Re: Are we ready for ipv6-mostly networks?

2023-06-01 Thread Björn Persson
Petr Menšík wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I have attended recently csnog.eu conference [1], where some interesting > presentations took place. They were usually in Czech, so it is not > something I am going to share more. But what took my interest were ipv6 > readiness with some exceptions.

Re: [Fedocal] Reminder meeting : ELN SIG

2023-06-01 Thread Stephen Gallagher
On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 8:00 AM wrote: > > Dear all, > > You are kindly invited to the meeting: >ELN SIG on 2023-06-02 from 12:00:00 to 13:00:00 US/Eastern >At fedora-meet...@irc.libera.chat > > The meeting will be about: This week we will have a discussion about recent changes to x86_64,

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Build JDKs once, repack everywhere (System-Wide Change)

2023-06-01 Thread Omair Majid
Hi, Thanks your thoughts! Neal Gompa writes: > That's actually a lot better than it was when I helped with dotnet > package review and bootstrap with 3.1. Heh. That's very true! 3.1 had at least two source packages that had to be kept in sync. I think you seemed much happier with the 7.0

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Build JDKs once, repack everywhere (System-Wide Change)

2023-06-01 Thread Omair Majid
Hi, Omair Majid writes: > If/when RISC-V support lands in .NET (eg, minimum of > https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/36748), we could use those > tools (with hopefully minimal changes) to cross compile .NET for RISC-V. > > I can ask IBM to prioritize making these tools public. Sorry, my

Re: LibreOffice packages

2023-06-01 Thread Demi Marie Obenour
On 6/1/23 14:30, Matthias Clasen wrote: > Hey, > > as you've probably seen, the LibreOffice RPMS have recently been orphaned, > and I thought it would be good to explain the reasons > behind this. > > The Red Hat Display Systems team (the team behind most of Red Hat’s desktop > efforts) has

LibreOffice packages

2023-06-01 Thread Matthias Clasen
Hey, as you've probably seen, the LibreOffice RPMS have recently been orphaned, and I thought it would be good to explain the reasons behind this. The Red Hat Display Systems team (the team behind most of Red Hat’s desktop efforts) has maintained the LibreOffice packages in Fedora for years

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Build JDKs once, repack everywhere (System-Wide Change)

2023-06-01 Thread Demi Marie Obenour
On 6/1/23 07:33, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Jiri Vanek wrote: >> At elast providing ofjava/openjdk is definitley out of scope. > > I do not think a Provides would be a trademark violation. It is a part of > the standard procedure for renaming a package. But you would have to ask Red > Hat

Re: LibreOffice packages

2023-06-01 Thread Gwyn Ciesla via devel
I've taken ownership of libreoffice for the time being, at least to keep the lights on. Co-maintainers, as always, welcome. --  Gwyn Ciesla she/her/hers   in your fear, seek only peace  in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie Sent with Proton

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Build JDKs once, repack everywhere (System-Wide Change)

2023-06-01 Thread Neal Gompa
On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 11:05 AM Omair Majid wrote: > > Hi, > > Thanks your thoughts! > > Neal Gompa writes: > > > That's actually a lot better than it was when I helped with dotnet > > package review and bootstrap with 3.1. > > Heh. That's very true! 3.1 had at least two source packages that had

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Build JDKs once, repack everywhere (System-Wide Change)

2023-06-01 Thread Peter Boy
> Am 01.06.2023 um 15:25 schrieb Jiri Vanek : > >> ... > Me, as end user application provider would rather `dnf install/update java` > then maintain 3rd aprty blob. At least the java is known to be working and on > Fedora and is built by trusted infrastructure (which I case to agree for >

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Build JDKs once, repack everywhere (System-Wide Change)

2023-06-01 Thread Kevin Kofler via devel
Demi Marie Obenour wrote: > I haven’t written Java in years, but my understanding is > that AOT compilation has three major advantages: > > 1. It reduces the size of total deliverables because the >final executable only includes the libraries it needs. This may be true for real AOT

Re: LibreOffice packages

2023-06-01 Thread Christian Schaller
Yes, sorry about that meant now of course  On Thu, Jun 1, 2023, 6:45 PM Demi Marie Obenour wrote: > On 6/1/23 15:59, Christian Schaller wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 2:36 PM Demi Marie Obenour > > > wrote: > >> Why is a Flatpak a better choice for LibreOffice? > > > > There are a lot of

Re: LibreOffice packages

2023-06-01 Thread Sandro
On 01-06-2023 21:59, Christian Schaller wrote: On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 2:36 PM Demi Marie Obenour wrote: Why is a Flatpak a better choice for LibreOffice? -- Sincerely, Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers) There are a lot of ways to answer this, but from any upstream the advantage of Flatpak

Re: LibreOffice packages

2023-06-01 Thread Christian Schaller
On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 2:36 PM Demi Marie Obenour wrote: > > > Why is a Flatpak a better choice for LibreOffice? > -- > Sincerely, > Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers) > There are a lot of ways to answer this, but from any upstream the advantage of Flatpak is that it means package once and then

Re: LibreOffice packages

2023-06-01 Thread Demi Marie Obenour
On 6/1/23 15:59, Christian Schaller wrote: > On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 2:36 PM Demi Marie Obenour > wrote: >> Why is a Flatpak a better choice for LibreOffice? > > There are a lot of ways to answer this, but from any upstream the advantage > of Flatpak is that it means package once and then deploy

Re: LibreOffice packages

2023-06-01 Thread Ivan Chavero
I can help co-maintaining and I think I can bring another co-maintainer. We've been creating custom libreoffice packages for a project so, we can bring a little experience El jue, 1 jun 2023 a las 14:17, Gwyn Ciesla via devel (< devel@lists.fedoraproject.org>) escribió: > I've taken ownership of

Updates failing gating: it's due to the Koji outage

2023-06-01 Thread Adam Williamson
Hi folks! If you've noticed that an update currently fails gating for no apparent reason, like this one: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-0714f51060 it's likely because of the ongoing Koji outage. Looking at the greenwave response shows this:

Re: LibreOffice packages

2023-06-01 Thread Kevin Kofler via devel
Gwyn Ciesla via devel wrote: > I've taken ownership of libreoffice for the time being, at least to keep > the lights on. Also of the many dependencies? As far as I can tell, from the list in the orphaned package report, all these are part of the LibreOffice stack: > flute

Re: Trying to strip a library

2023-06-01 Thread Paul Grosu
Hi Orion, There are two ways to remove the debugging symbols: 1) strip --strip-debug your_library.so 2) objcopy --strip-debug your_library.so Below is an example of both approaches: 1) Method using strip: paul$ objdump --syms libfoo.so | grep debug ld .debug_aranges

Trying to strip a library

2023-06-01 Thread Orion Poplawski
I'm trying to resolve this packaging issue with Lmod: https://artifacts.dev.testing-farm.io/4d7bee41-8d21-42fb-8c57-e5ffbf58119f/ debuginfo BAD /usr/share/lmod/8.7.25/lib/tcl2lua.so in Lmod-8.7.25-2.fc38 on i686 contains debugging symbols I've dealt with a couple of issues here:

libnfs soname bump

2023-06-01 Thread Xavier Bachelot via devel
Hi, I've updated libnfs from version 4.0.0 to version 5.0.2 in rawhide, which implies a soname bump. The build was done in f39-build-side-68410 sidetag. The following packages need to be rebuild: - qemu - gvfs - xine-lib I have already taken care of xine-lib, and made a scratch build for

Re: libnfs soname bump

2023-06-01 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
Never mind, too many dashes. qemu is building now: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101710059 Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com virt-top is 'top' for

Re: libnfs soname bump

2023-06-01 Thread Tom Stellard
On 6/1/23 00:33, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 09:05:23AM +0200, Xavier Bachelot wrote: Hi, I've updated libnfs from version 4.0.0 to version 5.0.2 in rawhide, which implies a soname bump. The build was done in f39-build-side-68410 sidetag. The following packages need to

Re: libnfs soname bump

2023-06-01 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 09:05:23AM +0200, Xavier Bachelot wrote: > Hi, > > I've updated libnfs from version 4.0.0 to version 5.0.2 in rawhide, > which implies a soname bump. > > The build was done in f39-build-side-68410 sidetag. > > The following packages need to be rebuild: > - qemu > - gvfs

Re: RISC-V -- are we ready for more, and what do we need to do it?

2023-06-01 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 11:58:57PM +0200, Jun Aruga (he / him) wrote: > This is exciting news related to the RISC-V ecosystem. > I expect that the RISC-V Software Ecosystem (RISE) Project will be a > leading organization to help open source projects by providing free > RISC-V CI services to them,

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Build JDKs once, repack everywhere (System-Wide Change)

2023-06-01 Thread Neal Gompa
On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 6:18 AM Omair Majid wrote: > > Hey, > > Neal Gompa writes: > > > Keep in mind that this isn't exactly the first time we've done this > > either: the .NET runtime is similarly screwy for its bootstrap > > process, and that's split across a couple of source packages. > > > >

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Build JDKs once, repack everywhere (System-Wide Change)

2023-06-01 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 05:27:47PM +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote: > This was heavily discussed when we moved to portable build in rpms - > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/JdkInTreeLibsAndStdclibStatic > Long story short yes, if yo wish to distribute jdk *binary* it have > to pass java compliance

Re: Self Introduction: Herald Yu

2023-06-01 Thread Betty Liu
Hi I also come from China ~ I'm Betty and now I'm learning about how to become a packager (so I think it's not the time to do a self-introduction in devel now hhh) Nice to have someone come from the same country! If you have the time maybe you can teach me about packaging and community! You

Re: RISC-V -- are we ready for more, and what do we need to do it?

2023-06-01 Thread Jun Aruga (he / him)
> Red Hat is a member. In fact there's an (internal) kick-off meeting > for RISE today which I'll be attending. I saw that Red Hat is a member of the RISE project on the page. And it's really great to see that you will be attending the kick-off meeting. Thank you for that. I am looking forward

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Build JDKs once, repack everywhere (System-Wide Change)

2023-06-01 Thread Robert Marcano via devel
On 6/1/23 3:51 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 05:27:47PM +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote: This was heavily discussed when we moved to portable build in rpms - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/JdkInTreeLibsAndStdclibStatic Long story short yes, if yo wish to distribute jdk

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Build JDKs once, repack everywhere (System-Wide Change)

2023-06-01 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 08:28:18AM -0400, Robert Marcano via devel wrote: > On 6/1/23 3:51 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > >On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 05:27:47PM +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote: > >>This was heavily discussed when we moved to portable build in rpms - >

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Build JDKs once, repack everywhere (System-Wide Change)

2023-06-01 Thread Robert Marcano via devel
On 6/1/23 8:33 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 08:28:18AM -0400, Robert Marcano via devel wrote: On 6/1/23 3:51 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 05:27:47PM +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote: This was heavily discussed when we moved to portable build in rpms -

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Build JDKs once, repack everywhere (System-Wide Change)

2023-06-01 Thread Kevin Kofler via devel
Jiri Vanek wrote: > At elast providing ofjava/openjdk is definitley out of scope. I do not think a Provides would be a trademark violation. It is a part of the standard procedure for renaming a package. But you would have to ask Red Hat Legal for a definite answer. I am not a lawyer. That

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Build JDKs once, repack everywhere (System-Wide Change)

2023-06-01 Thread Jiri Vanek
On 5/31/23 20:38, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: Il 30/05/23 20:37, Aoife Moloney ha scritto: This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Build JDKs once, repack everywhere (System-Wide Change)

2023-06-01 Thread Jiri Vanek
Hi Kevin! I read all your posts. You are mroevoer correct with everything, exept simple renaming of packages,. I'mnot sure it may work as strightforward. At elast providing ofjava/openjdk is definitley out of scope. As you wrote about the liberty of choice between temurins and fdeoara ona -

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : ELN SIG

2023-06-01 Thread sgallagh
Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: ELN SIG on 2023-06-02 from 12:00:00 to 13:00:00 US/Eastern At fedora-meet...@irc.libera.chat The meeting will be about: Source: https://calendar.fedoraproject.org//meeting/10449/ ___ devel

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Build JDKs once, repack everywhere (System-Wide Change)

2023-06-01 Thread Jiri Vanek
On 6/1/23 13:33, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: Jiri Vanek wrote: At elast providing ofjava/openjdk is definitley out of scope. I do not think a Provides would be a trademark violation. It is a part of the standard procedure for renaming a package. But you would have to ask Red Hat Legal for

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Build JDKs once, repack everywhere (System-Wide Change)

2023-06-01 Thread Panu Matilainen
On 6/1/23 15:43, Robert Marcano via devel wrote: On 6/1/23 8:33 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 08:28:18AM -0400, Robert Marcano via devel wrote: On 6/1/23 3:51 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 05:27:47PM +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote: This was heavily

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Build JDKs once, repack everywhere (System-Wide Change)

2023-06-01 Thread Jiri Vanek
All this change is about the burden of maintaining so many OpenJDK branches as packages in FEdora. Maybe Fedora should stop distributing ancient Java versions as one of our missions is to be cutting edge, maybe we are still encouraging too many projects to stay running on Java 8. I am

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Build JDKs once, repack everywhere (System-Wide Change)

2023-06-01 Thread Jiri Vanek
On 6/1/23 15:08, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 6/1/23 15:43, Robert Marcano via devel wrote: On 6/1/23 8:33 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 08:28:18AM -0400, Robert Marcano via devel wrote: On 6/1/23 3:51 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 05:27:47PM

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Build JDKs once, repack everywhere (System-Wide Change)

2023-06-01 Thread Jiri Vanek
On 5/31/23 20:02, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 07:38:38PM +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote: Can you clarify this a bit? It sounds like some versions of the JDK in Fedora will actually be built in EPEL. I feel that all Fedora packages should actually built for Fedora, not RHEL.

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Build JDKs once, repack everywhere (System-Wide Change)

2023-06-01 Thread Jiri Vanek
On 5/31/23 19:58, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Jiri Vanek said: I have fixed typo in the proposal " Should be built in oldest live EPEL" instead of " Should be built in latest live EPEL", which was wrong. At the moment though, the oldest live EPEL is 7, not 8. Right. And we are

[rpms/perl-XML-RegExp] PR #1: Update license to SPDX format

2023-06-01 Thread Michal Josef Špaček
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-XML-RegExp` that you are following: `` Update license to SPDX format `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-XML-RegExp/pull-request/1 ___ perl-devel

[rpms/perl-Tk] PR #1: Update license to SPDX format

2023-06-01 Thread Xavier Bachelot
xavierb merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Tk` that you are following. Merged pull-request: `` Update license to SPDX format `` https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Tk/pull-request/1 ___ perl-devel mailing list --

[rpms/perl-XML-DOM] PR #1: Update license to SPDX format

2023-06-01 Thread Michal Josef Špaček
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-XML-DOM` that you are following: `` Update license to SPDX format `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-XML-DOM/pull-request/1 ___ perl-devel mailing list

[rpms/perl-Tk] PR #1: Update license to SPDX format

2023-06-01 Thread Michal Josef Špaček
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Tk` that you are following: `` Update license to SPDX format `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Tk/pull-request/1 ___ perl-devel mailing list --

[rpms/perl-Text-WrapI18N] PR #1: Update license to SPDX format

2023-06-01 Thread Michal Josef Špaček
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Text-WrapI18N` that you are following: `` Update license to SPDX format `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Text-WrapI18N/pull-request/1 ___ perl-devel

[rpms/perl-XML-TokeParser] PR #1: Update license to SPDX format

2023-06-01 Thread Michal Josef Špaček
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-XML-TokeParser` that you are following: `` Update license to SPDX format `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-XML-TokeParser/pull-request/1 ___

[rpms/perl-Unicode-LineBreak] PR #1: Update license to SPDX format

2023-06-01 Thread Xavier Bachelot
xavierb merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Unicode-LineBreak` that you are following. Merged pull-request: `` Update license to SPDX format `` https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Unicode-LineBreak/pull-request/1 ___ perl-devel

[rpms/perl-Tie-IxHash] PR #1: Update license to SPDX format

2023-06-01 Thread Michal Josef Špaček
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Tie-IxHash` that you are following: `` Update license to SPDX format `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Tie-IxHash/pull-request/1 ___ perl-devel

[rpms/perl-Unicode-LineBreak] PR #1: Update license to SPDX format

2023-06-01 Thread Michal Josef Špaček
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Unicode-LineBreak` that you are following: `` Update license to SPDX format `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Unicode-LineBreak/pull-request/1 ___

[rpms/perl-Tie-IxHash] PR #1: Update license to SPDX format

2023-06-01 Thread Tom Callaway
spot merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Tie-IxHash` that you are following. Merged pull-request: `` Update license to SPDX format `` https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Tie-IxHash/pull-request/1 ___ perl-devel mailing list --

[Bug 2211672] New: perl-Net-DNS-1.39 is available

2023-06-01 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2211672 Bug ID: 2211672 Summary: perl-Net-DNS-1.39 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-Net-DNS Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

[Bug 2211672] perl-Net-DNS-1.39 is available

2023-06-01 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2211672 --- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- the-new-hotness/release-monitoring.org's scratch build of perl-Net-DNS-1.39-1.fc38.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101712354 -- You are

[Bug 2211672] perl-Net-DNS-1.39 is available

2023-06-01 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2211672 --- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- Created attachment 1968305 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1968305=edit Update to 1.39 (#2211672) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for

[rpms/perl-Parallel-ForkManager] PR #1: Update license to SPDX format

2023-06-01 Thread Michal Josef Špaček
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Parallel-ForkManager` that you are following: `` Update license to SPDX format `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Parallel-ForkManager/pull-request/1

[rpms/perl-Scalar-List-Utils] PR #2: Update license to SPDX format

2023-06-01 Thread Michal Josef Špaček
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Scalar-List-Utils` that you are following: `` Update license to SPDX format `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Scalar-List-Utils/pull-request/2 ___

[rpms/perl-Sys-CPU] PR #1: Update license to SPDX format

2023-06-01 Thread Michal Josef Špaček
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Sys-CPU` that you are following: `` Update license to SPDX format `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Sys-CPU/pull-request/1 ___ perl-devel mailing list

[rpms/perl-Text-CharWidth] PR #1: Update license to SPDX format

2023-06-01 Thread Michal Josef Špaček
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Text-CharWidth` that you are following: `` Update license to SPDX format `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Text-CharWidth/pull-request/1 ___

[rpms/perl-Test-FailWarnings] PR #1: Update license to SPDX format

2023-06-01 Thread Michal Josef Špaček
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Test-FailWarnings` that you are following: `` Update license to SPDX format `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Test-FailWarnings/pull-request/1 ___

[rpms/perl-Text-Diff] PR #1: Update license to SPDX format

2023-06-01 Thread Michal Josef Špaček
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Text-Diff` that you are following: `` Update license to SPDX format `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Text-Diff/pull-request/1 ___ perl-devel mailing

[rpms/perl-HTML-Tree] PR #1: Update license to SPDX format

2023-06-01 Thread Tom Callaway
spot merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-HTML-Tree` that you are following. Merged pull-request: `` Update license to SPDX format `` https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-HTML-Tree/pull-request/1 ___ perl-devel mailing list --

[rpms/perl-File-HomeDir] PR #1: Update license to SPDX format

2023-06-01 Thread Tom Callaway
spot merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-File-HomeDir` that you are following. Merged pull-request: `` Update license to SPDX format `` https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-File-HomeDir/pull-request/1 ___ perl-devel mailing list --

[rpms/perl-File-Which] PR #1: Update license to SPDX format

2023-06-01 Thread Tom Callaway
spot merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-File-Which` that you are following. Merged pull-request: `` Update license to SPDX format `` https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-File-Which/pull-request/1 ___ perl-devel mailing list --

[rpms/perl-Mail-Sender] PR #1: Update license to SPDX format

2023-06-01 Thread Tom Callaway
spot merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Mail-Sender` that you are following. Merged pull-request: `` Update license to SPDX format `` https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Mail-Sender/pull-request/1 ___ perl-devel mailing list --