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

The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing: Age URL 6 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-d9102d9191 clojure-1.8.0-3.el7 6 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-1f6e851537 trafficserver-9.2.4-1.el7 5

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

The following Fedora EPEL 9 Security updates need testing: Age URL 6 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-3412a9098b editorconfig-0.12.7-1.el9 6 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-c6577bc2ed upx-4.2.3-1.el9 6

Re: F42 Change Proposal: Fedora Plasma Workstation (System-Wide)

> KDE Plasma seem to be more technically advanced than GNOME. The problem is, the more technically advanced a system is, in many cases, the less user friendly it is. For example, when you're confusing people who are actual software engineers by asking them if they want a Blowfish encrypted KDE

Re: Looking for people to be stewards of rpminspect-data-fedora

Hello David, I would like to contribute. Will be an excellent learning opportunity. Priscila. On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 6:14 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 01:55:41PM -0400, David Cantrell wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > I am looking for multiple people to help be upstream

Re: Looking for people to be stewards of rpminspect-data-fedora

On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 01:55:41PM -0400, David Cantrell wrote: > Hello all, > > I am looking for multiple people to help be upstream stewards of the > rpminspect-data-fedora project. This is a project that contains config files > and rules for running rpminspect on Fedora builds. It is a

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

-1 I have some packages using the %autorelease packages and I do not like that workflow at all. For me the git commit history is intended for maintainers, while the %changelog is intended for users. With the separation, then it is very explicit, when mixing them, then I need to figure out if

[rpms/perl-Task-Catalyst] PR #1: Stop building for 32-bit x86

jjames opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Task-Catalyst` that you are following: `` Stop building for 32-bit x86 `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Task-Catalyst/pull-request/1 -- ___ perl-devel

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 05:39:11PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 01:12:38PM -0500, Michel Lind wrote: > > 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

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

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: EPEL Steering Committee on 2024-04-10 from 18:00:00 to 19:00:00 UTC At fedora-meet...@chat.fedoraproject.org The meeting will be about: https://chat.fedoraproject.org/#/room/#meeting:fedoraproject.org This is the weekly EPEL Steering

Looking for people to be stewards of rpminspect-data-fedora

Hello all, I am looking for multiple people to help be upstream stewards of the rpminspect-data-fedora project. This is a project that contains config files and rules for running rpminspect on Fedora builds. It is a package containing distribution policy. It needs people to look over it and

Re: Redis will no longer be OSS... now what?

Valkey 7.2.4 rc1 was released earlier today. Package review opened at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2274206 which Neal Gompa has taken. Will update again when packages are in Bodhi testing. On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 1:41 PM Carlos Rodriguez-Fernandez <

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 01:12:38PM -0500, Michel Lind wrote: > 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"

Idea: pynose as drop-in replacement for nose

Hi, While looking into a package upgrade I came across pynose [1]. It appears to be a drop-in replacement for nose [2], which has been deprecated in Fedora 32 [3]. There are still quite a few packages depending on nose, that have not yet moved away from it. The official successor to nose is

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 04:11:14PM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote: > 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

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 12:57:33PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 12:56 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 09:41:01AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > > > > Dne 08. 04. 24 v 10:43 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): > > > > And we already

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 6:58 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 12:56 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 09:41:01AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > > > > Dne 08. 04. 24 v 10:43 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): > > > > And we already have a

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 03:38:07PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > In particular: > > - local builds work, I do them all the time, with 'fedpkg local' or > > through an srpm. > > Using rpmbuild directly needs some adaption though: > > (1) Use 'rpmautospec calculate-release' to figure what the

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 12:56 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 09:41:01AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > > Dne 08. 04. 24 v 10:43 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): > > > And we already have a significant fraction of packages using rpmautospec, > > > > > >

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 09:41:01AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Dne 08. 04. 24 v 10:43 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): > > And we already have a significant fraction of packages using rpmautospec, > > > Actually, could you quantify the "significant fraction"? 7399 / 23912 = 31%.

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 10:04:11AM +0200, Remi Collet wrote: > Le 07/04/2024 à 17:15, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek a écrit : > > Thus, the proposal: > > - new packages MUST use rpmautospec > > - packagers SHOULD convert their packages > > - provenpackagers MAY convert existing packages > >(e.g.

[Last call, due Thu 11 April] Join us! Restarting Community Ops team meetings in 2024

Hi Fedora Devel, I wanted to echo this Community Blog post [1] on the Devel list. This is the final week that the meeting poll is open for the Community Operations team meetings. This is a gradual comeback for the team since

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 02:20:37PM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote: > > - should we extend this further and say, if we no longer assume NEVRAs > > are monotonically increasing in a new release, we should allow > > packagers to use this opportunity to drop epochs in Rawhide? (likely > > with proper

Fedora 40 compose report: 20240409.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-40-20240408.n.0 NEW: Fedora-40-20240409.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:2 Dropped images: 1 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

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20240409.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20240408.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20240409.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:2 Dropped images: 2 Added packages: 3 Dropped packages:11 Upgraded packages: 100 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 144.74 KiB Size of dropped packages

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

> In particular: > - local builds work, I do them all the time, with 'fedpkg local' or > through an srpm. Using rpmbuild directly needs some adaption though: (1) Use 'rpmautospec calculate-release' to figure what the release number is. (2) Pass that to rpmbuild using --define

Re: "fedpkg local" builds fail for rust packages

Dne 09. 04. 24 v 14:15 Fabio Valentini napsal(a): On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 1:19 PM Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 08. 04. 24 v 12:32 Neal Gompa napsal(a): Packaged Rust crates work *fine* for local development as long as you are willing to cut yourself off from crates.io. Unlike *every other language

soname bump: live555 2024.03.08 coming to rawhide

Hello! Latest live555-2024.03.08 comes with an SONAME bump from 107 to 112. The only consumer seems to be vlc, which I'll rebuild in a side-tag (f41-build-side-87311) and submit together as an update. This is rawhide only. Regards, Dominik -- Fedora https://fedoraproject.org Deep in the human

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

V Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 01:12:38PM -0500, Michel Lind napsal(a): > - should we update the packaging docs? Does this need to be a new Change > Proposal or does this just need to go through the Fedora packaging > committee? (Those involved in the Change like zbyszek can probably > advise here)

Re: "fedpkg local" builds fail for rust packages

On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 1:19 PM Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Dne 08. 04. 24 v 12:32 Neal Gompa napsal(a): > > Packaged Rust crates work *fine* for local development as long as you > > are willing to cut yourself off from crates.io. Unlike *every other > > language package manager*, Cargo does not

Re: "fedpkg local" builds fail for rust packages

Dne 08. 04. 24 v 12:32 Neal Gompa napsal(a): 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

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL9 updates obsoleted

Following Fabio Valentini tip , One thing you *could* try is do a new side-tag and move the builds to there . and example of move build : koji move-build epel8-testing-candidate epel8-build-side-52356 ImageMagick-6.9.12.44-1.el8 On Tue, 2024-04-09 at 11:46 +0200, Antonio T. sagitter wrote:

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL9 updates obsoleted

Yes, but i can't because the side-tag is already used. On 08/04/24 09:52, Sandro wrote: 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: convert everything to rpmautospec?

Le 08/04/2024 à 18:43, Michael J Gruber a écrit : How absurd! That is rude, and ONLY your PoV. To summarize, there is no agreement on a unique workflow, and having one to become the only allowed seems to me as a terrible idea. Remi -- ___ devel

[Bug 2274116] New: perl-AnyEvent-I3-0.19 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2274116 Bug ID: 2274116 Summary: perl-AnyEvent-I3-0.19 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-AnyEvent-I3 Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

Le 07/04/2024 à 17:15, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek a écrit : Thus, the proposal: - new packages MUST use rpmautospec - packagers SHOULD convert their packages - provenpackagers MAY convert existing packages (e.g. when they want to push some fix or separately from other work) - people

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

Dne 08. 04. 24 v 10:43 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): And we already have a significant fraction of packages using rpmautospec, Actually, could you quantify the "significant fraction"? Thx Vít OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature --

Re: Help Needed for a tricky bug for Fedora Linux 40

On 8 Apr 2024, at 23:31, Aoife Moloney wrote: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 the ideas that have been suggested