Re: List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in 1 week
On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 8:56 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > xs petersen Thanks, I finally retired this one already. Jens ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112847] Add perl-Math-Int64 to EPEL-9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112847 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-f06827b775 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-f06827b775 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112847 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112828] Add perl-List-SomeUtils to EPEL-9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112828 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-e2d32b4e7d has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-e2d32b4e7d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112828 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112836] Add perl-MooX-StrictConstructor to EPEL-9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112836 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-095fb3f813 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-095fb3f813 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112836 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2109437] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20220720 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2109437 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2 |perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2 |0220720-1.fc37 |0220720-1.fc37 |perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2 |perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2 |0220720-1.fc36 |0220720-1.fc36 ||perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2 ||0220720-1.fc35 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-318b260713 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2109437 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing report
The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing: Age URL 13 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-89ad385971 chromium-103.0.5060.114-1.el8 5 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-055f06a731 python-eventlet-0.26.0-2.el8 4 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-858300d946 clamav-0.103.7-1.el8 The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing libcryptui-3.12.2-24.el8 libmongocrypt-1.5.2-1.el8 proftpd-1.3.6e-5.el8 seahorse-caja-1.18.5-1.el8 tweak-3.02-15.el8 wemux-3.2.0-17.el8 Details about builds: libcryptui-3.12.2-24.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2022-98cf5004ef) Interface components for OpenPGP Update Information: - initial build for rhel ChangeLog: * Sun Jul 31 2022 Wolfgang Ulbrich - 3.12.2-24 - add missing dependency gtk-doc * Tue Jul 27 2021 Wolfgang Ulbrich - 3.12.2-23 - fix building with gnupg1 * Thu Jul 22 2021 Fedora Release Engineering - 3.12.2-22 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_35_Mass_Rebuild * Tue Jan 26 2021 Fedora Release Engineering - 3.12.2-21 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_34_Mass_Rebuild * Tue Jul 28 2020 Fedora Release Engineering - 3.12.2-20 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_33_Mass_Rebuild * Wed Jan 29 2020 Fedora Release Engineering - 3.12.2-19 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_32_Mass_Rebuild * Thu Jul 25 2019 Fedora Release Engineering - 3.12.2-18 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_31_Mass_Rebuild * Fri Jun 14 2019 David King - 3.12.2-17 - Use pkgconfig for BuildRequires - Improve man page glob - Use gcr instead of libgnome-keyring * Fri Feb 1 2019 Fedora Release Engineering - 3.12.2-16 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_30_Mass_Rebuild * Tue Dec 11 2018 Pete Walter - 3.12.2-15 - Modernize the spec file - Fix gir and gtk-doc directory ownership * Fri Jul 13 2018 Fedora Release Engineering - 3.12.2-14 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_29_Mass_Rebuild * Wed Feb 7 2018 Fedora Release Engineering - 3.12.2-13 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_28_Mass_Rebuild * Sat Jan 6 2018 Igor Gnatenko - 3.12.2-12 - Remove obsolete scriptlets * Thu Aug 3 2017 Fedora Release Engineering - 3.12.2-11 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_27_Binutils_Mass_Rebuild * Wed Jul 26 2017 Fedora Release Engineering - 3.12.2-10 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_27_Mass_Rebuild * Fri Feb 10 2017 Fedora Release Engineering - 3.12.2-9 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_26_Mass_Rebuild * Sat Dec 10 2016 Igor Gnatenko - 3.12.2-8 - Rebuild for gpgme 1.18 * Thu Feb 4 2016 Fedora Release Engineering - 3.12.2-7 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_24_Mass_Rebuild * Sun Jul 19 2015 Peter Robinson 3.12.2-6 - Add gnupg dep to fix FTBFS - Use %licence * Wed Jun 17 2015 Fedora Release Engineering - 3.12.2-5 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_23_Mass_Rebuild * Sun Aug 17 2014 Fedora Release Engineering - 3.12.2-4 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_22_Mass_Rebuild * Tue Jul 22 2014 Kalev Lember - 3.12.2-3 - Rebuilt for gobject-introspection 1.41.4 * Sat Jun 7 2014 Fedora Release Engineering - 3.12.2-2 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Mass_Rebuild * Thu May 15 2014 Kalev Lember - 3.12.2-1 - Update to 3.12.2 * Tue Oct 29 2013 Richard Hughes - 3.10.1-1 - Update to 3.10.1 * Wed Sep 25 2013 Kalev Lember - 3.10.0-1 - Update to 3.10.0 * Wed Aug 28 2013 Kalev Lember - 3.9.90-1 - Update to 3.9.90 * Sat Aug 3 2013 Fedora Release Engineering - 3.8.0-2 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_Mass_Rebuild * Tue Mar 26 2013 Kalev Lember - 3.8.0-1 - Update to 3.8.0 * Wed Feb 6 2013 Kalev Lember - 3.7.5-1 - Update to 3.7.5 * Tue Sep 25 2012 Matthias Clasen -3.6.0-1 - Update to 3.6.0 * Wed Sep 19 2012 Tomas Bzatek - 3.5.92-1 - Update to 3.5.92 * Tue Jul 17 2012 Richard Hughes - 3.5.4-1 - Update to 3.5.4 * Tue Apr 24 2012 Kalev Lember - 3.4.1-2 - Silence rpm scriptlet output * Mon Apr 16 2012 Richard Hughes - 3.4.1-1 - Update to 3.4.1 * Tue Mar 27 2012 Kalev Lember - 3.4.0-1 - Update to 3.4.0 * Fri Mar 9 2012 Matthias Clasen - 3.3.91-1 - Update to 3.3.91 * Tue Feb 7 2012 Matthias Clasen - 3.3.5-1 - Update to 3.3.5 * Thu Jan 26 2012 Tomas Bzatek - 3.2.2-3 - Fix BuildRequires * Fri Jan 13 2012 Fedora Release Engineering - 3.2.2-2 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_17_Mass_Rebuild * Thu Nov 24 2011 Matthias Clasen - 3.2.2-1 - Update to 3.2.2 * Fri Nov 18 2011 Matthew Barnes - 3.2.0-2 - Remove gtk-doc req in devel
[Bug 2109437] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20220720 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2109437 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version|perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2 |perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2 |0220720-1.fc37 |0220720-1.fc37 ||perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2 ||0220720-1.fc36 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2022-08-02 01:39:09 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-5d1f0583d1 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2109437 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2113577] New: perl-IO-Async: FTBFS in Fedora rawhide/f37
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2113577 Bug ID: 2113577 Summary: perl-IO-Async: FTBFS in Fedora rawhide/f37 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-IO-Async Assignee: emman...@seyman.fr Reporter: rel...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: emman...@seyman.fr, kwiz...@gmail.com, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Blocks: 2045102 (F37FTBFS,RAWHIDEFTBFS) Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora perl-IO-Async failed to build from source in Fedora rawhide/f37 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=89851432 For details on the mass rebuild see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_37_Mass_Rebuild Please fix perl-IO-Async at your earliest convenience and set the bug's status to ASSIGNED when you start fixing it. If the bug remains in NEW state for 8 weeks, perl-IO-Async will be orphaned. Before branching of Fedora 38, perl-IO-Async will be retired, if it still fails to build. For more details on the FTBFS policy, please visit: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/ Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045102 [Bug 2045102] Fedora 37 FTBFS Tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2113577 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112642] perlbrew-0.96 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112642 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-c650c63e92 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-c650c63e92` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-c650c63e92 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112642 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing report
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing: Age URL 4 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-eeac45f79c clamav-0.103.7-1.el7 The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing golang-1.17.12-1.el7 proftpd-1.3.5e-12.el7 Details about builds: golang-1.17.12-1.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2022-ced30d9530) The Go Programming Language Update Information: Update to 1.17.12, security fixes for CVE-2022-30629, CVE-2022-1705, CVE-2022-32148, CVE-2022-30631, CVE-2022-28131, CVE-2022-30633, CVE-2022-30632, CVE-2022-30635, CVE-2022-30630, CVE-2022-1962 ChangeLog: * Mon Aug 1 2022 Dave Dykstra - 1.17.12-1 - Update to 1.17.12 by doing the equivalent changes as centos8-stream. References: [ 1 ] Bug #2092793 - CVE-2022-30629 golang: crypto/tls: session tickets lack random ticket_age_add https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2092793 [ 2 ] Bug #2107342 - CVE-2022-30631 golang: compress/gzip: stack exhaustion in Reader.Read https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107342 [ 3 ] Bug #2107371 - CVE-2022-30630 golang: io/fs: stack exhaustion in Glob https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107371 [ 4 ] Bug #2107374 - CVE-2022-1705 golang: net/http: improper sanitization of Transfer-Encoding header https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107374 [ 5 ] Bug #2107376 - CVE-2022-1962 golang: go/parser: stack exhaustion in all Parse* functions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107376 [ 6 ] Bug #2107383 - CVE-2022-32148 golang: net/http/httputil: NewSingleHostReverseProxy - omit X-Forwarded-For not working https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107383 [ 7 ] Bug #2107386 - CVE-2022-30632 golang: path/filepath: stack exhaustion in Glob https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107386 [ 8 ] Bug #2107388 - CVE-2022-30635 golang: encoding/gob: stack exhaustion in Decoder.Decode https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107388 [ 9 ] Bug #2107390 - CVE-2022-28131 golang: encoding/xml: stack exhaustion in Decoder.Skip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107390 [ 10 ] Bug #2107392 - CVE-2022-30633 golang: encoding/xml: stack exhaustion in Unmarshal https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107392 proftpd-1.3.5e-12.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2022-2eb0ae90f4) Flexible, stable and highly-configurable FTP server Update Information: This update contains a fix for mod_vroot that prevents it from hiding some files under some circumstances when DefaultRoot is used. * https://github.com/proftpd/proftpd/issues/1491 * https://github.com/Castaglia/proftpd-mod_vroot/pull/37 * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2104972 ChangeLog: * Mon Aug 1 2022 Paul Howarth - 1.3.5e-12 - Fix unexpected filtering behaviour with mod_vroot (#2104972, GH#1491) References: [ 1 ] Bug #2104972 - proftpd hides entries in root directory beginning with a DefaultRoot value https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2104972 ___ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2113577] perl-IO-Async: FTBFS in Fedora rawhide/f37
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2113577 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Release Engineering --- Created attachment 1902154 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1902154=edit root.log file root.log too big, will only attach last 32768 bytes -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2113577 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112838] Add perl-Data-Printer to EPEL-9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112838 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-bcbe3ceecc has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-bcbe3ceecc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112838 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2113577] perl-IO-Async: FTBFS in Fedora rawhide/f37
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2113577 --- Comment #1 from Fedora Release Engineering --- Created attachment 1902153 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1902153=edit build.log -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2113577 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Fedora 37 mass rebuild complete
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 03:43:39PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 03:04:50PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 25. 07. 22 17:57, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > 21713 builds have been tagged into f37, there is currently 1144 failed > > > builds that need to be addressed by the package maintainers. FTBFS bugs > > > will be filed shortly. > > > > Is there any place we can track the progress for this? > > > > We need to link ~70 bugzillas to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2107826 > > Not really. I guess I'll go see about doing it today. They should now be filed. This is just ones that failed to build. If someone wants to take a stab and improving the script so we can also file bugs on the ones that didn't make a valid src.rpm, that would be great. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Fedora 37 mass rebuild complete
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 03:04:50PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 25. 07. 22 17:57, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > 21713 builds have been tagged into f37, there is currently 1144 failed > > builds that need to be addressed by the package maintainers. FTBFS bugs > > will be filed shortly. > > Is there any place we can track the progress for this? > > We need to link ~70 bugzillas to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2107826 Not really. I guess I'll go see about doing it today. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: [rawhide] ICU upgrade to 71.1
On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 7:46 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 5:20 AM Frantisek Zatloukal > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Later today, I'll be starting with rebuilds of packages depending on > icu. The rebuilds will take place in f37-build-side-55935 for all packages > returned by sudo repoquery --whatrequires 'libicu*.so.69()(64bit)' (list > attached at the end of the message). > > > > Please, if you're going to make changes in affected packages before the > side tag gets merged, make the build in the said side tag. I expect to > merge the side tag with most of the affected packages built and then > continue building things that take longer to build (webkit/libreoffice) > later. > > > > For stuff that may fail to build, either due to newer icu or unrelated > issues, there is a libicu69 compat package already available in rawhide, so > that should take care of FTI issues that'd arise by merging the side tag. > I'll try to help the maintainers with fixing the issues. > > > > I'll post updates to this thread as I progress with the bump. > > > > [0] > ... > > v8 > Yeah, I did a bunch of manual editing/checking up in the list, this should actually be v8-314. -- Best regards / S pozdravem, František Zatloukal Senior Quality Engineer Red Hat ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)
Looks like the License: field is limited to 70 characters if I am reading this correctly: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/blob/2b5b271b0e013c1b023df7f5775a59cb4078d5f5/docs/manual/spec.md#license ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
z3 soname bump
Next week, I will update the z3 package to version 4.10.2, which entails an soname bump. I will rebuild opam, which is the only package that depends on the library. Packages that use z3 via the command line should not be affected adversely. -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/ ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: poppler soname bump in Rawhide
On Mon, 2022-08-01 at 18:13 +0200, Marek Kasik wrote: > Hi, > > I plan to rebase poppler to 22.08.0 once it is available. The release > usually happens at the beginning of month so I'm waiting for it now. > Once it is ready, I'll build it in a side tag and will post it here. > libreoffice There is the other icu upgrade happening too, hopefully there isn't a collision there. ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Updating several packages to SPDX
On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 1:51 PM Maxwell G wrote: > > Do Callway > SPDX license changes where there's a clear mapping and no other > additions or removals still have to be announced? That wasn't my > understanding. My understanding of this rule/expectation is that it does not have anything directly to do with how the License: field is populated. Rather, it's to notify the Fedora community about a substantive upstream license change. The new documentation says that there is supposed to be an announcement on both devel and legal. I have seen such announcements on devel before (in browsing list archives once in a blue moon) but I am not sure I've ever seen any on legal. I am not sure how important it is to preserve this rule at all, or to include both mailing lists, but I understood us to be retaining a rule that at least in theory previously existed. Richard ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: poppler soname bump in Rawhide
Marek Kasik wrote: > I plan to rebase poppler to 22.08.0 once it is available. The release > usually happens at the beginning of month so I'm waiting for it now. > Once it is ready, I'll build it in a side tag and will post it here. I > plan to merge the side tag with buildroot next week before branching. > > Packages which will need rebuild: > > calligra > gambas3 > gdal > gdcm > inkscape > kf5-kitinerary > libreoffice > pdf2djvu > scribus > texlive-base I take it that packages that use only, e.g., the Qt binding, do not have to be rebuilt? (E.g., okular.) Kevin Kofler ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Updating several packages to SPDX
Do Callway > SPDX license changes where there's a clear mapping and no other additions or removals still have to be announced? That wasn't my understanding. -- Thanks, Maxwell G (@gotmax23) Pronouns: He/Him/His signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: [rawhide] ICU upgrade to 71.1
On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 5:20 AM Frantisek Zatloukal wrote: > > Hi, > > Later today, I'll be starting with rebuilds of packages depending on icu. The > rebuilds will take place in f37-build-side-55935 for all packages returned by > sudo repoquery --whatrequires 'libicu*.so.69()(64bit)' (list attached at the > end of the message). > > Please, if you're going to make changes in affected packages before the side > tag gets merged, make the build in the said side tag. I expect to merge the > side tag with most of the affected packages built and then continue building > things that take longer to build (webkit/libreoffice) later. > > For stuff that may fail to build, either due to newer icu or unrelated > issues, there is a libicu69 compat package already available in rawhide, so > that should take care of FTI issues that'd arise by merging the side tag. > I'll try to help the maintainers with fixing the issues. > > I'll post updates to this thread as I progress with the bump. > > [0] ... > v8 How did you generate this list? The `v8` package has been retired from Fedora in favor of using the one from Node.js for years now. ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Updating several packages to SPDX
I am preparing to update a batch of packages’ License tags to SPDX, with License field changes as reported below. The License field for the agenda package will be updated from an effective license “GPLv3+” to “GPL-3.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND CC0-1.0”. The portion covered by CC0-1.0 is the AppData XML file, which is content. The License field for the appeditor package will be updated from an effective license “GPLv3” to “GPL-3.0-only AND CC0-1.0”. The portion covered by CC0-1.0 is the AppData XML file, which is content. The License field for the arpwatch package will be updated from “BSD with advertising”—which should have been just “BSD”—to “BSD-3-Clause”. The License field for the c4core package will be updated from “MIT and Boost” to “MIT AND BSL-1.0”. The License field for the c4project package will be updated from “MIT and ASL 2.0” to “MIT AND Apache-2.0”. The License field for the cairomm and cairomm1.16 packages will be updated from “LGPLv2+” to “LGPL-2.0-or-later”. The License field for the casc package will be updated from “LGPLv2+” to “LGPL-2.1-or-later”. The License field for the cpp-hocon package will be updated from “ASL 2.0” to “Apache-2.0”. The License field for the debugbreak package will be updated from “BSD” to “BSD-2-Clause”. The License field for the dippi package will be updated from “GPLv3+”—which should have been just “GPLv3”—to “GPL-3.0-only AND CC0-1.0”. The portion covered by CC0-1.0 is the AppData XML file, which is content. The License field for the dr_libs package will be updated from “Unlicense or MIT-0” to “Unlicense OR MIT-0” The License field for the edac-utils package will be updated from “GPLv2+” to “GPL-2.0-or-later”. The License field for the fast_float package will be updated from “ASL 2.0 or MIT” to “Apache-2.0 OR MIT”. The License field for the festival-freebsoft-utils package will be updated from “GPLv2+” to “GPL-2.0-or-later”. Furthermore, the License field for the festival-freebsoft-utils-doc subpackage, previously inherited from the base package, will be updated and corrected to reflect its dual-licensed status: “GPL-2.0-or-later OR GFDL-1.2-no-invariants-or-later”. The License field for the fflas-ffpack package will be updated from “LGPLv2+” to “LGPL-2.1-or-later AND LGPL-2.0-or-later”. The License field for the flatbuffers package will be updated and corrected from “ASL 2.0 and BSD” to “Apache-2.0”. The code previously considered BSD (BSD-3-Clause) is that which is derived from grpc, which has an upstream license of BSD-3-Clause. It is now clear that even code from grpc is intended to be Apache-2.0 in this project. (Google is the copyright holder for both projects, so it can relicense at will.) See https://github.com/google/flatbuffers/pull/7073. The License field for the flintqs package will be updated from “GPLv2+” to “GPL-2.0-or-later”. The License field for the fmidi package will be updated from “Boost” to “BSL-1.0”. The License field for the freexl package will be updated from “MPLv1.1 or GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+” to “MPL-1.1 OR GPL-2.0-or-later OR LGPL-2.1-or-later”. – Ben Beasley ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)
On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 at 12:38, Richard Fontana wrote: > Björn Persson: > > > Does that also apply to licenses that explicitly say how they may be > > combined? Are we supposed to write "GPL-3.0-or-later AND > > GPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-3.0-or-later AND GPL-3.0-only" or do those > > still combine into GPL-3.0-only? > > They don't "combine". The idea that they combine in some sort of logical > sense regardless of the facts of a given packaging situation reflects a > misunderstanding of the GPL (more specifically, a misunderstanding of > FSF-popularized orthodox GPL interpretation). BTW this is also a problem I > see in the likely use of the old license compatibility chart. > > It is pretty well accepted in the community that you can redistribute > GPLv2-or-later code as 'GPLv2-only', though this has only rarely been done. > However, the -or-later form of licensing is basically a kind of disjunctive > dual license and at least for now we are retaining the existing policy of > preserving, and noting in metadata, the existence of such an upstream dual > license, except for the special case of a dual license where one part is > not an allowed license (with a further preserved exception for Perl > GPL|Artistic code). > > Since a lot of code is going to have a LOT of different licences which for some seem to grow every minor upstream release it would be better for the RPM License tag to have something like: License: It's complicated. (Please see /usr/share//licences for a complete list.) otherwise I am worried we will run into some sort of string length limit in RPM or other tooling. > Richard > ___ > 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure > -- Stephen Smoogen, Red Hat Automotive Let us be kind to one another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle. -- Ian MacClaren ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)
Michael Catanzaro: > Even that would be an unreasonable effort. I only look at the output of > fedora-review's license check if the source project is small and the > output looks readable. For any complex project, it's beyond what humans > can plausibly handle. I'm hoping we will soon provide some guidance on how to use scancode-toolkit and other tools to aid in this process. Richard ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)
Björn Persson: > Does that also apply to licenses that explicitly say how they may be > combined? Are we supposed to write "GPL-3.0-or-later AND > GPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-3.0-or-later AND GPL-3.0-only" or do those > still combine into GPL-3.0-only? They don't "combine". The idea that they combine in some sort of logical sense regardless of the facts of a given packaging situation reflects a misunderstanding of the GPL (more specifically, a misunderstanding of FSF-popularized orthodox GPL interpretation). BTW this is also a problem I see in the likely use of the old license compatibility chart. It is pretty well accepted in the community that you can redistribute GPLv2-or-later code as 'GPLv2-only', though this has only rarely been done. However, the -or-later form of licensing is basically a kind of disjunctive dual license and at least for now we are retaining the existing policy of preserving, and noting in metadata, the existence of such an upstream dual license, except for the special case of a dual license where one part is not an allowed license (with a further preserved exception for Perl GPL|Artistic code). Richard ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)
> Am 31.07.22 um 18:57 schrieb Richard Fontana: > I do not agree > with this view and consider this decision not to be helpful. > > These licenses might not be "commonly used", but if they are used, these > are the controversal ones, that need to be looked into, exactly because > they "not commonly used". > > Provocant question: Do you want contributors to contact redhat-legal in > such cases, as we were required to do in the early days of Fedora? > > To me, this reads as a pretty nasty regression in Fedora's workflow, > which should be reconsidered/reverted. The issue I was commenting on here is specific to an upstream project (Ansible) that happened to be relying on data in the Fedora wiki license list, not Fedora. It was sort of off topic. Fedora AFAIK has never had a policy of expecting Fedora-related projects to only be under GPLv2 or GPLv3 compatible licenses, although I think in practice that has generally been the case. Richard ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
poppler soname bump in Rawhide
Hi, I plan to rebase poppler to 22.08.0 once it is available. The release usually happens at the beginning of month so I'm waiting for it now. Once it is ready, I'll build it in a side tag and will post it here. I plan to merge the side tag with buildroot next week before branching. Packages which will need rebuild: calligra gambas3 gdal gdcm inkscape kf5-kitinerary libreoffice pdf2djvu scribus texlive-base Regards Marek ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)
Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Now you have to compare every word of the MIT license > with the very similar templates such as MIT, MIT-CMU, MIT-feh, etc., and > then figure out which one it actually is. If it is even one of these and not > some random mix of several variants (one sentence from here, one sentence > from there, …). You're right. MIT/BSD License variants are a pain to deal with. In practice, they are mostly equivalent, so having to identify is a burden without a lot of benefit. Currently, there's MIT variants such as the HPND that aren't even part of the new license list, despite being explicitly listed on the old list and being used by packages like libX11[1]. As that license deprecated, it's not likely to cause issues when importing new packages, but it is still used by older packages. There are other examples of licenses missing from the new list that are already blocking new packages[2]. [1]: https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/1#note_969573331 [2]: https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/merge_requests/12#note_1045611169 > But that is how things work in practice. It is just impossible to read > through every source file and scan for copied snippets. They can even appear > in the middle of a file, with the license attached right there. So the > packager and the reviewer will both check the COPYING/LICENSE/LICENCE file > provided by upstream, then go exemplarily through a handful source files to > check that the copyright header and/or SPDX REUSE header matches that > license, and then declare that as the one License. This is onerous if you do it manually, but there are tools to make it a bit easier. You can use scancode-toolkit or licencecheck to scan the entire codebase. I believe the RH legal folks recommended the former at some point, but licensecheck is used by fedora-review and actually packaged in Fedora[^1]. The Legal docs recommend SPDX license-diff[3] and [4] to see if a certain license text exists in SPDX. [^1]: I wish luck to anyone who tries to package tries to package scancode. There are quite a few unpackaged dependencies... [3]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/spdx-license-diff/ [4]: https://tools.spdx.org/app/check_license/ -- Thanks, Maxwell G (@gotmax23) Pronouns: He/Him/His signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: dnf makecache memory usage increase
Stephen Smoogen writes: > On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 at 07:45, Dusty Mabe wrote: > >> >> >> On 7/29/22 12:05, Peter Robinson wrote: >> >> Looks like dnf makecache is uses a lot more memory, causing issues on >> >> smaller systems/containers. >> >> >> >> F34: >> >> >> >> Metadata cache created. >> >> 1.51user 0.15system 0:12.01elapsed 13%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata >> 162440maxresident)k >> >> 144inputs+56outputs (0major+46906minor)pagefaults 0swaps >> >> >> >> >> >> F35: >> >> >> >> Metadata cache created. >> >> 29.28user 2.15system 0:49.94elapsed 62%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata >> 841704maxresident)k >> >> 184160inputs+497320outputs (181major+425900minor)pagefaults 0swaps >> >> >> >> Is this a known issue? >> > >> > I've seen it on arm systems with 512Mb RAM which previously ran dnf >> > (not just makecache) fine and now don't. There was a bug opened but >> > the dnf team closed it. >> >> >> Seems like this bug is related >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907030 >> >> We are hitting this issue in Fedora CoreOS CI on VMs with 1G of RAM. >> > > I wonder if this is one of those problems where microdnf needs to be used > until the full dnf rewrite in C++ is done. I remember something about > memory usage and dnf vs microdnf a while ago for smaller memory systems.. > and with the general 'we need to double memory usage' every couple of > releases that applications have ... maybe 1Gb is no longer valid? It definitely is no longer valid. I am running Fedora Server on a 1 GB RAM VPS and unless I kill everything on that box (including the firewall), I can't run dnf upgrade... Cheers, Dan ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Announcing fmt library soversion bump
On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 4:24 PM Mamoru TASAKA wrote: > Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote on 2022/07/11 2:43: > 0ad FTBFS on f37 due to different issue from fmt change - scratch build > for F-37 shows virtualenv related > issue - perhaps due to python3.11 changes, and scratch build for F-36 > shows some rust(?) related error, > which is beyond my knowledge currently. > The python 3.11 compat should work with https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mozjs78/blob/rawhide/f/0001-Python-Build-Use-r-instead-of-rU-file-read-modes.patch which I'd made for mozjs78 which is what 0ad is currently using. > Note that rawhide 0ad currently linked against boost1.76 - while rawhide > boost is already 1.78, > so 0ad is FTI even if fmt8 package is introduced anyway currently. > > Regards, > Mamoru > ___ > 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure > -- Best regards / S pozdravem, František Zatloukal Senior Quality Engineer Red Hat ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112847] Add perl-Math-Int64 to EPEL-9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112847 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-f06827b775 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-f06827b775 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112847 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in 1 week
Dne 01. 08. 22 v 14:55 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
rubygem-coffee-rails jaruga, ruby-packagers-sig, vondruch
Dependency on coffee-rails is removed from Ruby on Rails since:
https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/4838c1716a0340137d858fab49bf460e23be5a4b
https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/cab17ffe4ed5c37acdba046d0da0b0e137262f17
That is with Ruby on Rails 6.0. I think we can let this package go.
Nothing depends on it.
rubygem-minitest-reporters pvalena
I don't think minitest-reporters are currently in use, because it has no
additional value (basically just different test output formatting) for
Fedora packages and it is easy to remove the dependency. If anybody
needs an example how to do so, here is a list of spec files for
inspiration.:
~~~
$ grep -R minitest-reporters
rubygem-minitest-reporters.spec:%global gem_name minitest-reporters
rubygem-minitest-reporters.spec:URL:
https://github.com/CapnKernul/minitest-reporters
rubygem-minitest-reporters.spec:%exclude
%{gem_instdir}/minitest-reporters.gemspec
rubygem-nokogiri.spec:# Remove minitest-reporters. It does not provide
any additional value while
rubygem-nokogiri.spec:- Remove rubygem(minitest-reporters) dependency.
rubygem-public_suffix.spec:# We don't have minitest-reporters in Fedora
yet, but they are not needed
rubygem-shoulda.spec:# Remove minitest-reporters dependency.
rubygem-shoulda.spec:- Remove minitest-reporters dependency.
rubygem-shoulda-matchers.spec:- Remove unnecessary BR:
rubygem(minitest-reporters).
rubygem-tomlrb.spec:Patch0: 00-disable-minitest-reporters.patch
rubygem-tomlrb.spec:- Simplify packaging and remove minitest-reporters
dependency.
rubygem-zeitwerk.spec:# Remove minitest-reporters. It does not provide
any additional value while
rubygem-zeitwerk.spec:- Drop `BR: rubygem(minitest-reporters)`.
~~~
IOW it is fine to let it go IMO.
Vít
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112828] Add perl-List-SomeUtils to EPEL-9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112828 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-e2d32b4e7d has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-e2d32b4e7d -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112828 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112836] Add perl-MooX-StrictConstructor to EPEL-9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112836 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-095fb3f813 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-095fb3f813 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112836 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2102646] Add perl-DBIx-ContextualFetch to EPEL 9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2102646 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||2112904 ||(perl-Ima-DBI-epel9) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112904 [Bug 2112904] Add perl-Ima-DBI to EPEL 9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2102646 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112904] Add perl-Ima-DBI to EPEL 9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112904 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||2102646 ||(perl-DBIx-ContextualFetch- ||epel9) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2102646 [Bug 2102646] Add perl-DBIx-ContextualFetch to EPEL 9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112904 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112904] Add perl-Ima-DBI to EPEL 9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112904 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||2102635 ||(perl-Class-DBI-epel9) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2102635 [Bug 2102635] Add perl-Class-DBI to EPEL 9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112904 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2102635] Add perl-Class-DBI to EPEL 9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2102635 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||2112904 ||(perl-Ima-DBI-epel9) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112904 [Bug 2112904] Add perl-Ima-DBI to EPEL 9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2102635 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112904] New: Add perl-Ima-DBI to EPEL 9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112904 Bug ID: 2112904 Summary: Add perl-Ima-DBI to EPEL 9 Product: Fedora EPEL Version: epel9 Status: NEW Component: perl-Ima-DBI Assignee: spo...@gmail.com Reporter: jples...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: igor.ra...@gmail.com, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, spo...@gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Please branch and build perl-Ima-DBI in epel9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112904 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112847] Add perl-Math-Int64 to EPEL-9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112847 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from Jitka Plesnikova --- https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/46084 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112847 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: future of dual booting Windows and Fedora, redux
On Mon, Aug 1, 2022, at 6:51 AM, Kamil Paral wrote: > > I suppose Anaconda would have to be involved, detect encrypted partitions and > provide a hint when the bootloader is created. It would be a static solution, > far from ideal, but arguably better than the current state. I think a GRUB patch is needed in the mkconfig scripts, to check for Bitlocker and when present inhibit creation of the Windows boot entry. The problem with that is it's silent, looks like Windows is missing. So yeah, also needed is some kind of Anaconda informational message. -- Chris Murphy___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)
On Mon, Aug 1 2022 at 12:46:08 PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: I'm not saying a human would literally open each file manually. Tools like 'licensecheck' can automate scanning and reporting from license headers. Packagers should sanity check its output and examine any cases where it failed. That's sufficiently accurate to fill in the License header in the RPM spec as requested by the new guidelines IMHO. Even that would be an unreasonable effort. I only look at the output of fedora-review's license check if the source project is small and the output looks readable. For any complex project, it's beyond what humans can plausibly handle. ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Announcing fmt library soversion bump
On 20/07/2022 16:22, Mamoru TASAKA wrote: 33 pkgs are now using fmt-9 (built successfully with some modification) on rawhide tree Only 1 package still uses fmt8 - 0ad . I think I should retire fmt8 before the F37 is branched. -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org) ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112836] Add perl-MooX-StrictConstructor to EPEL-9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112836 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from Jitka Plesnikova --- https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/46083 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112836 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Fedora 37 mass rebuild complete
On 25. 07. 22 17:57, Kevin Fenzi wrote: 21713 builds have been tagged into f37, there is currently 1144 failed builds that need to be addressed by the package maintainers. FTBFS bugs will be filed shortly. Is there any place we can track the progress for this? We need to link ~70 bugzillas to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2107826 Thanks, -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112828] Add perl-List-SomeUtils to EPEL-9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112828 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added CC|jples...@redhat.com | Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from Jitka Plesnikova --- https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/46082 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112828 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in 1 week
Dear maintainers. Based on the current fail to build from source policy, the following packages will be retired from Fedora 37 approximately one week before branching (next week). Policy: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/ The packages in rawhide were not successfully built at least since Fedora 35. This report is based on dist tags. Packages collected via: https://github.com/hroncok/fedora-report-ftbfs-retirements/blob/master/ftbfs-retirements.ipynb If you see a package that was built, please let me know. If you see a package that should be exempted from the process, please let me know and we can work together to get a FESCo approval for that. If you see a package that can be rebuilt, please do so. Package (co)maintainers == golang-grpc-go4 eclipseo, go-sig, jchaloup lancer willb php-aws-sdk3 lcts php-pimple lcts recorder ddd rubygem-coffee-rails jaruga, ruby-packagers-sig, vondruch rubygem-minitest-reporters pvalena tinygo go-sig, qulogic uom-parent lberk, mgoodwin, nathans xs petersen The following packages require above mentioned packages: Depending on: golang-grpc-go4 (1) golang-x-build (maintained by: eclipseo, go-sig, jchaloup) golang-x-build-0-0.19.20201229git0a4bf69.fc35.src requires golang(grpc.go4.org) = 0-0.9.20180421git11d0a25.fc34, golang(grpc.go4.org/codes) = 0-0.9.20180421git11d0a25.fc34 golang-x-build-devel-0-0.19.20201229git0a4bf69.fc35.noarch requires golang(grpc.go4.org) = 0-0.9.20180421git11d0a25.fc34, golang(grpc.go4.org/codes) = 0-0.9.20180421git11d0a25.fc34 Affected (co)maintainers (directly and indirectly): ddd: recorder eclipseo: golang-grpc-go4 go-sig: golang-grpc-go4, tinygo jaruga: rubygem-coffee-rails jchaloup: golang-grpc-go4 lberk: uom-parent lcts: php-aws-sdk3, php-pimple mgoodwin: uom-parent nathans: uom-parent petersen: xs pvalena: rubygem-minitest-reporters qulogic: tinygo ruby-packagers-sig: rubygem-coffee-rails vondruch: rubygem-coffee-rails willb: lancer -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112642] perlbrew-0.96 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112642 --- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-c650c63e92 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-c650c63e92 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112642 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112891] Add perl-List-UtilsBy to EPEL-9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112891 Michal Josef Spacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Blocks||2112835 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112835 [Bug 2112835] Add perl-List-AllUtils to EPEL-9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112891 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112642] perlbrew-0.96 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112642 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In Version||perlbrew-0.96-1.fc37 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112642 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: dnf makecache memory usage increase
On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 at 07:45, Dusty Mabe wrote: > > > On 7/29/22 12:05, Peter Robinson wrote: > >> Looks like dnf makecache is uses a lot more memory, causing issues on > >> smaller systems/containers. > >> > >> F34: > >> > >> Metadata cache created. > >> 1.51user 0.15system 0:12.01elapsed 13%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata > 162440maxresident)k > >> 144inputs+56outputs (0major+46906minor)pagefaults 0swaps > >> > >> > >> F35: > >> > >> Metadata cache created. > >> 29.28user 2.15system 0:49.94elapsed 62%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata > 841704maxresident)k > >> 184160inputs+497320outputs (181major+425900minor)pagefaults 0swaps > >> > >> Is this a known issue? > > > > I've seen it on arm systems with 512Mb RAM which previously ran dnf > > (not just makecache) fine and now don't. There was a bug opened but > > the dnf team closed it. > > > Seems like this bug is related > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907030 > > We are hitting this issue in Fedora CoreOS CI on VMs with 1G of RAM. > I wonder if this is one of those problems where microdnf needs to be used until the full dnf rewrite in C++ is done. I remember something about memory usage and dnf vs microdnf a while ago for smaller memory systems.. and with the general 'we need to double memory usage' every couple of releases that applications have ... maybe 1Gb is no longer valid? -- Stephen Smoogen, Red Hat Automotive Let us be kind to one another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle. -- Ian MacClaren ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112835] Add perl-List-AllUtils to EPEL-9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112835 Michal Josef Spacek changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||2112891 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112891 [Bug 2112891] Add perl-List-UtilsBy to EPEL-9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112835 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112835] Add perl-List-AllUtils to EPEL-9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112835 Michal Josef Spacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from Michal Josef Spacek --- Branch requested: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/46081 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112835 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112828] Add perl-List-SomeUtils to EPEL-9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112828 Michal Josef Spacek changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||2112835 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112835 [Bug 2112835] Add perl-List-AllUtils to EPEL-9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112828 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112891] Add perl-List-UtilsBy to EPEL-9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112891 --- Comment #1 from Michal Josef Spacek --- Branch requested: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/46080 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112891 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112835] Add perl-List-AllUtils to EPEL-9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112835 Michal Josef Spacek changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||2112828 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112828 [Bug 2112828] Add perl-List-SomeUtils to EPEL-9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112835 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112891] New: Add perl-List-UtilsBy to EPEL-9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112891 Bug ID: 2112891 Summary: Add perl-List-UtilsBy to EPEL-9 Product: Fedora EPEL Version: epel9 Status: NEW Component: perl-List-UtilsBy Assignee: mspa...@redhat.com Reporter: mspa...@redhat.com CC: mspa...@redhat.com, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, rc040...@freenet.de Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Could you please add perl-List-UtilsBy to EPEL-9? I need it for perl-ListAllUtils. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112891 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112642] perlbrew-0.96 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112642 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added CC|iarn...@gmail.com, | |jples...@redhat.com | Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112642 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112603] perl-File-Share-0.27 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112603 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||perl-File-Share-0.27-1.fc37 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2022-08-01 11:42:47 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112603 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 01:28:03PM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > I do expect Fedora reviewers to do more than just look at a handful of > > source files though. For any package review, the header of every source > > file should checked. Random sampling is not sufficient to identify the > > exceptions which do occur often, and are not usually mentioned in the > > top level LICENSE file. If there's no header present, then it is > > implicitly under the global license, and it is fine to trust that for > > the purposes of Fedora license tag. > > I wish you good luck opening every single of the 167383 files in QtWebEngine > (checked with 5.15.8, but that is the order of magnitude for all versions) > to check the license header, if there is any to begin with. (Some of the > bundled libraries are of the "let's just drop in one license file that > applies to everything" kind, and it is named differently in each.) I'm not saying a human would literally open each file manually. Tools like 'licensecheck' can automate scanning and reporting from license headers. Packagers should sanity check its output and examine any cases where it failed. That's sufficiently accurate to fill in the License header in the RPM spec as requested by the new guidelines IMHO. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o-https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o-https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org-o-https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2111643] perl-Test-Trap-0.3.5 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2111643 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||perl-Test-Trap-0.3.5-1.fc37 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Last Closed||2022-08-01 11:43:29 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2111643 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: dnf makecache memory usage increase
On 7/29/22 12:05, Peter Robinson wrote: >> Looks like dnf makecache is uses a lot more memory, causing issues on >> smaller systems/containers. >> >> F34: >> >> Metadata cache created. >> 1.51user 0.15system 0:12.01elapsed 13%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata >> 162440maxresident)k >> 144inputs+56outputs (0major+46906minor)pagefaults 0swaps >> >> >> F35: >> >> Metadata cache created. >> 29.28user 2.15system 0:49.94elapsed 62%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata >> 841704maxresident)k >> 184160inputs+497320outputs (181major+425900minor)pagefaults 0swaps >> >> Is this a known issue? > > I've seen it on arm systems with 512Mb RAM which previously ran dnf > (not just makecache) fine and now don't. There was a bug opened but > the dnf team closed it. Seems like this bug is related https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907030 We are hitting this issue in Fedora CoreOS CI on VMs with 1G of RAM. Dusty ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)
On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 4:28 AM Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > I do expect Fedora reviewers to do more than just look at a handful of > > source files though. For any package review, the header of every source > > file should checked. Random sampling is not sufficient to identify the > > exceptions which do occur often, and are not usually mentioned in the > > top level LICENSE file. If there's no header present, then it is > > implicitly under the global license, and it is fine to trust that for > > the purposes of Fedora license tag. > > I wish you good luck opening every single of the 167383 files in QtWebEngine > (checked with 5.15.8, but that is the order of magnitude for all versions) > to check the license header, if there is any to begin with. (Some of the > bundled libraries are of the "let's just drop in one license file that > applies to everything" kind, and it is named differently in each.) I'm going to say this outright: it is not reasonable to expect volunteer packagers to do this. The License tag is not intended to be exhaustive, merely informative. I would much prefer we continue our existing practice of simplifying license expressions because it also reduces the significant burden of the license audit for packagers and actually keeps us from making *more* mistakes. If people want more exhaustive licensing data, complain to upstream instead and have *them* ship licensing documents. The other option, of course, is that Red Hat chooses to hire people specifically to supplement packagers and do out-of-band audits and correct licensing information for the entire package collection. I do not expect that will happen, though. There is not enough benefit to doing it. The only positive to doing this would be to stop packagers who use bundling as a means to avoid properly categorizing and identifying dependencies from avoiding the license audit part. But I have a feeling those packagers will continue to do that anyway. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)
Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > I do expect Fedora reviewers to do more than just look at a handful of > source files though. For any package review, the header of every source > file should checked. Random sampling is not sufficient to identify the > exceptions which do occur often, and are not usually mentioned in the > top level LICENSE file. If there's no header present, then it is > implicitly under the global license, and it is fine to trust that for > the purposes of Fedora license tag. I wish you good luck opening every single of the 167383 files in QtWebEngine (checked with 5.15.8, but that is the order of magnitude for all versions) to check the license header, if there is any to begin with. (Some of the bundled libraries are of the "let's just drop in one license file that applies to everything" kind, and it is named differently in each.) Kevin Kofler ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Fedora rawhide compose report: 20220801.n.0 changes
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20220731.n.1 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20220801.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 1 Added packages: 0 Dropped packages:48 Upgraded packages: 39 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 0 B Size of dropped packages:5.52 MiB Size of upgraded packages: 137.51 MiB Size of downgraded packages: 0 B Size change of upgraded packages: 6.97 MiB Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B = ADDED IMAGES = = DROPPED IMAGES = Image: Silverblue dvd-ostree x86_64 Path: Silverblue/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Silverblue-ostree-x86_64-Rawhide-20220731.n.1.iso = ADDED PACKAGES = = DROPPED PACKAGES = Package: gnome-online-miners-3.34.0-11.fc37 Summary: Crawls through your online content RPMs:gnome-online-miners Size:376.30 KiB Package: pam_url-1:0.3.3-19.20200410git58e33bf.fc37 Summary: PAM module to authenticate with HTTP servers RPMs:pam_url Size:129.50 KiB Package: python-proteus-4.0.2-17.fc35 Summary: Library to access Tryton's internal objects RPMs:python-proteus Size:78.08 KiB Package: tryton-5.4.0-10.fc37 Summary: Client for the Tryton application framework RPMs:tryton Size:1.00 MiB Package: trytond-4.0.4-19.fc35 Summary: Server for the Tryton application framework RPMs:trytond trytond-mysql trytond-openoffice trytond-pgsql trytond-sqlite Size:1012.15 KiB Package: trytond-account-4.0.3-17.fc35 Summary: account module for Tryton RPMs:trytond-account Size:342.68 KiB Package: trytond-account-be-4.0.0-17.fc35 Summary: account-be module for Tryton RPMs:trytond-account-be Size:54.44 KiB Package: trytond-account-de-skr03-4.0.0-17.fc35 Summary: account-de-skr03 module for Tryton RPMs:trytond-account-de-skr03 Size:50.36 KiB Package: trytond-account-invoice-4.0.2-17.fc35 Summary: account-invoice module for Tryton RPMs:trytond-account-invoice Size:145.36 KiB Package: trytond-account-invoice-history-4.0.1-17.fc35 Summary: account-invoice-history module for Tryton RPMs:trytond-account-invoice-history Size:31.35 KiB Package: trytond-account-invoice-line-standalone-4.0.1-17.fc35 Summary: account-invoice-line-standalone module for Tryton RPMs:trytond-account-invoice-line-standalone Size:33.55 KiB Package: trytond-account-product-4.0.2-17.fc35 Summary: account-product module for Tryton RPMs:trytond-account-product Size:49.16 KiB Package: trytond-account-statement-4.0.2-17.fc35 Summary: account-statement module for Tryton RPMs:trytond-account-statement Size:77.73 KiB Package: trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon-4.0.1-17.fc35 Summary: account-stock-anglo-saxon module for Tryton RPMs:trytond-account-stock-anglo-saxon Size:50.09 KiB Package: trytond-account-stock-continental-4.0.1-17.fc35 Summary: account-stock-continental module for Tryton RPMs:trytond-account-stock-continental Size:56.18 KiB Package: trytond-analytic-account-4.0.1-17.fc35 Summary: analytic-account module for Tryton RPMs:trytond-analytic-account Size:57.47 KiB Package: trytond-analytic-invoice-4.0.1-17.fc35 Summary: analytic-invoice module for Tryton RPMs:trytond-analytic-invoice Size:34.82 KiB Package: trytond-analytic-purchase-4.0.1-17.fc35 Summary: analytic-purchase module for Tryton RPMs:trytond-analytic-purchase Size:35.87 KiB Package: trytond-analytic-sale-4.0.1-17.fc35 Summary: analytic-sale module for Tryton RPMs:trytond-analytic-sale Size:34.33 KiB Package: trytond-company-4.0.3-17.fc35 Summary: company module for Tryton RPMs:trytond-company Size:66.27 KiB Package: trytond-company-work-time-4.0.1-17.fc35 Summary: company-work-time module for Tryton RPMs:trytond-company-work-time Size:33.39 KiB Package: trytond-country-4.0.1-17.fc35 Summary: country module for Tryton RPMs:trytond-country Size:348.37 KiB Package: trytond-currency-4.0.1-17.fc35 Summary: currency module for Tryton RPMs:trytond-currency Size:80.18 KiB Package: trytond-dashboard-4.0.1-17.fc35 Summary: dashboard module for Tryton RPMs:trytond-dashboard Size:39.64 KiB Package: trytond-google-maps-4.0.2-17.fc35 Summary: google-maps module for Tryton RPMs:trytond-google-maps Size:32.49 KiB Package: trytond-ldap-authentication-4.0.1-17.fc35 Summary: ldap-authentication module for Tryton RPMs:trytond-ldap-authentication Size:36.58 KiB Package: trytond-party-4.0.2-17.fc35 Summary: party module for Tryton RPMs:trytond-party Size:86.48 KiB Package: trytond-party-siret-4.0.0-17.fc35 Summary: party-siret module for Tryton RPMs:trytond-party-siret Size:35.68 KiB Package: trytond-product-4.0.1-17.fc35 Summary: product module for Tryton RPMs:trytond-product Size:75.30 KiB Package: trytond-product-cost-fifo-4.0.1-17.fc35 Summary: product-cost-fifo module for Tryton RPMs:trytond-product-cost-fifo Size:34.13 KiB Package: trytond-product-cost-history
Re: Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 12:44:13PM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > In order to perform the simplification that Fedora previously used, it > > was neccessary to first know what the full license list was. From that > > full list some elements could be eliminated if considered to be subsumed > > by another license in the list. > > Uh no, it was sufficient to recognize that copied snippets were under some > MIT license variant, it was not necessary to determine which one exactly. > > > With the new process the need to know the full license list is just > > as it was before. The simplication step is just eliminated. This > > should be a net win. > > It is not, because now you have to compare every word of the MIT license > with the very similar templates such as MIT, MIT-CMU, MIT-feh, etc., and > then figure out which one it actually is. If it is even one of these and not > some random mix of several variants (one sentence from here, one sentence > from there, …). > > Assuming you even find the MIT-licensed snippet, because many upstreams just > consider these free to take and do not bother mentioning it in their overall > license. (The required attribution only appears in the source file where the > code snippet was copied. Which is probably not fine for binary-only > distribution, but nobody seems to care.) Only a handful, such as Qt, > actually go to great lengths to comply with the attribution requirement. > > > Either way reviewers need to determine the full license list of the > > source being packaged, unless the inference was that previously > > reviewers were taking short cuts, not actually bothering to do > > a full license review of the code, and just making assumptions about > > the overall simplified license. That would not have been compliant > > with our review process though. > > But that is how things work in practice. It is just impossible to read > through every source file and scan for copied snippets. They can even appear > in the middle of a file, with the license attached right there. So the > packager and the reviewer will both check the COPYING/LICENSE/LICENCE file > provided by upstream, then go exemplarily through a handful source files to > check that the copyright header and/or SPDX REUSE header matches that > license, and then declare that as the one License. That is, if there are > even copyright/REUSE headers on the files at all. In many cases, there are > none and you have to trust the global license file to tell the truth. I don't think there's an expectation that you go looking at every single line of code to find the snippets of copied code. While it is true that you might find a license note in the middle fo the file, that is pretty exceptionally rare IME. I do expect Fedora reviewers to do more than just look at a handful of source files though. For any package review, the header of every source file should checked. Random sampling is not sufficient to identify the exceptions which do occur often, and are not usually mentioned in the top level LICENSE file. If there's no header present, then it is implicitly under the global license, and it is fine to trust that for the purposes of Fedora license tag. We're not expecting Fedora reviewers to be perfect, but we do expect them to make a serious effort to identify the licenses present across the source files. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o-https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o-https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org-o-https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[rpms/perl-Test-Trap] PR #1: Tests
jplesnik merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Test-Trap` that you are following. Merged pull-request: `` Tests `` https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Test-Trap/pull-request/1 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[rpms/perl-Text-Markdown] PR #2: Remove dependency to HTML::Tidy in same way as f37
mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Text-Markdown` that you are following. Merged pull-request: `` Remove dependency to HTML::Tidy in same way as f37 `` https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Text-Markdown/pull-request/2 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[rpms/perl-Test-Trap] PR #1: Tests
jplesnik opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Test-Trap` that you are following: `` Tests `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Test-Trap/pull-request/1 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: future of dual booting Windows and Fedora, redux
Zammis Clark wrote: > > It doesn't help that Microsoft does not embed the name of the party > who submitted an UEFI driver for signing in the signature itself. > > Microsoft does do this; it's in an authenticated attribute with OID > 1.3.6.1.4.1.311.2.1.12, aka "SPC_SP_OPUS_INFO_OBJID", it's documented as > part of Office document file formats (VBA signing): > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/office_file_formats/ms-oshared/91755632-4b0d-44ca-89a9-9699afbbd268 With a name like this (a cryptic abbreviation "SPC_SP_OPUS_INFO_OBJID" that does not make it obvious that this is the submitter) and documentation in such a weird place (only one of the many items that can be signed by Microsoft), is it any wonder that, as you write: > The same thing is done for Windows drivers that they sign; Windows > understands this attribute (binaries from specific parties can be > blocked by the CiPolicy/SiPolicy which is Microsoft's current > Windows-specific revocation list du jour), but UEFI firmware does not > (yet). only Windows understands this attribute? Kevin Kofler ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: future of dual booting Windows and Fedora, redux
On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 2:32 PM Chris Murphy wrote: > On Fri, Jul 29, 2022, at 4:38 AM, Kamil Paral wrote: > > Currently there is this (insufficient, of course): > > https://ask.fedoraproject.org/t/windows-with-encrypted-disks-bitlocker-cant-be-booted-from-the-grub-boot-menu/20612 > > > Looks pretty good actually. What's missing or unclear? > The workarounds section is bare bones. It needs to be made into a full proper guide, so that less experienced users can also follow it. > I think we should consider swapping the built-in bootmanager and > efibootmgr sections. The efibootmgr section needs enhancement first: how to > find the Windows boot entry number; use case 1: do a one time boot of > windows with --bootnext; use case 2: persistently make Windows or Fedora > the default boot OS with --bootorder; use case 3: boot Fedora from Windows > when Windows is the default boot OS. Each with examples and screenshots. > > The efibootmgr CLI is a consistent interface for everyone. It's much > easier to document concisely. The firmware method defies screenshots or > examples. I'd either make it a secondary section or remove it, but have no > strong feeling about it. > I believe both approaches should be present, but I don't feel strongly about ordering. When you want to boot a secondary OS (let's say Windows), the firmware option (when it works and you know how to trigger it) feels more natural to me, and is definitely more friendly than asking general users to run a cryptic command in a terminal as root. Also, booting Fedora, logging in and running a command just to be able to get into Windows is not the definition of a smooth experience for me. It would be a bit better with a GUI tool and even better if it could be done from GDM, but still an annoyance in all cases. Pressing e.g. F12 after starting the PC is the fastest way. It all depends how often you need to get to the secondary OS, or whether there are e.g. multiple users, some of them using Fedora and some of them Windows, on the same PC. The preferences can then differ a lot. > I'd like to see some proper guide available in Fedora Docs/Quick Docs/wiki > that I could reference from that Common Issue entry. > > > I'd like Ask and Quickdoc to be essentially identical. This no conflicting > info between them. Each is a single authoritative source. And each should > be updated in parity. > The Common Issues section on Ask isn't supposed to contain full-length articles, howto's, guides. At least how I imagine it. I'd prefer having a good guide written somewhere (Docs), and just link to it from Common Issues. The purpose of Common Issues is to highlight important and highly visible problems affecting lots of users, provide some links and context and a workaround if available, or a link to a system update when the fix is ready. If the current situation (can't boot Windows from GRUB on UEFI under certain conditions) becomes a feature instead of a bug, e.g. because we are unable to solve it and we remove the GRUB boot menu on all UEFI machines altogether as proposed, I'd even want it removed from Common Issues. It's really only supposed to document release bugs. General troubleshooting, howto's and guides should be elsewhere. We already somewhat discussed that with Mattdm when people wanted to add e.g. instructions on how to configure the proprietary nvidia driver, etc. It's not a bug -> we should have a separate section for these guides (on Ask/Docs/elsewhere), be it proprietary driver common steps, dual-boot configuration common steps, or anything similar. > One pretty big weakness I missed in the summary: the non-functional > Windows menu item in GRUB. That's quite a trap. I'm not sure any > documentation adequately addresses this. But I also don't know an easy way > to detect this situation and either inhibit creation of or remove this item. > I suppose Anaconda would have to be involved, detect encrypted partitions and provide a hint when the bootloader is created. It would be a static solution, far from ideal, but arguably better than the current state. ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)
Richard Fontana wrote: > But also even license compatibility issues isolated to a particular > package have mostly been ignored or treated as unimportant for a variety > of practical, policy, interpretive and doctrinal reasons that are really > not specific to Fedora but found in other LInux distributions and in > upstream projects generally. With at least one notable exception: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items#cdrtools Kevin Kofler ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)
Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > In order to perform the simplification that Fedora previously used, it > was neccessary to first know what the full license list was. From that > full list some elements could be eliminated if considered to be subsumed > by another license in the list. Uh no, it was sufficient to recognize that copied snippets were under some MIT license variant, it was not necessary to determine which one exactly. > With the new process the need to know the full license list is just > as it was before. The simplication step is just eliminated. This > should be a net win. It is not, because now you have to compare every word of the MIT license with the very similar templates such as MIT, MIT-CMU, MIT-feh, etc., and then figure out which one it actually is. If it is even one of these and not some random mix of several variants (one sentence from here, one sentence from there, …). Assuming you even find the MIT-licensed snippet, because many upstreams just consider these free to take and do not bother mentioning it in their overall license. (The required attribution only appears in the source file where the code snippet was copied. Which is probably not fine for binary-only distribution, but nobody seems to care.) Only a handful, such as Qt, actually go to great lengths to comply with the attribution requirement. > Either way reviewers need to determine the full license list of the > source being packaged, unless the inference was that previously > reviewers were taking short cuts, not actually bothering to do > a full license review of the code, and just making assumptions about > the overall simplified license. That would not have been compliant > with our review process though. But that is how things work in practice. It is just impossible to read through every source file and scan for copied snippets. They can even appear in the middle of a file, with the license attached right there. So the packager and the reviewer will both check the COPYING/LICENSE/LICENCE file provided by upstream, then go exemplarily through a handful source files to check that the copyright header and/or SPDX REUSE header matches that license, and then declare that as the one License. That is, if there are even copyright/REUSE headers on the files at all. In many cases, there are none and you have to trust the global license file to tell the truth. Kevin Kofler ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)
On 31/07/2022 20:42, Ralf Corsépius wrote: Provocant question: Do you want contributors to contact redhat-legal in such cases, as we were required to do in the early days of Fedora? To me, this reads as a pretty nasty regression in Fedora's workflow, which should be reconsidered/reverted. +1. I'm not going to contact RH's Legal, because they didn't answer my previous question about RPM Fusion. -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org) ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2111643] perl-Test-Trap-0.3.5 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2111643 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|jples...@redhat.com,| |lkund...@v3.sk | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2111643 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112494] perl-Chart-2.403.7 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112494 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2022-08-01 10:19:17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112494 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[rpms/perl-Text-Markdown] PR #2: Remove dependency to HTML::Tidy in same way as f37
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Text-Markdown` that you are following: `` Remove dependency to HTML::Tidy in same way as f37 `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Text-Markdown/pull-request/2 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112847] New: Add perl-Math-Int64 to EPEL-9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112847 Bug ID: 2112847 Summary: Add perl-Math-Int64 to EPEL-9 Product: Fedora EPEL Version: epel9 Status: NEW Component: perl-Math-Int64 Assignee: jples...@redhat.com Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: jples...@redhat.com, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Blocks: 2112839 Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Could you add perl-Math-Int64 to EPEL-9? I need it for perl-Math-Int128. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112839 [Bug 2112839] Add perl-Math-Int128 to EPEL-9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112847 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: future of dual booting Windows and Fedora, redux
> It doesn't help that Microsoft does not embed the name of the party who submitted an UEFI driver for signing in the signature itself. Microsoft does do this; it's in an authenticated attribute with OID 1.3.6.1.4.1.311.2.1.12, aka "SPC_SP_OPUS_INFO_OBJID", it's documented as part of Office document file formats (VBA signing): https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/office_file_formats/ms-oshared/91755632-4b0d-44ca-89a9-9699afbbd268 The same thing is done for Windows drivers that they sign; Windows understands this attribute (binaries from specific parties can be blocked by the CiPolicy/SiPolicy which is Microsoft's current Windows-specific revocation list du jour), but UEFI firmware does not (yet). ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112835] Add perl-List-AllUtils to EPEL-9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112835 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||2112841 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112841 [Bug 2112841] Add perl-Net-Works to EPEL-9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112835 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112835] Add perl-List-AllUtils to EPEL-9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112835 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||2112842 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112842 [Bug 2112842] Add perl-Test-Bits to EPEL-9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112835 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)
On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 05:51:34PM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Matthew Miller wrote: > > New guidance on “effective license” analysis > > > > > > Many software packages consist of code with different free and open > > source licenses. Previous practice often involved “simplification” of > > the package license field when the packager believed that one license > > subsumed the other — for example, using just “GPL” when the source code > > includes parts licensed under a BSD-style license as well. Going > > forward, packagers and reviewers should not make this kind of analysis, > > and rather use (for example) “GPL-2.0-or-later AND MIT”. This approach > > is easier for packagers to apply in a consistent way. > > While this may make things easier when there are just two or three licenses > involved (just list them and move on), in any practical code base where > there are usually dozens of small pieces of copied code under various > subtly-different BSD/MIT-style licenses, this is an incredibly huge amount > of bureaucracy, and IMHO just not implementable (and I am not alone thinking > that, see Michael Catanzaro's reply). In order to perform the simplification that Fedora previously used, it was neccessary to first know what the full license list was. From that full list some elements could be eliminated if considered to be subsumed by another license in the list. With the new process the need to know the full license list is just as it was before. The simplication step is just eliminated. This should be a net win. Either way reviewers need to determine the full license list of the source being packaged, unless the inference was that previously reviewers were taking short cuts, not actually bothering to do a full license review of the code, and just making assumptions about the overall simplified license. That would not have been compliant with our review process though. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o-https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o-https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org-o-https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112836] Add perl-MooX-StrictConstructor to EPEL-9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112836 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||2112830 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112830 [Bug 2112830] Add perl-MaxMind-DB-Reader to EPEL-9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112836 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[rawhide] ICU upgrade to 71.1
Hi, Later today, I'll be starting with rebuilds of packages depending on icu. The rebuilds will take place in f37-build-side-55935 for all packages returned by sudo repoquery --whatrequires 'libicu*.so.69()(64bit)' (list attached at the end of the message). Please, if you're going to make changes in affected packages before the side tag gets merged, make the build in the said side tag. I expect to merge the side tag with most of the affected packages built and then continue building things that take longer to build (webkit/libreoffice) later. For stuff that may fail to build, either due to newer icu or unrelated issues, there is a libicu69 compat package already available in rawhide, so that should take care of FTI issues that'd arise by merging the side tag. I'll try to help the maintainers with fixing the issues. I'll post updates to this thread as I progress with the bump. [0] 0ad 389-ds-base bes boost brltty calamares calibre ceph cfdg community-mysql cyrus-imapd darktable dee deepin-editor deepin-system-monitor dino dovecot dovecot-fts-xapian enchant2 evolution-data-server focuswriter freeciv freerdp geary gnome-text-editor gnucash gnustep-base gspell harfbuzz ibus-qt idzebra imv kbibtex kdb libcdr libe-book libical libkiwix liblcf libmspub libphonenumber libqalculate libqxp libreoffice libtoml libtranslit libvisio libzmf maim mapnik mongo-c-driver mozjs68 mozjs91 msort ncid ncmpcpp nuspell opentrep openttd php php-pecl-http plasma-workspace poedit postfix postgresql prelude-lml prosody pyicu python-mapnik qt5-qtbase qt5-qtlocation qt5-qtwebengine qt5-qtwebkit qt6-qt5compat qt6-qtbase R R-stringi raptor2 rpminspect samba scribus seamonkey slop sword tarantool tesseract texlive tin tracker tracker-miners unar v8 vte291 webkit2gtk3 widelands xalan-c xfsprogs xiphos yaz yaz zimlib znc -- Best regards / S pozdravem, František Zatloukal Senior Quality Engineer Red Hat ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112835] Add perl-List-AllUtils to EPEL-9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112835 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||2112830 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112830 [Bug 2112830] Add perl-MaxMind-DB-Reader to EPEL-9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112835 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112838] New: Add perl-Data-Printer to EPEL-9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112838 Bug ID: 2112838 Summary: Add perl-Data-Printer to EPEL-9 Product: Fedora EPEL Version: epel9 Status: NEW Component: perl-Data-Printer Assignee: emman...@seyman.fr Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com CC: emman...@seyman.fr, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Blocks: 2112830 Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Could you add perl-Data-Printer to EPEL-9? I need it for perl-MaxMind-DB-Reader. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112830 [Bug 2112830] Add perl-MaxMind-DB-Reader to EPEL-9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112838 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112836] New: Add perl-MooX-StrictConstructor to EPEL-9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112836 Bug ID: 2112836 Summary: Add perl-MooX-StrictConstructor to EPEL-9 Product: Fedora EPEL Version: epel9 Status: NEW Component: perl-MooX-StrictConstructor Assignee: jples...@redhat.com Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com CC: jples...@redhat.com, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Blocks: 2112829 Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Could you add perl-MooX-StrictConstructor to EPEL-9? I need it for perl-MaxMind-DB-Common. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112829 [Bug 2112829] Add perl-MaxMind-DB-Common to EPEL-9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112836 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112835] New: Add perl-List-AllUtils to EPEL-9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112835 Bug ID: 2112835 Summary: Add perl-List-AllUtils to EPEL-9 Product: Fedora EPEL Version: epel9 Status: NEW Component: perl-List-AllUtils Assignee: mspa...@redhat.com Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com CC: mspa...@redhat.com, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, ppi...@redhat.com Blocks: 2112829 Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Could you please add perl-List-AllUtils to EPEL-9? I need it for perl-MaxMind-DB-Common. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112829 [Bug 2112829] Add perl-MaxMind-DB-Common to EPEL-9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112835 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112828] New: Add perl-List-SomeUtils to EPEL-9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112828 Bug ID: 2112828 Summary: Add perl-List-SomeUtils to EPEL-9 Product: Fedora EPEL Version: epel9 Status: NEW Component: perl-List-SomeUtils Assignee: jples...@redhat.com Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: jples...@redhat.com, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Blocks: 2112563 Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Could you please add perl-List-SomeUtils for EPEL-9? I need it for perl-GeoIP2. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112563 [Bug 2112563] Please branch and build perl-GeoIP2 in epel9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112828 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)
* Ralf Corsépius: > Am 31.07.22 um 18:57 schrieb Richard Fontana: >> There are so few non-legacy, today-commonly-used, >> generally-accepted-as-FOSS licenses that are not viewed as >> GPLv3-compatible that I think it might be better for Ansible to just >> list those (the only one I can think of is EPL-2.0), or to list a >> small set of recommended/acceptable commonly-used FOSS licenses. > I do not agree with this view and consider this decision not to be helpful. > > These licenses might not be "commonly used", but if they are used, > these are the controversal ones, that need to be looked into, exactly > because they "not commonly used". But there's the general license review process for that, and that's not going to go away? It's just that claims regarding GPLv2 or GPLv3 compatibility are no longer an expected deliverable of the review process. Thanks, Florian ___ 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 Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112527] Please branch and build GeoIP in epel9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112527 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppi...@redhat.com Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|NEW |CLOSED Last Closed||2022-08-01 08:46:56 --- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 2066787 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112527 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112633] perl-JSON-4.09 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112633 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Summary|perl-JSON-4.08 is available |perl-JSON-4.09 is available Fixed In Version||perl-JSON-4.09-1.fc37 Last Closed||2022-08-01 08:42:01 --- Comment #3 from Paul Howarth --- Build done: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=90337357 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112633 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2109779] Please branch and build perl-Geo-IP in epel9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2109779 Bug 2109779 depends on bug 2112527, which changed state. Bug 2112527 Summary: Please branch and build GeoIP in epel9 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112527 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2109779 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2109779] Please branch and build perl-Geo-IP in epel9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2109779 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||2066787 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066787 [Bug 2066787] Please branch and build GeoIP in epel9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2109779 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112494] perl-Chart-2.403.7 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112494 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||perl-Chart-2.403.7-1.fc37 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar --- Renames Chart::Font to Chart::Property::DataType::Font. Suitable for Rawhide only. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112494 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112494] perl-Chart-2.403.7 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112494 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|ppi...@redhat.com | Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112494 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2112633] perl-JSON-4.08 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112633 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|emman...@seyman.fr |p...@city-fan.org --- Comment #2 from Paul Howarth --- (In reply to Emmanuel Seyman from comment #1) > The build fails because of t/e02_bool.t: > > Failed tests: 1-4 > Non-zero exit status: 4 > Files=68, Tests=26126, 52 wallclock secs ( 8.59 usr 0.70 sys + 54.10 cusr > 1.67 csys = 65.06 CPU) > Result: FAIL > # JSON::backportPP 4.11 > # 1 > > # Failed test at t/e02_bool.t line 21. > # got: '[false]' > # expected: '[""]' > > # Failed test at t/e02_bool.t line 22. > # got: '[true]' > # expected: '[1]' > > # Failed test at t/e02_bool.t line 28. > # got: '[false]' > # expected: '[""]' > > # Failed test at t/e02_bool.t line 29. > # got: '[true]' > # expected: '[1]' > # Looks like you failed 4 tests of 8. > > This is probably due to restored cre boolean support in JSON::PP 4.11 Indeed it is. Test fixed in upstream release 4.09. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112633 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
