On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 9:40 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> The current change
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_4
>
> is planned to be the last one. At the end of this phase - scheduled to
> 2024-08-06 - we plan to mark this conversion as "done". My estimation is that
On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 6:11 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
> Just eyeballing the prediction graph in the Google doc, it looks like the
> linear approximation is distorted by the big drop in "non-trivial" last
> September. And, the slope for "converted" is pretty steep before that, but
> significantly
On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 6:14 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
> I don't believe GNOME Software enforces this. (There was some debate about
> whether doing two updates in a row was really useful, if I remember.) That
> may be a big source of pain.
As I recall, *much* of the time it does not matter, but
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 4:38 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
> Both of my LLVM dependent packages: iwyu and pocl. On every LLVM major
> release they break and I have to wait for the upstream to release a new
> version.
I would hope that there are more examples than O(1),
as processes should
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 2:25 PM Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho
wrote:
> Considering that LLVM releases usually happen very late in Fedora's
> development cycle, if the default LLVM version is changed, packages may
> start to FTBFS very late in the development cycle if they buildrequire
> the
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 11:44 AM Fabio Valentini wrote:
> No, this will make a Release like 2.1.fc40 - which is not what's
> needed (which would be 1.fc40.1).
> So it doesn't work because -e adds a component *before* the dist-tag,
> *and* because the main number is still incremented.
Since
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 11:35 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 10:27:26AM +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote:
>
> > I know this is just a cosmetic issue, but choices made by the
> > primary maintainers should be respected IMO.
>
> I agree in general, but sometimes if you're
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 12:15 PM Josef Řídký wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> this is in advance notice about the upcoming rebase of the openexr package in
> Fedora Rawhide and f40.
>
I note that there is a patent clause which
allows DreamWorks to revoke the patent
grants under some conditions for the
On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 9:41 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> Michel Lind just prompted me to notice that the 'network' service
> appears to have been removed from initscripts in Fedora 40+.
> Should this have been a Change? How worried are we about it going out
> in Fedora 40 without having
On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 4:05 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> So, if FESCo decided we wanted to enforce 2fa for provenpackagers or
> whatever, right now that would require some work on some scripting,
> which I guess would remove people without otp? But then there would
> still be a window when the user
On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 8:44 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I sometimes think how hard it would be to explain all of this to my
> mother. I don't understand why 2FA needs to be so obscure and clumsy
> to use.
FIDO2 (Apple branded[0] as "passkeys") is
not that hard to use, or explain. The
On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 1:10 AM Kilian Hanich via devel
wrote:
> 2FA in a lot of cases is just access to a different account (e.g. email
> or even SMS) and these normally aren't unique. Sure, there are other
> ways like FIDO2, but these are not necessarily used (or liked, quite
> frankly I know a
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
On Sun, Apr 7, 2024 at 3:23 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> Dne 07. 04. 24 v 5:15 odp. Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
>
> I think it's time to switch to rpmautospec completely.
>
> -1 from me.
>
> While I enjoy simplicity of rpmautospec in some of my packages.
>
> I have bunch of packages
On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 3:12 PM Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote:
> Third-party engines may be a problem but as we don't break ABI, it's not a
> problem of the moment.
The fact you are removing the headers means it is
a problem for 3rd party engines who build from
source (and everyone should at least
On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 9:17 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 05:47:10PM +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> > It does bring up a potential point that perhaps
> > Fedora should have an additional repo (let's
> > call it "emergency fixes") that is
On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 5:27 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Yes. The downgrade was pushed out on friday along with the f40 one.
Of course, your mirror may vary as to availability
(as I recall, in my particular case, my test VM
for rawhide did not get the update for a day
or so).
It does bring up a
On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 4:42 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> I think we *are* part of a supply chain, regardless of any handwaving
> about The Open Source Model.
And, more importantly, the industry has agreed
to use the term supply chain. Is the term
perhaps overloaded, or perhaps too
On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 5:35 PM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Do we require 2FA for provenpackager yet?
>
> No. I am a provenpackager and do not have 2FA enabled (nor do I want it to
> be).
Whenever 2FA comes up, the requirement
for provenpackages to have it
On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 8:58 AM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> 1. We *still don't have compulsory 2FA for Fedora packagers*. We *still
> don't have compulsory 2FA for Fedora packagers*. *WE STILL DON'T HAVE
> COMPULSORY 2FA FOR FEDORA PACKAGERS*.
What is the status of the FIDO2 implementation in the
On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 9:38 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> I'm not pretending these will solve everything, but they should make
> attacks a little harder in future.
Thanks for starting the discussion.
A well resourced supply chain attack is probably
not preventable (no matter how many eyes
On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 4:59 PM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> Previously, I had issues that migration from DNF4 to DNF5 left a lot of data
> in /var/cache. How is this going to be addressed? I don't think it is fair to
> leave those behind and waste disk space for regular users.
>
Are you suggesting
On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 3:22 AM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
> We will see whether that or redict will get the most attention. Cloud
> companies like Amazon will probably prefer BSD, whereas contributors worried
> about another "Redis, Inc." coming up and taking their forked code
> proprietary
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 1:36 PM Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote:
>
> As I understand, upstream is going to remove engines but it wouldn't happen
> before OpenSSL 4.0
> I don't think Fedora should wait for that. We definitely want to land
> no-engine in RHEL10 so Fedora should be ready for that.
>
On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 11:55 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2024-03-17 at 23:12 +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> >
> > Did I miss an announcement (very possible),
> > or did something else change to no longer
> > pull in gzip (also possible)?
>
> Almos
It appears that the quay.io container images
for F40 (and F41/rawhide) do not contain
the gzip package. I noticed due to an indirect
use of tar with a gzip archive on a github
workflow (the checkout failed due to no gzip).
Did I miss an announcement (very possible),
or did something else change
On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 8:20 PM Christopher wrote:
>
> Are there any known issues right now for logging in to
> lists.fedoraproject.org or src.fedoraproject.org?
> Do we have a page for known outages?
https://status.fedoraproject.org/
It currently reports all systems operational
> I can log
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 7:12 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> Do you want to make Fedora 40 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and
> try to run:
>
No problems experienced on my primary desktop.
Thanks!
--
___
devel mailing list --
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 5:50 PM Maxwell G wrote:
>
> Report started at 2024-02-21 17:04:45 UTC
>
> The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they
> are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure
> that the package should be retired, please do so
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 9:52 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> Dne 13. 02. 24 v 9:08 Julian Sikorski napsal(a):
> > Could this be the reason for ccache not working?
>
> I wonder whether it is Mock problem, Ccache issue or problem in packaging?
> Does the ccache speadup the build when you
> run it
On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 4:23 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to bring to your attention that Fedora would benefit with
> update of exiv2 [1] and protobuf [2] but these packages have lots of
> dependencies and the update of the dependent packages is not trivial .
> tips, ideas and
libcbor will be updated to 0.11.0 in rawhide in the
next week or so, which includes a soname bump.
The list of affected packages in rawhide are:
libfido2
fwupd
I will rebuild libfido2. For fwupd, I will need the
maintainers (CC'ed) or a proven packager's assistance.
I have used the Mass
On Sun, Feb 4, 2024 at 9:04 PM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> Jonathan Bennett via devel wrote:
> > the KDE SIG doesn't have a track record of handing those kind of bans out
> > flippantly.
>
> That is what they want you to believe. Sure, this used to be the case, a few
> years ago.
>
On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 2:32 AM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> > For something that has the potential to
> > impact KDE users that would choose to
> > remain on X11, I would absolutely hope
> > there is more than just you invo
On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 1:51 AM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
> Unlike you ("you" = the KDE SIG), I actually believe I can probably keep my
> *-x11 packages on life support for some time even if and when KDE upstream
> drops their X11 support. Kinda like I have been doing for, e.g., Blogilo.
>
On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 3:11 AM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> If the distro-sync (which should be the default way to do updates
> at least on Rawhide, if not everywhere) mentions a package being downgraded,
> that is much more likely to be noticed.
>
I look forward to your formal change
On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 1:53 AM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
> And the proposed "solution" of bumping Epoch fixes none of that. It just
> introduces an Epoch that we will be stuck with forever. It will not
> magically make the downgrade safe in any of the 3 situations you describe.
While I
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 1:46 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> One additional point I forgot to address: the initial concern was that
> the KDE SIG would be implicitly responsible for maintaining these
> packages if they are included in the main repository. From a purely
> technical perspective, I
On Sun, Jan 28, 2024 at 8:15 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> We cannot change this without breaking backward compatibility. It'll
> have to stay that way until RHEL 9 falls out of support.
Is someone collecting the cleanup TODO list
for ~ mid-2032? (schedules subject to change,
of course)
--
On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 7:54 PM Aoife Moloney wrote:
>
> Wiki -> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Unify_bin_and_sbin
>
One additional item to consider is to review
the packager guidelines for use of /sbin
(and /usr/sbin) in additional locations from
those involved directly with installing
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 7:07 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> I understood that it may happen that you miss the notification. Or postponed
> the work because you were busy and later
> forget about it... Lots of valid reasons.
While I am certainly not in favor of more
"Are we there yet?" emails, I
On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 5:51 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> $ dnf5 repoquery --whatprovides '/usr/sbin/exabpg-*'
> (no answer)
>
If you spell exabgp correctly (not exabpg) it works somewhat better.
--
___
devel mailing list --
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 9:43 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> Indeed. With both dnf-5 and dnf5, the inner repoquery doesn't list exabgp.
> Either a bug or I'm doing something wrong.
And while I can hope that exabgp might be the
singleton case, I really don't think you, or I, or
other
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 1:37 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 07, 2024 at 03:47:25PM +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 7:54 PM Aoife Moloney wrote:
> > >
> > > Wiki -> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Unify_bin_an
On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 7:54 PM Aoife Moloney wrote:
>
> Wiki -> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Unify_bin_and_sbin
>
I do not see as part of the plan a process to
go through all Fedora packages and identifying
binaries in /usr/bin that have the same name
as a binary in /usr/sbin (from
On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 12:31 PM Neal Becker wrote:
>
> On a philosophical note, I once worked on Apollo workstations. These could
> switch behavior between sysv and bsd unix. To do this, the kernel would
> interpret e.g. /usr/bin/$arch, substituting the env variable arch. At least
> that
On Sat, Dec 23, 2023 at 8:28 PM Christopher Klooz wrote:
> Btw, does anyone know if this (in the practically-same manner) is really
> already introduced in Windows, Mac, Android by default?
There is a draft RFC for randomizing MAC addresses
On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 7:51 PM Chris Adams wrote:
>
> Once upon a time, Aoife Moloney said:
> > Enable IPv4 Address Conflict Detection by default in NetworkManager.
>
> Huh, I didn't realize NM didn't already do this... ye olde
> network-scripts did.
>
As I recall, depending on
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 2:49 PM Tom Hughes via devel
wrote:
>
> On 21/12/2023 14:33, Steven A. Falco wrote:
> > On 12/21/23 08:53 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> >> On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 8:52 AM Leigh Scott
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I'm -1 for this change, it shouldn't be enabled by default as it will
>
On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 5:39 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Maybe we should have a flag in the src.fp.o package for the maintainer
> to request a PR before committing to have a window for review, or like
> me, the maintainer would like to not be bothered with things that
> proven package can do by
On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 3:48 AM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
> My pet peeve is provenpackagers or comaintainers who add unwanted automagic
> (autorelease, autosetup, autochangelog) to my packages. I do not want any of
> that in my packages, it just makes my work harder (or in practice, just
>
On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 5:16 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> Typically, yes, I'd expect a failure. But it's possible for code to do:
>
> #if __has_include()
> # include
> // use features in that header
> #else
> // roll your own inferior version
> #endif
And in the particular case of the Qt
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023, 16:56 Adam Williamson wrote:
> We're still kinda kicking around ideas for "fixing" this, but I think
> if push comes to shove, we'll wind up revoting or waiving it as not
> practically fixable.
How about something of the form of an ExecStartPre expression
(or script) that
On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 4:08 PM Chris Adams wrote:
> Certainly - I was just looking for a more general solution to non-RTC
> systems going forward. Ideally, there could be something triggered by a
> lack of an RTC, but it looks like systemd path units cannot work based
> on a path (e.g.
On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 9:35 AM Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> We already have systemd-timesyncd. On startup, it syncs the time to
> the mtime of:
> - /var/lib/systemd/timesync/clock file; or
> - /usr/lib/clock-epoch file; or
> - a time derived from the source tree at build time
>
> timesyncd is
On Sun, Oct 15, 2023 at 4:26 PM Jerry James wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2023 at 3:13 AM Robert-André Mauchin
> wrote:
> > I'm doing a MR on an old package that contains firmware data.
> >
> > I wanna convert to SPDX, what is the equivalent to "Redistributable, no
> > modification
> > permitted"
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 5:40 PM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
> I am still opposed, because it is still a backwards-incompatible change that
> breaks existing repositories (such as my Calcforge one) just so that someone
> can tick a checkbox on some "security" checklist.
Are you saying you need
On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 8:23 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> I will also point out the last time we followed RHEL into something,
> we got the modularity system. That itself is an indicator that
> inverting the relationship for decision-making is a bad idea.
In theory, I like the concept of modularity.
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 3:27 AM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > IIRC it was a condition of that proposal that we wind up on a hosted
> > version of the *open source* release of gitlab
>
> "hosted version" and "open source" is already a contradiction by itself.
>
On Sat, Sep 9, 2023 at 1:05 AM Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> RHEL making this change does not imply or require that Fedora do the same.
I am neither suggesting Fedora should do so, or
not do so, but just as a hypothetical, should Fedora
choose to do so, do you know if RedHat would be
amenable for
On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 6:23 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> * this command found zero issues on my personal system - great work all
> everybody!
On my small handful of systems I found zero issues
(well, one issue on two systems with a 3rd party repo
(which was actually my own local repo, so
On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 7:02 PM Michel Alexandre Salim
wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> exiv2 has had a new release for a few months now - 0.28.0 - which causes
> an soname bump.
>
> I've put up a PR for the update -
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/exiv2/pull-request/3 - would
> appreciate people
On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 1:56 PM Michal Schorm wrote:
>
> My apologies !
> I built the new version when cleaning old PRs and I failed to check
> for the soname bump.
> Thank you for cleaning up after me. I will try my best to remember to
> check it next time.
I have found that using something
On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 3:05 PM Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> But in practice, we actually currently have a lot of desynced packages
> where RHEL is ahead of CentOS Stream for various reasons. I believe
> most such cases are mistakes that need to be corrected, not intentional
> delays. E.g. if a
On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 4:36 PM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
> Considering that Fedora buildroots always get killed off within days of the
> EOL, I do not see why you are keeping epel-6 buildroots active 2½ years (!)
> after its EOL.
Well, EL6 ELS support is still available for (around)
On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 11:08 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> We really need just a dhcp client, no baggage.
Busybox distributes Udhcpc, a small dhcp client
intended for embedded systems, and perhaps
might be a longer term viable solution for minimal
appliances.
And while I never looked at
On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 10:57 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
> systemd-networkd has an integrated DHCP client, hasn't it?
Yes (and I have migrated a number of my systems to
using systemd-networkd), but Richard said systemd
is not an option.
___
devel
On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 3:28 AM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> > RH's staff redundancies
>
> The position was clearly NOT redundant.
The word (and all words are made up) is used
by organizations to meet certain legal requirements
(talk to *your* l
On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 2:20 PM Steve Grubb wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I was poking around a F38 system to look over the Secure Boot certificates and
> found something that may warrant attention.
>
I *suspect* this is all wrapped into the issue that
shims must now have/use NX support to be signed,
n Wed, May 24, 2023 at 9:34 PM Gary Buhrmaster
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I do understand why RedHat itself will not announce
>> > who got laid off, but the Council members should have
>> > been informed (I hope!) at the time, and should have
>> > worked
On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 9:50 PM Mattia Verga via devel
wrote:
> Wait, what?? Someone at RH wakes up in the morning and decides to cut
> one of the key roles (or better, THE) of Fedora community and this goes
> completely unannounced, unnoticed and without any backup plan?
I do understand why
On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 7:23 PM Tom Stellard wrote:
> What's the process for selecting a new Program Manager?
From the words that have been shared at:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/council/fpgm/
the position itself has been eliminated.
The important responsibilities will
On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 7:02 PM David Duncan wrote:
>
> Now that awscli2 is out and functional.
Excellent! I will finally be able to stop
installing a local version.
> Gwyn and I are thinking it's time to retire the original
> awscli package in favor of this one. We are thinking
> that it will
On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 3:10 PM Lennart Poettering wrote:
>
> On Mi, 10.05.23 17:54, Chris Murphy (li...@colorremedies.com) wrote:
> >
> > Read-only drivers, which are the only drivers under discussion here,
> > aren't a per se problem because they can't modify the file
> > system. So they have
On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 3:56 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> At least in the upstream kiwi project, we encountered problems making
> bigger ESPs because not all UEFI implementations handle FAT32 (despite
> it being part of the spec). In particular, there were a few server
> boards and especially AWS EC2
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 9:04 AM Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This morning I woke up to find that packages I maintain were orphaned
> out of blue. Nobody contacted the maintainers, nobody raised any tickets
> to releng, as far as I can see. Yet, releng ran the orphaning from what
> I saw
On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 2:01 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> Hmm, that'd mean thousands of pull requests… I think if we agree to
> this, it would make sense to just push a fix directly. Each pull request
> ticket is a few mails, and with 8096 expected pull requests, that is
> quite a lot
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 7:22 PM Troy Dawson wrote:
> I see your point. It sometimes also happens when the EPEL package is a
> dependency of the important package, the customers aren't actually asking for
> the EPEL package.
While I am sure that occasionally RH chooses to add
a package to
On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 7:04 PM Richard Hughes wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 4:55 PM Gary Buhrmaster
> wrote:
> > Let me know if you have any issues
> > with the build.
>
> All done, thanks.
Thank you. I have submitted the side-tag update:
https://bodhi.fedoraproj
On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 4:32 PM Richard Hughes wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 3:55 PM Gary Buhrmaster
> wrote:
> > I will rebuild libfido2. For fwupd, I will need the maintainers
> > (CC'ed) or a proven packagers assistance.
>
> No problem at all, thanks for lett
libcbor will be updated to 0.10.2 in rawhide in the
next week or so, which includes a soname bump.
The list of affected packages in rawhide are:
libfido2
fwupd
I will rebuild libfido2. For fwupd, I will need the maintainers
(CC'ed) or a proven packagers assistance.
I have used the Mass
On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 4:56 PM Solomon Peachy via devel
wrote:
> (I admit I'm surprised that "Free Software for Everything" Red Hat is
> chosing to base something so fundamental to their business on a highly
> proprietary tool. I suppose O365 is just a matter of time...)
They probably also
On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 6:48 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
> I have a survey prepared that will be opened once the F37
> retrospective survey is done. This will give us a basis for evaluating
> our requirements as we look for possible replacements.
Thanks for planning on the followup.
On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 5:54 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
> The "good news" is that Red Hat has announced a move away from Bugzilla for
> future products. (They're going to Jira.) RH Bugzilla isn't officially shut
> down, but its days are numbered. We need to come up with something else.
"Good" is
On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 8:48 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.
While occasionally I have seen a small decrease in
the size of the files transferred (which
On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 9:33 AM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> It would be really nice if the wording of the bug could contain some
> kind of a "thank you" note to the EPEL maintainers of the package in
> question. Not everyone will understand this process as "great, I don't
> have to
On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 8:40 PM Michel Alexandre Salim
wrote:
>
> Dear fellow Fedorans,
>
> It seems that python-mysqlclient will now transparently upgrade python-
> mysql since 2.1.1-2 (for Fedora):
>
On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 7:26 PM Philip Rhoades via devel
wrote:
>
> People,
>
> Has there been any discussion about getting a Tenacity RPM going for
> Fedora? - I would prefer that to having to use the AppImage version . .
>
As I recall, in the beginning, Tenacity (to perform
most meaningful
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 12:45 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> If you see a package that can be rebuilt, please do so.
> tpm2-tss-engine mzavalavz
No longer FTBFS. It can be removed from the
to be retired list.
Thanks!
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 12:45 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> If you see a package that can be rebuilt, please do so.
> tpm2-tss-engine mzavalavz
I can fix this (up-lift to the current release), but I don't
see a way to do so before retirement as the current
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 1:10 AM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> jaltman
I have sent an email to Jeff, and hopefully he will
update his bugzilla email.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 10:08 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Some packagers do set the bugzillas to ASSIGNED to get rid of the reminders
> and
> then they forget to actually fix the FTBFS, cannot figure out how to fix it,
> are blocked on externalities that never happen, etc.
Perhaps ASSIGNED should
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 7:29 AM Jeff Law wrote:
> On 1/24/23 00:16, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > See
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-13/porting_to.html#header-dep-changes
> > Some libstdc++ headers included in older versions
> > as an implementation detail but no longer do.
> >
> > Including stdint.h
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 4:47 PM Gary Buhrmaster
wrote:
> such as yourself are contentious about
> doing the right thing).
Obviously that word should have been conscientious
(I hate autocorrect).
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproje
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 4:53 PM Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> Small clarification: where you wrote 'component' you meant 'product' :-)
> BZ has both Products and Components, forming two levels. RHEL 7/8/9 are
> Products, on the same level as Fedora.
Thanks. I suppose I should have actually checked
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 3:48 PM Richard Shaw wrote:
> I think in practical terms that makes sense but our tools don't really help.
I agree, and that seems to be an artifact of
the single Fedora component in RHBZ, which
treats Fedora as one thing.
I supposed (in theory again) that there could
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 1:54 PM Richard Shaw wrote:
>
> So is it when a build is complete in Rawhide? Or must *ALL* active releases
> get the "fix"?
>
I am not sure it is official policy/practice, but in
theory I would think that the CVE is technically
closed when all impacted Fedora releases
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 3:53 PM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
> Why not just ship the legacy version in F38 proper rather than Copr? The new
> stuff can be packaged when it is ready, probably as a F39 or F40 Self-
> Contained Change.
Is someone working on packaging the Dart and Flutter SDK
(and
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 10:52 AM Michal Schorm wrote:
> Would you see a value in e.g. some kind of a robot reminding
> maintainers of such obsolete code? (e.g. new RPMinspect or ZUUL CI
> check)
"Reminding" is another term for nagging. Fedora should
not be a nag when there may be reasons for
On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 10:19 PM David Woodhouse wrote:
> The English word for that is 'fortnightly', FWIW.
While that is Old English, and still commonly used
in parts of the world and in some formal language
usage, most people just use the words "every two
weeks" rather than asking people to
1 - 100 of 337 matches
Mail list logo
