[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-2022-eeac45f79c   
clamav-0.103.7-1.el7
   1  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-ced30d9530   
golang-1.17.12-1.el7


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

apptainer-1.1.0~rc.1-1.el7
gpart-0.3-16.el7
phoronix-test-suite-10.8.4-1.el7

Details about builds:



 apptainer-1.1.0~rc.1-1.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2022-d3d7466740)
 Application and environment virtualization

Update Information:

Update to 1.1.0~rc.1

ChangeLog:

* Tue Aug  2 2022 Dave Dykstra  - 1.1.0~rc.1
- Update to upstream 1.1.0~rc.1
- Require fuse2fs package on el7
- Require fuse-overlayfs everywhere for cases that kernel overlayfs
  does not support 
- Add patch for 32-bit compilation
* Wed Jul  6 2022 Dave Dykstra  - 1.0.3
- Update to upstream 1.0.3
* Tue May 10 2022 Dave Dykstra  - 1.0.2
- Update to upstream 1.0.2
* Wed Mar 16 2022 Dave Dykstra  - 1.0.1
- Update to upstream 1.0.1
- Remove patch from pr 299, not needed anymore
* Thu Mar  3 2022 Dave Dykstra  - 1.0.0
- Initial release from upstream 1.0.0




 gpart-0.3-16.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2022-b0ddf5b42a)
 A program for recovering corrupt partition tables

Update Information:

- Update spec to use more macros - Update source to proper GitHub format -
Update license to SPDX format - Add doc dir to files - Remove excluded arches
(build on all arches) - Remove unnecessary buildrequires glibc-kernheaders -
Initial build for EPEL7, EPEL8, and EPEL9

ChangeLog:

* Tue Aug  2 2022 Jonathan Wright  - 0.3-16
- Update spec to use more macros
- Update source to proper GitHub format
- Update license to SPDX format
- Add doc dir to files
- Remove excluded arches (build on all arches)
- Remove unnecessary buildrequires glibc-kernheaders
- Initial build for EPEL7, EPEL8, and EPEL9
* Thu Jul 21 2022 Fedora Release Engineering  - 0.3-15
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_37_Mass_Rebuild
* Thu Jan 20 2022 Fedora Release Engineering  - 0.3-14
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_36_Mass_Rebuild
* Thu Jul 22 2021 Fedora Release Engineering  - 0.3-13
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_35_Mass_Rebuild
* Tue Jan 26 2021 Fedora Release Engineering  - 0.3-12
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_34_Mass_Rebuild
* Tue Jul 28 2020 Fedora Release Engineering  - 0.3-11
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_33_Mass_Rebuild
* Wed Jan 29 2020 Fedora Release Engineering  - 0.3-10
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_32_Mass_Rebuild
* Thu Jul 25 2019 Fedora Release Engineering  - 0.3-9
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_31_Mass_Rebuild
* Fri Feb  1 2019 Fedora Release Engineering  - 0.3-8
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_30_Mass_Rebuild
* Fri Jul 13 2018 Fedora Release Engineering  - 0.3-7
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_29_Mass_Rebuild
* Wed Feb  7 2018 Fedora Release Engineering  - 0.3-6
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_28_Mass_Rebuild
* Wed Aug  2 2017 Fedora Release Engineering  - 0.3-5
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_27_Binutils_Mass_Rebuild
* Wed Jul 26 2017 Fedora Release Engineering  - 0.3-4
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_27_Mass_Rebuild
* Fri Feb 10 2017 Fedora Release Engineering  - 0.3-3
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_26_Mass_Rebuild
* Wed Feb  3 2016 Fedora Release Engineering  - 0.3-2
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_24_Mass_Rebuild
* Tue Dec  1 2015 David Cantrell  - 0.3-1
- Upgrade to gpart-0.3
* Wed Jun 17 2015 Fedora Release Engineering  
- 0.2.1-3
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_23_Mass_Rebuild
* Tue Dec 16 2014 Peter Robinson  0.2.1-2
- Update Exclude/Exclusive arch
- Modernise spec
* Mon Oct 13 2014 David Cantrell  - 0.2.1-1
- Upgrade to newly discovered upstream fork on github (#1151790)
* Sat Aug 16 2014 Fedora Release Engineering  
- 0.1h-22
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_22_Mass_Rebuild
* Sat Jun  7 2014 Fedora Release Engineering  
- 0.1h-21
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Mass_Rebuild
* Wed Aug 14 2013 David Cantrell  - 0.1h-20
- Build gpart with RPM_OPT_FLAGS and fix O_CREAT usage in
  make_mbr_backup() function in gpart.c (#977147)
* Sat Aug  3 2013 

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing report

[updates]

The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing:
 Age  URL
  14  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-89ad385971   
chromium-103.0.5060.114-1.el8
   6  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-055f06a731   
python-eventlet-0.26.0-2.el8
   5  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-858300d946   
clamav-0.103.7-1.el8


The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing

apptainer-1.1.0~rc.1-1.el8
gpart-0.3-16.el8
phoronix-test-suite-10.8.4-1.el8

Details about builds:



 apptainer-1.1.0~rc.1-1.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2022-03acdfb163)
 Application and environment virtualization

Update Information:

Update to 1.1.0~rc.1

ChangeLog:

* Tue Aug  2 2022 Dave Dykstra  - 1.1.0~rc.1
- Update to upstream 1.1.0~rc.1
- Require fuse2fs package on el7
- Require fuse-overlayfs everywhere for cases that kernel overlayfs
  does not support 
- Add patch for 32-bit compilation
* Wed Jul  6 2022 Dave Dykstra  - 1.0.3
- Update to upstream 1.0.3
* Tue May 10 2022 Dave Dykstra  - 1.0.2
- Update to upstream 1.0.2
* Wed Mar 16 2022 Dave Dykstra  - 1.0.1
- Update to upstream 1.0.1
- Remove patch from pr 299, not needed anymore
* Thu Mar  3 2022 Dave Dykstra  - 1.0.0
- Initial release from upstream 1.0.0




 gpart-0.3-16.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2022-642f0c2ae9)
 A program for recovering corrupt partition tables

Update Information:

- Update spec to use more macros - Update source to proper GitHub format -
Update license to SPDX format - Add doc dir to files - Remove excluded arches
(build on all arches) - Remove unnecessary buildrequires glibc-kernheaders -
Initial build for EPEL7, EPEL8, and EPEL9

ChangeLog:

* Tue Aug  2 2022 Jonathan Wright  - 0.3-16
- Update spec to use more macros
- Update source to proper GitHub format
- Update license to SPDX format
- Add doc dir to files
- Remove excluded arches (build on all arches)
- Remove unnecessary buildrequires glibc-kernheaders
- Initial build for EPEL7, EPEL8, and EPEL9
* Thu Jul 21 2022 Fedora Release Engineering  - 0.3-15
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_37_Mass_Rebuild
* Thu Jan 20 2022 Fedora Release Engineering  - 0.3-14
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_36_Mass_Rebuild
* Thu Jul 22 2021 Fedora Release Engineering  - 0.3-13
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_35_Mass_Rebuild
* Tue Jan 26 2021 Fedora Release Engineering  - 0.3-12
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_34_Mass_Rebuild
* Tue Jul 28 2020 Fedora Release Engineering  - 0.3-11
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_33_Mass_Rebuild
* Wed Jan 29 2020 Fedora Release Engineering  - 0.3-10
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_32_Mass_Rebuild
* Thu Jul 25 2019 Fedora Release Engineering  - 0.3-9
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_31_Mass_Rebuild
* Fri Feb  1 2019 Fedora Release Engineering  - 0.3-8
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_30_Mass_Rebuild
* Fri Jul 13 2018 Fedora Release Engineering  - 0.3-7
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_29_Mass_Rebuild
* Wed Feb  7 2018 Fedora Release Engineering  - 0.3-6
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_28_Mass_Rebuild
* Wed Aug  2 2017 Fedora Release Engineering  - 0.3-5
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_27_Binutils_Mass_Rebuild
* Wed Jul 26 2017 Fedora Release Engineering  - 0.3-4
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_27_Mass_Rebuild
* Fri Feb 10 2017 Fedora Release Engineering  - 0.3-3
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_26_Mass_Rebuild
* Wed Feb  3 2016 Fedora Release Engineering  - 0.3-2
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_24_Mass_Rebuild
* Tue Dec  1 2015 David Cantrell  - 0.3-1
- Upgrade to gpart-0.3
* Wed Jun 17 2015 Fedora Release Engineering  
- 0.2.1-3
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_23_Mass_Rebuild
* Tue Dec 16 2014 Peter Robinson  0.2.1-2
- Update Exclude/Exclusive arch
- Modernise spec
* Mon Oct 13 2014 David Cantrell  - 0.2.1-1
- Upgrade to newly discovered upstream fork on github (#1151790)
* Sat Aug 16 2014 Fedora Release Engineering  
- 0.1h-22
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_22_Mass_Rebuild
* Sat Jun  7 2014 Fedora Release Engineering  
- 0.1h-21
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Mass_Rebuild
* Wed Aug 14 2013 David Cantrell  - 0.1h-20
- Build gpart 

[Bug 2112891] Add perl-List-UtilsBy to EPEL-9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112891

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-824a44abda has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing
repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-824a44abda

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=2112891
___
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 2112838] Add perl-Data-Printer to EPEL-9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112838

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-bcbe3ceecc has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing
repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-bcbe3ceecc

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=2112838
___
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: Fedora 37 mass rebuild complete

[Sérgio Basto]

On Tue, 2022-07-26 at 10:12 +0200, Petr Pisar wrote:
> V Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 11:47:24PM +0200, Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> > On 25. 07. 22 23:38, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 08:57:39AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > > 
> > > > Per the Fedora 37 schedule[1] we started a mass rebuild for
> > > > Fedora
> > > > 37 on 2022/07/20. We did a mass rebuild for Fedora 37 for:
> > > > 
> > > > https://pagure.io/releng/issues?status=Open=mass+rebuild
> > > > 
> > > > The mass rebuild was done in a side tag (f37-rebuild) and moved
> > > > over to
> > > > f37. Failures can be seen
> > > > https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/mass-rebuild/f37-failures.html
> > > >   Things
> > > > still needing rebuilding
> > > > https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/mass-rebuild/f37-need-rebuild.html
> > > I could be being stupid here, but what's the difference between
> > > packages that failed to build and packages that need rebuilding?
> > 
> > Considering "need-rebuild" is a superset of "failures" (I've just
> > checked
> > [1]) the 2 differences I can think of are:
> > 
> > 1) Only builds that manage to get past buildSRPMFromSCM are
> > associated to
> > the particular package by Koji. Hence, packages that failed
> > buildSRPMFromSCM
> > or when the Koji build was not even submitted (i.e. there was no
> > spec file,
> > missing source, RPM parse error, noautobuild file, etc.) -- such
> > package
> > swill onyl be listed in "need-rebuild" as there is no known
> > associated build
> > failure with them.
> > 
> And then there are the mysterious packages like perl-Math-Cartesian-
> Product
> which even do not have a mass rebuild commit.
> 
> I guess because of TCP rejects when pushing/cloning to/from dist-git.
> It would
> be great if relengs retried these network failures next time.
> 

also debootstrap package doesn't have the mass rebuild commit [1] ,
what we should do in these cases ? 


[1]
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/debootstrap/commits/rawhide


> -- Petr
> 
> ___
> 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 on the list, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

-- 
Sérgio M. B.
___
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: List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in 1 week

[Christopher Engelhard]

Hi,

On 01.08.22 14:55, Miro Hrončok wrote:

php-aws-sdk3 lcts
php-pimple   lcts


both fixed.

Best,
Christopher
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 12:46:08PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 01:28:03PM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> > Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > I do expect Fedora reviewers to do more than just look at a handful of
> > > source files though. For any package review, the header of every source
> > > file should checked. Random sampling is not sufficient to identify the
> > > exceptions which do occur often, and are not usually mentioned in the
> > > top level LICENSE file.  If there's no header present, then it is
> > > implicitly under the global license, and it is fine to trust that for
> > > the purposes of Fedora license tag.
> > 
> > I wish you good luck opening every single of the 167383 files in 
> > QtWebEngine 
> > (checked with 5.15.8, but that is the order of magnitude for all versions) 
> > to check the license header, if there is any to begin with. (Some of the 
> > bundled libraries are of the "let's just drop in one license file that 
> > applies to everything" kind, and it is named differently in each.)
> 
> I'm not saying a human would literally open each file manually. Tools
> like 'licensecheck' can automate scanning and reporting from license
> headers. Packagers should sanity check its output and examine any cases
> where it failed. That's sufficiently accurate to fill in the License
> header in the RPM spec as requested by the new guidelines IMHO.

I think it's also worth noting that we're only interested in licenses
of code that ends up in the binary RPM (so not configure scripts and
Makefiles and such).  This is clarified here:

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/

licensecheck isn't very good about this - it basically shows you the
license of every file and you have to work it out yourself.

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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2022-08-02)

[Fabio Valentini]

===
#fedora-meeting: FESCo (2022-08-02)
===

Meeting started by decathorpe at 17:01:36 UTC. The full logs are
available at
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2022-08-02/fesco.2022-08-02-17.01.log.html


Meeting summary
---
* Init process  (decathorpe, 17:01:59)
  * LINK: Schedule

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/6VAM5N54Z4AJQ7XVYFSZZFC6QTG26P7H/
(decathorpe, 17:05:25)

* #2842 Change: z13 as the Baseline for IBM Z Hardware  (decathorpe,
  17:07:45)
  * AGREED: REJECTED for F37 (+5, 2, -1)  (decathorpe, 17:16:52)
  * AGREED: APPROVED under the condition that the Change proposal is
re-targeted at Fedora 38 and classified as a System-Wide Change (+8,
0, -0)  (decathorpe, 17:33:19)

* Next week's chair  (decathorpe, 17:35:12)
  * ACTION: mhroncok to chair next week's meeting  (decathorpe,
17:36:14)

* Open Floor  (decathorpe, 17:36:30)
  * ACTION: zbyszek to prepare introductory remarks because he signed us
up for it in the first place  (decathorpe, 17:39:09)

Meeting ended at 17:43:53 UTC.


Outstanding announcements
---

#2833 Change: Officially Support Raspberry Pi 4
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2833

APPROVED during last week's meeting: As indicated in the Change, the
owners will perform necessary documentation updates and convergence
onto docs.fp.o. The Change is approved, contingent upon those doc
updates being made by Beta release. (+5, 0, -0)


Action Items

* mhroncok to chair next week's meeting
* zbyszek to prepare introductory remarks because he signed us up for it
  in the first place


Action Items, by person
---
* mhroncok
  * mhroncok to chair next week's meeting
* zbyszek
  * zbyszek to prepare introductory remarks because he signed us up for
it in the first place
* **UNASSIGNED**
  * (none)




People Present (lines said)
---
* decathorpe (57)
* zodbot (20)
* mhroncok (19)
* sgallagh (16)
* music[m] (13)
* nirik (8)
* mhayden (8)
* bcotton (6)
* Eighth_Doctor (5)
* dcantrell (4)
* salimma (2)
* jonathanspw (1)
* davide (1)
* zbyszek (0)
* music (0)
* Conan_Kudo (0)
* Pharaoh_Atem (0)
* Son_Goku (0)
* King_InuYasha (0)
* Sir_Gallantmon (0)


Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.4

.. _`MeetBot`: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zodbot#Meeting_Functions
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: The R stack in Rawhide is on fire

[Kalev Lember]

On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 7:27 PM Miro Hrončok  wrote:

> On 02. 08. 22 19:02, Iñaki Ucar wrote:
> > To begin with, untag Frantisek's build from f37, please. Tom prepared
> > the side tag to rebuild the packages there, but I believe he's not
> > currently available...
>
> I've opened https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10943


I went ahead and untagged the R build, from both f37 and eln. Can someone
make sure to rebuild R once more in the side tag so that it has a higher
release number than the build that was just untagged? Otherwise I am fairly
sure it's going to cause issues when merging the tag (and this also ensures
it's correctly rebuilt against the new icu).

-- 
Kalev
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 2103742] perl-SNMP-Info-3.85 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103742



--- Comment #5 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
the-new-hotness/release-monitoring.org's scratch build of
perl-SNMP-Info-3.85-1.fc36.src.rpm for rawhide completed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=90405157


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103742
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)

[Adam Williamson]

On Mon, 2022-08-01 at 12:13 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> I do expect Fedora reviewers to do more than just look at a handful of
> source files though. For any package review, the header of every source
> file should checked. Random sampling is not sufficient to identify the
> exceptions which do occur often, and are not usually mentioned in the
> top level LICENSE file.  If there's no header present, then it is
> implicitly under the global license, and it is fine to trust that for
> the purposes of Fedora license tag.
> 
> We're not expecting Fedora reviewers to be perfect, but we do expect
> them to make a serious effort to identify the licenses present across
> the source files.

You're talking about different things, though. You're talking about a
review - a one-time operation at which probably more care is taken than
any other time in a package's life cycle. Kevin is talking about
ongoing maintenance - the problem that there's now a sort of
expectation that maintainers check whether every new addition of code
upstream introduces an additional license. If I trust my upstream to
make sure new contributions are compatible with the 'main' license, but
I know it does accept contributions under different licenses that are
compatible with it, this policy change introduces a burden on me where
previously there was none.

To take a broader view, I think Fabio raises an important point. Let's
take a step back and say: what's the *point* of the License field? What
useful information is it imparting to whom?

If we take one of these problematic projects, let's say we successfully
produce the correct license field for it, and it's just a 500 character
string of "foo AND bar AND moo AND baz AND zzz AND lala"...

Who is that for? What use is it to them? To me, it's more or less
pointless. It contains too much information to be a not-strictly-
correct-but-useful simplification, but it doesn't provide *enough*
information on the true state of affairs, because it doesn't tell you
which parts of the code are under what license. To find that out, you
still have to actually look at the source tree yourself.

I like Smooge's idea of just allowing an "it's complicated" value for
the License field.

We definitely do provide value to Fedora, Red Hat and the wider
community by doing license evaluation at package review time - but the
value there is in the evaluation, which is permanently available in the
review ticket. There's not very much value in the resulting text in the
License: field of the package, which is trivial if simple and
practically quite useless if complicated.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA
IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha
https://www.happyassassin.net

___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: The R stack in Rawhide is on fire

[Miro Hrončok]

On 02. 08. 22 19:02, Iñaki Ucar wrote:

On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 at 18:47, Miro Hrončok  wrote:


Hello folks,

looks like R was update to 4.2 in a side tag, but a rebuild for ICU 71.1
shipped it in Rawhide prematurely. As a result, none of the R-* package 
installs.


OMG


I wonder if we shall revert the 4.2 update in dist-git and rebuild 4.1 with
ICU 71.1 now.


To begin with, untag Frantisek's build from f37, please. Tom prepared
the side tag to rebuild the packages there, but I believe he's not
currently available...


I've opened https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10943

--
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 2103742] perl-SNMP-Info-3.85 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103742



--- Comment #4 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
Created attachment 1902952
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1902952=edit
Update to 3.85 (#2103742)


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103742
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 2103742] perl-SNMP-Info-3.85 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103742

Upstream Release Monitoring  
changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|perl-SNMP-Info-3.84 is  |perl-SNMP-Info-3.85 is
   |available   |available



--- Comment #3 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
Releases retrieved: 3.85
Upstream release that is considered latest: 3.85
Current version/release in rawhide: 3.82-3.fc37
URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/SNMP-Info/

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://fedoraproject.org/wiki/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/3318/


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


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103742
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Fedora 37 mass rebuild complete

[Miro Hrončok]

On 02. 08. 22 18:55, Miro Hrončok wrote:

On 02. 08. 22 18:31, Kevin Fenzi wrote:

On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 01:32:07PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:


Could you please share a link to the existing script?



https://pagure.io/releng/blob/main/f/scripts/mass_rebuild_file_bugs.py

I wonder if it's hitting a limit from bugzilla now, or perhaps a paging
issue? It definitely seems like it missed some.


The pagination code seems OK to me.

When I comment out the releng user stuff and the actual report_failure(...) 
calls, I see the sripts reports that the bugs were already opened for the 
missing packages.


When I add a print here and there, I see it considers closed F37FTBFS bugzillas 
as already reported. That might be tru for the stuff that was closed after the 
script run, but not for bugzillas closed before the mass rebuild.


I can prepare a fix.


This should do: https://pagure.io/releng/pull-request/10944

--
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: The R stack in Rawhide is on fire

[Iñaki Ucar]

On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 at 18:47, Miro Hrončok  wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> looks like R was update to 4.2 in a side tag, but a rebuild for ICU 71.1
> shipped it in Rawhide prematurely. As a result, none of the R-* package 
> installs.

OMG

> I wonder if we shall revert the 4.2 update in dist-git and rebuild 4.1 with
> ICU 71.1 now.

To begin with, untag Frantisek's build from f37, please. Tom prepared
the side tag to rebuild the packages there, but I believe he's not
currently available. I can't take care of this yet because we are
still waiting for [1-2].

[1] https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/10800
[2] https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2815

Iñaki

>
> $ repoquery -q --repo=koji --whatrequires 'R(ABI) = 4.1' | wc -l
> 395
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_id=2114067,2114068,2114069,2114070,2114071,2114072,2114073,2114074,2114075,2114076,2114077,2114078,2114079,2114080,2114081,2114082,2114083,2114084,2114085,2114086,2114087,2114088,2114089,2114090,2114091,2114092,2114093,2114094,2114095,2114096,2114097,2114099,2114100,2114101,2114102,2114103,2114104,2114105,2114106,2114107,2114108,2114109,2114110,2114111,2114112,2114113,2114114,2114115,2114116,2114117,2114118,2114119,2114120,2114121,2114122,2114123,2114124,2114125,2114126,2114127,2114128,2114129,2114130,2114131,2114132,2114133,2114134,2114135,2114136,2114137,2114138,2114139,2114140,2114141,2114142,2114143,2114144,2114145,2114146,2114147,2114148,2114149,2114150,2114151,2114152,2114153,2114154,2114155,2114156,2114157,2114158,2114159,2114160,2114161,2114162,2114163,2114164,2114165,2114166,2114167,2114168,2114169,2114170,2114171,2114172,2114173,2114174,2114175,2114176,2114177,2114178,2114179,2114180,2114181,2114182,2114183,2114184,2114186,2114187,2114188,2114189,2114190,2114191,2114192,2114193,2114194,2114195,2114196,2114197,2114198,2114199,2114200,2114201,2114202,2114203,2114204,2114205,2114206,2114207,2114208,2114209,2114210,2114211,2114212,2114213,2114214,2114216,2114217,2114218,2114219,2114220,2114221,2114222,2114223,2114224,2114225,2114226,2114227,2114228,2114229,2114230,2114231,2114232,2114233,2114234,2114235,2114236,2114237,2114238,2114239,2114240,2114241,2114242,2114243,2114244,2114245,2114246,2114247,2114248,2114249,2114250,2114251,2114252,2114253,2114254,2114255,2114256,2114257,2114258,2114259,2114260,2114261,2114262,2114263,2114264,2114265,2114266,2114267,2114268,2114269,2114270,2114271,2114272,2114273,2114274,2114275,2114276,2114277,2114278,2114279,2114280,2114281,2114282,2114283,2114284,2114285,2114286,2114287,2114288,2114289,2114290,2114291,2114292,2114293,2114294,2114295,2114296,2114297,2114298,2114299,2114300,2114301,2114302,2114303,2114304,2114305,2114306,2114307,2114308,2114309,2114310,2114311,2114312,2114313,2114314,2114315,2114316,2114317,2114318,2114319,2114320,2114321,2114322,2114323,2114324,2114326,2114327,2114328,2114329,2114331,2114332,2114333,2114334,2114335,2114337,2114338,2114339,2114340,2114342,2114343,2114344,2114345,2114346,2114347,2114348,2114349,2114350,2114352,2114354,2114356,2114357,2114358,2114359,2114360,2114361,2114362,2114363,2114364,2114365,2114366,2114367,2114368,2114369,2114370,2114371,2114372,2114373,2114374,2114375,2114376,2114377,2114378,2114379,2114380,2114381,2114382,2114383,2114384,2114385,2114386,2114387,2114388,2114389,2114390,2114391,2114392,2114393,2114394,2114395,2114396,2114397,2114398,2114399,2114400,2114401,2114402,2114403,2114404,2114405,2114406,2114407,2114408,2114409,2114410,2114411,2114412,2114413,2114414,2114415,2114416,2114417,2114418,2114419,2114420,2114421,2114422,2114423,2114424,2114425,2114426,2114427,2114428,2114429,2114430,2114432,2114433,2114434,2114435,2114436,2114437,2114438,2114439,2114440,2114441,2114442,2114443,211,2114445,2114446,2114447,2114448,2114449,2114450,2114451,2114452,2114453,2114454,2114455,2114456,2114457,2114458,2114459,2114460,2114461,2114462,2114463,2114464,2114465,2114466,2114467,2114468,2114469,2114470,2114471
>
> --
> 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 on the list, report it: 
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure



-- 
Iñaki Úcar
___
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 on the 

Re: Fedora 37 mass rebuild complete

[Miro Hrončok]

On 02. 08. 22 18:31, Kevin Fenzi wrote:

On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 01:32:07PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:


Could you please share a link to the existing script?



https://pagure.io/releng/blob/main/f/scripts/mass_rebuild_file_bugs.py

I wonder if it's hitting a limit from bugzilla now, or perhaps a paging
issue? It definitely seems like it missed some.


The pagination code seems OK to me.

When I comment out the releng user stuff and the actual report_failure(...) 
calls, I see the sripts reports that the bugs were already opened for the 
missing packages.


When I add a print here and there, I see it considers closed F37FTBFS bugzillas 
as already reported. That might be tru for the stuff that was closed after the 
script run, but not for bugzillas closed before the mass rebuild.


I can prepare a fix.



--
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

The R stack in Rawhide is on fire

[Miro Hrončok]

Hello folks,

looks like R was update to 4.2 in a side tag, but a rebuild for ICU 71.1 
shipped it in Rawhide prematurely. As a result, none of the R-* package installs.


I wonder if we shall revert the 4.2 update in dist-git and rebuild 4.1 with 
ICU 71.1 now.


$ repoquery -q --repo=koji --whatrequires 'R(ABI) = 4.1' | wc -l
395

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_id=2114067,2114068,2114069,2114070,2114071,2114072,2114073,2114074,2114075,2114076,2114077,2114078,2114079,2114080,2114081,2114082,2114083,2114084,2114085,2114086,2114087,2114088,2114089,2114090,2114091,2114092,2114093,2114094,2114095,2114096,2114097,2114099,2114100,2114101,2114102,2114103,2114104,2114105,2114106,2114107,2114108,2114109,2114110,2114111,2114112,2114113,2114114,2114115,2114116,2114117,2114118,2114119,2114120,2114121,2114122,2114123,2114124,2114125,2114126,2114127,2114128,2114129,2114130,2114131,2114132,2114133,2114134,2114135,2114136,2114137,2114138,2114139,2114140,2114141,2114142,2114143,2114144,2114145,2114146,2114147,2114148,2114149,2114150,2114151,2114152,2114153,2114154,2114155,2114156,2114157,2114158,2114159,2114160,2114161,2114162,2114163,2114164,2114165,2114166,2114167,2114168,2114169,2114170,2114171,2114172,2114173,2114174,2114175,2114176,2114177,2114178,2114179,2114180,2114181,2114182,2114183,2114184,2114186,2114187,2114188,2114189,2114190,2114191,2114192,2114193,2114194,2114195,2114196,2114197,2114198,2114199,2114200,2114201,2114202,2114203,2114204,2114205,2114206,2114207,2114208,2114209,2114210,2114211,2114212,2114213,2114214,2114216,2114217,2114218,2114219,2114220,2114221,2114222,2114223,2114224,2114225,2114226,2114227,2114228,2114229,2114230,2114231,2114232,2114233,2114234,2114235,2114236,2114237,2114238,2114239,2114240,2114241,2114242,2114243,2114244,2114245,2114246,2114247,2114248,2114249,2114250,2114251,2114252,2114253,2114254,2114255,2114256,2114257,2114258,2114259,2114260,2114261,2114262,2114263,2114264,2114265,2114266,2114267,2114268,2114269,2114270,2114271,2114272,2114273,2114274,2114275,2114276,2114277,2114278,2114279,2114280,2114281,2114282,2114283,2114284,2114285,2114286,2114287,2114288,2114289,2114290,2114291,2114292,2114293,2114294,2114295,2114296,2114297,2114298,2114299,2114300,2114301,2114302,2114303,2114304,2114305,2114306,2114307,2114308,2114309,2114310,2114311,2114312,2114313,2114314,2114315,2114316,2114317,2114318,2114319,2114320,2114321,2114322,2114323,2114324,2114326,2114327,2114328,2114329,2114331,2114332,2114333,2114334,2114335,2114337,2114338,2114339,2114340,2114342,2114343,2114344,2114345,2114346,2114347,2114348,2114349,2114350,2114352,2114354,2114356,2114357,2114358,2114359,2114360,2114361,2114362,2114363,2114364,2114365,2114366,2114367,2114368,2114369,2114370,2114371,2114372,2114373,2114374,2114375,2114376,2114377,2114378,2114379,2114380,2114381,2114382,2114383,2114384,2114385,2114386,2114387,2114388,2114389,2114390,2114391,2114392,2114393,2114394,2114395,2114396,2114397,2114398,2114399,2114400,2114401,2114402,2114403,2114404,2114405,2114406,2114407,2114408,2114409,2114410,2114411,2114412,2114413,2114414,2114415,2114416,2114417,2114418,2114419,2114420,2114421,2114422,2114423,2114424,2114425,2114426,2114427,2114428,2114429,2114430,2114432,2114433,2114434,2114435,2114436,2114437,2114438,2114439,2114440,2114441,2114442,2114443,211,2114445,2114446,2114447,2114448,2114449,2114450,2114451,2114452,2114453,2114454,2114455,2114456,2114457,2114458,2114459,2114460,2114461,2114462,2114463,2114464,2114465,2114466,2114467,2114468,2114469,2114470,2114471

--
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Fedora 37 mass rebuild complete

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 01:32:07PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > 
> > Could you please share a link to the existing script?
> > 

https://pagure.io/releng/blob/main/f/scripts/mass_rebuild_file_bugs.py

I wonder if it's hitting a limit from bugzilla now, or perhaps a paging
issue? It definitely seems like it missed some. 

kevin


signature.asc
Description: PGP 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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers

[Jonathan Wright via devel]

I've taken ownership of RBTools, csound, and gpart.

On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 4:50 AM Miro Hrončok  wrote:

> The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they
> are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for
> sure
> that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life
>
> Note: If you received this mail directly you (co)maintain one of the
> affected
> packages or a package that depends on one. Please adopt the affected
> package or
> retire your depending package to avoid broken dependencies, otherwise your
> package will fail to install and/or build when the affected package gets
> retired.
>
> Request package ownership via the *Take* button in he left column on
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/
>
> Full report available at:
> https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/orphans-2022-08-02.txt
> grep it for your FAS username and follow the dependency chain.
>
> For human readable dependency chains,
> see https://packager-dashboard.fedoraproject.org/
> For all orphaned packages,
> see https://packager-dashboard.fedoraproject.org/orphan
>
> Package (co)maintainers Status Change
> 
> RBTools  orphan3 weeks ago
> csound   orphan0 weeks ago
> evolution-rssmcrha, orphan 3 weeks ago
> ez-pine-gpg  orphan4 weeks ago
> fawkes   orphan, rmattes, timn 2 weeks ago
> gpartdcantrell, orphan 4 weeks ago
> lancer   orphan0 weeks ago
> libnss-pgsql orphan3 weeks ago
> module-macrosorphan4 weeks ago
> python-bigsuds   orphan1 weeks ago
> rpkg-utilorphan4 weeks ago
> sourcetrail  orphan3 weeks ago
> test-interface   orphan0 weeks ago
> topedorphan, tnorth2 weeks ago
> zuul openstack-sig, orphan, zuul   6 weeks ago
>
> The following packages require above mentioned packages:
> Depending on: rpkg-util (1), status change: 2022-07-02 (4 weeks ago)
> copr-rpmbuild (maintained by: copr-sig, dturecek, frostyx,
> praiskup)
> copr-builder-0.60-1.fc37.x86_64 requires rpkg = 3.2-3.fc37
>
> Depending on: test-interface (1), status change: 2022-08-01 (0 weeks ago)
> scalacheck (maintained by: jjames)
> scalacheck-1.16.0-3.fc37.noarch requires
> mvn(org.scala-sbt:test-interface) = 1.0
> scalacheck-1.16.0-3.fc37.src requires
> mvn(org.scala-sbt:test-interface) = 1.0
>
> See dependency chains of your packages at
> https://packager-dashboard.fedoraproject.org/
> See all orphaned packages at
> https://packager-dashboard.fedoraproject.org/orphan
>
> Affected (co)maintainers (either directly or via packages' dependencies):
> copr-sig: rpkg-util
> dcantrell: gpart
> dturecek: rpkg-util
> frostyx: rpkg-util
> jjames: test-interface
> mcrha: evolution-rss
> openstack-sig: zuul
> praiskup: rpkg-util
> rmattes: fawkes
> timn: fawkes
> tnorth: toped
> zuul: zuul
>
> --
> The script creating this output is run and developed by Fedora
> Release Engineering. Please report issues at its pagure instance:
> https://pagure.io/releng/
> The sources of this script can be found at:
> https://pagure.io/releng/blob/main/f/scripts/find_unblocked_orphans.py
>
> Report finished at 2022-08-02 09:27:07 UTC
> ___
> 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 on the list, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
>


-- 
Jonathan Wright
AlmaLinux Foundation
Mattermost: chat 
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: vdr-epg-daemon-1.2.3: error: 'pthread_mutexattr_init' was not declared in this scope

[Martin Gansser]

ok had to define the correct vdr-devel version in the spec file, now i get a 
other error message:

+ '[' -f /usr/lib/rpm/generate-rpm-note.sh ']'
+ /usr/lib/rpm/generate-rpm-note.sh vdr-epg-daemon 1.2.3-3.fc37 x86_64
+ cd vdr-epg-daemon-1.2.3
+ /usr/bin/make -O -j48 V=1 VERBOSE=1
(cd lib && /usr/bin/make lib)
g++ -c -O2 -flto=auto -ffat-lto-objects -fexceptions -g -grecord-gcc-switches 
-pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 
-Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 
-fstack-protector-strong -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1  -m64  
-mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection 
-fcf-protection -I/usr/include/mysql -I/usr/include/mysql/mysql 
-I/usr/include/python3.11 -I/usr/include/python3.11 -ggdb -fno-stack-protector 
-O -O2 -flto=auto -ffat-lto-objects -fexceptions -g -grecord-gcc-switches -pipe 
-Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS 
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -fstack-protector-strong 
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1  -m64  -mtune=generic 
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection -fPIC 
-D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_GNU_SOURCE -DBINDEST='"/usr/bin"' 
-DTARGET='"epgd"' -DLOG_PREFIX='""' -DPLG
 DIR='"/usr/lib64/epgd"' -DUSEUUID -DUSEMD5 -DUSELIBXML -DUSELIBARCHIVE 
-DUSEJSON -DUSEGUNZIP -DSYSDWDIFO -DUSESYSD -I/usr/include/libxml2  
-I/usr/include/libxml2  -I/usr/include/python3.11 -I/usr/include/python3.11 
-DGIT_REV='""' -o epgdconfig.o epgdconfig.c
In file included from lib/epgservice.h:13,
 from epgdconfig.c:8:
lib/common.h: In member function 'void MemoryStruct::clear()':
lib/common.h:218:20: error: 'time' was not declared in this scope; did you mean 
'tm'?
  218 |  modTime = time(0);
  |^~~~
  |tm
lib/epgservice.h: In member function 'time_t cUserTimes::UserTime::getTime()':
lib/epgservice.h:349:23: error: aggregate 'tm tmnow' has incomplete type and 
cannot be defined
  349 | struct tm tmnow;
  |   ^
lib/epgservice.h:350:26: error: 'time' was not declared in this scope; did you 
mean 'times'?
  350 | time_t now = time(0);
  |  ^~~~
  |  times
lib/epgservice.h:352:13: error: 'localtime_r' was not declared in this scope; 
did you mean 'locale_t'?
  352 | localtime_r(, );
  | ^~~
  | locale_t
lib/epgservice.h:357:28: error: 'mktime' was not declared in this scope; did 
you mean 'mTime'?
  357 | time_t ltime = mktime();
  |^~
  |mTime
make: *** [Make.config:118: epgdconfig.o] Error 1
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: [rawhide] ICU upgrade to 71.1

[Frantisek Zatloukal]

Hmm,

I am really sorry for this, I'd messed up a lot somehow.

I'll take a deeper look tomorrow morning, but from a quick look:
- webkit is now being built against the new icu, passed on i686 of
architectures, it'll hopefully be done before the next compose.
- brltty was FTBFS before, however, the issue looks like the fallout from
java/i386 [0]
- libtracker-sparql was built against the new icu before the side tag
merge, so that should be a transient issue?

[0]
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=89758377=DEFAULT=build.log=-4000
File not found:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/brltty-6.5-5.fc37.i386/usr/lib/brltty/libbrlapi_java.so
File not found:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/brltty-6.5-5.fc37.i386/usr/lib/java/brlapi.jar

On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 4:04 PM Stephen Gallagher 
wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 6:04 PM Frantisek Zatloukal 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 7:46 PM Stephen Gallagher 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 5:20 AM Frantisek Zatloukal 
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > Later today, I'll be starting with rebuilds of packages depending on
> icu. The rebuilds will take place in f37-build-side-55935 for all packages
> returned by sudo repoquery --whatrequires 'libicu*.so.69()(64bit)' (list
> attached at the end of the message).
> >> >
> >> > Please, if you're going to make changes in affected packages before
> the side tag gets merged, make the build in the said side tag. I expect to
> merge the side tag with most of the affected packages built and then
> continue building things that take longer to build (webkit/libreoffice)
> later.
> >> >
> >> > For stuff that may fail to build, either due to newer icu or
> unrelated issues, there is a libicu69 compat package already available in
> rawhide, so that should take care of FTI issues that'd arise by merging the
> side tag. I'll try to help the maintainers with fixing the issues.
> >> >
> >> > I'll post updates to this thread as I progress with the bump.
> >> >
> >> > [0]
> >> ...
> >> > v8
> >
> >
> > Yeah, I did a bunch of manual editing/checking up in the list, this
> should actually be v8-314.
>
>
> Apparently this side-tag has been merged and it broke a lot of stuff
> in Rawhide/ELN:
>
> 2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ] Dependency check failed:
> 2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]  Problem 1: package
> anaconda-install-img-deps-37.11-2.eln120.ppc64le requires brltty, but
> none of the providers can be installed
> 2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - conflicting requests
> 2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - nothing provides
> libicuuc.so.69()(64bit) needed by brltty-6.5-4.eln120.ppc64le
> 2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]  Problem 2: package
> anaconda-widgets-37.11-2.eln120.ppc64le requires
> libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> 2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - package
> anaconda-widgets-37.11-2.eln120.ppc64le requires
> libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> 2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - package
> gtk3-3.24.34-2.eln120.ppc64le requires
> libtracker-sparql-3.0.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
> installed
> 2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - conflicting requests
> 2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - nothing provides
> libicui18n.so.69()(64bit) needed by
> libtracker-sparql-3.4.0~alpha-3.eln121.ppc64le
> 2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - nothing provides
> libicuuc.so.69()(64bit) needed by
> libtracker-sparql-3.4.0~alpha-3.eln121.ppc64le
> 2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]  Problem 3: package
> nm-connection-editor-1.28.0-2.eln120.ppc64le requires
> libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> 2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - package
> nm-connection-editor-1.28.0-2.eln120.ppc64le requires
> libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> 2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - package
> gtk3-3.24.34-2.eln120.ppc64le requires
> libtracker-sparql-3.0.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
> installed
> 2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - conflicting requests
> 2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - nothing provides
> libicui18n.so.69()(64bit) needed by
> libtracker-sparql-3.4.0~alpha-3.eln121.ppc64le
> 2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - nothing provides
> libicuuc.so.69()(64bit) needed by
> libtracker-sparql-3.4.0~alpha-3.eln121.ppc64le
> 2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]  Problem 4: package
> anaconda-gui-37.11-2.eln120.ppc64le requires yelp, but none of the
> providers can be installed
> 2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - package
> anaconda-37.11-2.eln120.ppc64le requires anaconda-gui =
> 37.11-2.eln120, but none of the providers can be installed
> 2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - package
> yelp-2:42.1-4.eln120.ppc64le requires libwebkit2gtk-4.1.so.0()(64bit),
> but none of the providers can be installed
> 2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - conflicting requests
> 2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - nothing provides
> libicui18n.so.69()(64bit) needed by
> 

Re: [rawhide] ICU upgrade to 71.1

[Kalev Lember]

On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 4:03 PM Stephen Gallagher 
wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 6:04 PM Frantisek Zatloukal 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 7:46 PM Stephen Gallagher 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 5:20 AM Frantisek Zatloukal 
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > Later today, I'll be starting with rebuilds of packages depending on
> icu. The rebuilds will take place in f37-build-side-55935 for all packages
> returned by sudo repoquery --whatrequires 'libicu*.so.69()(64bit)' (list
> attached at the end of the message).
> >> >
> >> > Please, if you're going to make changes in affected packages before
> the side tag gets merged, make the build in the said side tag. I expect to
> merge the side tag with most of the affected packages built and then
> continue building things that take longer to build (webkit/libreoffice)
> later.
> >> >
> >> > For stuff that may fail to build, either due to newer icu or
> unrelated issues, there is a libicu69 compat package already available in
> rawhide, so that should take care of FTI issues that'd arise by merging the
> side tag. I'll try to help the maintainers with fixing the issues.
> >> >
> >> > I'll post updates to this thread as I progress with the bump.
> >> >
> >> > [0]
> >> ...
> >> > v8
> >
> >
> > Yeah, I did a bunch of manual editing/checking up in the list, this
> should actually be v8-314.
>
>
> Apparently this side-tag has been merged and it broke a lot of stuff
> in Rawhide/ELN:
>

I believe Frantisek did a compat package which allowed the side tag to be
merged early while some rebuilds were still in progress. I guess maybe it's
missing from the ELN package set and needs to be added? It should be this
package: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=35857

-- 
Hope this helps,
Kalev
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: vdr-epg-daemon-1.2.3: error: 'pthread_mutexattr_init' was not declared in this scope

[Florian Weimer]

* Martin Gansser:

> Hi,
>
> get a build error [1] when compiling vdr-epg-daemon-1.2.3 on Fedora 37.
>
> How can I fix this?
> Thanks a lot
>
> [1] https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8019/89928019/build.log

Looks definitely a bit weird.  There's no include for .  I
have no idea how this is supposed to work.  Maybe they used to be
included implicitly by vdr headers not included in vdr-epg-daemon itself?

Thanks,
Florian
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: [rawhide] ICU upgrade to 71.1

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 6:04 PM Frantisek Zatloukal  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 7:46 PM Stephen Gallagher  wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 5:20 AM Frantisek Zatloukal  
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Later today, I'll be starting with rebuilds of packages depending on icu. 
>> > The rebuilds will take place in f37-build-side-55935 for all packages 
>> > returned by sudo repoquery --whatrequires 'libicu*.so.69()(64bit)' (list 
>> > attached at the end of the message).
>> >
>> > Please, if you're going to make changes in affected packages before the 
>> > side tag gets merged, make the build in the said side tag. I expect to 
>> > merge the side tag with most of the affected packages built and then 
>> > continue building things that take longer to build (webkit/libreoffice) 
>> > later.
>> >
>> > For stuff that may fail to build, either due to newer icu or unrelated 
>> > issues, there is a libicu69 compat package already available in rawhide, 
>> > so that should take care of FTI issues that'd arise by merging the side 
>> > tag. I'll try to help the maintainers with fixing the issues.
>> >
>> > I'll post updates to this thread as I progress with the bump.
>> >
>> > [0]
>> ...
>> > v8
>
>
> Yeah, I did a bunch of manual editing/checking up in the list, this should 
> actually be v8-314.


Apparently this side-tag has been merged and it broke a lot of stuff
in Rawhide/ELN:

2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ] Dependency check failed:
2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]  Problem 1: package
anaconda-install-img-deps-37.11-2.eln120.ppc64le requires brltty, but
none of the providers can be installed
2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - conflicting requests
2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - nothing provides
libicuuc.so.69()(64bit) needed by brltty-6.5-4.eln120.ppc64le
2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]  Problem 2: package
anaconda-widgets-37.11-2.eln120.ppc64le requires
libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - package
anaconda-widgets-37.11-2.eln120.ppc64le requires
libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - package
gtk3-3.24.34-2.eln120.ppc64le requires
libtracker-sparql-3.0.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - conflicting requests
2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - nothing provides
libicui18n.so.69()(64bit) needed by
libtracker-sparql-3.4.0~alpha-3.eln121.ppc64le
2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - nothing provides
libicuuc.so.69()(64bit) needed by
libtracker-sparql-3.4.0~alpha-3.eln121.ppc64le
2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]  Problem 3: package
nm-connection-editor-1.28.0-2.eln120.ppc64le requires
libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - package
nm-connection-editor-1.28.0-2.eln120.ppc64le requires
libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - package
gtk3-3.24.34-2.eln120.ppc64le requires
libtracker-sparql-3.0.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - conflicting requests
2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - nothing provides
libicui18n.so.69()(64bit) needed by
libtracker-sparql-3.4.0~alpha-3.eln121.ppc64le
2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - nothing provides
libicuuc.so.69()(64bit) needed by
libtracker-sparql-3.4.0~alpha-3.eln121.ppc64le
2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]  Problem 4: package
anaconda-gui-37.11-2.eln120.ppc64le requires yelp, but none of the
providers can be installed
2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - package
anaconda-37.11-2.eln120.ppc64le requires anaconda-gui =
37.11-2.eln120, but none of the providers can be installed
2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - package
yelp-2:42.1-4.eln120.ppc64le requires libwebkit2gtk-4.1.so.0()(64bit),
but none of the providers can be installed
2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - conflicting requests
2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - nothing provides
libicui18n.so.69()(64bit) needed by
webkit2gtk4.1-2.37.1-11.fc37.ppc64le
2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - nothing provides
libicuuc.so.69()(64bit) needed by webkit2gtk4.1-2.37.1-11.fc37.ppc64le
2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]  Problem 5: package
mutter-43~alpha-2.eln120.ppc64le requires gtk3(ppc-64) >= 3.19.8, but
none of the providers can be installed
2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - package
mutter-43~alpha-2.eln120.ppc64le requires libgdk-3.so.0()(64bit), but
none of the providers can be installed
2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - package
mutter-43~alpha-2.eln120.ppc64le requires libgtk-3.so.0()(64bit), but
none of the providers can be installed
2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - package
gnome-kiosk-42.0-3.eln120.ppc64le requires libmutter-11.so.0()(64bit),
but none of the providers can be installed
2022-08-02 13:20:21 [ERROR   ]   - package
gnome-kiosk-42.0-3.eln120.ppc64le requires
libmutter-clutter-11.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
2022-08-02 

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)

[Florian Weimer]

* Neal Gompa:

> On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 7:23 AM Florian Weimer  wrote:
>>
>> * Fabio Valentini:
>>
>> > I think the problem here is not that GPLcompatibility of *new*
>> > licenses may need to be determined,
>>
>> I don't understand why this is necessary.  What would we do with this
>> information?  Would it impact what can become part of Fedora in any way?
>>
>
> It helps packagers figure out whether something can be brought into
> Fedora, it helps upstream developers figure out what they can work
> with, and so on. Fedora is considered the practical authority on FOSS
> licensing alongside Debian, and that's because Tom did a great job
> with legal outreach on behalf of Fedora. People use Fedora guidance to
> make decisions. Removing that information is an abdication of that
> responsibility and the leadership Fedora has held for decades.

I don't understand.  Has lack of GPL compatibility of a license ever
blocked acceptance of software into Fedora, except in one or two cases
where an upstream tried to relicense GPL code under a different license?

Thanks,
Florian
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 2112891] Add perl-List-UtilsBy to EPEL-9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112891

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-824a44abda has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-824a44abda


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112891
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[rpms/perl-List-UtilsBy] PR #2: Import package to EPEL9

[Michal Josef Špaček]

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

Merged pull-request:

``
Import package to EPEL9
``

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-List-UtilsBy/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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[rpms/perl-List-UtilsBy] PR #2: Import package to EPEL9

[Michal Josef Špaček]

mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-List-UtilsBy` that 
you are following:
``
Import package to EPEL9
``

To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-List-UtilsBy/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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: poppler soname bump in Rawhide

[Marek Kasik]

On 8/1/22 18:13, Marek Kasik wrote:

Hi,

I plan to rebase poppler to 22.08.0 once it is available. The release 
usually happens at the beginning of month so I'm waiting for it now. 
Once it is ready, I'll build it in a side tag and will post it here. I 
plan to merge the side tag with buildroot next week before branching.


The new version has been released today. I've built it in side tag 
'f37-build-side-56087'. You can rebuild your packages there.



Packages which will need rebuild:

  calligra
  gambas3
  gdal
  gdcm
  inkscape
  kf5-kitinerary
  libreoffice
  pdf2djvu
  scribus
  texlive-base

Regards
Marek


Thanks
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 2096953] perl-HTTP-Message-6.37 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2096953

Michal Josef Spacek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||2113870





Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2113870
[Bug 2113870] perl-IO-Compress-Brotli - Write Brotli buffers/streams in perl
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2096953
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: dnf makecache memory usage increase

[Vratislav Podzimek]

On 8/1/22 13:43, Dusty Mabe wrote:

Seems like this bug is 
relatedhttps://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907030

We are hitting this issue in Fedora CoreOS CI on VMs with 1G of RAM.


This also affects the Fedora 36 Cloud Base image provided as Vagrant box:

$ vagrant init fedora/36-cloud-base
$ vagrant up
$ vagrant ssh -c "sudo dnf install openssl-devel"
Fedora 36 - x86_64  
    3.3 MB/s |  81 MB 00:24
Fedora 36 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64
    710  B/s | 2.5 kB 00:03
Fedora Modular 36 - x86_64  
    2.2 MB/s | 2.4 MB 00:01
Fedora 36 - x86_64 - Updates
    3.6 MB/s |  24 MB 00:06
Connection to 192.168.121.178 closed by remote host.
Connection to 192.168.121.178 closed.

because it defaults to Memory: 512 M. And it is absolutely not 
Aarch64-specific.


I've updated the aforementioned bug with the above reproducer.

--
Vratislav Podzimek
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)

[Neal Gompa]

On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 7:23 AM Florian Weimer  wrote:
>
> * Fabio Valentini:
>
> > I think the problem here is not that GPLcompatibility of *new*
> > licenses may need to be determined,
>
> I don't understand why this is necessary.  What would we do with this
> information?  Would it impact what can become part of Fedora in any way?
>

It helps packagers figure out whether something can be brought into
Fedora, it helps upstream developers figure out what they can work
with, and so on. Fedora is considered the practical authority on FOSS
licensing alongside Debian, and that's because Tom did a great job
with legal outreach on behalf of Fedora. People use Fedora guidance to
make decisions. Removing that information is an abdication of that
responsibility and the leadership Fedora has held for decades.



-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers

[Miro Hrončok]

The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they
are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure
that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life

Note: If you received this mail directly you (co)maintain one of the affected
packages or a package that depends on one. Please adopt the affected package or
retire your depending package to avoid broken dependencies, otherwise your
package will fail to install and/or build when the affected package gets 
retired.

Request package ownership via the *Take* button in he left column on
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/

Full report available at:
https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/orphans-2022-08-02.txt
grep it for your FAS username and follow the dependency chain.

For human readable dependency chains,
see https://packager-dashboard.fedoraproject.org/
For all orphaned packages,
see https://packager-dashboard.fedoraproject.org/orphan

   Package (co)maintainers Status Change

RBTools  orphan3 weeks ago
csound   orphan0 weeks ago
evolution-rssmcrha, orphan 3 weeks ago
ez-pine-gpg  orphan4 weeks ago
fawkes   orphan, rmattes, timn 2 weeks ago
gpartdcantrell, orphan 4 weeks ago
lancer   orphan0 weeks ago
libnss-pgsql orphan3 weeks ago
module-macrosorphan4 weeks ago
python-bigsuds   orphan1 weeks ago
rpkg-utilorphan4 weeks ago
sourcetrail  orphan3 weeks ago
test-interface   orphan0 weeks ago
topedorphan, tnorth2 weeks ago
zuul openstack-sig, orphan, zuul   6 weeks ago

The following packages require above mentioned packages:
Depending on: rpkg-util (1), status change: 2022-07-02 (4 weeks ago)
copr-rpmbuild (maintained by: copr-sig, dturecek, frostyx, praiskup)
copr-builder-0.60-1.fc37.x86_64 requires rpkg = 3.2-3.fc37

Depending on: test-interface (1), status change: 2022-08-01 (0 weeks ago)
scalacheck (maintained by: jjames)
scalacheck-1.16.0-3.fc37.noarch requires 
mvn(org.scala-sbt:test-interface) = 1.0
scalacheck-1.16.0-3.fc37.src requires 
mvn(org.scala-sbt:test-interface) = 1.0

See dependency chains of your packages at
https://packager-dashboard.fedoraproject.org/
See all orphaned packages at https://packager-dashboard.fedoraproject.org/orphan

Affected (co)maintainers (either directly or via packages' dependencies):
copr-sig: rpkg-util
dcantrell: gpart
dturecek: rpkg-util
frostyx: rpkg-util
jjames: test-interface
mcrha: evolution-rss
openstack-sig: zuul
praiskup: rpkg-util
rmattes: fawkes
timn: fawkes
tnorth: toped
zuul: zuul

--
The script creating this output is run and developed by Fedora
Release Engineering. Please report issues at its pagure instance:
https://pagure.io/releng/
The sources of this script can be found at:
https://pagure.io/releng/blob/main/f/scripts/find_unblocked_orphans.py

Report finished at 2022-08-02 09:27:07 UTC
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in 1 week

[Miro Hrončok]

Dear maintainers.

Based on the current fail to build from source policy, the following packages
will be retired from Fedora 37 approximately one week before branching (next 
week).

Policy: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/


The packages in rawhide were not successfully built at least since Fedora 35.

This report is based on dist tags.

Packages collected via:
https://github.com/hroncok/fedora-report-ftbfs-retirements/blob/master/ftbfs-retirements.ipynb

If you see a package that was built, please let me know.
If you see a package that should be exempted from the process, please let me 
know and we can work together to get a FESCo approval for that.


If you see a package that can be rebuilt, please do so.

 Package   (co)maintainers
==
golang-grpc-go4  eclipseo, go-sig, jchaloup
lancer   willb
php-aws-sdk3 lcts
php-pimple   lcts
recorder ddd
rubygem-coffee-rails jaruga, ruby-packagers-sig, vondruch
rubygem-minitest-reporters   pvalena
tinygo   go-sig, qulogic
uom-parent   lberk, mgoodwin, nathans
xs   petersen


The following packages require above mentioned packages:
Depending on: golang-grpc-go4 (1)
golang-x-build (maintained by: eclipseo, go-sig, jchaloup)
		golang-x-build-0-0.19.20201229git0a4bf69.fc35.src requires 
golang(grpc.go4.org) = 0-0.9.20180421git11d0a25.fc34, 
golang(grpc.go4.org/codes) = 0-0.9.20180421git11d0a25.fc34
		golang-x-build-devel-0-0.19.20201229git0a4bf69.fc35.noarch requires 
golang(grpc.go4.org) = 0-0.9.20180421git11d0a25.fc34, 
golang(grpc.go4.org/codes) = 0-0.9.20180421git11d0a25.fc34



Affected (co)maintainers (directly and indirectly):
ddd: recorder
eclipseo: golang-grpc-go4
go-sig: golang-grpc-go4, tinygo
jaruga: rubygem-coffee-rails
jchaloup: golang-grpc-go4
lberk: uom-parent
lcts: php-aws-sdk3, php-pimple
mgoodwin: uom-parent
nathans: uom-parent
petersen: xs
pvalena: rubygem-minitest-reporters
qulogic: tinygo
ruby-packagers-sig: rubygem-coffee-rails
vondruch: rubygem-coffee-rails
willb: lancer

--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Fedora 37 mass rebuild complete

[Miro Hrončok]

On 02. 08. 22 10:26, Miro Hrončok wrote:

On 02. 08. 22 2:23, Kevin Fenzi wrote:

On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 03:43:39PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:

On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 03:04:50PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:

On 25. 07. 22 17:57, Kevin Fenzi wrote:

21713 builds have been tagged into f37, there is currently 1144 failed
builds that need to be addressed by the package maintainers. FTBFS bugs
will be filed shortly.


Is there any place we can track the progress for this?

We need to link ~70 bugzillas to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2107826


Not really. I guess I'll go see about doing it today.


They should now be filed.


Thank you.

The following packages are listed at 
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/mass-rebuild/f37-failures.html but we see no 
F37FTBFS bugzilla:


fedmsg
lldb
pungi


This one actually has the bugzilla, sorry about that.


pybind11
python-fasjson-client
python-nose2
python-pikepdf
python-psutil
python-pycdlib
python-pynwb


As well as this one.


restview


This is just ones that failed to build. If someone wants to take a stab
and improving the script so we can also file bugs on the ones that
didn't make a valid src.rpm, that would be great.


Could you please share a link to the existing script?



--
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

vdr-epg-daemon-1.2.3: error: 'pthread_mutexattr_init' was not declared in this scope

[Martin Gansser]

Hi,

get a build error [1] when compiling vdr-epg-daemon-1.2.3 on Fedora 37.

How can I fix this?
Thanks a lot

[1] https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8019/89928019/build.log
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)

[Florian Weimer]

* Fabio Valentini:

> I think the problem here is not that GPLcompatibility of *new*
> licenses may need to be determined,

I don't understand why this is necessary.  What would we do with this
information?  Would it impact what can become part of Fedora in any way?

Thanks,
Florian
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)

[Fabio Valentini]

On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 11:05 AM Florian Weimer  wrote:
>
> * Ralf Corsépius:
>
> > Am 31.07.22 um 18:57 schrieb Richard Fontana:
> >> There are so few non-legacy, today-commonly-used,
> >> generally-accepted-as-FOSS licenses that are not viewed as
> >> GPLv3-compatible that I think it might be better for Ansible to just
> >> list those (the only one I can think of is EPL-2.0), or to list a
> >> small set of recommended/acceptable commonly-used FOSS licenses.
> > I do not agree with this view and consider this decision not to be helpful.
> >
> > These licenses might not be "commonly used", but if they are used,
> > these are the controversal ones, that need to be looked into, exactly
> > because they "not commonly used".
>
> But there's the general license review process for that, and that's not
> going to go away?  It's just that claims regarding GPLv2 or GPLv3
> compatibility are no longer an expected deliverable of the review
> process.

I think the problem here is not that GPLcompatibility of *new*
licenses may need to be determined,
but that *existing* compatibility matrices have been removed from the
documentation for licenses *that were already approved* as "good".

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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)

[Fabio Valentini]

On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 6:45 PM Stephen Smoogen  wrote:
>
> Since a lot of code is going to have a LOT of different licences which for 
> some seem to grow every minor upstream release it would be better for the RPM 
> License tag to have something like:
>
> License: It's complicated. (Please see /usr/share//licences for 
> a complete list.)
>
> otherwise I am worried we will run into some sort of string length limit in 
> RPM or other tooling.

I'm not sure whether there's a limit to the length of RPM Tags.
But I started doing something similar for Rust packages for another
reason: To ensure informational value of the License string for end
users.

Especially for Rust binaries that have a large dependency tree, just
collecting the License strings of all components and concatenating
them would result in a string that is comically long (even with
deduplication of non-unique values), and would be completely useless
for actually providing information to users of a package.
I know that the new licensing guidelines discourage "simplification"
when combining Licenses from multiple components, but I also think
that providing a string that's hundreds of characters long defeats the
purpose, and does not actually provide anything of value to users.

Instead, I put the "simplified" license string into the License tag
(which is seen by users), and put the full license breakdown of all
components into a separate file (which can be several hundred lines
long / several KB big, which is why I don't just paste its contents
into the .spec file as a comment). I'm pretty sure that satisfies both
requirements (providing information to the user *and* keeping accurate
license information) - something like:

License: ASL 2.0 and BSD and MIT
# LICENSE.dependencies contains a full license breakdown

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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)

[Daniel P . Berrangé]

On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 09:14:18PM -, Richard Fontana wrote:
> Looks like the License: field is limited to 70 characters if I am reading 
> this correctly:
> https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/blob/2b5b271b0e013c1b023df7f5775a59cb4078d5f5/docs/manual/spec.md#license

I believe that's merely style guidance rather than a limit.

Empirically it seems to have no length limit that will impact Fedora.
I tested with a demo package licensed under every SPDX license that
exists and saw no complaints from 'rpmbuild' or 'rpm' :-)

# rpm -qi demo
Name: demo
Version : 1.0
Release : 1
Architecture: x86_64
Install Date: Tue 02 Aug 2022 11:10:47 BST
Group   : Unspecified
Size: 0
License : 0BSD AND 389-exception AND AAL AND Abstyles AND Adobe-2006 AND 
Adobe-Glyph
AND  ADSL AND AFL-1.1 AND AFL-1.2 AND AFL-2.0 AND AFL-2.1 AND AFL-3.0 AND 
Afmparse 
AND AGPL-1.0-only AND AGPL-1.0-or-later AND AGPL-3.0-only AND AGPL-3.0-or-later 
AND Aladdin AND AMDPLPA AND AML AND AMPAS AND ANTLR-PD-fallback AND ANTLR-PD 
AND Apache-1.0 AND Apache-1.1 AND Apache-2.0 AND APAFML AND APL-1.0 AND App-s2p 
AND APSL-1.0 AND APSL-1.1 AND APSL-1.2 AND APSL-2.0 AND Arphic-1999 AND 
Artistic-1.0-cl8 AND Artistic-1.0-Perl AND Artistic-1.0 AND Artistic-2.0 AND 
Autoconf-exception-2.0 AND Autoconf-exception-3.0 AND Baekmuk AND Bahyph AND 
Barr AND Beerware AND Bison-exception-2.2 AND Bitstream-Vera AND BitTorrent-1.0 
AND BitTorrent-1.1 AND blessing AND BlueOak-1.0.0 AND Bootloader-exception AND 
Borceux AND BSD-1-Clause AND BSD-2-Clause-Patent AND BSD-2-Clause AND 
BSD-2-Clause-Views AND BSD-3-Clause-Attribution AND BSD-3-Clause-Clear AND 
BSD-3-Clause-LBNL AND BSD-3-Clause-Modification AND 
BSD-3-Clause-No-Military-License AND BSD-3-Clause-No-Nuclear-License-2014 AND 
BSD-3-Clause-No-Nuclear-License AND BSD-3-Clause-No-Nuclear-Warranty AND 
BSD-3-Clause-Open-MPI AND BSD-3-Clause AND BSD-4-Clause-Shortened AND 
BSD-4-Clause AND BSD-4-Clause-UC AND BSD-Protection AND BSD-Source-Code AND 
BSL-1.0 AND BUSL-1.1 AND bzip2-1.0.6 AND CAL-1.0-Combined-Work-Exception AND 
CAL-1.0 AND Caldera AND CATOSL-1.1 AND CC0-1.0 AND CC-BY-1.0 AND CC-BY-2.0 AND 
CC-BY-2.5-AU AND CC-BY-2.5 AND CC-BY-3.0-AT AND CC-BY-3.0-DE AND CC-BY-3.0-NL 
AND CC-BY-3.0 AND CC-BY-3.0-US AND CC-BY-4.0 AND CC-BY-NC-1.0 AND CC-BY-NC-2.0 
AND CC-BY-NC-2.5 AND CC-BY-NC-3.0-DE AND CC-BY-NC-3.0 AND CC-BY-NC-4.0 AND 
CC-BY-NC-ND-1.0 AND CC-BY-NC-ND-2.0 AND CC-BY-NC-ND-2.5 AND CC-BY-NC-ND-3.0-DE 
AND CC-BY-NC-ND-3.0-IGO AND CC-BY-NC-ND-3.0 AND CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0 AND 
CC-BY-NC-SA-1.0 AND CC-BY-NC-SA-2.0-FR AND CC-BY-NC-SA-2.0 AND 
CC-BY-NC-SA-2.0-UK AND CC-BY-NC-SA-2.5 AND CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0-DE AND 
CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0-IGO AND CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0 AND CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0 AND CC-BY-ND-1.0 
AND CC-BY-ND-2.0 AND CC-BY-ND-2.5 AND CC-BY-ND-3.0-DE AND CC-BY-ND-3.0 AND 
CC-BY-ND-4.0 AND CC-BY-SA-1.0 AND CC-BY-SA-2.0 AND CC-BY-SA-2.0-UK AND 
CC-BY-SA-2.1-JP AND CC-BY-SA-2.5 AND CC-BY-SA-3.0-AT AND CC-BY-SA-3.0-DE AND 
CC-BY-SA-3.0 AND CC-BY-SA-4.0 AND CC-PDDC AND CDDL-1.0 AND CDDL-1.1 AND CDL-1.0 
AND CDLA-Permissive-1.0 AND CDLA-Permissive-2.0 AND CDLA-Sharing-1.0 AND 
CECILL-1.0 AND CECILL-1.1 AND CECILL-2.0 AND CECILL-2.1 AND CECILL-B AND 
CECILL-C AND CERN-OHL-1.1 AND CERN-OHL-1.2 AND CERN-OHL-P-2.0 AND 
CERN-OHL-S-2.0 AND CERN-OHL-W-2.0 AND ClArtistic AND Classpath-exception-2.0 
AND CLISP-exception-2.0 AND CNRI-Jython AND CNRI-Python-GPL-Compatible AND 
CNRI-Python AND COIL-1.0 AND Community-Spec-1.0 AND Condor-1.1 AND 
copyleft-next-0.3.0 AND copyleft-next-0.3.1 AND CPAL-1.0 AND CPL-1.0 AND 
CPOL-1.02 AND Crossword AND CrystalStacker AND CUA-OPL-1.0 AND Cube AND 
C-UDA-1.0 AND curl AND deprecated_AGPL-1.0 AND deprecated_AGPL-3.0 AND 
deprecated_BSD-2-Clause-FreeBSD AND deprecated_BSD-2-Clause-NetBSD AND 
deprecated_bzip2-1.0.5 AND deprecated_eCos-2.0 AND deprecated_GFDL-1.1 AND 
deprecated_GFDL-1.2 AND deprecated_GFDL-1.3 AND deprecated_GPL-1.0 AND 
deprecated_GPL-1.0+ AND deprecated_GPL-2.0 AND deprecated_GPL-2.0+ AND 
deprecated_GPL-2.0-with-autoconf-exception AND 
deprecated_GPL-2.0-with-bison-exception AND 
deprecated_GPL-2.0-with-classpath-exception AND 
deprecated_GPL-2.0-with-font-exception AND 
deprecated_GPL-2.0-with-GCC-exception AND deprecated_GPL-3.0 AND 
deprecated_GPL-3.0+ AND deprecated_GPL-3.0-with-autoconf-exception AND 
deprecated_GPL-3.0-with-GCC-exception AND deprecated_LGPL-2.0 AND 
deprecated_LGPL-2.0+ AND deprecated_LGPL-2.1 AND deprecated_LGPL-2.1+ AND 
deprecated_LGPL-3.0 AND deprecated_LGPL-3.0+ AND deprecated_Nunit AND 
deprecated_StandardML-NJ AND deprecated_wxWindows AND D-FSL-1.0 AND diffmark 
AND DigiRule-FOSS-exception AND DL-DE-BY-2.0 AND DOC AND Dotseqn AND DRL-1.0 
AND DSDP AND dvipdfm AND ECL-1.0 AND ECL-2.0 AND eCos-exception-2.0 AND EFL-1.0 
AND EFL-2.0 AND eGenix AND Elastic-2.0 AND Entessa AND EPICS AND EPL-1.0 AND 
EPL-2.0 AND ErlPL-1.1 AND etalab-2.0 AND EUDatagrid AND EUPL-1.0 AND EUPL-1.1 
AND EUPL-1.2 AND Eurosym AND Fair AND 

Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers

[Miro Hrončok]

The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they
are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure
that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life

Note: If you received this mail directly you (co)maintain one of the affected
packages or a package that depends on one. Please adopt the affected package or
retire your depending package to avoid broken dependencies, otherwise your
package will fail to install and/or build when the affected package gets 
retired.

Request package ownership via the *Take* button in he left column on
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/

Full report available at:
https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/orphans-2022-08-02.txt
grep it for your FAS username and follow the dependency chain.

For human readable dependency chains,
see https://packager-dashboard.fedoraproject.org/
For all orphaned packages,
see https://packager-dashboard.fedoraproject.org/orphan

   Package (co)maintainers Status Change

RBTools  orphan3 weeks ago
csound   orphan0 weeks ago
evolution-rssmcrha, orphan 3 weeks ago
ez-pine-gpg  orphan4 weeks ago
fawkes   orphan, rmattes, timn 2 weeks ago
gpartdcantrell, orphan 4 weeks ago
lancer   orphan0 weeks ago
libnss-pgsql orphan3 weeks ago
module-macrosorphan4 weeks ago
python-bigsuds   orphan1 weeks ago
rpkg-utilorphan4 weeks ago
sourcetrail  orphan3 weeks ago
test-interface   orphan0 weeks ago
topedorphan, tnorth2 weeks ago
zuul openstack-sig, orphan, zuul   6 weeks ago

The following packages require above mentioned packages:
Depending on: rpkg-util (1), status change: 2022-07-02 (4 weeks ago)
copr-rpmbuild (maintained by: copr-sig, dturecek, frostyx, praiskup)
copr-builder-0.60-1.fc37.x86_64 requires rpkg = 3.2-3.fc37

Depending on: test-interface (1), status change: 2022-08-01 (0 weeks ago)
scalacheck (maintained by: jjames)
scalacheck-1.16.0-3.fc37.noarch requires 
mvn(org.scala-sbt:test-interface) = 1.0
scalacheck-1.16.0-3.fc37.src requires 
mvn(org.scala-sbt:test-interface) = 1.0

See dependency chains of your packages at
https://packager-dashboard.fedoraproject.org/
See all orphaned packages at https://packager-dashboard.fedoraproject.org/orphan

Affected (co)maintainers (either directly or via packages' dependencies):
copr-sig: rpkg-util
dcantrell: gpart
dturecek: rpkg-util
frostyx: rpkg-util
jjames: test-interface
mcrha: evolution-rss
openstack-sig: zuul
praiskup: rpkg-util
rmattes: fawkes
timn: fawkes
tnorth: toped
zuul: zuul

--
The script creating this output is run and developed by Fedora
Release Engineering. Please report issues at its pagure instance:
https://pagure.io/releng/
The sources of this script can be found at:
https://pagure.io/releng/blob/main/f/scripts/find_unblocked_orphans.py

Report finished at 2022-08-02 09:27:07 UTC
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)

[Florian Weimer]

* Miroslav Suchý:

> 260 characters is output of two packages: glibc.x86_64 and glibc.i686
>
> $ rpm -q glibc.x86_64 --qf "%{license}"|wc -c 
> 130

Ah, good point.  However, both numbers are still larger than 70. 8-)

Thanks,
Florian
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)

[Miroslav Suchý]

Dne 02. 08. 22 v 10:24 Florian Weimer napsal(a):

* Richard Fontana:


Looks like the License: field is limited to 70 characters if I am reading this 
correctly:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/blob/2b5b271b0e013c1b023df7f5775a59cb4078d5f5/docs/manual/spec.md#license

I don't think so:

$ rpm -q glibc --qf "%{license}" | wc -c
260

I think the length limits are for presentation purposes, to avoid
line-wrapping in “rpm -qi” output, but they are outdated because the
first column is now space-padded (the limit would have to be around 65
to avoid the line wraps on an 80-column terminal).


260 characters is output of two packages: glibc.x86_64 and glibc.i686

$ rpm-qglibc.x86_64 --qf"%{license}"|wc-c
130

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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Fedora 37 mass rebuild complete

[Miro Hrončok]

On 02. 08. 22 2:23, Kevin Fenzi wrote:

On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 03:43:39PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:

On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 03:04:50PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:

On 25. 07. 22 17:57, Kevin Fenzi wrote:

21713 builds have been tagged into f37, there is currently 1144 failed
builds that need to be addressed by the package maintainers. FTBFS bugs
will be filed shortly.


Is there any place we can track the progress for this?

We need to link ~70 bugzillas to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2107826


Not really. I guess I'll go see about doing it today.


They should now be filed.


Thank you.

The following packages are listed at 
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/mass-rebuild/f37-failures.html but we see no 
F37FTBFS bugzilla:


fedmsg
lldb
pungi
pybind11
python-fasjson-client
python-nose2
python-pikepdf
python-psutil
python-pycdlib
python-pynwb
restview


This is just ones that failed to build. If someone wants to take a stab
and improving the script so we can also file bugs on the ones that
didn't make a valid src.rpm, that would be great.


Could you please share a link to the existing script?

--
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)

[Florian Weimer]

* Richard Fontana:

> Looks like the License: field is limited to 70 characters if I am reading 
> this correctly:
> https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/blob/2b5b271b0e013c1b023df7f5775a59cb4078d5f5/docs/manual/spec.md#license

I don't think so:

$ rpm -q glibc --qf "%{license}" | wc -c
260

I think the length limits are for presentation purposes, to avoid
line-wrapping in “rpm -qi” output, but they are outdated because the
first column is now space-padded (the limit would have to be around 65
to avoid the line wraps on an 80-column terminal).

Thanks,
Florian
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 2102685] Add perl-Graph to EPEL 9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2102685

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(walt@gouldfamily. |
   |org)|
   |needinfo?(igor.raits@gmail. |
   |com)|



--- Comment #2 from Jitka Plesnikova  ---
For the record, I've filed stalled EPEL request procedure in releng's pagure
instance:
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10942


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2102685
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure