On Sat, Sep 9, 2023 at 1:05 AM Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> RHEL making this change does not imply or require that Fedora do the same.
I am neither suggesting Fedora should do so, or
not do so, but just as a hypothetical, should Fedora
choose to do so, do you know if RedHat would be
amenable for
On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 7:34 PM Maxwell G wrote:
> 2023-09-09T01:05:39Z Brendan Conoboy :
>
> > All new issues found or desired in RHEL (Or CentOS Stream) need to be
> > filed on issues.redhat.com[http://issues.redhat.com].
> Hi Brendan,
>
> Thanks for the update.
>
> How can I watch (i.e. get
Does anyone know how to contact Karsten Hopp (karsten)? This email is part
of the non-responsive maintainer process (
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2237962).
The activity report at https://src.fedoraproject.org/user/karsten/ shows no
activity in the past year, and fedora-active-user
2023-09-09T01:05:39Z Brendan Conoboy :
All new issues found or desired in RHEL (Or CentOS Stream) need to be
filed on issues.redhat.com[http://issues.redhat.com].
Hi Brendan,
Thanks for the update.
How can I watch (i.e. get email notifications about) specific packages'
bugs in Jira like I
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2236101
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-HTML-FormatText-WithLi |perl-HTML-FormatText-WithLi
The following Fedora EPEL 9 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
6 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1e3b2a7b2f
libtommath-1.2.0-10.el9
3 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-d9153eda95
salt-3005.2-1.el9
The following builds have been
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2237914
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #2 from
Hi folks,
In March of this year, Josh Boyer sent out a message to Fedora's devel list
letting everybody know RHEL was going to move from bugzilla.redhat.com to
issues.redhat.com (Jira) in the future [1]. The work on this activity
has proceeded with relative quiet since, although a couple weeks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2236101
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
Hi Kenneth,
> I'm not 100% clear on the process. I have a .spec file that passes fedpkg
> mockbuild.
>
> I submitted the request to
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238052.
>
> Is that all? What else should I do?
Well the package is already in Fedora with a maintainer [1] so you
On 2023-09-08 12:58, Kai A. Hiller wrote:
I’m trying to recreate – on the level of RPMs – a Fedora system as
resolved by DNF at an earlier moment in time (think lockfile).
Collecting a list of the installed RPMs and their versions for a given
system is easily done via `dnf list installed`;
On 08-09-2023 16:48, Sérgio Basto wrote:
done [1] thanks , btw another question I don't need do a new build
isn't it ?
No, since there was no license change - in your case not even the
specifier changed
and if the license format changed , should we build a new release ? and
in all
Hi Kai,
On Fri, Sep 08, 2023 at 09:58:58PM +0200, Kai A. Hiller wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I’m trying to recreate – on the level of RPMs – a Fedora system as resolved
> by DNF at an earlier moment in time (think lockfile). Collecting a list of
> the installed RPMs and their versions for a given system
On Fri, 2023-09-08 at 15:47 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-09-08 at 16:25 +0200, Lumír Balhar wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > Have you managed to fix the issue? The error is produce by the
> > configure
> > script and the check is implemented there somewhere around line
> > 4293
> > but
> > I
Hello,
I’m trying to recreate – on the level of RPMs – a Fedora system as
resolved by DNF at an earlier moment in time (think lockfile).
Collecting a list of the installed RPMs and their versions for a given
system is easily done via `dnf list installed`; though, afaict these
RPMs in their
I'm not 100% clear on the process. I have a .spec file that passes fedpkg
mockbuild.
I submitted the request to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238052.
Is that all? What else should I do?
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
On Fri, 2023-09-08 at 18:50 +0200, Jun Aruga (he / him) wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 6:06 PM Yaakov Selkowitz
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2023-09-08 at 17:53 +0200, Jun Aruga wrote:
> > > I am running the scratch build for rpms/ruby [1] rawhide branch
> > > right
> > > now, and I see the
> > Why is the following one not a proper solution? I don't understand it.
> >
> > ```
> > Requires: %{_bindir}/nm
> > ```
>
> RPM cannot evaluate the %{_bindir} in Requires:. So it's essentially
> looking for a virtual provides with those literal characters, which it
> won't find.
OK. I
> > > DEBUG util.py:442:- nothing provides python3.12dist(unicorn) >=
> > > 1.0.2~rc1 needed by python3-pwntools-4.9.0-4.fc39.noarch from build
> >
> > This is a result of
> > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/unicorn/c/27cee3896b9c51abe3139222024e0a4def5e30e1?branch=rawhide
> >
> >
Hey All,
As a part of the changeset[0] we had infra help us out with Images and
QA help us out with
criterion [1] and OpenQA test[2]. As a final step, we have finally
added Toolbx as a crit-path under "workstation" [3] .
We have a Toolbx Test day on 2023-09-14 [4] , come and help us iron
out any
Dne 08. 09. 23 v 19:02 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a):
On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 12:51 PM Jun Aruga (he / him) wrote:
On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 6:06 PM Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
On Fri, 2023-09-08 at 17:53 +0200, Jun Aruga wrote:
I am running the scratch build for rpms/ruby [1] rawhide branch right
On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 12:51 PM Jun Aruga (he / him) wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 6:06 PM Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2023-09-08 at 17:53 +0200, Jun Aruga wrote:
> > > I am running the scratch build for rpms/ruby [1] rawhide branch right
> > > now, and I see the following error
=
#fedora-meeting: ELN (2023-09-08)
=
Meeting started by sgallagh at 16:00:43 UTC. The full logs are available
at
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2023-09-08/eln.2023-09-08-16.00.log.html
.
Meeting summary
On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 6:06 PM Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2023-09-08 at 17:53 +0200, Jun Aruga wrote:
> > I am running the scratch build for rpms/ruby [1] rawhide branch right
> > now, and I see the following error in the root.log on only s390x CPU
> > architecture. Do you know what's
On Fri, 2023-09-08 at 17:53 +0200, Jun Aruga wrote:
> I am running the scratch build for rpms/ruby [1] rawhide branch right
> now, and I see the following error in the root.log on only s390x CPU
> architecture. Do you know what's wrong?
>
>
Hi,
I am running the scratch build for rpms/ruby [1] rawhide branch right
now, and I see the following error in the root.log on only s390x CPU
architecture. Do you know what's wrong?
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=105910607
s390x:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238025
--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
the-new-hotness/release-monitoring.org's scratch build of
perltidy-20230909-1.fc38.src.rpm for rawhide completed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=105910175
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238025
Bug ID: 2238025
Summary: perltidy-20230909 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perltidy
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238025
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
Created attachment 1987729
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1987729=edit
Update to 20230909 (#2238025)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
Hi all,
I've joined virtually the Opportunity Open Source conference at IIT
Mandi, India, where we as OpenPrinting held track about the recent
events in our group.
Brief summary:
- current CUPS 2.4.x works with classic drivers and printer
applications, as whole 2.x series will
- Till
On Fri, 2023-09-08 at 15:55 +0200, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> Am Fr., 8. Sept. 2023 um 15:45 Uhr schrieb Sérgio Basto
> :
> >
> > On Fri, 2023-09-08 at 08:39 +0200, Sandro wrote:
> > > On 08-09-2023 02:36, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > > xdg-utils is a MIT License [1] what SPDX license have [2] ? if
>
On Fri, 2023-09-08 at 16:25 +0200, Lumír Balhar wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Have you managed to fix the issue? The error is produce by the
> configure
> script and the check is implemented there somewhere around line 4293
> but
> I don't understand it well enough to tell you what causing it to
> detect
>
On Fri, 2023-09-08 at 16:25 +0200, Lumír Balhar wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Have you managed to fix the issue? The error is produce by the
> configure
> script and the check is implemented there somewhere around line 4293
> but
> I don't understand it well enough to tell you what causing it to
> detect
>
Hi.
Have you managed to fix the issue? The error is produce by the configure
script and the check is implemented there somewhere around line 4293 but
I don't understand it well enough to tell you what causing it to detect
the cross compilation.
Lumír
On 9/6/23 14:54, Mattia Verga wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238020
Bug ID: 2238020
Summary: perl-HTTP-BrowserDetect-3.39 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-HTTP-BrowserDetect
Keywords:
Am Fr., 8. Sept. 2023 um 15:45 Uhr schrieb Sérgio Basto :
>
> On Fri, 2023-09-08 at 08:39 +0200, Sandro wrote:
> > On 08-09-2023 02:36, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > xdg-utils is a MIT License [1] what SPDX license have [2] ? if it
> > > is
> > > already a valid SPDX formula , what I should write on
On Fri, 2023-09-08 at 08:39 +0200, Sandro wrote:
> On 08-09-2023 02:36, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > xdg-utils is a MIT License [1] what SPDX license have [2] ? if it
> > is
> > already a valid SPDX formula , what I should write on changelog ?
>
> Something like:
>
> - Migrated to SPDX license (noop)
OLD: Fedora-39-20230907.n.0
NEW: Fedora-39-20230908.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 8
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of upgraded
Hi!
Would someone be willing to review swap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235768 with me?
Thanks!
--
Jonathan
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Getting back to this thread, because the good news is that things have
improved and there is now easier way to bootstrap packages in Koji using
side-tags:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Update_Guide/#_using_macros_in_a_side_tag
and `%_with_bootstrap` macro.
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20230907.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20230908.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:6
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 6
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 210
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 22.29 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0
On Thursday, 07 September 2023 at 22:40, František Šumšal wrote:
[...]
> Both abipkgdiff and rpmsodiff seem to be happy, i.e. there were no
> added/changed/removed symbols between 1.2.0 and 1.2.1, so the bump
> should be safe.
Excellent, this means the version update should be transparent to any
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2237914
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #1 from
On 08-09-2023 02:36, Sérgio Basto wrote:
xdg-utils is a MIT License [1] what SPDX license have [2] ? if it is
already a valid SPDX formula , what I should write on changelog ?
Something like:
- Migrated to SPDX license (noop)
will mark the package as migrated even if the License: value
Dne 08. 09. 23 v 2:39 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
xdg-utils is a MIT License [1] what SPDX license have [2] ? if it is
already a valid SPDX formula , what I should write on changelog ?
Do nothing. This transition is a no-op for you.
Nope. If he does nothing I will still report it in statistics as:
45 matches
Mail list logo
