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

[updates]

The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
 Age  URL
   5  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-29b054d297   
chromium-110.0.5481.177-1.el7
   5  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-d09ff99ff8   
stb-0-0.24.20230129git5736b15.el7


The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing

fts-rest-client-3.12.2-1.el7

Details about builds:



 fts-rest-client-3.12.2-1.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1622b2c22f)
 File Transfer Service (FTS) -- Python3 Client and CLI

Update Information:

New upstream release v3.12.2

ChangeLog:

* Thu Mar  2 2023 Mihai Patrascoiu  - 3.12.2-1
- New upstream release 3.12.2
- Remove patch for bugzilla#2164054 as it has been addressed upstream


___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2174756] If I ask for my closed bugs it uses an old email address & gives nothing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174756



--- Comment #3 from Jeff Fearn   ---
If you edit the search and pop-down the 'Search By People' section you should
see the old email address is hard coded.

All the relationships are based in the user id not login name, so nothing old
will be found. It doesn't work ATM as there is no way for it to map the old
address to a user.

If you change the email there to your new email then everything should be
found.

If you change the address to %user% everything should be found (if you are
logged in); if you change your mail in the future it should continue working
[1].

1:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/docs/en/html/using/finding.html#pronoun-substitution


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174756
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2174756] If I ask for my closed bugs it uses an old email address & gives nothing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174756

John Dodson  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(jwadodson@gmail.c |
   |om) |



--- Comment #2 from John Dodson  ---
At the bottom of a page showing "My Bugs" I press the link "MyClosed".
(Or the same link in MyLinks/SavedSearches)

I was actually looking for a request I'd made in 2020, BugId 1851620
hoping to find it that way.

Although my "newer" & now more permanant email address is jwadod...@gmail.com
(& that's what I'm logged in as) it shows this,

 Status: CLOSED Assignee: jo...@physiol.usyd.edu.au Reporter:
jo...@physiol.usyd.edu.au CC: jo...@physiol.usyd.edu.au QA Contact:
jo...@physiol.usyd.edu.au Docs Contact: jo...@physiol.usyd.edu.au Commenter:
jo...@physiol.usyd.edu.au

which is an old address.
& nothing "closed".

I now realise this is a saved search so...
If I try to edit it I would expect to be able to change the "email address" but
it seems somehow
embedded & unchangeable.
I don't recall the "bugzilla activity" at the time the email address had to be
changed (2018? perhaps)
but the email address/domain became "vulnerable" due to changes within USyd at
the time.

As I recall it did work after the email address change.

I guess I could delete it & redo it - but will it find any old (johnd@physiol)
stuff?

I'm thinking this might be indicative of a more subtle group of problems in the
database that
underlies bugzilla.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174756
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2173738] perl-libwww-perl-6.68 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173738



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-1067dc376c has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh
--advisory=FEDORA-2023-1067dc376c`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-1067dc376c

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=2173738
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2174402] perl-Text-CSV_XS-1.50 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174402



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-f3895c13fb has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-f3895c13fb

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=2174402
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2173738] perl-libwww-perl-6.68 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173738



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-ba84c41727 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-ba84c41727

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=2173738
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2174457] perl-Config-Perl-V-0.36 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174457

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-3191bc3f85 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-3191bc3f85

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=2174457
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2173738] perl-libwww-perl-6.68 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173738

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-b799acf095 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-2023-b799acf095`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-b799acf095

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=2173738
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Unretire IWYU - Include What You Use

[Ian McInerney via devel]

On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 9:24 PM Benson Muite 
wrote:

> Would like to unretire Include What You Use
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2175012


Taken,

>
> ___
> 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, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Package Tutorial bug - missing BuildRequires gcc

[Otto Liljalaakso]

Kenneth Goldman kirjoitti 1.3.2023 klo 22.35:

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Packaging_Tutorial_
GNU_Hello/

The tutorial says:

Lines which are not needed (e.g. BuildRequires and Requires) can be
commented out with the hash # for now.

However, I believe that this line is needed.  I'm new so perhaps I'm missing
something.

BuildRequires: gcc


Hello Kenneth,

Thank you reporting the problems you have with the tutorial here on 
devel. This kind of feedback is really useful for improving the 
tutorial. I can see how it can be confusing in its current form. The 
root of the problem here seems to be that the tutorial first instructs 
to create a new specfile with rpmdev-newspec, then to replace it with a 
different initial specfile, and then later goes back to discussing 
something that was in the rpmdev-newspec's variant. The Requires: and 
BuildRequires: in the line you quote refer to that.


I wrote a pull request to improve this [1]. Please take a look.

[1]: https://pagure.io/fedora-docs/package-maintainer-docs/pull-request/115
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2174756] If I ask for my closed bugs it uses an old email address & gives nothing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174756

Jeff Fearn   changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(jwadodson@gmail.c
   ||om)



--- Comment #1 from Jeff Fearn   ---
You need to provide details for steps 2 and steps 3.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174756
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: OpenSSH: hardening hostkeys permissions

[Colin Walters]

On Thu, Dec 8, 2022, at 9:51 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:

> I think the "Upgrade/compatibility impact" section ought to call out the
> possible risk with config mgmt tools like puppet/ansible, that might be
> managing SSH host keys and their permissions/ownership


So that was done with:

> The problem we expect is that after implementing the change we can
> lose the remote access to the hosts because sshd will reject starting
> because of group reading permissions. This should be covered by
> upgrade script, though we still may come across some issues,
> especially if you use host keys in non-standard location.

This is an accurate statement.  However, I am sure some system administrators 
who end up getting surprised and affected by this and lose remote access to 
their systems and have to take a trip to the data center or whatever may be 
more emotional ;)

There's some related discussion to this in 
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/openssh/pull-request/39# including an idea 
to use the MOTD as a way to warn users.

I think we at a minimum need to implement a warning *now* and push it out to 
Fedora stable releases before even trying to land this.

Further, I would suggest having a phase between "warn" and "your ssh keys in a 
nonstandard location no longer work".  The in-between phase would be something 
like "ssh connections in this setup are subject to a 3 second delay, and also 
fail 1/5 of attempts" or so.  That should make the change a lot more likely to 
be seen.   It won't help the admins that only use ssh rarely and somehow miss 
this change unfortunately.
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Unretire IWYU - Include What You Use

[Benson Muite]

Would like to unretire Include What You Use
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2175012
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[rpms/perl-Data-Dump] PR #1: Update license to SPDX format

[Michal Josef Špaček]

mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Data-Dump` that 
you are following:
``
Update license to SPDX format
``

To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Data-Dump/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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Fedora Linux 38 Beta Go/No-Go meeting next week

[Ben Cotton]

The Fedora Linux 38 Beta Go/No-Go[1] meeting is scheduled for Thursday
9 March at 1700 UTC in #fedora-meeting. At this time, we will
determine the status of the F38 Beta for the 14 March early target
date[2]. For more information about the Go/No-Go meeting, see the
wiki[3].

[1] https://calendar.fedoraproject.org/meeting/10456/
[2] https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-38/f-38-key-tasks.html
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Go_No_Go_Meeting

-- 
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Fedora Program Manager
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
___
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-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-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Fedora Linux 38 Beta Go/No-Go meeting next week

[Ben Cotton]

The Fedora Linux 38 Beta Go/No-Go[1] meeting is scheduled for Thursday
9 March at 1700 UTC in #fedora-meeting. At this time, we will
determine the status of the F38 Beta for the 14 March early target
date[2]. For more information about the Go/No-Go meeting, see the
wiki[3].

[1] https://calendar.fedoraproject.org/meeting/10456/
[2] https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-38/f-38-key-tasks.html
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Go_No_Go_Meeting

-- 
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Fedora Program Manager
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
___
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-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-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora Linux 38 Beta Go/No-Go meeting next week

[Luna Jernberg]

Guessing the first sentence should be 38 and not 37 right?

On 3/2/23, Ben Cotton  wrote:
> The Fedora Linux 37 Beta Go/No-Go[1] meeting is scheduled for Thursday
> 9 March at 1700 UTC in #fedora-meeting. At this time, we will
> determine the status of the F38 Beta for the 14 March early target
> date[2]. For more information about the Go/No-Go meeting, see the
> wiki[3].
>
> [1] https://calendar.fedoraproject.org/meeting/10456/
> [2] https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-38/f-38-key-tasks.html
> [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Go_No_Go_Meeting
>
> --
> Ben Cotton
> He / Him / His
> Fedora Program Manager
> Red Hat
> TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
> ___
> test-announce mailing list -- test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to test-announce-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/test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
> ___
> 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, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Test-Announce] Fedora Linux 38 Beta Go/No-Go meeting next week

[Ben Cotton]

The Fedora Linux 37 Beta Go/No-Go[1] meeting is scheduled for Thursday
9 March at 1700 UTC in #fedora-meeting. At this time, we will
determine the status of the F38 Beta for the 14 March early target
date[2]. For more information about the Go/No-Go meeting, see the
wiki[3].

[1] https://calendar.fedoraproject.org/meeting/10456/
[2] https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-38/f-38-key-tasks.html
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Go_No_Go_Meeting

-- 
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Fedora Program Manager
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
___
test-announce mailing list -- test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-announce-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/test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Packit service not submitting builds or updates for branched / F38

[Tomas Tomecek]

On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 4:48 PM Miro Hrončok  wrote:

> On 02. 03. 23 16:06, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 3:47 PM Tomas Tomecek 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Fabio, answers inline below.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 5:50 PM Fabio Valentini 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 5:34 PM Matej Focko  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> - linux-system-roles v1.35.1: submitted to F39, F37, F36, but not F38
> >>> - osbuild-composer v75: submitted to F39, F37, F36, but not F38
> >>> - cockpit-composer v44: submitted to F39, F37, F36, but not F38
> >>> - gpxsee v12.1: submitted to F39, F37, F36, but not F38
> >>> - osbuild v81: submitted to F37, F36, but not F39 or F38 (?)
> >>> - mrack v1.13.3: submitted to F39, F37, F36, EPEL9, EPEL8, but not F38
> >>> - osbuild-composer v76: submitted to F39, F37, F36, but not F38
> >>
> >>
> >> Thank you for the list, once we get guidance on how to proceed (see
> below), we will create those missing updates.
> >>
> >>> Whatever the reason, what should be done about the missing updates?
> >>> I'll be publishing my "builds + updates missing from Fedora Branched
> >>> report" soon anyway, so the packages will show up there either way ...
> >>
> >>
> >> We as Packit have honestly the same question: what does this freeze
> exactly mean? Should we continue creating bodhi updates?
> >>
> >> CCing Ben to give us guidance.
> >
> > The fact that a release is currently "frozen" should not affect
> > submission of updates at all.
> > The only difference there is how updates are pushed from "testing" to
> > "stable" state:
> > Updates will not be submitted to "stable" repos automatically after a
> > few days, but only after the freeze is officially lifted.
> >
> > Since packager's cannot "mess this up" (it is enforced by update
> > infrastructure), there is no reason to not build + submit updates for
> > releases that are currently in a "freeze", especially if you are also
> > submitting the updates to stable branches of Fedora.
>
> In other words: It depends. Same as with updates to stable releases.
>
> I'd say that if you are creating the update in stable releases, you should
> also
> create it in frozen/branched. Not doing it creates mess.
>
> However, whether or not an update is suitable for a stable release or for
> a
> post-Beta branched release must always be decided by the packager and
> never by
> a service.
>

Perfect, thanks for the explanation, Fabio and Miro.

We will create the missing updates.

We have already fixed this and it will be rolled out to production on Tue,
7th.


>
>
>
> --
> 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, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Updating libbraiding from 1.1 to 1.2 in F39/Rawhide

[Ben Beasley]

In one week (2023-03-09), or slightly later, I plan to update libbraiding from 
1.1 to 1.2 in F39/Rawhide. Upstream says, “Minor changes for compatibility with 
newer C++.”
https://github.com/miguelmarco/libbraiding/compare/1.1...1.2

This is not supposed to be an incompatible update, and the .so version is 
unchanged, but there are changes to inline template functions that are used 
both inside and (potentially) outside the compiled library, and the compiled 
library loses several symbols as a result:

Comparing the ABI of binaries between libbraiding-1.1-14.fc38.x86_64.rpm and 
libbraiding-1.2-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm:

 changes of 'libbraiding.so.0.0.0'===
  Functions changes summary: 5 Removed, 0 Changed, 0 Added functions
  Variables changes summary: 0 Removed, 0 Changed, 0 Added variable

  5 Removed functions:

[D] 'method bool 
CBraid::Factor::CompareWithDelta(CBraid::sint32) 
const'{_ZNK6CBraid6FactorINS_17ArtinPresentationEE16CompareWithDeltaEi}
[D] 'method bool 
CBraid::Factor::CompareWithIdentity() const'
{_ZNK6CBraid6FactorINS_17ArtinPresentationEE19CompareWithIdentityEv}
[D] 'method CBraid::Factor 
CBraid::Factor::Flip(CBraid::sint32) const'
{_ZNK6CBraid6FactorINS_17ArtinPresentationEE4FlipEi}
[D] 'function bool 
CBraid::MakeLeftWeighted(CBraid::Factor&,
 CBraid::Factor&)'
{_ZN6CBraid16MakeLeftWeightedINS_17ArtinPresentationEEEbRNS_6FactorIT_EES5_}
[D] 'function bool 
CBraid::MakeRightWeighted(CBraid::Factor&,
 CBraid::Factor&)'
{_ZN6CBraid17MakeRightWeightedINS_17ArtinPresentationEEEbRNS_6FactorIT_EES5_}

 end of changes of 'libbraiding.so.0.0.0'===
Therefore, for safety, I plan to build this for F39/Rawhide only, and I plan to 
coordinate a rebuild of sagemath (the sole dependent package) in a side tag.___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

[Demi Marie Obenour]

On 2/28/23 05:06, Petr Pisar wrote:
> V Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 02:47:03AM -, Daniel Alley napsal(a):
>> I am not sure whether by "all historical updates" you are only referring to
>> all updates being listed in updateinfo.xml, or all history generally
>> (including old packages).
> 
> The latter.
> 
>> But in the latter case, note that keeping all
>> updates massively inflates the storage requirements for maintaining a copy
>> of the repo, which many (or even most) corporate users do.  This is not
>> a huge problem, generally, but it's also not ideal, and probably isn't the
>> right tradeoff for Fedora.
>>
> I know. I only replied the question.
> 
>> Here[0] for example is RHEL 8 baseos and appstream, for which the difference
>> between storing "only the latest package" and "all the packages listed" is
>> 20x and 10x, respectively.  Metadata size would likewise be larger, meaning
>> DNF clients have more to download.
>>
> I don't say Fedora needs to do it the same way. Fedora could only accumulate
> updateinfos while only retaining the latest package. Would it inflate
> metadata? Definitely. But if you want to deliver the data to the clients, you
> have to store them somewhere. Would that affect all clients? No.
> updateinfo.xml can only be downloaded by clients requesting that data. People
> doing "dnf upgrade" can safely skip it.
> 
> Or Fedora could reverse it: Fedora would run a network service which clients
> would send a list of installed packages and the service would return a list of
> affected packages. At the end, ostree od debuginfod services work like that.

debuginfod clients should be checking the downloaded data against a hash 
included
in the binary being debugged.
-- 
Sincerely,
Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers)
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Intention to take ownership of and revive from retirement - ortp

[blinxen]

Thanks for picking this up!


When I saw that linphone was orphaned, I wanted to adopt it too,
but when I saw how much work it needed and being a new packager,
I didn't trust myself to be able to do all the work alone.

Let me know if I can help with something :D


Hussein


Am 02.03.23 um 10:13 schrieb Philip Wyett:

Hi all,

Once upon a time...

One day a fedora packager found libosip2 orphaned and decided it needed some 
love and adopted it.
Little did he know the rabbit hole he was about to go down. ;-)

All things lead to linphone and as a result I have adopted:

- libosip2
- libeXosip2
- linphone

An integral dependency is the retired ortp. I would like to take ownership of 
the package,
following the process[1].

The overall process as I see it maybe quite a brutal one, with:

- Major version updates
- soname bumps
- etc.

Hopefully when work is complete, we will have a working linphone stack. Please 
be patient as
efforts progress.

[1] 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement_Process/#claiming

Regards

Phil


___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[rpms/perl-Algorithm-C3] PR #2: Update license to SPDX format

[Michal Josef Špaček]

mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Algorithm-C3` that you 
are following.

Merged pull-request:

``
Update license to SPDX format
``

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Algorithm-C3/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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2174756] If I ask for my closed bugs it uses an old email address & gives nothing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174756

Emmanuel Seyman  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
   Assignee|emman...@seyman.fr  |bugbot@bot.bugzilla.redhat.
   ||com
  Component|bugzilla|User Accounts
Product|Fedora  |Bugzilla
Version|37  |5.0
 QA Contact|extras...@fedoraproject.org |




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174756
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[rpms/perl-YAML] PR #1: Update license to SPDX format

[Michal Josef Špaček]

mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-YAML` that you are 
following.

Merged pull-request:

``
Update license to SPDX format
``

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-YAML/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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[rpms/perl-Algorithm-C3] PR #2: Update license to SPDX format

[Michal Josef Špaček]

mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Algorithm-C3` that 
you are following:
``
Update license to SPDX format
``

To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Algorithm-C3/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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[rpms/perl-YAML] PR #1: Update license to SPDX format

[Michal Josef Špaček]

mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-YAML` that you are 
following:
``
Update license to SPDX format
``

To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-YAML/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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Intention to take ownership of and revive from retirement - ortp

[Philip Wyett]

Hi all,

Once upon a time...

One day a fedora packager found libosip2 orphaned and decided it needed some 
love and adopted it.
Little did he know the rabbit hole he was about to go down. ;-)

All things lead to linphone and as a result I have adopted:

- libosip2
- libeXosip2
- linphone

An integral dependency is the retired ortp. I would like to take ownership of 
the package,
following the process[1].

The overall process as I see it maybe quite a brutal one, with:

- Major version updates
- soname bumps
- etc.

Hopefully when work is complete, we will have a working linphone stack. Please 
be patient as
efforts progress.

[1] 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement_Process/#claiming

Regards

Phil

-- 
*** Playing the game for the games own sake. ***


Associations:

* Debian Maintainer (DM)
* Fedora/EPEL Maintainer.
* Contributor member of the AlmaLinux foundation.

WWW: https://kathenas.org

Buy Me a Coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/kathenasorg

Twitter: @kathenasorg

Instagram: @kathenasorg

IRC: kathenas

GPG: 724AA9B52F024C8B


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: F39 proposal: Modernize Thread Building Blocks for Fedora 39 (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Kevin Kofler via devel]

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> True. But is this annoyance bigger than updating dependent packages
> to load headers from a different location? Apparently many (most?)
> packages will need to use the compat headers at least for now, so that
> cost would be pretty high.

This depends mainly on how many different, and which in particular, build 
systems the applications using TBB are using. If they are all using one or 
two build systems which take centralized configuration (e.g., CMake), you 
just make that centrally installed configuration magically set the correct 
include directory and you are done with it. (That is how I had done the 
parallel-installability for kdelibs 4 next to kdelibs 3. The choice was to 
change kdelibs 4 rather than kdelibs 3 because almost all kdelibs 4 
applications use CMake.) At least assuming you can detect which version of 
TBB the application actually wants to use. (For CMake, the optional version 
argument to find_package is passed to the Find*.cmake or *Config.cmake 
module and can be used as a hint. If the application actually bothers 
passing it.) If they are using many different homegrown build systems, or 
ones like autotools that bundle copies of the detection code, then it will 
be a lot of work to set a custom include directory everywhere.

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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Packit service not submitting builds or updates for branched / F38

[Miro Hrončok]

On 02. 03. 23 16:06, Fabio Valentini wrote:

On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 3:47 PM Tomas Tomecek  wrote:


Hi Fabio, answers inline below.

On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 5:50 PM Fabio Valentini  wrote:


On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 5:34 PM Matej Focko  wrote:

- linux-system-roles v1.35.1: submitted to F39, F37, F36, but not F38
- osbuild-composer v75: submitted to F39, F37, F36, but not F38
- cockpit-composer v44: submitted to F39, F37, F36, but not F38
- gpxsee v12.1: submitted to F39, F37, F36, but not F38
- osbuild v81: submitted to F37, F36, but not F39 or F38 (?)
- mrack v1.13.3: submitted to F39, F37, F36, EPEL9, EPEL8, but not F38
- osbuild-composer v76: submitted to F39, F37, F36, but not F38



Thank you for the list, once we get guidance on how to proceed (see below), we 
will create those missing updates.


Whatever the reason, what should be done about the missing updates?
I'll be publishing my "builds + updates missing from Fedora Branched
report" soon anyway, so the packages will show up there either way ...



We as Packit have honestly the same question: what does this freeze exactly 
mean? Should we continue creating bodhi updates?

CCing Ben to give us guidance.


The fact that a release is currently "frozen" should not affect
submission of updates at all.
The only difference there is how updates are pushed from "testing" to
"stable" state:
Updates will not be submitted to "stable" repos automatically after a
few days, but only after the freeze is officially lifted.

Since packager's cannot "mess this up" (it is enforced by update
infrastructure), there is no reason to not build + submit updates for
releases that are currently in a "freeze", especially if you are also
submitting the updates to stable branches of Fedora.


In other words: It depends. Same as with updates to stable releases.

I'd say that if you are creating the update in stable releases, you should also 
create it in frozen/branched. Not doing it creates mess.


However, whether or not an update is suitable for a stable release or for a 
post-Beta branched release must always be decided by the packager and never by 
a service.




--
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: gnutls time_t breakage on i686 (was: Re: qemu on i686)

[Kevin Kofler via devel]

Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> The main reason for i686 continuing to exist at all in Fedora is to
> facilitate running of externally distributed 32-bit apps (for example
> wine/steam related). Those apps are all going to be built with 32-bit
> time_t.

WINE is packaged in Fedora. If Fedora rebuilds everything with 64-bit 
time_t, the packaged WINE will also be rebuilt. And any Windows applications 
run in WINE should not be seeing the underlying time_t at all, only the 
Windows or crtdll/msvcrt/ucrt time APIs.

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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Packit service not submitting builds or updates for branched / F38

[Fabio Valentini]

On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 3:47 PM Tomas Tomecek  wrote:
>
> Hi Fabio, answers inline below.
>
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 5:50 PM Fabio Valentini  wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 5:34 PM Matej Focko  wrote:
>>
>> - linux-system-roles v1.35.1: submitted to F39, F37, F36, but not F38
>> - osbuild-composer v75: submitted to F39, F37, F36, but not F38
>> - cockpit-composer v44: submitted to F39, F37, F36, but not F38
>> - gpxsee v12.1: submitted to F39, F37, F36, but not F38
>> - osbuild v81: submitted to F37, F36, but not F39 or F38 (?)
>> - mrack v1.13.3: submitted to F39, F37, F36, EPEL9, EPEL8, but not F38
>> - osbuild-composer v76: submitted to F39, F37, F36, but not F38
>
>
> Thank you for the list, once we get guidance on how to proceed (see below), 
> we will create those missing updates.
>
>> Whatever the reason, what should be done about the missing updates?
>> I'll be publishing my "builds + updates missing from Fedora Branched
>> report" soon anyway, so the packages will show up there either way ...
>
>
> We as Packit have honestly the same question: what does this freeze exactly 
> mean? Should we continue creating bodhi updates?
>
> CCing Ben to give us guidance.

The fact that a release is currently "frozen" should not affect
submission of updates at all.
The only difference there is how updates are pushed from "testing" to
"stable" state:
Updates will not be submitted to "stable" repos automatically after a
few days, but only after the freeze is officially lifted.

Since packager's cannot "mess this up" (it is enforced by update
infrastructure), there is no reason to not build + submit updates for
releases that are currently in a "freeze", especially if you are also
submitting the updates to stable branches of Fedora.

Fabio
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2174891] New: perl-Prima-1.68002 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174891

Bug ID: 2174891
   Summary: perl-Prima-1.68002 is available
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: perl-Prima
  Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
  Assignee: ppi...@redhat.com
  Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: lkund...@v3.sk, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org,
ppi...@redhat.com
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Releases retrieved: 1.68002
Upstream release that is considered latest: 1.68002
Current version/release in rawhide: 1.68.1-1.fc39
URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Prima/

Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/


More information about the service that created this bug can be found at:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Upstream_Release_Monitoring


Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging
changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your
responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still
correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added
upstream.


Based on the information from Anitya:
https://release-monitoring.org/project/3289/


To change the monitoring settings for the project, please visit:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Prima


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174891
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Packit service not submitting builds or updates for branched / F38

[Tomas Tomecek]

Hi Fabio, answers inline below.

On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 5:50 PM Fabio Valentini  wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 5:34 PM Matej Focko  wrote:
>
> - linux-system-roles v1.35.1: submitted to F39, F37, F36, but not F38
> - osbuild-composer v75: submitted to F39, F37, F36, but not F38
> - cockpit-composer v44: submitted to F39, F37, F36, but not F38
> - gpxsee v12.1: submitted to F39, F37, F36, but not F38
> - osbuild v81: submitted to F37, F36, but not F39 or F38 (?)
> - mrack v1.13.3: submitted to F39, F37, F36, EPEL9, EPEL8, but not F38
> - osbuild-composer v76: submitted to F39, F37, F36, but not F38
>

Thank you for the list, once we get guidance on how to proceed (see below),
we will create those missing updates.

Whatever the reason, what should be done about the missing updates?
> I'll be publishing my "builds + updates missing from Fedora Branched
> report" soon anyway, so the packages will show up there either way ...
>

We as Packit have honestly the same question: what does this freeze exactly
mean? Should we continue creating bodhi updates?

CCing Ben to give us guidance.
  

Tomas
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: gnutls time_t breakage on i686 (was: Re: qemu on i686)

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 02:35:11PM +0100, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 11:57:42AM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > If any other Fedora maintainer looks after packages that use GNULIB,
> > then it is quite likely that they also need to add --disable-year2038
> > to their specfiles to avoid i686 brokenness when talking to any
> > non-glibc libraries that use time_t, or exposing a library using time_t
> 
> There are about 150 packages that provide "bundled(gnulib)". About 50
> have "lib" in their name. Just wondering, wouldn't it be less work to
> enable 64-bit time_t in the rpm CFLAGS, rebuild everything, and deal
> with a potentially smaller number of broken packages with the benefit
> of fixing Y2038?

So a few facts first:

(1) Gnulib, in some common circumstances, sets -D_TIME_BITS=64

(2) Programs might also choose to set -D_TIME_BITS=64, even if they
don't use Gnulib.

(3) This flag only affects 32 bit platforms like i686 and armv7,
changing time_t from 32 to 64 bit.

(4) Also this only matters if time_t leaks into header files, because
it could cause the library's ABI to change.  If time_t is used
entirely internal to the program/library, it shouldn't be a problem.

(5) A problem arises when the caller and callee disagree on the size
of time_t.

Now, as Dan points out in the linked thread on libc-alpha, the reason
we have i686 in Fedora at all is to support third party programs like
Wine and Steam.  Those may still be using 32-bit time_t for a while.
That's an argument for sticking with the current situation.

This might change in future -- eg. if these external programs are
being compiled on, say, Debian, and Debian were to switch to using
-D_TIME_BITS=64 everywhere, and we found more programs expecting it,
then we'd have to switch.  You can see why this is going to be
problematic for the period where there are mixed old & new binaries.

Also libraries that do expose raw time_t in header files are actually
broken.  Really they should expose an explicit 64 bit type
(eg. int64_t) and converting to time_t internally.  But probably that
ship has sailed.

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
libguestfs lets you edit virtual machines.  Supports shell scripting,
bindings from many languages.  http://libguestfs.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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: gnutls time_t breakage on i686 (was: Re: qemu on i686)

[Daniel P . Berrangé]

On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 02:35:11PM +0100, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 11:57:42AM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > If any other Fedora maintainer looks after packages that use GNULIB,
> > then it is quite likely that they also need to add --disable-year2038
> > to their specfiles to avoid i686 brokenness when talking to any
> > non-glibc libraries that use time_t, or exposing a library using time_t
> 
> There are about 150 packages that provide "bundled(gnulib)". About 50
> have "lib" in their name. Just wondering, wouldn't it be less work to
> enable 64-bit time_t in the rpm CFLAGS, rebuild everything, and deal
> with a potentially smaller number of broken packages with the benefit
> of fixing Y2038?

The main reason for i686 continuing to exist at all in Fedora is to
facilitate running of externally distributed 32-bit apps (for example
wine/steam related). Those apps are all going to be built with 32-bit
time_t.

IOW if Fedora unconditionally rebuilt its world with 64-bit time_t, it
would be killing ABI compatibility with the very things that its i686
RPMs aim to support.

AFAICT, Fedora either keeps 32-bit time_t, or kills i686 for good.

With regards,
Daniel

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval

   "The remaining use cases of i686 packages (i.e. "multilib") for
popular 32-bit applications should continue to work. For example,
installing the Steam client (steam.i686), Wine, or other
applications that require 32-bit compatibility libraries should
still be possible, and not fail due to broken dependencies. "
-- 
|: 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: gnutls time_t breakage on i686 (was: Re: qemu on i686)

[Miroslav Lichvar]

On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 11:57:42AM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> If any other Fedora maintainer looks after packages that use GNULIB,
> then it is quite likely that they also need to add --disable-year2038
> to their specfiles to avoid i686 brokenness when talking to any
> non-glibc libraries that use time_t, or exposing a library using time_t

There are about 150 packages that provide "bundled(gnulib)". About 50
have "lib" in their name. Just wondering, wouldn't it be less work to
enable 64-bit time_t in the rpm CFLAGS, rebuild everything, and deal
with a potentially smaller number of broken packages with the benefit
of fixing Y2038?

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Heads-up: python-shapely 2.0.1 coming to Fedora Rawhide/39 (with updated License)

[Ben Beasley]

In one week (2023-03-02), or slightly later, I plan to update the 
python-shapely package from 1.8.5.post1 to 2.0.1 in Rawhide/F39 by 
merging the linked PR[1].


There are incompatible changes[2], but after some patching and some 
waiting for upstream releases, all dependent packages now build 
successfully in COPR[3], and I believe all upper-bounds on the Shapely 
version have been removed or loosened. No action by dependent package 
maintainers should be required; however, I am happy to help if you do 
encounter any problems.


The License field changes from BSD-3-Clause to (BSD-3-Clause AND 
Unlicense AND MIT). The Unlicense term comes from more careful 
consideration of the versioneer-generated file shapely/_version.py, and 
the MIT term comes from a new bundled source file that is a “copylib” 
from https://github.com/attractivechaos/klib.


I have no plans to build Shapely 2 for Fedora 38/Branched.

[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-shapely/pull-request/9

[2] https://shapely.readthedocs.io/en/stable/migration.html

[3] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/music/shapely/packages/
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Fedora 38 compose report: 20230302.n.0 changes

[Fedora Rawhide Report]

OLD: Fedora-38-20230301.n.0
NEW: Fedora-38-20230302.n.0

= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images:  0
Added packages:  0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages:   0
Downgraded packages: 0

Size of added packages:  0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of upgraded packages:   0 B
Size of downgraded packages: 0 B

Size change of upgraded packages:   0 B
Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B

= ADDED IMAGES =
Image: Silverblue dvd-ostree x86_64
Path: Silverblue/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Silverblue-ostree-x86_64-38-20230302.n.0.iso

= DROPPED IMAGES =

= ADDED PACKAGES =

= DROPPED PACKAGES =

= UPGRADED PACKAGES =

= DOWNGRADED PACKAGES =
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2162633] Upgrade perl-Date-Extract to 0.07

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2162633

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||perl-Date-Extract-0.07-1.fc
   ||38
Last Closed||2023-03-02 12:01:32



--- Comment #3 from Jitka Plesnikova  ---
Built by corsepiu


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2162633
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Package Tutorial bug - missing BuildRequires gcc

[Miroslav Suchý]

Dne 02. 03. 23 v 0:50 Jason Tibbitts napsal(a):

I do see that the license tag should probably have an SPDX identifier
"GPL-3.0-or-later" instead of "GPLv3+" but that's somewhat minor.


Fair enough.

https://pagure.io/fedora-docs/package-maintainer-docs/pull-request/114

Miroslav
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: fedpkg: Failed to get repository name from Git url or pushurl

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 01. 03. 23 v 23:39 Kenneth Goldman napsal(a):

There's Source, Source0, and sources.  What are the definitions?



I think that older RPMs require the numbered version, e.g. `Source0`. 
With advent of macros such as `%autosetup`, the number is not as 
important as it used to be and therefore it has been made optional.





The tutorial doesn't have a 'sources' tag.  Is that documented?  What should
it be?



I think there is no `sources` tag (while there is `%{sources}` macro 
available later). You can either use `Source` tag multiple times or use 
the appropriately numbered `Source0`, `Source1`, etc.





The hello tutorial has the URL to the tarball in Source: but it also says to
use
wget to download the tarball.



While RPM has the ability to download the sources, it is disabled by 
default for security reasons. You simply don't want to download random 
stuff from Internet.


https://stackoverflow.com/questions/33177450/how-do-i-get-rpmbuild-to-download-all-of-the-sources-for-a-particular-spec




The Source: tag doesn't have a list of files, just a pointer to the tarball.



One file per one `Source` line, but you probably understand it based on 
the above.





Maybe I'm way off and the source files should be in a local directory?



I believe so in the context of the tutorial and usage of `$ fedpkg 
--release f36 mockbuild` command.





When I run the tutorial, it seems to ignore the .spec URLs and uses the local
tarball.  How does it even know what the name is?  Does it default to the
file name of the URL?



Yes




How does it know what to build.  Does it default to configure;make
or something similar?



You have to specify what are the right steps in the `%build` sections. 
In the tutorial, there are used the `%configure` + `%make_build` macros. 
You could use different build commands (or macros) at this place.



Vít





-Original Message-
From: Artur Frenszek-Iwicki 
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2023 11:43 AM
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: fedpkg: Failed to get repository name from Git url
or
pushurl


Should that tutorial work?  Is it perhaps obsolete?

I'd say the opposite of obsolete - it's been updated to suggest using fedpkg
all
along the way, instead of the old rpmbuild tools. But it looks like it
wasn't tested
enough to make sure everything works.


My newbie understanding is that fedpkg should get the source from the
Source0 location and then follow the build instructions.
Is that even close?

This is a bit complicated. When the package is being built, the list of
files is taken
from the Source: tags in the spec file. However, fedpkg keeps a separate
file,
"sources" (no extension), where it lists files uploaded to the Fedora build
cache.
The justification is that keeping source tarballs in the repository is a bad
idea,
since these files can be really large (1GiB+ for game packages), so they're
stored
in a cache instead, and the repository contains only this "sources" file
with
references to said cache. (That being said, you totally can store source
files in
the repo - this is often done with stuff like non-standard Fedora configs.)

As for the "get the source from the Source0 location" bit - no.
fedpkg will not download stuff from Source: tags for you, only the files
listed in
the "sources" file.

Since my impression is that you want to start experimenting with RPM
packaging
in general, and not specifically fedpkg - I'll do a bit shameless
self-promotion
and link to an article on RPM packaging that I wrote some time ago:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
3A__blog.svgames.pl_article_basics-2Dof-2Drpm-
2Dpackaging=DwIGaQ=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-
siA1ZOg=DZCVG43VcL8GTneMZb8k8lEwb-O1GZktFfre1-mlmiA=9Zy9a03p-
GrtnAWrzttvmFX417X-C_WOqiZaQjuiv1_bUC_4VaDdANM4Cv-
tBucE=ASsrhv8V4Ny-ujgsugfcpVLuPxEn578dICLLMx2eCYw=

In this article, I show how to build RPM packages using the traditional
rpmbuild
workflow. If you're just starting out with writing specs and such, it should
get
you started enough to make switching to fedpkg later down the road a no-
brainer.

A.FI.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an
email
to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
3A__docs.fedoraproject.org_en-2DUS_project_code-2Dof-
2Dconduct_=DwIGaQ=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-
siA1ZOg=DZCVG43VcL8GTneMZb8k8lEwb-O1GZktFfre1-mlmiA=9Zy9a03p-
GrtnAWrzttvmFX417X-C_WOqiZaQjuiv1_bUC_4VaDdANM4Cv-
tBucE=wgOj27qGmhxD4UEHTA9tqeAxCZr1ny0rPQPs7_SL2sQ=
List Guidelines: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
3A__fedoraproject.org_wiki_Mailing-5Flist-
5Fguidelines=DwIGaQ=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-
siA1ZOg=DZCVG43VcL8GTneMZb8k8lEwb-O1GZktFfre1-mlmiA=9Zy9a03p-
GrtnAWrzttvmFX417X-C_WOqiZaQjuiv1_bUC_4VaDdANM4Cv-
tBucE=cUh77057QE1qCKOAD2SsxFWibxM8aVJOWgvcuUM-1gI=
List Archives: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-

Re: gnutls time_t breakage on i686 (was: Re: qemu on i686)

[Daniel P . Berrangé]

On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 11:06:04AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 06:28:56PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > It seems as if there is some issue with TLS (is gnutls borked on i686?)
> 
> Yes as it happens, see the thread here:
> 
> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2023-March/145992.html

I've filed an upstream bug against gnutls too

   https://gitlab.com/gnutls/gnutls/-/issues/1466

it isn't really GNUTLS fault - it has had the time_t ABI breakage
imposed on it by an well meaning change in GNULIB that has had
undesirable consequences.

My suggested workaround in Fedora is --disable-year2038

  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gnutls/pull-request/78

which is what the Fedora wget maintainer has also done for thue
same time_t ABI comapt problem.


If any other Fedora maintainer looks after packages that use GNULIB,
then it is quite likely that they also need to add --disable-year2038
to their specfiles to avoid i686 brokenness when talking to any
non-glibc libraries that use time_t, or exposing a library using time_t

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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: packaging tutorial error - /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn mock-chroot debug advice

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 01. 03. 23 v 22:59 Kenneth Goldman napsal(a):

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Packaging_Tutorial_
GNU_Hello/

~~~

when running that tutorial (Fedora 37, x86), I get this error:

ERROR: Exception(/home/kgold/hello/hello-2.10-1.fc37.src.rpm)
Config(fedora-37-x86_64) 0 minutes 18 seconds
INFO: Results and/or logs in: /home/kgold/hello/results_hello/2.10/1.fc37

~~~

The log has at the end:, but I suspect that the python issue is a reporting
issue, not the actual failure.

RPM build errors:



The real error you should be concerned is above this ^^ line.



Child return code was: 1
EXCEPTION: [Error('Command failed: \n # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M
d0156a2d35ca46a0ba55a993d05852c1 -D /var/lib/mock/fedora-37-x86_64/root -a
-u mockbuild --capability=cap_ipc_lock
--bind=/tmp/mock-resolv.lphffv1r:/etc/resolv.conf --bind=/dev/btrfs-control
--bind=/dev/mapper/control --bind=/dev/loop-control --bind=/dev/loop0
--bind=/dev/loop1 --bind=/dev/loop2 --bind=/dev/loop3 --bind=/dev/loop4
--bind=/dev/loop5 --bind=/dev/loop6 --bind=/dev/loop7 --bind=/dev/loop8
--bind=/dev/loop9 --bind=/dev/loop10 --bind=/dev/loop11 --console=pipe
--setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/builddir
--setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin
--setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\\033]0;\\007"
--setenv=PS1= \\s-\\v\\$  --setenv=LANG=C.UTF-8
--resolv-conf=off bash --login -c /usr/bin/rpmbuild -bb  --target x86_64
--nodeps /builddir/build/SPECS/hello.spec\n', 1)]
Traceback (most recent call last):
   File "/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/mockbuild/trace_decorator.py",
line 93, in trace
 result = func(*args, **kw)
  ^
   File "/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/mockbuild/util.py", line 598, in
do_with_status
 raise exception.Error("Command failed: \n # %s\n%s" % (command, output),
child.returncode)
mockbuild.exception.Error: Command failed:



This backtrace is confusing indeed and requested to be improved here:


https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/issues/1018


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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2174756] New: If I ask for my closed bugs it uses an old email address & gives nothing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174756

Bug ID: 2174756
   Summary: If I ask for my closed bugs it uses an old email
address & gives nothing
   Product: Fedora
   Version: 37
Status: NEW
 Component: bugzilla
  Assignee: emman...@seyman.fr
  Reporter: jwadod...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: as...@ionic.at, emman...@seyman.fr,
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Description of problem:
If I ask for my closed bugs it uses an old email address & gives nothing

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

bugzilla.noarch   5.0.6-15.fc37
How reproducible:

On the website https://bugzilla.redhat.com
Steps to Reproduce:
1. log in a me!
2. search for my closed bugs
3. it shows an old email address i used to use but no entries

Actual results:

no bugs
Expected results:
some bugs

Additional info:


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174756
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

gnutls time_t breakage on i686 (was: Re: qemu on i686)

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 06:28:56PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> It seems as if there is some issue with TLS (is gnutls borked on i686?)

Yes as it happens, see the thread here:

https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2023-March/145992.html

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines.  Boot with a
live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into KVM guests.
http://libguestfs.org/virt-v2v
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2174457] perl-Config-Perl-V-0.36 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174457



--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-3191bc3f85 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-3191bc3f85


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174457
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2174457] perl-Config-Perl-V-0.36 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174457

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
   Fixed In Version||perl-Config-Perl-V-0.36-1.f
   ||c39




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174457
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: KB layout switching does not work in TB on Rawhide

[Tom Hughes via devel]

On 02/03/2023 08:43, Olivier Fourdan wrote:


TB still uses Xwayland?


By default, yes.

If you install thunderbird-wayland then you will get an
alternative native Wayland version.

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: KB layout switching does not work in TB on Rawhide

[Olivier Fourdan]

Hi,

On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 9:39 AM Vít Ondruch  wrote:
>
> I have updated my Rawhide yesterday and today I have noticed, that KB
> layout changes do not work in TB. It stubbornly uses English layout. I
> have reported the issue here:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174708
>
> and later tried to downgrade TB to previous version, but that did not help.
>
> Has anybody experience similar issue? So far it seems the KB layouts
> changes work elsewhere just fine. I am puzzled if that might be TB issue
> or the issue is elsewhere. Any hint how I could try to identify the root
> cause?

TB still uses Xwayland?

If so, then it's probably https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173201

I'm looking into this.

Cheers
Olivier
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

KB layout switching does not work in TB on Rawhide

[Vít Ondruch]

I have updated my Rawhide yesterday and today I have noticed, that KB 
layout changes do not work in TB. It stubbornly uses English layout. I 
have reported the issue here:


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174708

and later tried to downgrade TB to previous version, but that did not help.

Has anybody experience similar issue? So far it seems the KB layouts 
changes work elsewhere just fine. I am puzzled if that might be TB issue 
or the issue is elsewhere. Any hint how I could try to identify the root 
cause?



Vit


P.S. This is annoying, because now I cannot easily properly spell my name :/



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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue