Il 15/11/22 00:23, Neal Gompa ha scritto:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 6:03 PM Kevin Kofler via devel
> wrote:
>> So let me sum up:
>>
>>> Some Python building backends, eg. setuptools, explicitly allow
>>> creating package with version `0.0.0` when the version used by a
>>> project is not known.
On 11/11/22 14:10, Jitka Plesnikova wrote:
Something like this should work:
File: /usr/lib/rpm/fileattrs/perllib.attr
%__perllib_requires() %{lua:
if macros['1']:match('.+%.so$') and macros.perl_version then
print('perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_' .. macros.perl_version .. ')')
else
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142699
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Doc Type|---
Hi,
Sylvain Jones via epel-devel wrote:
> It appears the update to pypolicyd-spf-2.9.3 from pypolicyd-spf-2.0.x
> crashes Postfix unexpectedly. Perhaps a missing dependency?
It looks like pypolicyd-spf-2.9.3-2 should be in
epel-testing now. That update will install python3-authres,
so you may
EPEL Maintainers,
It appears the update to pypolicyd-spf-2.9.3 from pypolicyd-spf-2.0.x
crashes Postfix unexpectedly. Perhaps a missing dependency? Seems to be
ahead from what I assume the upstream is, pip. Is this an error?
Installing authres via pip was able to fix things without installing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2124136
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #9 from
Hello,
does somebody know how to contact Steven Roberts? Yes, two requests are for
EPEL 9, but I would be even happy to maintain the EPEL branch(es) myself in
case of a negative response.
- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1974006
-
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142699
Bug ID: 2142699
Summary: Please build perl-Lchown for EPEL 9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 6:03 PM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> So let me sum up:
>
> > Some Python building backends, eg. setuptools, explicitly allow
> > creating package with version `0.0.0` when the version used by a
> > project is not known. This was
> >
> We currently don't use the initial-setup application in the main KDE
> Spin and Kinoite installation ISOs as everything gets configured at
> installation time via Anaconda. We thus want to remove this package
> from the installation ISOs while keeping it where we currently need it
>
On 11/14/22 13:32, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> Timothée Ravier writes:
>
>>> As we've talked about before, it's not possible to make updates
>>> transactional. It involves, per spec and depending on processor
>>> architecture, updating multiple files in different directories,
>>> potentially on
So let me sum up:
> Some Python building backends, eg. setuptools, explicitly allow
> creating package with version `0.0.0` when the version used by a
> project is not known. This was
> [https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/issues/2329 discussed upstream]
> with conclusion that it's an intended
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> For a few years I was keeping track of updates that caused big problems:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Lessons
That is also very anecdotal evidence though. And with only one exception
(the broken dependency in celt), the updates in the above list above are
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 3:29 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Until now, what Fedora described as an "MIT" license was, in fact, a whole
> family of licenses. SPDX identify them differently. And the differences can
> be subtle. E.g., compare
>
> https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html
>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/KDERemoveInitialSetup
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved
by the Fedora Engineering Steering
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/KDERemoveInitialSetup
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved
by the Fedora Engineering Steering
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2124136
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #8 from
Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> There are two common ways to find out what SPDX identifier you should use
> in such cases.
>
>
> 1) You can use https://github.com/spdx/spdx-license-diff and use it to
> identify your license. This is a Chrome and Firefox plugin and allows you
> to select the text; and in
MIT and BSD are very common licenses and can be tricky to convert to SPDX license identifiers. Just today, I got two
questions about it. We have this covered in FAQ
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2124136
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142661
--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
the-new-hotness/release-monitoring.org's scratch build of
perl-File-Edit-Portable-1.26-1.fc36.src.rpm for rawhide completed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94178827
--
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142661
Bug ID: 2142661
Summary: perl-File-Edit-Portable-1.26 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-File-Edit-Portable
Keywords:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142661
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
Created attachment 1924315
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1924315=edit
Update to 1.26 (#2142661)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for
> Bootloaders are not single files. Consider UEFI:
>
> For grub2, there's both a .efi and some configuration that I'll handwave
> for purposes of this conversation. For shim, it's more like 4 things -
> the main shim*64.efi, fallback.efi, boot.efi, and boot.csv. These all
> serve different
Hi everyone,
The moby-engine package [1] (also known as Docker) has been orphaned in Fedora
and is looking for a new maintainer. The waiting period will soon be over and
the package will be retired if nobody steps in.
This means that the package will be unavailable starting with the next
Timothée Ravier writes:
>> As we've talked about before, it's not possible to make updates
>> transactional. It involves, per spec and depending on processor
>> architecture, updating multiple files in different directories,
>> potentially on different filesystems entirely, one of which is
Hi,
I have good news for everyone interested in optimization software: SCIP
(https://www.scipopt.org/) has changed its license from the previously used
semi-free academic non-commercial license to the Apache 2.0 License, i.e., a
Free Software license and an OSI Approved Open Source license.
On 14.11.22 17:22, Sandro Mani wrote:
On 14.11.22 00:13, Sandro Mani wrote:
This is done now and the side tag merged. Two packages failed to build:
> python-rasterio
which fails to build due to test failures, I'll investigate whether
they are gdal related
Reported at
If I understood things correctly, that's not how this would work. We would not
touch the boot order at all.
See https://github.com/rhboot/shim/pull/502 &
https://mivehind.net/2022/08/17/shim-ab-booting-poc/.
___
devel mailing list --
On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 08:29:17PM -, Sergey Mende wrote:
> Hi,
> during development of my own project I hit the bug in `gdb` that is already
> fixed upstream but not backported to rawhide yet.
> I did a backport and ready to submit a PR. What is the right way to proceed:
>
> a) just file a
For a few years I was keeping track of updates that caused big problems:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Lessons
The orig "very bad" update was a dbus update that broke everything.
In any case I have seen our current updates system working and blocking
tons of harmfull updates over the
']' returned non-zero exit status 1.
StdOut:
error: Bad source: ./Mozilla-CA-20221114.tar.gz: No such file or directory
Traceback:
File
"/usr/local/lib/python3.10/site-packages/hotness/use_cases/package_scratch_build_use_case.py",
line 56, in build
result = self.builder.build(reque
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142631
Bug ID: 2142631
Summary: perl-Mozilla-CA-20221114 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Mozilla-CA
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2124136
--- Comment #6 from Bojan Smojver ---
Ah, I see you meant that reply for Paul. Let's wait for him to create a branch
request then.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2124136
--- Comment #5 from Bojan Smojver ---
Thank you! New branch request is
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/49119. Let's see what
happens this time. :-)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the
On 14.11.22 00:13, Sandro Mani wrote:
This is done now and the side tag merged. Two packages failed to build:
> python-rasterio
which fails to build due to test failures, I'll investigate whether
they are gdal related
Reported at https://github.com/rasterio/rasterio/issues/2653
On Sat, Nov 12 2022 at 01:50:28 PM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
Thanks for the information. Switched to webkit2gtk4.1:
https://github.com/rpmfusion/telegram-desktop/commit/f7faaf463172ee60e04598bd681957ae98be082f
OK, thanks, that should be good.
For now, this API change will only
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 07:17:00PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 11. 11. 22 17:24, Sandro wrote:
> > I'm not quite sure why pulling in an additional supplemental dependency
> > would be considered a breaking change. Is it because rpmlint behaves
> > differently with the new license definitions?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Prevent-Providing-python3dist(pkg)%3D0
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved
by the Fedora
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Prevent-Providing-python3dist(pkg)%3D0
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved
by the Fedora
Hi everyone,
Here's an easy one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2140316
Happy to review something in exchange.
Best,
--
Iñaki Úcar
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2124136
--- Comment #4 from Tom "spot" Callaway ---
You're added as an admin. Sorry for the delay in response.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2124136
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130616
--- Comment #6 from Petr Pisar ---
The damage of an environment variable is caused by perl-Inline (bug #2130625,
comment #4).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130625
--- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar ---
perl-Inline-0.86-10.el9 damages multi-line environment variables.
A reproducer with perl-Inline-C:
$ rm -rf _Inline; perl -Ilib -e 'use Inline Config => UNTAINT => 1; use Inline
C => q{void foo(void) {
mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Data-Flow` that you
are following.
Merged pull-request:
``
Package tests and update license format to SPDX
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Data-Flow/pull-request/1
___
perl-devel
On 14. 11. 22 14:58, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 07:17:00PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 11. 11. 22 17:24, Sandro wrote:
I'm not quite sure why pulling in an additional supplemental
dependency would be considered a breaking change. Is it because
rpmlint behaves
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Data-Flow` that
you are following:
``
Package tests and update license format to SPDX
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Data-Flow/pull-request/1
___
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 07:17:00PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 11. 11. 22 17:24, Sandro wrote:
> >I'm not quite sure why pulling in an additional supplemental
> >dependency would be considered a breaking change. Is it because
> >rpmlint behaves differently with the new license definitions?
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142557
Jan Pazdziora changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Doc Type|---
mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-WWW-RobotRules` that
you are following.
Merged pull-request:
``
Package tests and update license to SPDX format
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-WWW-RobotRules/pull-request/1
___
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-WWW-RobotRules`
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-RobotRules/pull-request/1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130616
--- Comment #5 from Petr Pisar ---
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/49115
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130616
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130616
--- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar ---
Fedora already removed the fragile function from which package. I will hunt it
later. I believe it does not prevent us from adding perl-Inline-C to EPEL9.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20221113.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20221114.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:3
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 70
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130616
--- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar ---
It happens when executing system($cmd) in Inline::C::system_call(). $cmd does
perl Makefile.PL, then make, and make install in the temporary XS module
compiled into _Inline directory. system() executes "sh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142557
Bug ID: 2142557
Summary: wrong chmod on spfquery
Product: Fedora
Version: 36
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Mail-SPF
Severity: high
Assignee:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 12:05:03PM +0100, Alexander Sosedkin wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 11:53 AM Petr Pisar wrote:
> > > As a result, more RPM packages will be reproducible:
> >
> > Where will this reproducibility stop?
>
> Ideally, when it's achieved,
> and 100% of Fedora will be
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130616
--- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar ---
There is some kind of bug in which-2.21-28.el9, /etc/profile.d/which2.sh.
t/08taint.t reports:
sh: which: line 1: syntax error: unexpected end of file
sh: error importing function definition for `which'
Will attend today :)
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 10:09 AM Tim Flink wrote:
>
> # Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting
> # Date: 2022-10-24
> # Time: 16:00 UTC
> (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto)
> # Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.libera.chat
>
> Greetings testers!
>
> F37 went
Hi,
please may you include my PRs before you start the rebuild?
>
I'll take a look at them. Thanks
Are you also updating to 3.0.6? The latest version of OpenColorIO requires
> that version at a minimum.
I'm updating to the latest version of minizip-ng which is 3.0.7
On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 02:05:11PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 11. 11. 22 11:53, Petr Pisar wrote:
> > V Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 03:23:49PM -0500, Ben Cotton napsal(a):
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ReproducibleBuildsClampMtimes
> > >
> > > == Summary ==
> > >
> > > The
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142502
Bug ID: 2142502
Summary: Upgrade perl-Image-ExifTool to 12.50
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
URL: https://metacpan.org/release/Image-ExifTool
Status: NEW
# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting
# Date: 2022-10-24
# Time: 16:00 UTC
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto)
# Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.libera.chat
Greetings testers!
F37 went GO last week and is due to be released immanently. Let's review any
remaining last-minute
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130625
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version||perl-Inline-0.86-10.el9
64 matches
Mail list logo
