Non-responsive maintainer for python-simplejson

It hasn't been updated in over a year, and it's updates are sorely needed. Trying to get updated before the beta freeze. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1462583 Joseph D. Wagner ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To

Re: Fedora 30 System-Wide Change proposal: New 128-bit IEEE long double ABI for IBM 64-bit POWER LE

On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 at 17:18, Ben Cotton wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/PPC64LE_Float128_Transition > > == Summary == > Transition IBM 64-bit POWER LE systems to the new 128-bit IEEE long double > ABI. > > == Owner == > * Name: Carlos O'Donell (codonell) > * Email:

libgsf build help - MinGW edition

Recent versions of libgsf (since 1.14.43) have begun to fail to build in MinGW environments. The error is straightforward enough - a function signature definition differs between its forward declaration and its implementation. But I don't see any clear way that it differs. The same code compiles

Why is i686 package missing from x86_64 updates repo?

Hi, I'm trying to resolve https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1615016 and can't figure out why the i686 package is missing from the x86_64 updates repo. It is present in the fedora repo, so it seems like this issue is specific to updates. Does anyone know why this might be happening?

Re: Orphaning procedure for python-assimulo

Hey, Kindly assign it to me. On Wed, 22 Aug 2018, 23:32 Antonio Trande, wrote: > Hello everyone. > > I'm leaving the maintenance of 'python-assimulo' package; if someone > wishes take care of it, please reply here. > > Regards. > -- > --- > Antonio Trande > Fedora Project > mailto 'sagitter at

Re: Fedora 30 System-Wide Change proposal: Remove the Group: Tag From All Packages

On 23.8.2018 00:31, Artur Iwicki wrote: If we remove the Group: tag from existing packages (assuming 100% accuracy), this would mean that the only way for a package to have the Group: tag would be to: a) have a maintainer add it back in b) accept a new package with the Group: tag present If

[Bug 1620308] New: perl-Archive-Zip-1.63 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1620308 Bug ID: 1620308 Summary: perl-Archive-Zip-1.63 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-Archive-Zip Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee:

Intent to drop python2-behave

There is a cluster of PRs: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-behave/pull-request/2 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-docx/pull-request/2 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-parse_type/pull-request/2 That allows us to drop python2-behave as nothing will depend on it. I'm

Re: Mono - Do we have a maintainer?

On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 13:59:51 -0400, you wrote: >* Dan Horák [2018-08-22 03:55]: >> a nice thing on Mono is that it is fully multi-arch, supporting all >> Fedora arches. Won't be multi-arch problem for msbuild or .NET Core? > >Oh. Right, that would be a problem. .NET Core upstream essentially

Re: Fedora 30 System-Wide Change proposal: Remove the Group: Tag From All Packages

On 08/23/2018 12:31 AM, Artur Iwicki wrote: > If we remove the Group: tag from existing packages (assuming 100% accuracy), > this would mean that the only way for a package to have the Group: tag would > be to: > a) have a maintainer add it back in > b) accept a new package with the Group: tag

Re: Fedora 30 System-Wide Change proposal: Remove the Group: Tag From All Packages

If we remove the Group: tag from existing packages (assuming 100% accuracy), this would mean that the only way for a package to have the Group: tag would be to: a) have a maintainer add it back in b) accept a new package with the Group: tag present If we assume option a) to be unlikely, then

Re: Fedora 30 System-Wide Change proposal: Remove the Group: Tag From All Packages

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 6:00 PM Omair Majid wrote: > > * Ben Cotton [2018-08-22 16:38]: > > 9420 source packages (43% of the total count) come closer to > > compliance with Fedora's packaging guidelines. The Group: tag has > > been in a "should not use" state since March of 2017. > > Can

Re: Fedora 30 System-Wide Change proposal: Remove the Group: Tag From All Packages

> "ZJ" == Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek writes: ZJ> Can we patch rpm not to show this useless line? In the context of what I wrote, there's no "useless line". I assume you're talking about rpm -qi output, but I was being more general than that. Certainly we wouldn't patch out the GROUP

Re: Fedora 30 System-Wide Change proposal: Remove the Group: Tag From All Packages

* Ben Cotton [2018-08-22 16:38]: > 9420 source packages (43% of the total count) come closer to > compliance with Fedora's packaging guidelines. The Group: tag has > been in a "should not use" state since March of 2017. Can rpmlint be patched to warn about using the 'Group:' tag? Omair --

Fedora 30 System-Wide Change proposal: Remove the Group: Tag From All Packages

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_Group_Tag == Summary == Remove the Group: tag from over 9000 source packages. == Owner == * Name: Jason Tibbitts (tibbs) * Email: ti...@math.uh.edu == Detailed Description == I will remove the Group: tag from all specfiles in Fedora dist-git which

Re: Fedora 30 System-Wide Change proposal: Remove the Group: Tag From All Packages

On 08/22/2018 01:28 PM, Ben Cotton wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_Group_Tag > > == Summary == > Remove the Group: tag from over 9000 source packages. > > == Owner == > * Name: Jason Tibbitts (tibbs) > * Email: ti...@math.uh.edu > > == Detailed Description == > I will

Re: Fedora 30 System-Wide Change proposal: Remove the Group: Tag From All Packages

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 04:28:16PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_Group_Tag > > == Summary == > Remove the Group: tag from over 9000 source packages. > > == Owner == > * Name: Jason Tibbitts (tibbs) > * Email: ti...@math.uh.edu > > == Detailed

Fedora 30 System-Wide Change proposal: Remove the Group: Tag From All Packages

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_Group_Tag == Summary == Remove the Group: tag from over 9000 source packages. == Owner == * Name: Jason Tibbitts (tibbs) * Email: ti...@math.uh.edu == Detailed Description == I will remove the Group: tag from all specfiles in Fedora dist-git which

Fedora 30 System-Wide Change proposal: Remove glibc-all-langpacks from buildroot

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_glibc-langpacks-all_from_buildroot == Summary == glibc-minimal-langpack is added to @Buildsystem group and installed into the minimal buildroot instead of glibc-all-langpacks. Packages which need more locales than plain C/C.UTF-8/POSIX need to pull

Fedora 30 System-Wide Change proposal: New 128-bit IEEE long double ABI for IBM 64-bit POWER LE

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/PPC64LE_Float128_Transition == Summary == Transition IBM 64-bit POWER LE systems to the new 128-bit IEEE long double ABI. == Owner == * Name: Carlos O'Donell (codonell) * Email: car...@redhat.com == Detailed Description == IBM has designed a new long

Fedora 30 System-Wide Change proposal: Remove glibc-all-langpacks from buildroot

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_glibc-langpacks-all_from_buildroot == Summary == glibc-minimal-langpack is added to @Buildsystem group and installed into the minimal buildroot instead of glibc-all-langpacks. Packages which need more locales than plain C/C.UTF-8/POSIX need to pull

Fedora 30 Self-Contained Change proposal: No more automagic Python bytecompilation (phase 2)

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/No_more_automagic_Python_bytecompilation_phase_2 == Summary == See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/No_more_automagic_Python_bytecompilation Now we are changing the default to be %global _python_bytecompile_extra 0. == Owner == * Name: Miro Hrončok

Fedora 30 Self-Contained Change proposal: Make ambiguous python shebangs error

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Make_ambiguous_python_shebangs_error == Summary == The /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-mangle-shebangs buildroot policy script will be changed to make the build fail when it sees an ambiguous python shebang, such as #!/usr/bin/python or #!/usr/bin/env python. (The

Fedora 30 System-Wide Change proposal: New 128-bit IEEE long double ABI for IBM 64-bit POWER LE

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/PPC64LE_Float128_Transition == Summary == Transition IBM 64-bit POWER LE systems to the new 128-bit IEEE long double ABI. == Owner == * Name: Carlos O'Donell (codonell) * Email: car...@redhat.com == Detailed Description == IBM has designed a new long

Fedora 30 Self-Contained Change proposal: Make ambiguous python shebangs error

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Make_ambiguous_python_shebangs_error == Summary == The /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-mangle-shebangs buildroot policy script will be changed to make the build fail when it sees an ambiguous python shebang, such as #!/usr/bin/python or #!/usr/bin/env python. (The

Fedora 29-20180822.n.0 compose check report

Missing expected images: Atomichost qcow2 x86_64 Atomichost raw-xz x86_64 Failed openQA tests: 19/130 (x86_64), 5/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm) ID: 268290 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_realmd_join_kickstart URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/268290 ID: 268291 Test: x86_64

Fedora 30 Self-Contained Change proposal: No more automagic Python bytecompilation (phase 2)

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/No_more_automagic_Python_bytecompilation_phase_2 == Summary == See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/No_more_automagic_Python_bytecompilation Now we are changing the default to be %global _python_bytecompile_extra 0. == Owner == * Name: Miro Hrončok

Re: Mono - Do we have a maintainer?

* Dan Horák [2018-08-22 03:55]: > a nice thing on Mono is that it is fully multi-arch, supporting all > Fedora arches. Won't be multi-arch problem for msbuild or .NET Core? Oh. Right, that would be a problem. .NET Core upstream essentially supports x86_64 only. arm-hfp, aarch64 and x86 are

Fedora 29 compose report: 20180822.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-29-20180821.n.0 NEW: Fedora-29-20180822.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:7 Dropped images: 2 Added packages: 7 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 66 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 38.07 MiB Size of dropped packages:0 B Size

Re: Intent to upgrade Django in f29 to 2.1

On 22.8.2018 13:13, Matthias Runge wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 11:51:34AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 22.8.2018 10:59, Matthias Runge wrote: Hello, sorry for the late notice; Django 2.1 was recently released, and I intend to update Django in F29 to version 2.1. Apparently, all depending

Orphaning procedure for python-assimulo

Hello everyone. I'm leaving the maintenance of 'python-assimulo' package; if someone wishes take care of it, please reply here. Regards. -- --- Antonio Trande Fedora Project mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org' GPG key: 0x5E212EE1D35568BE GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/

Re: Intent to upgrade Django in f29 to 2.1

On 22.8.2018 13:13, Matthias Runge wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 11:51:34AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 22.8.2018 10:59, Matthias Runge wrote: Hello, sorry for the late notice; Django 2.1 was recently released, and I intend to update Django in F29 to version 2.1. Apparently, all depending

Re: [modularity] Managing module lifecycles — let's talk!

What are the possibilities for how a stream is maintained? The cases I can think of: * Indefinite - rolling forward with upstream - "master" "stable" etc. * Tied to an upstream version and it's EOL - a "2.1" stream of django * [less common] tied to a particular version of Fedora - the "29"

Help needed with FTBFS of package cpl in i686 and Fedora>=29

Hello, I'm trying to fix a FTBFS bug in cpl, a C library. The package fails in i686 on Fedora>=29 and compiles in Fedora<=28 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=29215071 https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5071/29215071/build.log I imagine that, after enabling SSE2 in

Re: Orphaning procedure for python-ivi -vxi11 -usbtmc -testify

On 22.8.2018 15:52, Manas Mangaonkar wrote: Thanks for the link,will do :) If you are going to take care of those packages, I'd appreciate if you remove the python2 bits from them. On Wed, 22 Aug 2018, 15:15 Antonio Trande, > wrote: At this point, the

Re: Orphaning procedure for python-ivi -vxi11 -usbtmc -testify

Thanks for the link,will do :) - Manas On Wed, 22 Aug 2018, 15:15 Antonio Trande, wrote: > At this point, the packages are orphaned. > > Please, follow the 'Claiming Ownership of an Orphaned Package' > guidelines: > >

Reminder: Beta freeze and code complete deadline in one week

According to the Fedora 29 schedule[1], the 100% code complete deadline[2] for Changes is Tuesday, 28 August. The beta freeze[3] takes effect on this date as well. All Changes should be in "ON_QA" state by then. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/29/Schedule [2]

Re: Release rpkg-1.56 and fedpkg-1.35

> rpkg: https://docs.pagure.org/rpkg/releases/1.56.html > Greenwave policy could be validated when build a package with build command, > or a container with container-build command, if policy file gating.yaml is > created in the root directory inside repostiory. If the policy is valid, > build

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 6 updates-testing report

The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing: Age URL 73 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-b6c663378c unrtf-0.21.9-8.el6 41 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-d801e05f92 uwsgi-2.0.17.1-1.el6 11

[Bug 1614708] perldoc warns about binary data depending on TERM variable

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1614708 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Pod-Perldoc-3.28.01-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because:

[Bug 1612855] perl-HTTP-Tiny-0.076 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1612855 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- perl-HTTP-Tiny-0.076-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You

[Bug 1610065] perl-HTTP-Tiny-0.074 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1610065 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- perl-HTTP-Tiny-0.076-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You

[Bug 1613225] Upgrade perl-Text-Quoted to 2.10

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1613225 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Text-Quoted-2.10-1.fc2 |perl-Text-Quoted-2.10-1.fc2

Re: Intent to upgrade Django in f29 to 2.1

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 11:51:34AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 22.8.2018 10:59, Matthias Runge wrote: > > Hello, > > > > sorry for the late notice; Django 2.1 was recently released, and > > I intend to update Django in F29 to version 2.1. > > > > Apparently, all depending packages still

Re: Intent to upgrade Django in f29 to 2.1

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 11:51:34AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 22.8.2018 10:59, Matthias Runge wrote: > > Hello, > > > > sorry for the late notice; Django 2.1 was recently released, and > > I intend to update Django in F29 to version 2.1. > > > > Apparently, all depending packages still

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

The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing: Age URL 73 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-3835d39d1a unrtf-0.21.9-8.el7 67 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-15b7dc35af pass-1.7.2-1.el7 41

[Bug 1610065] perl-HTTP-Tiny-0.074 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1610065 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- perl-HTTP-Tiny-0.076-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You

[Bug 1612855] perl-HTTP-Tiny-0.076 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1612855 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- perl-HTTP-Tiny-0.076-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You

[Bug 1613225] Upgrade perl-Text-Quoted to 2.10

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1613225 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version|

[modularity] Managing module lifecycles — let's talk!

During the Modularity WG meeting yesterday [1], we've touched the topic of module lifecycles. Even though there are some ideas in the air as well as some code written, we haven't reached a state in which we would know how exactly to deal with it. So I'd like to discuss it here with a wider

Fwd: Soname break for glew

I'm preparing an update for glew to 2.1.0 (with soname bump) (pushed in rawhide but not built yet). https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=29087244 Given that the freeze break is next week, I will push the update in rawhide, then in f29 next. Here are the dependencies:

Re: Intent to upgrade Django in f29 to 2.1

On 22.8.2018 10:59, Matthias Runge wrote: Hello, sorry for the late notice; Django 2.1 was recently released, and I intend to update Django in F29 to version 2.1. Apparently, all depending packages still build, all the details in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1611025 2 packages

Re: Intent to upgrade Django in f29 to 2.1

On 22.8.2018 10:59, Matthias Runge wrote: Hello, sorry for the late notice; Django 2.1 was recently released, and I intend to update Django in F29 to version 2.1. Apparently, all depending packages still build, all the details in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1611025 2 packages

Intent to upgrade Django in f29 to 2.1

Hello, sorry for the late notice; Django 2.1 was recently released, and I intend to update Django in F29 to version 2.1. Apparently, all depending packages still build, all the details in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1611025 If I don't hear anything against it until Monday, I'll

Intent to upgrade Django in f29 to 2.1

Hello, sorry for the late notice; Django 2.1 was recently released, and I intend to update Django in F29 to version 2.1. Apparently, all depending packages still build, all the details in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1611025 If I don't hear anything against it until Monday, I'll

Re: Orphaning procedure for python-ivi -vxi11 -usbtmc -testify

At this point, the packages are orphaned. Please, follow the 'Claiming Ownership of an Orphaned Package' guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Orphaned_package_that_need_new_maintainers#Claiming_Ownership_of_an_Orphaned_Package On 22/08/2018 07:05, Manas Mangaonkar wrote: > Hey, > > Please

[Bug 1616198] perl-IO-Socket-SSL-2.058-1.fc29 FTBFS with OpenSSL 1.1.1: t/ core.t hangs

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1616198 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|---

[Bug 1616179] perl-Text-CSV-1.96 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1616179 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED

Re: Mono - Do we have a maintainer?

On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 17:13:42 -0400 Omair Majid wrote: > * Michael Cronenworth [2018-08-15 10:19]: > > On 08/15/2018 08:55 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > Are you sure about that?  Ocaml does it as well. > > > > The guidelines allow an initial bootstrap from binaries, but > > subsequent builds

Release rpkg-1.56 and fedpkg-1.35

Hi, New version rpkg-1.56 and fedpkg-1.35 are released. Release notes: * rpkg: https://docs.pagure.org/rpkg/releases/1.56.html * fedpkg: https://docs.pagure.org/fedpkg/releases/1.35.html Bodhi updates: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/rpkg-1.56-1.fc28%20fedpkg-1.35-1.fc28