On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 08:27:27PM +0200, Björn 'besser82' Esser wrote:
> All packages have been rebuilt successfully, except for vfrnav, which
> fails for a segfault in inkscape during the testsuite.
>
> Both sidetags can be merged now, as vfrnav hasn't been built
> successfully for a longer
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 57/139 (aarch64), 23/202 (x86_64)
ID: 945792 Test: aarch64 Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz release_identification@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/945792
ID: 945796 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso install_vncconnect_client@uefi
URL:
Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event
for Fedora 35 Branched 20210811.n.0. Please help run some tests for this
nightly compose if you have time. For more information on nightly
release validation testing, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988415
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6903559673 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1955741
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-0a8bfca173 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1962451
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-0a8bfca173 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1989153
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-0a8bfca173 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1985448
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6903559673 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1972637
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6903559673 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1947703
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-0a8bfca173 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1991543
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-0a8bfca173 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1985448
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-0a8bfca173 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1972637
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-0a8bfca173 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1963116
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-0a8bfca173 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951955
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-0a8bfca173 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988415
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-0a8bfca173 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1948241
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-0a8bfca173 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1974093
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-0a8bfca173 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1991543
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #5 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1989153
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6903559673 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1962952
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-0a8bfca173 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1974093
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6903559673 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1963116
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6903559673 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1962952
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6903559673 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1950578
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-0a8bfca173 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1955741
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6903559673 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1962451
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6903559673 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1950578
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6903559673 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951955
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6903559673 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1941280
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-0a8bfca173 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1948241
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6903559673 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1947703
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6903559673 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1941280
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6903559673 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
I intend to unretire rubygem-middleware.
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-middleware/pull-request/1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1992914
Pavel
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1992901
Bug ID: 1992901
Summary: perl-CPAN-FindDependencies-3.10 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-CPAN-FindDependencies
Keywords:
FTBFS issues inline -
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 3:01 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 at 10:21, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 at 18:23, Benjamin Beasley wrote:
> > >
> > > It looks like none of the packages I maintain or co-maintain that
> depend on
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 11:03 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 10:03:50PM +0200, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I think deltarpm is not really useful anymore:
> > - there are very few drpm files in the repository, see for example:
> >
> >
On Wed, 2021-08-11 at 14:13 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 09:42:48AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 03:38:38PM +, Fedora Rawhide Report wrote:
> > > OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20210805.n.0
> > > NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20210806.n.0
> > >
I am orphaning rarian (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rarian). As
far as I can tell, nothing in Fedora depends on it anymore.
# dnf repoquery --releasever rawhide --whatrequires librarian\*
Last metadata expiration check: 0:02:50 ago on Wed 11 Aug 2021 06:03:30
PM EDT.
Hi all,
Who would like to swap package reviews? I need these 6:
fontawesome5-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1989300
This one has been mentioned previously on this mailing list. It is
blocking the review of python-pydata-sphinx-theme, which is needed to
update
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 02:02:39PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> drpms work by downloading the delta, then using it + the version you
> have installed to recreate the signed rpm (just like you downloaded the
> full signed update)
I'm worried about this process specifically. It does rather heavy
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 4:33 PM Ben Beasley wrote:
> I managed to build usd in Rawhide
> (https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1817418). Expect
> a build for F35, and updates to the relevant bug reports, in the next
> couple of hours.
>
Awesome! That was the last dep to rebuild
I managed to build usd in Rawhide
(https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1817418). Expect
a build for F35, and updates to the relevant bug reports, in the next
couple of hours.
– Ben
On 8/11/21 3:40 PM, Ben Beasley wrote:
Your build did end up failing due to the glibc 2.34
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 09:42:48AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 03:38:38PM +, Fedora Rawhide Report wrote:
> > OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20210805.n.0
> > NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20210806.n.0
> > Package: dummy-test-package-gloster-0-4903.fc35
> > Old package:
Orion Poplawski writes:
> On 8/11/21 2:24 PM, Dan Čermák wrote:
>> Hi Orion,
>>
>> Orion Poplawski writes:
>>
>>> I've reported: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1992426
>>>
>
>>> This appears to be due to breathe not handling parsing errors. There is
>>> a PR upstream at
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 10:03:50PM +0200, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I think deltarpm is not really useful anymore:
> - there are very few drpm files in the repository, see for example:
>
>
On 8/11/21 2:24 PM, Dan Čermák wrote:
Hi Orion,
Orion Poplawski writes:
I've reported: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1992426
This appears to be due to breathe not handling parsing errors. There is
a PR upstream at https://github.com/michaeljones/breathe/pull/711 but it
Hi Orion,
Orion Poplawski writes:
> I've reported: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1992426
>
> gdal docs are failing to build with:
>
>
>
> Exception occurred:
>
>File "/usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/sphinx/util/cfamily.py", line
> 275, in fail
>
> raise
Hi all,
I think deltarpm is not really useful anymore:
- there are very few drpm files in the repository, see for example:
https://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/updates/34/Everything/x86_64/drpms/
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 9:45 PM Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Aleksandar Kurtakov writes:
>
> > List of packages orphaned (all were maintained for the sake of Eclipse
> > stack):
> > * eclipse
> > [...]
>
> Could upstream eclipse make an effort to reduce its dependency
> footprint?
>
Everything is
Your build did end up failing due to the glibc 2.34 incompatibility
(https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=73678362).
See https://github.com/PixarAnimationStudios/USD/issues/1592 for details
on what’s happening. It’s likely that a significant patch to USD will be
required to fix
Hi Richard,
Richard Shaw writes:
> It's quite common to need to do some minor manipulation in a spec file and
> you decide to use sed instead of patching so you don't have to update it
> every release.
>
> The problem is that sed returns 0 whether it actually did anything or not.
>
> Thinking
Aleksandar Kurtakov writes:
> List of packages orphaned (all were maintained for the sake of Eclipse
> stack):
> * eclipse
> [...]
Could upstream eclipse make an effort to reduce its dependency
footprint?
- FChE
___
devel mailing list --
On Wed, 2021-08-11 at 13:26 -0400, Stephen Snow wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-08-11 at 18:44 +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> > * Stephen Snow [11/08/2021 12:08] :
> > >
> > > > > Even tried the review route, which is also beset with arbitrary
> > > > > obstacles.
> > > >
> > > Wasn't able to download
On 11. 08. 21 19:51, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
If the package was orphaned more than 8 weeks ago, you must open a new releng
ticket.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Policy_for_orphan_and_retired_packages/
Correction: If the package was *retired* more than 8 weeks ago.
--
Am Mittwoch, dem 11.08.2021 um 18:06 +0200 schrieb Björn 'besser82'
Esser:
> Am Mittwoch, dem 11.08.2021 um 17:20 +0200 schrieb Miroslav Lichvar:
> > libgps provided by the gpsd package had another API and ABI break.
> > The
> > following packages need to be rebuilt:
> >
> > collectd
> > direwolf
I think becoming a packager is not as complicated as you’ve written. To
become a packager, you must convince a packager sponsor to sponsor you.
That’s all; there is no rule about how to do the convincing.
Sponsors want to be confident that you understand and are likely to
follow the packaging
On 11/08/2021 19:47, Richard Shaw wrote:
I agree, but the real question is, how do you determine when it's no
longer necessary?
Manual checks on major upstream releases.
I always try to send a pull request with fixes. So I'll remove the sed
hack when my PR is merged.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly
On 11/08/2021 17:55, Stephen Snow wrote:
- Get someone to sponsor you as a packager
- Review existing packages for others
Package sponsors should make sure new contributors are familiar with RPM
packaging and Fedora guidelines.
introduce a package to Fedora Linux that needs to get
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 12:46 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On 11/08/2021 19:39, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > It's quite common to need to do some minor manipulation in a spec file
> > and you decide to use sed instead of patching so you don't have to
> > update
On 11/08/2021 19:39, Richard Shaw wrote:
It's quite common to need to do some minor manipulation in a spec file
and you decide to use sed instead of patching so you don't have to
update it every release.
Patching is always painful. You need to rebase your patches on every
upstream release.
It's quite common to need to do some minor manipulation in a spec file and
you decide to use sed instead of patching so you don't have to update it
every release.
The problem is that sed returns 0 whether it actually did anything or not.
Thinking about this I did some searching and you can use
On Wed, 2021-08-11 at 18:44 +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> * Stephen Snow [11/08/2021 12:08] :
> >
> > > > Even tried the review route, which is also beset with arbitrary
> > > > obstacles.
> > >
> > Wasn't able to download the build via the link provided.
>
> ???
> Building a package with
* Stephen Snow [11/08/2021 12:08] :
>
> > > Even tried the review route, which is also beset with arbitrary
> > > obstacles.
> >
> Wasn't able to download the build via the link provided.
???
Building a package with mock will create the build in /var/lib/mock/...
No download should be required.
Hello.
We have recently renamed pypy3 to pypy3.7.
As a result, the pypy3-devel package is now called pypy3.7-devel, however it
still provides pypy3-devel.
pypy3-devel is part of the python-classroom comps group in comps-f36.xml.in.
Normally, I'd rename the package there, but in this case I'd
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 11:04 AM Luya Tshimbalanga
wrote:
> Scratch build result:
>
> F36: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=73676974
>
> F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=73676978
>
> It seems the issue with glibc 2.34 got resolved. libboost 1.7.6 seems
On Wed, 2021-08-11 at 14:20 +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> * Stephen Snow [11/08/2021 11:37] :
> >
> > I feel the frustration you are expressing, and would like to help,
> > nut
> > apparently I don't meet the Fedora Packaging standards.
>
> I'm curious as to what happened...
Not sure what
Am Mittwoch, dem 11.08.2021 um 17:20 +0200 schrieb Miroslav Lichvar:
> libgps provided by the gpsd package had another API and ABI break. The
> following packages need to be rebuilt:
>
> collectd
> direwolf
> foxtrotgps
> marble
> plasma-workspace
> vfrnav
> viking
>
> I tried to rebuild them
Scratch build result:
F36: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=73676974
F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=73676978
It seems the issue with glibc 2.34 got resolved. libboost 1.7.6 seems
working as well. Can someone build usd as I lack the time to do so?
Okay,
So to become a packager you have to
- Get someone to sponsor you as a packager
- Review existing packages for others
- take over an orphaned package
- introduce a package to Fedora Linux that needs to get approval to
be packaged
- some other criteria I forgot after reading so many
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 5:27 PM Michael J Gruber wrote:
>
> The easy way out :)
> I'm maintaining a few stale packages, though.
Just wondering, if the packages are stale, why convert them?
Packages that change or have new versions often do benefit from
rpmautospec much more than something that
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 at 16:27, Justin Forbes wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 8:46 AM Iñaki Ucar wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 at 15:12, Benjamin Berg wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > is thermald.service active and running on that machine?
> >
> > thermald is not (and was never)
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 4:08 PM Michael J Gruber wrote:
>
> I think these can be split into a different cases:
>
> - BibTool: spec: Release: 4%{?dist} verrel: BibTool-2.68-4.fc36
> calculate_release release: 6
> - adf-gillius-fonts: spec: Release: 2%{?dist} verrel:
>
libgps provided by the gpsd package had another API and ABI break. The
following packages need to be rebuilt:
collectd
direwolf
foxtrotgps
marble
plasma-workspace
vfrnav
viking
I tried to rebuild them locally and it seems only direwolf needs a
patch. It's here:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 4:08 PM Michael J Gruber wrote:
>
> Hi there
>
> When trying to switch to rpmautospec I noticed some surprises in how autospec
> computes the next release. Environment: I run "rpmautospec" on Fedora 34 as a
> check before committing to dist-git. I converted one spec file
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 5:15 AM wrote:
> Tanks for your information, i will open a ticket.
I already filed a bug about this a month ago:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1980400
There has been no movement on the bug so far.
--
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 8:46 AM Iñaki Ucar wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 at 15:12, Benjamin Berg wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > is thermald.service active and running on that machine?
>
> thermald is not (and was never) installed.
>
> I'm pretty sure now it has something to do with some kernel
Hi there
When trying to switch to rpmautospec I noticed some surprises in how autospec
computes the next release. Environment: I run "rpmautospec" on Fedora 34 as a
check before committing to dist-git. I converted one spec file so far, but IIUC
"rpmautospec calculate-release" does not depend
V Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 01:14:13PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
> I'm building some minimal images with mkosi, and I was working on a
> pull request to add a "package manifest", i.e. a dump of all packages,
> and I noticed that archful packages which were rebuilt with no changes
>
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 3:20 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On 11/08/2021 12:35, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> > Eclipse IDE and its ancillary packages are orphaned now. As a result the
> > Eclipse IDE will no longer be installable as a package in Fedora 35.
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 at 15:12, Benjamin Berg wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> is thermald.service active and running on that machine?
thermald is not (and was never) installed.
I'm pretty sure now it has something to do with some kernel change in
the 5.13.x series. I have a (manual) test case that reproduces
I just submitted to COPR [0] all of the packages that use Go (I think
so...) for an initial test.
Let's see how it goes.
[0] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/alexsaezm/go1.17/builds/
On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 7:46 PM Alejandro Saez Morollon wrote:
>
> Hi everyone.
>
> I missed the mass
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 12:08 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 at 11:00, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > The rest were not submitted for a rebuild, for some reason. That's
> > cpp-hocon, luminance-hdr, openshadinglanguage, and usd. I'm not sure
> > why they didn't get submitted.
>
>
On 8/11/21 9:23 AM, Stanislav Levin wrote:
11.11.2020 22:03, Mark Reynolds пишет:
On 11/3/20 8:50 AM, Stanislav Levin wrote:
03.11.2020 15:58, Mark Reynolds пишет:
On 11/3/20 4:41 AM, Stanislav Levin wrote:
Hello.
Currently, I package 1.4.1 branch as the former-stable for ALTLinux.
But it
Thanks! Keeping an eye on it...
On 8/11/21 6:02 AM, Sandro Mani wrote:
Hi
This [1] patch applies cleanly. I'll give it a try in COPR [2].
Sandro
[1] https://smani.fedorapeople.org/711.patch
[2] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/smani/gdal-breathe/
On 11.08.21 06:37, Orion Poplawski
11.11.2020 22:03, Mark Reynolds пишет:
>
> On 11/3/20 8:50 AM, Stanislav Levin wrote:
>>
>> 03.11.2020 15:58, Mark Reynolds пишет:
>>> On 11/3/20 4:41 AM, Stanislav Levin wrote:
Hello.
Currently, I package 1.4.1 branch as the former-stable for ALTLinux.
But it is not updated
I'm building some minimal images with mkosi, and I was working on a
pull request to add a "package manifest", i.e. a dump of all packages,
and I noticed that archful packages which were rebuilt with no changes
between F34 and rawhide have almost all gotten smaller:
-SourcePackage:
Hi,
is thermald.service active and running on that machine?
If yes, could you please edit the command line of the systemd unit to
include --loglevel=debug and grab some logs[1]?
Ideally both of a "bad" and "good" case.
Obviously, we shouldn't be running into a critical temperature
situation
Hello Pythonistas.
Currently, the tox package has:
# Recommend "all the Pythons"
Recommends: python2.7
Recommends: python3.6
Recommends: python3.7
Recommends: python3.8
Recommends: python3.9
Recommends: python3.10
Recommends: pypy2-devel
Recommends:
Hello PyPyistas,
we have renamed the pypy3 package to pypy3.7 (both the component and the
"binary" package) on Fedora 35+. The package no longer installs to
/usr/lib64/pypy3-7.x/ but rather to /usr/lib64/pypy3.7/.
*What is this good for?*
When PyPy 3 was updated from Python 3.N to 3.N+1,
On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 at 14:17, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 11/08/2021 12:31, Iñaki Ucar wrote:
> > This is so annoying. Recently, I've been experimenting
> > software-initiated shutdowns in my laptop (LG Gram) due to sudden
> > temperature rises in which the fan doesn't catch up and
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 12:01 AM Ben Beasley
wrote:
> In general, if you want to rebuild an rpmautospec package with no spec
> file changes, you can do an empty git commit like this:
>
> git commit —allow-empty -m 'Rebuild for foolib 3.14'
>
I'm probably not going to remember that. :)
> Then
* Stephen Snow [11/08/2021 11:37] :
>
> I feel the frustration you are expressing, and would like to help, nut
> apparently I don't meet the Fedora Packaging standards.
I'm curious as to what happened...
> Even tried the review route, which is also beset with arbitrary obstacles.
Again, what
On 11/08/2021 12:35, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
Eclipse IDE and its ancillary packages are orphaned now. As a result the
Eclipse IDE will no longer be installable as a package in Fedora 35.
Red Hat Eclipse Team
Even Red Hat employees can't handle the Java Stack on Fedora. This is so
sad.
On 11/08/2021 13:37, Stephen Snow wrote:
making joining the packaging group(s) a bit more open would go a long way to
garnering more packagers IMO
New contributors must know at least the Fedora packaging guidelines.
This is the minimum barrier.
If someone doesn't want to read and follow
On 11/08/2021 12:31, Iñaki Ucar wrote:
This is so annoying. Recently, I've been experimenting
software-initiated shutdowns in my laptop (LG Gram) due to sudden
temperature rises in which the fan doesn't catch up and doesn't reach
maximum speed. In the journal, I see:
AMD CPU? Intel should
Hi!
I filed a bugzilla request 2021-04-18 (almost 4 month ago) asking for
the uglify-js package to be updated:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1950780
There has been no reply from the maintainer.
Following the non-responsive maintainer policy
Hi
This [1] patch applies cleanly. I'll give it a try in COPR [2].
Sandro
[1] https://smani.fedorapeople.org/711.patch
[2] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/smani/gdal-breathe/
On 11.08.21 06:37, Orion Poplawski wrote:
I've reported: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1992426
Hello Fabio,
I was one of those community members to step up, or at least attempt to. What I
found was an obstacle course instead of welcome to the packagers. I feel the
frustration you are expressing, and would like to help, nut apparently I don't
meet the Fedora Packaging standards. Even
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 13:53:51 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>
>
> The macro needs to be fixed, ending up with 0 is unacceptable and so is
> breaking debuginfo.
For the moment, until these issues can be ironed out, I've given both
F33 and F34 updates negative karma to prevent them from going
1 - 100 of 147 matches
Mail list logo
