On 10/4/22 08:16, Germano Massullo wrote:
There hasn't been a qt update in CentOS Stream 8 or 9 since May 2022,
so you'll have to give more information.
I double checked and I found out the origin of my misunderstanding. I
wrote everything in this comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2099988
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #8 from
On 03. 10. 22 12:09, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 29. 09. 22 v 12:28 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
On 08. 09. 22 12:44, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
* We have MR [2] which creates the data for rpmlint. Again, this is not
merged and not yet in Fedora.
The rpmlint-fedora-license-data package is now available in
On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 2:13:25 AM CDT Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Do you by a chance have repository, e.g. in Copr, of all the things you
> eventually want import into Fedora? Or bugzilla tracker for kitchen-salt
> / test-kitchen which all the reviews would be blocked against? I am
> asking,
On 03. 10. 22 22:50, Sandro wrote:
I'm still using setuptools_scm[toml] as a build requirement:
https://github.com/penguinpee/PyMunin3/commit/8f22eec3409711d4b7a5a5a0787859c4fd9e5120
Good.
In you second link it looks like they removed it. But I think it's the other
way around...
They
There hasn't been a qt update in CentOS Stream 8 or 9 since May 2022,
so you'll have to give more information.
I double checked and I found out the origin of my misunderstanding. I
wrote everything in this comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2129662#c8
On 03-10-2022 13:29, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 03. 10. 22 12:55, Sandro wrote:
Regarding availability for el9, I didn't know (where to look). I looked on
src.fp.o:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-setuptools_scm
There's an ancient version for el7, but nothing for el8 or el9.
That
On 03-10-2022 19:41, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 03. 10. 22 13:30, Sandro wrote:
I was following the instructions in the project's README:
https://github.com/pypa/setuptools_scm#pyprojecttoml-usage
It's all lies and snake oil.
Upstream lists the requirement of the recent enough version in their
There hasn't been a qt update in CentOS Stream 8 or 9 since May 2022, so
you'll have to give more information.
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
any update on this matter? A few days ago I got another bugreport
concerning CentOS Stream Qt update breaking an application
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2099988
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #7 from
Hello Pythonistas.
We have released a new version of pyproject-rpm-macros 1.4.0.
The version is available in Rawhide and ELN, and updates are ready for all
older Fedora releases.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=pyproject-rpm-macros
CentOS 9 Stream update is planned as
On 03. 10. 22 13:30, Sandro wrote:
I was following the instructions in the project's README:
https://github.com/pypa/setuptools_scm#pyprojecttoml-usage
It's all lies and snake oil.
Upstream lists the requirement of the recent enough version in their
documentation, because the users are
On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 5:08 PM Timothy Redaelli wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm looking for reviews or review swap for pf-bb-config:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2101769
>
> The spec file is straightforward, so it should be
> trivial to review it.
>
> I'd be happy to review packages in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2131782
Yanko Kaneti changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2099988
Emmanuel Seyman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|maria...@tuxette.fr |emman...@seyman.fr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2131782
Bug ID: 2131782
Summary: perl.req does not grok Moose specific 'with'
requirements
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-generators
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2099988
--- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts ---
I've added eseyman as an admin on the package; please feel free to request your
branch whenever you like. I think the system allows for only one default
bugzilla assignee for all of EPEL, so I'm not
Hi,
I'm looking for reviews or review swap for pf-bb-config:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2101769
The spec file is straightforward, so it should be
trivial to review it.
I'd be happy to review packages in exchange.
Thank you,
Timothy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2131722
Bug ID: 2131722
Summary: Upgrade perl-Type-Tiny to 2.01
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
URL: https://metacpan.org/release/Type-Tiny
Status: NEW
Component:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1937653
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|35 |rawhide
Summary|Upgrade
OLD: Fedora-37-20221002.n.0
NEW: Fedora-37-20221003.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:2
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 5
Dropped packages:10
Upgraded packages: 74
Downgraded packages: 1
Size of added packages: 4.39 MiB
Size of dropped packages:5.44 MiB
Size
On 03-10-2022 12:55, Sandro wrote:
On 03-10-2022 12:14, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 02. 10. 22 12:10, Sandro wrote:
[setuptools_scm] is currently not available for el9...
But it is. It' part of the RHEL 9 CRB repository. However, also version 6.0.1.
Why do you require >= 6.2 exactly?
I was
On 03. 10. 22 12:55, Sandro wrote:
Regarding availability for el9, I didn't know (where to look). I looked on
src.fp.o:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-setuptools_scm
There's an ancient version for el7, but nothing for el8 or el9.
That will only help with EPEL packages. To see
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20221002.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20221003.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:10
Upgraded packages: 31
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:5.44 MiB
On 03-10-2022 12:14, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 02. 10. 22 12:10, Sandro wrote:
[setuptools_scm] is currently not available for el9...
But it is. It' part of the RHEL 9 CRB repository. However, also version 6.0.1.
Why do you require >= 6.2 exactly?
I was following the instructions in the
On 02. 10. 22 12:10, Sandro wrote:
[setuptools_scm] is currently not available for el9...
But it is. It' part of the RHEL 9 CRB repository. However, also version 6.0.1.
Why do you require >= 6.2 exactly?
Yet, thinking about the whole thing, all setuptools_scm does is calculate the
version
Dne 29. 09. 22 v 12:28 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
On 08. 09. 22 12:44, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
* We have MR [2] which creates the data for rpmlint. Again, this is
not merged and not yet in Fedora.
The rpmlint-fedora-license-data package is now available in Fedora. It
Supplements rpmlint.
Hi Sandro.
You are right that without information from git repository (git tags),
we cannot really use the full potential of setuptools_scm during the RPM
build process. AFAIK the most popular way how to bypass the
setuptools_scm mechanism is to use SETUPTOOLS_SCM_PRETEND_VERSION env
2. lokakuuta 2022 22.30.02 GMT+03:00 Till Hofmann
kirjoitti:
>I'm looking for reviews or review swaps for 3 nagios plugins:
>
>python-nagios-plugins-check_systemd
>https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2082886
>
>nagios-plugins-check_ssl_cert
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2131297
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2131364
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
32 matches
Mail list logo
