On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 at 05:15, Chris Kelley wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> TL;DR dogtag-pki is not installable on F38/Rawhide because it fails the
> GPG check (F37 and prior are fine), even if --nogpgcheck is specified, and
> I don't understand why.
> 1) Why does the key not work?
> 2) Why does --nogpgcheck
Kenneth Goldman kirjoitti 8.3.2023 klo 0.58:
-Original Message-
From: Jason Tibbitts
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 6:51 PM
To: Kenneth Goldman
Cc: Development discussions related to Fedora
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Package Tutorial bug - missing BuildRequires gcc
Kenneth Goldman
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> * #2951 Proposal: policy for resubmitting rejected proposals (zbyszek,
> 17:07:47)
> * AGREED: FESCo will make an effort to notify people when proposals
> are resubmitted for voting without a formal change in the process
> rules. A note will be
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 05:49:24AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > * #2951 Proposal: policy for resubmitting rejected proposals (zbyszek,
> > 17:07:47)
> > * AGREED: FESCo will make an effort to notify people when proposals
> > are resubmitted
Hi all,
In the effort to update the very outdated linphone stack and related software.
In the next day or
so the libosip2 package will receive its first major update in Fedora since
2013 that will include
a soname bump.
Regards
Phil
--
*** Playing the game for the games own sake. ***
On Thu, Feb 23 2023 at 03:13:28 PM -0600, Michael Catanzaro
wrote:
Quick update here. We are approaching the end of soname bump season!
\o/ There will be one or (less likely) two additional soname bumps
within the next three weeks, and then when WebKitGTK 2.40.0 is
released alongside GNOME 44
On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 02:37:14PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As a follow-up from a recent discussion on Matrix/IRC, I'm proposing
> the following change to the development cycle / release schedule:
>
> "Koji builds are blocked while mass branching and updates-testing
>
On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 7:07 PM Stephen Smoogen wrote:
>
> The keys need to be regenerated in COPR I believe to fix this.
How does one do that in COPR?
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
Hi,
Chris Kelley wrote:
> TL;DR dogtag-pki is not installable on F38/Rawhide because
> it fails the GPG check (F37 and prior are fine), even if
> --nogpgcheck is specified, and I don't understand why.
>
> 1) Why does the key not work?
> 2) Why does --nogpgcheck not work?
It seems like it must be
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 at 10:12, Petr Pisar wrote:
> For module maintainers, module users, and flatpak maintainers:
>
> Fedora infrustructure has long-standing problems with supporting modules.
>
> Namely, MBS is unable to build modules with deep dependencies
>
The Fedora Linux 38 Beta RC1,3 compose[1] is GO and will be shipped
live on Tuesday, 14 March.
The F38 Final freeze begins Tuesday 4 April.
For more information please check the Go/No-Go meeting minutes[2] or log[3].
[1] https://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/38_Beta-1.3/
[2]
On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 01:45:14PM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 03:00:06PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 03:57:37PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 3:49 PM Daniel P. Berrangé
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On
Hi Fabio,
On March 9, 2023 1:37:14 PM UTC, Fabio Valentini wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>As a follow-up from a recent discussion on Matrix/IRC, I'm proposing
>the following change to the development cycle / release schedule:
>
>"Koji builds are blocked while mass branching and updates-testing
>enablement
On 08/03/2023 16:10, Petr Pisar wrote:
That could also affect seemingly unrelated parts of Fedora like Flatpaks
whose build process is based on modularity.
We should start building Flatpaks natively using flatpak-builder from
standard build manifests.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20230308.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20230309.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:3
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 8
Dropped packages:2
Upgraded packages: 139
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 19.86 MiB
Size of dropped packages
Hi all!
TL;DR dogtag-pki is not installable on F38/Rawhide because it fails the GPG
check (F37 and prior are fine), even if --nogpgcheck is specified, and I don't
understand why.
1) Why does the key not work?
2) Why does --nogpgcheck not work?
The error I get is:
[root@fedora ~]# dnf copr
On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 10:20:21AM -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 8 2023 at 04:10:15 PM +0100, Petr Pisar
> wrote:
> > That could also affect seemingly unrelated parts of Fedora like Flatpaks
> > whose build process is based on modularity.
>
> I can address this. We intend to stop
Miro Hrončok kirjoitti 8.3.2023 klo 17.29:
On 08. 03. 23 9:29, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 08:13:57AM +0100, Ondrej Nosek wrote:
Changelog (web documentation):
https://docs.pagure.org/rpkg/releases/1.66.html
https://docs.pagure.org/fedpkg/releases/1.44.html
Fabio Valentini wrote:
> As a follow-up from a recent discussion on Matrix/IRC, I'm proposing
> the following change to the development cycle / release schedule:
>
> "Koji builds are blocked while mass branching and updates-testing
> enablement are in progress."
What will packagers see?
Will
On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 3:25 PM Jitka Plesnikova wrote:
>
>
> > - perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-0:5.20230220-1.fc37 >
> > perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-0:5.20230120-1.fc38
> > - perl-Module-CoreList-1:5.20230220-1.fc37 >
> > perl-Module-CoreList-1:5.20230120-1.fc38
> Newer builds are in testing, because there
On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 3:28 PM Björn Persson wrote:
>
> What will packagers see?
This is still up for discussion, I guess. And it will also depend on
how this can be implemented.
Ideally, "fedpkg build" would print a warning like "Mass branching is
in progress, no builds can be submitted at
On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 3:46 PM Dennis Gilmore via devel
wrote:
>
>> 2. Builds launched just before updates-testing enablement can get
>> stuck in "testing" state before there is an actual updates-testing
>> repo, and are hence not available from *any* repository (for testing?)
>> during the beta
On Thu, Mar 9 2023 at 09:48:11 AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
Naive question: how does the approach with flatpak-builder would
compare to the current one with modularity?
Well it would certainly look different, but I did not suggest that we
would use flatpak-builder. Maybe Owen
Extending the question here.
-- Forwarded message -
From: Tomas Korbar
Date: Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 9:51 AM
Subject: License: GPL-3.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-or-later
To:
Hi guys,
I am doing the conversion of license tags in my projects and i have a
project where some files are
On 09. 03. 23 10:05, Otto Liljalaakso wrote:
Miro Hrončok kirjoitti 8.3.2023 klo 17.29:
On 08. 03. 23 9:29, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 08:13:57AM +0100, Ondrej Nosek wrote:
Changelog (web documentation):
https://docs.pagure.org/rpkg/releases/1.66.html
> One problem that I haven't seen before is that updates are apparently
> in "testing" or "testing->stable" state in bodhi, but aren't available
> from the "updates-testing" repository at all. No wonder these updates
> aren't getting any karma ...
hmm that is strange because the builds are in the
- perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-0:5.20230220-1.fc37 >
perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-0:5.20230120-1.fc38
- perl-Module-CoreList-1:5.20230220-1.fc37 >
perl-Module-CoreList-1:5.20230120-1.fc38
Newer builds are in testing, because there is note
'Frozen release - This update will not be pushed to stable until
> > Uhm, are you sure? Neither "Lmod", "buildah", nor "dotnet" do not
> > appear in this list at all.
>
> Looking into it further, it appears that these builds are indeed
> mis-tagged in koji (i.e. with "f38-updates-testing-pending" instead of
> "f38-updates-testing"), while bodhi believes they
On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 7:37 AM Fabio Valentini wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As a follow-up from a recent discussion on Matrix/IRC, I'm proposing
> the following change to the development cycle / release schedule:
>
> "Koji builds are blocked while mass branching and updates-testing
> enablement are in
Dear all,
You are kindly invited to the meeting:
ELN SIG on 2023-03-10 from 12:00:00 to 13:00:00 US/Eastern
At fedora-meet...@irc.libera.chat
The meeting will be about:
Source: https://calendar.fedoraproject.org//meeting/10449/
___
devel
It will be 5pm in London and I will attend the meeting.
On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 at 12:00, wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> You are kindly invited to the meeting:
>ELN SIG on 2023-03-10 from 12:00:00 to 13:00:00 US/Eastern
>At fedora-meet...@irc.libera.chat
>
> The meeting will be about:
>
>
>
>
On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 12:38 PM Tomas Hrcka wrote:
>
> > One problem that I haven't seen before is that updates are apparently
> > in "testing" or "testing->stable" state in bodhi, but aren't available
> > from the "updates-testing" repository at all. No wonder these updates
> > aren't getting
On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 2:44 PM Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 12:38 PM Tomas Hrcka wrote:
> >
> > > One problem that I haven't seen before is that updates are apparently
> > > in "testing" or "testing->stable" state in bodhi, but aren't available
> > > from the
On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 7:00 AM wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> You are kindly invited to the meeting:
>ELN SIG on 2023-03-10 from 12:00:00 to 13:00:00 US/Eastern
>At fedora-meet...@irc.libera.chat
>
> The meeting will be about:
>
>
* Switching to x86_64-v3 for RHEL 10.
>
> Source:
Hi all,
As a follow-up from a recent discussion on Matrix/IRC, I'm proposing
the following change to the development cycle / release schedule:
"Koji builds are blocked while mass branching and updates-testing
enablement are in progress."
That's it, that's the entire RFC.
Roughly every six
On 09. 03. 23 1:30, Fabio Valentini wrote:
- python-dask-0:2023.2.0-1.fc37~bootstrap >
python-dask-0:2023.1.0-1.fc38~bootstrap
Appears to be caused by F38+FTBFS. No idea why the package is in
eternal bootstrap hell.
See https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-dask/pull-request/4
--
Miro
OLD: Fedora-38-20230308.n.0
NEW: Fedora-38-20230309.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 1
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
Tomas Korbar wrote:
> Extending the question here.
>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Tomas Korbar
> Date: Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 9:51 AM
> Subject: License: GPL-3.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-or-later
> To:
>
>
> Hi guys,
> I am doing the conversion of license tags in my projects and
Will show up today
On 3/2/23, Ben Cotton wrote:
> 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172819
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2023-97fcf55f4b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-97fcf55f4b
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2176557
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2023-67176d61e9 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-67176d61e9
See also
The Fedora Linux 38 Beta RC1,3 compose[1] is GO and will be shipped
live on Tuesday, 14 March.
The F38 Final freeze begins Tuesday 4 April.
For more information please check the Go/No-Go meeting minutes[2] or log[3].
[1] https://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/38_Beta-1.3/
[2]
||perltidy-20230309-1.fc39
Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
Last Closed||2023-03-09 09:58:43
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2023-6e896a5f3c has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2176557
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2176557
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2023-67176d61e9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-67176d61e9
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
adelton commented on the pull-request: `Remove obsolete filter-requires.sh
script` that you are following:
``
LGTM and the scratch build passed, merging.
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-SOAP-Lite/pull-request/3
adelton merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-SOAP-Lite` that you
are following.
Merged pull-request:
``
Remove obsolete filter-requires.sh script
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-SOAP-Lite/pull-request/3
___
perl-devel mailing
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-SOAP-Lite` that
you are following:
``
Remove obsolete filter-requires.sh script
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-SOAP-Lite/pull-request/3
___
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2176194
Michal Josef Spacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Doc Type|---
mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Test-Inter` that you
are following.
Merged pull-request:
``
1.10 bump
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Test-Inter/pull-request/4
___
perl-devel mailing list --
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Test-Inter` that
you are following:
``
1.10 bump
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Test-Inter/pull-request/2
___
perl-devel mailing list --
mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Test-Inter` that you
are following.
Merged pull-request:
``
1.10 bump
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Test-Inter/pull-request/2
___
perl-devel mailing list --
mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Test-Inter` that you
are following.
Merged pull-request:
``
1.10 bump
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Test-Inter/pull-request/3
___
perl-devel mailing list --
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Test-Inter` that
you are following:
``
1.10 bump
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Test-Inter/pull-request/4
___
perl-devel mailing list --
Considering the rationale you’ve laid out, I don’t have any complaints
about deprecating %{pyproject_build_lib}. I’m indifferent to the
possible addition of a setuptools-specific macro, assuming the
setuptools build directory is expected to stop changing frequently.
I tested the proposed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172819
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172819
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Test-Inter` that
you are following:
``
1.10 bump
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Test-Inter/pull-request/3
___
perl-devel mailing list --
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Test-Inter` that
you are following:
``
1.10 bump
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Test-Inter/pull-request/5
___
perl-devel mailing list --
mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Test-Inter` that you
are following.
Merged pull-request:
``
1.10 bump
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Test-Inter/pull-request/5
___
perl-devel mailing list --
60 matches
Mail list logo
