Review request for oclock package (orphaned since F35)

Hi, As the name says, this is a review request for the orphaned package oclock. I find that the old spec file from F34 complies without errors and so would like to maintain it.  But first, I need a review. Could someone please help review the package? Thanks, aa...@fedoraproject.org.

Re: question on fedorapeople space

Thank you, your answer makes sense and clarifies to me what is on the instructions page. If I were editing the page, I would make sure that it says somewhere that we need to ssh in and then create the directories and permissions. the first part is not mentioned anywhere on that page. Thanks

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

The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing: Age URL 63 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-f005e1b879 debmirror-2.35-1.el7 2 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-70fe95babd openssl11-1.1.1k-2.el7 The following builds have

Re: question on fedorapeople space

I am guessing that the public_html/ directory in your home directory does not exist or does not have the read and/or execute bits set for all users. Try: $ ssh aa...@fedorapeople.org 'mkdir -p public_html; chmod 0755 public_html' to make sure the directory exists with the correct permissions.

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL9 Rollout Proposals

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 5:26 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > Dne 20. 11. 21 v 0:04 Troy Dawson napsal(a): > > Do we keep everything in epel9-next until RHEL9 GA and then do a mass > > branch over and mass rebuild? (Plan A) > > And again with 9.1 GA? And again with 9.2 GA? // I do not expect answer,

[Test-Announce] 2021-11-22 @ ** 16:00 ** UTC - Fedora QA Meeting

# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting # Date: 2021-11-22 # Time: ** 16:00 ** UTC (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto) # Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.libera.chat Greetings testers! We didn't meet for a few weeks and there's quite a lot of active topics, so let's get together

question on fedorapeople space

Hello, I have been trying to upload a couple of my files to my fedorapeople.org space following the instructions here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/fedorapeople.org#fedorapeople.org and have been confused. Actually, I go to my https://aarem.fedorapeople.org/ account and get:

Re: Python RPM dependency generator does not support PEP 508?

On Fri, 2021-11-12 at 10:24 -0500, Ben Beasley wrote: > I know this pattern works in general, because I maintain several Python > packages in which it is used. > > I tried modifying python-fixit to patch requirements.txt as you > described. I confirmed the line appeared in the “prepped” source

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL9 Rollout Proposals

Dne 20. 11. 21 v 0:04 Troy Dawson napsal(a): Do we keep everything in epel9-next until RHEL9 GA and then do a mass branch over and mass rebuild? (Plan A) And again with 9.1 GA? And again with 9.2 GA? // I do not expect answer, just pointing that minor releases should be part of the solution.

Re: A way to request/vote for packages to add next to Fedora Linux?

Done: https://github.com/rpmfusion-infra/fedy/issues/90 ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL9 Rollout Proposals

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 2:16 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Dne 18. 11. 21 v 20:31 Troy Dawson napsal(a): > > - epel9-next stays the way it is currently setup. > > Ehm, what is the current setup? > > Sorry about that. You are correct. I didn't say how epel9-next is currently setup. It is currently

Re: RFC: Reduce number of packages that are built for i686

Dne 17. 11. 21 v 22:44 Fabio Valentini napsal(a): So, wine needs i686 multilib packages on x86_64 even if you don't want to use it to run games, but just for running*any* Windows application Beside games that is: accounting SW, photobook creation, legal sw, logistic sw, I just checked

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL9 Rollout Proposals

Dne 18. 11. 21 v 20:31 Troy Dawson napsal(a): - epel9-next stays the way it is currently setup. Ehm, what is the current setup? And mainly, when I build something in EPEL next, something not compatible with EPEL. How it gets to EPEL when next RHEL 9.x gets released? I see nothing relevant

Seeking maintainers of mathematical packages

For some years now, I have maintained a collection of mathematical packages and some of their dependencies in Fedora. I actually stopped using the packages in question awhile ago, but have been maintaining them out of inertia. I would like to free up time to get some code checking and formal

Re: A way to request/vote for packages to add next to Fedora Linux?

Dne 19. 11. 21 v 15:10 Stephen John Smoogen napsal(a): On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 07:12, Neal Gompa wrote: On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 7:05 AM Ahmed Almeleh wrote: I do think voting for packages to be included in the next Fedora release is an amazing idea maybe we could create a survey through

[Bug 2025106] New: perl-PDL-2.063 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025106 Bug ID: 2025106 Summary: perl-PDL-2.063 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-PDL Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL 9 Next Bodhi updates: Set lower days to stable limit?

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 12:33 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 01:22:32PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 1:15 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > > > > On 19. 11. 21 17:54, Troy Dawson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 8:46 AM Stephen John

Bodhi "Re-Trigger Tests" now works for openQA tests

Hi folks! Just wanted to let you know that Bodhi's "Re-Trigger Tests" mechanism should now also work for tests run by openQA. Previously, it only worked for tests run by Fedora CI. From now on, if you hit "Re-Trigger Tests" or run `bodhi updates trigger-tests` on an update that openQA has run

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL 9 Next Bodhi updates: Set lower days to stable limit?

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 1:32 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 01:22:32PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 1:15 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > > > > On 19. 11. 21 17:54, Troy Dawson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 8:46 AM Stephen John

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL 9 Next Bodhi updates: Set lower days to stable limit?

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 01:22:32PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 1:15 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > > On 19. 11. 21 17:54, Troy Dawson wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 8:46 AM Stephen John Smoogen > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Fri,

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL 9 Next Bodhi updates: Set lower days to stable limit?

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 1:15 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 19. 11. 21 17:54, Troy Dawson wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 8:46 AM Stephen John Smoogen > > wrote: > > > > On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 11:42, Miro Hrončok > > wrote:

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL 9 Next Bodhi updates: Set lower days to stable limit?

On 19. 11. 21 17:54, Troy Dawson wrote: On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 8:46 AM Stephen John Smoogen > wrote: On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 11:42, Miro Hrončok mailto:mhron...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > Hello EPEL people, > > what do you think about setting the

Re: xorg-macros

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 01:57:12PM +, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > I opened the following: > > https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10396 > > I am not quite sure what happens after this, so I thought that I would > mention this here. The package needs to go through re-review, because it was

Re: [Fedocal] Reminder meeting : ELN SIG

On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 10:03 AM Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 7:02 AM wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > > > You are kindly invited to the meeting: > >ELN SIG on 2021-11-19 from 12:00:00 to 13:00:00 US/Eastern > >At fedora-meet...@irc.libera.chat > > > > The meeting

Re: packaging sourcegraph cli -- any volunteers?

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 11:11:49AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > Probably "sourcegraph" or "srcgraph". Have you asked them to consider > renaming it upstream? I mentioned it to them, yeah. They seemed open. -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader ___

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL 9 Next Bodhi updates: Set lower days to stable limit?

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 8:46 AM Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 11:42, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > > Hello EPEL people, > > > > what do you think about setting the Bodhi days to stable limit to 3 days > for > > EPEL 9 Next (at least until RHEL 9 GA)? > > > > I think EPEL-9

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL 9 Next Bodhi updates: Set lower days to stable limit?

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 11:45 AM Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 11:42, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > > Hello EPEL people, > > > > what do you think about setting the Bodhi days to stable limit to 3 days for > > EPEL 9 Next (at least until RHEL 9 GA)? > > > > I think EPEL-9

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL 9 Next Bodhi updates: Set lower days to stable limit?

On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 11:42, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > Hello EPEL people, > > what do you think about setting the Bodhi days to stable limit to 3 days for > EPEL 9 Next (at least until RHEL 9 GA)? > I think EPEL-9 Next being based off of Stream with its major changes should have a small stable

[EPEL-devel] EPEL 9 Next Bodhi updates: Set lower days to stable limit?

Hello EPEL people, what do you think about setting the Bodhi days to stable limit to 3 days for EPEL 9 Next (at least until RHEL 9 GA)? -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ epel-devel mailing list --

Re: packaging sourcegraph cli -- any volunteers?

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 10:49 AM Matthew Miller wrote: > > I've been talking with the awesome people at Sourcegraph, and they're > interested in indexing our packages. Still working out what that'l look like > exactly, but I'm pretty excited about it. (They're an open-source company > with a SaaS

packaging sourcegraph cli -- any volunteers?

I've been talking with the awesome people at Sourcegraph, and they're interested in indexing our packages. Still working out what that'l look like exactly, but I'm pretty excited about it. (They're an open-source company with a SaaS product. Also at least some of their folks run Fedora Linux, so

Re: spec file error (updated)

updated the spec files for both gbuffy and libPropList. However, I wonder how to license it: currently they are under GPL and LGPL. Should these be GPLv2.1 and LGPLv2.1 since these are really old packages (even though I cleaned up gbuffy some). Btw, if I patch up a package that does not seem to

Re: fedpkg mockbuild with %{autorelease -p}

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 12:40:01 +, Ankur Sinha wrote: > Hi folks, Replacing %{autorelease -p} with %autorelease -p (removing the curly brackets) seems to make it work. So, solved :) -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha

Re: A way to request/vote for packages to add next to Fedora Linux?

On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 07:12, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 7:05 AM Ahmed Almeleh > wrote: > > > > I do think voting for packages to be included in the next Fedora release is > > an amazing idea maybe we could create a survey through Google forms or make > > a custom website

Re: xorg-macros

I opened the following: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10396 I am not quite sure what happens after this, so I thought that I would mention this here. Thanks! On Friday, November 19, 2021, 07:07:43 AM CST, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: Oh, the package is called

Re: Non-responsive maintainer: sjenning

On 19/11/2021 03:55, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: (Eventually) going down the pam-u2f upgrade process was on my infinitely countable TODO list for some time.  Thanks for raising it! I am also willing to be a (co)-maintainer for pam-u2f if needed/necessary/desired (I am the maintainer for what will

Re: xorg-macros

Oh, the package is called pkgconfig(xorg-macros), sorry for the goofup. OK, oclock builds, I have filed a ticket on releng to unorphan the package. On Friday, November 19, 2021, 03:39:37 AM CST, Björn 'besser82' Esser wrote: Am Freitag, dem 19.11.2021 um 06:17 + schrieb Globe

Re: A way to request/vote for packages to add next to Fedora Linux?

Tomasz Torcz a écrit : > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 05:32:28AM -, Reon Beon via devel wrote: > > Video2X would be a nice add. > > There's a package wishlist here: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintainers_wishlist > > But adding the package there is no guarantee anyone will

fedpkg mockbuild with %{autorelease -p}

Hi folks, I'm working on a new package, and am using the forge macros and the rpm autospec macros. The current WIP spec is here: https://pagure.io/python-neurotune/blob/main/f/python-neurotune.spec When running `fedpkg mockbuild` here, I get an odd error where it writes a src.rpm with a release

Re: A way to request/vote for packages to add next to Fedora Linux?

I do see your point though On Fri, 19 Nov 2021, 12:12 Neal Gompa, wrote: > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 7:05 AM Ahmed Almeleh > wrote: > > > > I do think voting for packages to be included in the next Fedora release > is an amazing idea maybe we could create a survey through Google forms or > make

Re: A way to request/vote for packages to add next to Fedora Linux?

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 7:05 AM Ahmed Almeleh wrote: > > I do think voting for packages to be included in the next Fedora release is > an amazing idea maybe we could create a survey through Google forms or make a > custom website for Fedora. I.e. Telling users select all packages you would >

Re: A way to request/vote for packages to add next to Fedora Linux?

I do think voting for packages to be included in the next Fedora release is an amazing idea maybe we could create a survey through Google forms or make a custom website for Fedora. I.e. Telling users select all packages you would like to see in Fedora 36. On Fri, 19 Nov 2021, 09:59 Tomasz Torcz,

Re: Strange build chain issue (GCC ?)

Le 19/11/2021 à 11:39, Mamoru TASAKA a écrit : Related source code on libraqm: https://github.com/HOST-Oman/libraqm/blob/master/src/raqm.c#L1726 So with HAVE_FT_GET_TRANSFORM defined, libraqm is doing some "transformation", perhaps some rotation of something. Confirmed and reported

Re: Strange build chain issue (GCC ?)

Mamoru TASAKA wrote on 2021/11/19 19:25: Remi Collet wrote on 2021/11/19 18:02: This first affects libraqm, and so its users so libgd so php Initial report https://github.com/libgd/libgd/issues/790 Tracked as https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2022957 In short libraqm is broken on

Re: Strange build chain issue (GCC ?)

Remi Collet wrote on 2021/11/19 18:02: This first affects libraqm, and so its users so libgd so php Initial report https://github.com/libgd/libgd/issues/790 Tracked as https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2022957 In short libraqm is broken on F35 same version works as expected on F34

Re: A way to request/vote for packages to add next to Fedora Linux?

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 05:32:28AM -, Reon Beon via devel wrote: > Video2X would be a nice add. There's a package wishlist here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintainers_wishlist But adding the package there is no guarantee anyone will pick it up. I believe most items are

Re: xorg-macros

Am Freitag, dem 19.11.2021 um 06:17 + schrieb Globe Trotter via devel: > Hi, > > oclock has been orphaned from F35 so i was trying to roll my own rpm > (building off the spec file for F34). I noticed that the spec file > contains: > > BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(xorg-macros) >= 1.8 > > but I

Strange build chain issue (GCC ?)

This first affects libraqm, and so its users so libgd so php Initial report https://github.com/libgd/libgd/issues/790 Tracked as https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2022957 In short libraqm is broken on F35 same version works as expected on F34 F34 version works on F35 So, really

[Bug 2024816] perl-PDL-2.062 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2024816 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Fixed In Version|