Re: F39 Change Proposal: Retire AWS CLI version 1 package awscli (System Wide Change)

This is, admittedly, somewhat a case of me being pedantic, so take it with a grain of salt. But... In the "Benefit to Fedora" section, the proposal currently reads: > The benefit to Fedora is that users will have access to the most > recent command line tooling for working with Amazon Web

Re: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 02:13:43PM +0200, Michal Domonkos wrote: > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 01:03:43PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > I think you should also consider packages that build require > > rpm-devel. libguestfs consumes the librpm API, so I'm not sure why it > > didn't make the

Re: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 02:32:19PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 02:13:43PM +0200, Michal Domonkos wrote: > > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 01:03:43PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > I think you should also consider packages that build require > > >

Re: ppc64le builds taking ages

On Fri, 19 May 2023 at 16:55, Dan Horák wrote: > > On Fri, 19 May 2023 16:27:23 +0200 > Iñaki Ucar wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Do we know why some ppc64le builds take so much? And with "so much" I > > mean 7-10x the time for a "normal" run. Examples: 2 hours for [1] vs. > > 20 hours for [2]. > > >

Re: [Fedocal] Reminder meeting : ELN SIG

On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 8:00 AM wrote: > > Dear all, > > You are kindly invited to the meeting: >ELN SIG on 2023-05-19 from 12:00:00 to 13:00:00 US/Eastern >At fedora-meet...@irc.libera.chat > > The meeting will be about: > = #fedora-meeting: ELN

Re: ppc64le builds taking ages

On Fri, 19 May 2023 16:27:23 +0200 Iñaki Ucar wrote: > Hi, > > Do we know why some ppc64le builds take so much? And with "so much" I > mean 7-10x the time for a "normal" run. Examples: 2 hours for [1] vs. > 20 hours for [2]. > > And if we do know the cause, is there any way to predict it in

Re: ppc64le builds taking ages

On Fri, May 19 2023 at 04:54:42 PM +0200, Dan Horák wrote: seems the build got restarted, perhaps due OOM on the builder, and actual build time was 12h, perhaps the builder or the vmhost were overloaded. Do you see the long build times in recent builds too? Both examples are from March. I've

Re: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

V Fri, May 19, 2023 at 12:24:15PM +0200, Michal Domonkos napsal(a): > We're currently preparing an update to RPM 4.19 ALPHA for Rawhide in a > side-tag. The new version features a soname bump: > > librpm.so.9 -> librpm.so.10 > librpmio.so.9 -> librpmio.so.10 > > The following packages

Orphaning rubygem-i18n_data

Hi, I don't have any usage for rubygem-i18n_data, therefore I have orphaned that package. Vít OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

ppc64le builds taking ages

Hi, Do we know why some ppc64le builds take so much? And with "so much" I mean 7-10x the time for a "normal" run. Examples: 2 hours for [1] vs. 20 hours for [2]. And if we do know the cause, is there any way to predict it in order to avoid the %check section? [1]

Re: ppc64le builds taking ages

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 5:07 PM Iñaki Ucar wrote: > > On Fri, 19 May 2023 at 16:55, Dan Horák wrote: > > > > On Fri, 19 May 2023 16:27:23 +0200 > > Iñaki Ucar wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Do we know why some ppc64le builds take so much? And with "so much" I > > > mean 7-10x the time for a

Re: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

On Fri, 19 May 2023 12:24:15 +0200 Michal Domonkos wrote: > Hi all, > > We're currently preparing an update to RPM 4.19 ALPHA for Rawhide in a > side-tag. The new version features a soname bump: > > librpm.so.9 -> librpm.so.10 > librpmio.so.9 -> librpmio.so.10 > > The following

Re: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

On 19. 05. 23 12:24, Michal Domonkos wrote: Hi all, We're currently preparing an update to RPM 4.19 ALPHA for Rawhide in a side-tag. The new version features a soname bump: librpm.so.9 -> librpm.so.10 librpmio.so.9 -> librpmio.so.10 The following packages link against the above

Re: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 01:00:28PM +0200, Michal Domonkos wrote: > Yup, I omitted the DNF stack deliberately from the original list as those > packages we've rebuilt ourselves already in the side-tag. Same goes for some > other packages on the list like drpm which we also own. Oh, and as for

Re: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 12:33:41PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > rust-rpm-sequoia > > This has a circular dependency on rpm? Yup, this shouldn't have been on the list, it was an error on my side, addressed in another reply to this thread. > > We already did scratch builds ourselves and

Re: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

V Fri, May 19, 2023 at 01:37:11PM +0200, Michal Domonkos napsal(a): > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 12:33:41PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > We already did scratch builds ourselves and the packages passing against > > > the > > > rawhide target also passed against the side-tag. > > > > Could you

Re: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 01:02:23PM +0200, Michal Domonkos wrote: > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 01:00:28PM +0200, Michal Domonkos wrote: > > Yup, I omitted the DNF stack deliberately from the original list as those > > packages we've rebuilt ourselves already in the side-tag. Same goes for > > some >

Re: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 01:03:43PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > I think you should also consider packages that build require > rpm-devel. libguestfs consumes the librpm API, so I'm not sure why it > didn't make the list. Correct, our original query was anything but comprehensible, as it

Re: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 02:14:31PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > That is correct, I assumed folks on the packaging-team would be > provenpackagers already, but apparently not so much. Too many (false) assumptions were made when I was starting this thread. One learns by doing, I guess. > > I

Re: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 12:24 PM Michal Domonkos wrote: > > Hi all, > > We're currently preparing an update to RPM 4.19 ALPHA for Rawhide in a > side-tag. The new version features a soname bump: > > librpm.so.9 -> librpm.so.10 > librpmio.so.9 -> librpmio.so.10 > > The following packages

Re: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 1:02 PM Michal Domonkos wrote: > > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 01:00:28PM +0200, Michal Domonkos wrote: > > Yup, I omitted the DNF stack deliberately from the original list as those > > packages we've rebuilt ourselves already in the side-tag. Same goes for > > some > >

Re: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 12:46:08PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > Notably, this list includes things like libdnf and dnf5, and does > *not* include rust-rpm-sequoia. Yup, I omitted the DNF stack deliberately from the original list as those packages we've rebuilt ourselves already in the

Re: SPDX Statistics - SPDX Hackfest edition

On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 08:23:51AM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > If your package does not have neither git-log entry nor spec-changelog entry > mentioning SPDX and you know your license tag matches SPDX formula, you can > put your package on ignore list > >

Re: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 02:13:43PM +0200, Michal Domonkos wrote: > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 01:03:43PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > Anyway I will rebuild supermin & libguestfs into the side tag shortly. > > Thanks! Done: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101331894

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Fwd: SPDX Statistics - SPDX Hackfest edition

On 19. 05. 23 4:28, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: Packages from this list https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/eln-not-migrated.txt that were worked on during or as a result of the hackfest are listed below. If you are a package maintainer of a package that was worked on, you may see a

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Fwd: SPDX Statistics - SPDX Hackfest edition

Hello, On 5/19/23 04:28, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: Speaking of Wednesday's hackfest... thanks to all who attended. It was a good session with worthwhile discussion and progress made on some ELN packages - yeah! It'd be great to get feedback from those who attended or wanted to but couldn't on

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20230519.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20230518.n.1 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20230519.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 3 Added packages: 6 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 147 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 14.68 MiB Size of dropped packages:0

Re: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 01:05:51PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > Thanks for the clarification! No problem, and again, thanks for bringing it up. I should've included the whole list from the start to avoid confusion :) -- Michal Domonkos / RPM dev team / Red Hat, Inc.

Re: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

On 19. 05. 23 13:37, Michal Domonkos wrote: On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 12:33:41PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: rust-rpm-sequoia This has a circular dependency on rpm? Yup, this shouldn't have been on the list, it was an error on my side, addressed in another reply to this thread. We

HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

Hi all, We're currently preparing an update to RPM 4.19 ALPHA for Rawhide in a side-tag. The new version features a soname bump: librpm.so.9 -> librpm.so.10 librpmio.so.9 -> librpmio.so.10 The following packages link against the above libraries and thus will need to be rebuilt:

Re: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 12:28:30PM +0200, Dan Horák wrote: > I guess the list comes from an x86 system, thus it is incomplete. > Please add s390utils there as well. Indeed. I'm going to sent a separate email to s390utils-maintain...@fedoraproject.org. I've just ran the same DNF query for the

Orphaning rubygem-file-tail

Hi, I don't have any use for rubygem-file-tail, therefore I have orphaned the package. Vít OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: Intern Introduction & Goals (Open 3D Engine)

Thanks, I'm looking forward to contributing and working within the open source community this summer. > Have you packaged anything as an rpm before? I have not set up an rpm package in particular before, but I've been provided with a lot of good resources so hopefully it should be a good

Re: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 06:44:16PM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote: > I rebuild most of the packages > Thank you! Much appreciated. > I left out: > > freeipa - upstream confirmed that no ebuild is needed Yup, nice find. >

Re: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

RPM 4.19 release (Q3) final Will we see this in Fedora 38 or the next version? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:

Re: ppc64le builds taking ages

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 05:19:01PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > I've been experiencing similar issues with ppc64le koji builds for the > past few weeks. They are now by far the slowest architecture, and > sometimes the build tasks are seemingly just "hanging" or "stuck", > often for half an

Re: SPDX Statistics - SPDX Hackfest edition

Dne 19. 05. 23 v 13:01 Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a): https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/ignore-packages.txt Either pull-request or email to me is fine. The 'yajl' package uses the ISC license, and the Fedora & SPDX names match, so no update is required. Please add to the

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Fwd: SPDX Statistics - SPDX Hackfest edition

On 5/19/23 4:03 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 19. 05. 23 4:28, Jilayne Lovejoy wrote: Packages from this list https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/eln-not-migrated.txt that were worked on during or as a result of the hackfest are listed below. If you are a package maintainer of a

Re: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 05:37:06PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > Nevertheless I do believe if the librpm changed its API then every > package which _BuildRequires_ rpm-devel should be rebuilt, just to > check the change doesn't affect them. Yes, we were primarily focusing on runtime

Re: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

On Fri May 19, 2023 at 22:59 +0200, Michal Domonkos wrote: > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 05:37:06PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > Nevertheless I do believe if the librpm changed its API then every > > package which _BuildRequires_ rpm-devel should be rebuilt, just to > > check the change

[EPEL-devel] Re: apptainer 1.1.8-1 has an incompatible change for apptainer-suid users

Carl, You don't seem to have looked at this closely enough to understand. This is not an ordinary security problem that can be worked around in a compatible way. The security vulnerability is the feature itself. There's nothing that can be done about it short of disabling the feature. Of course

[Bug 2072968] Review Request: perl-Alien-libmaxminddb - Find libmaxminddb

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072968 --- Comment #3 from Andreas Vögele --- Hello Michal, thanks a lot for the review. I've removed the MODULE_COMPAT requirement. I had already updated the version and the license in Copr. Today's build with review output in the "fedora-review"

[Bug 2072972] Review Request: perl-IP-Geolocation-MMDB - Read MaxMind DB files

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2072972 --- Comment #3 from Andreas Vögele --- Hello Michal, thanks a lot for the review. I've removed the MODULE_COMPAT requirement. I had already updated the version and the license in Copr. Today's build with review output in the "fedora-review"

[Bug 2208279] perl-Module-CPANfile-1.1004-16.fc39 FTBFS: t/from_prereqs.t fails with perl-CPAN-Meta-Requirements-2.142-1.fc39

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208279 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added Link ID||Github |

[Bug 2208530] New: perl-Software-License-0.104003 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208530 Bug ID: 2208530 Summary: perl-Software-License-0.104003 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-Software-License Keywords:

[Bug 2177932] perl-Net-DNS-1.38 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177932 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Comment #6 from

[Bug 2177932] perl-Net-DNS-1.38 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177932 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2023-358730b089 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-358730b089 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list

[EPEL-devel] Re: KDE broken on CentOS Stream 9

I have a new update set. This is just the packages failing to install with the updated qt5. The qt5 packages are updated to match the versions that are now in RHEL. All other packages are still the same versions and patches as before, just with their release bumped and then rebuilt. These are

[Bug 2203031] Upgrade perl-Crypt-URandom to 0.38

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2203031 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Crypt-URandom-0.38-1.f |perl-Crypt-URandom-0.38-1.f

[Bug 2208530] perl-Software-License-0.104003 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208530 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Doc Type|---

[Bug 2208530] perl-Software-License-0.104003 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208530 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|---

[Bug 2208530] perl-Software-License-0.104003 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2208530 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #1 from

[Bug 2177932] perl-Net-DNS-1.38 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177932 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2023-2281c8febc has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-2281c8febc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list