Hello team,
As noticed, dlib failed to build with pybind11, which needs a rebuild
for Python 3.11[1]. Upstream [1] chose to wait for the official release,
but is willing to get a fix to handle this particular issue.
Upstream repository is on https://github.com/davisking/dlib and the
Fedora
On Sun, Sep 4, 2022 at 1:06 AM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Perhaps it would be better (although more noisy) to just mail all
> provenpackagers every cycle and ask if anyone would like to leave the
> group?
One should ask a PP (I am not so honored), but getting
an email every cycle (and requiring an
On Sat, Sep 03, 2022 at 05:40:28PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> Gadzooks, foiled by the old loophole bypass loophole defense again?!
No one expects the... :)
> No, seriously, I'm kinda assuming 'positive intent' here. It's not
> meant to catch someone trying to 'avoid' the check. More
On Sun, 2022-09-04 at 00:05 +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
>
> > But yeah, looking at that, one 'loophole' is it doesn't check if
> > they're actually needing *proven* packager powers - just packager
> > powers. If a proven packager is only building packages they have
> > explicit commit rights
On Sat, Sep 3, 2022 at 10:01 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> Look, I'm getting old, okay? ;)
I am highly confident that everyone is getting
older (with the possible exception being if
your name is Benjamin Button).
> But yeah, looking at that, one 'loophole' is it doesn't check if
> they're
Greetings.
Seems the latest rawhide build of libbpf bumps soname, breaking a number
of dependent packages. ;(
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=2057060
According to the rawhide updates policy:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/#_rawhide
"When a
On 04-09-2022 00:01, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2022-09-03 at 13:04 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Sat, Sep 03, 2022 at 12:24:11PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
So, I have a probably-controversial idea for a follow-up on this.
Even after this sweep, we have 141 proven packagers. That's a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123426
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #5 from
On Sat, 2022-09-03 at 13:04 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 03, 2022 at 12:24:11PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > So, I have a probably-controversial idea for a follow-up on this.
> >
> > Even after this sweep, we have 141 proven packagers. That's a lot of
> > people who can build
On Sat, Sep 03, 2022 at 02:01:59PM +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
> Il 26/08/22 07:17, David Tardon ha scritto:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, 2022-08-25 at 11:04 +0300, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
> >> On to, 25 elo 2022, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >>> We use the python-maint pseudo-account to be the
On Sat, Sep 03, 2022 at 08:51:13AM +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote:
> Given the lack of response, I tried to push the update anyway given the low
> risk of breakage due to it being header-only. Unfortunately, it turns out
> that my side-tag is gone. Documentation states:
>
> Side tags are cleaned up
On Sat, Sep 03, 2022 at 12:24:11PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> So, I have a probably-controversial idea for a follow-up on this.
>
> Even after this sweep, we have 141 proven packagers. That's a lot of
> people who can build almost anything in Fedora.
>
> It should be possible to check
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2124002
Bug ID: 2124002
Summary: perl-YAML-LibYAML-0.84 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-YAML-LibYAML
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
On Thu, 2022-08-18 at 17:28 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> Hello everyone!
>
> I just completed the first run of FESCo's newly approved Inactive
> Packager Policy[1]. Packagers that have been identified as inactive
> have a ticket in the find-inactive-packagers repo[2]. One week after
> the F37 final
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2124001
Bug ID: 2124001
Summary: perl-Proc-Fork-0.808 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Proc-Fork
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
On Saturday, September 3, 2022 1:39:41 PM CDT Richard Shaw wrote:
> Have you tried building the package yourself yet? When asking for someone
> to support an EPEL branch it's not always straightforward. I tried building
> the rawhide branch for EPEL 9 and ran into the following:
>
> No matching
Hello all,
I recently stumbled onto this bugzilla issue[1]. It has gone a couple of
months without a response from the assignee. I know that the stalled package
request procedures can be started now, but I also see that RabbitMQ was built
by the Messaging SIG in the past. So... Where should
Sep 3, 2022 4:18:19 AM Miro Hrončok :
We'd like to move https://gitlab.com/fberat/mass-prebuild/ into the
Fedora namespace, ideally under something like:
https://gitlab.com/fedora/packager-tools/
What do we need to do?
Hi Miro,
You have to file an infra ticket. See [1].
It would be nice
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123969
Bug ID: 2123969
Summary: perl-Sereal-Decoder-5.001 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Sereal-Decoder
Keywords: FutureFeature,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123968
Bug ID: 2123968
Summary: perl-Sereal-Encoder-5.001 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Sereal-Encoder
Keywords: FutureFeature,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123967
Bug ID: 2123967
Summary: perl-Sereal-5.001 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Sereal
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
On 03.09.22 17:10, Richard Shaw wrote:
I'm trying to migrate fltk right now and running into an issue:
Processing files: fltk-debugsource-1.3.8-4.fc38.x86_64
RPM build warnings:
RPM build errors:
error: Could not open %files file
/builddir/build/BUILD/fltk-1.3.8/debugsourcefiles.list: No
Il 26/08/22 07:17, David Tardon ha scritto:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2022-08-25 at 11:04 +0300, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
>> On to, 25 elo 2022, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>>> We use the python-maint pseudo-account to be the default Bugzilla
>>> assignee for Pythons, e.g.
>>>
OLD: Fedora-37-20220902.n.0
NEW: Fedora-37-20220903.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 13
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size
Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event
for Fedora 37 Branched 20220903.n.0. Please help run some tests for this
nightly compose if you have time. For more information on nightly
release validation testing, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki
Am 03.09.22 um 08:58 schrieb Mattia Verga via devel:
clearly happened here (pushed to stable just after 5 hours). I think
critpath updates should spend more time in testing, maybe we should
increase the critpath min karma to, at least, +5.
Judging from past critpath updates for several apps,
Am 02.09.22 um 19:49 schrieb Mattia Verga via devel:
Here we go again: thunderbird 102 update was submitted to F36.
This new version was known to bring incompatible changes to several
addons, yet it has been submitted to a stable Fedora release with
autopush enable and just a karma threshold of
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20220902.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20220903.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:2
Dropped images: 2
Added packages: 5
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 72
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 3.15 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Kevin,
On Mon, 2022-08-29 at 13:07 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 07:38:31PM +1000, Frank Crawford wrote:
...
> >
> > I think you answered my issue here, I did not allow sufficient time
> > for
> > the repo to refresh before submitting the second build.
> >
> > For
I've filed a ticket [1] to fedora-infrastructure and @kevin is going to
remove commit rights from users which are no longer packagers.
There are a few packages which are going to be orphaned after the main
admin is removed. Here it is the list:
- bumpversion
- dia-CMOS
- dia-Digital
-
Hello folks.
We'd like to move https://gitlab.com/fberat/mass-prebuild/ into the Fedora
namespace, ideally under something like:
https://gitlab.com/fedora/packager-tools/
What do we need to do?
Thanks,
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
On 9/3/22 04:42, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
> W dniu 3.09.2022 o 02:56, l...@fedoraproject.org pisze:
>>> Here we go again: thunderbird 102 update was submitted to F36.
>>>
>>> This new version was known to bring incompatible changes to several
>>> addons, yet it has been submitted to a stable
W dniu 3.09.2022 o 02:56, l...@fedoraproject.org pisze:
Here we go again: thunderbird 102 update was submitted to F36.
This new version was known to bring incompatible changes to several
addons, yet it has been submitted to a stable Fedora release with
autopush enable and just a karma threshold
On 9/3/22 02:58, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
> Il 03/09/22 06:36, Demi Marie Obenour ha scritto:
>> On 9/2/22 13:49, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
>>> Here we go again: thunderbird 102 update was submitted to F36.
>>>
>>> This new version was known to bring incompatible changes to several
>>>
Il 03/09/22 06:36, Demi Marie Obenour ha scritto:
> On 9/2/22 13:49, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
>> Here we go again: thunderbird 102 update was submitted to F36.
>>
>> This new version was known to bring incompatible changes to several
>> addons, yet it has been submitted to a stable Fedora
Am 20.08.22 um 18:00 schrieb Julian Sikorski:
Am 14.08.22 um 13:08 schrieb Mamoru TASAKA:
Julian Sikorski wrote on 2022/08/14 19:06:
Am 14.08.22 um 11:24 schrieb Julian Sikorski:
Dear maintainers,
I have updated Fedora asio package from the current 1.16.1 to
1.24.0. I have rebuilt the seven
36 matches
Mail list logo
