Re: Building two conflicting binaries from the same source

Thank you! -- Bojan 4 Nov 2022 8:48:25 am Florian Weimer : * Bojan Smojver via devel: > Sure, it is easy enough to configure/build repeatedly and stash the > results into non-conflicting paths of buildroot, but how does one then > package this in

Fedora 37 compose report: 20221103.n.1 changes

OLD: Fedora-37-20221102.n.0 NEW: Fedora-37-20221103.n.1 = SUMMARY = Added images:1 Dropped images: 1 Added packages: 0 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 6 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 0 B Size of dropped packages:0 B Size of upgraded

Re: Karma for OpenSSL needed

On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 12:51:28PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Now who will be motivated enough to at least open the Koji ticket as > suggested in the other place of this thread? :D > > Actually, for my purposes, it would be much better if there was something > like `koji download-url --signed

Re: Building two conflicting binaries from the same source

* Bojan Smojver via devel: > Sure, it is easy enough to configure/build repeatedly and stash the > results into non-conflicting paths of buildroot, but how does one then > package this in %files sections into exactly the same paths? See tests/data/SPECS/test-subpackages-pathpostfixes.spec in the

Re: Building two conflicting binaries from the same source

Cool, thank you! I think this is exactly what I was looking for (unsuccessfully). -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:

Re: Building two conflicting binaries from the same source

Hello, Bojan. The only way I know is to utilise the "RemovePathPostfixes" tag for this, e.g: > %package gtk3 > RemovePathPostfixes: .gtk3 > > %package qt > RemovePathPostfixes: .qt > > %files gtk3 > %{_bindir}/%{name}.gtk3 > > %files qt5 > %{_bindir}/%{name}.qt5 Then, you just need to rename

Re: Building two conflicting binaries from the same source

PS. I am aware of the alternatives approach, but looking to see whether there is something that rpm specs have natively for this. -- Bojan 4 Nov 2022 7:31:14 am Bojan Smojver : This may be a trivial question, but my friend Google is not showing me any

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F36 to F37

right, I was running with just "--skip broken" ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:

Building two conflicting binaries from the same source

This may be a trivial question, but my friend Google is not showing me any obvious answers, so I will ask here at my own peril. Say one needs to configure and build the same source with two (or more) different sets of options that generate different binary RPMs, but which have files in exactly

Re: PSA: Rawhide KDE users, do not update

On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 at 20:34, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 6:34 PM Adam Williamson > wrote: > > > Thanks to Aleix Pol, we figured this was due to a missing rebuild of > > layer-shell-qt , which uses private Qt symbols and so needs rebuilding > > for each new Qt version. I did

Re: PSA: Rawhide KDE users, do not update

On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 6:34 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > Thanks to Aleix Pol, we figured this was due to a missing rebuild of > layer-shell-qt , which uses private Qt symbols and so needs rebuilding > for each new Qt version. I did that rebuild and KDE's fine again in > today's Rawhide, so resume

Re: Announcing spdlog soversion bump

On 03/11/2022 08:51, Vitaly Zaitsev wrote: I will try building all these packages in a COPR repository and then use my PP rights to rebuild them in a side tag for Rawhide and F37. Rawhide builds completed. 2 packages failed to build for unrelated reasons: - bear (1 test failed on s390x) -

[rpms/perl-WWW-Splunk] PR #1: Package tests and update license to SPDX format

mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-WWW-Splunk` that you are following. Merged pull-request: `` Package tests and update license to SPDX format `` https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-WWW-Splunk/pull-request/1 ___ perl-devel

[Bug 2137926] perl-Moo needs to provide "perl(Moo::_Utils)"

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2137926 --- Comment #3 from pj --- Thank you for pointing out the private module part. I'm not a perl programmer, just a sysadmin trying to rpmbuild all of the perl modules the dev's need. It does look like the Fedora 36 src.rpm of perl-MooX-TypeTiny

Re: PSA: Rawhide KDE users, do not update

On Wed, 2022-11-02 at 09:51 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > Hey, folks. Just a heads up: today's Rawhide has a new Qt which seems > to make SDDM crash on startup, so the system boots to a black screen > and you can't log in. So, updating may not be a great idea! > > I've filed this as

[Bug 2137926] perl-Moo needs to provide "perl(Moo::_Utils)"

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2137926 --- Comment #2 from pj --- Sorry, I had missed the question originally. This seemed to have happened as part of a set of cpanspec perl package builds. Somehow perl-MooX-TypeTiny is requiring the "Moo::_Utils". It was part of a mass build for

[rpms/perl-WWW-Splunk] PR #1: Package tests and update license to SPDX format

mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-WWW-Splunk` that you are following: `` Package tests and update license to SPDX format `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-WWW-Splunk/pull-request/1 ___

[Bug 2139888] New: perl-DBD-SQLite-1.72 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2139888 Bug ID: 2139888 Summary: perl-DBD-SQLite-1.72 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-DBD-SQLite Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

Re: Deprecating intents in Modularity

On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 04:45:41PM +0100, Petr Pisar wrote: > Hello module maintainers, > > do you know intents > ? > I believe you don't. Do you use intents? I

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

> On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 at 12:24, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: ... > ssmoogen@ssmoogen-rh:~/GPG/rpm-specs$ egrep '^%{_mandir}/\*' *spec | wc -l > 417 I think that for `%{_mandir}` each subdir should be accounted separately: ``` for i in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7; do echo "%{_mandir}/man$i/* $(egrep

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 4:07 PM Stephen Smoogen wrote: > At the moment the biggest set of packages that need cleanup will be perl, > golang and then about a couple hundred library rpms. I would think that the man api definitions may be the most interesting for some libraries (many files,

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 at 12:24, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 3:57 PM Adam Williamson > wrote: > > > there, I did it for free. Took one minute. > > Clearly it should be submitted as a PR to the kernel package. > > And another for the glibc package (that > one likely will take

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

On Thu, 2022-11-03 at 17:07 +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > On 03/11/2022 17:01, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > > As I recall(*), there are spec files that just > > find the various installed files (categorized > > as needed), and then use the -f option > > on the %files section. > > IMO, such

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 04:01:58PM +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 12:12 PM Stephen Smoogen wrote: > > > Or they will just do what I used to do long ago and just do a temp spec > > file with some sort of `%files *` and then rpm -ql and then `rpm -ql | sed` > > and

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

On 03/11/2022 17:01, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: As I recall(*), there are spec files that just find the various installed files (categorized as needed), and then use the -f option on the %files section. IMO, such behavior should be strictly prohibited. -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 at 11:26, Maxwell G via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Thu Nov 3, 2022 at 06:50 +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > When will this silliness ever stop? It just does not make sense to > > explicitly list every single file in the RPM. Wildcards are often

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 3:57 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > there, I did it for free. Took one minute. Clearly it should be submitted as a PR to the kernel package. And another for the glibc package (that one likely will take more than a minute). ___

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 12:12 PM Stephen Smoogen wrote: > Or they will just do what I used to do long ago and just do a temp spec file > with some sort of `%files *` and then rpm -ql and then `rpm -ql | sed` and > replace the data in the pushed spec with the list. Nothing is caught because >

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

On Thu, 2022-11-03 at 15:31 +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 12:10 PM Ian McInerney via devel > wrote: > > > But the packaging guidelines already mentioned not globbing the soname part > > of the files, so this change makes no difference to that use case. > > Extending

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

On Thu, 2022-11-03 at 12:08 +, Ian McInerney via devel wrote: > On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 12:02 PM Michael J Gruber > wrote: > > > While it is annoying to spell out each file it does catch package changes > > which might go unnoticed otherwise. In particular, we've had a few > > unannounced

Re: [Fedocal] Reminder meeting : ELN SIG

On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 8:09 AM wrote: > > Dear all, > > You are kindly invited to the meeting: >ELN SIG on 2022-11-04 from 12:00:00 to 13:00:00 US/Eastern >At fedora-meet...@irc.libera.chat > > The meeting will be about: Current status of aarch64 and ppc64le with debug kernels. ELN

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 12:10 PM Ian McInerney via devel wrote: > But the packaging guidelines already mentioned not globbing the soname part > of the files, so this change makes no difference to that use case. Extending > the no-globbing rule to other directories like datadir seems very

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

On Thu Nov 3, 2022 at 06:50 +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > When will this silliness ever stop? It just does not make sense to > explicitly list every single file in the RPM. Wildcards are often the only > reasonable way. Nobody is saying that you have to list every single file in the

[Bug 2139824] perl-Sys-Virt-8.9.0 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2139824 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value

[Bug 2139824] New: perl-Sys-Virt-8.9.0 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2139824 Bug ID: 2139824 Summary: perl-Sys-Virt-8.9.0 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-Sys-Virt Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

[rpms/perl-XML-Fast] PR #1: Package tests and update license to SPDX format

mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-XML-Fast` that you are following. Merged pull-request: `` Package tests and update license to SPDX format `` https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-XML-Fast/pull-request/1 ___ perl-devel

[rpms/perl-XML-Fast] PR #1: Package tests and update license to SPDX format

mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-XML-Fast` that you are following: `` Package tests and update license to SPDX format `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-XML-Fast/pull-request/1 ___

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20221103.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20221102.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20221103.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:1 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 3 Dropped packages:5 Upgraded packages: 74 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 17.86 MiB Size of dropped packages

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 at 08:02, Michael J Gruber wrote: > While it is annoying to spell out each file it does catch package changes > which might go unnoticed otherwise. In particular, we've had a few > unannounced soname changes and such lately. [Disclaimer: I have not checked > whether the

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 12:02 PM Michael J Gruber wrote: > While it is annoying to spell out each file it does catch package changes > which might go unnoticed otherwise. In particular, we've had a few > unannounced soname changes and such lately. [Disclaimer: I have not checked > whether the

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

While it is annoying to spell out each file it does catch package changes which might go unnoticed otherwise. In particular, we've had a few unannounced soname changes and such lately. [Disclaimer: I have not checked whether the maintainer ignored the build failure for an explicit soname or got

Re: How to fix RPM ARCH not defined?

Just FTR, the ticket is a bit inconsistent. It is reported against EPEL7, while it seems the issues are with `/usr/lib64/grass82` which is not available in EPEL7 as far as I can tell. Vít Dne 02. 11. 22 v 21:43 Markus Neteler napsal(a): Hi, I am one of the maintainers of the GRASS GIS

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : ELN SIG

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: ELN SIG on 2022-11-04 from 12:00:00 to 13:00:00 US/Eastern At fedora-meet...@irc.libera.chat The meeting will be about: Source: https://calendar.fedoraproject.org//meeting/10133/ ___ devel

Re: Karma for OpenSSL needed

Dne 02. 11. 22 v 20:28 Josh Stone napsal(a): On 11/1/22 3:51 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 02:55:34PM -0700, Josh Stone wrote: On 11/1/22 11:16 AM, Neal Gompa wrote: That said, the packages *are* signed in Koji, because as soon as it's submitted to Bodhi, the packages are

[rpms/perl-XML-Spice] PR #1: Package tests and update license format to SPDX

mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-XML-Spice` that you are following. Merged pull-request: `` Package tests and update license format to SPDX `` https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-XML-Spice/pull-request/1 ___ perl-devel

[rpms/perl-XML-Spice] PR #1: Package tests and update license format to SPDX

mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-XML-Spice` that you are following: `` Package tests and update license format to SPDX `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-XML-Spice/pull-request/1 ___

Re: Silent changes in Packaging Guidelines

On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 at 05:04, Petr Pisar wrote: > It used to be a good practice to announce changes in Packaging Guidelines > here on this > list. The forkflow was that Fedora Packaging Committee accepted a change on > it's meeting and

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F36 to F37

Error: Problem 1: package webkit2gtk3-2.38.1-1.fc36.x86_64 requires libicui18n.so.69()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed - package webkit2gtk3-2.38.1-1.fc36.x86_64 requires libicuuc.so.69()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed - libicu-69.1-6.fc36.x86_64 does

[Bug 2139510] perl-URI-5.17 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2139510 --- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-c98b928028 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-c98b928028 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F36 to F37

Problem 1: package gala-libs-6.3.1-3.fc36.x86_64 requires libmutter-10.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed - package gala-libs-6.3.1-3.fc36.x86_64 requires libmutter-clutter-10.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed - mutter-42.5-3.fc36.x86_64 does

[Bug 2139510] perl-URI-5.17 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2139510 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||perl-URI-5.17-1.fc38

[Bug 2139510] perl-URI-5.17 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2139510 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value

Re: Advice on packaging Python with Rust dependency

I'm not really sure why upstream did this. I'll take a look and submit a patch to upstream. Thanks for pointing it out. On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 9:31 PM Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 12:42 PM Ondrej Pohorelsky > wrote: > > > > The missing dependency is pkg-version[0]. It seems

Announcing spdlog soversion bump

Hello all. spdlog 1.11.0 will include a soversion change[1] from .1 to .1.11. Affected packages (including spdlog-devel and virtual cmake(spdlog) and pkgconfig(spdlog)): - bear - coeurl - cryfs - freeopcua - gerbera - gnuradio - gqrx - gr-air-modes - gr-funcube - gr-hpsdr - gr-iqbal -