On Sun, 31 Jan 2021, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 4:16 AM Jan Rękorajski wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 11 Jan 2021, Neal Gompa wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:09 AM Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 11.01.2021 10:38, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
> > > > > If you think
On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 4:16 AM Jan Rękorajski wrote:
>
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2021, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:09 AM Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11.01.2021 10:38, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
> > > > If you think there is still something that is blocking the change
On Mon, 11 Jan 2021, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:09 AM Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 11.01.2021 10:38, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
> > > If you think there is still something that is blocking the change please
> > > speak*now*.
> >
> > are these pld introduced noauto* macros
W dniu 22.01.2021 o 10:47, Elan Ruusamäe pisze:
On 22.01.2021 12:08, Krzysztof Mrozowicz wrote:
I updated audacity spec to version 2.4.2, but during the work I found
that this version no longer compiles on 32 bits. I don't know what
exactly should be added to the spec file to inform
W dniu 23.01.2021 o 10:25, Jan Palus pisze:
On 22.01.2021 10:08, Krzysztof Mrozowicz wrote:
Hi,
I updated audacity spec to version 2.4.2, but during the work I found that
this version no longer compiles on 32 bits. I don't know what exactly should
be added to the spec file to inform builders to
On 22.01.2021 10:08, Krzysztof Mrozowicz wrote:
> Hi,
> I updated audacity spec to version 2.4.2, but during the work I found that
> this version no longer compiles on 32 bits. I don't know what exactly should
> be added to the spec file to inform builders to do not try to build it on
>
On 22.01.2021 12:08, Krzysztof Mrozowicz wrote:
I updated audacity spec to version 2.4.2, but during the work I found
that this version no longer compiles on 32 bits. I don't know what
exactly should be added to the spec file to inform builders to do not
try to build it on unsupported
Hi,
I updated audacity spec to version 2.4.2, but during the work I found
that this version no longer compiles on 32 bits. I don't know what
exactly should be added to the spec file to inform builders to do not
try to build it on unsupported architectures. Can someone help?
The audacity
On Thursday, January 21, 2021 10:09 GMT, Elan Ruusamäe
wrote:
> On 21.01.2021 11:29, Krzysztof Mrozowicz wrote:
>
> >> if you want yourself being authored, send the patch with git format-patch
> > To be honest, I don't know what steps to take to have it done from the
> > position where I
On 21.01.2021 12:05, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
On 21.01.2021 09:45, arekm wrote:
+Obsoletes: letsencrypt.sh
1. you are not providing any upgrade migrations, so it does not
obsolete! just two unrelated packages.
2. obsoletes must be versioned!
same thing, 4 years ago:
-
On 21.01.2021 11:29, Krzysztof Mrozowicz wrote:
if you want yourself being authored, send the patch with git format-patch
To be honest, I don't know what steps to take to have it done from the position
where I have the spec file which is not versioned yet. But, I have RW rights to
the git
On 21.01.2021 09:45, arekm wrote:
+Obsoletes: letsencrypt.sh
1. you are not providing any upgrade migrations, so it does not
obsolete! just two unrelated packages.
2. obsoletes must be versioned!
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
HI Elan, thanks for the reply :)
On Wednesday, January 20, 2021 12:33 GMT, Elan Ruusamäe
wrote:
> On 20.01.2021 13:54, Krzysztof Mrozowicz wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I'd like to propose a new package to PLD. Cherrytree
[...]
> if you want yourself being authored, send the patch with git
On 20.01.2021 01:35, baggins wrote:
+# TODO: detect rpm version and use the below for rpm 4.x
+# rpmcommand = "rpmbuild --nobuild -br"
we should have some maintainable version for detecting this. perhaps add
some macro?
- %{?rpm4}
- %{!?rpm5}
or a file?:
- test -f
On 20.01.2021 13:54, Krzysztof Mrozowicz wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to propose a new package to PLD. Cherrytree
(https://www.giuspen.com/cherrytree/) is a hierarchical note taking
application, featuring rich text and syntax highlighting, storing data
in a single xml or sqlite file.
if you want
Hi,
I'd like to propose a new package to PLD. Cherrytree
(https://www.giuspen.com/cherrytree/) is a hierarchical note taking
application, featuring rich text and syntax highlighting, storing data
in a single xml or sqlite file.
I attached the spec file for it. To successful compilation it
On Mon, 11 Jan 2021, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> On 11.01.2021 10:38, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
>
> > If you think there is still something that is blocking the change please
> > speak*now*.
>
> php devel packages /usr/bin/php dependency
Sorry, but I do not consider one sad package to be a blocker.
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
>
> On 12.01.2021 09:40, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
> > All you could see is "no such file or directory", which is just noise.
> > This script was like this for years.
>
> rm -f will not say "no such file or directory" error. try it.
>
> but, it could say
On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, Marcin Krol wrote:
> > rpmbuild --nobuild doesn't return missing deps, just empty output
> >
> > This call is used in install.py of pld-builder.new and not returning
> > missing deps results in builders not doing auto install of missing deps.
> >
> > M.
> >
> > P.S.
rpmbuild --nobuild doesn't return missing deps, just empty output
This call is used in install.py of pld-builder.new and not returning
missing deps results in builders not doing auto install of missing deps.
M.
P.S. Tested on TLD, but differences shouldn't matter in this case
Looks like
On 11-Jan-21 09:38, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
Hi,
Later this week rpm from rpm.org, along with all necessary tools
(macros, poldek, specdump, etc.) are going to land in th-test.
I believe the last real stopper[1] has been "fixed", so we should finally
switch.
If you think there is still something
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 11:13:51AM +0100, arekm wrote:
> commit 3a74dc283894e74d4fb8411e8c3f9cea22e42920
> Author: Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz
> Date: Sun Jan 17 11:13:34 2021 +0100
>
> - initial
>
> platform.spec | 57 +
> +Source0:
On 12.01.2021 19:02, arekm wrote:
+Provides: %{name}-header-cpu-(%{_target_cpu} =
%{epoch}:%{version}-%{release}
happy how? you still have paren present
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
On 12.01.2021 09:40, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
All you could see is "no such file or directory", which is just noise.
This script was like this for years.
rm -f will not say "no such file or directory" error. try it.
but, it could say unable to delete in case the removed target is
mountpoint
On Mon, 11 Jan 2021, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
>
> On 09.01.2021 11:51, baggins wrote:
> > + # Unlock database for rebuild, safe since this is posttrans
> > + %{__rm} -rf/var/lib/rpm/.rpm.lock >/dev/null 2>/dev/null || :
>
> it's likely a file, so -r is superfluous
Yeah, removed.
>
> and why
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 12:34 PM Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
>
>
> On 11.01.2021 17:10, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:09 AM Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11.01.2021 10:38, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
> >>> If you think there is still something that is blocking the change please
> >>>
On 11.01.2021 17:10, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:09 AM Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
On 11.01.2021 10:38, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
If you think there is still something that is blocking the change please
speak*now*.
are these pld introduced noauto* macros and files supported in 4.16
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:09 AM Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
>
>
> On 11.01.2021 10:38, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
> > If you think there is still something that is blocking the change please
> > speak*now*.
>
> are these pld introduced noauto* macros and files supported in 4.16 build?
>
>
> %define
On 09.01.2021 11:51, baggins wrote:
+ # Unlock database for rebuild, safe since this is posttrans
+ %{__rm} -rf/var/lib/rpm/.rpm.lock >/dev/null 2>/dev/null || :
it's likely a file, so -r is superfluous
and why hide unlink errors? I prefer to see "permission denied" or
similar
On 11.01.2021 10:38, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
If you think there is still something that is blocking the change please
speak*now*.
are these pld introduced noauto* macros and files supported in 4.16 build?
%define _noautoprovfiles%{_libdir}/%{name}
On 11.01.2021 10:38, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
Please be aware that rpm database format will change with this to sqlite.
please provide guide for this. migrating, back, forward, etc. common
problems and how to troubleshoot.
wiki is good place:
-
On 11.01.2021 10:38, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
If you think there is still something that is blocking the change please
speak*now*.
php devel packages /usr/bin/php dependency
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
Dnia poniedziałek, 11 stycznia 2021 11:31:45 CET Jan Palus pisze:
[...]
> You do wanna use `copy` for such renames to keep history intact.
Oh, probably yes... I'll do so, when I spot another situation of this kind
(did already, though I didn't know, how to do it well). I'm trying to make
KDE5
On 10.01.2021 23:24, lmasko wrote:
> commit dafe4e812b30fb4c82eb24be3b726bc549b64210
> Author: Łukasz Maśko
> Date: Sun Jan 10 23:23:28 2021 +0100
>
> - Initial version - ka5-kcontacts is now kf5-kcontacts.
>
> kf5-kcontacts.spec | 85
>
Hi,
Later this week rpm from rpm.org, along with all necessary tools
(macros, poldek, specdump, etc.) are going to land in th-test.
I believe the last real stopper[1] has been "fixed", so we should finally
switch.
If you think there is still something that is blocking the change please
speak
2019 snapshot of PLD/Linux Th has been released. It is available on
ftp://ftp.pld-linux.org/dists/th/2020/PLD/ and as poldek sources th-2020.
The main highlights of this release are:
kernels 4.4.248, 4.9.248, 4.14.212, 4.19.163, 5.4.83 and 5.9.14 (4.4 and
4.9 have vserver enabled)
GCC
could someone correct this or /dev/null that alias, as the bounce mail
is sent with each push...
On 30.12.2020 12:46, Mail Delivery System wrote:
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
the php-dba used to be linked with db 5.3
$ rpm -q php73-dba --requires|grep db
php73-dba-7.3.24-1.x86_64
libdb-5.3.so()(64bit)
libgdbm.so.6()(64bit)
but now, built on carme results in:
error: Failed dependencies:
libdb-6.1.so()(64bit) is needed by php73-dba-7.3.24-2.x86_64
is this
Does iptables-nft work for anyone in PLD? iptables-nft -L is supposed to
create table/chains already but it does nothing. Same for any
iptables-nft -A No errors just nothing. If I create INPUT chain
and add single rule manually with nft then I can see it in iptables-nft -L.
Almost as if
Hi all,
To avoid doubling the work, I'd like to let you know that I'm going to
update XFCE specs to version 4.16 in the next few days. If someone is
working on it already, please let me know.
Happy Christmas!
Krzysiek
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
On 22.12.2020 00:34, atler wrote:
+%{__make} \
+%ifarch armv5tl armv5tel arm5tejl
+ UNAME_M=armv5l \
+%else
+%ifarch armv6l armv6hl
+ UNAME_M=armv6l \
+%else
+%ifarch armv7l armv7hl armv7hnl
+ UNAME_M=armv6l \
+%else
+%ifarch armv8l armv8hl armv8hnl armv8hcnl
+
On 22.12.2020 00:34, atler wrote:
-ExclusiveArch: %{x8664} armv5l armv6l armv7l armv8l aarch64 ppc64le
+ExclusiveArch: %{x8664} armv5l armv5tel armv5tejl armv6l armv6hl armv7l
armv7hl armv7hnl armv8l armv8hll armv8hnl armv8hcnl aarch64 ppc64le
isn't it about time to add %{arm} macro? or at
On Fri, 18 Dec 2020, Jan Palus wrote:
> On 18.12.2020 20:31, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, Jan Palus via pld-devel-en wrote:
> >
> > > Looks like poldek does not recognize R:(post, postun) and fails to
> > > install packages even though dependencies are present:
> > >
> > > $
On 18.12.2020 20:31, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, Jan Palus via pld-devel-en wrote:
>
> > Looks like poldek does not recognize R:(post, postun) and fails to
> > install packages even though dependencies are present:
> >
> > $ ag '^R.*post' mpd.spec
> > 86:Requires(post,postun):
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, Jan Palus via pld-devel-en wrote:
> Looks like poldek does not recognize R:(post, postun) and fails to
> install packages even though dependencies are present:
>
> $ ag '^R.*post' mpd.spec
> 86:Requires(post,postun): gtk-update-icon-cache
>
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> On 12/14/20 5:20 PM, Jan Palus wrote:
>
> > If commit message includes '%' then rpmbuild spawned by builder script
> > fails. See ie test.spec which includes '%prep':
> >
> > error: line 40: second %prep
> >
> > builder creates spec copy with
On Fri, 18 Dec 2020, Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz wrote:
> W dniu 18.12.2020 o 19:25, Jan Rękorajski pisze:
[...]
> >
> > I tested %doc and %exclude and both fail build when passed non-existing
> > file:
> >
> > RPM build errors:
> > Could not canonicalize hostname: pldmachine
> > File not
W dniu 18.12.2020 o 19:25, Jan Rękorajski pisze:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2020, Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz via pld-devel-en wrote:
>
>> W dniu 16.12.2020 o 10:36, Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz pisze:
>>> W dniu 16.12.2020 o 10:14, Elan Ruusamäe pisze:
On 15.12.2020 18:05, arekm wrote:
> %exclude
On Wed, 16 Dec 2020, Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz via pld-devel-en wrote:
> W dniu 16.12.2020 o 10:36, Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz pisze:
> > W dniu 16.12.2020 o 10:14, Elan Ruusamäe pisze:
> >> On 15.12.2020 18:05, arekm wrote:
> >>
> >>> %exclude %{_kernelsrcdir}/scripts/mod
> >>> -%exclude
W dniu 16.12.2020 o 10:36, Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz pisze:
> W dniu 16.12.2020 o 10:14, Elan Ruusamäe pisze:
>> On 15.12.2020 18:05, arekm wrote:
>>
>>> %exclude %{_kernelsrcdir}/scripts/mod
>>> -%exclude %{_kernelsrcdir}/scripts/module-common.lds
>>
>> what do you mean?
>>
>> rpm 4.16 does prefix
W dniu 16.12.2020 o 10:14, Elan Ruusamäe pisze:
> On 15.12.2020 18:05, arekm wrote:
>
>> %exclude %{_kernelsrcdir}/scripts/mod
>> -%exclude %{_kernelsrcdir}/scripts/module-common.lds
>
> what do you mean?
>
> rpm 4.16 does prefix match and rpm5 does glob match?
>
> ie that
>
>
On 15.12.2020 18:05, arekm wrote:
%exclude %{_kernelsrcdir}/scripts/mod
-%exclude %{_kernelsrcdir}/scripts/module-common.lds
what do you mean?
rpm 4.16 does prefix match and rpm5 does glob match?
ie that
%{_kernelsrcdir}/scripts/mod
matches also
On 15.12.2020 12:48, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> On 15.12.2020 10:51, Jan Palus wrote:
>
> > On 14.12.2020 23:19, Krzysztof Mrozowicz wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > I upgraded my PLD installation with today's "ready" repo and just
> > > discovered
> > > that two services I use started to segfault.
> > >
> >
On Tuesday, December 15, 2020 10:48 GMT, Elan Ruusamäe
wrote:
> io_uring may be related to kernel, what is your kernel, glibc, liburing,
> qemu?
Thanks for the answer, Elan. The packages rebuild did the job. Maybe they were
built against older glibc...
--
Regards
KM
On 15.12.2020 10:51, Jan Palus wrote:
On 14.12.2020 23:19, Krzysztof Mrozowicz wrote:
Hi,
I upgraded my PLD installation with today's "ready" repo and just discovered
that two services I use started to segfault.
libvirtd:
gru 14 23:06:34 oko libvirtd[22095]: internal error: Failed to start
On Tuesday, December 15, 2020 08:51 GMT, Jan Palus wrote:
> > If I can do anything to help to identify the problem, please let me know.
>
> mpd works fine for me but can you try upgrading mpd/qemu* to
> versions from th-test and see if it fixes your issues?
Hi, I upgraded qemu and mpd from
On 14.12.2020 23:19, Krzysztof Mrozowicz wrote:
> Hi,
> I upgraded my PLD installation with today's "ready" repo and just discovered
> that two services I use started to segfault.
>
> libvirtd:
> gru 14 23:06:34 oko libvirtd[22095]: internal error: Failed to start QEMU
> binary
Hi,
I upgraded my PLD installation with today's "ready" repo and just
discovered that two services I use started to segfault.
libvirtd:
gru 14 23:06:34 oko libvirtd[22095]: internal error: Failed to start
QEMU binary /usr/bin/qemu-system-x86_64 for probing: qemu-system-x86_64:
On 12/13/20 10:30 PM, Jan Palus via pld-devel-en wrote:
Looks like poldek does not recognize R:(post, postun) and fails to
install packages even though dependencies are present:
$ ag '^R.*post' mpd.spec
86:Requires(post,postun): gtk-update-icon-cache
87:Requires(post,preun,postun):
On 12/14/20 5:20 PM, Jan Palus wrote:
If commit message includes '%' then rpmbuild spawned by builder script
fails. See ie test.spec which includes '%prep':
error: line 40: second %prep
builder creates spec copy with %changelog appended. Apparently rpm.org
evaluates macros in %changelog while
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 10:21 AM Jan Palus wrote:
>
> If commit message includes '%' then rpmbuild spawned by builder script
> fails. See ie test.spec which includes '%prep':
>
> error: line 40: second %prep
>
> builder creates spec copy with %changelog appended. Apparently rpm.org
> evaluates
If commit message includes '%' then rpmbuild spawned by builder script
fails. See ie test.spec which includes '%prep':
error: line 40: second %prep
builder creates spec copy with %changelog appended. Apparently rpm.org
evaluates macros in %changelog while rpm5 does not. Not sure whether
we're
Looks like poldek does not recognize R:(post, postun) and fails to
install packages even though dependencies are present:
$ ag '^R.*post' mpd.spec
86:Requires(post,postun): gtk-update-icon-cache
87:Requires(post,preun,postun): systemd-units >= 38
$ poldek --cmd desc -r mpd |grep
On 12/8/20 7:38 PM, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
It's caused by soname provides from dynamic builtins (which don't have
.so extension)
i think these should be added to noautoprov by path (_noautoprovfiles),
is that macro support even ported to 4.16?
___
# rpm -Fhv bash-5.1.0-1.i686.rpm
error: Failed dependencies:
mktemp < 1.6 conflicts with rpm-build-tools-4.9-6.noarch
It's caused by soname provides from dynamic builtins (which don't have
.so extension)
$ rpm -qpP bash-5.1.0-1.i686.rpm | grep mktemp
mktemp
--
Jakub Bogusz
On 12/6/20 12:58 AM, atler wrote:
+%files %{?with_gtk:-f %{name}.lang}
wouldn't it make sense to move the language files to gtk subpackage then?
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
On 12/5/20 9:35 AM, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
Who has access to host system or console?
looks like watchdog recovered it 4 hours ago.
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
Who has access to host system or console?
--
Jakub Boguszhttp://qboosh.pl/
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
On 02-Dec-20 21:06, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
the current state in pld php packages is because
lazy-ness/lack-of-time/no-interest, and you haven't ported your changes
back :(
I'm not porting back any changes which break "clean" poldek upgrades,
require modification/addition/testing of systemd
On 12/2/20 7:14 PM, baggins wrote:
+# how to specify? - rpm.org adds arch provides on packages (__isa), uncomment
once we switch
+#BuildRequires:curl-devel(x86-64)
+#BuildRequires:libgit2-devel(x86-64)
+#BuildRequires:llvm-devel(x86-64)>= 7.0
+#BuildRequires:
On 12/2/20 6:58 PM, Marcin Krol wrote:
On 02-Dec-20 16:08, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
- mutual obsoletes (php* only problem?)
I honestly don't know what to do with this, rpm behavior seems
sane to me,
maybe we should rethink how this is packaged (maybe replace with
Conflicts
and let
On 12/2/20 5:18 PM, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
And while we're at it, let's follow upstream/Fedora and change the
database format to sqlite. Conversion is automatic on the db rebuild, I
have not encountered eny issues.
i'm actually wondering, is there any docker friendly format, so that
each
On 12/2/20 5:08 PM, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
- patch run with different args: --no-backup-if-mismatch '--fuzz=0'
I prefer to leave --fuzz=0, anecdotally I have encoutered patches that do
apply, but break things. I'd rather spend some time updating them, than have
nasty surprises.
can
On 02-Dec-20 16:08, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
- mutual obsoletes (php* only problem?)
I honestly don't know what to do with this, rpm behavior seems sane to me,
maybe we should rethink how this is packaged (maybe replace with Conflicts
and let administrator deal with it?)
+1 for
On Wed, 02 Dec 2020, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I want to give the summary of rpm.org findings so far. I believe it would be
> better this way, than answering every singe message.
[...]
A few more things.
I'd like to switch in January, let 2020 snap still have rpm5.
And while we're at
Hi,
I want to give the summary of rpm.org findings so far. I believe it would be
better this way, than answering every singe message.
- rpmlib(ShortCircuited) deps
I have added disable_short_circuited_deps macro to disable this,
just define 'disable_short_circuited_deps 0' in your .rpmrc to
Forwarded Message
Subject:Cron ~/rpm/PLD-doc/notify-specsupdate.sh
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 12:01:01 +0100
From: (Cron Daemon)
To: g...@pld-linux.org
can't create temporary directory /tmp/cvs-serv16277
No space left on device
new distfiles not fetched from commits.
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
On 11/29/20 1:10 PM, atler wrote:
+%ifarch %{arm} aarch64
+%definelowmem 1
+%endif
you need to define with_lowmem here
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
On 11/28/20 8:38 PM, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 08:24:55PM +0200, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
On 11/27/20 10:17 PM, qboosh wrote:
-Requires: python(abi) = %{py_ver}
+Requires: python(abi) = %{py3_ver}
shouldn't this be namespace to python3 name?
Requires:
On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 08:24:55PM +0200, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
>
> On 11/27/20 10:17 PM, qboosh wrote:
> >-Requires: python(abi) = %{py_ver}
> >
> >+Requires: python(abi) = %{py3_ver}
>
>
> shouldn't this be namespace to python3 name?
>
>
> Requires: python3(abi) = %{py3_ver}
No, to
On 11/27/20 10:17 PM, qboosh wrote:
-Requires: python(abi) = %{py_ver}
+Requires: python(abi) = %{py3_ver}
shouldn't this be namespace to python3 name?
Requires: python3(abi) = %{py3_ver}
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
On 11/27/20 4:57 PM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
On 10/28/20 12:21 AM, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
All carme machines are now running rpm 4.16.0. Please test and report
any issues.
can't install packages built with 4.15 to install upgrade packages on
rpm 4.5
error: php53-zip-5.3.29-51.1.x86_64: req
On 10/28/20 12:21 AM, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
All carme machines are now running rpm 4.16.0. Please test and report
any issues.
can't install packages built with 4.15 to install upgrade packages on
rpm 4.5
error: php53-zip-5.3.29-51.1.x86_64: req rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
not found,
W dniu 20.11.2020 o 21:04, Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz pisze:
> W dniu 20.11.2020 o 20:48, Jakub Bogusz pisze:
>> It seems that th-i686 builder is dead or got stuck on openjdk11 build.
>>
>> Who can fix it?
>
> I but only on the site (if at all). It doesn't see disks (in bios).
>
> Maybe I'll get there
On 10/28/20 12:21 AM, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
All carme machines are now running rpm 4.16.0. Please test and report
any issues.
the "Obsoletes: foo" pattern to replace a package does longer seem to work.
php*-devel packages obsolete each other, so if you install php70-devel
it will remove
On Sun, 22 Nov 2020, Jan Palus wrote:
> On 20.11.2020 21:04, Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz wrote:
> > W dniu 20.11.2020 o 20:48, Jakub Bogusz pisze:
> > > It seems that th-i686 builder is dead or got stuck on openjdk11 build.
> > >
> > > Who can fix it?
> >
> > I but only on the site (if at all). It
On 20.11.2020 21:04, Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz wrote:
> W dniu 20.11.2020 o 20:48, Jakub Bogusz pisze:
> > It seems that th-i686 builder is dead or got stuck on openjdk11 build.
> >
> > Who can fix it?
>
> I but only on the site (if at all). It doesn't see disks (in bios).
>
> Maybe I'll get there
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 11:34 AM Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz via pld-devel-en
wrote:
>
> W dniu 22.11.2020 o 17:00, Jan Palus pisze:
> > * adding to the list of invalid chars in Obsoletes: '/' (msmtp: Obsoletes:
> > /usr/lib/sendmail)
> >
> > * python-Cython built with rpm.org has weird
W dniu 22.11.2020 o 17:00, Jan Palus pisze:
> * adding to the list of invalid chars in Obsoletes: '/' (msmtp: Obsoletes:
> /usr/lib/sendmail)
>
> * python-Cython built with rpm.org has weird unsatisfied R:
> python2.7dist(setuptools) / python3.8dist(setuptools)
Could these be
* adding to the list of invalid chars in Obsoletes: '/' (msmtp: Obsoletes:
/usr/lib/sendmail)
* python-Cython built with rpm.org has weird unsatisfied R:
python2.7dist(setuptools) / python3.8dist(setuptools)
python-setuptools built with rpm.org does not have such P:
W dniu 20.11.2020 o 20:48, Jakub Bogusz pisze:
> It seems that th-i686 builder is dead or got stuck on openjdk11 build.
>
> Who can fix it?
I but only on the site (if at all). It doesn't see disks (in bios).
Maybe I'll get there in the weekend.
--
Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz, arekm / ( maven.pl |
It seems that th-i686 builder is dead or got stuck on openjdk11 build.
Who can fix it?
--
Jakub Boguszhttp://qboosh.pl/
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
On 10.11.2020 18:18, Jan Palus wrote:
> On 06.11.2020 20:49, Jan Palus wrote:
> > On 27.10.2020 23:21, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
> > > All carme machines are now running rpm 4.16.0. Please test and report
> > > any issues.
> >
> > * poldek appears to still enforce directory deps while rpms does not
>
On 11/16/20 3:06 PM, atler wrote:
+%ifnarch %{arm}
+%definewith_static_pie 1
+%endif
please register new bcond (and it's default value) with
%bcond_with/%bcond_without
and typically you undefine bcond on unsupported platform
On 10/28/20 12:21 AM, Jan Rękorajski wrote:
All carme machines are now running rpm 4.16.0. Please test and report
any issues.
hrmib integration seems to be missing.
➔ l -rt /var/cache/hrmib/ -rt|tail
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Oct 26 10:23 rpm-perlprov-4.16.0-0.1-th.x86_64
-rw-r--r-- 1 root
W dniu 13.11.2020 o 10:36, Jan Palus via pld-devel-en pisze:
> On 13.11.2020 08:55, Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz wrote:
>> W dniu 10.11.2020 o 20:03, Jakub Bogusz pisze:
>>
>>>
>>> Problem solved by `mount -t proc proc /proc`.
>>> There were some stale /proc contents, most likely rsynced from some live
On 13.11.2020 08:55, Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz wrote:
> W dniu 10.11.2020 o 20:03, Jakub Bogusz pisze:
>
> >
> > Problem solved by `mount -t proc proc /proc`.
> > There were some stale /proc contents, most likely rsynced from some live
> > system in 2009 (that's why /proc/self/exe points to rsync).
>
W dniu 10.11.2020 o 20:03, Jakub Bogusz pisze:
>
> Problem solved by `mount -t proc proc /proc`.
> There were some stale /proc contents, most likely rsynced from some live
> system in 2009 (that's why /proc/self/exe points to rsync).
Builders no longer run in vservers. kernel 5.9 on them. proc
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 06:45:10PM +0100, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
> `strace -f /usr/lib64/jvm/icedtea8-3.17.0/bin/javac -help` shows something
> strange:
>
> | # src :
> https://buildlogs.pld-linux.org/pld/th/x86_64/FAIL/command,bd4d8466-aafa-4f38-ab38-45d3dd906832.bz2
> | # date : 2020/11/10
501 - 600 of 8277 matches
Mail list logo
