Hi everyone,
I am Maxwell G or @gotmax23 on FAS and Github. I am relatively new to
Linux but after trying different distros, I settled on Fedora. I don't
have a lot of time between school and having chronic pain, but I'd like
to give back and contribute as much as I can.
I created a package for
On Fri, 2021-10-15 at 16:31 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Ansible5
>
> == Summary ==
>
> The ansible project has re-organized how they release and distribute
> ansible. This change moves Fedora to be in sync with those changes
> and
> retires the old 'ansible
Hi,
On Sat, 2021-10-16 at 15:33 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 10:02:38AM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> >
> > it could have made good sense, and still would, for the "ansible"
> > package to be what is now being colloquially referred to as
> > "ansible-core", but for
Hi Nico,
I understand your frustration about the Ansible reorganization, and I
agree that they could have documented it better, but I think that you
are missing the context surrounding this decision.
Oct 16, 2021 4:46:43 PM Nico Kadel-Garcia :
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 3:03 PM Gordon Messmer
>
On Monday, December 6, 2021 6:43:57 PM CST Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 3:59 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
> wrote:
> >
> > On 05/12/2021 04:07, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> > > This breaks building RPMs for EPEL 8 or Fedora, because the '%doc' and
> > > '%license' macros strip
On Sunday, December 19, 2021 6:35:13 AM CST Chen Chen wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I recently adopted an orphaned package. There are unwanted commits in a
> branch, and I'd like to reset this branch to be as same as rawhide. How can I
> achieve this?
> It seems force push were not allowed on src.f
On Thursday, December 16, 2021 12:25:12 PM CST Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I'm glad I can announce that we have a new release of Mock. See the full
> release notes [1]. The major change that happened is the removal of
> 'epel-8' config files, as a follow-up for [2] discussion (and of
Hi everyone,
I hope you are having/had a good weekend. I am sending this email in accordance
with the Non-Responsive Maintainer Policy[0].
I created a non-responsive maintainer bug[1] for @ishcherb over two weeks ago
and have not received a response. I am happy to help maintain this package.
On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 8:22:55 AM CST Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 19. 12. 21 22:39, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 19, 2021 10:22:57 PM CET Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> >> So it seems that fedpkg doesn't (yet) know there's ~/.config/mock* at all.
> >
> > Proposed fix:
Hi Yaakov,
Nov 9, 2021 10:22:12 PM Yaakov Selkowitz :
> On Wed, 2021-11-10 at 03:56 +, Maxwell G (@gotmax23) via devel wrote:
> > Does anyone know if it's possible to set bugzilla.redhat.com to email me a
> > copy of new bugs or comments that I create?
>
> Try:
> > I wonder, which mailing list was your original / first message (the
> > announcement, I think?) in this thread sent to? Is there a mailing
> > list archive link for it?
> > Because I seem to be missing the actual announcement mail with all
> > the
> > details from my mail inbox, only
On Friday, November 26, 2021 6:15:33 PM EST Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-11-26 at 14:37 -0500, Susi Lehtola wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > I am experiencing problems updating packages employing GitHub source
> > URLs. For instance,
> >
> > $ spectool -g python-pyscf.spec
> > Downloading:
> >
Hi everyone,
I am resending this message, because I think it got lost. I sent it at
the begining of a weekend, so people must not have seen it.
I am CC'ing the change owner, as I feel that more clarification is
required. I maintain that this change should only apply to updates;
`dnf install`,
Hi everyone,
On Thu, 2021-09-16 at 15:17 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ExcludeFromWeakAutodetect
>
>
> == Summary ==
> exclude_from_weak_autodetect enables autodetection of unmet weak
> dependencies (Recommends or Supplements) of installed packages and
>
Hi,
On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 1:37:36 PM CST Steve Grubb wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am preparing to migate a F35 system to new hardware and was sanity checking
> the whole system. One thing I found was that there are a number of system
> directories that that are not owned by the package that
On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 1:19:34 PM CST Chris Murphy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Question:
> Do you have a T490 laptop successfully booting Fedora 34 or 35? And
> did it get Fedora by upgrade or clean install?
>
> Background:
> We've got a weird bug related to new shim 15.4 since Fedora 34
> resulting
On Tue, 2021-11-09 at 18:30 -0500, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> The bug was opened for a different problem. Once it was fixed, this
> spam
> started showing up. This bug was reopened.
>
> Who knows what spam will show up after this bug gets fixed…
>
Hi Sam,
The bug was just not fixed properly in
Hi everyone,
On Tue, 2021-11-09 at 17:55 -0600, Maxwell G via devel wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-11-09 at 18:30 -0500, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> > The bug was opened for a different problem. Once it was fixed, this
> > spam
> > started showing up. This bug was reopened.
> &g
On Monday, November 29, 2021 5:12:22 PM CST Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 5:52 PM Justin Forbes wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 4:16 PM Mohan Boddu wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > Fedora 33 will go end of life for updates and support on 30th of
> > > November 2021.
I am forwarding this to devel@, because I am reviewing this package and would
also like a response.
Thanks,
Maxwell
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: debug_package when using go_generate_buildrequires
Date: Monday, December 6, 2021, 5:42:08 AM CST
From: Mikel Olasagasti
To:
On Friday, December 10, 2021 8:29:10 AM CST Kamil Paral wrote:
> Hey Maxwell,
> can you please file a new bug in bugzilla against dnf and copy the problem
> description into it? Then make your new bug block bug 2013327 [1], which is
> the tracker for this Change. This way you'll make sure that
On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 4:28:19 PM CST Inglis, Malcolm via devel wrote:
> I have two outstanding PRs that I think are hanging on uploading new sources
> to the Lookaside Cache
I have experienced this issue myself and seen it happen to other newcomers
several times. It nullifies the
On Saturday, March 12, 2022 3:31:23 AM CST Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> The other one with obs/x264 from RPMFusion.
I came across this same issue. Has anyone reported this issue to them?
For the record, here is the error message:
```
Error:
Problem: package obs-studio-27.2.1-1.fc36.x86_64 requires
Jan 22, 2022 10:07:29 AM Fabio Valentini :
> Hi everybody,
>
> The Rust SIG and I have been waiting for responses from Olivier (FAS:
> olem) for a while. I had noticed that their Rust packages started
> accumulating FTBFS / FTI / release-monitoring bugs, as we get CCd on
> those bugzillas.
As part of the golang-salsa-debian-vasudev-gospake2 0.2.1 update, the license
has changed from `LGPLv2+` to `MIT or GPLv3+`.
--
Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns: He/Him/His
PGP Key Fingerprint: f57c76e5a238fe0a628e2ecef79e4e25e8c661f8
PGP Keyserver: hkp://keyserver.ubuntu.com
gotmax@e.email
May 15, 2022 7:06:51 AM Nils Philippsen :
> It
> only matters that the package is available and installed on the build
> machines, not in the build roots.
Yeah, I'm aware. I just wasn't sure about local builds. I know it won't work at
all on an EL host, but what about EPEL mockbuilds run on a
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 9:02:11 AM CDT Ben Cotton wrote:
> In this phase, we want to provide documentation and tooling to allow
> maintainers to begin using SPDX license ids instead of the old Fedora
> short names. This move is opt-in.
+1 for this change. I am not a fan of having to remember
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 10:06:44 AM CDT Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > Do we need to %if-%else it in the spec file? I recall some discussion about
> > this on the legal list, but I see no
> > guidelines proposed here.
>
> If you maintain one spec for all branches then you will need %if-%else. And
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 10:21:39 AM CDT Miro Hrončok wrote:
> That includes both MIT and BSD, right?
>
Yes. I believe LGPLv2(+) is also ambiguous, because SPDX differentiates between
2.0 and 2.1. There may be others.
--
Thanks,
Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns: He/Him/His
signature.asc
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 9:02:11 AM CDT Ben Cotton wrote:
> == Summary ==
> Transition from Fedora's short name of licenses to standardized
> [https://spdx.org/licenses/SPDXlicense]
> [https://spdx.dev/specifications/formula].
I just noticed that both of these links are dead...
--
Thanks,
On Thursday, May 26, 2022 9:14:14 AM CDT Petr Pisar wrote:
> Does a marker of the conversion need to be visible in the binary packages?
I think it should be. According to the Change Proposal, "the use of a
standardized identifier for license will align Fedora with other distributions.
And
On Thursday, May 26, 2022 9:25:40 AM CDT Neal Gompa wrote:
> At least in the MIT license case, the MIT identifier exists there. One
> reason Tom Callaway resisted changing to SPDX in the past was that
> they never resolved the problem with the MIT identifier. It's
> effectively a family
On Thursday, May 26, 2022 2:15:54 PM CDT Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> On 5/26/22 15:00, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> > Other than the MIT case (and it should not be swept
> > under the rug), are there any substantial use of
> > licenses in Fedora where the Fedora license id
> > and the SPDX license id
On Thursday, May 26, 2022 2:58:54 PM CDT Neal Gompa wrote:
> There's only one MIT license carve-out I know of: X11. The rest are
> classified the same.
I don't exactly follow. Are you referring to the fact that the X11 license also
falls under Fedora's "MIT" identifier?
--
Thanks,
Maxwell G
On Friday, May 13, 2022 10:45:55 AM CDT Artem Tim wrote:
> Does rpmautospec compatible with EPEL-9, EPEL-8 branches?
Not currently. There has been an effort[0] to get it branched for epel9, but it
has stalled. I submitted a PR[1] to make it work, but it has not yet been
reviewed.
[0]:
On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 3:11:39 PM CDT Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> We see no reason why not to do that. It should not cause any harm. If
**you** know of any reason we should not propose
> this, please tell us now.
I already brought this up previously, but how will we handle license
identifiers
On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 7:08:13 PM CDT Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> I don't think that is going to work unless the rpm spec
> file support would be backported to previous releases
> (without another macro that tries to do some magic).
I don't follow. What "rpm spec file support" are you referring
On Monday, May 16, 2022 11:00:06 AM CDT you wrote:
> With the release of ansible-collection-community-docker 2.5.1, the license
> has changed from `GPLv3+` > `GPLv3+ and Python`.
This same change applies to the new release of
ansible-collection-community-rabbitmq.
--
Thanks,
Maxwell G
With the release of ansible-collection-community-docker 2.5.1, the license has
changed from `GPLv3+` > `GPLv3+ and Python`.
--
Thanks,
Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns: He/Him/His
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Jun 24, 2022 1:59:40 PM Jason Tibbitts :
> When a package is deprecated, the intent is that no new dependencies on
> any deprecated package would appear in the distribution, either by new
> packages or from existing packages adding dependencies. Of course, I
> don't know what actually checks
On Monday, June 20, 2022 10:02:00 AM CDT Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Is is possible include builds of one side-tag into other side-tag ?
It is also possible to `koji tag-build [dest side tag] [NEVR(s) from other
side tag]`, which might work for your use case. I suppose setting one side tag
to inherit
Jun 23, 2022 12:14:26 PM Miro Hrončok :
> Alrighty, in that case:
>
> $ comm -23 <(repoquery -q --repo=rawhide{,-source} --whatrequires
> openssl1.1-devel | grep src$ | sort) <(repoquery -q --repo=rawhide{,-source}
> --whatrequires openssl-devel | grep src$ | sort)
>
On Thursday, June 23, 2022 1:50:09 PM CDT Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Not sure what github has to do with things here?
Lumír said:
> With quay.io, we are able to produce new container images directly from
> Github CI and rebuild them regularly without complicated update process
> and without any need
On Friday, June 24, 2022 3:47:54 PM CDT Artur Frenszek-Iwicki wrote:
> When you go to a package's repo on src.fedoraproject.org,
> on the top of the page, you get this nice table that lists
> active Fedora and EPEL releases, and for each of those,
> prints the package version currently in stable
On Saturday, June 25, 2022 9:46:17 AM CDT Benjamin Beasley wrote:
> what happens if you end up doing the mass rebuild
> with a pre-release version? Would you need to do a second mass rebuild with
> the final version between the beta and final freezes?
Yes. as go binaries are statically linked, if
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 3:11:44 PM CDT Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 02, 2022 at 11:54:17AM -0500, Maxwell G via devel wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 2, 2022 10:01:18 AM CDT Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > > This is an extremely common problem in Fedora: the d
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 10:01:18 AM CDT Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> This is an extremely common problem in Fedora: the de facto maintainer
> is not the main admin, and so the bugs are assigned to the wrong
> person. Ideally we would automatically orphan a package if the main
> admin does not
Hi Fedorians and Gophers,
Later this week, I will be a doing a mass rebuild in F35 for all packages that
require `golang` and provide binaries to mitigate the following CVEs:
`golang` (affects all go binaries):
- CVE-2022-24675 golang: encoding/pem: fix stack overflow in Decode
-
On Tuesday, June 28, 2022 4:30:14 PM CDT Robbie Harwood wrote:
> I have started the responsive maintainer process due to lack of contact
> through bugzilla mail. Specifically, this is about an epel9 branch,
> which has been repeatedly requested since March (including an offer to
> maintain the
On 22/07/12 12:28AM, chedi toueiti wrote:
> I'm looking for help review the following python packages needed by
> python-jsonschema+format
>
>
> python-rfc3339-validator:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2106174
@music already packaged this (I was the reviewer), but it seems he has
On 22/07/12 12:28AM, chedi toueiti wrote:
> I'm looking for help review the following python packages needed by
> python-jsonschema+format
>
>
> python-rfc3339-validator:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2106174
@music already packaged this (I was the reviewer), but it seems he has
On 22/07/12 01:03PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> golang-github-apparentlymart- textseg-12 eclipseo, go-sig
I have successfully rebuilt this:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-07d3083c35
--
Thanks,
Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns: He/Him/His
signature.asc
Description: PGP
On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 11:49:07 AM CDT Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Now you are mixing the two kinda together in a weird way. The change is
> called "deprecation" but is in fact "incomplete retirement".
I agree. There seems to be a recent trend of Changes confusing the difference
between
On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 1:09:07 PM CDT Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 29/06/2022 18:47, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> > I don't see how you got there. Nowhere does it say that the
> > maintainer(s) are removed - just that one is added, and made contact for
> > EPEL bugs.
>
> Newly added EPEL
On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 1:24:07 PM CDT Maxwell G via devel wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 1:09:07 PM CDT Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > Newly added EPEL maintainers can make any changes to Fedora branches. I
> > don't like that.
>
> I'm a bit confused. You
On Thursday, June 23, 2022 6:25:00 AM CDT Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> Whoever is working with that right now is welcome to my notes and
> tools, at https://github.com/nkadel/ansiblerepo/
I have glanced at it before. @kevin and I maintain ansible, ansible-core, and
many of the standalone
On Thursday, June 16, 2022 6:40:04 AM CDT Miro Hrončok wrote:
> python-ntlm-auth orphan 0 weeks
> ago
I have picked this up, as it's a transitive dependency of ansible-core. I
would welcome co-maintainers :).
--
Thanks,
Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
On Monday, May 9, 2022 10:20:25 PM CDT Maxwell G via devel wrote:
> The license of `ansible` 2.9.x has been corrected from `GPLv3+` to `GPLv3+
> and BSD and Python and MIT and ASL 2.0`. The previous `License:` tag did
> not properly account for the multi-licensing.
>
> Please note
Jun 8, 2022 8:51:45 AM Matthew Miller :
> The differences outlined there result in different constraints.
I disagree that flathub flatpaks breaking our policies is incidental. The way
it
solves the "problem with Linux app distribution" is (in part) by allowing
developers to package and
On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 8:59:21 AM CDT Petr Pisar wrote:
> The problem is that RPM Fusion only targets Fedora.
It also targets RHEL, CentOS Stream, and the various RHEL rebuilds.
--
Thanks,
Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns: He/Him/His
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed
On Thursday, June 9, 2022 5:55:34 PM CDT Stewart Smith wrote:
> Unfortunately I don't think we can [help with EPEL 7] given the
> likely packaging differences
I'd be surprised if there's major differences, unless AL 2 backports newer go
macros.
> the containerd version differences
containerd in
On Friday, June 17, 2022 3:32:13 PM CDT Fabio Alessandro Locati wrote:
> Without that, it makes it very hard for us to keep the Go stack up-to-date
> and in working order, because the "go-sig" list / bugzilla account does not
> get CC'd on new bugs that way, and your bugs do not show up in our
Hi everyone,
I have been de-facto maintaining containerd in Fedora as a member of the go-
sig for a little while now, as the previous maintainer no longer has time to
do. In addition to the Fedora branches, this package also exists on EPEL 7.
That branch has not been maintained for a while and
On 22/07/17 09:57PM, Maxwell G wrote:
> golang 1.18.4 was released a couple days ago. This release has fixes for
> 9 medium (rated by Red Hat Product Security) CVEs, so I will preform a
> rebuild in `rawhide` and `f36` to mitigate them[^0]. See
>
On 22/07/04 03:00PM, Maxwell G wrote:
> Later this week, I will be a doing a mass rebuild in F35 for all packages
> that
> require `golang` and provide binaries to mitigate the following CVEs
I completed the rebuild this weekend, but I realized that I probably
should provide an update.
Here is
(Sorry for the messed up line wrapping. I wanted to get this out.)
Hi Jerry,
On 22/07/06 08:13PM, Jerry James wrote:
> - golang-github-google-cel (eclipseo, @go-sig): needs the Go runtime
> from the antlr4-project package
> - golang-google-grpc (eclipseo, @go-sig): needs
>
Hi Tomáš,
Jul 18, 2022 1:42:30 AM Tomas Hrcka :
> Fedora release engineering is running a mass rebuild of rawhide on 20.6., if
> your changes are merged in rawhide/main branches by then, they will be
> included.
Indeed. The distro-wide mass rebuild has been in the back of my mind, but I'm
not
On 22/07/14 07:32PM, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 11/07/2022 18:21, Ben Beasley wrote:
> > I don’t believe this list is nearly complete. Two packages I maintain
> > that would be affected (fmidi and giada) are absent from the list.
>
> It's very strange:
>
> $ dnf repoquery -q
On 22/07/14 03:29PM, Mark E. Fuller wrote:
> Can anyone advise as to what the policy should be when a package is reviewed
> and approved but never imported?
I already answered Mark's question on Matrix, but for the benefit of
everyone else, there is a policy here:
Jul 13, 2022 10:45:02 AM Mattia Verga via devel :
> Meanwhile I'll keep an eye on the recent massive Golang update (which
> carries 315 builds...) to see if it shows any hiccups. (I'm quite
> surprised it didn't screw up already)
The recent 315 build F35 Bodhi update is not the first one that
On 22/07/13 02:19PM, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I'm sure this exists somewhere but I couldn't find one, so with the help
> of folks on #fedora-devel, I hacked up this simple shell script to get
> the all the deps of a package. It's useful when your package update
> includes a soname bump,
Jul 13, 2022 1:13:38 PM Adam Williamson :
> If they need to be rebuilt for an API/ABI change, then by policy they
> should be grouped together. We do not want a situation where the
> API/ABI change gets pushed stable but some of the rebuilds do not, or
> vice versa.
We're not talking about
On 22/07/13 08:58AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> It's also where we usually route *manual* testing feedback. If people
> can't comment and karma a Bodhi update, where can they test this big
> and very-potentially-destabilizing change?
The go rebuilds in question are not very destabilizing, and they
On 22/07/13 05:35PM, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> > This is what we (I) aren't sure of, and that's why I first obtain the
> capabilities manually and then query for them. If someone can confirm
> that this is indeed the case, that would certainly simplify things.
Here is confirmation:
```
sudo dnf
On 22/07/13 07:49PM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> I wonder if it would have made sense to have submitted those 300+
> builds in separate bodhi updates (at least in several smaller batches,
> if not individually)?
> At least in this case, that would've been a little bit more work, but
> would have
On 22/07/26 09:54AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> If you want to watch activity on a package you want The little 'watch'
> pulldown under The package description. You can set there if you want to
> watch bugs, commits, both, etc. If you only wanted to watch koji builds,
> you would need to set that in FMN
On 22/07/28 12:06PM, Andrew Bauer wrote:
> The backend server that is hosting admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/ is
> throwing an HTTP 500 SSL handshake error.
I would recommend filing an infra ticket:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue. devel@ is not the
correct place to report
On 22/07/24 06:05PM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> If ODE 0.16 was only built as part of the mass rebuild and wasn't
> available in the buildroot during the mass rebuild (and I don't think
> it was), then all the other packages that depend on it were still
> built against the older ODE 0.14 version as
Hi Fedorians and Gophers,
golang 1.18.4 was released a couple days ago. This release has fixes for
9 medium (rated by Red Hat Product Security) CVEs, so I will preform a
rebuild in `rawhide` and `f36` to mitigate them[^0]. See
https://groups.google.com/g/golang-dev/c/frczlF8OFQ0/m/4lrZh5BHDgAJ
On 22/07/22 10:24PM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> the script that determines leaf packages in the Rust SIG
Can you provide a link to this?
> $ (dnf repoquery --whatrequires pcre ; dnf repoquery --whatrequires
> pcre-cpp ; dnf repoquery --whatrequires pcre-devel ; dnf repoquery
> --whatrequires
(It seems my previous message didn't send properly...)
On 22/07/22 10:24PM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> the script that determines leaf packages in the Rust SIG
Can you provide a link to this?
> $ (dnf repoquery --whatrequires pcre ; dnf repoquery --whatrequires
> pcre-cpp ; dnf repoquery
On 22/07/22 09:08AM, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> notmuch failed to build from source because of a strange test suite failure
> on ppc64le:
>
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=89837091
>
> The only failing test is a pytest run on the bindings
>
> ```
> T391-python-cffi:
On 22/07/19 02:22PM, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> Now it can be easily mitigated by using fmt8-devel.
>
> Rawhide compose will be fixed automatically soon, as fmt8 provides missing
> libfmt.so.8 shared library.
Yes, the *compose*, but those packages will still need to be fixed to
not FTBFS.
Apr 16, 2022 8:01:27 PM Globe Trotter via devel :
> Source1: %{source0}.sig
Does this still fail if you use the full path? It looks like `%{source0}` isn't
getting expanded properly.
Thanks,
--
Maxwell G
Pronouns: He/Him/His
gotmax@e.email
___
The license of `ansible` 2.9.x has been corrected from `GPLv3+` to `GPLv3+ and
BSD and Python and MIT and ASL 2.0`. The previous `License:` tag did not
properly account for the multi-licensing.
Please note that this only applies to EPEL and Fedora 34 and 35. The license of
`ansible` 5.x (the
Do Callway > SPDX license changes where there's a clear mapping and no other
additions or removals still have to be announced? That wasn't my understanding.
--
Thanks,
Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns: He/Him/His
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 Elliott Sales de Andrade wrote:
> > The CC0 has been banned for new packages in Fedora.
>
> Banned for code, not content. Icons are not code.
Good point! Thanks for the correction.
--
Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns: He/Him/His
signature.asc
Description: This is a
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 1:16:00 PM CDT Iñaki Ucar wrote:
> We have a new R version sitting on a side tag (f37-build-side-55653)
> for a few weeks now, where packages are being rebuilt as time permits.
Can this perhaps be handled differently next time? I admit that I'm not
familiar with the R
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022 Lyes Saadi wrote:
> Fortunately, Icon Development Kit is under CC0, so we're kinda saved
> from a Licensing apocalypse (although, I have to admit that this is not
> ideal).
The CC0 has been banned for new packages in Fedora.
--
Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns:
Aug 26, 2022 7:02:06 AM Michal Konecny :
If you want to receive weekly reports by emails in the future, please
subscribe to either https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/ or
https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/c/news/commblog/61. We will stop
sending them in the future.
Why is that? I
I've corrected the license of python-ntlm-auth from LGPLv3+ to MIT. It
was relicensed upstream 5 years ago, but the previous maintainer never
updated the License field.
--
Thanks,
Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns: He/Him/His
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 22/08/30 05:57PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 05:04:27PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > == Detailed Description ==
> > Upstream has changed the naming of the "minizip" package to
> > "minizip-ng" and we should follow their naming so there is no
> > confusion about
Sep 2, 2022 5:36:41 AM Fabio Valentini :
Does anybody know whether olem still wants to maintain their Fedora
packages?
I'm fairly sure that they no longer wish to maintain Fedora packages. I
reached out to them about moby-engine and containerd at the end of May,
and they said they no longer
On Friday, September 2, 2022 Dusty Mabe wrote:
> > Side note: I have asked for co-maintainers for those packages a couple
> > times, but so far, I have not found any. Perhaps one of the CoreOS people
> > would be interested? It seems those packages are used a lot there based
> > on the bug reports
Sep 3, 2022 4:18:19 AM Miro Hrončok :
We'd like to move https://gitlab.com/fberat/mass-prebuild/ into the
Fedora namespace, ideally under something like:
https://gitlab.com/fedora/packager-tools/
What do we need to do?
Hi Miro,
You have to file an infra ticket. See [1].
It would be nice
On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> Currently I do not have any 2FA enabled
> on my Fedora account
I have 2FA set up on my account and it works okay. You'd use `fkinit` instead
of `kinit` that requires special setup[1] to work with 2FA. It doesn't work
with the GOA kerberos
On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> If
> you want to enforce such a policy, find sponsors and buy devices for all
> Fedora contributors.
I kind of agree with this. See what PyPi is doing[1]. I don't think anyone who
maintains one package should get one, but perhaps
On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > mobile device
>
> Requires proprietary Google services.
As has already been said, that's not true. Google Authenticator is far from
the only software that supports the TOTP standard.
--
Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns:
Aug 29, 2022 1:32:21 PM Ben Cotton :
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/StrongCryptoSettings3Forewarning2
== Summary ==
Cryptographic policies will be tightened in Fedora ''38''-39,
SHA-1 signatures will no longer be trusted by default.
Fedora ''38'' will do a "jump scare", introducing
Hi Fedorians,
I think the security tracking bug filing process needs to be amended. The
current process is quite frustrating for me and other contributors. This
is especially bad for Go CVEs, which there are lot of.
Red Hat Product Security creates a single tracking bug for Fedora{, EPEL}
1 - 100 of 169 matches
Mail list logo
