Re: python3-PyPDf2 -> python3-pydf package
Additionally, see here: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/63199763/maintained-alternatives-to-pypdf2 On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 10:21:29 PM CDT, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: Thanks! On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 5:39 AM Sandro wrote: > > On 27-08-2023 06:33, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > > I am the maintainer of python-PyPDF2 for Fedora (which I do since I > > was interested in pdf-stapler that I also maintain as a consequence). > > For a while now, upstream has been wanting all PyPDF2 users to pypdf. > > I was wondering how I go about this for the F38 repos. Do I need to > > go through packaging again, or is there an easier way to update > > python3-PyPDF2 to python3-pypdf? If so, what do I have to do? > > Could you provide some links to the upstream sources of PyPDF2 and > pypdf? And me be also to the issue where the switch from PyPDF2 to pypdf > is discussed. I understand that the pypdf maintainer is the same as that of PyPDF2 and says here that: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/34837707/how-to-extract-text-from-a-pdf-file that PyPDF2 and PyPDF3 and PyPDF4 packages are not maintained. > I'm assuming PyPDF2 and pypdf are separate packages. In that case you > would need to submit pypdf as a new package. Once pdf-stapler is built > against pypdf you can retire PyPDF2 if no other package depends on it. The above search indicates they are, and that there is a pypdf3. > If pypdf is a rename of PyPDF2 you'd submit a re-review of the package > and you need to take care of proper Provides: and Obsoletes: in the new > package. See the docs for more info: > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Renaming_Process/ > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-replacing-existing-packages > Thanks, simply renaming and obsoleting seems to me to be a better option, and I will look into that. Thanks again! ___ 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: python3-PyPDf2 -> python3-pydf package
Thanks! On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 5:39 AM Sandro wrote: > > On 27-08-2023 06:33, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > > I am the maintainer of python-PyPDF2 for Fedora (which I do since I > > was interested in pdf-stapler that I also maintain as a consequence). > > For a while now, upstream has been wanting all PyPDF2 users to pypdf. > > I was wondering how I go about this for the F38 repos. Do I need to > > go through packaging again, or is there an easier way to update > > python3-PyPDF2 to python3-pypdf? If so, what do I have to do? > > Could you provide some links to the upstream sources of PyPDF2 and > pypdf? And me be also to the issue where the switch from PyPDF2 to pypdf > is discussed. I understand that the pypdf maintainer is the same as that of PyPDF2 and says here that: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/34837707/how-to-extract-text-from-a-pdf-file that PyPDF2 and PyPDF3 and PyPDF4 packages are not maintained. > I'm assuming PyPDF2 and pypdf are separate packages. In that case you > would need to submit pypdf as a new package. Once pdf-stapler is built > against pypdf you can retire PyPDF2 if no other package depends on it. The above search indicates they are, and that there is a pypdf3. > If pypdf is a rename of PyPDF2 you'd submit a re-review of the package > and you need to take care of proper Provides: and Obsoletes: in the new > package. See the docs for more info: > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Renaming_Process/ > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-replacing-existing-packages > Thanks, simply renaming and obsoleting seems to me to be a better option, and I will look into that. Thanks again! ___ 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
python3-PyPDf2 -> python3-pydf package
Hello, I am the maintainer of python-PyPDF2 for Fedora (which I do since I was interested in pdf-stapler that I also maintain as a consequence). For a while now, upstream has been wanting all PyPDF2 users to pypdf. I was wondering how I go about this for the F38 repos. Do I need to go through packaging again, or is there an easier way to update python3-PyPDF2 to python3-pypdf? If so, what do I have to do? Thanks! ___ 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: [Bug 2203836] New: F39FailsToInstall: slim
On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 03:30:03 AM CDT, Mamoru TASAKA wrote: Globe Trotter via devel wrote on 2023/05/15 23:36: >> During unretirement of the package, I changed the dependency of slim from >> desktop-backgrounds to f??-backgrounds-base in order to have a uniform >> F-specific background for the slim login manager. However, the rawhide >> installation can not find it. Any suggestions on what to do? >> >> Thanks! > I don't think f39-backgrounds srpm is not packaged yet: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/search?match=glob=package=f*backgrounds* Yes, that is what I suspected. > BTW I am not sure if slim itself should have such dependency for > f*backgrounds - Usually such dependency is written on kickstart or comps file, I guess. Thanks! I see, is it possible to do an if-else statement in the spec file: so if the package does not exist during the build, then we use desktop-backgrounds-basic, but if it does, then use f??-backgrounds-base? Best wishes! > > - Forwarded Message - > > From: bugzi...@redhat.com > To: "itsme_...@yahoo.com" > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 at 06:41:54 AM CDT > Subject: [Bug 2203836] New: F39FailsToInstall: slim > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2203836 > > Bug ID: 2203836 > Summary: F39FailsToInstall: slim > Product: Fedora > Version: rawhide > Status: NEW > Component: slim > Assignee: itsme_...@yahoo.com > Reporter: fti-b...@fedoraproject.org > QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org > CC: itsme_...@yahoo.com, pa...@hubbitus.info > Blocks: 2168845 (F39FailsToInstall,RAWHIDEFailsToInstall) > Target Milestone: --- > Classification: Fedora > > > > Hello, > > Please note that this comment was generated automatically by > https://pagure.io/releng/blob/main/f/scripts/ftbfs-fti/follow-policy.py > If you feel that this output has mistakes, please open an issue at > https://pagure.io/releng/ > > Your package (slim) Fails To Install in Fedora 39: > > can't install slim: > - nothing provides f39-backgrounds-base needed by slim-1.4.0-6.fc39.x86_64 > > If you know about this problem and are planning on fixing it, please > acknowledge so by setting the bug status to ASSIGNED. If you don't have time > to > maintain this package, consider orphaning it, so maintainers of dependent > packages realize the problem. > > > If you don't react accordingly to the policy for FTBFS/FTI bugs > (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/), > your package may be orphaned in 8+ weeks. > > > P.S. The data was generated solely from koji buildroot, so it might be newer > than the latest compose or the content on mirrors. To reproduce, use the > koji/local repo only, e.g. in mock: > > $ mock -r fedora-39-x86_64 --config-opts mirrored=False install slim > > > P.P.S. If this bug has been reported in the middle of upgrading multiple > dependent packages, please consider using side tags: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/#updating-inter-dependent-packages > > Thanks! > > > > Referenced Bugs: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2168845 > [Bug 2168845] Fedora 39 Fails To install Tracker ___ 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
Fw: [Bug 2203836] New: F39FailsToInstall: slim
During unretirement of the package, I changed the dependency of slim from desktop-backgrounds to f??-backgrounds-base in order to have a uniform F-specific background for the slim login manager. However, the rawhide installation can not find it. Any suggestions on what to do? Thanks! - Forwarded Message - From: bugzi...@redhat.com To: "itsme_...@yahoo.com" Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 at 06:41:54 AM CDT Subject: [Bug 2203836] New: F39FailsToInstall: slim https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2203836 Bug ID: 2203836 Summary: F39FailsToInstall: slim Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: slim Assignee: itsme_...@yahoo.com Reporter: fti-b...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: itsme_...@yahoo.com, pa...@hubbitus.info Blocks: 2168845 (F39FailsToInstall,RAWHIDEFailsToInstall) Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Hello, Please note that this comment was generated automatically by https://pagure.io/releng/blob/main/f/scripts/ftbfs-fti/follow-policy.py If you feel that this output has mistakes, please open an issue at https://pagure.io/releng/ Your package (slim) Fails To Install in Fedora 39: can't install slim: - nothing provides f39-backgrounds-base needed by slim-1.4.0-6.fc39.x86_64 If you know about this problem and are planning on fixing it, please acknowledge so by setting the bug status to ASSIGNED. If you don't have time to maintain this package, consider orphaning it, so maintainers of dependent packages realize the problem. If you don't react accordingly to the policy for FTBFS/FTI bugs (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/), your package may be orphaned in 8+ weeks. P.S. The data was generated solely from koji buildroot, so it might be newer than the latest compose or the content on mirrors. To reproduce, use the koji/local repo only, e.g. in mock: $ mock -r fedora-39-x86_64 --config-opts mirrored=False install slim P.P.S. If this bug has been reported in the middle of upgrading multiple dependent packages, please consider using side tags: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/#updating-inter-dependent-packages Thanks! Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2168845 [Bug 2168845] Fedora 39 Fails To install Tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2203836 ___ 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: Review request for oclock package (orphaned since F35)
Kevin, oclock was not updated, and Beson's email made me realize that I could go an do it myself. I did that by the time you check. slim's was updated and both packages are now in testing. Best, Ranjan On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 10:49:44 AM CDT, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Sun, May 14, 2023 at 02:04:57PM +0300, Benson Muite wrote: > Ranjan, > > On 5/14/23 13:46, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > > Thanks! The package was cleared on BZ some time ago. Is there some > > additional review that is needed? > > > Sorry, that is correct. Usually state is set to post. It seems to have > been unretired: > https://pagure.io/releng/issue/11417 Yep. > Though project ownership has not been updated: > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/oclock It looks updated to me? Did I miss something there? Do let me know in the ticket if so. > It seems Slim has been unretired: > https://pagure.io/releng/issue/11310 > and project ownership updated: > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/slim > Maybe just need to add the new files? Yes, it should be unretired and all ready to push commits to/build/update. kevin ___ 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: Review request for oclock package (orphaned since F35)
Benson, Thanks! The package was cleared on BZ some time ago. Is there some additional review that is needed? Best wishes, Ranjan On Sunday, May 14, 2023 at 05:41:35 AM CDT, Benson Muite wrote: Hi Ranjan, Thanks for contributing to Fedora and maintaining packages. On 5/14/23 03:27, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > Thanks, Kevin! No problem, no rush, I did not quite know what to expect, > hence the questions. Thanks again! > > It seems it is just the review that is needed: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Policy_for_orphan_and_retired_packages/#unorphaning_and_unretiring_packages https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement_Process/#claiming Generally reviews go faster if the person asking for the review does a review of another package - many people ask for review swaps on this list. For a package with a reviewer you can add NEEDINFO in bugzilla so that if an person has assigned themselves as reviewer does not respond after a while, a new reviewer can take it up. > > > > > On Saturday, May 13, 2023 at 06:12:33 PM CDT, Kevin Fenzi > wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 02:41:10AM +0200, Sandro wrote: > >> On 11-05-2023 17:57, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: >>> Still no movement on my unretire requests for both slim and oclock, not >>> even a request for additional information. >> >> Tags have been added to the ticket. So, it has come up in one of the >> meetings. Supposedly, no-one has found the time yet to work on it. >> >> Feel free to ping in the ticket or bring it up in one of the meetings. > > ___ 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: Review request for oclock package (orphaned since F35)
Thanks, Kevin! No problem, no rush, I did not quite know what to expect, hence the questions. Thanks again! On Saturday, May 13, 2023 at 06:12:33 PM CDT, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 02:41:10AM +0200, Sandro wrote: > On 11-05-2023 17:57, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > > Still no movement on my unretire requests for both slim and oclock, not > > even a request for additional information. > > Tags have been added to the ticket. So, it has come up in one of the > meetings. Supposedly, no-one has found the time yet to work on it. > > Feel free to ping in the ticket or bring it up in one of the meetings. FYI, the main release engineer who usually processes these was on pto last week, and I (who do release engineering work in my 'spare' time) didn't have any time to get to any. If there's urgency on any request, please do note that in the ticket... We are working on automating unretire requests... hopefully that will land before too long. Otherwise we will get to them as soon as we can. I might be able to do some this weekend, but I am trying to catch up on around the house/yard tasks, so no promises. :) kevin ___ 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: Review request for oclock package (orphaned since F35)
Thanks, Sandro! How does one ping in the ticket on paguire? On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 07:41:47 PM CDT, Sandro wrote: On 11-05-2023 17:57, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > Still no movement on my unretire requests for both slim and oclock, not even > a request for additional information. Tags have been added to the ticket. So, it has come up in one of the meetings. Supposedly, no-one has found the time yet to work on it. Feel free to ping in the ticket or bring it up in one of the meetings. -- 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 ___ 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: Review request for oclock package (orphaned since F35)
Still no movement on my unretire requests for both slim and oclock, not even a request for additional information. On Sunday, May 7, 2023 at 10:50:42 AM CDT, Sandro wrote: On 07-05-2023 17:34, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > How long does it take to unretire a package? I was thinking that it > was automatic, but I have not received any notification yet. Did this > request last evening. I don't think it's fully automated. It's a member of the releng team that has to process it. They will be back on duty on Monday. See for example te previous unretirement request for oclock: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10396 -- 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 ___ 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: Review request for oclock package (orphaned since F35)
I see, thanks! I had indeed forgotten that the previous request had been closed. On Sunday, May 7, 2023 at 10:50:42 AM CDT, Sandro wrote: On 07-05-2023 17:34, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > How long does it take to unretire a package? I was thinking that it > was automatic, but I have not received any notification yet. Did this > request last evening. I don't think it's fully automated. It's a member of the releng team that has to process it. They will be back on duty on Monday. See for example te previous unretirement request for oclock: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10396 -- 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 ___ 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: Review request for oclock package (orphaned since F35)
How long does it take to unretire a package? I was thinking that it was automatic, but I have not received any notification yet. Did this request last evening. On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 07:25:30 PM CDT, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: Thank you for this. I got: fedpkg import ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/oclock-1.0.4-4.fc37.src.rpm Removing no longer used file: dead.package Could not execute import_srpm: This package or module is retired. The action has stopped. so I guess I have request unretirement. I thought I did it sometime ago, but maybe not. Thanks again! On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 04:52:55 PM CDT, Sandro wrote: On 06-05-2023 23:43, Sandro wrote: > On 06-05-2023 19:36, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: >> Can someone please review the oclock package? This was orphaned after >> F35, and I packaged it for myself, and then would like to put it up. >> It was tentatively approved, but never finally done so. Thanks! > > Looks like the package is approved. The fedora-review flag is set to > '+', meaning approved. You should be able to proceed with requesting a > dist-git repo. Or rather file a releng ticket requesting unretirement at https://pagure.io/releng/new_issue?template=package_unretirement=Unretire%20%3Cpkgname%3E now the package is approved. Sorry for the confusion. -- 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 ___ 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: Review request for oclock package (orphaned since F35)
Thank you for this. I got: fedpkg import ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/oclock-1.0.4-4.fc37.src.rpm Removing no longer used file: dead.package Could not execute import_srpm: This package or module is retired. The action has stopped. so I guess I have request unretirement. I thought I did it sometime ago, but maybe not. Thanks again! On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 04:52:55 PM CDT, Sandro wrote: On 06-05-2023 23:43, Sandro wrote: > On 06-05-2023 19:36, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: >> Can someone please review the oclock package? This was orphaned after >> F35, and I packaged it for myself, and then would like to put it up. >> It was tentatively approved, but never finally done so. Thanks! > > Looks like the package is approved. The fedora-review flag is set to > '+', meaning approved. You should be able to proceed with requesting a > dist-git repo. Or rather file a releng ticket requesting unretirement at https://pagure.io/releng/new_issue?template=package_unretirement=Unretire%20%3Cpkgname%3E now the package is approved. Sorry for the confusion. -- 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 ___ 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: Review request for oclock package (orphaned since F35)
Sorry, forgot the BZ: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025138 On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 12:36:20 PM CDT, Globe Trotter wrote: Can someone please review the oclock package? This was orphaned after F35, and I packaged it for myself, and then would like to put it up. It was tentatively approved, but never finally done so. Thanks! On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 02:43:00 PM CST, Björn Persson wrote: Ben Beasley wrote: > Please compare with > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xfontsel/blob/rawhide/f/xfontsel.spec, > paying close attention to the comments in the spec file. SKS keyservers have > gone offline since that package obtained its keyring, so try using > hkps://keys.openpgp.org instead. To elaborate on this, the procedure described in xfontsel.spec finds the key that was used to make the signature, so whoever made the signature becomes the trusted upstream. If you do that *once*, it's a form of trust on first use. It lets you discover future attacks as long as you continue using the same key, assuming that you got the right key to begin with. If you would repeat the key lookup every time you upgrade the package, then you would render the verification meaningless. You'd just be verifying that the tarball was signed by whoever signed the tarball. So don't do that. Björn Persson ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure ___ 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: Review request for oclock package (orphaned since F35)
Can someone please review the oclock package? This was orphaned after F35, and I packaged it for myself, and then would like to put it up. It was tentatively approved, but never finally done so. Thanks! On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 02:43:00 PM CST, Björn Persson wrote: Ben Beasley wrote: > Please compare with > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xfontsel/blob/rawhide/f/xfontsel.spec, > paying close attention to the comments in the spec file. SKS keyservers have > gone offline since that package obtained its keyring, so try using > hkps://keys.openpgp.org instead. To elaborate on this, the procedure described in xfontsel.spec finds the key that was used to make the signature, so whoever made the signature becomes the trusted upstream. If you do that *once*, it's a form of trust on first use. It lets you discover future attacks as long as you continue using the same key, assuming that you got the right key to begin with. If you would repeat the key lookup every time you upgrade the package, then you would render the verification meaningless. You'd just be verifying that the tarball was signed by whoever signed the tarball. So don't do that. Björn Persson ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure ___ 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: changing the name of a package
Thanks, Sandro! The reason stapler was published as pdf-stapler was that there was then a package called stapler on Fedora, so it was suggested to me that I use pdf-stapler, which is any case better because it emphasizes that the software is for pdfs. However, the name stapler itself is quite meaningless but upstream did not buy my argument:-( Perhaps we call it python-pdf-stapler? I will look into making use of the Python macros. Hopefully it is not problematic, because I am still not all that familliar with the process. Thanks! On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 09:58:48 AM CDT, Sandro wrote: On 06-05-2023 16:44, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > Right, but not pdf-stapler. I would have thought that that might be > included too. Anyway, I am the maintainer for pdf-stapler so I can > make myself aware, but I hope I will not be missing others. Well, looking at the spec file of pdf-stapler you can see why that is: %package -n python3-staplelib Summary: Module staplelib of pdf-stapler Requires: python3-PyPDF2 By the way, since you are the maintainer of pdf-stapler, I'd highly recommend transforming the spec file so it makes use of the Python macros. That will autogenerate dependencies and provides. See [1]. Moreover, pdf-stapler package itself should probably be renamed to python-stapler to comply with the PyPI parity requirements [2] of the packaging guidelines. The package is published on PyPI as 'stapler'. [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ [2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_pypi_parity -- 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 ___ 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: changing the name of a package
Right, but not pdf-stapler. I would have thought that that might be included too. Anyway, I am the maintainer for pdf-stapler so I can make myself aware, but I hope I will not be missing others. On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 09:38:32 AM CDT, Sandro wrote: On 06-05-2023 16:29, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > sudo fedrq whatrequires python-PyPDF2 > > does not list pdf-stapler as a reverse dependency, however it does > include python3-staplelib which is part of the pdf-stapler > packaging. It lists python3-staplelib for me: fedrq wr python3-PyPDF2 pdfposter-0.7.post1-16.fc38.noarch python-mapnik-3.0.23-23.20200224git7da019c.fc39.src python3-krop-0.5.1-16.fc38.noarch python3-staplelib-1.0.0-0.13.20191215git8753251.fc38.noarch > But how do I inform all the other maintainers about this change in a > package name? I guess my concern is that some of them may not > respond. The renamed package will provide proper obsoletes, making the change transparent. In addition you can sent an announcements to devel list and cc the maintainers using the -maintainers@fp.o generic addresses. -- 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 ___ 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: changing the name of a package
Strange that sudo fedrq whatrequires python-PyPDF2 does not list pdf-stapler as a reverse dependency, however it does include python3-staplelib which is part of the pdf-stapler packaging. But how do I inform all the other maintainers about this change in a package name? I guess my concern is that some of them may not respond. On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 09:01:28 AM CDT, Sandro wrote: On 06-05-2023 15:36, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > Is there an easy way to find out the reverse dependencies of a > package (PyPDF2)? Should I contact the maintainers of these reverse > dependencies to inform them? PyPDF2 has been renamed back to pypdf. > It is unclear to me why renames in either direction happened, but we > are where we are. I find fedrq quite helpful. https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/fedrq/fedrq/ https://fedrq.gtmx.me/ -- 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: changing the name of a package
On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 01:13:18 AM CDT, Paweł Marciniak wrote: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-replacing-existing-packages Thanks! Is there an easy way to find out the reverse dependencies of a package (PyPDF2)? Should I contact the maintainers of these reverse dependencies to inform them? PyPDF2 has been renamed back to pypdf. It is unclear to me why renames in either direction happened, but we are where we are. ___ 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
changing the name of a package
I am a co-maintainer (I think at least, I used to be co-) of PyPDF2 at least for a while) or maintainer and I have noticed that the name has changed back to pypdf (upstream). Is there an easy way to update the name of the package (in the rpm) and importantly to make sure that the new pypdf rpm is pulled to replace the old PyPDF2 rpm? Thanks! ___ 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: Looking for new xfig package-maintainer
Did you find a co-maintainer for xfig? I use this package on and off and I would not like to lose it. On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 08:31:59 AM CDT, Hans de Goede wrote: Hi All, I have been keeping the Fedora xfig package alive all these years because I know that there are still users using xfig and xfig actually still has an active upstream. Lately I have not been able to spend any time on this, as can be seen from the currently open / unfixed CVE against xfig: https://bugz.fedoraproject.org/xfig Upstream has a patch available fixing this, so fixing this is easy. I just have not been able to make the time for this. As such I think the time has come to ask for help for maintaining xfig. If you can help by taking over or co-maintaining xfig, please let me know. Regards, Hans ___ 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: Is texlive-was-9 retired for Fedora 38?
Sorry to hear about that! Hopefully you feel better soon. Thanks, I got downgrades to dnf, dnf-data, python3-dnf, tcpdump. No more. But I did update texlive-was to texlive-was-10. Thanks again! On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 01:52:29 PM CDT, Stephen Smoogen wrote: On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 at 14:43, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > Thank you for this! > > I set up > > > $sudo dnf reposync > > and it is going on to do some sort of download for 69,222 (!) package? > > Is this correct? I seem to think that there are a bit more than 2,000 RPMs > installed in my system! > > I am perplexed, so I just wanted to make sure that this is what I should be > doing. > No that is me typing instructions while on pain management medicine. dnf distro-sync is what I should have typed. My apologies for the mixup. > Thanks again! > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 01:17:56 PM CDT, Stephen Smoogen > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 at 14:13, stan via devel > wrote: >> On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 17:30:28 + (UTC) >> Globe Trotter via devel wrote: >> >>> Is texlive-was-9 retired for Fedora 38? My package did not upgrade >>> from F37 and so I was wondering about it. >> >> As near as I can tell, there is no package in fedora called >> texlive-was-9. >> > > > In Fedora 37 base there was: > > ``` > /srv/web/pub/fedora/linux/releases/37/Everything/x86_64/os/Packages/t/texlive-was-svn21439.0-59.fc37.noarch.rpm > Name : texlive-was > Epoch : 9 > Version : svn21439.0 > Release : 59.fc37 > Architecture: noarch > Install Date: (not installed) > Group : Unspecified > Size : 14330 > License : Public Domain > Signature : RSA/SHA256, Tue 02 Aug 2022 08:31:29 GMT, Key ID > f55ad3fb5323552a > Source RPM : texlive-2021-59.fc37.src.rpm > Build Date : Mon 01 Aug 2022 16:30:45 GMT > Build Host : buildvm-ppc64le-37.iad2.fedoraproject.org > Relocations : (not relocatable) > Packager : Fedora Project > Vendor : Fedora Project > URL : http://tug.org/texlive/ > Bug URL : https://bugz.fedoraproject.org/texlive > Summary : A collection of small packages by Walter Schmidt > Description : > A bundle of packages that arise in the author's area of > interest: compliance of maths typesetting with ISO standards; > symbols that work in both maths and text modes commas for both > decimal separator and maths; and upright Greek letters in > maths. > ``` > > These were built out of the main texlive package. This package was also in > the F38 repository > > /pub/fedora/linux/releases/38/Everything/x86_64/os/Packages/t/texlive-was-svn64691-65.fc38.noarch.rpm > > so it should have been updated unless some other package problem stopped it. > Try doing a `dnf reposync` > >> There is a package >> texlive-wasy-10:svn53533-65.fc38.noarch.rpm >> that contains >> /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/source/public/wasy/wasy9.mf >> in F38. >> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=33307983 >> >> Is that what you mean? It seems to be there in F38. Is it possible >> that it has conflicts, and so wasn't updated? >> ___ >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > > Stephen Smoogen, Red Hat Automotive > Let us be kind to one another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle. -- > Ian MacClaren > > > ___ > 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 unsubscrib
Re: Is texlive-was-9 retired for Fedora 38?
Thank you for this! I set up $sudo dnf reposync and it is going on to do some sort of download for 69,222 (!) package? Is this correct? I seem to think that there are a bit more than 2,000 RPMs installed in my system! I am perplexed, so I just wanted to make sure that this is what I should be doing. Thanks again! On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 01:17:56 PM CDT, Stephen Smoogen wrote: On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 at 14:13, stan via devel wrote: > On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 17:30:28 + (UTC) > Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > >> Is texlive-was-9 retired for Fedora 38? My package did not upgrade >> from F37 and so I was wondering about it. > > As near as I can tell, there is no package in fedora called > texlive-was-9. > In Fedora 37 base there was: ``` /srv/web/pub/fedora/linux/releases/37/Everything/x86_64/os/Packages/t/texlive-was-svn21439.0-59.fc37.noarch.rpm Name : texlive-was Epoch : 9 Version : svn21439.0 Release : 59.fc37 Architecture: noarch Install Date: (not installed) Group : Unspecified Size : 14330 License : Public Domain Signature : RSA/SHA256, Tue 02 Aug 2022 08:31:29 GMT, Key ID f55ad3fb5323552a Source RPM : texlive-2021-59.fc37.src.rpm Build Date : Mon 01 Aug 2022 16:30:45 GMT Build Host : buildvm-ppc64le-37.iad2.fedoraproject.org Relocations : (not relocatable) Packager : Fedora Project Vendor : Fedora Project URL : http://tug.org/texlive/ Bug URL : https://bugz.fedoraproject.org/texlive Summary : A collection of small packages by Walter Schmidt Description : A bundle of packages that arise in the author's area of interest: compliance of maths typesetting with ISO standards; symbols that work in both maths and text modes commas for both decimal separator and maths; and upright Greek letters in maths. ``` These were built out of the main texlive package. This package was also in the F38 repository /pub/fedora/linux/releases/38/Everything/x86_64/os/Packages/t/texlive-was-svn64691-65.fc38.noarch.rpm so it should have been updated unless some other package problem stopped it. Try doing a `dnf reposync` > There is a package > texlive-wasy-10:svn53533-65.fc38.noarch.rpm > that contains > /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/source/public/wasy/wasy9.mf > in F38. > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=33307983 > > Is that what you mean? It seems to be there in F38. Is it possible > that it has conflicts, and so wasn't updated? > ___ > 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 > > -- Stephen Smoogen, Red Hat Automotive Let us be kind to one another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle. -- Ian MacClaren ___ 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
Is texlive-was-9 retired for Fedora 38?
Is texlive-was-9 retired for Fedora 38? My package did not upgrade from F37 and so I was wondering about it. Thanks ___ 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: livcd-creator gives incorrect checksum for recently rebuilt local repo packages
Btw, this is how I define my repo in the kickstart file: repo --name=MyBaseRepo --baseurl=file:///home/itsme/rpmbuild/RPMS/$basearch I have never had this issue before, even as recently as a week ago. Thanks! On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 09:52:07 PM CST, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: OK, I tried createrepo_c . but I get the same error. Here is what I tried: createrepo_c --update . And now, nothing from the local repo come in. Suggestions? On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 09:27:13 PM CST, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 4:15 AM Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > I wonder if anyone has any suggestions on how to get around this problem. I > create my local repo using > > createrepo . > > inside my RPMS/x86_64 directory. Is there a specific reason you are not using createrepo_c? Does that give you the same error? You can read about their differences here: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/createrepo_c#differences-in-behavior-between-createrepo_c-and-createrepo ___ 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 On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 09:52:07 PM CST, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: OK, I tried createrepo_c . but I get the same error. Here is what I tried: createrepo_c --update . And now, nothing from the local repo come in. Suggestions? On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 09:27:13 PM CST, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 4:15 AM Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > I wonder if anyone has any suggestions on how to get around this problem. I > create my local repo using > > createrepo . > > inside my RPMS/x86_64 directory. Is there a specific reason you are not using createrepo_c? Does that give you the same error? You can read about their differences here: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/createrepo_c#differences-in-behavior-between-createrepo_c-and-createrepo ___ 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 ___ 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: livcd-creator gives incorrect checksum for recently rebuilt local repo packages
OK, I tried createrepo_c . but I get the same error. Here is what I tried: createrepo_c --update . And now, nothing from the local repo come in. Suggestions? On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 09:27:13 PM CST, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 4:15 AM Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > I wonder if anyone has any suggestions on how to get around this problem. I > create my local repo using > > createrepo . > > inside my RPMS/x86_64 directory. Is there a specific reason you are not using createrepo_c? Does that give you the same error? You can read about their differences here: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/createrepo_c#differences-in-behavior-between-createrepo_c-and-createrepo ___ 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: livcd-creator gives incorrect checksum for recently rebuilt local repo packages
Hi, I wonder if anyone has any suggestions on how to get around this problem. I create my local repo using createrepo . inside my RPMS/x86_64 directory. I have done this in the past too. So, am at a loss as to what is causing this problem. TIA. On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 10:35:03 AM CST, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: Hello, I was using livecd-creator, and I get the following for local recently rebuilt packages, but not for those built a few weeks ago. Specifically, I get: Package "wbar-2.3.4-2.fc37.x86_64" from local repository "MyBaseRepo" has incorrect checksum Error creating Live CD : Unable to install: Some packages from local repository What is the problem here, and how do I get around this? Many thanks! ___ 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: how to specify distribution (f37, say, not fc37) in a spec file
Excellent, thank you. no, I am not planning to maintain EPEL branches.
On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 07:53:08 PM CST, Alexander Ploumistos
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 2:39 AM Globe Trotter via devel
wrote:
> I am writing a spec file for SliM, the Simple Login Manager for Fedora 37. I
> was thiniking of changing the default login image to the Fedora one. It
> appears that that is stored in the RPM: f37-backgrounds-base and the file is
> /usr/share/backgrounds/f37/default/f37-01-day.png
>
> So, my question is: how do I include both the rpm as well as the file that
> depends on the distribution version.
>
> Now, from https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/DistTag/
>
> I get that %{dist} or %{?dist} will give me fc37, but this is different, i
> need f37, etc so that an updated spec file is not needed everytime we have an
> upgrade.
One way to go about it would be to use the %{fedora} variable, e.g.:
Requires: f%{?fedora}-backgrounds-base
If you are going to maintain EPEL branches as well, you will have to
use a conditional there.
___
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
how to specify distribution (f37, say, not fc37) in a spec file
Hi,
I am writing a spec file for SliM, the Simple Login Manager for Fedora 37. I
was thiniking of changing the default login image to the Fedora one. It appears
that that is stored in the RPM: f37-backgrounds-base and the file is
/usr/share/backgrounds/f37/default/f37-01-day.png
So, my question is: how do I include both the rpm as well as the file that
depends on the distribution version.
Now, from https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/DistTag/
I get that %{dist} or %{?dist} will give me fc37, but this is different, i need
f37, etc so that an updated spec file is not needed everytime we have an
upgrade.
Thanks very much for any suggestions/advice!
___
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: providing gpg verification for a package without signature
To answer my own question, by the trial-and-error method, it seems that the current default needs to be taken out from the conf file. On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 02:48:52 PM CST, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: Sorry, I had a question on the xserver_arguments in the slim.conf file. The old (1.3.6) file had xserver_arguments commented out, but the new (1.4.0) file replaces it with xserver_arguments -nolisten tcp -deferglyphs 16 The default zserver is still the same: default_xserver /usr/bin/X Should the xserver_arguments be modified/removed in a patch? Or left as is? Thanks! On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 10:44:38 AM CST, Todd Zullinger wrote: Hi, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > I have been trying to package slim again. The package does not come with a > signature or a gpg key. > > From > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_source_file_verification > I don't see an option of what to do if there is no signature provided. > > Any suggestions or pointers to where I can get guidance on this? Per the guidelines: Where the upstream project publishes OpenPGP signatures of their releases, Fedora packages SHOULD verify that signature as part of the RPM build process. If upstream doesn't provide a signature for their releases, then there isn't anything to verify. The guideline is also a SHOULD not a MUST, so it's not a blocker to lack signature verification (though I'd argue it should be a very strong SHOULD, if not a MUST. ;) It might be worth asking the upstream maintainer if they would consider signing the release tarballs. I have to guess that you're looking to use slim-fork, rather than the original slim? The latter hasn't seen any changes since 2013¹, while the former has been updated recently to 1.4.0² (as far as I can tell with some quick searching). ¹ https://github.com/iwamatsu/slim/tags ² https://sourceforge.net/projects/slim-fork/files/ -- Todd ___ 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 On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 10:44:38 AM CST, Todd Zullinger wrote: Hi, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > I have been trying to package slim again. The package does not come with a > signature or a gpg key. > > From > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_source_file_verification > I don't see an option of what to do if there is no signature provided. > > Any suggestions or pointers to where I can get guidance on this? Per the guidelines: Where the upstream project publishes OpenPGP signatures of their releases, Fedora packages SHOULD verify that signature as part of the RPM build process. If upstream doesn't provide a signature for their releases, then there isn't anything to verify. The guideline is also a SHOULD not a MUST, so it's not a blocker to lack signature verification (though I'd argue it should be a very strong SHOULD, if not a MUST. ;) It might be worth asking the upstream maintainer if they would consider signing the release tarballs. I have to guess that you're looking to use slim-fork, rather than the original slim? The latter hasn't seen any changes since 2013¹, while the former has been updated recently to 1.4.0² (as far as I can tell with some quick searching). ¹ https://github.com/iwamatsu/slim/tags ² https://sourceforge.net/projects/slim-fork/files/ -- Todd ___ 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 ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproj
Re: providing gpg verification for a package without signature
Sorry, I had a question on the xserver_arguments in the slim.conf file. The old (1.3.6) file had xserver_arguments commented out, but the new (1.4.0) file replaces it with xserver_arguments -nolisten tcp -deferglyphs 16 The default zserver is still the same: default_xserver /usr/bin/X Should the xserver_arguments be modified/removed in a patch? Or left as is? Thanks! On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 10:44:38 AM CST, Todd Zullinger wrote: Hi, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > I have been trying to package slim again. The package does not come with a > signature or a gpg key. > > From > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_source_file_verification > I don't see an option of what to do if there is no signature provided. > > Any suggestions or pointers to where I can get guidance on this? Per the guidelines: Where the upstream project publishes OpenPGP signatures of their releases, Fedora packages SHOULD verify that signature as part of the RPM build process. If upstream doesn't provide a signature for their releases, then there isn't anything to verify. The guideline is also a SHOULD not a MUST, so it's not a blocker to lack signature verification (though I'd argue it should be a very strong SHOULD, if not a MUST. ;) It might be worth asking the upstream maintainer if they would consider signing the release tarballs. I have to guess that you're looking to use slim-fork, rather than the original slim? The latter hasn't seen any changes since 2013¹, while the former has been updated recently to 1.4.0² (as far as I can tell with some quick searching). ¹ https://github.com/iwamatsu/slim/tags ² https://sourceforge.net/projects/slim-fork/files/ -- Todd ___ 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 On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 10:44:38 AM CST, Todd Zullinger wrote: Hi, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > I have been trying to package slim again. The package does not come with a > signature or a gpg key. > > From > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_source_file_verification > I don't see an option of what to do if there is no signature provided. > > Any suggestions or pointers to where I can get guidance on this? Per the guidelines: Where the upstream project publishes OpenPGP signatures of their releases, Fedora packages SHOULD verify that signature as part of the RPM build process. If upstream doesn't provide a signature for their releases, then there isn't anything to verify. The guideline is also a SHOULD not a MUST, so it's not a blocker to lack signature verification (though I'd argue it should be a very strong SHOULD, if not a MUST. ;) It might be worth asking the upstream maintainer if they would consider signing the release tarballs. I have to guess that you're looking to use slim-fork, rather than the original slim? The latter hasn't seen any changes since 2013¹, while the former has been updated recently to 1.4.0² (as far as I can tell with some quick searching). ¹ https://github.com/iwamatsu/slim/tags ² https://sourceforge.net/projects/slim-fork/files/ -- Todd ___ 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: providing gpg verification for a package without signature
Sorry, forgot to add: I will ask the slim-fork maintainer if he will sign the release tarballs. On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 10:51:14 AM CST, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: Todd, I only became aware of this fork yesterday, and have packaged it and put it on bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173236 Hopefully, someone who can will review and approve it. Someone did review it, but is not eligible to approve. Thanks! On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 10:44:38 AM CST, Todd Zullinger wrote: Hi, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > I have been trying to package slim again. The package does not come with a > signature or a gpg key. > > From > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_source_file_verification > I don't see an option of what to do if there is no signature provided. > > Any suggestions or pointers to where I can get guidance on this? Per the guidelines: Where the upstream project publishes OpenPGP signatures of their releases, Fedora packages SHOULD verify that signature as part of the RPM build process. If upstream doesn't provide a signature for their releases, then there isn't anything to verify. The guideline is also a SHOULD not a MUST, so it's not a blocker to lack signature verification (though I'd argue it should be a very strong SHOULD, if not a MUST. ;) It might be worth asking the upstream maintainer if they would consider signing the release tarballs. I have to guess that you're looking to use slim-fork, rather than the original slim? The latter hasn't seen any changes since 2013¹, while the former has been updated recently to 1.4.0² (as far as I can tell with some quick searching). ¹ https://github.com/iwamatsu/slim/tags ² https://sourceforge.net/projects/slim-fork/files/ -- Todd ___ 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 ___ 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: providing gpg verification for a package without signature
Todd, I only became aware of this fork yesterday, and have packaged it and put it on bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173236 Hopefully, someone who can will review and approve it. Someone did review it, but is not eligible to approve. Thanks! On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 10:44:38 AM CST, Todd Zullinger wrote: Hi, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > I have been trying to package slim again. The package does not come with a > signature or a gpg key. > > From > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_source_file_verification > I don't see an option of what to do if there is no signature provided. > > Any suggestions or pointers to where I can get guidance on this? Per the guidelines: Where the upstream project publishes OpenPGP signatures of their releases, Fedora packages SHOULD verify that signature as part of the RPM build process. If upstream doesn't provide a signature for their releases, then there isn't anything to verify. The guideline is also a SHOULD not a MUST, so it's not a blocker to lack signature verification (though I'd argue it should be a very strong SHOULD, if not a MUST. ;) It might be worth asking the upstream maintainer if they would consider signing the release tarballs. I have to guess that you're looking to use slim-fork, rather than the original slim? The latter hasn't seen any changes since 2013¹, while the former has been updated recently to 1.4.0² (as far as I can tell with some quick searching). ¹ https://github.com/iwamatsu/slim/tags ² https://sourceforge.net/projects/slim-fork/files/ -- Todd ___ 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: providing gpg verification for a package without signature
Thanks, so it appears that no GPG verification is needed in this case, then. I thought it was needed for everything. Thanks again for the clarification! On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 10:29:30 AM CST, Ben Beasley wrote: “Where the upstream project publishes OpenPGP signatures of their releases, Fedora packages SHOULD verify that signature as part of the RPM build process.” Most upstreams don’t sign their releases this way, so most Fedora packages don’t need to worry about it. If upstream did provide signatures, they would be published alongside the source archives. > On Feb 26, 2023, at 11:02 AM, Globe Trotter via devel > wrote: > > Hello, > > I have been trying to package slim again. The package does not come with a > signature or a gpg key. > > From > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_source_file_verification > I don't see an option of what to do if there is no signature provided. > > Any suggestions or pointers to where I can get guidance on this? > > Thanks! > ___ > 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 ___ 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
providing gpg verification for a package without signature
Hello, I have been trying to package slim again. The package does not come with a signature or a gpg key. From https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_source_file_verification I don't see an option of what to do if there is no signature provided. Any suggestions or pointers to where I can get guidance on this? Thanks! ___ 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
Review Request: unretire slim
Hi, I have filed a BZ request for unretiring slim. It is at: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173236 Can someone please review it? Best! ___ 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
livcd-creator gives incorrect checksum for recently rebuilt local repo packages
Hello, I was using livecd-creator, and I get the following for local recently rebuilt packages, but not for those built a few weeks ago. Specifically, I get: Package "wbar-2.3.4-2.fc37.x86_64" from local repository "MyBaseRepo" has incorrect checksum Error creating Live CD : Unable to install: Some packages from local repository What is the problem here, and how do I get around this? Many thanks! ___ 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: Test upgrades from F37 to F38 - it will take you just a minute
Looks good here too: Downgrading: Lmod x86_64 8.7.18-1.fc38 fedora 258 k festival-data noarch 2.5.0-16.fc38 fedora 1.2 M fwupd x86_64 1.8.10-1.fc38 fedora 1.8 M fwupd-plugin-flashrom x86_64 1.8.10-1.fc38 fedora 26 k fwupd-plugin-modem-manager x86_64 1.8.10-1.fc38 fedora 60 k fwupd-plugin-uefi-capsule-data x86_64 1.8.10-1.fc38 fedora 1.8 M gh x86_64 2.22.1-1.fc38 fedora 8.3 M mock-core-configs noarch 38.1-1.fc38 fedora 141 k python3-xlsxwriter noarch 3.0.7-1.fc38 fedora 327 k scrot x86_64 1.7-4.fc38 fedora 79 k ___ 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
Unretiring a package
According to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement_Process/#claiming unretiring a package requires review if retired for more than eight weeks. According to releng, the package slim has been retired for 6+ weeks. Do I still need to ask for review of this package, and file a BZ request? Thanks! ___ 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: Creating a F37 remix/spin LiveCD without a desktop environment (Resolved)
I wanted to say that Neil is correct, below. Apparently, some packages were not being pulled in, and that was creating the problems. So, things appear to have changed a little bit, but in general,not that much for non-DE setups. Best wishes! On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 09:25:50 PM CST, Neal Gompa wrote: On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 9:33 PM Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > > Hello, > > Since about Fedora 20 or so, I have been rolling my own Fedora spin without a > desktop environment, and with openbox and slim (simple login manager). All > worked well, because I did not need to roll these that often, with dnf > upgrade on existing installations, except up until now when I need a new > LiveCD for a new machine coming online. I last successfully made a LiveCD > with Fedora 34. > > Recently, I went back to making a live cd for Fedora 37, and realized that > there is a new way of handling these: specifically, I have to install > env-group to resolve RH Bug:1891500. > > With an environment, it turns out one has to do something like > > > @^lxde-desktop-environment > > but I do not want an environment. > > I tried putting this in, and removing all the LXDE things > > -@'Dial-up Networking Support' > -@LXDE > -@Fonts > -@'LXDE Desktop' > -@'Multimedia' > -@base-x > -@core > -@fonts > -@'Guest Desktop Agents' > -@'Input Methods' > -@'Printing' > -@'Hardware Support' > -lxpanel > -lxlauncher > -libfm > -menu-cache > -pcmanfm > -lxde-common > > and this works, but not quite. I still get large components of the LXDE > environment, slim (which I roll my personal rpm of) does not get started, and > I get a slower system. > I tried explicitly getting rid of the following that I could see: > > -clipit > -galculator > -dnfdragora > -dnfdragora-updater > -xpad > -icon > -xarchiver > -xscreensaver > -gigolo > -samba\* > -firewall-config > -firewalld > -lx\* > > but still, there are lx\* things in the LiveCD. > > Can I get a LiveCD environment without all this, and with slim? > Yes, you can just avoid using environment groups altogether. The bug you reference should not apply in your case. -- 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: Creating a F37 remix/spin LiveCD without a desktop environment
Thank you. I was not aware of nodm, so this is interesting. However, I understand that nodm will automatically start an X session at system boot. I really do not want that, except in the LiveCD. As I mentioned in a post, I do not understand why lightdm (in my example) was not starting. Looking at the i3 desktop kickstart file, I tried using lightdm (just to see how I fare): %post systemctl enable lightdm # create /etc/sysconfig/desktop (needed for installation) cat > /etc/sysconfig/desktop < wrote: On Tue, 2023-02-21 at 16:34 +, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > > > Thanks for this. But this is separate. I was wondering how do I > create a LiveCD without a login display manager? you got nodm package and maybe could help you this article https://fedoramagazine.org/build-a-kiosk-with-fedora-silverblue/ > > > > On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 07:59:27 AM CST, Sandro > wrote: > > > > > > On 20-02-2023 22:09, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > > I would be happy to unretire it if that is possible. > > It is: > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement_Process/#claiming > > -- 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 > ___ > 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 -- Sérgio M. B. ___ 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: Creating a F37 remix/spin LiveCD without a desktop environment
Looking at the i3 desktop kickstart file, I tried using lightdm (just to see how I fare): %post systemctl enable lightdm # xfce configuration # create /etc/sysconfig/desktop (needed for installation) cat > /etc/sysconfig/desktop < wrote: I put the following here, in case anyone wants to take a look. The LiveCD formed does not boot. fpaste fedora-shunya-common.ks Uploading (3.7KiB)... https://paste.centos.org/view/529252f8 $ fpaste fedora-live-shunya-37.ks Uploading (3.2KiB)... https://paste.centos.org/view/b73160cd I also put the old one that used to work at least with F34 here: $ fpaste fedora-live-shunya-old.ks Uploading (3.3KiB)... https://paste.centos.org/view/34c9dfe3 This has the same effect as the new one. At least, that is what it looks like. Many thanks! On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 11:18:38 PM CST, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 09:25:50 PM CST, Neal Gompa wrote: On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 9:33 PM Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > > Hello, > > Since about Fedora 20 or so, I have been rolling my own Fedora spin without a > desktop environment, and with openbox and slim (simple login manager). All > worked well, because I did not need to roll these that often, with dnf > upgrade on existing installations, except up until now when I need a new > LiveCD for a new machine coming online. I last successfully made a LiveCD > with Fedora 34. > > Recently, I went back to making a live cd for Fedora 37, and realized that > there is a new way of handling these: specifically, I have to install > env-group to resolve RH Bug:1891500. > > With an environment, it turns out one has to do something like > > > @^lxde-desktop-environment > > but I do not want an environment. > > > Can I get a LiveCD environment without all this, and with slim? > > Yes, you can just avoid using environment groups altogether. The bug you > reference should not apply in your case. -- Thanks! Not? but it does not work. A LiveCD is created if I do not add that line to my ks, but. I get something that hangs when the LiveCD boots. Did not happen before. ___ 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 Looking at the i3 desktop kickstart file, I tried using lightdm: On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 09:10:57 AM CST, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: I put the following here, in case anyone wants to take a look. The LiveCD formed does not boot. fpaste fedora-shunya-common.ks Uploading (3.7KiB)... https://paste.centos.org/view/529252f8 $ fpaste fedora-live-shunya-37.ks Uploading (3.2KiB)... https://paste.centos.org/view/b73160cd I also put the old one that used to work at least with F34 here: $ fpaste fedora-live-shunya-old.ks Uploading (3.3KiB)... https://paste.centos.org/view/34c9dfe3 This has the same effect as the new one. At least, that is what it looks like. Many thanks! On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 11:18:38 PM CST, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 09:25:50 PM CST, Neal Gompa wrote: On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 9:33 PM Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > > Hello, > > Since about Fedora 20 or so, I have been rolling my own Fedora spin without a > desktop environment, and with openbox and slim (simple login manager). All > worked well, because I did not need to roll these that often, with dnf > upgrade on existing installations, except up until now when I need a new > LiveCD for a new machine coming online. I last successfully made a LiveCD > with Fedora 34. > > Recently, I went back to making a live cd for Fedora 37, and realized that > there is a new way of handling these: specifically, I have to install > env-group to resolve RH Bug:1891500. > > With an environment, it turns out one has to do something like > > > @^lxde-desktop-environment > > but I do not want an environment. >
Re: Creating a F37 remix/spin LiveCD without a desktop environment
Thanks for this. But this is separate. I was wondering how do I create a LiveCD without a login display manager? On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 07:59:27 AM CST, Sandro wrote: On 20-02-2023 22:09, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > I would be happy to unretire it if that is possible. It is: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement_Process/#claiming -- 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 ___ 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: Creating a F37 remix/spin LiveCD without a desktop environment
Hi Sergio, Thanks! Yes, slim was retired but I just make my own RPM for F37 locally. It is very straightforward and works fine. I would be happy to unretire it if that is possible. But that does not explain to me why the remix does not get created. On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 03:00:31 PM CST, Sérgio Basto wrote: On Mon, 2023-02-20 at 02:28 +, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > Hello, > > Since about Fedora 20 or so, I have been rolling my own Fedora spin > without a desktop environment, and with openbox and slim (simple > login manager). All worked well, because I did not need to roll these > that often, with dnf upgrade on existing installations, except up > until now when I need a new LiveCD for a new machine coming online. I > last successfully made a LiveCD with Fedora 34. > I just notice slim package was retired on Fedora 37 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/slim HTH > Recently, I went back to making a live cd for Fedora 37, and realized > that there is a new way of handling these: specifically, I have to > install env-group to resolve RH Bug:1891500. > > With an environment, it turns out one has to do something like > > > @^lxde-desktop-environment > > but I do not want an environment. > > I tried putting this in, and removing all the LXDE things > > -@'Dial-up Networking Support' > -@LXDE > -@Fonts > -@'LXDE Desktop' > -@'Multimedia' > -@base-x > > -@core > -@fonts > -@'Guest Desktop Agents' > -@'Input Methods' > -@'Printing' > -@'Hardware Support' > -lxpanel > -lxlauncher > -libfm > -menu-cache > -pcmanfm > -lxde-common > > and this works, but not quite. I still get large components of the > LXDE environment, slim (which I roll my personal rpm of) does not get > started, and I get a slower system. > I tried explicitly getting rid of the following that I could see: > > -clipit > -galculator > -dnfdragora > -dnfdragora-updater > -xpad > -icon > -xarchiver > -xscreensaver > -gigolo > -samba\* > -firewall-config > -firewalld > -lx\* > > but still, there are lx\* things in the LiveCD. > > Can I get a LiveCD environment without all this, and with slim? > > Thanks! > ___ > 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 -- Sérgio M. B. ___ 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: Creating a F37 remix/spin LiveCD without a desktop environment
I put the following here, in case anyone wants to take a look. The LiveCD formed does not boot. fpaste fedora-shunya-common.ks Uploading (3.7KiB)... https://paste.centos.org/view/529252f8 $ fpaste fedora-live-shunya-37.ks Uploading (3.2KiB)... https://paste.centos.org/view/b73160cd I also put the old one that used to work at least with F34 here: $ fpaste fedora-live-shunya-old.ks Uploading (3.3KiB)... https://paste.centos.org/view/34c9dfe3 This has the same effect as the new one. At least, that is what it looks like. Many thanks! On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 11:18:38 PM CST, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 09:25:50 PM CST, Neal Gompa wrote: On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 9:33 PM Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > > Hello, > > Since about Fedora 20 or so, I have been rolling my own Fedora spin without a > desktop environment, and with openbox and slim (simple login manager). All > worked well, because I did not need to roll these that often, with dnf > upgrade on existing installations, except up until now when I need a new > LiveCD for a new machine coming online. I last successfully made a LiveCD > with Fedora 34. > > Recently, I went back to making a live cd for Fedora 37, and realized that > there is a new way of handling these: specifically, I have to install > env-group to resolve RH Bug:1891500. > > With an environment, it turns out one has to do something like > > > @^lxde-desktop-environment > > but I do not want an environment. > > > Can I get a LiveCD environment without all this, and with slim? > > Yes, you can just avoid using environment groups altogether. The bug you > reference should not apply in your case. -- Thanks! Not? but it does not work. A LiveCD is created if I do not add that line to my ks, but. I get something that hangs when the LiveCD boots. Did not happen before. ___ 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: Creating a F37 remix/spin LiveCD without a desktop environment
On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 09:25:50 PM CST, Neal Gompa wrote: On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 9:33 PM Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > > Hello, > > Since about Fedora 20 or so, I have been rolling my own Fedora spin without a > desktop environment, and with openbox and slim (simple login manager). All > worked well, because I did not need to roll these that often, with dnf > upgrade on existing installations, except up until now when I need a new > LiveCD for a new machine coming online. I last successfully made a LiveCD > with Fedora 34. > > Recently, I went back to making a live cd for Fedora 37, and realized that > there is a new way of handling these: specifically, I have to install > env-group to resolve RH Bug:1891500. > > With an environment, it turns out one has to do something like > > > @^lxde-desktop-environment > > but I do not want an environment. > > > Can I get a LiveCD environment without all this, and with slim? > > Yes, you can just avoid using environment groups altogether. The bug you > reference should not apply in your case. -- Thanks! Not? but it does not work. A LiveCD is created if I do not add that line to my ks, but. I get something that hangs when the LiveCD boots. Did not happen before. ___ 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
Creating a F37 remix/spin LiveCD without a desktop environment
Hello, Since about Fedora 20 or so, I have been rolling my own Fedora spin without a desktop environment, and with openbox and slim (simple login manager). All worked well, because I did not need to roll these that often, with dnf upgrade on existing installations, except up until now when I need a new LiveCD for a new machine coming online. I last successfully made a LiveCD with Fedora 34. Recently, I went back to making a live cd for Fedora 37, and realized that there is a new way of handling these: specifically, I have to install env-group to resolve RH Bug:1891500. With an environment, it turns out one has to do something like @^lxde-desktop-environment but I do not want an environment. I tried putting this in, and removing all the LXDE things -@'Dial-up Networking Support' -@LXDE -@Fonts -@'LXDE Desktop' -@'Multimedia' -@base-x -@core -@fonts -@'Guest Desktop Agents' -@'Input Methods' -@'Printing' -@'Hardware Support' -lxpanel -lxlauncher -libfm -menu-cache -pcmanfm -lxde-common and this works, but not quite. I still get large components of the LXDE environment, slim (which I roll my personal rpm of) does not get started, and I get a slower system. I tried explicitly getting rid of the following that I could see: -clipit -galculator -dnfdragora -dnfdragora-updater -xpad -icon -xarchiver -xscreensaver -gigolo -samba\* -firewall-config -firewalld -lx\* but still, there are lx\* things in the LiveCD. Can I get a LiveCD environment without all this, and with slim? Thanks! ___ 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: empty reply from server error
Yes, thank you, this fixed it. I appreciate tthe comment on the spec. I inherited it as a to-be orphan and I have continued only fixing the spec file at the margins when things break. Would be happy to have some help in fixing the spec. On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 10:21:38 AM CDT, Ralf Corsépius wrote: Am 19.07.22 um 16:45 schrieb Globe Trotter via devel: > Thanks, btw, the command here says unknown command (see below). > > Btw, the log is here: > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=2004683 The trigger of this breakdown is the sped missing "BuildRequires: gcc" However, I regret having to say this, this package's spec could use a major overhaul. It contains quite a of rpm-spec-anachronisms and unnecessary things. Ralf ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: empty reply from server error
Cancel tasks and/or builds chain-build Build one or more packages from source image-build Create a disk image given an install tree image-build-indirection Create a disk image using other disk images via the Indirection plugin maven-build Build a Maven package from source maven-chain Run a set of Maven builds in dependency order resubmit Retry a canceled or failed task, using the same parameter as the original task. spin-appliance Create an appliance given a kickstart file spin-livecd Create a live CD image given a kickstart file spin-livemedia Create a livemedia image given a kickstart file win-build Build a Windows package from source wrapper-rpm Build wrapper rpms for any archives associated with a build. download commands: download-build Download a built package download-logs Download logs for task download-task Download the output of a build task info commands: buildinfo Print basic information about a build help List available commands hostinfo Print basic information about a host latest-build Print the latest builds for a tag list-api Print the list of XML-RPC APIs list-buildroot List the rpms used in or built in a buildroot list-builds Print the build listing list-channels Print channels listing list-external-repos List external repos list-groups Print the group listings list-history Display historical data list-hosts Print the host listing list-permissions List user permissions list-pkgs Print the package listing for tag or for owner list-tag-inheritance Print the inheritance information for a tag list-tagged List the builds or rpms in a tag list-tags Print the list of tags list-targets List the build targets list-tasks Print the list of tasks list-untagged List untagged builds list-volumes List storage volumes mock-config Create a mock config rpminfo Print basic information about an RPM show-groups Show groups data for a tag taginfo Print basic information about a tag taskinfo Show information about a task miscellaneous commands: call Execute an arbitrary XML-RPC call dist-repo Create a yum repo with distribution options import-comps Import group/package information from a comps file moshimoshi Introduce yourself version Report client and hub versions monitor commands: add-notification Add user's notification block-notification Block user's notifications edit-notification Edit user's notification list-notifications List user's notifications and blocks remove-notification Remove user's notifications unblock-notification Unblock user's notification wait-repo Wait for a repo to be regenerated watch-logs Watch logs in realtime watch-task Track progress of particular tasks search commands: search Search the system Try "koji --help" for help about global options Try "koji help" to get all available commands Try "koji --help" for help about the options of a particular command Try "koji help " to get commands under a particular category Available categories are: admin, all, bind, build, download, info, misc, monitor, search 2022-07-19 09:44:16,973 [ERROR] koji: Unknown command: save-failed-tree On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 09:40:23 AM CDT, Jerry James wrote: On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 7:52 AM Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > checking whether the C compiler works... no > configure: error: in `/builddir/build/BUILD/osmo-0.4.4': > configure: error: C compiler cannot create executables > See `config.log' for more details > > > Where is the config.log? config.log is in the buildroot. Try running "koji save-failed-tree ", where is the task ID koji gave you when you started the build. That will give you a tarball containing the buildroot. Look in there for config.log. Also, see /usr/share/doc/koji/docs/source/plugins.rst for how to download o
Re: empty reply from server error
Never mind, I figured this out. Bad oversight on my part. However, I get the following error in the build log (of koji): checking whether the C compiler works... no configure: error: in `/builddir/build/BUILD/osmo-0.4.4': configure: error: C compiler cannot create executables See `config.log' for more details Where is the config.log? I only have build.log (tail) hw_info.log (tail) mock_output.log (tail) root.log (tail) state.log (tail) Thanks again! On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 08:33:57 AM CDT, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: Hello, I was trying to fix a minor but severe error in the packging of osmo, and I get the following error: $ fedpkg import ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/osmo-0.4.4-2.fc36.src.rpm Could not execute import_srpm: (52, 'Empty reply from server') Where is this error from and how do I get around it? Thanks in advance for any suggestions! ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: empty reply from server error
Never mind, I figured this out. Bad oversight on my part. However, I get the following error in the build log (of koji): checking whether the C compiler works... no configure: error: in `/builddir/build/BUILD/osmo-0.4.4': configure: error: C compiler cannot create executables See `config.log' for more details Where is the config.log? I only have build.log (tail) hw_info.log (tail) mock_output.log (tail) root.log (tail) state.log (tail) Thanks again! On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 08:33:57 AM CDT, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: Hello, I was trying to fix a minor but severe error in the packging of osmo, and I get the following error: $ fedpkg import ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/osmo-0.4.4-2.fc36.src.rpm Could not execute import_srpm: (52, 'Empty reply from server') Where is this error from and how do I get around it? Thanks in advance for any suggestions! ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
empty reply from server error
Hello, I was trying to fix a minor but severe error in the packging of osmo, and I get the following error: $ fedpkg import ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/osmo-0.4.4-2.fc36.src.rpm Could not execute import_srpm: (52, 'Empty reply from server') Where is this error from and how do I get around it? Thanks in advance for any suggestions! ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: verifying signature for a package
Btw, I assume that i should call it xfontsel.gpg, or should I rename it too? Thanks! On Sunday, April 17, 2022, 10:50:37 AM CDT, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: Thanks very much! I will do this today. On Sunday, April 17, 2022, 09:12:15 AM CDT, Björn Persson wrote: Ben Beasley wrote: > Please see > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xfontsel/blob/a38f5a42fa7bc59378527cf05dabe29523675613/f/xfontsel.spec#_10 > for an example from the same group of X11 programs. What's described there is known as TOFU – trust on first use. Ben looked up which key made the signature, downloaded that key and added it to the Git repository. Initially this adds no security, as all that can be verified is that the tarball was signed by whoever signed it. The value of TOFU comes when the same key is used to verify another tarball. As long as the key in the Git repository remains unchanged, the signature verification can prove that each new release of Xfontsel is signed by the same person who signed the earlier releases. In this case I see that Oclock and Xfontsel are signed with the same key. That seems quite legitimate as both tarballs are from www.x.org. Instead of doing another, separate TOFU, you should copy Ben's xfontsel.gpg from the xfontsel Git repository. That way your initial Oclock package is not a first use of the key, but a second use, and when you invoke gpgverify it will prove that the Oclock tarball was signed by the same person who signed the Xfontsel tarball. Once you have the key, remember to pass all three parameters to gpgverify: --keyring, --signature and --data. Björn Persson ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: verifying signature for a package
Thanks very much! I will do this today. On Sunday, April 17, 2022, 09:12:15 AM CDT, Björn Persson wrote: Ben Beasley wrote: > Please see > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xfontsel/blob/a38f5a42fa7bc59378527cf05dabe29523675613/f/xfontsel.spec#_10 > for an example from the same group of X11 programs. What's described there is known as TOFU – trust on first use. Ben looked up which key made the signature, downloaded that key and added it to the Git repository. Initially this adds no security, as all that can be verified is that the tarball was signed by whoever signed it. The value of TOFU comes when the same key is used to verify another tarball. As long as the key in the Git repository remains unchanged, the signature verification can prove that each new release of Xfontsel is signed by the same person who signed the earlier releases. In this case I see that Oclock and Xfontsel are signed with the same key. That seems quite legitimate as both tarballs are from www.x.org. Instead of doing another, separate TOFU, you should copy Ben's xfontsel.gpg from the xfontsel Git repository. That way your initial Oclock package is not a first use of the key, but a second use, and when you invoke gpgverify it will prove that the Oclock tarball was signed by the same person who signed the Xfontsel tarball. Once you have the key, remember to pass all three parameters to gpgverify: --keyring, --signature and --data. Björn Persson ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: verifying signature for a package
On Sunday, April 17, 2022, 05:26:52 AM CDT, Maxwell G via devel
wrote:
> 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.
Yes, indeed, `%{source0}` isn't getting expanded properly.
However putting the full path stll gives the error:
gpgverify: No keyring was provided.
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.d9rVUX (%prep)
I am looking into the example.
Thanks!
___
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 on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
verifying signature for a package
Hi,
I am trying to pakage oclock for Fedora. According to the packaging guidelines
I need to have a gpg key.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_source_file_verification
So, the package itself comes with a oclock-1.0.4.tar.gz.sig (from upstream).
How do I use this?
I tried the following in my spec file:
Source0: https://www.x.org/pub/individual/app/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Source1: %{source0}.sig
%prep
%{gpgverify} --signature='%{SOURCE1}'
%autosetup
Of course, this did not work.
$ rpmbuild -ba oclock.spec
setting SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH=163728
Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.WWxhBy
+ umask 022
+ cd /home/maitra/rpmbuild/BUILD
+ /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/gpgverify
'--signature=/home/maitra/rpmbuild/SOURCES/%{source0}.sig'
gpgverify: No keyring was provided.
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.WWxhBy (%prep)
RPM build errors:
Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.WWxhBy (%prep)
My apologies, this is the first time I have had any use for a .sig file, and
have very little idea of what to do with it.
Thanks for any help!
___
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 on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Review request for oclock package (orphaned since F35)
Wonderful, thank you! This is the sort of pointer I was looking for. I will now
try it.
On Monday, November 22, 2021, 07:05:13 PM CST, Ben Beasley
wrote:
Please compare with
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xfontsel/blob/rawhide/f/xfontsel.spec,
paying close attention to the comments in the spec file. SKS keyservers have
gone offline since that package obtained its keyring, so try using
hkps://keys.openpgp.org instead.
That package also uses rpmautospec.
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021, at 7:02 PM, Globe Trotter via devel wrote:
> Thank you to Dan Čermák for reviewing this package. However, I had two
> questions from his comments. The first was that the spec file should
> use gpgverify.
> So, I went to the suggested webpage:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_source_file_verification
> and did the following to get my signature
>
> Source0: https://www.x.org/pub/individual/app/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
> Source1: %{source0}.sig
>
> but can not tell how to get the gpg keyring from the site.
>
> Second, it is also suggested that I start using rpmautospec, as that
> will make package maintenance simpler in the long run. I like that of
> course, but I am trying to understand where this is used?
>
> Thanks for any advice!
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, November 22, 2021, 04:21:59 PM CST, Globe Trotter via devel
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Anyone willing to review this request for a recently (>8 weeks)
> orphaned package?
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025138
>
> Happy to review in return.
> ___
> 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 on the list, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
> ___
> 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 on the list, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
___
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 on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
___
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 on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Review request for oclock package (orphaned since F35)
Thank you to Dan Čermák for reviewing this package. However, I had two
questions from his comments. The first was that the spec file should use
gpgverify.
So, I went to the suggested webpage:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_source_file_verification
and did the following to get my signature
Source0: https://www.x.org/pub/individual/app/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Source1: %{source0}.sig
but can not tell how to get the gpg keyring from the site.
Second, it is also suggested that I start using rpmautospec, as that will make
package maintenance simpler in the long run. I like that of course, but I am
trying to understand where this is used?
Thanks for any advice!
On Monday, November 22, 2021, 04:21:59 PM CST, Globe Trotter via devel
wrote:
Hello,
Anyone willing to review this request for a recently (>8 weeks) orphaned
package?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025138
Happy to review in return.
___
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 on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
___
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 on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Review request for oclock package (orphaned since F35)
Hello, Anyone willing to review this request for a recently (>8 weeks) orphaned package? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025138 Happy to review in return. ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: xorg-macros
Would anyone be wiling to review this package? I think that it might be straightforward given that it was orphaned after F34 and the package seems to build without any issues. The BZ review request is here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025138 Would be happy to review in return, of course. Thanks, aa...@fedoraproject.org On Saturday, November 20, 2021, 08:30:24 AM CST, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: Thank you, the BZ report is here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025138 I am already a packager of other packages so I believe that I do not need a sponsor. Best, aa...@fedoraproject.org On Saturday, November 20, 2021, 07:49:59 AM CST, Sérgio Basto wrote: On Fri, 2021-11-19 at 18:06 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 01:57:12PM +0000, Globe Trotter via devel > wrote: > > I opened the following: > > > > https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10396 > > > > I am not quite sure what happens after this, so I thought that I > > would mention this here. > > The package needs to go through re-review, because it was retired for > more than 8 weeks. See > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement_Process/#claiming > . > indeed since package was orphan just in latest release , we should be allowed to take it without re-review , i.e. I think 8 weeks still a very short time and should be one release which is about 26 weeks or 6 months . > 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 on the list, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure -- Sérgio M. B. ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: xorg-macros
Thank you, the BZ report is here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025138 I am already a packager of other packages so I believe that I do not need a sponsor. Best, aa...@fedoraproject.org On Saturday, November 20, 2021, 07:49:59 AM CST, Sérgio Basto wrote: On Fri, 2021-11-19 at 18:06 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 01:57:12PM +0000, Globe Trotter via devel > wrote: > > I opened the following: > > > > https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10396 > > > > I am not quite sure what happens after this, so I thought that I > > would mention this here. > > The package needs to go through re-review, because it was retired for > more than 8 weeks. See > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement_Process/#claiming > . > indeed since package was orphan just in latest release , we should be allowed to take it without re-review , i.e. I think 8 weeks still a very short time and should be one release which is about 26 weeks or 6 months . > 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 on the list, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure -- Sérgio M. B. ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Review request for oclock package (orphaned since F35)
Yes, indeed, stupid me. I neglected to post the bugzilla request. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025138 Sorry. Best wishes, aa...@fedoraproject.org On Saturday, November 20, 2021, 03:16:50 AM CST, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 04:46:17AM +, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > Hi, > > As the name says, this is a review request for the orphaned package oclock. I > find that the old spec file from F34 complies without errors and so would > like to maintain it. But first, I need a review. Could someone please help > review the package? This is not how this works. You need to open a normal review request on Bugzilla. 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Review request for oclock package (orphaned since F35)
Hi, As the name says, this is a review request for the orphaned package oclock. I find that the old spec file from F34 complies without errors and so would like to maintain it. But first, I need a review. Could someone please help review the package? Thanks, aa...@fedoraproject.org. ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: question on fedorapeople space
Thank you, your answer makes sense and clarifies to me what is on the instructions page. If I were editing the page, I would make sure that it says somewhere that we need to ssh in and then create the directories and permissions. the first part is not mentioned anywhere on that page. Thanks again. On Friday, November 19, 2021, 07:47:28 PM CST, Ben Beasley wrote: I am guessing that the public_html/ directory in your home directory does not exist or does not have the read and/or execute bits set for all users. Try: $ ssh aa...@fedorapeople.org 'mkdir -p public_html; chmod 0755 public_html' to make sure the directory exists with the correct permissions. On 11/19/21 19:33, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > Hello, > > I have been trying to upload a couple of my files to my fedorapeople.org > space following the instructions here: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/fedorapeople.org#fedorapeople.org > and have been confused. > > Actually, I go to my https://aarem.fedorapeople.org/ account and get: > > Forbidden > > You don't have permission to access / on this server. > > I wonder what I should do to get this space working? My profile lists the > space, but I am unclear as to how to make it accessible to others including > me. > > Thanks! > ___ > 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 on the list, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure > ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
question on fedorapeople space
Hello, I have been trying to upload a couple of my files to my fedorapeople.org space following the instructions here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/fedorapeople.org#fedorapeople.org and have been confused. Actually, I go to my https://aarem.fedorapeople.org/ account and get: Forbidden You don't have permission to access / on this server. I wonder what I should do to get this space working? My profile lists the space, but I am unclear as to how to make it accessible to others including me. Thanks! ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: spec file error (updated)
updated the spec files for both gbuffy and libPropList. However, I wonder how
to license it: currently they are under GPL and LGPL. Should these be GPLv2.1
and LGPLv2.1 since these are really old packages (even though I cleaned up
gbuffy some). Btw, if I patch up a package that does not seem to be maintained,
am I better off changing the name to avoid potential conflicts?
I doubt that anyone would use this package, no one other than me appears to
have felt the need and while I have used these for years, I would be happy to
submit these to Fedora.
Thanks!
aa...@fedoraproject.org
On Thursday, November 11, 2021, 08:16:11 AM CST, David Cantrell
wrote:
Vitaly replied in this thread as well with other spec file changes you
need to make to align with current packaging guidelines. For
reference:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
Other replies below...
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 09:48:24PM +, Globe Trotter via devel wrote:
>My apologies, i spoke too soon.
>
>I updated Makefile.in to be:
>
>install: gbuffy
> ./mkinstalldirs $(DESTDIR)$(bindir)
> $(INSTALL) gbuffy $(DESTDIR)$(bindir)
>
>Here is my updated spec file:
>
>%define ver 0.2.8
>%define rel 1%{?dist}
>
>Summary: multiple mailbox buffy for GTK+
>Name: gbuffy
>Version: %ver
>Release: %rel
>License: GPL
The License value needs to match a license abbreviation from this page:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
For more information, see:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/
You may combine multiple short license names using the "and" and "or"
keywords. The packaging guidelines explain this in more detail.
>Group: Applications/Communications
>Source0: ~/C.libs/linux/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
>Source1: http://www.fiction.net/blong/programs/gbuffy/gbuffy-%{ver}.tar.gz
I don't understand what Source0 is here. Source0 should be the
upstream source archive. Then you should add a Patch0 patch that
makes the change to Makefile.in. The %autosetup macro in %prep will
apply that patch after unpacking Source0.
>BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-%(%{__id_u} -n)
>URL: http://www.fiction.net/blong/programs/gbuffy
>BuildRequires: libPropList
>
>%description
>GBuffy is a GTK+ multiple mailbox "biff" program. It is conceptually
>based on XBuffy by Bill Pemberton, but is a complete rewrite from
>scratch.
>
>GBuffy will poll multiple mailboxes for new mail. It will list the
>number of new messages in each mailbox you configure. It will also
>highlight the mailboxes which have new mail.
>
>GBuffy is currently capable of watching MBOX, MMDF, Maildir and MH
>Folders. This version also supports IMAP4rev1 and NNTP with XOVER
>mailboxes.
>
>%prep
>%setup -q
>
>%configure
>%make_build
>
>%install
>%make_install
>
>%files
>%defattr(-,root,root,-)
>%doc CHANGES README
>%license LICENSE
>%{_bindir}/%{name}
>
>%clean
>
>
>
>
>
>However, I still have some problems:
>
>
>...
>+ cd gbuffy-0.2.8
>+ /usr/bin/make install
>DESTDIR=/home/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/gbuffy-0.2.8-1.fc35.x86_64
>'INSTALL=/usr/bin/install -p'
>./mkinstalldirs /home/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/gbuffy-0.2.8-1.fc35.x86_64/usr/bin
>make: ./mkinstalldirs: Permission denied
>make: *** [Makefile:50: install] Error 127
>error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.QLLNwm (%install)
>
>
>RPM build errors:
> Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.QLLNwm (%install)
>
>
>
>Is there something I did not do correctly?
>
>Many thanks!
>___
>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 on the list, report it:
>https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
--
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 on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
___
devel mailing list -- d
Re: xorg-macros
I opened the following: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10396 I am not quite sure what happens after this, so I thought that I would mention this here. Thanks! On Friday, November 19, 2021, 07:07:43 AM CST, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: Oh, the package is called pkgconfig(xorg-macros), sorry for the goofup. OK, oclock builds, I have filed a ticket on releng to unorphan the package. On Friday, November 19, 2021, 03:39:37 AM CST, Björn 'besser82' Esser wrote: Am Freitag, dem 19.11.2021 um 06:17 + schrieb Globe Trotter via devel: > Hi, > > oclock has been orphaned from F35 so i was trying to roll my own rpm > (building off the spec file for F34). I noticed that the spec file > contains: > > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(xorg-macros) >= 1.8 > > but I can not find this in the F34 repos. Where do I get this? If I > succeed with rolling a oclock rpm, I would like to submit and maintain > the package. Simply ask dnf: ``` $dnf whatprovides 'pkgconfig(xorg-macros)'; DNSSEC extension: Testing already imported keys for their validity. Last metadata expiration check: 0:28:05 ago on Fri Nov 19 10:08:01 2021. xorg-x11-util-macros-1.19.3-3.fc35.noarch : X.Org X11 Autotools macros Repo : fedora Matched from: Provide : pkgconfig(xorg-macros) = 1.19.3 ``` Björn ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: xorg-macros
Oh, the package is called pkgconfig(xorg-macros), sorry for the goofup. OK, oclock builds, I have filed a ticket on releng to unorphan the package. On Friday, November 19, 2021, 03:39:37 AM CST, Björn 'besser82' Esser wrote: Am Freitag, dem 19.11.2021 um 06:17 + schrieb Globe Trotter via devel: > Hi, > > oclock has been orphaned from F35 so i was trying to roll my own rpm > (building off the spec file for F34). I noticed that the spec file > contains: > > BuildRequires: pkgconfig(xorg-macros) >= 1.8 > > but I can not find this in the F34 repos. Where do I get this? If I > succeed with rolling a oclock rpm, I would like to submit and maintain > the package. Simply ask dnf: ``` $dnf whatprovides 'pkgconfig(xorg-macros)'; DNSSEC extension: Testing already imported keys for their validity. Last metadata expiration check: 0:28:05 ago on Fri Nov 19 10:08:01 2021. xorg-x11-util-macros-1.19.3-3.fc35.noarch : X.Org X11 Autotools macros Repo : fedora Matched from: Provide : pkgconfig(xorg-macros) = 1.19.3 ``` Björn ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
xorg-macros
Hi, oclock has been orphaned from F35 so i was trying to roll my own rpm (building off the spec file for F34). I noticed that the spec file contains: BuildRequires: pkgconfig(xorg-macros) >= 1.8 but I can not find this in the F34 repos. Where do I get this? If I succeed with rolling a oclock rpm, I would like to submit and maintain the package. Thanks! ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: spec file error (updated)
Actually, it turns out that the chmod is still needed. Fixed with the following
specfile:
%define ver 0.2.8
%define rel 1%{?dist}
Summary: multiple mailbox buffy for GTK+
Name: gbuffy
Version: %ver
Release: %rel
License: GPL
Group: Applications/Communications
Source0: ~/C.libs/linux/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
Source1: http://www.fiction.net/blong/programs/gbuffy/gbuffy-%{ver}.tar.gz
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-%(%{__id_u} -n)
URL: http://www.fiction.net/blong/programs/gbuffy
BuildRequires: libPropList
%description
GBuffy is a GTK+ multiple mailbox "biff" program. It is conceptually
based on XBuffy by Bill Pemberton, but is a complete rewrite from
scratch.
GBuffy will poll multiple mailboxes for new mail. It will list the
number of new messages in each mailbox you configure. It will also
highlight the mailboxes which have new mail.
GBuffy is currently capable of watching MBOX, MMDF, Maildir and MH
Folders. This version also supports IMAP4rev1 and NNTP with XOVER
mailboxes.
%prep
%setup -q
%configure
%make_build
%install
chmod +x mkinstalldirs
%make_install
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc CHANGES README
%license LICENSE
%{_bindir}/%{name}
%clean
Thanks to everyone for all your help.
___
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 on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: spec file error (updated)
My apologies, i spoke too soon.
I updated Makefile.in to be:
install: gbuffy
./mkinstalldirs $(DESTDIR)$(bindir)
$(INSTALL) gbuffy $(DESTDIR)$(bindir)
Here is my updated spec file:
%define ver 0.2.8
%define rel 1%{?dist}
Summary: multiple mailbox buffy for GTK+
Name: gbuffy
Version: %ver
Release: %rel
License: GPL
Group: Applications/Communications
Source0: ~/C.libs/linux/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
Source1: http://www.fiction.net/blong/programs/gbuffy/gbuffy-%{ver}.tar.gz
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-%(%{__id_u} -n)
URL: http://www.fiction.net/blong/programs/gbuffy
BuildRequires: libPropList
%description
GBuffy is a GTK+ multiple mailbox "biff" program. It is conceptually
based on XBuffy by Bill Pemberton, but is a complete rewrite from
scratch.
GBuffy will poll multiple mailboxes for new mail. It will list the
number of new messages in each mailbox you configure. It will also
highlight the mailboxes which have new mail.
GBuffy is currently capable of watching MBOX, MMDF, Maildir and MH
Folders. This version also supports IMAP4rev1 and NNTP with XOVER
mailboxes.
%prep
%setup -q
%configure
%make_build
%install
%make_install
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc CHANGES README
%license LICENSE
%{_bindir}/%{name}
%clean
However, I still have some problems:
...
+ cd gbuffy-0.2.8
+ /usr/bin/make install
DESTDIR=/home/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/gbuffy-0.2.8-1.fc35.x86_64
'INSTALL=/usr/bin/install -p'
./mkinstalldirs /home/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/gbuffy-0.2.8-1.fc35.x86_64/usr/bin
make: ./mkinstalldirs: Permission denied
make: *** [Makefile:50: install] Error 127
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.QLLNwm (%install)
RPM build errors:
Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.QLLNwm (%install)
Is there something I did not do correctly?
Many thanks!
___
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 on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: spec file error
Thanks! > On Wednesday, November 10, 2021, 03:10:43 PM CST, David Cantrell > wrote: >This is common practice in older projects. You have a couple of options: > 1) Patch Makefile.in to honor DESTDIR. Make the install target look ike this: install: gbuffy ./mkinstalldirs $(DESTDIR)$(bindir) $(INSTALL) gbuffy $(DESTDIR)$(bindir) I went with option 1, because it is a long-term fix (I think). I think it works now. Thanks again!! ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: spec file error
> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021, 02:47:17 PM CST, Artur Frenszek-Iwicki
> wrote:
>> ./mkinstalldirs /usr/bin
>> make: ./mkinstalldirs: Permission denied
> This sounds like "mkinstalldirs" is not executable, perhaps a simple "chmod
> +x mkinstalldirs" will be enough?
Thanks very much!
Ah!
So, I don't know if this is the right thing to do, but I added the following
in the spec file:
.
%configure
%make_build
%install $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}
chmod +x mkinstalldirs
%{make_install}
%find_lang %{name}
%{?ldconfig_scriptlets}
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc ChangeLog README
%{_bindir}/%{name}
%license LICENSE
%clean
rm -rf %{buildroot}
However, I still get some errors. here is what I get:
+ exit 0
Executing(%install): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.fOH3ae
+ umask 022
+ cd /home/rpmbuild/BUILD
+ '[' /home/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/gbuffy-0.2.6-1.fc35.x86_64 '!=' / ']'
+ rm -rf /home/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/gbuffy-0.2.6-1.fc35.x86_64
++ dirname /home/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/gbuffy-0.2.6-1.fc35.x86_64
+ mkdir -p /home/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT
+ mkdir /home/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/gbuffy-0.2.6-1.fc35.x86_64
+ cd gbuffy-0.2.6
+ /home/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/gbuffy-0.2.6-1.fc35.x86_64/usr/bin
/var/tmp/rpm-tmp.fOH3ae: line 36:
/home/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/gbuffy-0.2.6-1.fc35.x86_64/usr/bin: No such file or
directory
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.fOH3ae (%install)
RPM build errors:
Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.fOH3ae (%install)
Is the $RPM_BUILD_ROOT incorrect? What should it be then?
Thanks again!!
___
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 on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
spec file error
Hi,
I have been trying to create a rpm for gbuffy which I like. However, I am
hitting an error in the install directories.
The program is at:
http://www.fiction.net/blong/programs/gbuffy/
Here is my specfile:
# Note that this is NOT a relocatable package
%define ver 0.2.6
%define rel 1%{?dist}
Summary: multiple mailbox buffy for GTK+
Name: gbuffy
Version: %ver
Release: %rel
License: GPL
Group: Applications/Communications
Source0: ~/C.libs/linux/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Source1: http://www.fiction.net/blong/programs/gbuffy/gbuffy-%{ver}.tar.gz
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-%(%{__id_u} -n)
URL: http://www.fiction.net/blong/programs/gbuffy
BuildRequires: libPropList
%description
GBuffy is a GTK+ multiple mailbox "biff" program. It is conceptually
based on XBuffy by Bill Pemberton, but is a complete rewrite from
scratch.
GBuffy will poll multiple mailboxes for new mail. It will list the
number of new messages in each mailbox you configure. It will also
highlight the mailboxes which have new mail.
GBuffy is currently capable of watching MBOX, MMDF, Maildir and MH
Folders. This version also supports IMAP4rev1 and NNTP with XOVER
mailboxes.
%prep
%setup -q
%configure
%make_build
%install
%{make_install}
%find_lang %{name}
%{?ldconfig_scriptlets}
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%{_bindir}/%{name}
%doc README
%license GPL
%clean
rm -rf %{buildroot}
So, everything is fine, however I have the following problem:
..
mkdir /home/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/gbuffy-0.2.6-1.fc35.x86_64
+ cd gbuffy-0.2.6
+ /usr/bin/make install
DESTDIR=/home/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/gbuffy-0.2.6-1.fc35.x86_64
'INSTALL=/usr/bin/install -p'
./mkinstalldirs /usr/bin
make: ./mkinstalldirs: Permission denied
make: *** [Makefile:49: install] Error 127
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.vhOJPC (%install)
RPM build errors:
Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.vhOJPC (%install)
So, what happens is that there is a mkinstalldirs inside the archive that is
triggered. It is supposed to be $(srcdir)/mkinstalldirs however, this is not
recognized because I can not seem to be able to pass an srcdir into the
configure scrrip.
I tried:
./configure --srcdir=${SRCDIR}
and many other things, but can not seem to get this right.
Any suggestions?
Thanks!
___
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 on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: sylfilter is FTBFS in Rawhide
Thanks, this has addressed the problem. On Wednesday, September 22, 2021, 10:52:28 AM CDT, Dan Horák wrote: On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 15:43:36 + (UTC) Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > > > > > > >On Wednesday, September 22, 2021, 08:32:05 AM CDT, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel > > wrote: > > > > > > > On 22/09/2021 15:24, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > >> So, it appears that there is a standard /usr/lib64? But is it being set > >> directly by the spec file? How do I unset it? Any suggestions? then you might need the "hard" way of removing rpath (add after running configure) # Don't use rpath! sed -i 's|^hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=.*|hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=""|g' libtool sed -i 's|^runpath_var=LD_RUN_PATH|runpath_var=DIE_RPATH_DIE|g' libtool Dan ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: sylfilter is FTBFS in Rawhide
>On Wednesday, September 22, 2021, 08:32:05 AM CDT, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
> wrote:
> On 22/09/2021 15:24, Globe Trotter via devel wrote:
>> So, it appears that there is a standard /usr/lib64? But is it being set
>> directly by the spec file? How do I unset it? Any suggestions?
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_removing_rpath
--
Based on this document, I added
%__arch_install_post\
/usr/lib/rpm/check-rpaths \
/usr/lib/rpm/check-buildroot
to my (new) file .rpmmacros.
However, when I compile I do not get any error at all when I use:
rpmbuild -ba sylfilter.spec
Is there something else that i have to do. Again, I have the --disable-rpath
flag set but appears to have no effect on koji.
### for Fedora ###
Name: sylfilter
Summary: A generic message filter library and command-line tools
Version: 0.8
Release: 21%{?dist}
License: BSD
URL: http://sylpheed.sraoss.jp/sylfilter/
Source0: http://sylpheed.sraoss.jp/sylfilter/src/sylfilter-%{version}.tar.xz
BuildRequires: make
BuildRequires: gcc
BuildRequires: sqlite-devel
BuildRequires: glib2-devel
BuildRequires: sylpheed-devel
%package devel
Summary: Development files for sylfilter
Requires: sylfilter%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Requires: sqlite-devel
Requires: glib2-devel
%description
This is SylFilter, a generic message filter library, and some command-line tools
that provide a Bayesian filter which is very popular as a spam filtering
algorithm.
SylFilter is also internationalized and can be applied to any languages.
The SylFilter library provides simple but powerful C APIs and can be used from
C programs.
SylFilter can be used as a command-line tool inside a junk filter mail program
similar to major tools such as bogofilter and bsfilter etc.
For further details, see http://sylpheed.sraoss.jp/sylfilter/
%description devel
Development files for sylfilter
%prep
%setup -q
%build
%configure --disable-rpath --with-libsylph=sylpheed --with-libsylph-dir=/usr
--disable-static
%{make_build}
%install
%{make_install}
rm %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/*.la
%ldconfig_scriptlets
%files
%doc README
%{_bindir}/sylfilter
%{_libdir}/libsylfilter.*
%{_libdir}/libsylfilter.so.*
%license COPYING
%files devel
%{_libdir}/libsylfilter.so
%{_includedir}/sylfilter
___
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 on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: sylfilter is FTBFS in Rawhide
> On Wednesday, September 22, 2021, 08:32:05 AM CDT, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel > wrote: > On 22/09/2021 15:24, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > So, it appears that there is a standard /usr/lib64? But is it being set >directly by the spec file? How do I unset it? Any suggestions? > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_removing_rpath -- Interesting, I do have the following in the spec file: %configure --disable-rpath --with-libsylph=sylpheed --with-libsylph-dir=/usr --disable-static (This is recommended as a fix.) Thanks! ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
sylfilter is FTBFS in Rawhide
Hi,
I was notified some time ago that sylfilter is FTBFS in Fedora Rawhide. So, I
was looking at the build log, and I got this:
.
+ /usr/lib/rpm/check-rpaths
***
*
* WARNING: 'check-rpaths' detected a broken RPATH OR RUNPATH and will cause
* 'rpmbuild' to fail. To ignore these errors, you can set the
* '$QA_RPATHS' environment variable which is a bitmask allowing the
* values below. The current value of QA_RPATHS is 0x.
*
*0x0001 ... standard RPATHs (e.g. /usr/lib); such RPATHs are a minor
* issue but are introducing redundant searchpaths without
* providing a benefit. They can also cause errors in multilib
* environments.
*0x0002 ... invalid RPATHs; these are RPATHs which are neither absolute
* nor relative filenames and can therefore be a SECURITY risk
*0x0004 ... insecure RPATHs; these are relative RPATHs which are a
* SECURITY risk
*0x0008 ... the special '$ORIGIN' RPATHs are appearing after other
* RPATHs; this is just a minor issue but usually unwanted
*0x0010 ... the RPATH is empty; there is no reason for such RPATHs
* and they cause unneeded work while loading libraries
*0x0020 ... an RPATH references '..' of an absolute path; this will break
* the functionality when the path before '..' is a symlink
*
*
* Examples:
* - to ignore standard and empty RPATHs, execute 'rpmbuild' like
* $ QA_RPATHS=$(( 0x0001|0x0010 )) rpmbuild my-package.src.rpm
* - to check existing files, set $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and execute check-rpaths like
* $ RPM_BUILD_ROOT= /usr/lib/rpm/check-rpaths
*
***
ERROR 0001: file '/usr/bin/sylfilter' contains a standard '/usr/lib64' in
[/usr/lib64]
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.7eMoLS (%install)
RPM build errors:
Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.7eMoLS (%install)
Child return code was: 1
..
So, it appears that there is a standard /usr/lib64? But is it being set
directly by the spec file? How do I unset it? Any suggestions?
Many thanks!
Btw, here is the spec file:
### for Fedora ###
Name: sylfilter
Summary: A generic message filter library and command-line tools
Version: 0.8
Release: 10%{?dist}
License: BSD
URL: http://sylpheed.sraoss.jp/sylfilter/
Source0: http://sylpheed.sraoss.jp/sylfilter/src/sylfilter-%{version}.tar.gz
BuildRequires: sqlite-devel
BuildRequires: glib2-devel
BuildRequires: sylpheed-devel
%package devel
Summary: Development files for sylfilter
Requires: sylfilter%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Requires: sqlite-devel
Requires: glib2-devel
%description
This is SylFilter, a generic message filter library, and some command-line tools
that provide a Bayesian filter which is very popular as a spam filtering
algorithm.
SylFilter is also internationalized and can be applied to any languages.
The SylFilter library provides simple but powerful C APIs and can be used from
C programs.
SylFilter can be used as a command-line tool inside a junk filter mail program
similar to major tools such as bogofilter and bsfilter etc.
For further details, see http://sylpheed.sraoss.jp/sylfilter/
%description devel
Development files for sylfilter
%prep
%setup -q
%build
%configure --disable-rpath --with-libsylph=sylpheed --with-libsylph-dir=/usr
--disable-static
%{make_build}
%install
%{make_install}
rm %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/*.la
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
%files
%doc README
%{_bindir}/sylfilter
%{_libdir}/libsylfilter.*
%{_libdir}/libsylfilter.so.*
%license COPYING
%files devel
%{_libdir}/libsylfilter.so
%{_includedir}/sylfilter
___
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 on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
how to ignore fedora's rawhide repo in the kickstarts file?
Hi, Ny kickstart file has the following: %include /usr/share/spin-kickstarts/fedora-live-base.ks %include /usr/share/spin-kickstarts/fedora-live-minimization.ks But I have noticed that it wants to go into the rawhide repo. That is because /usr/share/spin-kickstarts/fedora-live-base.ks has fedora-repo-rawhide.ks as the repo by default. Now, I know that I can comment it out but I dont want to do this everytime. Is it possible to require the repo to be set at fedora-repo-not-rawhide.ks by default without modifying the system file? TIA. ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: how to explicitly disable rawhide while building a spin/remix
Thanks! How do I get around this issue? I have setenforce set at 0. Also, why does the issue go away when I reduce the packages to be packed in the remix/spin? On Monday, May 18, 2020, 5:26:35 AM CDT, Petr Pisar wrote: On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 12:07:38AM +, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > Thanks! Adding "--releasever=32" to the command addresses that problem. > Btw, how do I get around a disk requirement? What causes an error like this? > > Error Summary- > Disk Requirements: > At least 137MB more space needed on the / filesystem. > DNF returns this error when the file system is read-only. -- Petr___ 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 ___ 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
Re: how to explicitly disable rawhide while building a spin/remix
Actually, there is around 200G left in my local filesystem so I doubt that this is true. Btw, I also made an error earlier. Adding --releasever=32 does not drop the call to rawhide. I think that that has to do with the fact that in: /usr/share/spin-kickstarts/fedora-repo.ks rawhide is the one uncommented. This is a strange default to have. On Sunday, May 17, 2020, 7:31:43 PM CDT, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 5/17/20 5:27 PM, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > Sorry, during build. Also, no, I don't think that i am using /tmp for > tmpdir. I am using a local directory called tmp. You're right, I misread that. So you're probably running out of space in whatever filesystem you're on. ___ 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 ___ 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
Re: how to explicitly disable rawhide while building a spin/remix
Sorry, during build. Also, no, I don't think that i am using /tmp for tmpdir. I am using a local directory called tmp. On Sunday, May 17, 2020, 7:16:09 PM CDT, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 5/17/20 5:07 PM, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > Thanks! Adding "--releasever=32" to the command addresses that problem. > > Btw, how do I get around a disk requirement? What causes an error like this? > > Error Summary > - > Disk Requirements: > At least 137MB more space needed on the / filesystem. During build or install? You're using /tmp for the tmpdir which is a very risky thing. By default, /tmp is a tmpfs, so any space used there comes out of RAM. If you put too much in there, it will cause you some difficulty. ___ 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 ___ 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
Re: how to explicitly disable rawhide while building a spin/remix
Thanks! Adding "--releasever=32" to the command addresses that problem. Btw, how do I get around a disk requirement? What causes an error like this? Error Summary- Disk Requirements: At least 137MB more space needed on the / filesystem. On Sunday, May 17, 2020, 5:18:55 PM CDT, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 5/17/20 12:58 PM, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > sudo livecd-creator --config=fedora-live-shunya-32.ks --tmpdir=tmp > --fslabel=Fedora-Shunya-32-x86_64 Why do you think it's getting rawhide files? I don't see any reason why it would, but try adding "--releasever=32" to the command. ___ 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 ___ 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
Re: how to explicitly disable rawhide while building a spin/remix
sudo livecd-creator --config=fedora-live-shunya-32.ks --tmpdir=tmp --fslabel=Fedora-Shunya-32-x86_64 On Sunday, May 17, 2020, 2:57:44 PM CDT, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 5/17/20 12:46 PM, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > My apologies. I am running on Fedora 32. My kickstart file is as follows: And what is the command you run? ___ 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 ___ 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
Re: how to explicitly disable rawhide while building a spin/remix
[Sorry for top-posting, but Yahoo! does not like inline replies, mixing up the response with the text being responded to.] My apologies. I am running on Fedora 32. My kickstart file is as follows: # fedora-live-shunya.ks # # Description: # - Fedora Live Spin with the light-weight Shunya Zero Desktop Environment # repo --name=fedora --mirrorlist=https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/mirrorlist?repo=fedora-$releasever=$basearch repo --name=updates --mirrorlist=https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/mirrorlist?repo=updates-released-f$releasever=$basearch repo --name=MyBaseRepo --baseurl=file:///home/aarem/rpmbuild/RPMS/$basearch %include /usr/share/spin-kickstarts/fedora-live-base.ks %include /usr/share/spin-kickstarts/fedora-live-minimization.ks %include /home/aarem/remix/fedora-shunya-common.ks # added by aarem: enable slim %post systemctl enable slim # added by aarem # This is a huge file and things work ok without it #taken from fedora-livecd-xfce rm -f /usr/share/icons/HighContrast/icon-theme.cache # create /etc/sysconfig/desktop (needed for installation) cat > /etc/sysconfig/desktop <> /etc/rc.d/init.d/livesys << EOF # disable screensaver locking and make sure gamin gets started cat >> /etc/xdg/openbox/autostart << FOE /usr/libexec/gam_server /usr/bin/thaali & /usr/bin/pnmixer & /usr/libexec/notification-daemon & @nm-applet #(sleep 5; /usr/bin/wbar -c /etc/wbar.d/wbar.cfg &)& wbar& conky& FOE # set up preferred apps cat > /etc/xdg/libfm/pref-apps.conf << FOE [Preferred Applications] WebBrowser=firefox.desktop MailClient=sylpheed.desktop FOE ## set up auto-login for liveuser #sed -i 's/# autologin=.*/autologin=liveuser/g' /etc/lxdm/lxdm.conf sed ' /#default_user/a\ default_user liveuser ' /etc/slim.conf sed ' /#auto_login/a\ autologin yes ' /etc/slim.conf sed ' /sessions/ c\ sessions openbox ' /etc/slim.conf sed ' /exec/ c\ exec openbox-session ' /etc/X11/xinit/xinitrc # Show harddisk install on the desktop sed -i -e 's/NoDisplay=true/NoDisplay=false/' /usr/share/applications/liveinst.desktop mkdir /home/liveuser/Desktop cp /usr/share/applications/liveinst.desktop /home/liveuser/Desktop # this goes at the end after all other changes. chown -R liveuser:liveuser /home/liveuser restorecon -R /home/liveuser EOF %end --- And here is: # fedora-shunya-common.ks # # Description: # - Fedora Live Spin with the Shunya Zero Desktop Environment # %packages slim openbox obconf #obmenu udisks2 spacefm thaali battray wbar aNu leafpad dillo gpicview fetchmail procmail xorg-x11-fonts-misc @networkmanager-submodules gnome-keyring emacspeak xdvi R-devel #lapack-devel #fftw-devel #octave-devel libRmath-devel #valgrind #texlive-pdfjam #okular ### internet firefox pidgin sylpheed sylfilter ### office #libreoffice abiword gnumeric osmo conky network-manager-applet ###xplanet ### graphics zathura zathura-ps zathura-pdf-poppler zathura-djvu mtpaint pdf-stapler ### audio & video alsa-plugins-pulseaudio #asunder #gxine #gxine-mozplugin pavucontrol #pnmixer bitmap-fixed-fonts ucs-miscfixed-fonts blueman #clipit sylfilter redshift ## font packages for blueman -gtk2-engines -gtk-nodoka-engine -gtk-solidity-engine -libwvstreams -nano lockdev -wvdial # pam-fprint causes a segfault in LXDM when enabled -fprintd-pam # LXDE has lxpolkit. Make sure no other authentication agents end up in the spin. -polkit-gnome -polkit-kde # make sure xfce4-notifyd is not pulled in dunst #notification-daemon -xfce4-notifyd -audit -abrt-cli -abrt libreport # make sure xfwm4 is not pulled in for firstboot # https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=643416 # metacity # dictionaries are big -man-pages-* -words # use ssmtp instead of sendmail -sendmail # ssmtp # save some space autofs -acpid -gimp-help -f30-backgrounds-base -f30-backgrounds-gnome desktop-backgrounds-basic # slim brings this in, so this will not be removed realmd # only seems to be used in GNOME -PackageKit* # we switched to yumex, so we don't need this -foomatic-db-ppds -foomatic -stix-fonts -ibus-typing-booster -xscreensaver -wqy-zenhei-fonts #-tigervnc* #tigervnc-server-minimal # drop some system-config things # -system-config-boot #-system-config-language -system-config-network -system-config-rootpassword #-system-config-services -policycoreutils-gui -gnome-disk-utility # Dial-up and Networking: -@dial-up # Guest Desktop Agents -@guest-desktop-agents # Printing #-@printing # we need UPower for suspend and hibernate upower %end On Sunday, May 17, 2020, 1:49:10 PM CDT, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 5/17/20 8:39 AM, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > I am trying to build a spin/remix but I keep running into the problem > that rawhi
how to explicitly disable rawhide while building a spin/remix
Hi, I am trying to build a spin/remix but I keep running into the problem that rawhide is being pulled in. Nowhere do I include it. I simply use, in my ks file: repo --name=fedora --mirrorlist=https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/mirrorlist?repo=fedora-$releasever=$basearch repo --name=updates --mirrorlist=https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/mirrorlist?repo=updates-released-f$releasever=$basearch %include /usr/share/spin-kickstarts/fedora-live-base.ks %include /usr/share/spin-kickstarts/fedora-live-minimization.ks Nothing else. So what causes rawhide to be pulled in? More importantly, how do I disable it explicitly with effect? TIA! ___ 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
error in spec file
Hello, I have been trying to package franz from here: https://github.com/meetfranz/franz/archive/v5.5.0.tar.gz and I have the following spec file at: UNTITLED - Pastebin Service | | | | UNTITLED - Pastebin Service | | | However, I get a bunch of warnings and errors and I am not sure how to get around this. Because it is a long list, here it is as a file: UNTITLED - Pastebin Service | | | | UNTITLED - Pastebin Service | | | Any suggestions as to what I am doing wrong is very appreciated. TIA! ___ 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
Re: silly question: finding root.log/build.log of FTBS F32 package (slim)
Thanks! Yes, I believe that I took it from someone (can't recall who). Crikes, rewriting a spec file to make it up to date may not be that easy for me. Let us see. Thanks again! On Tuesday, March 31, 2020, 9:17:01 PM CDT, Richard Shaw wrote: On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 9:05 PM Globe Trotter via devel wrote: Hi, I am the maintainer of slim. As per BZ and here: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=41322154 slim was unable to build BuildError: error building package (arch armv7hl), mock exited with status 1; see root.log for more information However, I can not figure out where to see this root.log. I am sorry for this stupid quesiton, but when I rebuild something, I usually get links to where these are. Where do I find this. It doesn't look like the spec can even be parsed... Something must be off. There are conditionals in the spec for Fedora 15 so that tells me the spec file is in major need of an overhaul. Also cmake is being called directly instead of using %cmake. Thanks,Richard ___ 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 ___ 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
silly question: finding root.log/build.log of FTBS F32 package (slim)
Hi, I am the maintainer of slim. As per BZ and here: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=41322154 slim was unable to build BuildError: error building package (arch armv7hl), mock exited with status 1; see root.log for more information However, I can not figure out where to see this root.log. I am sorry for this stupid quesiton, but when I rebuild something, I usually get links to where these are. Where do I find this. TIA! ___ 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
Re: slim spec requires arguments
I had no idea what this meant (sorry) but I tried the following after reading
the document:
%systemd_postun %{name}.service
and it appears to compile and install without incident.
If there is any interest, I can package this for Fedora since I think that it
is a fairly simple and useful package.
Thanks!
On Monday, December 30, 2019, 11:08:55 AM CST, Tom Hughes
wrote:
On 30/12/2019 16:42, Globe Trotter via devel wrote:
> I use slim and have realized that it is retired/no longer supoorted from
> F31.
>
> So, I got the src.rpm from teh F30 stable and was trying to rebuild it
> at least to see what the issues were.
>
> However, the rpmbuild
>
> $ rpmbuild -bb slim.spec
> error: This macro requires some arguments
>
> I have never had experience with passing such macros. I looked into the
> spec file but can not figure out how to do this. Here is the spec file:
>
> UNTITLED - CentOS Pastebin Service <https://paste.centos.org/view/cc3e4e8a>
>
>
>
>
> UNTITLED - CentOS Pastebin Service
>
> <https://paste.centos.org/view/cc3e4e8a>
> Any suggestions?
It's the %systemd_postun call causing it - it should list the services
as arguments:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_systemd
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
___
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
___
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
slim spec requires arguments
Hi, I use slim and have realized that it is retired/no longer supoorted from F31. So, I got the src.rpm from teh F30 stable and was trying to rebuild it at least to see what the issues were. However, the rpmbuild $ rpmbuild -bb slim.spec error: This macro requires some arguments I have never had experience with passing such macros. I looked into the spec file but can not figure out how to do this. Here is the spec file: UNTITLED - CentOS Pastebin Service | | | | UNTITLED - CentOS Pastebin Service | | | Any suggestions? Many thanks! ___ 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
Re: help with repackaging pdf-stapler for python3
Thanks, I will ignore it then. On Sunday, December 29, 2019, 9:14:54 AM CST, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 02:45:20PM +, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > I got the following: > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-2b1eed3d9d > Failed to talk to greenwave. How do I go about fixing it? Nothing to do on your end, something was not working right in the stack of things that greenwave needs. I've restarted things and it appears working now. kevin ___ 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 ___ 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
Re: help with repackaging pdf-stapler for python3
I got the following: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-2b1eed3d9d Failed to talk to greenwave. How do I go about fixing it? Thanks! On Saturday, December 28, 2019, 9:31:47 AM EST, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: You are welcome. Sorry for the HTML, I am away from home. On Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 15:12 Globe Trotter via devel wrote: Thanks! There was an issue with koji and me. Now the update has been built and submitted for testing. Should I fix the egg issue? How.Thanks! I am not sure there is an "egg issue", but that's something you should check with our python gurus. I remember that there is a section on packaging egg stuff in our Packaging guidelines, you can search for that page and see if you're adhering to it. Best regards,Alex ___ 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 ___ 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
Re: help with repackaging pdf-stapler for python3
Sorry, no problem.I was referring to the following: "The egg metadata state that the current version is a 1.0.0 release candidate, so the 0.x versioning is correct." But I guess that it is perhaps fine now. Thanks! On Saturday, December 28, 2019, 9:31:47 AM EST, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: You are welcome. Sorry for the HTML, I am away from home. On Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 15:12 Globe Trotter via devel wrote: Thanks! There was an issue with koji and me. Now the update has been built and submitted for testing. Should I fix the egg issue? How.Thanks! I am not sure there is an "egg issue", but that's something you should check with our python gurus. I remember that there is a section on packaging egg stuff in our Packaging guidelines, you can search for that page and see if you're adhering to it. Best regards,Alex ___ 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 ___ 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
Re: help with repackaging pdf-stapler for python3
Thanks! There was an issue with koji and me. Now the update has been built and submitted for testing. Should I fix the egg issue? How.Thanks! On Saturday, December 28, 2019, 3:34:30 AM EST, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 7:35 AM Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > Any further suggestion/help? Here is the updated spec file: > > $ fpaste pdf-stapler.spec > Uploading (5.0KiB)... > https://paste.centos.org/view/3a4fe4d6 > Oh, there's also a problem with your changelog entries, the last three have 1.0.0-1 as the version. Since there hasn't been a successful koji build yet, change them to 1.0.0-0.2.20191215git8753251 1.0.0-0.1.20191215git8753251 etc. The egg metadata state that the current version is a 1.0.0 release candidate, so the 0.x versioning is correct. ___ 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 ___ 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
Re: help with repackaging pdf-stapler for python3
Thanks! This seems to compile again, but I can't tell what happened with koji:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=39956986
Sorry, I am very lost. My earleir spec file was fine with the python2 version.
Any further suggestion/help? Here is the updated spec file:
$ fpaste pdf-stapler.spec
Uploading (5.0KiB)...
https://paste.centos.org/view/3a4fe4d6
On Friday, December 27, 2019, 6:26:37 PM EST, Alexander Ploumistos
wrote:
Hello again,
Replace the mv line you have in your spec file with this:
rm %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/stapler
Also, do you really need to declare PKG-INFO as documentation? It's
included with the egg metadata. If you remove it from your %files
section, the package builds fine. If you are intent on keeping it
declared, you will have to copy it to your buildroot (I think).
On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 5:04 PM Globe Trotter via devel
wrote:
>
> Thanks!
>
> On Friday, December 27, 2019, 9:32:29 AM CST, José Abílio Matos
> wrote:
>
>
> > in lines 43-44 you have:
>
> > %prep
> > %setup -q -n stapler-%{version}
>
> > the last line should be:
> > %setup -q -n stapler
>
> as you said the directory name does not have the version in it. :-)
>
>
> I tried:
>
> %setup -q -n stapler-%{commit}
>
> mv: cannot stat
> '/home/aarem/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/pdf-stapler-1.0.0-0.1.20191215git8753251.fc31.x86_64//usr/bin/stapler-875325103234b4a3ed96a4a5167ff78c291edbff':
> No such file or directory
> error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.dbb8Yr (%install)
>
>
> Sorry, I am still lost. Here is my updated spec file.
>
>
> https://paste.centos.org/view/a2d17d1a
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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
___
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
___
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
Re: help with repackaging pdf-stapler for python3
Thanks!
On Friday, December 27, 2019, 9:32:29 AM CST, José Abílio Matos
wrote:
> in lines 43-44 you have:
> %prep
> %setup -q -n stapler-%{version}
> the last line should be:
> %setup -q -n stapler
as you said the directory name does not have the version in it. :-)
I tried:
%setup -q -n stapler-%{commit}
mv: cannot stat
'/home/aarem/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/pdf-stapler-1.0.0-0.1.20191215git8753251.fc31.x86_64//usr/bin/stapler-875325103234b4a3ed96a4a5167ff78c291edbff':
No such file or directoryerror: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.dbb8Yr
(%install)
Sorry, I am still lost. Here is my updated spec file.
https://paste.centos.org/view/a2d17d1a
___
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
Re: help with repackaging pdf-stapler for python3
Thank you!
Here is my updated spec file:
$ fpaste pdf-stapler.spec
Uploading (4.8KiB)...
https://paste.centos.org/view/6ddc6eec
However, I can not change the directory to a stapler directory. I get the
following error:
+ cd stapler-1.0.0
/var/tmp/rpm-tmp.2ZnEy2: line 38: cd: stapler-1.0.0: No such file or directory
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.2ZnEy2 (%prep)
Thanks again for your help!
On Friday, December 27, 2019, 3:08:05 AM CST, Alexander Ploumistos
wrote:
Hello,
On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 7:44 AM Globe Trotter via devel
wrote:
>
> However, I have a problem: the issue is that Source0 does not have the latest
> tar.bz2 while Source1 does not call it 1.0.0 though the release notes say so
> (there).
You should have just one SourceX tag for each tarball. Since all three
of your links essentially point to the same thing and the actual
upstream is on github, keep only the URL to the source package you are
using. In your case, you are using a git snapshot, so you should be
following the relevant guidelines[0, 1], which if I'm interpreting
correctly, should result in something like this:
%global commit 875325103234b4a3ed96a4a5167ff78c291edbff
%global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7})
%global commitdate 20191215
Name: pdf-stapler
Version: 1.0.0
Release: 0.1.%{commitdate}git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}
Summary: Tool for manipulating PDF documents from the command line
License: BSD
URL: https://github.com/hellerbarde/stapler
Source0:
https://github.com/hellerbarde/stapler/archive/%{commit}/%{name}-%{shortcommit}.tar.gz
(The actual source URL is this one:
https://github.com/hellerbarde/stapler/archive/875325103234b4a3ed96a4a5167ff78c291edbff/stapler-87532510.tar.gz
)
> So, I put in a Source2: which contains the local tar.bz2 that I have. There
> is no error in the compilation but fedpkg build seems to have an error that I
> do not seem to get:
>
> aarem's pdf-stapler-1.0.0-1.fc32 failed to build
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1424956
It appears that the tests defined in the %check section download some
files over the internet and since koji does not allow internet access,
the test suite is failing. I did not check what is defined in the test
suite, but your options are to disable checks, include the test files
as separate sources or package them as new packages (going through the
review process), depending on their nature.
0. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL
1. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/
___
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
___
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
Re: help with repackaging pdf-stapler for python3
On Thursday, December 26, 2019, 10:34:12 AM CST, José Abílio Matos
wrote:
> Something weird in your spec file is that it has two source files:
> Source0: https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/s/stapler/stapler-%
{version}.tar.bz2
> Source1: https://github.com/hellerbarde/stapler/archive/stapler=%
{version}.tar.bz2
> The second looks an error, notice the equal sign after the name. And if it is
> supposed to be the same then why are there two locations? This seems the
> likely cause of your problem.
Thanks! That must have been it. The package compiles.
However, I have a problem: the issue is that Source0 does not have the latest
tar.bz2 while Source1 does not call it 1.0.0 though the release notes say so
(there).
So, I put in a Source2: which contains the local tar.bz2 that I have. There is
no error in the compilation but fedpkg build seems to have an error that I do
not seem to get:
aarem's pdf-stapler-1.0.0-1.fc32 failed to build
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1424956
And here is the spec file:
$ fpaste pdf-stapler.spec
Uploading (4.7KiB)...
https://paste.centos.org/view/c2c3d4bf
Any help would be greatly and very gratefully appreciated!
Many thanks!
___
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
help with repackaging pdf-stapler for python3
Hi, I am tryingto repackage pdf-stapler with python3. My updated SPEC file is: https://paste.centos.org/view/b7477290 This SPEC file builds the binary using rpmbuld -bb pdf-stapler.spec fine, and the binary even installs. From what I can test, it seems to work. However, when I try to use: rpmbuild -ba pdf-stapler.spec I get the following. I am not very familiar with the intricacies of packaging (sorry) but this is the first time such an error has shown up for me. Any suggestions? Many thanks in advance. $ rpmbuild -ba pdf-stapler.spec Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.as88BY + umask 022 + cd /home/aarem/rpmbuild/BUILD + cd /home/aarem/rpmbuild/BUILD + rm -rf stapler-1.0.0 + /usr/bin/bzip2 -dc /home/aarem/rpmbuild/SOURCES/stapler-1.0.0.tar.bz2 + /usr/bin/tar -xof - + STATUS=0 + '[' 0 -ne 0 ']' + cd stapler-1.0.0 + /usr/bin/chmod -Rf a+rX,u+w,g-w,o-w . + sed -i 's|"PyPDF2>=1.24"||' setup.py + exit 0 Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.9D7r1f + umask 022 + cd /home/aarem/rpmbuild/BUILD + cd stapler-1.0.0 + CFLAGS='-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong -grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection' + LDFLAGS='-Wl,-z,relro -Wl,--as-needed -Wl,-z,now -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld' + /usr/bin/python3 setup.py build '--executable=/usr/bin/python3 -s' /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/setuptools/dist.py:475: UserWarning: Normalizing '1.0.0-rc1' to '1.0.0rc1' normalized_version, running build running build_py creating build creating build/lib creating build/lib/staplelib copying staplelib/stapler.py -> build/lib/staplelib copying staplelib/commands.py -> build/lib/staplelib copying staplelib/__init__.py -> build/lib/staplelib copying staplelib/iohelper.py -> build/lib/staplelib copying staplelib/tests.py -> build/lib/staplelib running egg_info creating stapler.egg-info writing stapler.egg-info/PKG-INFO writing dependency_links to stapler.egg-info/dependency_links.txt writing entry points to stapler.egg-info/entry_points.txt writing requirements to stapler.egg-info/requires.txt writing top-level names to stapler.egg-info/top_level.txt writing manifest file 'stapler.egg-info/SOURCES.txt' reading manifest file 'stapler.egg-info/SOURCES.txt' reading manifest template 'MANIFEST.in' writing manifest file 'stapler.egg-info/SOURCES.txt' creating build/lib/staplelib/testfiles copying staplelib/testfiles/1page.pdf -> build/lib/staplelib/testfiles copying staplelib/testfiles/5page.pdf -> build/lib/staplelib/testfiles + exit 0 Executing(%install): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.KFKATx + umask 022 + cd /home/aarem/rpmbuild/BUILD + '[' /home/aarem/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/pdf-stapler-1.0.0-1.fc30.x86_64 '!=' / ']' + rm -rf /home/aarem/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/pdf-stapler-1.0.0-1.fc30.x86_64 ++ dirname /home/aarem/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/pdf-stapler-1.0.0-1.fc30.x86_64 + mkdir -p /home/aarem/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT + mkdir /home/aarem/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/pdf-stapler-1.0.0-1.fc30.x86_64 + cd stapler-1.0.0 + CFLAGS='-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong -grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection' + LDFLAGS='-Wl,-z,relro -Wl,--as-needed -Wl,-z,now -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld' + /usr/bin/python3 setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root /home/aarem/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/pdf-stapler-1.0.0-1.fc30.x86_64 /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/setuptools/dist.py:475: UserWarning: Normalizing '1.0.0-rc1' to '1.0.0rc1' normalized_version, running install running install_lib creating /home/aarem/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/pdf-stapler-1.0.0-1.fc30.x86_64/usr creating /home/aarem/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/pdf-stapler-1.0.0-1.fc30.x86_64/usr/lib creating /home/aarem/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/pdf-stapler-1.0.0-1.fc30.x86_64/usr/lib/python3.7 creating /home/aarem/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/pdf-stapler-1.0.0-1.fc30.x86_64/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages creating /home/aarem/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/pdf-stapler-1.0.0-1.fc30.x86_64/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/staplelib copying build/lib/staplelib/stapler.py -> /home/aarem/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/pdf-stapler-1.0.0-1.fc30.x86_64/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/staplelib creating /home/aarem/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/pdf-stapler-1.0.0-1.fc30.x86_64/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/staplelib/testfiles copying build/lib/staplelib/testfiles/5page.pdf -> /home/aarem/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/pdf-stapler-1.0.0-1.fc30.x86_64/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/staplelib/testfiles copying build/lib/staplelib/testfiles/1page.pdf ->
