Re: Obsoleting zlib in Fedora Rawhide

Also the `minizip-compat` subpackage will be removed as it's part of the zlib. There are only two packages that couldn't build with the minizip-ng-compat: chromium libdigidocpp Than, please switch chromium to bundled minizip as we agreed in BZ#2242271. The change for Minizip is here:

Re: Groff: Revert the mapping of special characters for UTF-8 devices introduced in 1.23.0 version

do that, and not sure if there are enough volunteers to do that for them. That being said, the new groff version with the mapping for the old characters is now in stable for both Fedora 39 and Fedora Rawhide. On Thu, Nov 9, 2023 at 12:41 PM Petr Pisar wrote: > V Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 12:11:55PM +0100,

Re: Groff: Revert the mapping of special characters for UTF-8 devices introduced in 1.23.0 version

ey mentioned the option to map it locally as I did in the PR. I assume they want to stop mapping it on their end and let distros decide if they want to do it themselves. On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 9:25 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 12:36:19PM +0100, Lukas Javorsky wrote: >

Groff: Revert the mapping of special characters for UTF-8 devices introduced in 1.23.0 version

Hi, I'm writing this email to the Fedora community to give you a heads-up about what we are going to do with the new change introduced to the groff 1.23.0 version [1]. Upstream of groff stopped mapping the special characters (like hyphens, tilde, ...) to the Basic Latin codes like it previously

Re: [Fedora Change draft] Minizip transition to minizip-ng

ected [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/IMJJDVACGCYCUW5VM2O6NZKULXMBO2CG/ On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 2:32 PM Lukas Javorsky wrote: > Here is the list of transitively dependent packages that will be FTBFS due > to the chromium, libdigidocpp,

Re: [Fedora Change draft] Minizip transition to minizip-ng

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/IMJJDVACGCYCUW5VM2O6NZKULXMBO2CG/ [2] https://github.com/zlib-ng/minizip-ng/issues/447 On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 12:30 PM Lukas Javorsky wrote: > Hi, > > We've been working on a set of Fedora changes (zlib and m

[Fedora Change draft] Minizip transition to minizip-ng

Hi, We've been working on a set of Fedora changes (zlib and minizip) and now I'd like to share the minizip Fedora change [1] with you, the community. This one is smaller than the zlib one, but it needs to be finished before the zlib (as we will remove the minizip-compat subpackage with the zlib

Re: zlib-ng as a compat replacement for zlib

in this because I want to know why would someone use the "non-compat" zlib-ng? Are there any advantages in using it against the "compat" zlib-ng? Thanks for the information. On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 11:00 AM Lukas Javorsky wrote: > In the end most of the patches were dropped

Re: zlib-ng as a compat replacement for zlib

> > In the end most of the patches were dropped the uplift wasn't worth the > effort of maintaining them downstream, when the effort can be better > spent getting a 10X uplift using a more modern compression > implementation (ex zstd/lz4/lzo/etc) that isn't written with so many > byte oriented

Re: zlib-ng as a compat replacement for zlib

Hi, I'm currently maintaining the zlib package across Fedora and Red Hat products. I like the proposal for the zlib-ng package, there are just a few questions for @Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho : 1) Just to clarify, do you want to have two separate packages (zlib-ng and e.g. zlib-ng-compat)

Re: Deprecation of the aspell package

Thank you all for the feedback, Indeed the summary was a bit misleading, I forgot to change it after I listed the packages. I fixed it now. I also added that maintainers should decide which spellchecker they prefer and migrate to that one (hunspell is not mandatory). On Mon, May 29, 2023 at

Re: Deprecation of the aspell package

Thanks, Miro for the correction. I totally forgot the BuildRequires, I've already updated the list. On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 2:45 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 26. 05. 23 14:40, Lukas Javorsky wrote: > > Sorry for the wrong URL of the change. This is the right one [1]. > >

Re: Deprecation of the aspell package

Sorry for the wrong URL of the change. This is the right one [1]. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/AspellDeprecation On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 2:30 PM Lukas Javorsky wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to announce the Fedora change for the deprecation of the > aspel

Deprecation of the aspell package

Hi, I would like to announce the Fedora change for the deprecation of the aspell package [1]. This package has a dead upstream and has been obsoleted (in most occurrences) by the hunspell package [2]. The Fedora Change [3] is describing this in more detail, feel free to view and read it. [1]

Please test the new version cpio-2.14

Hi, I've created an MR [1] for the new cpio-2.14 release. If your package is using cpio, or you use cpio could you please provide any feedback on the new build (if it doesn't break your component)? I CCied the RPM maintainers because that's a very crucial component that uses cpio. I've created

Re: F39 proposal: Man-pages-ru Retirement (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Exactly as Sam wrote, we only repackage the sources we get from the maintainers. Very little we do on our own, because there is often one maintainer for more than 20 packages in Fedora, so there is no chance that he/she will be able to make those changes. On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 5:03 AM Sam

Retirement of package man-pages-ru

Hi, I'm announcing the retirement of the man-pages-ru package which will take place as Fedora 39 Change. The reason behind this is that the upstream of the man-pages-l10n has started to provide the Russian translations as part of their sources and thus the man-pages-ru is now redundant. I've

Re: gcc: RPM_ARCH not defined

Add this line: > rlRun 'eval "$(rpm --eval %___build_pre)"; cd > ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/libarchive-*' 0 "setting environment" > > before the make check and you are good to go. This causes > that needed environment variables will be defined. > > I hope that this hel

gcc: RPM_ARCH not defined

Hi, I've been looking at our upstreamed test [1] for libarchive package and it started to fail since Fedora 37. The error is: "gcc: fatal error: environment variable 'RPM_ARCH' not defined " Prior to the Fedora 37 the test was passing without any issue. Did anyone here had a similar problem?

New zlib-1.2.13

Hi, I've been working on a zlib rebase for some time now. I would like to introduce it to you via COPR repo [1] first before I push it to Fedora rawhide. If you could test installing your package or even test the zlib functionality, the feedback would be much appreciated. The plan is to push

Re: Heads-up: Side-tag rebuild due to minizip-ng soname bump

, 2022 at 2:16 PM Richard Shaw wrote: > On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 6:41 AM Lukas Javorsky wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Minizip-ng has changed its soname name from "libminizip.so.3.0" to >> "libminizip.so.3" thus we need to rebuild all the packages that ar

Heads-up: Side-tag rebuild due to minizip-ng soname bump

Hi, Minizip-ng has changed its soname name from "libminizip.so.3.0" to "libminizip.so.3" thus we need to rebuild all the packages that are requiring this soname. I've listed them with the following command: *dnf repoquery --whatrequires 'libminizip.so.3*' --qf '%{sourcerpm}\t%{name}' | sed -e

Re: Minizip renaming Fedora Change

> > put a comment in the specfile :-) > That's quite easy to miss. On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 1:38 PM Dan Horák wrote: > On Thu, 15 Sep 2022 13:10:41 +0200 > Lukas Javorsky wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I just got a question about how should I track the removal of

Re: Minizip renaming Fedora Change

some place where I can track it and it will remind me to do it when Fedora 42 is finally rawhide? Thanks for suggestions Lukas On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 1:08 PM Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 11:19 AM Lukas Javorsky > wrote: > > > > Also, the idea is t

Re: F38 proposal: Minizip renaming (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Hi, I've just updated the Fedora change [1] accordingly. Feel free to take another look. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MinizipRenaming Lukas On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 11:40 AM Lukas Javorsky wrote: > Hi guys, > > Thank you so much for the feedback. > > Let's wrap

Re: F38 proposal: Minizip renaming (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Hi guys, Thank you so much for the feedback. Let's wrap it up... 1) We will not rename the current "minizip-compat" to "minizip". 2) The Obsolete in the "minizip-ng" package will look like this: "Obsoletes: minizip < 3.0.3" It shouldn't affect the "minizip-compat" because we won't rename that

Re: F38 proposal: Pcre Deprecation (System-Wide Change proposal)

dora should deprecate it so it > > > could later be retired and removed from Fedora entirely. > > > > > > == Owner == > > > * Name: [[User:ljavorsk| Lukas Javorsky]] > > > * Email: ljavo...@redhat.com > > > > This is simply a non-starter. >

Re: Retiring the pcre package from Fedora

it. On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 12:22 PM Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:23 AM Lukas Javorsky > wrote: > > > > Hello Zbigniew, > > > > I would love to have it on F38, but I'm not sure it would be enough time > for all of the maintainers whose packages de

Re: Retiring the pcre package from Fedora

Hello Zbigniew, I would love to have it on F38, but I'm not sure it would be enough time for all of the maintainers whose packages depend on the old pcre. Ben, do you think we can make this to F38? Thank you for answering. Lukas On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 3:33 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > On Thu, Aug

Re: Retiring the pcre package from Fedora

I've just finished the pcre deprecation change [1]. If anyone is interested, please take a look. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PcreDeprecation Lukas On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 2:43 PM Lukas Javorsky wrote: > Hi Richard, > > The Fedora 39 System Wide changes are scheduled for Jun

Re: Retiring the pcre package from Fedora

6PM +0200, Lukas Javorsky wrote: > > The Fedora change for this topic is created [1]. > > > > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PcreRetirement > > It would be helpful to have an actual deadline written in there. > "Fedora 39" requires an indirection. Are we talk

Re: Retiring the pcre package from Fedora

The Fedora change for this topic is created [1]. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PcreRetirement On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 11:46 AM Lukas Javorsky wrote: > Hi, > > I've decided to write a Fedora change that will contain all of the > information about this possible retirement

Re: Retiring the pcre package from Fedora

Hi, I've decided to write a Fedora change that will contain all of the information about this possible retirement. I have to fill the dependencies that will be affected by this change, so I'm looking for the tool/command which will give them to me. I've seen multiple suggestions here in this

Re: Minizip renaming Fedora Change

I've just created a Fedora Change devoted for this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MinizipRenaming Feel free to add some comments there. On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 6:33 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 4:32 AM Lukas Javorsky > wrote: > > > > The first

Re: Minizip renaming Fedora Change

devel perl-LibSBML python3-libsbml ruby-SBML sigil vxl xiphos zfstream On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 11:18 AM Lukas Javorsky wrote: > Also, the idea is to file Bugs for all packages that BuildRequire/Require > the minizip package and let them know about this change and if they should > change

Re: Minizip renaming Fedora Change

Also, the idea is to file Bugs for all packages that BuildRequire/Require the minizip package and let them know about this change and if they should change theirs requirements. On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 10:57 AM Marcus Müller wrote: > ah, true, different sonames solves this :) > > On 28.07.22

Minizip renaming Fedora Change

Hi fellow contributors, Upstream has reported a request for minizip naming change from "minizip" to "minizip-ng" (minizip-ng is the official name of the upstream package right now). As Fedora should match the upstream naming, I believe this change is necessary. Another naming change is required

Re: Retiring the pcre package from Fedora

Quite a lot of reading but thanks everyone for the emails. Few observations I get from this email thread (correct me if I misunderstood anything): 1) We don't have a unified process for how to do such a retirement/orphan package workflow. 2) We don't have a deterministic unified tool/script for

Re: Retiring the pcre package from Fedora

and get you a response as soon as possible. The purpose of this wasn't to break anything, so if it's required to do it in more steps, I'm more than happy to do it right. On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 3:16 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 8:25 AM Lukas Javorsky > wrote: > > >

Retiring the pcre package from Fedora

Hi, As from the pcre-8.45, the upstream stopped supporting this library. The recommended procedure is to switch onto the new pcre2 library that has full upstream support. [1] As a result of this announcement, the older PCRE library in Fedora will be retired. Without upstream support, we don't

New zlib-1.2.12-3 in Fedora Rawhide

Hi, After a few issues with the new zlib-1.2.12 release [1], we fixed the incompatible issue spotted in ruby package [2]. I would like to announce the new zlib-1.2.12-3 package that is now present in Fedora Rawhide [3]. This release also brings some new IBM performance optimizations which are

Re: Dist-git auto builders fails to unknown error

The problem looks to be in GPG keys "Error: GPG check FAILED". On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 11:48 AM Lukas Javorsky wrote: > Hi, > > I've ran into this problem twice today... The automated scratch-build in > PR fails with 'error'. > When looking into the error message, it

Dist-git auto builders fails to unknown error

Hi, I've ran into this problem twice today... The automated scratch-build in PR fails with 'error'. When looking into the error message, it gives me no clear reason why it failed. These are the PRs with failed scratch-builds (Note: when using "fedpkg scratch-build --srpm" the same builds are

Re: KOJI armv7hl builders out of resources

> I suspect it's not the builder that's running out of resources but a > single process exceeding the per process memory limit for 32 bit > applications. And is there any suggested way how to handle this situation? Some spec build macro or something? Thank you On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 11:16 AM

Pcre2 libpcre2-posix.so soname bump

Hi, I'm announcing the soname bump of the *libpcre2-posix.so *library (pcre2 package) happening this Wednesday. Library has some ABI changes which lead to this bump (you can read more about it here under 10.37 version). We are including the old soname

Re: Unannounced pcre2-posix SONAME bump, I think

The build has been untagged. I want to apologize one more time. This experience will be written in my mind forever. Thank you to everyone who helped with this On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 1:30 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 01:23:02PM +0200, Lukas Javorsky wrote: >

Re: Unannounced pcre2-posix SONAME bump, I think

, we'll just discuss it in the team first and then we'll let you know On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 1:20 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 01:10:48PM +0200, Lukas Javorsky wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I'm the one to blame, I'm really sorry about that, it was a new >

Re: Unannounced pcre2-posix SONAME bump, I think

Hello, I'm the one to blame, I'm really sorry about that, it was a new experience for me and I didn't know it has its own workflow. Could you please help me with "How to untag it" properly and that this change doesn't break anything else? Thank you so much and apologies for the inconvenience

Re: Discussion: unixODBC - move unversioned *.so files back to unixODBC-devel package

.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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.or

Re: Galera FTBFS in f33, but same build passes in f32

Yep, thanks for help Lukas On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 10:11 AM Dan Horák wrote: > On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 10:01:37 +0200 > Lukas Javorsky wrote: > > > > one difference is that F-33 enabled LTO (new compiler flags added at > > > the distro level, [1], but as you are buil

Re: Galera FTBFS in f33, but same build passes in f32

g 2020 14:21:03 +0200 > Lukas Javorsky wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > > > I've run into the compilation problem in the Galera package > > This problem occurs only on f33 and higher tho. > > > > Here is build performed on Fedora 32: > > https://koji.fedo

Galera FTBFS in f33, but same build passes in f32

/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50232498 Does anyone know what could cause this? It looks like something that changed in *cc1plus* or *scons *is causing this, so if you had similar issue, please let me know. Thanks for any help. Lukas -- S pozdravom/ Best regards Lukas Javorsky Intern, Core service

Self Introduction ljavorsk

regards Lukas Javorsky Intern, Core service - Databases Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com> Purkyňova 115 (TPB-C) 612 00 Brno - Královo Pole ljavo...@redhat.com <https://www.redhat.com> ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To

Re: Packaging bundled lisp package

the package: https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/nAjkqPkUBQl9Dk2X~PQtAQ Thanks, Lukas On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 12:40 PM Lukas Javorsky wrote: > Hi folks, > > Does anyone here have any experiences with bundled packages? > > I'm trying to package one bundled lisp package, which have qui

Packaging bundled lisp package

ge: https://github.com/ljavorsk/pgloader/raw/master/pgloader-3.6.1-1.fc30.src.rpm If anyone had some similar use-case, please let me know. Thank you, Lukas -- S pozdravom/ Best regards Lukas Javorsky Intern, Core service - Databases Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com> Purkyňova 115 (TPB

External monitor won't start working when the dock is plugged in

are running, but the monitor don't. It's Samsung monitor plugged by VGA cable. I'm use Fedora 30 dist. If anyone had this problem, please let me know. Thank you so much for help, Lukas -- S pozdravom/ Best regards Lukas Javorsky Intern, Core service - Databases Red Hat <https://www.redhat.

Re: Beginner SPECfile Guide

gt; https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=spec+file+tutorial > On 7/19/19 12:53 PM, Lukas Javorsky wrote: > > Hello, I was wondering if there is some kind of video guide from some > conference or lecture about SPECfiles. I am a beginner in SPECfiles and > I've read a lot stuff ab

Beginner SPECfile Guide

kind of help -- S pozdravom/ Best regards Lukas Javorsky Intern, Core service - Databases Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com> Purkyňova 115 (TPB-C) 612 00 Brno - Královo Pole ljavo...@redhat.com <https://www.redhat.com> ___ devel mailing l