Re: F38 proposal: Noto CJK Variable Fonts (Self-Contained Change proposal)

[Akira TAGOH]

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 12:37 AM  wrote:
> At least for Evince it is using fonts from host since it refer to paths
> like /run/host/whatever
>
> And also during the swap, there was a stage where no google noto CJK
> fonts are installed (removed one and have not installed the other) and
> in that case Evince is giving tofu for the document even no CJK
> character is present there. But Telegram is giving tofo only for CJK
> characters and normal result for non-CJK words. (Also, when with VF
> fonts, Telegram is also giving proper-weight fonts for non-CJK
> characters.

Alright. Can you please file a bug for that against google-noto-cjk-fonts?

Thanks,

>
> >
> > >
> > > 在 2023-03-14星期二的 23:14 +0900，Akira TAGOH写道：
> > > > > Thank you for the feedback.
> > > > >
> > > > > What if you install google-noto-sans-cjk-fonts instead of
> > > > > google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts?
> > > > > just wanted to make sure if this is a variable font-related
> > > > > issue
> > > > > or
> > > > > design-related update in Noto CJK.
> > > > > Also, good to try on non-flatpak app too. it is a bit
> > > > > complicated
> > > > > to
> > > > > make sure if they use the expected fonts.
> > > > > The best way may be to check it out on pango-view and hb-view.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:58 PM 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Seems that some changes mentioned below just hit
> > > > > > > fedora:fedora/38/x86_64/testing/silverblue today in version
> > > > > > > 38.20230314.0. And ostree diff is below (changes between
> > > > > > > 38.20230313.0
> > > > > > > and 38.20230314.0, filtered to show only fontconfig files
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > CJK):
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > D/usr/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-0-google-noto-sans-cjk-
> > > > > > > ttc.conf
> > > > > > > D/usr/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-google-noto-cjk-fonts.conf
> > > > > > > D/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/65-0-google-noto-
> > > > > > > sans-
> > > > > > > cjk-
> > > > > > > ttc.conf
> > > > > > > D/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/65-google-noto-cjk-
> > > > > > > fonts.conf
> > > > > > > A/usr/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-0-google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-
> > > > > > > fonts.conf
> > > > > > > A
> > > > > > > /usr/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-google-noto-sans-cjk-mono-vf-
> > > > > > > fonts.conf
> > > > > > > A/usr/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-
> > > > > > > fonts.conf
> > > > > > > A/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/65-0-google-noto-
> > > > > > > sans-
> > > > > > > cjk-vf-
> > > > > > > fonts.conf
> > > > > > > A
> > > > > > > /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/65-google-noto-sans-cjk-
> > > > > > > mono-
> > > > > > > vf-
> > > > > > > fonts.conf
> > > > > > > A/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/65-google-noto-sans-
> > > > > > > cjk-
> > > > > > > vf-
> > > > > > > fonts.conf
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But I am noticing some font being very thin, including
> > > > > > > English
> > > > > > > fonts in
> > > > > > > Evince when not using embed fonts and all non-UI text in
> > > > > > > Telegram
> > > > > > > (both
> > > > > > > Evince and Telegram is installed from flatpak).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't know if this should be considered as a bug from
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > just several applications not being compatible with VF
> > > > > > > fonts
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > be reported to their upstream separately.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > Qiyu Yan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > This is an example of a random PDF file not being rendered
> > > > > > > correctly:
> > > > > > > https://texdoc.org/serve/latexmk/0
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Firefox can correctly render fonts with different weight
> > > > > > > while
> > > > > > > Evince
> > > > > > > will produce equal-weight result.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 在 2023-01-09星期一的 13:28 -0500，Ben Cotton写道：
> > > > > > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Noto_CJK_Variable_Fonts
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 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 Committee.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > == Summary ==
> > > > > > > > > Switch the default Noto CJK fonts for Chinese, Japanese
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > Korean
> > > > > > > > > from static to variable fonts.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > == Owner ==
> > > > > > > > > * Name: [[User:pwu| Peng Wu]]
> > > > > > > > > * Email: p...@redhat.com
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > == Detailed Description ==
> > > > > > > > > In order to reduce the font size in Noto CJK 

[Bug 2142502] Upgrade perl-Image-ExifTool to 12.50

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142502

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version|perl-Image-ExifTool-12.50-1 |perl-Image-ExifTool-12.50-1
   |.fc38   |.fc38
   |perl-Image-ExifTool-12.50-1 |perl-Image-ExifTool-12.50-1
   |.fc36   |.fc36
   |perl-Image-ExifTool-12.50-1 |perl-Image-ExifTool-12.50-1
   |.fc37   |.fc37
   |perl-Image-ExifTool-12.50-1 |perl-Image-ExifTool-12.50-1
   |.el9|.el9
   |perl-Image-ExifTool-12.50-1 |perl-Image-ExifTool-12.50-1
   |.el8|.el8
   ||perl-Image-ExifTool-12.50-1
   ||.el7



--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-2c9039d9a0 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable
repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142502
___
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

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing report

[updates]

The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
 Age  URL
   6  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-21f43b7076   
python-OWSLib-0.9.2-2.el7
   5  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-7b23e5a4b3   
chromium-111.0.5563.64-1.el7


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

rpminspect-data-fedora-1.10-1.el7
singularity-ce-3.11.1-1.el7

Details about builds:



 rpminspect-data-fedora-1.10-1.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2023-e0e9567e0e)
 Build deviation compliance tool data files

Update Information:

Upgrade to rpminspect-data-fedora-1.10

ChangeLog:

* Tue Mar 14 2023 David Cantrell  - 1.10-1
- Upgrade to rpminspect-data-fedora-1.10




 singularity-ce-3.11.1-1.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2023-f8589d3801)
 Application and environment virtualization

Update Information:

Upgrade to 3.11.1 upstream version. This is a compatible upgrade to a new
upstream patch version.

ChangeLog:

* Tue Mar 14 2023 David Trudgian  - 3.11.1-1
- Upgrade to 3.11.1 upstream version.
- This is a compatible upgrade to a new upstream patch version.


___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2178061] Add perl-Digest-MD5-File to EPEL 9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178061

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-2309d37e52 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-2023-2309d37e52

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=2178061
___
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 2178071] Add perl-String-Approx to EPEL 9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178071

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-29ec081c64 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-2023-29ec081c64

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=2178071
___
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 2178070] Add perl-AnyEvent-CacheDNS to EPEL 9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178070

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-d0469ebccb 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-2023-d0469ebccb

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=2178070
___
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 2178060] Add perl-DateTime-Format-HTTP to EPEL 9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178060

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-29931d7455 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-2023-29931d7455

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=2178060
___
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 2155156] Please build perl-Devel-REPL for EPEL9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2155156
Bug 2155156 depends on bug 2158132, which changed state.

Bug 2158132 Summary: Add perl-Sys-SigAction to EPEL9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2158132

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2155156
___
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 2155156] Please build perl-Devel-REPL for EPEL9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2155156

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2023-03-15 02:21:10



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-88b95affd6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable
repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2155156
___
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 2142502] Upgrade perl-Image-ExifTool to 12.50

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142502

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version|perl-Image-ExifTool-12.50-1 |perl-Image-ExifTool-12.50-1
   |.fc38   |.fc38
   |perl-Image-ExifTool-12.50-1 |perl-Image-ExifTool-12.50-1
   |.fc36   |.fc36
   |perl-Image-ExifTool-12.50-1 |perl-Image-ExifTool-12.50-1
   |.fc37   |.fc37
   |perl-Image-ExifTool-12.50-1 |perl-Image-ExifTool-12.50-1
   |.el9|.el9
   ||perl-Image-ExifTool-12.50-1
   ||.el8



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-525376725d has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable
repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142502
___
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 2155156] Please build perl-Devel-REPL for EPEL9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2155156
Bug 2155156 depends on bug 2158128, which changed state.

Bug 2158128 Summary: Add perl-App-Nopaste to EPEL9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2158128

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2155156
___
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 2158132] Add perl-Sys-SigAction to EPEL9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2158132

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2023-03-15 02:21:07



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-01f6e74c04 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable
repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2158132
___
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 2142502] Upgrade perl-Image-ExifTool to 12.50

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142502

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version|perl-Image-ExifTool-12.50-1 |perl-Image-ExifTool-12.50-1
   |.fc38   |.fc38
   |perl-Image-ExifTool-12.50-1 |perl-Image-ExifTool-12.50-1
   |.fc36   |.fc36
   |perl-Image-ExifTool-12.50-1 |perl-Image-ExifTool-12.50-1
   |.fc37   |.fc37
   ||perl-Image-ExifTool-12.50-1
   ||.el9



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1f52066011 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable
repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142502
___
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 2158128] Add perl-App-Nopaste to EPEL9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2158128

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2023-03-15 02:21:04



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-641c41da45 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable
repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2158128
___
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 Linux 38 Beta Released

[old sixpack13]

> Fedora Linux 38 Beta Released

Thanks
upgrade from F37 smooth
___
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

[Bug 2177944] perl-Pod-Spell-1.26 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177944

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-585b84a7d8 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-585b84a7d8

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=2177944
___
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 2175432] perl-Test2-Suite-0.000148 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2175432

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version|perl-Test2-Suite-0.000148-1 |perl-Test2-Suite-0.000148-1
   |.fc38   |.fc38
   |perl-Test2-Suite-0.000148-1 |perl-Test2-Suite-0.000148-1
   |.fc36   |.fc36
   ||perl-Test2-Suite-0.000148-1
   ||.fc37



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-7d1dc1739a has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2175432
___
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 2142502] Upgrade perl-Image-ExifTool to 12.50

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142502

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version|perl-Image-ExifTool-12.50-1 |perl-Image-ExifTool-12.50-1
   |.fc38   |.fc38
   |perl-Image-ExifTool-12.50-1 |perl-Image-ExifTool-12.50-1
   |.fc36   |.fc36
   ||perl-Image-ExifTool-12.50-1
   ||.fc37



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-4873a45d1e has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142502
___
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 2150184] perl-Net-Server-2.014 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150184

Upstream Release Monitoring  
changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|perl-Net-Server-2.013 is|perl-Net-Server-2.014 is
   |available   |available



--- Comment #9 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
Releases retrieved: 2.014
Upstream release that is considered latest: 2.014
Current version/release in rawhide: 2.010-5.fc38
URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Net-Server/

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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/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/5981/


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


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150184
___
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 2150184] perl-Net-Server-2.014 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150184



--- Comment #10 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
Scratch build failed. Details below:

GenericError: File upload failed:
cli-build/1678841374.796064.TDKLOEQk/perl-Net-Server-2.014-1.fc36.src.rpm
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(request.package, request.opts)
  File "/usr/local/lib/python3.10/site-packages/hotness/builders/koji.py", line
198, in build
output["build_id"] = self._scratch_build(session, package.name, srpm)
  File "/usr/local/lib/python3.10/site-packages/hotness/builders/koji.py", line
451, in _scratch_build
session.uploadWrapper(source, serverdir)
  File "/usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/koji/__init__.py", line 3110, in
uploadWrapper
self.fastUpload(localfile, path, name, callback, blocksize, overwrite,
volume=volume)
  File "/usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/koji/__init__.py", line 3034, in
fastUpload
raise GenericError("File upload failed: %s/%s" % (path, name))

If you think this issue is caused by some bug in the-new-hotness, please report
it on the-new-hotness issue tracker:
https://github.com/fedora-infra/the-new-hotness/issues


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150184
___
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 2142502] Upgrade perl-Image-ExifTool to 12.50

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142502

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version|perl-Image-ExifTool-12.50-1 |perl-Image-ExifTool-12.50-1
   |.fc38   |.fc38
   ||perl-Image-ExifTool-12.50-1
   ||.fc36



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-7d950084d8 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142502
___
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 2175432] perl-Test2-Suite-0.000148 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2175432

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version|perl-Test2-Suite-0.000148-1 |perl-Test2-Suite-0.000148-1
   |.fc38   |.fc38
   ||perl-Test2-Suite-0.000148-1
   ||.fc36



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-64b6de55c4 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2175432
___
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 2178366] New: perl-HTML-Strip-2.11 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178366

Bug ID: 2178366
   Summary: perl-HTML-Strip-2.11 is available
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: perl-HTML-Strip
  Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
  Assignee: emman...@seyman.fr
  Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: c...@fea.st, emman...@seyman.fr, iarn...@gmail.com,
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Releases retrieved: 2.11
Upstream release that is considered latest: 2.11
Current version/release in rawhide: 2.10-25.fc39
URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/HTML-Strip/

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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/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/10659/


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


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178366
___
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 2178364] New: perl-ExtUtils-MakeMaker-7.68 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178364

Bug ID: 2178364
   Summary: perl-ExtUtils-MakeMaker-7.68 is available
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: perl-ExtUtils-MakeMaker
  Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
  Assignee: jples...@redhat.com
  Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: jples...@redhat.com, mspa...@redhat.com,
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, ppi...@redhat.com
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Releases retrieved: 7.68
Upstream release that is considered latest: 7.68
Current version/release in rawhide: 7.66-2.fc38
URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/ExtUtils-MakeMaker/

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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/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/2867/


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


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178364
___
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 2172819] perl-SQL-Statement-1.414-10.fc39 tests produce a lot of warnings: Use of uninitialized value $unkpos in subtraction (-) at /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Text/Balanced.pm line 1008

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172819

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
   Fixed In Version|perl-Text-Balanced-2.06-4.f |perl-Text-Balanced-2.06-4.f
   |c39 |c39
   ||perl-Text-Balanced-2.06-4.f
   ||c38
 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
Last Closed||2023-03-15 00:16:57



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-97fcf55f4b has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172819
___
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: Status of AVIF support in Fedora

[Leigh Scott]

I can give sponsorship and acl's for the rpmfusion package.
___
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: Status of AVIF support in Fedora

[Neal Gompa]

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 7:17 PM Sandro  wrote:
>
> Apologies for my late response. I have been swamped with other things...
>
> On 27-02-2023 16:05, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 10:04 AM Sérgio Basto  wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 2023-02-25 at 10:27 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> 
>
> >>>
> >>> It looks like libheif now supports a plugin architecture, so we could
> >>> move libheif to Fedora, while having the HEVC/H.265 backend plugin in
> >>> RPM Fusion.
> >>>
> >>> Also, according to the CMake, the HEVC/H.265 plugins are not built by
> >>> default anymore:
> >>> https://github.com/strukturag/libheif/blob/cdcc5b210879e0a0348032a594f8be52bb739c0d/CMakeLists.txt#L92-L98
> >>>
> >>> So feel free to package it and bring it into Fedora. :)
>
> I'm willing to give it a try. Yet, just submitting the package and
> getting it into Fedora is probably not enough. Some co-ordination with
> RPMFusion would be needed, I guess. And consuming packages would need to
> be updated to properly use the new library.
>
> If anyone could guide/assist me with that, I'd be grateful.
>
> >> So we can build libheif without H.265 on Fedora but how you propose
> >> make H.265 available with one third repo ? just build the plugin on
> >> third repo as a freeworld package ?
> >>
> >
> > It may be possible to build the plugin independently and link to
> > libheif, but at the minimum, that's what I expect.
>
> The above exchange I do not quite grasp. I guess this is about making
> libheif-av1 (the Av1 only libheif, yet to be packaged) play nicely
> together with the unfree libheif (providing HEIF/libde265) provided by
> RPMFusion.
>
> To set things in motion I will try my hands on building a AV1 only
> libheif package and take it from there.
>

Actually, I've got this done already locally. I can put it up for
review and you can grab it?

Then I can give you co-maintainer privileges for it.


-- 
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Status of AVIF support in Fedora

[Sandro]

Apologies for my late response. I have been swamped with other things...

On 27-02-2023 16:05, Neal Gompa wrote:

On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 10:04 AM Sérgio Basto  wrote:


On Sat, 2023-02-25 at 10:27 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:






It looks like libheif now supports a plugin architecture, so we could
move libheif to Fedora, while having the HEVC/H.265 backend plugin in
RPM Fusion.

Also, according to the CMake, the HEVC/H.265 plugins are not built by
default anymore:
https://github.com/strukturag/libheif/blob/cdcc5b210879e0a0348032a594f8be52bb739c0d/CMakeLists.txt#L92-L98

So feel free to package it and bring it into Fedora. :)


I'm willing to give it a try. Yet, just submitting the package and 
getting it into Fedora is probably not enough. Some co-ordination with 
RPMFusion would be needed, I guess. And consuming packages would need to 
be updated to properly use the new library.


If anyone could guide/assist me with that, I'd be grateful.


So we can build libheif without H.265 on Fedora but how you propose
make H.265 available with one third repo ? just build the plugin on
third repo as a freeworld package ?



It may be possible to build the plugin independently and link to
libheif, but at the minimum, that's what I expect.


The above exchange I do not quite grasp. I guess this is about making 
libheif-av1 (the Av1 only libheif, yet to be packaged) play nicely 
together with the unfree libheif (providing HEIF/libde265) provided by 
RPMFusion.


To set things in motion I will try my hands on building a AV1 only 
libheif package and take it from there.


-- Sandro
___
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: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2023-03-07)

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 05:57:53PM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > I also stand by what I wrote above. Kevin's words that "there is still
> > nothing preventing an already rejected feature from being surprisingly
> > reconsidered after the change deadline" can only be true if we assume that
> > decision made by FESCo to "make an effort to notify people when proposals
> > are resubmitted for voting" has no effect. And for it to have no effect
> > the FESCo chair and other members would need to ignore the decision and
> > the documented process [1].
> 
> Or they could try and fail to follow it. And no consequences will happen, 
> because, well, they tried, i.e., "made an effort". There is neither 
> accountability for the person who made the mistake, nor a sanction for the 
> feature that slipped through.

I have no idea what you're trying to achieve, really. *Everything* that we
do in Fedora is based on people voluntarily following the rules. There
is no formal "accountability", there's no court to police the rules or
apply sanctions. Things happen because we have a common goal and we
all voluntarily follow processes.

In this particular case, it is hard to define a hard rule because (as
the discussion showed) the cases that would be covered by the rule
differ a lot. There was no support for a hard rule in FESCo, and we
ended up with his soft rule that (IMO) is good enough and will solve
the original problem that started the whole discussion, while still
giving people the discretion to handle various cases as appropriate.

Since this is all a community process, if we implemented a very
specific hard rule as you want, it'd still be the same people implementing
it to the best of their ability. There would just be no possiblity
of adjusting for the corner cases without breaking the letter of
the rule.

Zbyszek
___
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: Fwd: License: GPL-3.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-or-later

[Richard Fontana]

The guidelines/requirements around things like the license tag are not
set in stone. If people think they are impractical or otherwise should
be revised, anyone should feel free to make a proposal. I think so
far, though, I am not seeing evidence of major impracticality (for the
kinds of issues that are being submitted at fedora-license-data).

I believe alternative proposals would need to have the following features:
- license metadata consisting of syntactically-correct SPDX expressions
- SPDX expressions should semantically mean something very close to
the apparent meaning under the SPDX specification (for example, "MIT"
can't mean what it meant under the pre-SPDX system)
- license tags can't be based on individual license interpretations
that are applied inconsistently across different packages and among
different package maintainers
- license tags can't be based on a principle that some licenses can be
arbitrarily ignored (if there's going to be some theory under which
you ignore certain licenses, but not others, it should apply uniformly
across all packages)

Richard

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 12:37 PM Fabio Valentini  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 4:23 PM Kevin P. Fleming  wrote:
> >
> > On 3/14/23 10:04, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2023-03-14 at 08:47 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > >> ... LibreOffice ...
> > > FWIW I updated the LibreOffice one a while ago and ended up with:
> > > MPL-2.0 AND Apache-2.0 AND LGPL-3.0-only AND LGPL-3.0-or-later AND CC0-
> > > 1.0 AND BSD-3-Clause AND (LGPL-2.1-only OR SISSL) AND (MPL-2.0 OR LGPL-
> > > 3.0-or-later) AND (MPL-2.0 OR LGPL-2.1-or-later) AND (MPL-1.1 OR GPL-
> > > 2.0-only OR LGPL-2.1-only)
> > >
> > Pardon the small digression...
> >
> > One of the benefits of switching to this sort of license tag in the RPMs
> > is that it is purely objective fact; there are no subjective
> > determinations or opinions involved. So, for example, if that expression
> > above applies to the source tarball (or repository tag) for LibreOffice
> > 7.5.2.1, that expression is not in any way specific to Fedora; it's the
> > same for everyone who consumes that source release, no matter how they
> > are packaging it.
>
> The problem is that the License tag is supposed to describe the
> license of things in the *built* packages, not the license of the
> *source tarball*.
> So depending on build options and how things are distributed between
> subpackages, you cannot share them between distributions unless they
> use the exact same spec file.
>
> Future (recent?) versions of RPM have a separate tag for specifying
> the license of the *sources*: `SourceLicense`.
> c.f. https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2079
>
> 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, report it: 
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
___
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: Fwd: License: GPL-3.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-or-later

[Kevin Kofler via devel]

David Cantrell wrote:
> We can't get rid of the License tag, unfortunately.  See:
> 
> https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/blog/spdx-its-already-in-use-for-global-software-bill-of-materials-sbom-and-supply-chain-security
> 
> And as part of the US Executive Order on Cybersecurity, we need to start
> using SPDX identifiers in software we package and provide so that our
> downstream users are in compliance:
> 
> https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/05/12/executive-order-on-improving-the-nations-cybersecurity/

I do not see anything there requiring RPM packages to contain a License tag. 
I doubt this can ever be encoded in a law.

Software needs to state its license somehow, but that is already the case in 
various forms (depending on the package) within the SRPM and hopefully the 
binary RPM. (If the notice does not make it into the binary package, that is 
an upstream issue and IMHO not our problem.)


Personally, I think it makes sense to state the license in the RPM metadata 
for the people installing the software, but, like Michael Catanzaro, I doubt 
the current approach of requiring to explicitly list every permissive 
license of copied code is in any way practical. The License tag 
should have only indicative value, the authoritative license(s) are the ones 
on the source code itself.

Kevin Kofler
___
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: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2023-03-07)

[Kevin Kofler via devel]

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> Normally, I wouldn't phrase a letter this way. But Kevin will incessantly
> repeat the same things after a decision is made that he disagrees with
> or when there is some fact that he doesn't like.

So you are now accusing me of disagreeing with facts? Seriously?

> I also stand by what I wrote above. Kevin's words that "there is still
> nothing preventing an already rejected feature from being surprisingly
> reconsidered after the change deadline" can only be true if we assume that
> decision made by FESCo to "make an effort to notify people when proposals
> are resubmitted for voting" has no effect. And for it to have no effect
> the FESCo chair and other members would need to ignore the decision and
> the documented process [1].

Or they could try and fail to follow it. And no consequences will happen, 
because, well, they tried, i.e., "made an effort". There is neither 
accountability for the person who made the mistake, nor a sanction for the 
feature that slipped through. (To clarify the latter part: If affected 
people were not notified in time, the change should automatically be put on 
hold until 1. they had a chance to comment and 2. their comments were 
discussed by FESCo. Even if it means missing the deadline to rush the change 
into Fedora n. Nobody is going to die if the change gets pushed back to 
Fedora n+1.)

> In short, only when bad faith is assumed.

As pointed out in my previous reply, good faith accidents can happen.

Kevin Kofler
___
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: Fwd: License: GPL-3.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-or-later

[Fabio Valentini]

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 4:23 PM Kevin P. Fleming  wrote:
>
> On 3/14/23 10:04, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> > On Tue, 2023-03-14 at 08:47 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> >> ... LibreOffice ...
> > FWIW I updated the LibreOffice one a while ago and ended up with:
> > MPL-2.0 AND Apache-2.0 AND LGPL-3.0-only AND LGPL-3.0-or-later AND CC0-
> > 1.0 AND BSD-3-Clause AND (LGPL-2.1-only OR SISSL) AND (MPL-2.0 OR LGPL-
> > 3.0-or-later) AND (MPL-2.0 OR LGPL-2.1-or-later) AND (MPL-1.1 OR GPL-
> > 2.0-only OR LGPL-2.1-only)
> >
> Pardon the small digression...
>
> One of the benefits of switching to this sort of license tag in the RPMs
> is that it is purely objective fact; there are no subjective
> determinations or opinions involved. So, for example, if that expression
> above applies to the source tarball (or repository tag) for LibreOffice
> 7.5.2.1, that expression is not in any way specific to Fedora; it's the
> same for everyone who consumes that source release, no matter how they
> are packaging it.

The problem is that the License tag is supposed to describe the
license of things in the *built* packages, not the license of the
*source tarball*.
So depending on build options and how things are distributed between
subpackages, you cannot share them between distributions unless they
use the exact same spec file.

Future (recent?) versions of RPM have a separate tag for specifying
the license of the *sources*: `SourceLicense`.
c.f. https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2079

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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[EPEL-devel] [Fedocal] Reminder meeting : EPEL Steering Committee

[tdawson]

Dear all,

You are kindly invited to the meeting:
   EPEL Steering Committee on 2023-03-15 from 16:00:00 to 17:00:00 US/Eastern
   At fedora-meet...@irc.libera.chat

The meeting will be about:
This is the weekly EPEL Steering Committee Meeting.

A general agenda is the following:

#topic aloha

#topic EPEL Issues https://pagure.io/epel/issues
* https://pagure.io/epel/issues?tags=meeting=Open

#topic Old Business (if needed)

#topic General Issues / Open Floor




Source: https://calendar.fedoraproject.org//meeting/9854/

___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2178071] Add perl-String-Approx to EPEL 9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178071



--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-29ec081c64 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-29ec081c64


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178071
___
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 2178071] Add perl-String-Approx to EPEL 9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178071

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version||perl-String-Approx-3.28-21.
   ||el9
 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178071
___
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: perl-String-Approx license corrected

[Petr Pisar]

V Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 03:25:56PM +0100, Petr Pisar napsal(a):
> perl-String-Approx license was corrected from:
> 
> LGPLv2+ or Artistic
> 
> to:
> 
> (LGPL-2.0-or-later OR Artistic-1.0-Perl) AND (Artistic-2.0 OR 
> LGPL-2.0-only)
> 
And since it's still not accurate, I opened
.

-- Petr


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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: F38 proposal: Noto CJK Variable Fonts (Self-Contained Change proposal)

[yanqiyu01]

在 2023-03-15星期三的 00:08 +0900，Akira TAGOH写道：
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 11:44 PM  wrote:
> > 
> > With some layering package trick, yes, all behavior returned to
> > before.
> > after the swap.
> 
> Aha. Thank you for testing. Hmm, that is interesting...
> 
> > Also, at least for Evince it can tell me what font it is using, and
> > in
> > this case it's google-noto-sans-cjk-fonts or VF version.
> 
> I mean we may have different version of Noto CJK fonts on host and
> flatpak runtime - I don't know if they have though. that is quite
> difficult to see on apps which one it is.

At least for Evince it is using fonts from host since it refer to paths
like /run/host/whatever

And also during the swap, there was a stage where no google noto CJK
fonts are installed (removed one and have not installed the other) and
in that case Evince is giving tofu for the document even no CJK
character is present there. But Telegram is giving tofo only for CJK
characters and normal result for non-CJK words. (Also, when with VF
fonts, Telegram is also giving proper-weight fonts for non-CJK
characters.

> 
> > 
> > 在 2023-03-14星期二的 23:14 +0900，Akira TAGOH写道：
> > > > Thank you for the feedback.
> > > > 
> > > > What if you install google-noto-sans-cjk-fonts instead of
> > > > google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts?
> > > > just wanted to make sure if this is a variable font-related
> > > > issue
> > > > or
> > > > design-related update in Noto CJK.
> > > > Also, good to try on non-flatpak app too. it is a bit
> > > > complicated
> > > > to
> > > > make sure if they use the expected fonts.
> > > > The best way may be to check it out on pango-view and hb-view.
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:58 PM 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Seems that some changes mentioned below just hit
> > > > > > fedora:fedora/38/x86_64/testing/silverblue today in version
> > > > > > 38.20230314.0. And ostree diff is below (changes between
> > > > > > 38.20230313.0
> > > > > > and 38.20230314.0, filtered to show only fontconfig files
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > CJK):
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > D    /usr/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-0-google-noto-sans-cjk-
> > > > > > ttc.conf
> > > > > > D    /usr/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-google-noto-cjk-fonts.conf
> > > > > > D    /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/65-0-google-noto-
> > > > > > sans-
> > > > > > cjk-
> > > > > > ttc.conf
> > > > > > D    /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/65-google-noto-cjk-
> > > > > > fonts.conf
> > > > > > A    /usr/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-0-google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-
> > > > > > fonts.conf
> > > > > > A
> > > > > > /usr/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-google-noto-sans-cjk-mono-vf-
> > > > > > fonts.conf
> > > > > > A    /usr/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-
> > > > > > fonts.conf
> > > > > > A    /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/65-0-google-noto-
> > > > > > sans-
> > > > > > cjk-vf-
> > > > > > fonts.conf
> > > > > > A
> > > > > > /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/65-google-noto-sans-cjk-
> > > > > > mono-
> > > > > > vf-
> > > > > > fonts.conf
> > > > > > A    /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/65-google-noto-sans-
> > > > > > cjk-
> > > > > > vf-
> > > > > > fonts.conf
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > But I am noticing some font being very thin, including
> > > > > > English
> > > > > > fonts in
> > > > > > Evince when not using embed fonts and all non-UI text in
> > > > > > Telegram
> > > > > > (both
> > > > > > Evince and Telegram is installed from flatpak).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I don't know if this should be considered as a bug from
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > change
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > just several applications not being compatible with VF
> > > > > > fonts
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > be reported to their upstream separately.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Qiyu Yan
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > This is an example of a random PDF file not being rendered
> > > > > > correctly:
> > > > > > https://texdoc.org/serve/latexmk/0
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Firefox can correctly render fonts with different weight
> > > > > > while
> > > > > > Evince
> > > > > > will produce equal-weight result.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 在 2023-01-09星期一的 13:28 -0500，Ben Cotton写道：
> > > > > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Noto_CJK_Variable_Fonts
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 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 Committee.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > == Summary ==
> > > > > > > > Switch the default Noto CJK fonts for Chinese, Japanese
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > Korean
> > > > > > > > from static to variable fonts.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > == Owner ==
> > > > > > > 

Re: Fwd: License: GPL-3.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-or-later

[Kevin P. Fleming]

On 3/14/23 10:04, Caolán McNamara wrote:

On Tue, 2023-03-14 at 08:47 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:

... LibreOffice ...

FWIW I updated the LibreOffice one a while ago and ended up with:
MPL-2.0 AND Apache-2.0 AND LGPL-3.0-only AND LGPL-3.0-or-later AND CC0-
1.0 AND BSD-3-Clause AND (LGPL-2.1-only OR SISSL) AND (MPL-2.0 OR LGPL-
3.0-or-later) AND (MPL-2.0 OR LGPL-2.1-or-later) AND (MPL-1.1 OR GPL-
2.0-only OR LGPL-2.1-only)


Pardon the small digression...

One of the benefits of switching to this sort of license tag in the RPMs 
is that it is purely objective fact; there are no subjective 
determinations or opinions involved. So, for example, if that expression 
above applies to the source tarball (or repository tag) for LibreOffice 
7.5.2.1, that expression is not in any way specific to Fedora; it's the 
same for everyone who consumes that source release, no matter how they 
are packaging it.


This opens the door to sharing the burden across all those who consume 
the source releases, and even reaching community consensus on what the 
proper license expression is for any given source release, sharing that 
expression with the upstream project so that it can be used by anyone 
else in the future who needs it, and collaborative updates to the 
expression when new source releases are made.


This was (and still is) the goal of the OSI's ClearlyDefined project: 
community collaboration to produce consensus license expressions for a 
given source artifact, including separation into facets (content which 
ends up in the binaries, content which is used for build and/or test, 
content which is documentation, etc.). It hasn't really taken off like 
many had hoped it would, but it also hasn't died... it just needs more 
large projects (like Fedora) to decide that it would be better for the 
overall community if the results of the license scans were contributed 
to a global database instead of just stored with the project's sources.


--
Kevin P. Fleming
He/Him/His
Principal Program Manager, RHEL
Red Hat US/Eastern Time Zone
___
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: Fwd: License: GPL-3.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-or-later

[Michael Catanzaro]

On Tue, Mar 14 2023 at 10:01:06 AM -0400, David Cantrell 
 wrote:
And as part of the US Executive Order on Cybersecurity, we need to 
start using
SPDX identifiers in software we package and provide so that our 
downstream

users are in compliance:


If you rely on this then you're up a creek, because ***Fedora License 
identifiers will rarely be accurate***. Wishing for them to be accurate 
won't make it so. Who is going to do the work of reassessing the 
License field every package update?


Switching to use SPDX was good, but it still has to be curated by a 
human.


___
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: F38 proposal: Noto CJK Variable Fonts (Self-Contained Change proposal)

[Akira TAGOH]

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 11:44 PM  wrote:
>
> With some layering package trick, yes, all behavior returned to before.
> after the swap.

Aha. Thank you for testing. Hmm, that is interesting...

> Also, at least for Evince it can tell me what font it is using, and in
> this case it's google-noto-sans-cjk-fonts or VF version.

I mean we may have different version of Noto CJK fonts on host and
flatpak runtime - I don't know if they have though. that is quite
difficult to see on apps which one it is.

>
> 在 2023-03-14星期二的 23:14 +0900，Akira TAGOH写道：
> > > Thank you for the feedback.
> > >
> > > What if you install google-noto-sans-cjk-fonts instead of
> > > google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts?
> > > just wanted to make sure if this is a variable font-related issue
> > > or
> > > design-related update in Noto CJK.
> > > Also, good to try on non-flatpak app too. it is a bit complicated
> > > to
> > > make sure if they use the expected fonts.
> > > The best way may be to check it out on pango-view and hb-view.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:58 PM  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Seems that some changes mentioned below just hit
> > > > > fedora:fedora/38/x86_64/testing/silverblue today in version
> > > > > 38.20230314.0. And ostree diff is below (changes between
> > > > > 38.20230313.0
> > > > > and 38.20230314.0, filtered to show only fontconfig files for
> > > > > CJK):
> > > > >
> > > > > D/usr/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-0-google-noto-sans-cjk-ttc.conf
> > > > > D/usr/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-google-noto-cjk-fonts.conf
> > > > > D/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/65-0-google-noto-sans-
> > > > > cjk-
> > > > > ttc.conf
> > > > > D/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/65-google-noto-cjk-
> > > > > fonts.conf
> > > > > A/usr/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-0-google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-
> > > > > fonts.conf
> > > > > A
> > > > > /usr/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-google-noto-sans-cjk-mono-vf-
> > > > > fonts.conf
> > > > > A/usr/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-
> > > > > fonts.conf
> > > > > A/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/65-0-google-noto-sans-
> > > > > cjk-vf-
> > > > > fonts.conf
> > > > > A
> > > > > /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/65-google-noto-sans-cjk-mono-
> > > > > vf-
> > > > > fonts.conf
> > > > > A/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/65-google-noto-sans-cjk-
> > > > > vf-
> > > > > fonts.conf
> > > > >
> > > > > But I am noticing some font being very thin, including English
> > > > > fonts in
> > > > > Evince when not using embed fonts and all non-UI text in
> > > > > Telegram
> > > > > (both
> > > > > Evince and Telegram is installed from flatpak).
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know if this should be considered as a bug from this
> > > > > change
> > > > > or
> > > > > just several applications not being compatible with VF fonts
> > > > > and
> > > > > should
> > > > > be reported to their upstream separately.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Qiyu Yan
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > This is an example of a random PDF file not being rendered
> > > > > correctly:
> > > > > https://texdoc.org/serve/latexmk/0
> > > > >
> > > > > Firefox can correctly render fonts with different weight while
> > > > > Evince
> > > > > will produce equal-weight result.
> > > > >
> > > > > 在 2023-01-09星期一的 13:28 -0500，Ben Cotton写道：
> > > > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Noto_CJK_Variable_Fonts
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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 Committee.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > == Summary ==
> > > > > > > Switch the default Noto CJK fonts for Chinese, Japanese and
> > > > > > > Korean
> > > > > > > from static to variable fonts.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > == Owner ==
> > > > > > > * Name: [[User:pwu| Peng Wu]]
> > > > > > > * Email: p...@redhat.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > == Detailed Description ==
> > > > > > > In order to reduce the font size in Noto CJK fonts, we plan
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > switch
> > > > > > > to use the variable fonts by default.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > # Split the google-noto-cjk-fonts package into
> > > > > > > google-noto-sans-cjk-fonts and google-noto-serif-cjk-fonts,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > provide the variable fonts in google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > google-noto-serif-cjk-vf-fonts.
> > > > > > > # Drop several sub packages which are not installed by
> > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > the google-noto-cjk-fonts package.
> > > > > > > ## Like google-noto-sans-cjk-*-fonts, google-noto-sans-*-
> > > > > > > fonts,
> > > > > > > google-noto-sans-mono-cjk-*-fonts, google-noto-serif-cjk-*-
> > > > > > > fonts
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > 

Re: [SONAME BUMP] ffmpeg upgrade to 6.0 in F38 and Rawhide

[Leigh Scott]

> Hey all,
> 
> ffmpeg is getting upgraded to 6.0 for Fedora Linux 38 and Rawhide in
> order to remain compatible with prominent third-party repositories.
> 

Thank you for keeping up.
___
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: Retiring Bottles in favor of Flatpak provided by upstream

[Fabio Valentini]

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 1:31 AM Sandro  wrote:
>
> On 27-01-2023 00:15, Sandro wrote:
> >> I'm not sure I can commit to maintaining these myself, though. Let me
> >> know if you're interested in helping out.
> > Yes, orjson has been mentioned by @atim and @thunderbirdtr, the
> > co-maintainers, in the PR. If that becomes available there might be some
> > progress to be made in keeping up with upstream.
> >
> > Albeit, working with upstream appears to have been a mixed bag (reading
> > between the lines in the comments). But since I have not been
> > experiencing this first hand, I'd prefer the co-maintainers to elaborate.
> >
> 
> >
> > I'll ponder my options a little longer and hope the co-maintainers will
> > shed their light on the state of affairs.
>
> There has been some development regarding Bottles, which I would like to
> share.
>
> First of all, with orjson coming closer to being included in Fedora
> (many thanks to @gotmax23 and @decathorpe), we decided to give it
> another go and try to get an up to date Bottles shipped in Fedora 38.
> Currently it builds in Copr[1], but I haven't found the time to test it
> and scrutinize the build.
>
> I also announced our intentions upstream[2]. Upstream has responded with
> discouragement[3,4]. I'm still relatively new to packaging and don't
> have a lot of experience dealing with upstream. So, I'm asking for some
> input on how to react to upstream's response in a productive,
> collaborative manner.
>
> I get the feeling there's a fundamental misunderstanding of the open
> source paradigm in upstream's arguments. I'm hoping that we can convince
> them by showing off an up to date and working Bottles package.

It sounds like there's also some misconceptions about how Fedora works
as a distro?
Unpredictable release cycles are not a problem, adding new
dependencies is neither, since packages can be updated and added in
all Fedora releases at basically any point in time.
Fedora is more like a rolling release in that regard, unlike debian or
ubuntu, where AFAIK no new packages can be added (or updates other
than bugfixes pushed) after a certain point of the release cycle.

I also find it rather interesting that they think orjson is a "Fedora problem".
The issues we have that currently prevent packaging it are *upstream bugs*.

I have recently managed to find the source of the segfaults on s390x.
Apparently the nice Rust bindings for CPython provided by "PyO3" are
too high-level for orjson, so the project uses the low-level pyo3-ffi
(i.e. unsafe Rust-to-C FFI) to interact with libpython. And the way
orjson does this is partially unsound:
https://github.com/ijl/orjson/issues/338

(Yes, this issue has been closed as "Fixed", but the "fix" actually
changed nothing regarding big-endian compatibility, and the same
segfault is still present.)

The equivalent to the broken-on-big-endian interfaces have been
*disabled* in the high-level PyO3 APIs on BE arches (because I
reported that they were broken and unsafe one and a half years ago,
which I also discovered when packaging pyo3 for Fedora):
https://github.com/PyO3/pyo3/issues/1824

Yes, this exact problem only affects big-endian architectures, so I
assume that neither Bottles (flathub does not ship stuff for s390x)
nor orjson (yeet a """fix""" and then apparently ignore the issue)
care about it, but the same code that "works" in x86_64 relies on
undefined behaviour and / or things that are "implementation defined"
in C compilers, so the fact that they currently work is more or less
just a happy coincidence (i.e. GCC and LLVM agreeing on bitfield
memory layout across different architectures).

I'm currently trying to submit a change to PyO3 to make these APIs
work on big-endian architectures as well:
https://github.com/PyO3/pyo3/pull/3015
Once this change is available, orjson could drop its bundled copy of
unsafe code from pyo3-ffi (which it apparently does to use APIs that
are marked as private ...) and use the new APIs directly. I have
already verified that this works as expected across all Fedora
architectures in COPR.

Again, Bottles developers might not care, but this is the reason why
linux distributions exist.
Because *we need to care* about these nitty-gritty low-level things to
*make things work*, even if upstream developers don't (or cannot).

(And since more projects than just Bottles are starting to depend on
orjson, having it work correctly on all our architectures is more
important than just making Bottles work on x86_64, which seems to be
the only thing the project cares about - maybe rightfully so, given
that they depend on Wine.)

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: 

[rpms/perl-Perl4-CoreLibs] PR #6: 0.005 bump

[Michal Josef Špaček]

mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Perl4-CoreLibs` that 
you are following.

Merged pull-request:

``
0.005 bump
``

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Perl4-CoreLibs/pull-request/6
___
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: F38 proposal: Noto CJK Variable Fonts (Self-Contained Change proposal)

[yanqiyu01]

With some layering package trick, yes, all behavior returned to before.
after the swap.

Also, at least for Evince it can tell me what font it is using, and in
this case it's google-noto-sans-cjk-fonts or VF version.

在 2023-03-14星期二的 23:14 +0900，Akira TAGOH写道：
> > Thank you for the feedback.
> > 
> > What if you install google-noto-sans-cjk-fonts instead of
> > google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts?
> > just wanted to make sure if this is a variable font-related issue
> > or
> > design-related update in Noto CJK.
> > Also, good to try on non-flatpak app too. it is a bit complicated
> > to
> > make sure if they use the expected fonts.
> > The best way may be to check it out on pango-view and hb-view.
> > 
> > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:58 PM  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > Seems that some changes mentioned below just hit
> > > > fedora:fedora/38/x86_64/testing/silverblue today in version
> > > > 38.20230314.0. And ostree diff is below (changes between
> > > > 38.20230313.0
> > > > and 38.20230314.0, filtered to show only fontconfig files for
> > > > CJK):
> > > > 
> > > > D    /usr/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-0-google-noto-sans-cjk-ttc.conf
> > > > D    /usr/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-google-noto-cjk-fonts.conf
> > > > D    /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/65-0-google-noto-sans-
> > > > cjk-
> > > > ttc.conf
> > > > D    /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/65-google-noto-cjk-
> > > > fonts.conf
> > > > A    /usr/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-0-google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-
> > > > fonts.conf
> > > > A   
> > > > /usr/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-google-noto-sans-cjk-mono-vf-
> > > > fonts.conf
> > > > A    /usr/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-
> > > > fonts.conf
> > > > A    /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/65-0-google-noto-sans-
> > > > cjk-vf-
> > > > fonts.conf
> > > > A   
> > > > /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/65-google-noto-sans-cjk-mono-
> > > > vf-
> > > > fonts.conf
> > > > A    /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/65-google-noto-sans-cjk-
> > > > vf-
> > > > fonts.conf
> > > > 
> > > > But I am noticing some font being very thin, including English
> > > > fonts in
> > > > Evince when not using embed fonts and all non-UI text in
> > > > Telegram
> > > > (both
> > > > Evince and Telegram is installed from flatpak).
> > > > 
> > > > I don't know if this should be considered as a bug from this
> > > > change
> > > > or
> > > > just several applications not being compatible with VF fonts
> > > > and
> > > > should
> > > > be reported to their upstream separately.
> > > > 
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Qiyu Yan
> > > > 
> > > > ---
> > > > This is an example of a random PDF file not being rendered
> > > > correctly:
> > > > https://texdoc.org/serve/latexmk/0
> > > > 
> > > > Firefox can correctly render fonts with different weight while
> > > > Evince
> > > > will produce equal-weight result.
> > > > 
> > > > 在 2023-01-09星期一的 13:28 -0500，Ben Cotton写道：
> > > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Noto_CJK_Variable_Fonts
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 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 Committee.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > == Summary ==
> > > > > > Switch the default Noto CJK fonts for Chinese, Japanese and
> > > > > > Korean
> > > > > > from static to variable fonts.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > == Owner ==
> > > > > > * Name: [[User:pwu| Peng Wu]]
> > > > > > * Email: p...@redhat.com
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > == Detailed Description ==
> > > > > > In order to reduce the font size in Noto CJK fonts, we plan
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > switch
> > > > > > to use the variable fonts by default.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > # Split the google-noto-cjk-fonts package into
> > > > > > google-noto-sans-cjk-fonts and google-noto-serif-cjk-fonts,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > provide the variable fonts in google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > google-noto-serif-cjk-vf-fonts.
> > > > > > # Drop several sub packages which are not installed by
> > > > > > default
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > the google-noto-cjk-fonts package.
> > > > > > ## Like google-noto-sans-cjk-*-fonts, google-noto-sans-*-
> > > > > > fonts,
> > > > > > google-noto-sans-mono-cjk-*-fonts, google-noto-serif-cjk-*-
> > > > > > fonts
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > google-noto-serif-*-fonts
> > > > > > # Install the Noto CJK Variable Fonts by default.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Fedora Copr for testing:
> > > > > > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pwu/noto-cjk/
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > == Feedback ==
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > == Benefit to Fedora ==
> > > > > > The variable fonts will reduce the disk space usage and
> > > > > > live
> > > > > > image
> > > > > > size compared to the static fonts.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > {| class="wikitable"
> > > > > > > > + 

Fedora Linux 38 Beta Released

[Tomas Hrcka]

Fedora Linux 38 Beta Released
--

The Fedora Project is pleased to announce the immediate availability of
Fedora Linux 38 Beta, the next step towards our planned Fedora Linux 38
release at the end of April.

Download the prerelease from our Get Fedora site:
* Get Fedora Linux 38 Beta Workstation:
https://getfedora.org/workstation/download/
* Get Fedora Linux 38 Beta Server: https://getfedora.org/server/download/
* Get Fedora Linux 38 Beta IoT: https://getfedora.org/iot/download/
* Get Fedora Linux 38 Beta CoreOS: https://getfedora.org/coreos/download/
* Get Fedora Linux 38 Beta Cloud: https://getfedora.org/cloud/download/

Or, check out one of our popular variants, including KDE Plasma, Xfce,
and other desktop environments:

* Get Fedora Linux 38 Beta Spins: https://spins.fedoraproject.org/prerelease
* Get Fedora Linux 38 Beta Labs: https://labs.fedoraproject.org/prerelease


## Beta Release Highlights

 - GNOME 44
 - Enabling third-party repositories now enables an unfiltered view of
applications on Flathub
 - Ruby 3.2, gcc 13, LLVM 16, Golang 1.20, PHP 8.2

For more details about the release, read the full announcement at

* https://fedoramagazine.org/announcing-fedora-38-beta/

or look for the prerelease pages in the download sections at

* https://getfedora.org/

Since this is a Beta release, we expect that you may encounter bugs or
missing features. To report issues encountered during testing, contact
the Fedora QA team via the t...@lists.fedoraproject.org mailing list or
in #fedora-qa on Libera Chat or the #qa:fedoraproject.org Matrix room.

Regards,
Fedora Release Engineering.
___
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-annou...@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-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
___
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

Fedora Linux 38 Beta Released

[Tomas Hrcka]

Fedora Linux 38 Beta Released
--

The Fedora Project is pleased to announce the immediate availability of
Fedora Linux 38 Beta, the next step towards our planned Fedora Linux 38
release at the end of April.

Download the prerelease from our Get Fedora site:
* Get Fedora Linux 38 Beta Workstation:
https://getfedora.org/workstation/download/
* Get Fedora Linux 38 Beta Server: https://getfedora.org/server/download/
* Get Fedora Linux 38 Beta IoT: https://getfedora.org/iot/download/
* Get Fedora Linux 38 Beta CoreOS: https://getfedora.org/coreos/download/
* Get Fedora Linux 38 Beta Cloud: https://getfedora.org/cloud/download/

Or, check out one of our popular variants, including KDE Plasma, Xfce,
and other desktop environments:

* Get Fedora Linux 38 Beta Spins: https://spins.fedoraproject.org/prerelease
* Get Fedora Linux 38 Beta Labs: https://labs.fedoraproject.org/prerelease


## Beta Release Highlights

 - GNOME 44
 - Enabling third-party repositories now enables an unfiltered view of
applications on Flathub
 - Ruby 3.2, gcc 13, LLVM 16, Golang 1.20, PHP 8.2

For more details about the release, read the full announcement at

* https://fedoramagazine.org/announcing-fedora-38-beta/

or look for the prerelease pages in the download sections at

* https://getfedora.org/

Since this is a Beta release, we expect that you may encounter bugs or
missing features. To report issues encountered during testing, contact
the Fedora QA team via the t...@lists.fedoraproject.org mailing list or
in #fedora-qa on Libera Chat or the #qa:fedoraproject.org Matrix room.

Regards,
Fedora Release Engineering.
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2178071] Add perl-String-Approx to EPEL 9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178071

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|or...@nwra.com  |ppi...@redhat.com



--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar  ---
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/51963


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178071
___
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: Fwd: License: GPL-3.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-or-later

[David Cantrell]

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 02:04:12PM +, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-03-14 at 08:47 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > ... LibreOffice ...
> 
> FWIW I updated the LibreOffice one a while ago and ended up with:
> MPL-2.0 AND Apache-2.0 AND LGPL-3.0-only AND LGPL-3.0-or-later AND CC0-
> 1.0 AND BSD-3-Clause AND (LGPL-2.1-only OR SISSL) AND (MPL-2.0 OR LGPL-
> 3.0-or-later) AND (MPL-2.0 OR LGPL-2.1-or-later) AND (MPL-1.1 OR GPL-
> 2.0-only OR LGPL-2.1-only)
> 
> A practical problem that has arisen is that gnome-software is listing
> libreoffice langpacks as proprietary :-(
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2176791
> 
> My belief is that it's the presence of brackets in the License tripping
> up appstream into thinking its not a spdx expression, but no response
> to date if my patch to attempt to address that is acceptable:
> https://github.com/ximion/appstream/pull/469

I believe this sort of thing will show up here and there as we convert more
packages to using SPDX license expressions.

The SPDX expression spec can be found here:
https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v2.3/SPDX-license-expressions/

-- 
David Cantrell 
Red Hat, Inc. | Boston, MA | EST5EDT
___
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

perl-String-Approx license corrected

[Petr Pisar]

perl-String-Approx license was corrected from:

LGPLv2+ or Artistic

to:

(LGPL-2.0-or-later OR Artistic-1.0-Perl) AND (Artistic-2.0 OR LGPL-2.0-only)

-- Petr


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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: F38 proposal: Noto CJK Variable Fonts (Self-Contained Change proposal)

[Akira TAGOH]

Thank you for the feedback.

What if you install google-noto-sans-cjk-fonts instead of
google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts?
just wanted to make sure if this is a variable font-related issue or
design-related update in Noto CJK.
Also, good to try on non-flatpak app too. it is a bit complicated to
make sure if they use the expected fonts.
The best way may be to check it out on pango-view and hb-view.

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:58 PM  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Seems that some changes mentioned below just hit
> fedora:fedora/38/x86_64/testing/silverblue today in version
> 38.20230314.0. And ostree diff is below (changes between 38.20230313.0
> and 38.20230314.0, filtered to show only fontconfig files for CJK):
>
> D/usr/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-0-google-noto-sans-cjk-ttc.conf
> D/usr/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-google-noto-cjk-fonts.conf
> D/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/65-0-google-noto-sans-cjk-
> ttc.conf
> D/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/65-google-noto-cjk-fonts.conf
> A/usr/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-0-google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts.conf
> A/usr/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-google-noto-sans-cjk-mono-vf-fonts.conf
> A/usr/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts.conf
> A/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/65-0-google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-
> fonts.conf
> A/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/65-google-noto-sans-cjk-mono-vf-
> fonts.conf
> A/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/65-google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-
> fonts.conf
>
> But I am noticing some font being very thin, including English fonts in
> Evince when not using embed fonts and all non-UI text in Telegram (both
> Evince and Telegram is installed from flatpak).
>
> I don't know if this should be considered as a bug from this change or
> just several applications not being compatible with VF fonts and should
> be reported to their upstream separately.
>
> Cheers,
> Qiyu Yan
>
> ---
> This is an example of a random PDF file not being rendered correctly:
> https://texdoc.org/serve/latexmk/0
>
> Firefox can correctly render fonts with different weight while Evince
> will produce equal-weight result.
>
> 在 2023-01-09星期一的 13:28 -0500，Ben Cotton写道：
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Noto_CJK_Variable_Fonts
> >
> > 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 Committee.
> >
> >
> > == Summary ==
> > Switch the default Noto CJK fonts for Chinese, Japanese and Korean
> > from static to variable fonts.
> >
> > == Owner ==
> > * Name: [[User:pwu| Peng Wu]]
> > * Email: p...@redhat.com
> >
> >
> > == Detailed Description ==
> > In order to reduce the font size in Noto CJK fonts, we plan to switch
> > to use the variable fonts by default.
> >
> > # Split the google-noto-cjk-fonts package into
> > google-noto-sans-cjk-fonts and google-noto-serif-cjk-fonts, and
> > provide the variable fonts in google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts and
> > google-noto-serif-cjk-vf-fonts.
> > # Drop several sub packages which are not installed by default from
> > the google-noto-cjk-fonts package.
> > ## Like google-noto-sans-cjk-*-fonts, google-noto-sans-*-fonts,
> > google-noto-sans-mono-cjk-*-fonts, google-noto-serif-cjk-*-fonts and
> > google-noto-serif-*-fonts
> > # Install the Noto CJK Variable Fonts by default.
> >
> > Fedora Copr for testing:
> > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pwu/noto-cjk/
> >
> > == Feedback ==
> >
> >
> > == Benefit to Fedora ==
> > The variable fonts will reduce the disk space usage and live image
> > size compared to the static fonts.
> >
> > {| class="wikitable"
> > > + RPM Size
> > > -
> > !  Size (bytes) !! Noto Sans CJK !! Noto Serif CJK
> > > -
> > > Static Fonts || 130674365 || 181621033
> > > -
> > > Variable Fonts || 64613100 || 56924710
> > > }
> >
> > == Scope ==
> > * Proposal owners:
> > ** Package four font packages for Noto CJK fonts
> > ** Retire google-noto-cjk-fonts in Fedora rawhide
> > ** Switch to install variable fonts by default in fedora-comps and
> > langpacks
> > ** Submit pull request to lorax templates to use
> > google-noto-sans-cjk-fonts in the boot.iso
> >
> > * Other developers:
> >
> > * Release engineering:
> > * Policies and guidelines: N/A (not needed for this Change)
> > * Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change)
> > * Alignment with Objectives:
> >
> >
> > == Upgrade/compatibility impact ==
> >
> > When upgrade, the variable fonts will be installed by default.
> >
> > == How To Test ==
> >
> > * Please upgrade to Fedora 38 or rawhide to get the latest fonts
> > * Install the variable fonts: google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts and
> > google-noto-serif-cjk-vf-fonts
> > ** Check the google-noto-sans-cjk-ttc-fonts and
> > google-noto-serif-cjk-ttc-fonts packages are replaced
> > * Then use CJK locales to check if the new fonts have any problem
> >
> > == User Experience ==
> >
> > This new variable fonts will 

Re: Fwd: License: GPL-3.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-or-later

[Caolán McNamara]

On Tue, 2023-03-14 at 08:47 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> ... LibreOffice ...

FWIW I updated the LibreOffice one a while ago and ended up with:
MPL-2.0 AND Apache-2.0 AND LGPL-3.0-only AND LGPL-3.0-or-later AND CC0-
1.0 AND BSD-3-Clause AND (LGPL-2.1-only OR SISSL) AND (MPL-2.0 OR LGPL-
3.0-or-later) AND (MPL-2.0 OR LGPL-2.1-or-later) AND (MPL-1.1 OR GPL-
2.0-only OR LGPL-2.1-only)

A practical problem that has arisen is that gnome-software is listing
libreoffice langpacks as proprietary :-(
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2176791

My belief is that it's the presence of brackets in the License tripping
up appstream into thinking its not a spdx expression, but no response
to date if my patch to attempt to address that is acceptable:
https://github.com/ximion/appstream/pull/469
___
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: Fwd: License: GPL-3.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-or-later

[David Cantrell]

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 08:47:36AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14 2023 at 09:37:25 AM -0400, David Cantrell
>  wrote:
> > There may
> > be longer examples.
> 
> Uh, yeah. texlive's is bad enough but I'm skeptical that that's close to a
> worst-case. Proponents of this style of license tag should try this exercise
> for WebKitGTK, Chromium, Firefox, LibreOffice, Inkscape, or Linux kernel and
> report back. Even if you somehow succeed once, ***your result will become
> stale each time the package gets rebased***. We're real bad at keeping the
> existing *simple* license fields updated so there's just no way we'll be
> able to handle the complex version.

We are bad at this, which is one of the big reasons we worked to revise the
current guidelines and process.  By moving to SPDX, Fedora gets out of the
business of not only having to maintain a list of identifiers and consistently
using them, but also coming up with what those identifiers are.  SPDX takes
care of the second part for us by giving us a list and a standard to make
project-specific non-colliding identifiers.

> Even for simple packages, there is no way anybody would ever be able to rely
> on the License field for any purpose: companies will have to do their own
> checks anyway. Maybe we should just remove it instead of pretending that
> it's accurate?

We can't get rid of the License tag, unfortunately.  See:

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/blog/spdx-its-already-in-use-for-global-software-bill-of-materials-sbom-and-supply-chain-security

And as part of the US Executive Order on Cybersecurity, we need to start using
SPDX identifiers in software we package and provide so that our downstream
users are in compliance:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/05/12/executive-order-on-improving-the-nations-cybersecurity/

Software licenses are hard, but trust me when I say that all of the work that
has gone in to revising Fedora's license policies for packages has been done
to relieve developers and package maintainers of the complicated legal work.

As a software developer, I find licensing tedious and sometimes not that
interesting.  *but* I want to know that I am using a license that (a) keeps my
source code open, (b) allows others to use it and benefit from it, and (c)
does not prevent problems for downstream users.

-- 
David Cantrell 
Red Hat, Inc. | Boston, MA | EST5EDT
___
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: F38 proposal: Noto CJK Variable Fonts (Self-Contained Change proposal)

[yanqiyu]

Hi,

Seems that some changes mentioned below just hit
fedora:fedora/38/x86_64/testing/silverblue today in version
38.20230314.0. And ostree diff is below (changes between 38.20230313.0
and 38.20230314.0, filtered to show only fontconfig files for CJK):

D/usr/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-0-google-noto-sans-cjk-ttc.conf
D/usr/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-google-noto-cjk-fonts.conf
D/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/65-0-google-noto-sans-cjk-
ttc.conf
D/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/65-google-noto-cjk-fonts.conf
A/usr/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-0-google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts.conf
A/usr/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-google-noto-sans-cjk-mono-vf-fonts.conf
A/usr/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts.conf
A/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/65-0-google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-
fonts.conf
A/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/65-google-noto-sans-cjk-mono-vf-
fonts.conf
A/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/65-google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-
fonts.conf

But I am noticing some font being very thin, including English fonts in
Evince when not using embed fonts and all non-UI text in Telegram (both
Evince and Telegram is installed from flatpak). 

I don't know if this should be considered as a bug from this change or
just several applications not being compatible with VF fonts and should
be reported to their upstream separately.

Cheers,
Qiyu Yan

---
This is an example of a random PDF file not being rendered correctly:
https://texdoc.org/serve/latexmk/0

Firefox can correctly render fonts with different weight while Evince
will produce equal-weight result.

在 2023-01-09星期一的 13:28 -0500，Ben Cotton写道：
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Noto_CJK_Variable_Fonts
> 
> 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 Committee.
> 
> 
> == Summary ==
> Switch the default Noto CJK fonts for Chinese, Japanese and Korean
> from static to variable fonts.
> 
> == Owner ==
> * Name: [[User:pwu| Peng Wu]]
> * Email: p...@redhat.com
> 
> 
> == Detailed Description ==
> In order to reduce the font size in Noto CJK fonts, we plan to switch
> to use the variable fonts by default.
> 
> # Split the google-noto-cjk-fonts package into
> google-noto-sans-cjk-fonts and google-noto-serif-cjk-fonts, and
> provide the variable fonts in google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts and
> google-noto-serif-cjk-vf-fonts.
> # Drop several sub packages which are not installed by default from
> the google-noto-cjk-fonts package.
> ## Like google-noto-sans-cjk-*-fonts, google-noto-sans-*-fonts,
> google-noto-sans-mono-cjk-*-fonts, google-noto-serif-cjk-*-fonts and
> google-noto-serif-*-fonts
> # Install the Noto CJK Variable Fonts by default.
> 
> Fedora Copr for testing:
> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pwu/noto-cjk/
> 
> == Feedback ==
> 
> 
> == Benefit to Fedora ==
> The variable fonts will reduce the disk space usage and live image
> size compared to the static fonts.
> 
> {| class="wikitable"
> > + RPM Size
> > -
> !  Size (bytes) !! Noto Sans CJK !! Noto Serif CJK
> > -
> > Static Fonts || 130674365 || 181621033
> > -
> > Variable Fonts || 64613100 || 56924710
> > }
> 
> == Scope ==
> * Proposal owners:
> ** Package four font packages for Noto CJK fonts
> ** Retire google-noto-cjk-fonts in Fedora rawhide
> ** Switch to install variable fonts by default in fedora-comps and
> langpacks
> ** Submit pull request to lorax templates to use
> google-noto-sans-cjk-fonts in the boot.iso
> 
> * Other developers:
> 
> * Release engineering:
> * Policies and guidelines: N/A (not needed for this Change)
> * Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change)
> * Alignment with Objectives:
> 
> 
> == Upgrade/compatibility impact ==
> 
> When upgrade, the variable fonts will be installed by default.
> 
> == How To Test ==
> 
> * Please upgrade to Fedora 38 or rawhide to get the latest fonts
> * Install the variable fonts: google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts and
> google-noto-serif-cjk-vf-fonts
> ** Check the google-noto-sans-cjk-ttc-fonts and
> google-noto-serif-cjk-ttc-fonts packages are replaced
> * Then use CJK locales to check if the new fonts have any problem
> 
> == User Experience ==
> 
> This new variable fonts will reduce the disk space usage and live
> image size.
> 
> == Dependencies ==
> 
> 
> == Contingency Plan ==
> 
> * Contingency mechanism: Use the static fonts by default -
> google-noto-sans-cjk-fonts and google-noto-serif-cjk-fonts
> * Contingency deadline: N/A
> * Blocks release? N/A
> 
> 
> == Documentation ==
> N/A (not a System Wide Change)
> 
> == Release Notes ==
> 
> This new variable fonts will reduce the disk space usage and live
> image size.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ben Cotton
> He / Him / His
> Fedora Program Manager
> Red Hat
> TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
> ___
> devel mailing list -- 

Re: Fwd: License: GPL-3.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-or-later

[Michael Catanzaro]

On Tue, Mar 14 2023 at 09:37:25 AM -0400, David Cantrell 
 wrote:

There may
be longer examples.


Uh, yeah. texlive's is bad enough but I'm skeptical that that's close 
to a worst-case. Proponents of this style of license tag should try 
this exercise for WebKitGTK, Chromium, Firefox, LibreOffice, Inkscape, 
or Linux kernel and report back. Even if you somehow succeed once, 
***your result will become stale each time the package gets rebased***. 
We're real bad at keeping the existing *simple* license fields updated 
so there's just no way we'll be able to handle the complex version.


Even for simple packages, there is no way anybody would ever be able to 
rely on the License field for any purpose: companies will have to do 
their own checks anyway. Maybe we should just remove it instead of 
pretending that it's accurate?


Michael

___
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: Fwd: License: GPL-3.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-or-later

[David Cantrell]

On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 04:41:04PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 6:58 PM Michael Catanzaro  
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 10 2023 at 04:17:13 PM -0500, Matthew Miller
> >  wrote:
> > > Yeah, this is a change from previous guidance. Instead of trying to
> > > calculate
> > > the effect, just state what's there. Even if it makes the expression
> > > kind of
> > > long and unwieldy.
> > >
> >
> > Just for avoidance of doubt: this guidance is completely impractical
> > and it can only be followed for simple packages.
> 
> I can only agree here.
> For example, for many non-trivial Rust packages, just "listing what's
> there" without doing some amount of simplification will result in
> License tags that are >100 characters long. I don't know if there's
> any limit to the length of RPM headers, but if there is, we might hit
> the limit with the "guidance" ...

It is true that the License tags going forward will be longer.  One that we
have continued looking at ("we" being those of us working closely on the SPDX
changes in Fedora) is the texlive package.  It currently has:

Apache-2.0 AND Artistic-2.0 AND CC0-1.0 AND CC-BY-3.0 AND CC-BY-4.0 AND 
CC-BY-SA-3.0 AND CC-BY-SA-4.0 AND GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND 
GPL-3.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.1-or-later AND LPPL-1.2 AND LPPL-1.3c AND MIT AND 
LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain AND LicenseRef-Utopia

For the main package's license tag.  And that's276 characters?  There may
be longer examples.

The length here should not stop us from collecting this information.
Consistent licensing information in the packages is important.  Note the
guidance states "an enumeration of all licenses covering any code or other
material contained in the corresponding binary RPM".  This means licenses that
appear in build scripts, GNU autotools helper scripts, and other things in the
source tree that are not part of the built code in the corresponding binary
RPM do not need to be part of the License tag.

Thanks,

-- 
David Cantrell 
Red Hat, Inc. | Boston, MA | EST5EDT
___
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

[Bug 2173683] ack-3.7.0 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173683

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
   Fixed In Version||ack-3.7.0-1.fc39
Last Closed||2023-03-14 13:28:43



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-9aaa66f17a has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173683
___
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 2173683] ack-3.7.0 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173683

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |MODIFIED



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-9aaa66f17a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-9aaa66f17a


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173683
___
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

[rpms/perl-Perl4-CoreLibs] PR #6: 0.005 bump

[Michal Josef Špaček]

mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Perl4-CoreLibs` 
that you are following:
``
0.005 bump
``

To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Perl4-CoreLibs/pull-request/6
___
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

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20230314.n.0 changes

[Fedora Rawhide Report]

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20230313.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20230314.n.0

= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images:  2
Added packages:  3
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages:   124
Downgraded packages: 0

Size of added packages:  1.93 MiB
Size of dropped packages:4.69 MiB
Size of upgraded packages:   7.79 GiB
Size of downgraded packages: 0 B

Size change of upgraded packages:   32.70 MiB
Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B

= ADDED IMAGES =
Image: Kinoite dvd-ostree ppc64le
Path: Kinoite/ppc64le/iso/Fedora-Kinoite-ostree-ppc64le-Rawhide-20230314.n.0.iso

= DROPPED IMAGES =
Image: Container_Minimal_Base docker aarch64
Path: 
Container/aarch64/images/Fedora-Container-Minimal-Base-Rawhide-20230313.n.0.aarch64.tar.xz
Image: Server_KVM qcow2 aarch64
Path: Server/aarch64/images/Fedora-Server-KVM-Rawhide-20230313.n.0.aarch64.qcow2

= ADDED PACKAGES =
Package: guvcview-2.0.8-5.fc39
Summary: GTK+ UVC Viewer and Capturer
RPMs:guvcview guvcview-devel guvcview-libs
Size:1.46 MiB

Package: lua-zlib-1.2-1.fc39
Summary: Simple streaming interface to zlib for Lua
RPMs:lua-zlib
Size:70.59 KiB

Package: python-intern-1.4.0-1.fc39
Summary: Python SDK for interacting with neuroscience data via the Boss API
RPMs:python-intern-doc python3-intern
Size:409.54 KiB


= DROPPED PACKAGES =
Package: htdig-4:3.2.0-0.44.b6.fc38
Summary: ht://Dig - Web search engine
RPMs:htdig htdig-web
Size:4.69 MiB


= UPGRADED PACKAGES =
Package:  ImageMagick-1:7.1.0.62-2.fc39
Old package:  ImageMagick-1:7.1.0.62-1.fc39
Summary:  An X application for displaying and manipulating images
RPMs: ImageMagick ImageMagick-c++ ImageMagick-c++-devel 
ImageMagick-devel ImageMagick-djvu ImageMagick-doc ImageMagick-libs 
ImageMagick-perl
Size: 38.41 MiB
Size change:  10.59 KiB
Changelog:
  * Mon Mar 13 2023 Mamoru TASAKA  - 1:7.1.0-62-2
  - Backport upstream fix for GetPageGeometry misbehavior (bug 2177631)


Package:  LibRaw-0.21.1-3.fc39
Old package:  LibRaw-0.21.1-2.fc38
Summary:  Library for reading RAW files obtained from digital photo cameras
RPMs: LibRaw LibRaw-devel LibRaw-samples LibRaw-static
Size: 5.09 MiB
Size change:  -3.26 KiB
Changelog:
  * Mon Mar 13 2023 Gwyn Ciesla  - 0.21.1-3
  - migrate to SPDX license


Package:  R-ape-5.7.1-1.fc39
Old package:  R-ape-5.6.2-3.fc38
Summary:  Analyses of Phylogenetics and Evolution
RPMs: R-ape
Size: 12.45 MiB
Size change:  -938.20 KiB
Changelog:
  * Mon Mar 13 2023 Tom Callaway  - 5.7.1-1
  - update to 5.7-1


Package:  WALinuxAgent-2.9.0.4-1.fc39
Old package:  WALinuxAgent-2.8.0.11-2.fc38
Summary:  The Microsoft Azure Linux Agent
RPMs: WALinuxAgent WALinuxAgent-udev
Size: 733.88 KiB
Size change:  11.34 KiB
Changelog:
  * Fri Jan 20 2023 Dusty Mabe  - 2.8.0.11-3
  - Move module-setup.sh into git

  * Mon Mar 13 2023 Vitaly Kuznetsov  - 2.9.0.4-1
  - Update to 2.9.0.4 (#2177333)


Package:  We10X-icon-theme-0-27.20230309git12934034.fc39
Old package:  We10X-icon-theme-0-26.20220917git3ffc38fe.fc38
Summary:  Colorful icon theme inspired by Microsoft Windows 10 aesthetic
RPMs: We10X-icon-theme
Size: 6.98 MiB
Size change:  462.62 KiB
Changelog:
  * Mon Mar 13 2023 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki  - 
0-27.20230309git12934034
  - Update to latest git snapshot (2023-03-09)


Package:  alsa-plugins-1.2.7.1-5.fc39
Old package:  alsa-plugins-1.2.7.1-4.fc39
Summary:  The Advanced Linux Sound Architecture (ALSA) Plugins
RPMs: alsa-plugins-a52 alsa-plugins-arcamav alsa-plugins-avtp 
alsa-plugins-jack alsa-plugins-lavrate alsa-plugins-maemo alsa-plugins-oss 
alsa-plugins-pulseaudio alsa-plugins-samplerate alsa-plugins-speex 
alsa-plugins-upmix alsa-plugins-usbstream alsa-plugins-vdownmix
Size: 2.04 MiB
Size change:  4.89 KiB
Changelog:
  * Sun Mar 12 2023 Neal Gompa  - 1.2.7.1-5
  - Rebuild for ffmpeg 6.0


Package:  annobin-11.14-1.fc39
Old package:  annobin-11.13-1.fc39
Summary:  Annotate and examine compiled binary files
RPMs: annobin-annocheck annobin-docs annobin-libannocheck 
annobin-plugin-clang annobin-plugin-gcc annobin-plugin-llvm
Size: 4.96 MiB
Size change:  280 B
Changelog:
  * Mon Mar 13 2023 Nick Clifton   - 11.14-1
  - Annocheck: Update message for LTO tests.  (#2177140)


Package:  attract-mode-2.6.2-6.fc39
Old package:  attract-mode-2.6.2-5.fc38
Summary:  A graphical front-end for command line emulators
RPMs: attract-mode attract-mode-data
Size: 8.50 MiB
Size change:  4.66 KiB
Changelog:
  * Sun Mar 12 2023 Neal Gompa  - 2.6.2-6
  - Rebuild for ffmpeg 6.0


Package:  audacious-plugins-4.3-2.fc39
Old package:  audacious-plugins-4.3-1.fc39
Summary:  Plugins for the Audacious audio player
RPMs: audacious-plugins audacious-plugins-amidi 
audacious-plugins-exotic audacious-plugins-ffaudio audacious-plugins-jack

[rpms/perl-Perl4-CoreLibs] PR #5: 0.005 bump

[Michal Josef Špaček]

mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Perl4-CoreLibs` that 
you are following.

Merged pull-request:

``
0.005 bump
``

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Perl4-CoreLibs/pull-request/5
___
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 2178070] Add perl-AnyEvent-CacheDNS to EPEL 9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178070



--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-d0469ebccb has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-d0469ebccb


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178070
___
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 2178070] Add perl-AnyEvent-CacheDNS to EPEL 9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178070

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
   Fixed In Version||perl-AnyEvent-CacheDNS-0.08
   ||-25.el9




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178070
___
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

Fedora 38 compose report: 20230314.n.0 changes

[Fedora Rawhide Report]

OLD: Fedora-38-20230313.n.0
NEW: Fedora-38-20230314.n.0

= SUMMARY =
Added images:2
Dropped images:  4
Added packages:  3
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages:   183
Downgraded packages: 0

Size of added packages:  1.26 MiB
Size of dropped packages:4.03 MiB
Size of upgraded packages:   6.00 GiB
Size of downgraded packages: 0 B

Size change of upgraded packages:   45.93 MiB
Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B

= ADDED IMAGES =
Image: Kinoite dvd-ostree x86_64
Path: Kinoite/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Kinoite-ostree-x86_64-38-20230314.n.0.iso
Image: Silverblue dvd-ostree ppc64le
Path: 
Silverblue/ppc64le/iso/Fedora-Silverblue-ostree-ppc64le-38-20230314.n.0.iso

= DROPPED IMAGES =
Image: Kinoite dvd-ostree aarch64
Path: Kinoite/aarch64/iso/Fedora-Kinoite-ostree-aarch64-38-20230313.n.0.iso
Image: Sericea dvd-ostree x86_64
Path: Sericea/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Sericea-ostree-x86_64-38-20230313.n.0.iso
Image: KDE raw-xz aarch64
Path: Spins/aarch64/images/Fedora-KDE-38-20230313.n.0.aarch64.raw.xz
Image: Kinoite dvd-ostree ppc64le
Path: Kinoite/ppc64le/iso/Fedora-Kinoite-ostree-ppc64le-38-20230313.n.0.iso

= ADDED PACKAGES =
Package: ancient-2.0.0-2.fc38
Summary: Modern decompressor for old data compression formats
RPMs:ancient ancient-devel ancient-libs
Size:891.12 KiB

Package: guile-gnutls-3.7.11-1.fc38
Summary: Guile bindings for the GNUTLS library
RPMs:guile-gnutls
Size:370.39 KiB

Package: python-tcx2gpx-0.1.4-1.fc38
Summary: Convert Garmin TPX to GPX
RPMs:python3-tcx2gpx
Size:25.82 KiB


= DROPPED PACKAGES =
Package: libgit2_1.4-1.4.6-2.fc38
Summary: C implementation of the Git core methods as a library with a solid API
RPMs:libgit2_1.4 libgit2_1.4-devel
Size:4.03 MiB


= UPGRADED PACKAGES =
Package:  ags-3.6.0.44-1.fc38
Old package:  ags-3.6.0.42-1.fc38
Summary:  Engine for creating and running videogames of adventure (quest) 
genre
RPMs: ags
Size: 5.65 MiB
Size change:  3.25 KiB
Changelog:
  * Wed Mar 08 2023 Dominik Mierzejewski  - 3.6.0.44-1
  - update to 3.6.0.44 (#2172608)


Package:  alsa-plugins-1.2.7.1-5.fc38
Old package:  alsa-plugins-1.2.7.1-4.fc38
Summary:  The Advanced Linux Sound Architecture (ALSA) Plugins
RPMs: alsa-plugins-a52 alsa-plugins-arcamav alsa-plugins-avtp 
alsa-plugins-jack alsa-plugins-lavrate alsa-plugins-maemo alsa-plugins-oss 
alsa-plugins-pulseaudio alsa-plugins-samplerate alsa-plugins-speex 
alsa-plugins-upmix alsa-plugins-usbstream alsa-plugins-vdownmix
Size: 2.04 MiB
Size change:  5.40 KiB
Changelog:
  * Sun Mar 12 2023 Neal Gompa  - 1.2.7.1-5
  - Rebuild for ffmpeg 6.0


Package:  attract-mode-2.6.2-6.fc38
Old package:  attract-mode-2.6.2-5.fc38
Summary:  A graphical front-end for command line emulators
RPMs: attract-mode attract-mode-data
Size: 8.49 MiB
Size change:  -562 B
Changelog:
  * Sun Mar 12 2023 Neal Gompa  - 2.6.2-6
  - Rebuild for ffmpeg 6.0


Package:  audacious-plugins-4.3-2.fc38
Old package:  audacious-plugins-4.3-1.fc38
Summary:  Plugins for the Audacious audio player
RPMs: audacious-plugins audacious-plugins-amidi 
audacious-plugins-exotic audacious-plugins-ffaudio audacious-plugins-jack
Size: 8.33 MiB
Size change:  1.91 KiB
Changelog:
  * Sun Mar 12 2023 Neal Gompa  - 4.3-2
  - Rebuild for ffmpeg 6.0


Package:  autorandr-1.13.3-1.fc38
Old package:  autorandr-1.12.1-3.fc38
Summary:  Automatically select a display configuration based on connected 
devices
RPMs: autorandr autorandr-bash-completion autorandr-zsh-completion
Size: 62.13 KiB
Size change:  2.87 KiB
Changelog:
  * Thu Mar 09 2023 Peter Kotvan  - 1.13.2-1
  - Update to 1.13.2.

  * Thu Mar 09 2023 Peter Kotvan  - 1.13.3-1
  - Update to 1.13.3.


Package:  blender-1:3.4.1-16.fc38
Old package:  blender-1:3.4.1-13.fc38
Summary:  3D modeling, animation, rendering and post-production
RPMs: blender blender-rpm-macros
Size: 200.66 MiB
Size change:  -2.23 KiB
Changelog:
  * Thu Mar 09 2023 Benjamin A. Beasley  - 1:3.4.1-14
  - Fix building with boost >= 1.81 (fix RHBZ#2172445)

  * Sun Mar 12 2023 Neal Gompa  - 1:3.4.1-15
  - Rebuild for ffmpeg 6.0

  * Sun Mar 12 2023 Neal Gompa  - 1:3.4.1-16
  - Add patch to fix build with ffmpeg >= 6.0


Package:  breeze-icon-theme-5.104.0-1.fc38
Old package:  breeze-icon-theme-5.103.0-1.fc38
Summary:  Breeze icon theme
RPMs: breeze-icon-theme breeze-icon-theme-rcc
Size: 11.45 MiB
Size change:  12.07 KiB
Changelog:
  * Sat Mar 04 2023 Marc Deop i Argem??  - 5.104.0-1
  - 5.104.0


Package:  btrfs-progs-6.2.1-1.fc38
Old package:  btrfs-progs-6.1.3-1.fc38
Summary:  Userspace programs for btrfs
RPMs: btrfs-progs btrfs-progs-devel libbtrfs libbtrfsutil 
python3-btrfsutil
Size: 5.71 MiB
Size change:  -26.69 KiB
Changelog:
  * Mon Mar 06 2023 Neal Gompa  - 6.2.1-1
  - Update to

Re: Release rpkg-1.66 and fedpkg-1.44

[Miro Hrončok]

On 13. 03. 23 21:53, Otto Liljalaakso wrote:

Miro Hrončok kirjoitti 9.3.2023 klo 13.17:

On 09. 03. 23 10:05, Otto Liljalaakso wrote:

Miro Hrončok kirjoitti 8.3.2023 klo 17.29:


However, maybe it does not work as I expected?

[python-setuptools (bundles %)]$ fedpkg prep
Not downloading already downloaded setuptools-65.5.1.tar.gz
Could not execute prep: Could not find the release/dist from branch name 
bundles

Please specify with --release


Right, it looks like you interpreted "outside of an established dist-git 
repository" to cover the case where you do have a Git repository, but are in 
a local branch with a custom name. Unfortunately, currently only the case 
where there is no Git repository at all is covered.


Mea culpa. I assumed that's the case because I don't use fedpkg outside of 
git much.


I presume that in your example you intend to eventually create a pull 
request. Fedpkg should have a great support for that as well, but a bit 
(just a bit) more work is needed to cover that case. I suppose that it would 
be enough to, instead of printing the error you saw, fall back to using the 
same default mechanism that is used for the no-Git case. I will take a look 
at some point — unless somebody beats me to it, of course.


I took a look at this, and making '--release rawhide' for unknown branches is 
very easy [1]. I did not create a pull request yet, because I am a bit unsure 
if this is a good idea. My assumption is still that the vast majority of 
unknown branches are created for Rawhide pull requests. But for the ones that 
are for some other purpose, the default behavior changes from asking to be 
explicit with --release, to doing the wrong thing.


There would be log output notifying about defaulting to 'rawhide', and the 
--release parameter could still be used to select the correct release. So maybe 
convenience for the majority case weighs more than some risk for the minority 
case?


I think so.

This can even be improved to make f38-foo default to f38 etc. That way, I would 
hardly ever need to use --release except for cases where I want to test-build 
foo on both rawhide and f38.


If you worry about the risks, I suppose fedpkg build (without --scratch) might 
abort without --release when the branch is not "proper". All the other use 
cases i could think of should be safe.


--
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

(Non-)Schedule for Tuesday's FESCo Meeting (2023-03-14)

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

There is nothing on the agenda; the meeting is cancelled.

= Discussed and Voted in the Ticket =

#2962 Change: MinGW toolchain update 
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2962
APPROVED (+6,0,-0)
___
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: Release rpkg-1.66 and fedpkg-1.44

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 10:53:41PM +0200, Otto Liljalaakso wrote:
> Miro Hrončok kirjoitti 9.3.2023 klo 13.17:
> > On 09. 03. 23 10:05, Otto Liljalaakso wrote:
> > > Miro Hrončok kirjoitti 8.3.2023 klo 17.29:
> > > > 
> > > > However, maybe it does not work as I expected?
> > > > 
> > > > [python-setuptools (bundles %)]$ fedpkg prep
> > > > Not downloading already downloaded setuptools-65.5.1.tar.gz
> > > > Could not execute prep: Could not find the release/dist from
> > > > branch name bundles
> > > > Please specify with --release
> > > 
> > > Right, it looks like you interpreted "outside of an established
> > > dist-git repository" to cover the case where you do have a Git
> > > repository, but are in a local branch with a custom name.
> > > Unfortunately, currently only the case where there is no Git
> > > repository at all is covered.
> > 
> > Mea culpa. I assumed that's the case because I don't use fedpkg outside
> > of git much.
> > 
> > > I presume that in your example you intend to eventually create a
> > > pull request. Fedpkg should have a great support for that as well,
> > > but a bit (just a bit) more work is needed to cover that case. I
> > > suppose that it would be enough to, instead of printing the error
> > > you saw, fall back to using the same default mechanism that is used
> > > for the no-Git case. I will take a look at some point — unless
> > > somebody beats me to it, of course.
> 
> I took a look at this, and making '--release rawhide' for unknown branches
> is very easy [1]. I did not create a pull request yet, because I am a bit
> unsure if this is a good idea. My assumption is still that the vast majority
> of unknown branches are created for Rawhide pull requests. But for the ones
> that are for some other purpose, the default behavior changes from asking to
> be explicit with --release, to doing the wrong thing.
> 
> There would be log output notifying about defaulting to 'rawhide', and the
> --release parameter could still be used to select the correct release. So
> maybe convenience for the majority case weighs more than some risk for the
> minority case?
> 
> [1]: 
> https://pagure.io/fork/oturpe/fedpkg/c/712dc656c4b06dafb693e5048baef45a0d82e973

I think this is reasonable.

>  self.log.info("'%s' is not match any release branch. "

"does not match".

I'd make it just one line:
"'%s' does not match any release branch, using 'rawhide'."

Zbyszek
___
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

[Bug 2178061] Add perl-Digest-MD5-File to EPEL 9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178061

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-2309d37e52 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-2309d37e52


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178061
___
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 2178060] Add perl-DateTime-Format-HTTP to EPEL 9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178060

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-29931d7455 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-29931d7455


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178060
___
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 2178070] Add perl-AnyEvent-CacheDNS to EPEL 9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178070



--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar  ---
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/51961


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178070
___
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 2178061] Add perl-Digest-MD5-File to EPEL 9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178061

Paul Howarth  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



--- Comment #1 from Paul Howarth  ---
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/51960


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178061
___
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 2178060] Add perl-DateTime-Format-HTTP to EPEL 9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178060

Paul Howarth  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



--- Comment #1 from Paul Howarth  ---
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/51959


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178060
___
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 2178071] New: Add perl-String-Approx to EPEL 9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178071

Bug ID: 2178071
   Summary: Add perl-String-Approx to EPEL 9
   Product: Fedora EPEL
   Version: epel9
Status: NEW
 Component: perl-String-Approx
  Assignee: or...@nwra.com
  Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: igor.ra...@gmail.com, or...@nwra.com,
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, ppi...@redhat.com
Blocks: 2178068
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Could you please add perl-String-Approx to EPEL 9? I need it there for
perl-VM-EC2.



Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178068
[Bug 2178068] Add perl-VM-EC2 to EPEL 9
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178071
___
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 2178068] Add perl-VM-EC2 to EPEL 9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178068

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||2178071





Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178071
[Bug 2178071] Add perl-String-Approx to EPEL 9
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178068
___
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 2178068] Add perl-VM-EC2 to EPEL 9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178068

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||2178070





Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178070
[Bug 2178070] Add perl-AnyEvent-CacheDNS to EPEL 9
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178068
___
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 2178070] New: Add perl-AnyEvent-CacheDNS to EPEL 9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178070

Bug ID: 2178070
   Summary: Add perl-AnyEvent-CacheDNS to EPEL 9
   Product: Fedora EPEL
   Version: epel9
Status: NEW
 Component: perl-AnyEvent-CacheDNS
  Assignee: ppi...@redhat.com
  Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: jples...@redhat.com,
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, ppi...@redhat.com
Blocks: 2178068
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Could you please add perl-AnyEvent-CacheDNS to EPEL 9? I need it there for
perl-VM-EC2.



Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178068
[Bug 2178068] Add perl-VM-EC2 to EPEL 9
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178070
___
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 2178068] New: Add perl-VM-EC2 to EPEL 9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178068

Bug ID: 2178068
   Summary: Add perl-VM-EC2 to EPEL 9
   Product: Fedora EPEL
   Version: epel9
Status: NEW
 Component: perl-VM-EC2
  Assignee: ppi...@redhat.com
  Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: jples...@redhat.com,
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, ppi...@redhat.com
Blocks: 2178067
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Could you please add perl-VM-EC2 to EPEL 9? I need it there for
perl-VM-EC2-Security-CredentialCache.



Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178067
[Bug 2178067] Add perl-VM-EC2-Security-CredentialCache to EPEL 9
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178068
___
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 2178067] Add perl-VM-EC2-Security-CredentialCache to EPEL 9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178067

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||2178068





Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178068
[Bug 2178068] Add perl-VM-EC2 to EPEL 9
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178067
___
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 2177873] Please provide perl-Net-Amazon-S3 for EPEL9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177873

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||2178067





Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178067
[Bug 2178067] Add perl-VM-EC2-Security-CredentialCache to EPEL 9
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177873
___
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 2178067] New: Add perl-VM-EC2-Security-CredentialCache to EPEL 9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178067

Bug ID: 2178067
   Summary: Add perl-VM-EC2-Security-CredentialCache to EPEL 9
   Product: Fedora EPEL
   Version: epel9
Status: NEW
 Component: perl-VM-EC2-Security-CredentialCache
  Assignee: ppi...@redhat.com
  Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: jples...@redhat.com,
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, ppi...@redhat.com
Blocks: 2177873
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Could you please add perl-VM-EC2-Security-CredentialCache to EPEL 9? I need it
there for perl-Net-Amazon-S3.



Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177873
[Bug 2177873] Please provide perl-Net-Amazon-S3 for EPEL9
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178067
___
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 2177873] Please provide perl-Net-Amazon-S3 for EPEL9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177873

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||2178064





Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178064
[Bug 2178064] Add perl-MooseX-Types-DateTime-MoreCoercions to EPEL 9
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177873
___
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 2178064] New: Add perl-MooseX-Types-DateTime-MoreCoercions to EPEL 9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178064

Bug ID: 2178064
   Summary: Add perl-MooseX-Types-DateTime-MoreCoercions to EPEL 9
   Product: Fedora EPEL
   Version: epel9
Status: NEW
 Component: perl-MooseX-Types-DateTime-MoreCoercions
  Assignee: emman...@seyman.fr
  Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: emman...@seyman.fr, jakub.jedel...@gmail.com,
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, ppi...@redhat.com,
tjczep...@gmail.com
Blocks: 2177873
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Could you please add perl-MooseX-Types-DateTime-MoreCoercions to EPEL 9? I need
it there for perl-Net-Amazon-S3.



Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177873
[Bug 2177873] Please provide perl-Net-Amazon-S3 for EPEL9
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178064
___
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 2178063] New: Add perl-MooseX-StrictConstructor to EPEL 9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178063

Bug ID: 2178063
   Summary: Add perl-MooseX-StrictConstructor to EPEL 9
   Product: Fedora EPEL
   Version: epel9
Status: NEW
 Component: perl-MooseX-StrictConstructor
  Assignee: emman...@seyman.fr
  Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: emman...@seyman.fr, iarn...@gmail.com,
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Blocks: 2177873
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Could you please add perl-MooseX-StrictConstructor to EPEL 9? I need it there
for perl-Net-Amazon-S3.



Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177873
[Bug 2177873] Please provide perl-Net-Amazon-S3 for EPEL9
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178063
___
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 2177873] Please provide perl-Net-Amazon-S3 for EPEL9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177873

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||2178063





Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178063
[Bug 2178063] Add perl-MooseX-StrictConstructor to EPEL 9
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177873
___
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 2178061] New: Add perl-Digest-MD5-File to EPEL 9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178061

Bug ID: 2178061
   Summary: Add perl-Digest-MD5-File to EPEL 9
   Product: Fedora EPEL
   Version: epel9
Status: NEW
 Component: perl-Digest-MD5-File
  Assignee: p...@city-fan.org
  Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: p...@city-fan.org, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Blocks: 2177873
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Could you please add perl-Digest-MD5-File to EPEL 9? I need it there for
perl-Net-Amazon-S3.



Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177873
[Bug 2177873] Please provide perl-Net-Amazon-S3 for EPEL9
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178061
___
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 2177873] Please provide perl-Net-Amazon-S3 for EPEL9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177873

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||2178061





Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178061
[Bug 2178061] Add perl-Digest-MD5-File to EPEL 9
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177873
___
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 2178060] New: Add perl-DateTime-Format-HTTP to EPEL 9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178060

Bug ID: 2178060
   Summary: Add perl-DateTime-Format-HTTP to EPEL 9
   Product: Fedora EPEL
   Version: epel9
Status: NEW
 Component: perl-DateTime-Format-HTTP
  Assignee: p...@city-fan.org
  Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: iarn...@gmail.com, lkund...@v3.sk, mspa...@redhat.com,
p...@city-fan.org, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Blocks: 2177873
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Could you please add perl-DateTime-Format-HTTP to EPEL 9? I need it there for
perl-Net-Amazon-S3.



Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177873
[Bug 2177873] Please provide perl-Net-Amazon-S3 for EPEL9
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178060
___
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 2177873] Please provide perl-Net-Amazon-S3 for EPEL9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177873

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||2178060





Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178060
[Bug 2178060] Add perl-DateTime-Format-HTTP to EPEL 9
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177873
___
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: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2023-03-07)

[Miro Hrončok]

On 10. 03. 23 18:53, Kevin Fenzi wrote:

I've reopenedhttps://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2951  and will try to find a
compromise that has a chance of approval.

But shouldn't it have to start completely over since we rejected it?


Exactly, that's why I said in the ticket "No proposal yet". Once a proposal is 
formed, I'll gladly start over with it.


--
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2177873] Please provide perl-Net-Amazon-S3 for EPEL9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177873

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||2178059





Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178059
[Bug 2178059] Add perl-Data-Stream-Bulk to EPEL 9
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177873
___
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 2178059] New: Add perl-Data-Stream-Bulk to EPEL 9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178059

Bug ID: 2178059
   Summary: Add perl-Data-Stream-Bulk to EPEL 9
   Product: Fedora EPEL
   Version: epel9
Status: NEW
 Component: perl-Data-Stream-Bulk
  Assignee: emman...@seyman.fr
  Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: emman...@seyman.fr, iarn...@gmail.com,
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Blocks: 2177873
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Could you please add perl-Data-Stream-Bulk to EPEL 9? I need it there for
perl-Net-Amazon-S3.



Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177873
[Bug 2177873] Please provide perl-Net-Amazon-S3 for EPEL9
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178059
___
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: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2023-03-07)

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 09:59:03AM +0100, Hunor Csomortáni wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 8:46 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
>  wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 05:49:24AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> > > Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > > * #2951 Proposal: policy for resubmitting rejected proposals  (zbyszek,
> > > >   17:07:47)
> > > >   * AGREED: FESCo will make an effort to notify people when proposals
> > > > are resubmitted for voting without a formal change in the process
> > > > rules. A note will be added to FESCo_meeting_process. (+7,0,0)
> > > > (zbyszek, 17:18:25)
> > >
> > > So basically we are stuck with the status quo. Meaning that there is still
> > > nothing preventing an already rejected feature from being surprisingly
> > > reconsidered after the change deadline, and no guarantee that the "effort 
> > > to
> > > notify people" is actually going to happen (especially in the future, as
> > > FESCo composition changes). Sad. I had got the impression that there were
> > > consensus in FESCo to improve the situation. Apparently, that was a false
> > > impression, unfortunately.
> >
> > Your assumption of bad faith from elected representatives of the community 
> > is
> > worrying. You manage to imply bad intentions not only from the current 
> > group,
> > but even from the future ones, yet unknown. Quite an achievement! I think 
> > that
> > you are under a false impression that repeating your argument ad infinitum 
> > is
> > useful for something.
> 
> I agree that Kevin's wording has a negative tone, though I also agree
> with his point.
> 
> "make an effort" is not a clear and explicit enough wording, and it
> leaves room for interpretation, which might lead to questionable
> situations in the future, even if everything is going to be done in
> good faith.

> Speaking about conflicts: as I already stated above, I also agree that
> Kevin's wording can be read as negative and not particularly
> constructive. But I also would like to call out that Zbyszek's use of
> language is outright unacceptable.
> 
> No matter how I read it: it is an attack on the person, rather than a
> constructive argument. ("your assumption", "you manage", "you are
> under a false impression"). While I do understand the stress caused by
> these neverending discussions and arguments, I expect better from a
> member of FESCo, especially around "hot topics" like this.

Normally, I wouldn't phrase a letter this way. But Kevin will incessantly
repeat the same things after a decision is made that he disagrees with
or when there is some fact that he doesn't like. This nuisance does not
serve a communication mechanism, because the people at the receiving
end have already heard the exact same phrase from Kevin a dozen times,
but it does work as a way to grind people down. If you are just watching
the discussion from the side, you may see it just as "negative and not
particularly constructive", but I assure you it feels like more than that
after the fifth time.

I also stand by what I wrote above. Kevin's words that "there is still
nothing preventing an already rejected feature from being surprisingly
reconsidered after the change deadline" can only be true if we assume that
decision made by FESCo to "make an effort to notify people when proposals
are resubmitted for voting" has no effect. And for it to have no effect the
FESCo chair and other members would need to ignore the decision and
the documented process [1]. In short, only when bad faith is assumed.

[1] 
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=FESCo_meeting_process=revision=670619=670618

Zbyszek

P.S. And if you wonder why its phrased as "make an effort": unfortunately
we have no unambiguous mechanism to notify people. Not everybody has a
pagure account, we can't add people to issues, they need to self-subscribe,
and some people only participate on fedora-devel, others only on IRC, etc.
___
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

[Bug 2177873] Please provide perl-Net-Amazon-S3 for EPEL9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177873

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177873
___
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

[rpms/perl-Perl4-CoreLibs] PR #5: 0.005 bump

[Michal Josef Špaček]

mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Perl4-CoreLibs` 
that you are following:
``
0.005 bump
``

To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Perl4-CoreLibs/pull-request/5
___
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

[rpms/perl-Perl4-CoreLibs] PR #4: 0.005 bump

[Michal Josef Špaček]

mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Perl4-CoreLibs` that 
you are following.

Merged pull-request:

``
0.005 bump
``

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Perl4-CoreLibs/pull-request/4
___
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

[rpms/perl-Perl4-CoreLibs] PR #4: 0.005 bump

[Michal Josef Špaček]

mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Perl4-CoreLibs` 
that you are following:
``
0.005 bump
``

To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Perl4-CoreLibs/pull-request/4
___
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: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2023-03-07)

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 11:28:58AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Neal Gompa:
> 
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 4:37 AM Florian Weimer  wrote:
> >>
> >> * Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek:
> >>
> >> > * #2951 Proposal: policy for resubmitting rejected proposals  (zbyszek,
> >> >   17:07:47)
> >> >   * AGREED: FESCo will make an effort to notify people when proposals
> >> > are resubmitted for voting without a formal change in the process
> >> > rules. A note will be added to FESCo_meeting_process. (+7,0,0)
> >> > (zbyszek, 17:18:25)
> >>
> >> Can we also please tell Pagure to send notifications for tickets when
> >> labels are changed, so that it's possible to watch the ticket and get
> >> notified when the proposal makes it to the meeting?
> >>
> >> The current process is difficult to follow.  Basically, if you have
> >> something in the pipeline, you need to remember check something every
> >> week (either the announcement with the minutes, or the ticket itself,
> >> assuming that the label is set correctly) to see if your proposal is
> >> going to be discussed in the next meeting.
> >>
> >
> > We cannot subscribe you to a ticket, but you can subscribe to a ticket
> > of interest and get those notifications.
> 
> As far as I can tell, Pagure is not configured to send out mail on
> label/tag changes, though.

pagure does include a message about tags added/removed, at least in the
case where a comment is made and/or the ticket is closed. It doesn't
seem to send a mail if only a label is changed. (I set a random label
on https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2967 for a test right now, and I didn't
get any mail.)

It would be nice if this could be changed in pagure.

Zbyszek
___
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

[rpms/perl-Perl4-CoreLibs] PR #3: 0.005 bump

[Michal Josef Špaček]

mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Perl4-CoreLibs` that 
you are following.

Merged pull-request:

``
0.005 bump
``

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Perl4-CoreLibs/pull-request/3
___
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

[rpms/perl-Perl4-CoreLibs] PR #3: 0.005 bump

[Michal Josef Špaček]

mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Perl4-CoreLibs` 
that you are following:
``
0.005 bump
``

To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Perl4-CoreLibs/pull-request/3
___
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 2177939] perl-Perl4-CoreLibs-0.005 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177939



--- Comment #2 from Michal Josef Spacek  ---
Update for Fedora 36,37,38 and rawhide


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177939
___
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