Fedora-36-20220308.n.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 8/229 (x86_64), 11/161 (aarch64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-36-20220307.n.0): ID: 1164783 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_blivet_lvm_ext4@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1164783 ID: 1164938 Test:

Create new override not possible

Hi, i want to create a new ovveride for qt6-qtbase-6.2.3-2.fc34, but this is not possible. I need it to build qpwgraph-0.2.2-3.fc34 [1] [1] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1930460 How can i solve this issue ? Regards Martin ___

Fedora-Rawhide-20220308.n.0 compose check report

Missing expected images: Minimal raw-xz armhfp Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check! 8 of 43 required tests failed, 8 results missing openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING** below Failed openQA tests: 25/231 (x86_64), 18/161 (aarch64) New failures

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Once upon a time, Fabio Valentini said: > One of the most problematic things are transitive BuildRequires: > Even if you know you need to keep libfoo.i686 and libbar.i686, how do > you determine the transitive dependencies that are needed to keep > those packages around? > And by that, I don't

Re: Create new override not possible

V Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 01:53:20PM -, Martin Gansser napsal(a): > i want to create a new ovveride for qt6-qtbase-6.2.3-2.fc34, but this is not > possible. > I need it to build qpwgraph-0.2.2-3.fc34 [1] > > [1] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1930460 > > How can i solve

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 15:46:29 +0100 Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 2:05 PM Chris Adams wrote: > > > > Once upon a time, Fabio Valentini said: > > > One of the most problematic things are transitive BuildRequires: > > > Even if you know you need to keep libfoo.i686 and

Re: Create new override not possible

ok, thanks for the info, meanwhile the override process is working again. Regards Martin ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 2:05 PM Chris Adams wrote: > > Once upon a time, Fabio Valentini said: > > One of the most problematic things are transitive BuildRequires: > > Even if you know you need to keep libfoo.i686 and libbar.i686, how do > > you determine the transitive dependencies that are

Re: Let's retire original glib and gtk+ (new report)

On Tue, 2022-03-08 at 01:41 +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > The maintainer is unwilling to retire them. > > > > I think we should ask FESCo to force them to be retired. It's > > confusing > > to have ancient versions of the packages in the distro, and they will

Fedora-IoT-36-20220308.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 3/15 (aarch64), 2/15 (x86_64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-IoT-36-20220306.0): ID: 1165176 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_zezere_server@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1165176 ID: 1165188 Test:

Reminder: Upcoming summer time changes

As a reminder to the community, we've reached the point in the year where jurisdictions around the world begin or end summer time. Be sure to check your recurring meetings on Fedocal[1] to make sure you know when you're meeting. Some meetings are set to a fixed time UTC and others are set to a

Re: Let's retire original glib and gtk+ (new report)

> On Mon, 07 Mar 2022 10:29:02 -0600 > Michael Catanzaro > > I'm not unwilling to retire them, I just want their users to be retired > first so I don't leave a bunch of broken dependencies behind. > > Paul. dillo, alsa-tools, gnubg, and tilda don't rely on glib or gtk+, the package

Fedora 36 compose report: 20220308.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-36-20220307.n.0 NEW: Fedora-36-20220308.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 0 Dropped packages:4 Upgraded packages: 0 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 0 B Size of dropped packages:1.07 MiB Size

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Small technical concern: i686 packages depending on each other as follows: A ---> B ---> C ---> D ---> E ---> F ---> G When a maintainer of package "D" decides to stop building the package "D" for i686 ("ExcludeArch: %{ix86}"), how do we ensure the packages "E", "F", "G" will also adopt the

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 03:01:32PM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Mon, 2022-03-07 at 20:32 +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 8:25 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > > > > So, I'll go ahead and be a bad guy here: > > > > > > Perhaps it's time to just retire i686 completely? > > >

security: pls push thunderbird update to stable

Hi, 91.6.2. is working so far, but it's not available yet: [marius@eve ~]$ sudo dnf  --showduplicates list thunderbird --enablerepo=updates-testing Letzte Prüfung auf abgelaufene Metadaten: vor 0:00:33 am Di 08 Mär 2022 17:29:24 CET. Installierte Pakete thunderbird.x86_64 *91.6.2-1.fc34

Re: Landing a larger-than-release change (distrusting SHA-1 signatures)

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 3:11 PM Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Tue, 2022-03-08 at 20:51 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 07:40:15PM +0100, Alexander Sosedkin wrote: > > > the only realistic way to weed out its reliance on SHA-1 signatures > > > from all of its

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 12:12:49PM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval > == Scope == > > * Proposal owners: > > Proposal owners will provide convenience scripts for checking whether > a given package is a leaf package on i686, and will help

Re: Why I get some random notifications from discourse?

On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 12:58:14PM +0200, Otto Urpelainen wrote: > However, if Vít and others already had a Discussion account and had > all notifications, I do understand that it is irritating and > confusing to suddenly start getting notifications. User preferences > should be honored. When I

Landing a larger-than-release change (distrusting SHA-1 signatures)

Hello, community, I need your wisdom for planning a disruptive change. Fedora 28 had https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/StrongCryptoSettings Fedora 33 had https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/StrongCryptoSettings2 I believe we should start planning for the next cryptographic defaults

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 04:56:43PM +0100, Michal Schorm wrote: > Small technical concern: > > i686 packages depending on each other as follows: > A ---> B ---> C ---> D ---> E ---> F ---> G > When a maintainer of package "D" decides to stop building the package > "D" for i686 ("ExcludeArch:

Re: Let's retire original glib and gtk+ (new report)

On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 01:41:30AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > The maintainer is unwilling to retire them. > > > > I think we should ask FESCo to force them to be retired. It's confusing > > to have ancient versions of the packages in the distro, and they

Re: Landing a larger-than-release change (distrusting SHA-1 signatures)

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022, at 1:40 PM, Alexander Sosedkin wrote: > > But these are all rather... crude? > Sure there should be better ways, > preferably something explored before. One general technique I like is the "warn and sleep" approach; example: https://github.com/coreos/rpm-ostree/pull/2098

Schedule for Tuesday's FESCo Meeting (2022-03-08)

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo meeting Tuesday at 18:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on irc.libera.chat. To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto or run: date -d '2022-03-08 18:00 UTC' Links to all issues to be

Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2022-03-08)

Minutes: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2022-03-08/fesco.2022-03-08-18.01.html Minutes (text): https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2022-03-08/fesco.2022-03-08-18.01.txt Log:

Re: Landing a larger-than-release change (distrusting SHA-1 signatures)

On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 07:40:15PM +0100, Alexander Sosedkin wrote: > the only realistic way to weed out its reliance on SHA-1 signatures > from all of its numerous dark corners is to break them. > Make creation and verification fail in default configuration. That sounds like a terrible plan. We

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Once upon a time, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek said: > What about the following instead: > - We start with a filter list that includes glibc, wine, and other > packages which we know should be excluded. > > - The script is run automatically and identifies a list of leaf packages. > > - For

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 8 2022 at 01:55:47 PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote: Rather than churn 20,000+ packages (plus add a new requirement for every new package to include an ExcludeArch), why not address this at the build system? This makes sense to me. I don't think we should be changing spec files to

Re: Landing a larger-than-release change (distrusting SHA-1 signatures)

On Tue, 2022-03-08 at 20:51 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 07:40:15PM +0100, Alexander Sosedkin wrote: > > the only realistic way to weed out its reliance on SHA-1 signatures > > from all of its numerous dark corners is to break them. > > Make creation and

Fw: Coordination for rust-ttf-parser update

Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. --- Original Message --- Le lundi 7 mars 2022 à 16:56, Rémi Lauzier a écrit: > Hi fellow rust packager! > > For now we have two package that depend on rust-ttf-parser version 0.12 that > have been stalled in development for a long time. rusttype

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 08. 03. 22 21:43, Matthew Miller wrote: On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 02:11:14PM -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote: Rather than churn 20,000+ packages (plus add a new requirement for every new package to include an ExcludeArch), why not address this at the build system? This makes sense to me. I

Re: Landing a larger-than-release change (distrusting SHA-1 signatures)

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 3:34 PM Demi Marie Obenour wrote: > > On 3/8/22 15:23, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 3:11 PM Simo Sorce wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, 2022-03-08 at 20:51 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > >>> On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 07:40:15PM +0100, Alexander Sosedkin

Re: F37 Change: Boost 1.78 upgrade (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 23. 02. 22 17:48, Ben Cotton wrote: ** Request a "f37-boost" [https://docs.pagure.org/releng/sop_adding_side_build_targets.html build system tag] ([http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-November/159908.html discussion]): ** Build boost into that tag Hey Thomas, when do you

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 4:47 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 12:45:36PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Mon, 2022-03-07 at 11:25 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > So, I'll go ahead and be a bad guy here: > > > > > > Perhaps it's time to just retire i686 completely? > > > > > >

Re: unsafe systemd setup in Fedora

On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 08:10:26PM -0500, JT wrote: > I replied this morning saying I'd be willing to help run the ball on this, > but this seems like the sort of thing that needs some coordinated planning > for what Fedora as a distro wants the goals to be. I'm waiting to Matthew > to chime back

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 15:04:21 -0500, Robbie Harwood wrote: Fabio Valentini writes: For example, as far as I know, you need the 32-bit host libraries for running 32-bit Windows applications in Wine. Dropping that would make our Wine packages almost useless, since a large fraction of

NeuroFedora review swap: libsonata

Hi folks, I'd like to get libsonata reviewed for inclusion in Fedora as part of the NeuroFedora packages. Would anyone have any pending reviews they'd like to swap please? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2061077 -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) |

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 02:11:14PM -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > >Rather than churn 20,000+ packages (plus add a new requirement for every > >new package to include an ExcludeArch), why not address this at the build > >system? > > This makes sense to me. I don't think we should be changing

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Once upon a time, Miro Hrončok said: > Give maintainers a blanket approval to exclude i686 if it bothers > them in any way and their package is a leaf i686 package. That is > it. Will this speed up eventual i686 retirement? Possibly, but not > much. But that is not the goal. The goal is to

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 01:55:47PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote: > > Rather than churn 20,000+ packages (plus add a new requirement for every > new package to include an ExcludeArch), why not address this at the > build system? > > Writing a script to generate a list of the buildroot plus multilib >

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 3:09 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Perhaps you could share with the list how used/important wine.i686 is > these days? Are most folks still using it? Slowly switching to > wine.x86_64? I use 32-bit wine at work a *lot*, due to 3rd parties who still, in 2022, ship their

Re: Landing a larger-than-release change (distrusting SHA-1 signatures)

On 3/8/22 15:23, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 3:11 PM Simo Sorce wrote: >> >> On Tue, 2022-03-08 at 20:51 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 07:40:15PM +0100, Alexander Sosedkin wrote: the only realistic way to weed out its reliance on SHA-1

Re: NeuroFedora review swap: libsonata

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 1:17 PM Ankur Sinha wrote: > Hi folks, > > I'd like to get libsonata reviewed for inclusion in Fedora as part of > the NeuroFedora packages. Would anyone have any pending reviews they'd > like to swap please? > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2061077 I can

Re: nodejs-electron

Neal Gompa left as an exercise for the reader: > Note that this is F36+ only, and will eventually be in EPEL 9 once its > dependency chain is in EPEL[1]. > [1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053866 yep, i've already rebuilt my package for f37 and f36! -- nick black -=-

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 03:54:25PM -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > On 3/7/22 2:03 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > > A simpler solution would be to just default-off i686 and check-in some > > marker file that indicates the package needs to be built for multilib. > > This is how openSUSE does it today

Re: Landing a larger-than-release change (distrusting SHA-1 signatures)

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 6:40 PM Alexander Sosedkin wrote: > Good news is, RHEL-9 is gonna lead the way > and thus will take a lot of the hits first. > Fedora doesn't have to pioneer it. > Bad news is, Fedora has to follow suit someday anyway, > and this brings me to how does one land such a

Review request: Go packages required by Hugo

I would like to update Fedora's Hugo package, but the recent versions depend on Go packages not yet in Fedora. I have submitted review requests for each of these: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998878 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031226

Re: Let's retire original glib and gtk+ (new report)

Sérgio Basto kirjoitti 7.3.2022 klo 18.17: Hi, In resume glib still required for 20 packages [1], apart of the sweet memories that some package bring to us , any of these packages is needed ? or haven't replacement ? Depending packages (rawhide) (20): crossfire crossfire-client crossfire-maps

Re: F37 Change: Boost 1.78 upgrade (System-Wide Change proposal)

I started on it in anger last week. I've been tracking down some breakage in the upstream's build build that was preventing me from getting a successful .rpm build, so I haven't even started to evaluate dependent package breakage. I expect to have a scratch build done by this time tomorrow. On

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 07. 03. 22 20:14, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 07. 03. 22 19:30, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 7:22 PM Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Ben Cotton said: == Summary == Package maintainers are encouraged to actively stop building their packages for i686, especially if

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 12:45:36PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2022-03-07 at 11:25 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > So, I'll go ahead and be a bad guy here: > > > > Perhaps it's time to just retire i686 completely? > > > > Steam is available as a flatpak > > Do we know how the flatpak

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 3/8/22 4:08 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: Perhaps you could share with the list how used/important wine.i686 is these days? Are most folks still using it? Slowly switching to wine.x86_64? Yes, wine.i686 is still important in the year 2022. While I don't have a comprehensive list of all use cases

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20220308.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20220307.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20220308.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 10 Dropped packages:5 Upgraded packages: 79 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 1.61 MiB Size of dropped packages

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 09:40:16 + Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 10:30:33AM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 10:14 AM Daniel P. Berrangé > > wrote: > > > > (...) > > > > > Isn't that just a standard RPM dep solving problem, at least for > > >

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 11:17:20 +0100 Dan Horák wrote: > On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 09:40:16 + > Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 10:30:33AM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 10:14 AM Daniel P. Berrangé > > > wrote: > > > > > > (...) > > > > > > >

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 07/03/2022 20:25, Kevin Fenzi wrote: Steam is available as a flatpak Steam Flatpak works too bad nowadays due to different DRM and pressure-vessel. Flatpak maintainers need to use hacks like sandbox disabling. -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 07/03/2022 18:12, Ben Cotton wrote: Package maintainers are encouraged to actively stop building their packages for i686, especially if supporting this architecture requires significant investment of time or resources, for no benefit. +1. Upstreams don't test i686 builds and ignore bugs.

Fedora-Cloud-34-20220308.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-34-20220307.0): ID: 1164756 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL:

Re: how to debug failures inside mock when building takes a long time?

Hi Kevin, Am 08.03.22 um 01:33 schrieb Kevin Kofler via devel: There is actually a "mock shell" command that opens a shell inside the mock chroot. You can also run arbitrary shell commands (including scripts that you have previously manually copied in using the "copyin" command) in it. I knew

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

V Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 07:30:44PM +0100, Fabio Valentini napsal(a): > On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 7:22 PM Chris Adams wrote: > > > > Once upon a time, Ben Cotton said: > > > == Summary == > > > > > > Package maintainers are encouraged to actively stop building their > > > packages for i686,

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 08:32:13PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 8:25 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > > So, I'll go ahead and be a bad guy here: > > > > Perhaps it's time to just retire i686 completely? > > > > Steam is available as a flatpak, and old software thats 32bit

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 9:09 AM Petr Pisar wrote: > (...) > Do you know that Packaging Guidelines require for each of this exclusion > creating a tracking bug for the affected package in Bugzilla > ? > > We

Fedora-Cloud-35-20220308.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-35-20220307.0): ID: 1164348 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL:

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 10:14 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: (...) > Isn't that just a standard RPM dep solving problem, at least for > stuff inside Fedora repos or well known 3rd party add-on repos ? It is not. There's no way to query recursive BuildRequires from repository metadata in one step

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 10:30:33AM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 10:14 AM Daniel P. Berrangé > wrote: > > (...) > > > Isn't that just a standard RPM dep solving problem, at least for > > stuff inside Fedora repos or well known 3rd party add-on repos ? > > It is not.

Re: Problem with cmake 3.23.0

On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 12:13:33 AM CET Sérgio Basto wrote: > I advise anyone to carefully read the wiki page. If you mean the Fedora 33 change page, it only describes the change from Fedora 33+ perspective. It does not take compatibility with EPEL buildroots into account at all. Kamil

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 9:11 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > (...) > How many examples of things like Wine & Steam do we actually have ? > I feel it must be a pretty small list of things which are important > to a large number of users and yet need 32-bit. > > If we only consider Wine & Steam, we

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Il 07/03/22 19:30, Fabio Valentini ha scritto: > On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 7:22 PM Chris Adams wrote: >> Once upon a time, Ben Cotton said: >>> == Summary == >>> >>> Package maintainers are encouraged to actively stop building their >>> packages for i686, especially if supporting this architecture

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 09:59:07AM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 9:11 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > (...) > > > How many examples of things like Wine & Steam do we actually have ? > > I feel it must be a pretty small list of things which are important > > to a

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

* Daniel P. Berrangé: > Isn't that just a standard RPM dep solving problem, at least for > stuff inside Fedora repos or well known 3rd party add-on repos ? The dependencies stored in the source RPM headers are architecture-specific. We'd have to rebuild source RPMs on i686 to get the correct

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 10:40 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: (...) > Oh yes, I simplified the build deps problem too much. Still > feels like a task that is ripe for machine automation. Yes. I will provide a script so package maintainers can do: $ can-i-add-excludearch-i686-to foo Which will

[rpms/perl-File-MimeInfo] PR #2: 0.32 bump and package tests

mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-File-MimeInfo` that you are following: `` 0.32 bump and package tests `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-File-MimeInfo/pull-request/2 ___ perl-devel

[rpms/perl-Test2-Suite] PR #16: 0.000145 bump

mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Test2-Suite` that you are following. Merged pull-request: `` 0.000145 bump `` https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Test2-Suite/pull-request/16 ___ perl-devel mailing list --

[rpms/perl-Test2-Suite] PR #18: 0.000145 bump

mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Test2-Suite` that you are following: `` 0.000145 bump `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Test2-Suite/pull-request/18 ___ perl-devel mailing list --

[rpms/perl-Test2-Suite] PR #18: 0.000145 bump

mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Test2-Suite` that you are following. Merged pull-request: `` 0.000145 bump `` https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Test2-Suite/pull-request/18 ___ perl-devel mailing list --

[Bug 2061145] perl-File-MimeInfo-0.32 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2061145 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #2 from

[rpms/perl-Test2-Suite] PR #16: 0.000145 bump

mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Test2-Suite` that you are following: `` 0.000145 bump `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Test2-Suite/pull-request/16 ___ perl-devel mailing list --

[Bug 2061467] perl-Test-PostgreSQL: please provide epel9 package

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2061467 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In Version|

[Bug 2061467] perl-Test-PostgreSQL: please provide epel9 package

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2061467 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-2b4a28dbd3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-2b4a28dbd3 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are

[Bug 2005973] perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-PKCS10: FTBFS with OpenSSL 3.0 .0 in Fedora Rawhide

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2005973 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppi...@redhat.com --- Comment #4 from

[rpms/perl-File-MimeInfo] PR #1: 0.32 bump and package tests

mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-File-MimeInfo` that you are following: `` 0.32 bump and package tests `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-File-MimeInfo/pull-request/1 ___ perl-devel

[rpms/perl-File-MimeInfo] PR #1: 0.32 bump and package tests

mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-File-MimeInfo` that you are following. Merged pull-request: `` 0.32 bump and package tests `` https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-File-MimeInfo/pull-request/1 ___ perl-devel mailing list

[Bug 2061013] perl-Test2-Suite-0.000145 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2061013 Michal Josef Spacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Doc Type|---

[rpms/perl-Test2-Suite] PR #17: 0.000145 bump

mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Test2-Suite` that you are following: `` 0.000145 bump `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Test2-Suite/pull-request/17 ___ perl-devel mailing list --

[rpms/perl-File-MimeInfo] PR #2: 0.32 bump and package tests

mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-File-MimeInfo` that you are following. Merged pull-request: `` 0.32 bump and package tests `` https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-File-MimeInfo/pull-request/2 ___ perl-devel mailing list

[Bug 2061145] perl-File-MimeInfo-0.32 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2061145 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #3 from

[Bug 2061013] perl-Test2-Suite-0.000145 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2061013 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #2 from

[Bug 2061969] New: perl-Devel-PPPort-3.67 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2061969 Bug ID: 2061969 Summary: perl-Devel-PPPort-3.67 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-Devel-PPPort Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

[rpms/perl-Test2-Suite] PR #20: 0.000145 bump

mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Test2-Suite` that you are following. Merged pull-request: `` 0.000145 bump `` https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Test2-Suite/pull-request/20 ___ perl-devel mailing list --

[Bug 2061013] perl-Test2-Suite-0.000145 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2061013 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-fa2374ace5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-fa2374ace5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list

[Bug 2061013] perl-Test2-Suite-0.000145 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2061013 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-a24bfc33d8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a24bfc33d8 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list

[Bug 2061469] perl-Event: please provide epel9 package

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2061469 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #3 from

[Bug 2061467] perl-Test-PostgreSQL: please provide epel9 package

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2061467 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #3 from

[Bug 2058812] perl-DB_File-1.857 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2058812 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-DB_File-1.857-1.fc37 |perl-DB_File-1.857-1.fc37

[rpms/perl-Test2-Suite] PR #17: 0.000145 bump

mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Test2-Suite` that you are following. Merged pull-request: `` 0.000145 bump `` https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Test2-Suite/pull-request/17 ___ perl-devel mailing list --

[rpms/perl-Test2-Suite] PR #19: 0.000145 bump

mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Test2-Suite` that you are following: `` 0.000145 bump `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Test2-Suite/pull-request/19 ___ perl-devel mailing list --

[rpms/perl-Test2-Suite] PR #20: 0.000145 bump

mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Test2-Suite` that you are following: `` 0.000145 bump `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Test2-Suite/pull-request/20 ___ perl-devel mailing list --

[Bug 2061013] perl-Test2-Suite-0.000145 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2061013 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from

[Bug 2061470] perl-Socket-GetAddrInfo: please provide epel9 package

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2061470 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #2 from

[Bug 2061013] perl-Test2-Suite-0.000145 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2061013 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-a24bfc33d8 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing

  1   2   >