Re: CMake + extra modules - LIB_INSTALL_DIR is deprecated
Thank you. It works! Could you please briefly explain the difference? Thanks a lot. Lumír On 8/23/21 3:33 PM, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: On 23/08/2021 11:37, Lumír Balhar wrote: but the LIB_INSTALL_DIR is defined in the %cmake macro: You should use %cmake_kf5 macro instead. Don't forget to add BuildRequires: kf5-rpm-macros. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Fedora-Cloud-33-20210825.0 compose check report
No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 1/8 (aarch64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Cloud-33-20210824.0): ID: 956847 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 base_service_manipulation@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/956847 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-33-20210824.0): ID: 956836 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/956836 ID: 956842 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/956842 Passed openQA tests: 7/8 (x86_64), 6/8 (aarch64) -- Mail generated by check-compose: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Self Introduction: Marek Kulik
On Wed, 2021-08-25 at 08:21 +0200, Marek Kulik wrote: > Hi, > My name is Marek. I'm quite new in open source community. I > previously work in closed source projects, mostly networking stuff. > I'm 25 years old and I decided to try myself in opensource projects. > I've always had a lot of admiration for people working in open > source. I'm curious about how work is organized in such projects, how > hard it is, how it looks etc. I hope I will learn a lot new things > here :). > > Welcome ! ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Schedule for Monday's FESCo Meeting (2021-08-23)
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 8:57 PM przemek klosowski via devel wrote: > > > On 8/23/21 5:49 AM, Alexander Sosedkin wrote: > > Sure. Crypto-policies are there to give you control of what's enabled, > > ideally what's enabled by default. > > > > 1) There's a blanket `update-crypto-policies --set LEGACY` > > 2) There's a possibility to reenable disabled algorithms with custom > > policies, > > allowing to go even lower than LEGACY (which you > > shouldn't really do on public networks, but who's there to stop you) > > 3) (F35+) There's a possibility to reenable algorithms per backends, > > say, for NSS, Java or krb5 only > > 4) (In an ideal world) crypto-policies settings should act as defaults, > > meaning apps should be able to further modify them, > >offer weaker methods with a warning, etc > It's not ideal if one obsolete website forces downgrading the security > potentially for all the connections. I hope 5) is addressing that. That's something apps and only apps can handle. > > 5) There are total per-backend opt-out mechanisms / procedures > What is the 'backend' in this context? Since the protocol downgrades are > required by obsolete endpoints to which we're trying to connect, you're > suggesting 'per IP' or 'per-subnet' opt-out, right? Does it require > creating separate network interfaces and custom routes? Slow down. "Backend" = component crypto-policies generates configuration for: openssl, krb5, java to name a few. `ls /etc/crypto-policies/back-ends` If apps want to do something per IP, subnet, domain etc, they need to handle the required downgrades themselves. Crypto-policies are just for setting defaults system-wide in a uniform fashion by controlling configuration files. Thus narrow deviations from these defaults are way out of scope. > > 4 is what broke it here (gnutls currently uses hard-denylisting), > > but, in general, you still have all the other ways. > > They aren't something we can recommend to all openconnect users, > > but we've compromised on not-hard-disabling DTLS 0.9 specifically > > until we fix 4 more thoroughly. > > > > If an administrator of the specific host wants to modify or bypass > > crypto-policies, it's entirely within their power to do so > > and nobody intends (or is able to, for that matters) hinder that. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Fedora-Cloud-34-20210825.0 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-34-20210824.0): ID: 956913 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/956913 ID: 956919 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/956919 Passed openQA tests: 7/8 (x86_64), 7/8 (aarch64) -- Mail generated by check-compose: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: CMake + extra modules - LIB_INSTALL_DIR is deprecated
On 25/08/2021 09:11, Lumír Balhar wrote: Could you please briefly explain the difference? If you package uses KDE Frameworks, you should use a special cmake macro - %cmake_kf5. It will automatically export the required build settings like KDE_INSTALL_BINDIR, KDE_INSTALL_LIBDIR, etc. $ rpm -E %cmake_kf5 ... /usr/bin/cmake \ -S "." \ -B "x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu" \ -DCMAKE_C_FLAGS_RELEASE:STRING="-DNDEBUG" \ -DCMAKE_CXX_FLAGS_RELEASE:STRING="-DNDEBUG" \ -DCMAKE_Fortran_FLAGS_RELEASE:STRING="-DNDEBUG" \ -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS:BOOL=ON \ -DBUILD_TESTING:BOOL=FALSE \ -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=release \ -DCMAKE_INSTALL_INCLUDEDIR_KF5:PATH=/usr/include/KF5 \ -DCMAKE_INSTALL_LIBEXECDIR_KF5:PATH=/usr/libexec/kf5 \ -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX:PATH=/usr \ -DCMAKE_USE_RELATIVE_PATHS:BOOL=ON \ -DCMAKE_VERBOSE_MAKEFILE:BOOL=ON \ -DECM_MKSPECS_INSTALL_DIR:PATH=/usr/lib64/qt5/mkspecs/modules \ -DKDE_INSTALL_BINDIR:PATH=/usr/bin \ -DKDE_INSTALL_INCLUDEDIR:PATH=/usr/include \ -DKDE_INSTALL_KCFGDIR:PATH=/usr/share/config.kcfg \ -DKDE_INSTALL_LIBDIR:PATH=/usr/lib64 \ -DKDE_INSTALL_LIBEXECDIR:PATH=/usr/libexec \ -DKDE_INSTALL_METAINFODIR:PATH=/usr/share/metainfo \ -DKDE_INSTALL_PLUGINDIR:PATH=/usr/lib64/qt5/plugins \ -DKDE_INSTALL_QMLDIR:PATH=/usr/lib64/qt5/qml \ -DKDE_INSTALL_QTPLUGINDIR:PATH=/usr/lib64/qt5/plugins \ -DKDE_INSTALL_QTQUICKIMPORTSDIR:PATH=/usr/lib64/qt5/imports \ -DKDE_INSTALL_SYSCONFDIR:PATH=/etc \ -DKDE_INSTALL_USE_QT_SYS_PATHS:BOOL=ON -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org) ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: karma question
Am 24.08.21 um 22:47 schrieb Steven A. Falco: Should I edit the criteria in f33 so I can mark it stable before the 7 days elapse, or should I let it wait? It seems weird that one release would have to wait longer than the other releases when the fix is identical for all of them. Also I'd even prefer F33 getting the update a bit later: I assume F33 users are valuing stability over "latest versions and fixes" (otherwise they would have upgraded to F34 already). On the other hand the bug is probably not too bad (otherwise the bug would have been fixed earlier or users would have stopped using the package altogether). So as a F33 user I'd prefer only getting "rock solid" fixes over newer stuff which might introduce regressions. just a personal opinion though :-) Felix ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: karma question
On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 11:00 AM Felix Schwarz wrote: > > Am 24.08.21 um 22:47 schrieb Steven A. Falco: > > Should I edit the criteria in f33 so I can mark it stable before the 7 > days > > elapse, or should I let it wait? It seems weird that one release would > have to > > wait longer than the other releases when the fix is identical for all of > them. > > Also I'd even prefer F33 getting the update a bit later: > I assume F33 users are valuing stability over "latest versions and fixes" > (otherwise they would have upgraded to F34 already). On the other hand the > bug > is probably not too bad (otherwise the bug would have been fixed earlier > or > users would have stopped using the package altogether). > > So as a F33 user I'd prefer only getting "rock solid" fixes over newer > stuff > which might introduce regressions. > > just a personal opinion though :-) > > Felix > That isn't what happened in this case though. One of the libraries it depended on was updated, which changed the patch version in the soname (there used to be no soname versioning for that library until now, when they introduced the versioning system). The library loader inside KiCad was searching for the exact soname because of the way the loader works (load the library explicitly and then find the function pointers), but because the soname it was built with didn't exist anymore, it couldn't find it. This led to an error on launching one part of the program, making that part stop working when it was working before the library update. All that was needed to fix this was a rebuild of the package to pick up the new soname - no patches required. -Ian ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Fedora 35 Bodhi updates-testing Activation and Beta Freeze
Are all updates paused or just f35? I have updates pending from f33 through f35 for over 20 hours. Thanks, Richard ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Fedora rawhide compose report: 20210825.n.0 changes
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20210823.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20210825.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:1 Dropped images: 1 Added packages: 20 Dropped packages:1 Upgraded packages: 161 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 118.37 MiB Size of dropped packages:54.11 KiB Size of upgraded packages: 5.69 GiB Size of downgraded packages: 0 B Size change of upgraded packages: 129.23 MiB Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B = ADDED IMAGES = Image: Mate live x86_64 Path: Spins/x86_64/iso/Fedora-MATE_Compiz-Live-x86_64-Rawhide-20210825.n.0.iso = DROPPED IMAGES = Image: LXQt live x86_64 Path: Spins/x86_64/iso/Fedora-LXQt-Live-x86_64-Rawhide-20210823.n.0.iso = ADDED PACKAGES = Package: fontawesome5-fonts-5.15.4-1.fc36 Summary: Support files for the FontAwesome 5 fonts RPMs:fontawesome5-brands-fonts fontawesome5-fonts fontawesome5-fonts-all fontawesome5-fonts-web fontawesome5-free-fonts Size:1.78 MiB Package: golang-github-openshift-online-ocm-sdk-0.1.200-1.fc36 Summary: SDK for the Red Hat OpenShift Cluster Manager RPMs:golang-github-openshift-online-ocm-sdk-devel Size:614.44 KiB Package: golang-github-path-network-mmproxy-2.1-1.fc36 Summary: Golang implementation of MMProxy RPMs:go-mmproxy golang-github-path-network-mmproxy-devel Size:5.73 MiB Package: google-crc32c-1.1.1-1.fc36 Summary: CRC32C implementation with support for CPU-specific acceleration instructions RPMs:google-crc32c google-crc32c-devel Size:202.49 KiB Package: mozjs91-91.0-1.fc36 Summary: SpiderMonkey JavaScript library RPMs:mozjs91 mozjs91-devel Size:103.63 MiB Package: python-aenum-3.1.0-1.fc36 Summary: Advanced Enumerations, NamedTuples and NamedConstants for Python RPMs:python3-aenum Size:190.30 KiB Package: python-google-cloud-redis-2.2.2-1.fc36 Summary: Python Client for Google Cloud Memorystore for Redis API RPMs:python3-google-cloud-redis python3-google-cloud-redis-doc Size:269.66 KiB Package: python-google-cloud-storage-1.42.0-2.fc36 Summary: Python Client for Google Cloud Storage RPMs:python3-google-cloud-storage python3-google-cloud-storage-doc Size:650.43 KiB Package: python-google-crc32c-1.1.2-1.fc36 Summary: Python wrapper for CRC32C hashing algorithm RPMs:python3-google-crc32c python3-google-crc32c+testing Size:186.16 KiB Package: python-google-resumable-media-1.3.1-1.fc36 Summary: Utilities for Google media downloads and resumable uploads RPMs:python3-google-resumable-media python3-google-resumable-media-doc Size:252.62 KiB Package: python-grpc-google-iam-v1-0.12.3-1.fc36 Summary: GRPC library for the google-iam-v1 service RPMs:python3-grpc-google-iam-v1 Size:31.71 KiB Package: python-mirrors-countme-0.0.5-1.fc36 Summary: Parse access_log and count hosts accessing DNF mirrors RPMs:python3-mirrors-countme Size:52.12 KiB Package: python-pem-21.2.0-1.fc36 Summary: Easy PEM file parsing RPMs:python3-pem python3-pem-doc Size:211.09 KiB Package: rubygem-cucumber-messages-15.0.0-1.fc36 Summary: Protocol Buffer messages for Cucumber's inter-process communication. RPMs:rubygem-cucumber-messages rubygem-cucumber-messages-doc Size:261.29 KiB Package: rubygem-image_size-2.1.2-1.fc36 Summary: Measure image size using pure Ruby RPMs:rubygem-image_size rubygem-image_size-doc Size:230.02 KiB Package: rubygem-middleware-0.1.0-9.fc36 Summary: Generalized implementation of the middleware abstraction for Ruby RPMs:rubygem-middleware rubygem-middleware-doc Size:222.41 KiB Package: rubygem-protobuf-3.10.3-1.fc36 Summary: Google Protocol Buffers serialization and RPC implementation for Ruby RPMs:rubygem-protobuf rubygem-protobuf-doc Size:800.20 KiB Package: rust-aliasable-0.1.3-1.fc36 Summary: Basic aliasable (non unique pointer) types RPMs:rust-aliasable+alloc-devel rust-aliasable+default-devel rust-aliasable-devel Size:28.73 KiB Package: rust-pyo3-build-config-0.14.3-1.fc36 Summary: Build configuration for the PyO3 ecosystem RPMs:rust-pyo3-build-config+abi3-devel rust-pyo3-build-config+abi3-py36-devel rust-pyo3-build-config+abi3-py37-devel rust-pyo3-build-config+abi3-py38-devel rust-pyo3-build-config+abi3-py39-devel rust-pyo3-build-config+default-devel rust-pyo3-build-config-devel Size:70.77 KiB Package: stb-0-0.3.20210823git3a11740.fc36 Summary: Single-file public domain libraries for C/C++ RPMs:stb-devel stb-doc stb_c_lexer-devel stb_connected_components-devel stb_divide-devel stb_ds-devel stb_dxt-devel stb_easy_font-devel stb_herringbone_wang_tile-devel stb_hexwave-devel stb_image-devel stb_image_resize-devel stb_image_write-devel stb_leakcheck-devel stb_perlin-devel stb_rect_pack-devel stb_sprintf-devel stb_textedit-devel stb_tilemap_editor-devel stb_truetype-devel stb_vorbis-devel stb_voxel_render-devel Size:3.06 MiB = DROPPED PACKAGES = Package: ansible-review-0.13.9-6
Fedora-Rawhide-20210825.n.0 compose check report
No missing expected images. Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check! 1 of 43 required tests failed, 1 result missing openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING** below Unsatisfied gating requirements that could not be mapped to openQA tests: MISSING: fedora.Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2.x86_64.64bit - compose.cloud_autocloud Failed openQA tests: 19/207 (x86_64), 12/141 (aarch64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20210823.n.0): ID: 956935 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso anaconda_help URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/956935 ID: 956989 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso apps_startstop URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/956989 ID: 956990 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso anaconda_help URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/956990 ID: 956996 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_update_graphical URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/956996 ID: 957017 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso anaconda_help URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957017 ID: 957030 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso anaconda_help URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957030 ID: 957046 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 base_selinux@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957046 ID: 957072 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso anaconda_help@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957072 ID: 957124 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz gedit@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957124 ID: 957125 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz desktop_terminal@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957125 ID: 957136 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz desktop_update_graphical@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957136 ID: 957148 Test: x86_64 universal install_cyrillic_language URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957148 ID: 957153 Test: x86_64 universal install_arabic_language URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957153 ID: 957178 Test: x86_64 universal install_asian_language URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957178 ID: 957187 Test: x86_64 universal install_european_language URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957187 ID: 957206 Test: x86_64 universal install_scsi_updates_img **GATING** URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957206 Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20210823.n.0): ID: 956958 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso modularity_tests URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/956958 ID: 957016 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso apps_startstop URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957016 ID: 957091 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso modularity_tests@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957091 ID: 957105 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso server_cockpit_basic@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957105 ID: 957162 Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_software_raid URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957162 ID: 957183 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_server_domain_controller URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957183 ID: 957204 Test: x86_64 universal memtest URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957204 ID: 957209 Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_software_raid@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957209 ID: 957220 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_realmd_client URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957220 ID: 957223 Test: aarch64 universal install_asian_language@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957223 ID: 957243 Test: aarch64 universal install_arabic_language@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957243 ID: 957247 Test: aarch64 universal install_blivet_software_raid@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957247 ID: 957252 Test: aarch64 universal install_european_language@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957252 ID: 957255 Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_minimal_64bit@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957255 ID: 957262 Test: aarch64 universal install_cyrillic_language@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957262 Soft failed openQA tests: 20/207 (x86_64), 15/141 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) New soft failures (same test not soft failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20210823.n.0): ID: 956985 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default_upload URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/956985 ID: 956991 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/956991 ID: 957000 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso gedit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957000 ID: 957031 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso install_default@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957031 ID: 957032 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso install_default_upload URL: https://openqa.fedorapr
Fedora 35 compose report: 20210825.n.0 changes
OLD: Fedora-35-20210823.n.0 NEW: Fedora-35-20210825.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 6 Added packages: 10 Dropped packages:1 Upgraded packages: 117 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 12.59 MiB Size of dropped packages:54.11 KiB Size of upgraded packages: 5.92 GiB Size of downgraded packages: 0 B Size change of upgraded packages: 215.33 MiB Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B = ADDED IMAGES = = DROPPED IMAGES = Image: Comp_Neuro live x86_64 Path: Labs/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Comp_Neuro-Live-x86_64-35-20210823.n.0.iso Image: Scientific vagrant-virtualbox x86_64 Path: Labs/x86_64/images/Fedora-Scientific-Vagrant-35-20210823.n.0.x86_64.vagrant-virtualbox.box Image: Scientific vagrant-libvirt x86_64 Path: Labs/x86_64/images/Fedora-Scientific-Vagrant-35-20210823.n.0.x86_64.vagrant-libvirt.box Image: Astronomy_KDE live x86_64 Path: Labs/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Astronomy_KDE-Live-x86_64-35-20210823.n.0.iso Image: Scientific_KDE live x86_64 Path: Labs/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Scientific_KDE-Live-x86_64-35-20210823.n.0.iso Image: Python_Classroom live x86_64 Path: Labs/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Python-Classroom-Live-x86_64-35-20210823.n.0.iso = ADDED PACKAGES = Package: cpp-httplib-0.9.2-2.fc35 Summary: A C++11 single-file header-only cross platform HTTP/HTTPS library RPMs:cpp-httplib-devel Size:346.85 KiB Package: fontawesome5-fonts-5.15.4-1.fc35 Summary: Support files for the FontAwesome 5 fonts RPMs:fontawesome5-brands-fonts fontawesome5-fonts fontawesome5-fonts-all fontawesome5-fonts-web fontawesome5-free-fonts Size:1.78 MiB Package: golang-github-path-network-mmproxy-2.1-1.fc35 Summary: Golang implementation of MMProxy RPMs:go-mmproxy golang-github-path-network-mmproxy-devel Size:5.92 MiB Package: google-crc32c-1.1.1-1.fc35 Summary: CRC32C implementation with support for CPU-specific acceleration instructions RPMs:google-crc32c google-crc32c-devel Size:202.42 KiB Package: python-google-cloud-storage-1.42.0-2.fc35 Summary: Python Client for Google Cloud Storage RPMs:python3-google-cloud-storage python3-google-cloud-storage-doc Size:650.40 KiB Package: python-google-crc32c-1.1.2-1.fc35 Summary: Python wrapper for CRC32C hashing algorithm RPMs:python3-google-crc32c python3-google-crc32c+testing Size:186.15 KiB Package: python-google-resumable-media-1.3.1-1.fc35 Summary: Utilities for Google media downloads and resumable uploads RPMs:python3-google-resumable-media python3-google-resumable-media-doc Size:252.69 KiB Package: rubygem-image_size-2.1.2-1.fc35 Summary: Measure image size using pure Ruby RPMs:rubygem-image_size rubygem-image_size-doc Size:229.98 KiB Package: rust-aliasable-0.1.3-1.fc35 Summary: Basic aliasable (non unique pointer) types RPMs:rust-aliasable+alloc-devel rust-aliasable+default-devel rust-aliasable-devel Size:28.73 KiB Package: stb-0-0.2.20210823git3a11740.fc35 Summary: Single-file public domain libraries for C/C++ RPMs:stb-devel stb-doc stb_c_lexer-devel stb_connected_components-devel stb_divide-devel stb_ds-devel stb_dxt-devel stb_easy_font-devel stb_herringbone_wang_tile-devel stb_hexwave-devel stb_image-devel stb_image_resize-devel stb_image_write-devel stb_leakcheck-devel stb_perlin-devel stb_rect_pack-devel stb_sprintf-devel stb_textedit-devel stb_tilemap_editor-devel stb_truetype-devel stb_vorbis-devel stb_voxel_render-devel Size:3.04 MiB = DROPPED PACKAGES = Package: ansible-review-0.13.9-6.fc33 Summary: Reviews Ansible playbooks, roles and inventory and suggests improvements RPMs:python3-ansible-review Size:54.11 KiB = UPGRADED PACKAGES = Package: CuraEngine-1:4.10.0-2.fc35 Old package: CuraEngine-1:4.10.0-1.fc35 Summary: Engine for processing 3D models into G-code instructions for 3D printers RPMs: CuraEngine Size: 3.37 MiB Size change: 2.70 KiB Changelog: * Mon Aug 23 2021 Benjamin A. Beasley - 1:4.10.0-2 - Unbundle stb_image Package: HepMC3-3.2.4-3.fc35 Old package: HepMC3-3.2.4-2.fc35 Summary: C++ Event Record for Monte Carlo Generators RPMs: HepMC3 HepMC3-devel HepMC3-doc HepMC3-interfaces-devel HepMC3-rootIO HepMC3-rootIO-devel HepMC3-search HepMC3-search-devel python3-HepMC3 python3-HepMC3-rootIO python3-HepMC3-search Size: 46.37 MiB Size change: 132.41 KiB Changelog: * Mon Aug 23 2021 Mattias Ellert - 3.2.4-3 - Rebuild for root 6.24.02 - Build rootIO module also for s390x - Reenable valgrind tests Package: R-4.1.1-1.fc35 Old package: R-4.1.0-2.fc35 Summary: A language for data analysis and graphics RPMs: R R-core R-core-devel R-devel R-java R-java-devel libRmath libRmath-devel libRmath-static Size: 363.36 MiB Size change: 3.48 MiB Changelog: * Wed Aug 11 2021 Tom Callaway - 4.1.1-1 - update to 4.1.1 Package: accerciser-3.39.1-1.fc35 Old package
Flint soname bump
Version 2.8.0 of flint has been released, and comes with an soname bump. I am doing test builds in mock now. If they all succeed, then I will build flint and all consuming packages in Rawhide: antic arb e-antic eclib linbox normaliz polymake sagemath Singular If all goes well, I will repeat these builds for F35 as well. -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/ ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: karma question
On 8/25/21 6:29 AM, Ian McInerney wrote: On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 11:00 AM Felix Schwarz mailto:fschw...@fedoraproject.org>> wrote: Am 24.08.21 um 22:47 schrieb Steven A. Falco: > Should I edit the criteria in f33 so I can mark it stable before the 7 days > elapse, or should I let it wait? It seems weird that one release would have to > wait longer than the other releases when the fix is identical for all of them. Also I'd even prefer F33 getting the update a bit later: I assume F33 users are valuing stability over "latest versions and fixes" (otherwise they would have upgraded to F34 already). On the other hand the bug is probably not too bad (otherwise the bug would have been fixed earlier or users would have stopped using the package altogether). So as a F33 user I'd prefer only getting "rock solid" fixes over newer stuff which might introduce regressions. just a personal opinion though :-) Felix That isn't what happened in this case though. One of the libraries it depended on was updated, which changed the patch version in the soname (there used to be no soname versioning for that library until now, when they introduced the versioning system). The library loader inside KiCad was searching for the exact soname because of the way the loader works (load the library explicitly and then find the function pointers), but because the soname it was built with didn't exist anymore, it couldn't find it. This led to an error on launching one part of the program, making that part stop working when it was working before the library update. All that was needed to fix this was a rebuild of the package to pick up the new soname - no patches required. -Ian Thanks, Ian. With the help of yourself and others, we've gotten enough +karma that I have now been able to schedule both the f33 and f34 builds for stable. I assume that the next time releng does a push those builds will become GA. In the next upstream release, the mechanism will change, such that only the major soname number will have to match, and changing that is a much rarer occurrence. Steve ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Fedora-IoT-36-20210825.0 compose check report
Missing expected images: Iot dvd aarch64 Iot dvd x86_64 Failed openQA tests: 3/15 (aarch64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-IoT-36-20210823.0): ID: 957674 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_zezere_server@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957674 ID: 957676 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_zezere_ignition@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957676 Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-36-20210823.0): ID: 957665 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957665 Soft failed openQA tests: 1/15 (aarch64), 3/16 (x86_64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) New soft failures (same test not soft failed in Fedora-IoT-36-20210823.0): ID: 957662 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default_upload@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957662 Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-IoT-36-20210823.0): ID: 957646 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default_upload URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957646 ID: 957647 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957647 ID: 957653 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957653 Passed openQA tests: 11/15 (aarch64), 13/16 (x86_64) New passes (same test not passed in Fedora-IoT-36-20210823.0): ID: 957663 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso base_reboot_unmount@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957663 ID: 957664 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso base_selinux@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957664 ID: 957666 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso base_services_start@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957666 ID: 957667 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso base_system_logging@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957667 ID: 957668 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso base_service_manipulation@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957668 ID: 957669 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso podman@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957669 ID: 957670 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso release_identification@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957670 ID: 957671 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_greenboot@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957671 ID: 957672 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_rpmostree_overlay@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957672 ID: 957673 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_rpmostree_rebase@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957673 ID: 957675 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso podman_client@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957675 Installed system changes in test x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default@uefi: Used mem changed from 230 MiB to 197 MiB Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/956683#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957647#downloads -- Mail generated by check-compose: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
thanks, WeMakeFedora.org intern scandal
Thanks to the volunteers who created WeMakeFedora.org It is really helpful now we can see the evidence of corruption in the big free software organizations it is so clear No surprises that women are the biggest losers in this space. We have to work twice as hard as men and then the internships are all awarded to girlfriends ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: karma question
On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 11:59:38AM +0200, Felix Schwarz wrote: > Am 24.08.21 um 22:47 schrieb Steven A. Falco: > >Should I edit the criteria in f33 so I can mark it stable before > >the 7 days elapse, or should I let it wait? It seems weird that > >one release would have to wait longer than the other releases when > >the fix is identical for all of them. > > Also I'd even prefer F33 getting the update a bit later: > I assume F33 users are valuing stability over "latest versions and > fixes" (otherwise they would have upgraded to F34 already). On the > other hand the bug is probably not too bad (otherwise the bug would > have been fixed earlier or users would have stopped using the > package altogether). Yeah, as a packager (and occasional runner of lagging-behind systems) I have the exact same thoughts and preferences. -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Red Hat Bugzilla issues
Hello everyone, I was trying to file a bug following last QA meeting and turns out I can't. I moved from an old laptop to a new one and in the new one I can't login. I'm using the correct password and everything, but still is rejecting me. And using my FAS means that I have to create a new account with its own password... I don't want to go through all this hassle. I just want to file a bug. Can someone tell me what or where is the problem? Why the password that works in one laptop is not working in the other? Please, help and thank you Kind regards, Silvia FAS: Lailah ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Fedora-35-20210825.n.0 compose check report
No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 17/205 (x86_64), 13/141 (aarch64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-35-20210823.n.0): ID: 957285 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso anaconda_help URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957285 ID: 957339 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso apps_startstop URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957339 ID: 957340 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso anaconda_help URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957340 ID: 957344 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_notifications_postinstall URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957344 ID: 957346 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_update_graphical URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957346 ID: 957347 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_background URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957347 ID: 957360 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_update_graphical URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957360 ID: 957367 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso anaconda_help URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957367 ID: 957380 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso anaconda_help URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957380 ID: 957390 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso desktop_background URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957390 ID: 957469 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz desktop_background@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957469 ID: 957471 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz desktop_browser@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957471 ID: 957472 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz gedit@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957472 ID: 957555 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_minimal_uefi@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957555 ID: 957563 Test: x86_64 universal install_lvmthin@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957563 ID: 957581 Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_server_domain_controller@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957581 ID: 957604 Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_realmd_client@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957604 ID: 957606 Test: aarch64 universal support_server@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957606 ID: 957616 Test: aarch64 universal install_iscsi@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957616 ID: 957617 Test: aarch64 universal install_pxeboot@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957617 ID: 957620 Test: aarch64 universal install_kickstart_nfs@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957620 Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-35-20210823.n.0): ID: 957365 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_background URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957365 ID: 957420 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso anaconda_help@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957420 ID: 957510 Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_software_raid URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957510 ID: 957552 Test: x86_64 universal memtest URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957552 ID: 957557 Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_software_raid@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957557 ID: 957571 Test: aarch64 universal install_asian_language@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957571 ID: 957595 Test: aarch64 universal install_blivet_software_raid@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957595 ID: 957645 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso server_cockpit_basic@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957645 ID: 957738 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso apps_startstop URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957738 Soft failed openQA tests: 21/205 (x86_64), 13/141 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) New soft failures (same test not soft failed in Fedora-35-20210823.n.0): ID: 957335 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default_upload URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957335 ID: 957341 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957341 ID: 957350 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso gedit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957350 ID: 957381 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso install_default@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957381 ID: 957382 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso install_default_upload URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957382 ID: 957384 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso evince URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957384 ID: 957385 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso gedit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957385 ID: 957468 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz install_arm_image_deployment_upload@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957468 ID: 957544 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_server_domain_controller URL:
Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 10:53:15AM +0200, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > Hello, > > In the near future, there is a plan to merge autoconf-2.71 to rawhide. Due > to the size of the change and possible breakage of multiple packages going > FTBFS. The number of these packages should not be many, currently we have > ~32 opened FTBFS trackers according to autoconf-2.71, where the majority of > them are just ignored by maintainers [1]. This can also be a possibility to > remove unnecessary packages from Fedora. After merging the change, there Are any of these on the critical path (ie would cause composes to fail?) I don't see any off hand, but if so, I would get those fixed before landing if you can at all. Otherwise I would say land as soon as you like. > should be a mechanism for validating. From my perspective, it is effective > to rebuild dependent packages (~1700 packages). After the rebuild, there > should not be many FTBFS packages, but according to the change there will > be some. There was enough time (~6 months) for the maintainers to prepare > for this change. > > If there are any concerns or other opinions about the steps after merging > the change, please share your thoughts and we can discuss them here. Thanks for all this work, it's appreciated. ;) > Thanks very much! > > Regards, > Ondrej kevin -- > > [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942967 > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 7:52 AM Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > > > Hello, according to the size of this change and the possible breakage of > > multiple packages before f35 mass rebuild, we decided (team working on this > > change) to postpone this change to early lifecycle of f36, where we will > > have enough time to resolve any problems until f36 mass rebuild. > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 5:18 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 05:28:07PM +0100, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > >> > Currently, we are trying to stay away from the compat package and with > >> the > >> > help of other package maintainers trying to fix the failures. We will > >> give > >> > time to react accordingly and see other possible steps in a few weeks > >> time. > >> > > >> > Currently multiple FTBFS bugs in bugzilla were created according to > >> > autoconf-2.71. More information available here: > >> > > >> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Autoconf_271 > >> > >> Whats the current status of this Change? > >> > >> It didn't land before mass rebuild. Is it still planned for f35? > >> > >> kevin > >> ___ > >> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > >> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > >> Fedora Code of Conduct: > >> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > >> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > >> List Archives: > >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > >> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: > >> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure > >> > > > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Fedora 35 Bodhi updates-testing Activation and Beta Freeze
On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 07:43:46AM -0500, Richard Shaw wrote: > Are all updates paused or just f35? > > I have updates pending from f33 through f35 for over 20 hours. During freezes this is a manual process. I didn't push them yesterday, but will do so here in a few. :) Sorry for any delay. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Fedora 35 Bodhi updates-testing Activation and Beta Freeze
On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 12:58 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 07:43:46AM -0500, Richard Shaw wrote: > > Are all updates paused or just f35? > > > > I have updates pending from f33 through f35 for over 20 hours. > > During freezes this is a manual process. > > I didn't push them yesterday, but will do so here in a few. :) > > Sorry for any delay. > No worries, just asking. Even after being a packager for as long as I have, I've realized I don't "peek behind the curtain" very often. :) Thanks, RIchard ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Fedora-IoT-35-20210825.0 compose check report
No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 1/15 (aarch64) Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-35-20210823.0): ID: 957984 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957984 Soft failed openQA tests: 3/16 (x86_64), 1/15 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-IoT-35-20210823.0): ID: 957965 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default_upload URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957965 ID: 957966 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957966 ID: 957972 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957972 ID: 957981 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default_upload@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957981 Passed openQA tests: 13/16 (x86_64), 13/15 (aarch64) Installed system changes in test aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default_upload@uefi: System load changed from 0.18 to 0.44 Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/954708#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/957981#downloads -- Mail generated by check-compose: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
f35-backgrounds ready for review
Hello team, f35-backgrounds is ready for review which is trivia to do. It is needed for the beta release along desktop-background. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1997854 Thanks in advance -- Luya Tshimbalanga Fedora Design Team Fedora Design Suite maintainer ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: f35-backgrounds ready for review
On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 06:18:39PM -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: > f35-backgrounds is ready for review which is trivia to do. It is > needed for the beta release along desktop-background. > See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1997854 Back when we were distributing source RPM DVDs, there was a reason to have a new package every release, so the files for the older releases weren't taking up space. But since we don't do that much anymore, maybe it would be better to make one source package and add f35-backgrounds, f36-backgrounds, etc., etc. as new subpackages? (Maybe an f3x-backgrounds release, and start over at f4x-backgrounds, so it doesn't get too crazy?) That way, a new package review wouldn't be required every time. I'd really love to get to where we're releasing the _next_ release wallpaper right into rawhide very shortly after the branch, so rawhide always has the future wallpaper ready to go and we're _way_ ahead of any release deadlines. -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: f35-backgrounds ready for review
On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 09:48:45PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > Back when we were distributing source RPM DVDs, there was a reason to have a > new package every release, so the files for the older releases weren't > taking up space. But since we don't do that much anymore, maybe it would be > better to make one source package and add f35-backgrounds, f36-backgrounds, > etc., etc. as new subpackages? (Maybe an f3x-backgrounds release, and start > over at f4x-backgrounds, so it doesn't get too crazy?) That way, a new > package review wouldn't be required every time. This is just a thought, though. If the current process is working for you, don't let me get in the way! -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: (Re)orphaning jakarta-commons-httpclient
On 8/20/21 12:09 PM, Jerry James wrote: I picked up jakarta-commons-httpclient in an attempt to keep ant-contrib building. That proved impossible, so I removed all dependencies on ant-contrib from packages I maintain instead. That means I don't need jakarta-commons-httpclient, so I am orphaning it again. These packages still depend on it: ant-contrib fop THe fop dependency appears to have just been left in the spec file. It's been removed with the 2.6 build just done. +1 to Matt's comment - this package is ancient and needs to go. Likewise I expect for ant-contrib. I've retired java-sleep -> moconti which are also dead upstream and were users of ant-contrib. -- Orion Poplawski he/him/his - surely the least important thing about me Manager of NWRA Technical Systems 720-772-5637 NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane or...@nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 https://www.nwra.com/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: [Forged Sender] Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers - ant-contrib
On 8/24/21 7:24 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote: The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life Depending on: ant-contrib (6), status change: 2021-07-26 (4 weeks ago) eclipse-gef (maintained by: eclipse-sig, mbooth, orphan, rgrunber) eclipse-gef-3.11.0-16.fc34.src requires ant-contrib = 1.0-0.40.b3.fc34 forbidden-apis (maintained by: jvanek, zzambers) forbidden-apis-2.5-10.fc34.src requires ant-contrib = 1.0-0.40.b3.fc34 java-sleep (maintained by: orion) java-sleep-2.1-23.fc35.src requires ant-contrib = 1.0-0.40.b3.fc34 eclipse-subclipse (maintained by: eclipse-sig, kdaniel, mbooth, orphan) eclipse-subclipse-4.3.3-2.fc34.noarch requires osgi(org.eclipse.draw2d) = 3.10.100.202102041646, osgi(org.eclipse.gef) = 3.11.0.202102041646 eclipse-subclipse-4.3.3-2.fc34.src requires eclipse-gef = 3.11.0-16.fc34 eclipse-webtools (maintained by: eclipse-sig, galileo, mbooth, orphan) eclipse-webtools-3.21.0-1.fc35.src requires eclipse-gef = 3.11.0-16.fc34 eclipse-webtools-common-3.21.0-1.fc35.noarch requires eclipse-gef = 3.11.0-16.fc34, osgi(org.eclipse.gef) = 3.11.0.202102041646 eclipse-webtools-sourceediting-3.21.0-1.fc35.noarch requires osgi(org.eclipse.gef) = 3.11.0.202102041646 moconti (maintained by: orion) moconti-102609-20.fc35.noarch requires java-sleep = 2.1-23.fc35 moconti-102609-20.fc35.src requires java-sleep = 2.1-23.fc35 ant-contrib is ancient and probably should just be retired. I've retired java-sleep -> moconti which are dead upstream. Nothing appears to use forbidden-apis so that can likely go as well without trouble. eclipse-gef is FTBFS for other reasons so it's hard to tell, but I suspect that it doesn't really depend on ant-contrib at all at this point either despite having a dep still listing in a pom.xml file. -- Orion Poplawski he/him/his - surely the least important thing about me Manager of NWRA Technical Systems 720-772-5637 NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane or...@nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 https://www.nwra.com/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
