Release rpkg-1.56 and fedpkg-1.35

Hi, New version rpkg-1.56 and fedpkg-1.35 are released. Release notes: * rpkg: https://docs.pagure.org/rpkg/releases/1.56.html * fedpkg: https://docs.pagure.org/fedpkg/releases/1.35.html Bodhi updates: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/rpkg-1.56-1.fc28%20fedpkg-1.35-1.fc28

Re: Orphaning procedure for python-ivi -vxi11 -usbtmc -testify

At this point, the packages are orphaned. Please, follow the 'Claiming Ownership of an Orphaned Package' guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Orphaned_package_that_need_new_maintainers#Claiming_Ownership_of_an_Orphaned_Package On 22/08/2018 07:05, Manas Mangaonkar wrote: > Hey, > > Please

Intent to upgrade Django in f29 to 2.1

Hello, sorry for the late notice; Django 2.1 was recently released, and I intend to update Django in F29 to version 2.1. Apparently, all depending packages still build, all the details in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1611025 If I don't hear anything against it until Monday, I'll

Re: Mono - Do we have a maintainer?

On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 17:13:42 -0400 Omair Majid wrote: > * Michael Cronenworth [2018-08-15 10:19]: > > On 08/15/2018 08:55 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > Are you sure about that?  Ocaml does it as well. > > > > The guidelines allow an initial bootstrap from binaries, but > > subsequent builds

Re: Fedora 30 System-Wide Change proposal: Remove the Group: Tag From All Packages

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 04:28:16PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_Group_Tag > > == Summary == > Remove the Group: tag from over 9000 source packages. > > == Owner == > * Name: Jason Tibbitts (tibbs) > * Email: ti...@math.uh.edu > > == Detailed

Intent to drop python2-behave

There is a cluster of PRs: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-behave/pull-request/2 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-docx/pull-request/2 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-parse_type/pull-request/2 That allows us to drop python2-behave as nothing will depend on it. I'm

Re: Orphaning procedure for python-assimulo

Hey, Kindly assign it to me. On Wed, 22 Aug 2018, 23:32 Antonio Trande, wrote: > Hello everyone. > > I'm leaving the maintenance of 'python-assimulo' package; if someone > wishes take care of it, please reply here. > > Regards. > -- > --- > Antonio Trande > Fedora Project > mailto 'sagitter at

Why is i686 package missing from x86_64 updates repo?

Hi, I'm trying to resolve https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1615016 and can't figure out why the i686 package is missing from the x86_64 updates repo. It is present in the fedora repo, so it seems like this issue is specific to updates. Does anyone know why this might be happening?

Fedora 30 System-Wide Change proposal: Remove glibc-all-langpacks from buildroot

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_glibc-langpacks-all_from_buildroot == Summary == glibc-minimal-langpack is added to @Buildsystem group and installed into the minimal buildroot instead of glibc-all-langpacks. Packages which need more locales than plain C/C.UTF-8/POSIX need to pull

Re: Fedora 30 System-Wide Change proposal: Remove the Group: Tag From All Packages

On 23.8.2018 00:31, Artur Iwicki wrote: If we remove the Group: tag from existing packages (assuming 100% accuracy), this would mean that the only way for a package to have the Group: tag would be to: a) have a maintainer add it back in b) accept a new package with the Group: tag present If

libgsf build help - MinGW edition

Recent versions of libgsf (since 1.14.43) have begun to fail to build in MinGW environments. The error is straightforward enough - a function signature definition differs between its forward declaration and its implementation. But I don't see any clear way that it differs. The same code compiles

Re: Release rpkg-1.56 and fedpkg-1.35

> rpkg: https://docs.pagure.org/rpkg/releases/1.56.html > Greenwave policy could be validated when build a package with build command, > or a container with container-build command, if policy file gating.yaml is > created in the root directory inside repostiory. If the policy is valid, > build

Re: Orphaning procedure for python-ivi -vxi11 -usbtmc -testify

Thanks for the link,will do :) - Manas On Wed, 22 Aug 2018, 15:15 Antonio Trande, wrote: > At this point, the packages are orphaned. > > Please, follow the 'Claiming Ownership of an Orphaned Package' > guidelines: > >

Re: Fedora 30 System-Wide Change proposal: New 128-bit IEEE long double ABI for IBM 64-bit POWER LE

On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 at 17:18, Ben Cotton wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/PPC64LE_Float128_Transition > > == Summary == > Transition IBM 64-bit POWER LE systems to the new 128-bit IEEE long double > ABI. > > == Owner == > * Name: Carlos O'Donell (codonell) > * Email:

Non-responsive maintainer for python-simplejson

It hasn't been updated in over a year, and it's updates are sorely needed. Trying to get updated before the beta freeze. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1462583 Joseph D. Wagner ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To

Fedora 30 System-Wide Change proposal: New 128-bit IEEE long double ABI for IBM 64-bit POWER LE

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/PPC64LE_Float128_Transition == Summary == Transition IBM 64-bit POWER LE systems to the new 128-bit IEEE long double ABI. == Owner == * Name: Carlos O'Donell (codonell) * Email: car...@redhat.com == Detailed Description == IBM has designed a new long

Re: Fedora 30 System-Wide Change proposal: Remove the Group: Tag From All Packages

On 08/22/2018 01:28 PM, Ben Cotton wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_Group_Tag > > == Summary == > Remove the Group: tag from over 9000 source packages. > > == Owner == > * Name: Jason Tibbitts (tibbs) > * Email: ti...@math.uh.edu > > == Detailed Description == > I will

Fedora 30 System-Wide Change proposal: Remove the Group: Tag From All Packages

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_Group_Tag == Summary == Remove the Group: tag from over 9000 source packages. == Owner == * Name: Jason Tibbitts (tibbs) * Email: ti...@math.uh.edu == Detailed Description == I will remove the Group: tag from all specfiles in Fedora dist-git which

Re: Fedora 30 System-Wide Change proposal: Remove the Group: Tag From All Packages

On 08/23/2018 12:31 AM, Artur Iwicki wrote: > If we remove the Group: tag from existing packages (assuming 100% accuracy), > this would mean that the only way for a package to have the Group: tag would > be to: > a) have a maintainer add it back in > b) accept a new package with the Group: tag

Re: Fedora 30 System-Wide Change proposal: Remove the Group: Tag From All Packages

> "ZJ" == Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek writes: ZJ> Can we patch rpm not to show this useless line? In the context of what I wrote, there's no "useless line". I assume you're talking about rpm -qi output, but I was being more general than that. Certainly we wouldn't patch out the GROUP

Re: Fedora 30 System-Wide Change proposal: Remove the Group: Tag From All Packages

* Ben Cotton [2018-08-22 16:38]: > 9420 source packages (43% of the total count) come closer to > compliance with Fedora's packaging guidelines. The Group: tag has > been in a "should not use" state since March of 2017. Can rpmlint be patched to warn about using the 'Group:' tag? Omair --

Re: Fedora 30 System-Wide Change proposal: Remove the Group: Tag From All Packages

If we remove the Group: tag from existing packages (assuming 100% accuracy), this would mean that the only way for a package to have the Group: tag would be to: a) have a maintainer add it back in b) accept a new package with the Group: tag present If we assume option a) to be unlikely, then

Re: Mono - Do we have a maintainer?

On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 13:59:51 -0400, you wrote: >* Dan Horák [2018-08-22 03:55]: >> a nice thing on Mono is that it is fully multi-arch, supporting all >> Fedora arches. Won't be multi-arch problem for msbuild or .NET Core? > >Oh. Right, that would be a problem. .NET Core upstream essentially

Re: Fedora 30 System-Wide Change proposal: Remove the Group: Tag From All Packages

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 6:00 PM Omair Majid wrote: > > * Ben Cotton [2018-08-22 16:38]: > > 9420 source packages (43% of the total count) come closer to > > compliance with Fedora's packaging guidelines. The Group: tag has > > been in a "should not use" state since March of 2017. > > Can

Fwd: Soname break for glew

I'm preparing an update for glew to 2.1.0 (with soname bump) (pushed in rawhide but not built yet). https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=29087244 Given that the freeze break is next week, I will push the update in rawhide, then in f29 next. Here are the dependencies:

[modularity] Managing module lifecycles — let's talk!

During the Modularity WG meeting yesterday [1], we've touched the topic of module lifecycles. Even though there are some ideas in the air as well as some code written, we haven't reached a state in which we would know how exactly to deal with it. So I'd like to discuss it here with a wider

Re: Intent to upgrade Django in f29 to 2.1

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 11:51:34AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 22.8.2018 10:59, Matthias Runge wrote: > > Hello, > > > > sorry for the late notice; Django 2.1 was recently released, and > > I intend to update Django in F29 to version 2.1. > > > > Apparently, all depending packages still

Re: Intent to upgrade Django in f29 to 2.1

On 22.8.2018 10:59, Matthias Runge wrote: Hello, sorry for the late notice; Django 2.1 was recently released, and I intend to update Django in F29 to version 2.1. Apparently, all depending packages still build, all the details in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1611025 2 packages

Help needed with FTBFS of package cpl in i686 and Fedora>=29

Hello, I'm trying to fix a FTBFS bug in cpl, a C library. The package fails in i686 on Fedora>=29 and compiles in Fedora<=28 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=29215071 https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5071/29215071/build.log I imagine that, after enabling SSE2 in

Re: [modularity] Managing module lifecycles — let's talk!

What are the possibilities for how a stream is maintained? The cases I can think of: * Indefinite - rolling forward with upstream - "master" "stable" etc. * Tied to an upstream version and it's EOL - a "2.1" stream of django * [less common] tied to a particular version of Fedora - the "29"

Re: Orphaning procedure for python-ivi -vxi11 -usbtmc -testify

On 22.8.2018 15:52, Manas Mangaonkar wrote: Thanks for the link,will do :) If you are going to take care of those packages, I'd appreciate if you remove the python2 bits from them. On Wed, 22 Aug 2018, 15:15 Antonio Trande, > wrote: At this point, the

Re: Intent to upgrade Django in f29 to 2.1

On 22.8.2018 13:13, Matthias Runge wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 11:51:34AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 22.8.2018 10:59, Matthias Runge wrote: Hello, sorry for the late notice; Django 2.1 was recently released, and I intend to update Django in F29 to version 2.1. Apparently, all depending

Orphaning procedure for python-assimulo

Hello everyone. I'm leaving the maintenance of 'python-assimulo' package; if someone wishes take care of it, please reply here. Regards. -- --- Antonio Trande Fedora Project mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org' GPG key: 0x5E212EE1D35568BE GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/

Fedora 29 compose report: 20180822.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-29-20180821.n.0 NEW: Fedora-29-20180822.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:7 Dropped images: 2 Added packages: 7 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 66 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 38.07 MiB Size of dropped packages:0 B Size

Fedora 29-20180822.n.0 compose check report

Missing expected images: Atomichost qcow2 x86_64 Atomichost raw-xz x86_64 Failed openQA tests: 19/130 (x86_64), 5/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm) ID: 268290 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_realmd_join_kickstart URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/268290 ID: 268291 Test: x86_64

Fedora 30 Self-Contained Change proposal: Make ambiguous python shebangs error

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Make_ambiguous_python_shebangs_error == Summary == The /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-mangle-shebangs buildroot policy script will be changed to make the build fail when it sees an ambiguous python shebang, such as #!/usr/bin/python or #!/usr/bin/env python. (The

Re: Mono - Do we have a maintainer?

* Dan Horák [2018-08-22 03:55]: > a nice thing on Mono is that it is fully multi-arch, supporting all > Fedora arches. Won't be multi-arch problem for msbuild or .NET Core? Oh. Right, that would be a problem. .NET Core upstream essentially supports x86_64 only. arm-hfp, aarch64 and x86 are

Fedora 30 Self-Contained Change proposal: No more automagic Python bytecompilation (phase 2)

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/No_more_automagic_Python_bytecompilation_phase_2 == Summary == See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/No_more_automagic_Python_bytecompilation Now we are changing the default to be %global _python_bytecompile_extra 0. == Owner == * Name: Miro Hrončok

[Bug 1616198] perl-IO-Socket-SSL-2.058-1.fc29 FTBFS with OpenSSL 1.1.1: t/ core.t hangs

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1616198 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|---

Intent to upgrade Django in f29 to 2.1

Hello, sorry for the late notice; Django 2.1 was recently released, and I intend to update Django in F29 to version 2.1. Apparently, all depending packages still build, all the details in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1611025 If I don't hear anything against it until Monday, I'll

[Bug 1616179] perl-Text-CSV-1.96 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1616179 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED

[Bug 1620308] New: perl-Archive-Zip-1.63 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1620308 Bug ID: 1620308 Summary: perl-Archive-Zip-1.63 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-Archive-Zip Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee:

Re: Intent to upgrade Django in f29 to 2.1

On 22.8.2018 10:59, Matthias Runge wrote: Hello, sorry for the late notice; Django 2.1 was recently released, and I intend to update Django in F29 to version 2.1. Apparently, all depending packages still build, all the details in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1611025 2 packages

[Bug 1613225] Upgrade perl-Text-Quoted to 2.10

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1613225 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Text-Quoted-2.10-1.fc2 |perl-Text-Quoted-2.10-1.fc2

Reminder: Beta freeze and code complete deadline in one week

According to the Fedora 29 schedule[1], the 100% code complete deadline[2] for Changes is Tuesday, 28 August. The beta freeze[3] takes effect on this date as well. All Changes should be in "ON_QA" state by then. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/29/Schedule [2]

Fedora 30 Self-Contained Change proposal: No more automagic Python bytecompilation (phase 2)

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/No_more_automagic_Python_bytecompilation_phase_2 == Summary == See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/No_more_automagic_Python_bytecompilation Now we are changing the default to be %global _python_bytecompile_extra 0. == Owner == * Name: Miro Hrončok

Fedora 30 Self-Contained Change proposal: Make ambiguous python shebangs error

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Make_ambiguous_python_shebangs_error == Summary == The /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-mangle-shebangs buildroot policy script will be changed to make the build fail when it sees an ambiguous python shebang, such as #!/usr/bin/python or #!/usr/bin/env python. (The

Fedora 30 System-Wide Change proposal: Remove glibc-all-langpacks from buildroot

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_glibc-langpacks-all_from_buildroot == Summary == glibc-minimal-langpack is added to @Buildsystem group and installed into the minimal buildroot instead of glibc-all-langpacks. Packages which need more locales than plain C/C.UTF-8/POSIX need to pull

Fedora 30 System-Wide Change proposal: New 128-bit IEEE long double ABI for IBM 64-bit POWER LE

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/PPC64LE_Float128_Transition == Summary == Transition IBM 64-bit POWER LE systems to the new 128-bit IEEE long double ABI. == Owner == * Name: Carlos O'Donell (codonell) * Email: car...@redhat.com == Detailed Description == IBM has designed a new long

Fedora 30 System-Wide Change proposal: Remove the Group: Tag From All Packages

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_Group_Tag == Summary == Remove the Group: tag from over 9000 source packages. == Owner == * Name: Jason Tibbitts (tibbs) * Email: ti...@math.uh.edu == Detailed Description == I will remove the Group: tag from all specfiles in Fedora dist-git which

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

The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing: Age URL 73 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-3835d39d1a unrtf-0.21.9-8.el7 67 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-15b7dc35af pass-1.7.2-1.el7 41

[Bug 1612855] perl-HTTP-Tiny-0.076 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1612855 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- perl-HTTP-Tiny-0.076-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You

[Bug 1610065] perl-HTTP-Tiny-0.074 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1610065 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- perl-HTTP-Tiny-0.076-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You

[Bug 1614708] perldoc warns about binary data depending on TERM variable

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1614708 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Pod-Perldoc-3.28.01-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because:

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 6 updates-testing report

The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing: Age URL 73 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-b6c663378c unrtf-0.21.9-8.el6 41 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-d801e05f92 uwsgi-2.0.17.1-1.el6 11

[Bug 1612855] perl-HTTP-Tiny-0.076 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1612855 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- perl-HTTP-Tiny-0.076-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You

[Bug 1613225] Upgrade perl-Text-Quoted to 2.10

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1613225 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version|

[Bug 1610065] perl-HTTP-Tiny-0.074 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1610065 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- perl-HTTP-Tiny-0.076-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You

Re: Intent to upgrade Django in f29 to 2.1

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 11:51:34AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 22.8.2018 10:59, Matthias Runge wrote: > > Hello, > > > > sorry for the late notice; Django 2.1 was recently released, and > > I intend to update Django in F29 to version 2.1. > > > > Apparently, all depending packages still

Re: Intent to upgrade Django in f29 to 2.1

On 22.8.2018 13:13, Matthias Runge wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 11:51:34AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 22.8.2018 10:59, Matthias Runge wrote: Hello, sorry for the late notice; Django 2.1 was recently released, and I intend to update Django in F29 to version 2.1. Apparently, all depending