Re: Update "ejected from the push"

Hi Kevin, On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 10:55 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > Did you by chance add them to the update during the upgrade this > morning? (starting at 10UTC)? It doesn't look like bodhi did the right > thing with the tagging here... I can try and correct things. It was towards the end of

Update "ejected from the push"

Hello, Can anyone help me figure out what's going on with this update? https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-b8551abae2 It says that the side-tag is not among a bunch of other tags. It does exist though. What I did was build a package and its dependencies in side-tags for F33, F34

Re: Upgrade to Fedora 34 broke the boot menu.

On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 6:37 PM Björn Persson wrote: > > Tomasz Torcz wrote: > > Dnia Sat, May 08, 2021 at 02:51:31PM +0200, Björn Persson napisał(a): > > > I used yum system-upgrade to upgrade from Fedora 32 to Fedora 34. Now > > > Grub complains about not finding some theme files, and then

Re: Package update requires modification of config file in users' home directories

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 10:27 PM Ian Pilcher wrote: > > On 3/9/21 1:39 PM, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: > > Well, the first option is still a no-no, as the fixup has to happen in > > the user's home directory. For the second one, I think I'd need to add > > something like &

Re: Package update requires modification of config file in users' home directories

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 7:28 PM Ian Pilcher wrote: > > On 3/8/21 5:10 PM, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: > > Is there something I can do to sed out the -qt5 suffix, or should I > > just bite the bullet, build the update and wait for the bug reports to > > come in? > > Yo

Re: Package update requires modification of config file in users' home directories

Hi Kevin, On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 1:26 AM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 01:03:05AM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > > I don't think that packagers should *ever* be in the business of > > modifying the content of users' $HOME directories. > > In fact this has happened before in

Re: Package update requires modification of config file in users' home directories

Hello Fabio, On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 1:03 AM Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:10 AM Alexander Ploumistos > wrote: > > > > Upstream has just released a bugfix update for Molsketch and it's the > > kind of update that can't wait for the next fedora r

Package update requires modification of config file in users' home directories

Hello, Upstream has just released a bugfix update for Molsketch and it's the kind of update that can't wait for the next fedora release. Among the other fixes, the new version has dropped support for Qt4 and with it, the -qt5 suffixes of several files. While testing it, I realized that after the

Re: Ars claims: Fedora 32 is sluggish

On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 10:03 AM Roberto Ragusa wrote: > > On 2/4/21 9:52 PM, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: > > > considerable lag. In the last 4 or so years I remember issues with > > tracker, gnome-shell, mutter/clutter and friends on specific GPUs, > > default or popula

Re: Ars claims: Fedora 32 is sluggish

On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 8:48 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 10:53:32AM -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > Has anybody investigated Jim Salter's claims that Fedora 32 is slow > > to launch applications? Recent article: > > > >

turning off ELN build failure notifications

Hello, Could someone please help me figure out which rule I need to edit over at Fedora Notifications, to stop receiving messages like this one? On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 9:53 PM wrote: > > Notification time stamped 2021-01-14 20:53:32 UTC > > bpeck/jenkins-continuous-infra.apps.ci.centos.org's

Re: auditd spamming of dmesg

Hello Richard, Right after logging in (and starting Firefox), dmesg returns 1176 lines, of which 25 are audit messages. It's pretty much the same ratio on a second desktop and slightly higher (46/724) on a server running multiple services, but I would call neither nearly unreadable. Are you

Re: Fedora 34 Change: Enable spec file preprocessing (System-Wide Change proposal)

Hello, On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 5:53 PM Robert-André Mauchin wrote: > > On 12/18/20 3:52 PM, James Szinger wrote: > > > > No. One can also download the sources from upstream using spectool or > > similar, even wget or curl. My local work flow is typically get or > > create spec file and

Re: heads up: nss 3.59 breaks firefox add-ons

Sorry to be a bother, but is there another side effect from having this update installed on a server? As far as I could tell from the discussion on the update page, only the sha1 signed firefox add-ons are concerned, but I could be missing something. ___

Re: heads up: nss 3.59 breaks firefox add-ons

Hi Jerry, > On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 5:08 PM Alexander Ploumistos > > You're a gmail user like me. Between approximately 90 and 30 minutes > ago, I had several people call me to ask why I had deleted my email > account. Email sent to me was bouncing back with a message that th

Re: heads up: nss 3.59 breaks firefox add-ons

Off topic, is there a way to see the message headers in Hyperkitty? I'm trying to figure out why 4 messages in this thread were never delivered to me. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: heads up: nss 3.59 breaks firefox add-ons

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 12:45 AM Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Tue, 2020-12-15 at 17:59 -0500, Steven A. Falco wrote: > > On 12/15/20 5:09 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > On Tue, 2020-12-15 at 22:38 +0100, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 15, 202

Re: heads up: nss 3.59 breaks firefox add-ons

On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 9:04 PM Alexander Ploumistos wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 8:17 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > > If you upgrade in f33 or rawhide to nss 3.59, all your firefox add-ons > > will stop working. Worse they will appear corrupted, so you will have t

Re: heads up: nss 3.59 breaks firefox add-ons

On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 8:17 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > If you upgrade in f33 or rawhide to nss 3.59, all your firefox add-ons > will stop working. Worse they will appear corrupted, so you will have to > remove them and re-install them (after downgrading nss). I'm running firefox

Re: s390x only buildroot problem

Hello, I don't understand how, but I seem to have hit this issue with an F33 build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=57394473 The same package builds fine in rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=57393926 The new release fixes a nasty bug and I'd like

Re: Issue with building telepathy-salut.

Hi, On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 2:40 PM Chihurumnaya Ibiam wrote: > > I don't see any errors when I look at the root log I can't find any errors as > to why the package fails to build. This is what the spec file looks like with > my changes. There's this in your build.log: Patch #1

Re: Disabling Fedora 30 chroots in Copr

On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:31 AM Jakub Kadlcik wrote: > > Ah, so you meant the F28 and F29 chroots listed here in the build details, > e.g. > > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/alexpl/molsketch/build/869545/ Yes, that's what I was talking about. > That is as expected. Possibly we can

Re: Disabling Fedora 30 chroots in Copr

Hello again, Perhaps I'm the one who's misunderstood. Is the fact that F28 and F29 builds are still around unrelated to which chroots are actually there? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: Disabling Fedora 30 chroots in Copr

On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 9:54 AM Jakub Kadlcik wrote: > > Hello Alexander, > what do those chroots say in their "Remaining time" column, please? They are not listed at all, see these two: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/alexpl/molsketch/repositories/

Re: Disabling Fedora 30 chroots in Copr

Hello Jakub, I noticed that some of my projects still have chroots for even older releases, e.g. F28, F29 without the option to remove them. In another instance, only a specific F30 arch shows up among the chroots to be removed or extended, while the others architectures are not picked up. Is

Re: Orphaning openbabel

Hi Zbigniew, On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 7:53 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 01:53:03AM +0200, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: > […] > I think it makes sense to add a new 'openbabel3' package. Like Kevin wrote > in the other mail, it seems likely tha

Re: Orphaning openbabel

Hello everyone, I've finally managed to find some time and get the latest Open Babel snapshot to build in F32 and rawhide. The spec file is ugly with a bunch of comments still in it and I've realized that documentation upstream is lacking, especially concerning build options and bindings. So far,

Re: Fedora 33 Mass Rebuild

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 12:20 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 4:21 PM Alexander Ploumistos > wrote: > > > > Hi Neal, > > > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 8:37 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > > > CMake macros are documented in the packagi

Re: Fedora 33 Mass Rebuild

Hi Neal, On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 8:37 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > CMake macros are documented in the packaging guidelines: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CMake/ So if a spec file is supposed to work on F31 to F33, "%undefine __cmake_in_source_build" is all that's

Re: Orphaning openbabel

Hello Dominik and everyone else, The next release of Molsketch is going to build against Open Babel 3.x, so I started working on updating the openbabel package around the time version 3.1.1 came out, which supposedly fixed some issues related to packaging on linux. Based on your spec file, I was

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:30 PM Josef Bacik wrote: > > On 6/26/20 11:15 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 11:13:39AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > >> Not Fedora land, but Facebook installs it on all of our root > >> devices, so millions of machines. We've done this for 5 years.

Re: The future of legacy BIOS support in Fedora.

On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 12:49 AM John M. Harris Jr wrote: > > On Thursday, July 2, 2020 3:47:00 PM MST Alexander Ploumistos wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 12:22 AM John M. Harris Jr > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > That's a link to the release announc

Re: The future of legacy BIOS support in Fedora.

On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 12:22 AM John M. Harris Jr wrote: > > That's a link to the release announcement. If you follow the thread, you'll > find that I was provided a link to two bugzilla links are to meta links to > blockers, where the items that are blocking are not issues preventing x86 >

Re: The future of legacy BIOS support in Fedora.

On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:54 PM John M. Harris Jr wrote: > > On Thursday, July 2, 2020 8:24:49 AM MST Gordon Messmer wrote: > > On 7/2/20 3:16 AM, nick...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > Note that, even though Microsoft is pushing for UEFI on new systems in > > > the OEM version of Windows, they still

Re: Disable dmraid.service on first run if no dmraid sets are found - Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 10:30 AM José Abílio Matos wrote: > > IIRC this is probably related with the dependencies of anaconda: Is there an easy suggestion we can make to our users other than play with "rpm -e" or nuking dnf's database? There's a bunch of threads over at askfedora where people

Re: Disable dmraid.service on first run if no dmraid sets are found - Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 1:35 AM José Abílio Matos wrote: > > On Monday, 29 June 2020 22.23.00 WEST Alexander Ploumistos wrote: > > This tends to take with it many things that it shouldn't, like gdb, > > dbus-x11, python3-pwquality, tigervnc-server-minimal and tmux - among

Re: Disable dmraid.service on first run if no dmraid sets are found - Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 11:09 PM Hans de Goede wrote: > > I fix this on my > own systems with "dnf remove dmraid" This tends to take with it many things that it shouldn't, like gdb, dbus-x11, python3-pwquality, tigervnc-server-minimal and tmux - among others.

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make nano the default editor

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 1:40 AM Peter Hutterer wrote: > > disclaimer: I'm using zsh, not bash but it has the same issue. But IMO you > can't really blame it - how is the completion to know that you want to > install an RPM in the current directory? The correct way would be > dnf install

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make nano the default editor

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 7:20 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > > Let's make Fedora more approachable, by having a default editor that > doesn't require specialist knowledge to use. One could argue that this adds to the experience! > (These arguments would apply > just as well if git picked Vim. vi is

Re: wireguard kmod package

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 11:04 PM Przemek Klosowski via devel wrote: > > so the repo it's coming from is @commandline, but I am not doing > it---somehow akmods pulls it in? my repolist is: You probably have akmod-wireguard from rpmfusion-free. ___

Re: Fedora Packager Dashboard available for testing

Congratulations to all of you, this is very useful and beautifully made. I almost got a panic attack when I saw all the bugs, but I quickly realized that most of them were for packages from groups I am a member of. Everything is pretty self explanatory and in the long run it is going to save us a

Re: Update ejected from the push

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 10:00 AM Clement Verna wrote: > > I have deployed bodhi 5.4.0 (https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/releases) > in production today. That should fix the issue with sidetags for normal > releases :-) Thank you! I don't think I'll need to use sidetags until after the

Re: Update ejected from the push

These updates, along with a couple of others I submitted 12h ago, just appeared in my local mirror. Bodhi still shows everything as transitioning from pending to testing and I never got a notification about them having moved to testing. Side effect from the data center move?

Re: Packagers with no corresponding valid bugzilla accounts

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:08 AM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 07:52:16PM +0200, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: > > I remember that some time ago we were told not to use the > > @fedoraproject.org in bugzilla, can't recall why exactly. Has this > > changed?

Re: Packagers with no corresponding valid bugzilla accounts

I remember that some time ago we were told not to use the @fedoraproject.org in bugzilla, can't recall why exactly. Has this changed? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: Update ejected from the push

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 4:24 AM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 03:23:30AM +0200, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 2:43 AM Alexander Ploumistos > > wrote: > > > > > > The other update doesn't seem to be moving, but at lea

Re: Update ejected from the push

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 2:43 AM Alexander Ploumistos wrote: > > The other update doesn't seem to be moving, but at least > it hasn't been ejected (yet). And the second one was just cast out as well. ___ devel mailing list

Update ejected from the push

Hello, A few hours ago I submitted a couple of updates[0,1] that I had built in side-tags. When I saw that after 7 hours they were still "pending" I got in touch with infra on irc and Mohan gave them a push. I've just received a notification that one of them was ejected from the push because

Re: Review swap - antimicroX

Hello Greg, I'll take it. Could you please review this in return? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844643 I'll start working on it in a few hours. Best regards ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an

Re: Regarding behaviour of Gnome and Fedora members

So in a nutshell: 1. You've approached several FLOSS communities, even though you clearly disagree with their core values. 2. You've complained/filed bugs for things you consider to be problematic, stemming from the basic principles of said communities. 3. Members of these communities have

Re: Is there an official Fedora for WSL?

See this thread from @legal: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/le...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/JA4FEGORE53RXKOPRADODTBUCQN3XVJE/ On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 1:53 PM Code Zombie wrote: > > Hi > I recently realized that Windows WSL works by actually installing a Linux > distribution.

Re: Fedora 33 Self-Contained Change proposal: Drop mod_php

On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 11:14 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 03:53:26PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > > == Detailed Description == > > By default php-fpm is used for a few versions. mod_php is not > > supported for threaded modules. mod_php usage also increases

Re: Packages still using %{?_smp_mflags} manually?

Thanks Igor, I'll update both ASAP. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List

Re: Packages still using %{?_smp_mflags} manually?

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 5:01 PM Richard Shaw wrote: > > Not really a big deal but %build_make has been available for quite a while. I > noticed a few of my packages still supply _smp_mflags manually. Recently, one of my packages switched to meson and while searching through our documentation, I

Re: New set of questions for FESCo candidates?

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:56 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:39 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: >> >> If we just make it an essay with suggestions of what to include, I think >> it might be more engaging than just a sentence or two on specific >> questions. >> > Thinking about it from

Re: [External] Re: Fedora+Lenovo

Hello again, On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 3:02 PM Mark Pearson wrote: > > > > From: Alexander Ploumistos > > Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 8:07 AM > > > > One thing that I'd like to see, is linux support for the "energy > > manager" features - it's pretty

Re: Fedora+Lenovo

On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 2:38 PM James Cassell wrote: > > > On Fri, May 1, 2020, at 8:07 AM, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: > > One thing that I'd like to see, is linux support for the "energy > > manager" features - it's pretty much the only reason I've allowed >

Re: Fedora+Lenovo

Hi Mark, And welcome aboard. I've been using a tweaked Legion Y520-15IKBN for a year and a half now and I'm a happy camper. I can't say that I understand hardware vendors' marketing decisions, like putting a heftier price tag on a "professional" machine, whereas a "gaming" laptop with the same

Re: Backports of fixes from F32 -> F31?

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 3:05 AM Josh Boyer wrote: > Perhaps there are other reasons, like some third party software not > working on F32, for example. I'm generally curious about how people > actually use our distributions and what prevents them from just > drinking from the firehose. Well,

Re: bodhi: stuck updates

And thank you for taking care of this. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List

bodhi: stuck updates

Hi, Almost a week ago, I built cmpfit and fityk in side tags on F31, F32 and F33. While the builds for F33 moved directly to stable - as expected - the other two got stuck for 4 days. I noticed that I could push them manually to testing, which I did a little over two days ago, but they seem to be

Re: Replace buildroot overrides with user side tags?

Yesterday I had to use that functionality for the very first time and with Mohan's comment in mind about the resource cost, I was leaning towards using buildroot overrides. I ended up creating side tags, for the simple reason that the available documentation was much more clearer. Are we supposed

Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 32 Candidate RC-1.5 Available Now!

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 11:55 AM Silvia Sánchez wrote: > > But from *where* do I download the ISO ? > > On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 at 08:46, wrote: >> […] >> You can see all results, find testing instructions and image download >> locations, and enter results on the Summary page: >> >>

Re: Review swap: freeopcua

Here's mine: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826326 I have to run a quick errand and afterwards I'll pick up the review for freeopcua. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: Review swap: freeopcua

Hello Till, I've taken it, and a have a simple gnome-shell extension I would like reviewed in return. I'm currently working with upstream on a bug, once that's solved I'll work on the freeopuca review. Best regards, A. ___ devel mailing list --

Re: Unretire gjots2 (gtk heirarchical note jotter)

On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 4:59 PM Paul Howarth wrote: > > I view the rpmlint warning as a hint to try to get upstream to fix the > license text. In the case of unresponsive upstreams, we just have to > live with it. I think we're all on the same page here, I made the suggestion bearing in mind

Re: Unretire gjots2 (gtk heirarchical note jotter)

On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 4:40 PM Petr Pisar wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 04:27:06PM +0200, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: > > The FSF address should be the most straightforward to fix. > > > Straightforward, but impossible for a pacakger. Because it's a part of the > l

Re: Unretire gjots2 (gtk heirarchical note jotter)

Hello again, If nobody else steps up to do the review, I'll take care of it later in the week. In the meantime, see if you can resolve any of the issues picked up by rpmlint - there may be some false positives there: Rpmlint --- Checking: gjots2-3.1.2-2.fc33.noarch.rpm

Re: Unretire gjots2 (gtk heirarchical note jotter)

Hello Bob, On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 3:12 AM Bob Hepple wrote: > I'd like to unretire the package gjots2 package > Full disclosure - I'm upstream. The package has been updated to python3 Since gjots2 had been orphaned quite some time ago, it will need to be reviewed again:

Re: Self Introduction: Gonçalo Pereira

Hello Gonçalo, On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 9:13 PM Gonçalo Camelo Neves Pereira wrote: > > One final question, I have managed to compile freehdl using a patch file from > the maintainer of freehdl on Arch Linux repositories >

Re: Preparing for OpenVPN 3 package review

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 8:05 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > On 18.02.2020 22:29, David Sommerseth wrote: > > We released the OpenVPN 3 Linux v8 beta release early last week [0], with > > the > > Fedora Copr repository [1] updated as well. Now things are working so well > > it > > is

Re: copr builds for rawhide 64-bit arches failing

And now I am getting gpg key mismatches. Should I just wait it out and keep resubmitting builds until they succeed? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of

copr builds for rawhide 64-bit arches failing

Hello, I am trying to build a package in copr, but rawhide builds for aarch64, ppc64le and x86_64 fail with the following message in root.log: DEBUG util.py:689: Executing command: ['btrfs', 'subv', 'list', '/var/lib/mock'] with env {'TERM': 'vt100', 'SHELL': '/bin/sh', 'HOME': '/builddir',

Re: Java Dev Group and Fedora Quality

Hello Bill, And sorry for digressing. On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 1:10 AM Bill Chatfield via devel wrote: > > That's a very sad story. I had no idea. So it sounds like you mainly need > maintainers for Java packages. I have worked on building RPMs but I have > never been a package maintainer.

Re: Java Dev Group and Fedora Quality

Hello Ty, On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 1:42 AM Ty Young wrote: > > The unfortunate reality is that none of what you describe will likely > change in any significant way, at least not with the standard Linux > distros(Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian, Arch) etc. Too much of Linux is ideology > based(GNU, among

Re: Bubblemail: looking for package maintainer

Hello Razer, You've made quite some progress since the fork, well done! I have come to rely heavily on mailnag and for a while now it seemed that it was going the way of the dodo. I could take up packaging, but for the time being I am in desperate need of 48-hour days and can't really add more to

Re: help with repackaging pdf-stapler for python3

You are welcome. Sorry for the HTML, I am away from home. On Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 15:12 Globe Trotter via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Thanks! There was an issue with koji and me. Now the update has been built > and submitted for testing. Should I fix the egg issue? How. >

Re: help with repackaging pdf-stapler for python3

On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 7:35 AM Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > Any further suggestion/help? Here is the updated spec file: > > $ fpaste pdf-stapler.spec > Uploading (5.0KiB)... > https://paste.centos.org/view/3a4fe4d6 > Oh, there's also a problem with your changelog entries, the last three

Re: help with repackaging pdf-stapler for python3

On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 7:35 AM Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > > Thanks! This seems to compile again, but I can't tell what happened with koji: > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=39956986 Besides koji misbehaving in general in the last few days, you have uploaded an older

Re: help with repackaging pdf-stapler for python3

Hello again, Replace the mv line you have in your spec file with this: rm %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/stapler Also, do you really need to declare PKG-INFO as documentation? It's included with the egg metadata. If you remove it from your %files section, the package builds fine. If you are intent on

Re: help with repackaging pdf-stapler for python3

Hello, On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 7:44 AM Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > > However, I have a problem: the issue is that Source0 does not have the latest > tar.bz2 while Source1 does not call it 1.0.0 though the release notes say so > (there). You should have just one SourceX tag for each

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Enable fstrim.timer by default

On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 1:43 AM John M. Harris Jr wrote: > > On Friday, December 20, 2019 5:33:59 PM MST Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > Hi > > > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 7:15 PM John M. Harris Jr > > > > wrote: > > > > ...release notes are published on the docs site as they have always > > > > been:

Re: Fedora 31: dnf upgrade suddenly enables modular streams for protobuf

On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 8:06 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 1:52 PM Alexander Ploumistos > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 6:14 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > > > > Rollback or disable explicitly. > > > > I had be

Re: Fedora 31: dnf upgrade suddenly enables modular streams for protobuf

On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 6:14 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > Rollback or disable explicitly. I had been busy testing a bunch of other packages from koji and rollback is going to break a lot of things at this point. Could you please explain how to install the new protobuf build and get rid of the

Re: Open Babel 3.0.0

Hello Dominik, On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 7:40 PM Dominik Mierzejewski wrote: > > On Saturday, 23 November 2019 at 13:52, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: > [...] > > Now I'd argue that the changes in v3.0.0 would be worth bending the > > rules and updating everything in s

Open Babel 3.0.0

Hello, This is addressed to the maintainers of packages that depend on openbabel and Dominik, who maintains obenbabel. One of the upstream projects I'm monitoring received a patch yesterday for openbabel-3.0.0, which was released a little over a month ago. I took a look at its changelog, which

Re: How to approve a review request ?

On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 6:04 PM J. Scheurich wrote: > > Hi, > >> I want to approve the review request of vimvi-qt, but this is my first > >> offical review 8-( > > You need to set fedora-review+ flag. Click on "Show advanced fields" near > > the top of the bug, and flags should be visible in a

Re: Will orphan packages with NEW F31FTBFS bugs tomorrow

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 1:17 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > gucharmap Turns out that a) I got some spare time and b) the FTBFS was rather easy to fix. Before I adopt another stray that I know almost nothing about, does anyone have a good reason why I should let it get retired?

Re: Will orphan packages with NEW F31FTBFS bugs tomorrow

On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 10:41 AM Ernestas Kulik wrote: > > On Thu, 2019-11-14 at 10:34 +0100, Ernestas Kulik wrote: > > On Thu, 2019-11-14 at 09:08 +, Paul Howarth wrote: > > > On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 13:53:17 +0100 > > > Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > > gucharmap > > > > > > Isn't that a core

Re: Fedora 31 Self-Contained Change proposal: AArch64 Xfce Desktop image

On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 11:52 AM Peter Robinson wrote: > It will not be supported in Fedora 31. It was accidentally added to > the original change and the change page subsequently updated to to > remove the error but the email had already been sent. Thanks Peter. I suppose that since raspbian is

Re: Fedora 31 Self-Contained Change proposal: AArch64 Xfce Desktop image

Hi, The change proposal submitted here lists the Pi 4 among the supported devices, whereas the wiki page does not. I checked the SUPPORTED-BOARDS file in the accompanying documentation of arm-image-installer and there is no rpi4 in the list of target boards. Will the the Pi 4 be supported at

Re: Fedora 31 Beta Release Announcement

Hi John, On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 2:02 AM John M. Harris, Jr. wrote: > > The thing is, i686 still works. The kernel still builds as well, without > issue. I have no idea what the issues that have been mentioned are, and I've > kept asking. Nobody has given me an answer. Nobody has pointed me to

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

Error: Problem: problem with installed package bat-0.10.0-1.module_f30+4037+f98ba4b0.x86_64 - package bat-0.11.0-3.module_f31+5338+1c55392b.x86_64 requires libgit2.so.28()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed - bat-0.10.0-1.module_f30+4037+f98ba4b0.x86_64 does not belong to a

Re: Fedora Workstation and disabled by default firewall

Hello, On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 2:36 PM Silvia Sánchez wrote: > I don't think that's normal. I don't remember any moment in all these years > using Fedora that I ever had a completely disabled firewall. As a matter of fact, you did:

Re: Bug 1742953 - No Screensaver/Powerdown after Inactivity at LUKS Password Prompt [FutureFeature]

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 2:43 AM John Harris wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 2:35:03 AM MST Christophe de Dinechin wrote: > […] > > On macOS, when full disk encryption is active, there is a different > > boot-time login screen. The process is described here: > >

Re: gsl soname bump

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:48 PM Susi Lehtola wrote: > Triggering rebuilds of the following affected packages > […] > scidavis Thank you! ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: Does anybody care about gettext?

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 11:13 PM Jerry James wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 2:12 AM Alexander Ploumistos > wrote: > > All the patches we carried were merged back in the latest upstream > > version (0.20.1), but when I took a stab at it, I got a lot of errors > > abo

Re: Does anybody care about gettext?

Hello, On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 11:03 AM Sundeep Anand wrote: > most probably I’ll fix that by next week. All the patches we carried were merged back in the latest upstream version (0.20.1), but when I took a stab at it, I got a lot of errors about the variable types and I did not know how to

Re: Offering do-anything-swap in exchange to white_dune sponsoring

Hi mufti, On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 8:02 AM J. Scheurich wrote: > | Review the package .. > | * Go through the MUST items listed in Review Guidelines > . > | * Go through the SHOULD items in Review Guidelines >

Re: Offering do-anything-swap in exchange to white_dune sponsoring

Hello mufti, On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 9:56 PM J. Scheurich wrote: > What can you do in a informal review more than sending comments with > found potential problems ? Helpful comments such as those you've made on Bugzilla are always welcome. You may have noticed some people using a template when

<    1   2   3   4   5   >