text Minutes:

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 08:47:20PM +0200, Leon Fauster via devel wrote: > Am 08.04.24 um 20:12 schrieb Michel Lind: > >(this might require coordination with RH's Leapp developers and > >AlmaLinux's ELevate developers, to make sure those support upgrading > >to lower NEVRAs too) > >

Re: Three steps we could take to make supply chain attacks a bit harder

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > So… this is what I'm talking about: there is no obvious way to > figure out what to set. Looking at the logs and trying to figure out > some variables from that is not very attractive. The comments at the top of the relevant Find*.cmake module are the best

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > And sorry, but saying to "process pull requests quickly" is just naive. > Busy packages often have many different pull requests concurrently, and > some of them need discussion and fixes and work in other places before > they can be merged. Generally, there

Re: Schedule for Monday's FESCo Meeting (2024-04-08)

On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 06:19:31PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Sat, Apr 06, 2024 at 10:45:52AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > = Discussed and Voted in the Ticket = > > > > Change: GNU Toolchain F41 > > https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3181 > > APPROVED (+6, 3, -0) > > Not that it

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

Am 08.04.24 um 20:12 schrieb Michel Lind: (this might require coordination with RH's Leapp developers and AlmaLinux's ELevate developers, to make sure those support upgrading to lower NEVRAs too) Would have a major EL release have a lower package NEVRA? Mmmh, how many fedora releases

Re: Schedule for Monday's FESCo Meeting (2024-04-08)

On Sat, Apr 06, 2024 at 10:45:52AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > = Discussed and Voted in the Ticket = > > Change: GNU Toolchain F41 > https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3181 > APPROVED (+6, 3, -0) Not that it matters for anything, but it's actually (+6, 0, 0), i.e. there were no abstaining votes. (I

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 07:21:40AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 7:11 AM Petr Pisar wrote: > > It's bascially the same problem as Fedora has when users upgrade from > > Fredora > > 40 to 41. Fedora "fixed" the rpmautospec problem by stating that upgrade > > path > > between

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

Am 08.04.24 um 14:55 schrieb Emmanuel Seyman: Well, you and Kevin see "salami tactics" (whatever that may be), FTR, I have no idea what "salami tactics" is. Since apperently multiple people don't know the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_slicing_tactics Regards Kilian --

[Bug 2274032] New: perl-Sys-Virt-10.2.0 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2274032 Bug ID: 2274032 Summary: perl-Sys-Virt-10.2.0 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-Sys-Virt Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek venit, vidit, dixit 2024-04-07 17:15:16: > Hi everyone, > > I'm revisting the topic of rpmautospec because I was doing some work > on various packages, and it's annoying that some packages are using > rpmautospec and others are not. > > All my packages have been

Orphaning some Java packages

Hi, I'm orphaning a couple of packages of mine which I no longer use or were used as a dependency of a package I've maintained before and am no longer using: Packages without co-maintainers: jolokia-jvm-agent prometheus-simpleclient-java prometheus-jmx-exporter

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

Thank you Zbigniew and Miro for the link. On 4/8/24 02:18, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 09:08:49PM -0700, Carlos Rodriguez-Fernandez wrote: On 4/7/24 21:07, Carlos Rodriguez-Fernandez wrote: Not all commits correspond with a new release downstream, and not all

Fedora 40 compose report: 20240408.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-40-20240407.n.0 NEW: Fedora-40-20240408.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:1 Dropped images: 1 Added packages: 0 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 3 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 0 B Size of dropped packages:0 B Size of upgraded

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 2:26 PM Tom Hughes via devel wrote: > > On 08/04/2024 14:47, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > It is already supposed to be default / preferred since this Fedora 38 > > Change: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Rpmautospec_by_Default > > I find that quite interesting

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

On 08/04/2024 14:47, Fabio Valentini wrote: It is already supposed to be default / preferred since this Fedora 38 Change: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Rpmautospec_by_Default I find that quite interesting because while I may have read it at the time I had certainly long since

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

Dne 08. 04. 24 v 2:55 odp. Emmanuel Seyman napsal(a): FTR, I have no idea what "salami tactics" is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_slicing_tactics Something that would be unacceptable to be done in one step is possible when you do that in tiny steps. You cannot eat whole salami, but

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

On 08/04/2024 10:28, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 09:08:19AM +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 04:48:03PM +0100, Tom Hughes via devel wrote: -1 for existing packages certainly - none of my git commit logs are written with the expectation that

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

V Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 11:37:48AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): > OK, so you mean that the approach with '.' at the end of Release > doesn't work. Yes, that case is not supported very well. > > There is no great solution here, but there are a few options. Which > one makes the

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 at 15:47, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 3:28 PM Iñaki Ucar wrote: > > > > So someone wanted to use rpmautospec and was willing to do the work, > putting things together as an opt-in feature. Perfect. > > > > Now, I don't see any problem if some time later

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

V Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 11:37:48AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): > On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 01:11:22PM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote: > > RHEL do updates into older minor distribution versions. E.g. you might want > > to > > build for RHEL 9.2 and RHEL 9.3. Users staying on 9.2 should

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 3:28 PM Iñaki Ucar wrote: > > So someone wanted to use rpmautospec and was willing to do the work, putting > things together as an opt-in feature. Perfect. > > Now, I don't see any problem if some time later someone revisits the topic > and proposes to go further. I don't

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

-1 as well, for all the reasons already mentioned. On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 8:28 AM Iñaki Ucar wrote: > So someone wanted to use rpmautospec and was willing to do the work, > putting things together as an opt-in feature. Perfect. > > Now, I don't see any problem if some time later someone

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

So someone wanted to use rpmautospec and was willing to do the work, putting things together as an opt-in feature. Perfect. Now, I don't see any problem if some time later someone revisits the topic and proposes to go further. I don't see anything unfriendly here. Everything was set or decided at

Re: F41 Change Proposal: Pytest 8 (self-contained)

I got a list of all packages BuildRequiring pytest using this command: $ repoquery --repo=rawhide{,-source} --whatrequires python3-pytest --recursive | grep src$ | pkgname | sort | uniq > packages.txt FreeIPA is not there because pytest build time dependency is disabled via bcond. On Mon, Apr

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20240408.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20240407.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20240408.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:1 Dropped images: 1 Added packages: 6 Dropped packages:8 Upgraded packages: 132 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 477.63 KiB Size of dropped packages

Re: F41 Change Proposal: Pytest 8 (self-contained)

On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 12:46 PM Sandro wrote: > On 05-04-2024 23:45, Aoife Moloney wrote: > > == Summary == > > > > Update to a new upstream release of pytest that is not completely > > compatible with previous releases. Pytest 8 is a major upstream > > release removing a lot of deprecated

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

* Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek [08/04/2024 09:02] : > > Well, you and Kevin see "salami tactics" (whatever that may be), FTR, I have no idea what "salami tactics" is. > while I see normal engineering practice: some new idea is hatched, > it's implemented and used narrowly, them it's applied by

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

On neděle 7. dubna 2024 17:15:16 CEST Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I'm revisting the topic of rpmautospec because I was doing some work > on various packages, and it's annoying that some packages are using > rpmautospec and others are not. > > All my packages have been

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

On 08/04/2024 11.31, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 12:22:35AM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: Emmanuel Seyman wrote: I've noticed a trend in proposed changes in the way Fedora works. I am fed up of this salami tactic as well. When we complain about the new stuff, we

[Bug 2273765] perl-DateTime-Locale-1.41 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2273765 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |ERRATA Fixed In Version|

[Bug 2273765] perl-DateTime-Locale-1.41 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2273765 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-0680ad9405 (perl-DateTime-Locale-1.41-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-0680ad9405 -- You are receiving this

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 01:11:22PM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote: > V Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 10:49:42AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > napsal(a): > > On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 12:28:34PM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote: > > > - It breaks upgrade path in downstream distributions (e.g. fixes in RHEL > > >

[Bug 2273765] perl-DateTime-Locale-1.41 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2273765 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Comment #1 from

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 7:11 AM Petr Pisar wrote: > > V Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 10:49:42AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > napsal(a): > > On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 12:28:34PM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote: > > > - It breaks upgrade path in downstream distributions (e.g. fixes in RHEL > > > minor > > >

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

V Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 10:49:42AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): > On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 12:28:34PM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote: > > - It breaks upgrade path in downstream distributions (e.g. fixes in RHEL > > minor > > releases). > > Hmm, can you provide describe the workflow

[Bug 2273751] perl-Imager-1.024 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2273751 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Fixed In Version|

[Bug 2273751] perl-Imager-1.024 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2273751 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-9c6f48a62b (perl-Imager-1.024-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-9c6f48a62b -- You are receiving this mail

[Bug 2273751] perl-Imager-1.024 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2273751 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Comment #1 from

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 12:28:34PM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote: > V Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 03:15:16PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > napsal(a): > > I think it's time to switch to rpmautospec completely. > > Thus, the proposal: > > - new packages MUST use rpmautospec > > - packagers SHOULD convert

No Open NeuroFedora Meeting: Monday, 08 April 2024 (today) at 13:00 UTC

Hi folks, We won't have the NeuroFedora meeting today. We'll continue in 2 weeks as per our schedule. -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Time zone: Europe/London signature.asc Description: PGP signature --

Re: "fedpkg local" builds fail for rust packages

On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 6:17 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 03:33:35PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 9:51 AM Michael J Gruber > > wrote: > > > > > > So you're saying that those packages are in the repos for everyone but > > > not meant to be

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

V Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 03:15:16PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): > I think it's time to switch to rpmautospec completely. > Thus, the proposal: > - new packages MUST use rpmautospec > - packagers SHOULD convert their packages > - provenpackagers MAY convert existing packages >

Re: Three steps we could take to make supply chain attacks a bit harder

On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 05:52:07AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 5:37 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 12:03:19AM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > > I wrote: > > > > On Sun, Apr 7 2024 at 13:52:26 +00:00:00, Zbigniew

Re: "fedpkg local" builds fail for rust packages

On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 03:33:35PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 9:51 AM Michael J Gruber > wrote: > > > > So you're saying that those packages are in the repos for everyone but > > not meant to be installed by anyone (besides mock chroots), and that is > > how and why

Re: Three steps we could take to make supply chain attacks a bit harder

On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 5:37 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 12:03:19AM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > I wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 7 2024 at 13:52:26 +00:00:00, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > > > wrote: > > >> Hmm, why? Oh, rpm uses cmake, and cmake has

Re: Three steps we could take to make supply chain attacks a bit harder

On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 12:03:19AM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > I wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 7 2024 at 13:52:26 +00:00:00, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > > wrote: > >> Hmm, why? Oh, rpm uses cmake, and cmake has it's own special > >> detection of python, and it found /usr/bin/python3.13t

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 12:22:35AM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Emmanuel Seyman wrote: > > I've noticed a trend in proposed changes in the way Fedora works. > > I am fed up of this salami tactic as well. When we complain about the new > stuff, we invariably get told "don't worry, you

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 09:08:19AM +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: > On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 04:48:03PM +0100, Tom Hughes via devel wrote: > > -1 for existing packages certainly - none of my git commit logs > > are written with the expectation that they will double as package > > changelogs so

[Bug 2273778] perl-IO-Compress-2.211 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2273778 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |ERRATA Fixed In Version|

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 09:08:49PM -0700, Carlos Rodriguez-Fernandez wrote: > On 4/7/24 21:07, Carlos Rodriguez-Fernandez wrote: > > Not all commits correspond with a new release downstream, and not all > > commit messages are relevant to the end user to be part of the change > > log. For example,

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 12:38:47AM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > I'm revisting the topic of rpmautospec because I was doing some work > > on various packages, and it's annoying that some packages are using > > rpmautospec and others are not. > > The

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

Zbyszek While I am in favor of autospec, I agree with the comment that it doesn't work well outside of koji. - builds in copr work. The builds themselves work, but in my experience they do not increase the `release`, nor do they handle `autochangelog`. Are there ways around it if we want

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 06:44:57PM +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote: > * Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek [07/04/2024 15:56] : > > > > On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 05:47:57PM +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote: > > > > > > This doesn't solve the problem you have so that's a no-go as well. > > > > In what way

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 12:58:04PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > No. I do not want to use rpmautospec as it currently exists. It does > not help me. It does not achieve anything for me. It breaks my > packages for building outside of Fedora Koji. It doesn't even make > things better for supporting

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 05:55:08PM +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: > I also still see some issues in %autorelease , why fix a typo is a new > release ? Either the fix is important and you rebuild and then you _must_ have a new release, because koji requires a unique NEVRA. Or the fix can wait, so you

[Bug 2273778] perl-IO-Compress-2.211 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2273778 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #1 from

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL9 updates obsoleted

On 07-04-2024 19:04, Antonio T. sagitter wrote: Can this update be re-activated or i have to rebuild everything? https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-c154b725ab Have you tried re-submitting the side tag to Bodhi? -- ___ epel-devel

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

> Hi everyone, > > I'm revisting the topic of rpmautospec because I was doing some work > on various packages, and it's annoying that some packages are using > rpmautospec and others are not. > > All my packages have been converted, so in day-to-day work, I don't > even think about %changelog.

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 04:48:03PM +0100, Tom Hughes via devel wrote: > -1 for existing packages certainly - none of my git commit logs > are written with the expectation that they will double as package > changelogs so doing so may break the changelog. Yes, I think rpm changelog is for users of

Re: F41 Change Proposal: Pytest 8 (self-contained)

On Суб, 06 кра 2024, Sandro wrote: On 05-04-2024 23:45, Aoife Moloney wrote: == Summary == Update to a new upstream release of pytest that is not completely compatible with previous releases. Pytest 8 is a major upstream release removing a lot of deprecated functions and introducing breaking

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

On 08. 04. 24 6:08, Carlos Rodriguez-Fernandez wrote: Not all commits correspond with a new release downstream, and not all commit messages are relevant to the end user to be part of the change log. For example, commits related with increasing gating test coverage efforts, or setting up