Fedora-Cloud-33-20211101.0 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-33-20211031.0): ID: 1047904 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1047904 ID: 1047905 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1047905 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
Fedora-Cloud-35-20211101.0 compose check report
No missing expected images. Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-35-20211031.0): ID: 1047920 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1047920 ID: 1047921 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1047921 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
Fedora-Cloud-34-20211101.0 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-34-20211031.0): ID: 1047936 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1047936 ID: 1047937 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1047937 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
No FESCo meeting today (2021-11-01)
There is nothing on the agenda, and it's also a holiday in parts of Europe, so let's skip today's meeting. = Discussed and Voted in the Ticket = #2679 F36 Change: Retired Packages https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2679 APPROVED (+4, 0, 0) #2673 Nonresponsive maintainer: beckerde https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2673 APPROVED (+3,0,-0) I'll "chair" the next meeting too. ___ 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 36 System-Wide Change: java-17-openjdk as system JDK in F36 pre-announcement
Hello! For wide hearing/reading, before final announcement, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Java17 have anybody any opinion or anything to say for/against? Happy Hacking, J. -- Jiri Vanek Mgr. Principal QA Software Engineer Red Hat Inc. +420 775 39 01 09 ___ 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: protobuf 3.19.0 update coming to rawhide
On 10/30/21 10:59, Adrian Reber wrote: I made all builds in copr https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/adrian/protobuf-3-19/packages/ and it seems all packages that were rebuilt for 3.18.1 are also rebuilding against 3.19.0. Thanks for doing this work, Adrian! -- Major Hayden OpenPGP_0x737051E0C1011FB1.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital 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 36 System-Wide Change: java-17-openjdk as system JDK in F36 pre-announcement
> > Am 01.11.2021 um 11:04 schrieb Jiri Vanek : > > Hello! > > For wide hearing/reading, before final announcement, > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Java17 have anybody any opinion or > anything to say for/against? > I welcome the update as useful for development and testing, as long as 1.8 and 11 are still available for parallel installation for production on Fedora Server (just to emphasize and appreciate that planning). Best Peter___ 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: 20211101.n.0 changes
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20211031.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20211101.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 0 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 31 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 0 B Size of dropped packages:0 B Size of upgraded packages: 4.99 GiB Size of downgraded packages: 0 B Size change of upgraded packages: 3.96 MiB Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B = ADDED IMAGES = = DROPPED IMAGES = = ADDED PACKAGES = = DROPPED PACKAGES = = UPGRADED PACKAGES = Package: ImageMagick-1:6.9.12.28-1.fc36 Old package: ImageMagick-1:6.9.12.25-1.fc36 Summary: An X application for displaying and manipulating images RPMs: ImageMagick ImageMagick-c++ ImageMagick-c++-devel ImageMagick-devel ImageMagick-djvu ImageMagick-doc ImageMagick-libs ImageMagick-perl Size: 41.00 MiB Size change: 14.40 KiB Changelog: * Tue Oct 26 2021 Fedora Release Monitoring - 1:6.9.12-27 - Update to 6.9.12-27 (#2017126) * Sun Oct 31 2021 Fedora Release Monitoring - 1:6.9.12-28 - Update to 6.9.12-28 (resolves #2017126) Package: SuperLU-5.3.0-1.fc36 Old package: SuperLU-5.2.2-2.fc35 Summary: Subroutines to solve sparse linear systems RPMs: SuperLU SuperLU-devel SuperLU-doc Size: 2.04 MiB Size change: 8.28 KiB Changelog: * Sat Oct 30 2021 Antonio Trande - 5.3.0-1 - Release 5.3.0 Package: amg4psblas-1.0.0-5.fc36 Old package: amg4psblas-1.0.0-4.fc35 Summary: Algebraic Multigrid Package based on PSBLAS RPMs: amg4psblas-doc amg4psblas-mpich amg4psblas-mpich-devel amg4psblas-openmpi amg4psblas-openmpi-devel amg4psblas-serial amg4psblas-serial-devel Size: 1.54 GiB Size change: -285.38 KiB Changelog: * Sat Oct 30 2021 Antonio Trande - 1.0.0-5 - Rebuild for SuperLU-5.3.0 Package: arc-theme-20211018-1.fc36 Old package: arc-theme-20210412-4.fc36 Summary: Flat theme with transparent elements RPMs: arc-theme arc-theme-plank Size: 670.55 KiB Size change: 41.83 KiB Changelog: * Sun Oct 31 2021 Mukundan Ragavan - 20211018-1 - Update to 20211018 - Includes gtk4 themes Package: armadillo-10.6.0-5.fc36 Old package: armadillo-10.6.0-4.fc36 Summary: Fast C++ matrix library with syntax similar to MATLAB and Octave RPMs: armadillo armadillo-devel Size: 12.63 MiB Size change: 299 B Changelog: * Sat Oct 30 2021 Antoio Trande - 10.6.0-5 - Rebuild for SuperLU-5.3.0 Package: azote-1.9.2-1.fc36 Old package: azote-1.9.1-5.fc35 Summary: Wallpaper and color manager for Sway, i3 and some other WMs RPMs: azote Size: 4.40 MiB Size change: 3.76 MiB Changelog: * Sun Oct 31 2021 Bob Hepple - 1.9.2-1 - new version Package: bletchmame-2.9-3.fc36 Old package: bletchmame-2.8-1.fc36 Summary: MAME emulator frontend RPMs: bletchmame Size: 1.70 MiB Size change: -197.97 KiB Changelog: * Sun Oct 24 2021 Davide Cavalca 2.9-1 - Update to 2.9; Fixes: RHBZ#2016808 * Mon Oct 25 2021 Davide Cavalca 2.9-2 - Fix tests on i686, temporarily gate out s390x * Sun Oct 31 2021 Davide Cavalca 2.9-3 - Temporarily gate out tests on 32 bit architectures Package: ccache-4.4.2-1.fc36 Old package: ccache-4.2.1-2.fc35 Summary: C/C++ compiler cache RPMs: ccache Size: 2.71 MiB Size change: 577.66 KiB Changelog: * Wed Oct 27 2021 Orion Poplawski - 4.4.2-1 - Update to 4.4.2 Package: community-mysql-8.0.27-1.fc36 Old package: community-mysql-8.0.26-1.fc36 Summary: MySQL client programs and shared libraries RPMs: community-mysql community-mysql-common community-mysql-devel community-mysql-errmsg community-mysql-libs community-mysql-server community-mysql-test Size: 2.34 GiB Size change: -142.60 KiB Changelog: * Tue Sep 14 2021 Sahana Prasad - 8.0.26-2 - Rebuilt with OpenSSL 3.0.0 * Mon Oct 25 2021 Adrian Reber - 8.0.26-3 - Rebuilt for protobuf 3.18.1 * Sat Oct 30 2021 Honza Horak - 8.0.26-4 - Make MySQL compile with openssl 3.x without FIPS properly implemented * Sun Oct 31 2021 Lars Tangvald - 8.0.27-1 - Update to MySQL 8.0.27 Package: dummy-test-package-gloster-0-5564.fc36 Old package: dummy-test-package-gloster-0-5545.fc36 Summary: Dummy Test Package called Gloster RPMs: dummy-test-package-gloster Size: 340.37 KiB Size change: 1.13 KiB Changelog: * Sun Oct 31 2021 packagerbot - 0-5546 - rebuilt * Sun Oct 31 2021 packagerbot - 0-5547 - rebuilt * Sun Oct 31 2021 packagerbot - 0-5548 - rebuilt * Sun Oct 31 2021 packagerbot - 0-5549 - rebuilt * Sun Oct 31 2021 packagerbot - 0-5550 - rebuilt * Sun Oct 31 2021 packagerbot - 0-5551 - rebuilt * Sun Oct 31 2021 packagerbot - 0-5552 - rebuilt * Sun Oct 31 2021 packagerbot - 0-5553 - rebuilt * Sun Oct 31 2021 packagerbot
F36 Change: Remove .la files from buildroot (Self-Contained Change proposal)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RemoveLaFiles == Summary == Autools/libtool-based projects frequently install files ending in `.la` in their `make install`. These files are usually unwanted. Many projects therefore end up with a variation of `find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -name "*.la" -delete` in their `%install section`. `*.la` files are "libtool archives" and provide additional metadata for library files and come from a time before the introduction of the ELF format. Today, they are only consumed by libtool itself. Refer to https://autotools.io/libtool/lafiles.html. This changes proposes to instead use the `%__brp_remove_la_files` macro in `redhat-rpm-config`'s `%__os_install_post` to remove the `*.la` files automatically. This has been added to RPM 4.17. == Owner == * Name: [[User:FASAcountName| Timm Bäder]] * Email: tbae...@redhat.com == Detailed Description == (not provided) == Benefit to Fedora == This change removes a widely used line of shell script from many spec files. The advantage is cleaner and easier to maintain spec files as well as more sensible defaults for rpm package builds. While looking at what packages will be affected by this change, I already found several packages that ship and install `.la` files by accident. These packages will be fixed to not ship them. == Scope == * Proposal owners: ** Update packaging guidelines to mention the automatic removal of `*.la` files and mention the mechanism for opting out of this behavior. * Other developers: ** For the packages already removing their `*.la` files manually, there should be no change. For packages that want to install such packages, the package maintainers need to opt out of the automatic removal. * Release engineering: [https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10353 #10353] * Policies and guidelines: N/A (not needed for this Change) * Alignment with Objectives: == Upgrade/compatibility impact == The following packages ship `.la` files currently (queried via `$ repoquery --repo=rawhide -f '*.la' --source | pkgname | sort | uniq`): `*.la` files explicitly listed in `%files` (this includes packages that modify the `*.la` file(s) but don't list them in `%files` explicitly): * arts * gambas3 * chafa * ImageMagick * kdebase3 * kdegames3 * kdelibs3 * kdewebdev * kdissert * libmodsecurity * libsecp256k1 * mingw-sane-backends * mingw-speexdsp * neon * openldap * pinball * qt5-qtbase * qt5-qtfeedback * qt5-qtremoteobjects * qt5-qttools * subversion * unicornscan * xfce4-calculator-plugin No mention of `*.la` files in the spec file: * gcc-avr * calf * cross-gcc * djview4 * filezilla * gforth * gnome-do * gnome-subtitles * google-authenticator * GraphicsMagick - But probably needs them just like ImageMagick * gstreamer1-doc * jpilot * kguitar * liferea * mcabber * mousepad * octave * opencryptoki * pragha * taxipilot * xfce4-timer-plugin Tries to delete them but fails: * aqbanking * binutils (fixed) * flatpak * gretl * gutenprint * gwenhywfar * kdepim3 * koffice-kivio * OpenIPMI * owfs * util-linux == How To Test == Whether a RPM package ships `.la` files can be checked either via the `repoquery` command from above or via querying a local `.rpm` file directly: `rpm -q --files ./my-package.rpm | grep '\.la$'`. The latter command can be used for local testing. If a package currently ships any `*.la` files but only does so accidentally, nothing needs to be done and the package will automatically stop shipping those files after it is rebuilt with this change in effect. If a package whishes to keep shipping `*.la` files, the package maintainer can opt out of the automatic removal by setting `%__brp_remove_la_files` to `%nil`: `%global __brp_remove_la_files %nil` If the package currently removes all `*.la` files manually via some form of `find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -name "*.la" -delete` or similar, it is recommended (but not required) to remove that line. == User Experience == Users should not notice any change. == Dependencies == There are no dependencies. Only `redhat-rpm-config` needs to adapt to the change. == Contingency Plan == * Contingency mechanism: The change can simply be reverted in the `redhat-rpm-config` package. Packages that have already removed the manual deletion of `*.la` files need to revert this change too. Packages that have opted out of the automatic `*.la` file removal don't need to do anything. * Contingency deadline: beta freeze * Blocks release? Yes == Documentation == Pull request implementing `%__brp_remove_la_files` in the upstream rpm repository: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1674 == Release Notes == The [https://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.17.0 RPM 4.17 release notes] simply state "Add policy for removing .la files from buildroot by default". -- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Fedora Program Manager Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le..
F36 Change: java-17-openjdk as system JDK in F36 (System-Wide Change proposal)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Java17 == Summary == Update the system JDK in Fedora from java-11-openjdk to java-17-openjdk. == Owner == * Name: [[User:jvanek| Jiri Vanek]] * Email: * Product: java and java stack * Responsible WG: java-sig (java and java-maint)(which no longer exists) * rcm ticket: [https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10364 10364] === Expected schedule === * During November, create new package, java-17-openjdk literally cloned from java-latest-openjdk (which currently packages JDK 17, and will move to package JDK 18 in February) * December 2021 mass rebuild in copr ** all maintainers will be informed of results * January 2022 second mass rebuild in copr ** all maintainers will be informed of results * February 2022 mass rebuilds in rawhide - side tag ** FTBFS bugs will be filed * 22.2, the sidetag will be merged * Change Checkpoint: 100% Code Complete Deadline Tue 2022-02-22 - https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-36/f-36-key-tasks.html ** hard deadline for feature completed == Detailed Description == Fedora currently ships: * java-1.8.0-openjdk (LTS) * java-11-openjdk (LTS) * java-latest-openjdk (on jdk16,jdk18, STS, jdk17, although LTS, only untill jdk18 is released). where the version-less '''java''' and '''javac''' (and friends) are provided by java-11-openjdk. * java-17-openjdk will be cloned from java-latest-openjdk to harbor next LTS JDK So every package honoring the packaging rules and requiring java , java-headless or java-devel is built in koji by java-11-openjdk-devel and pulls java-11-openjdk(-headless) in runtime (See [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Java java] ). Also javapackaging-tools are using java-11-openjdk as hardcoded runtime (see [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Decouple_system_java_setting_from_java_command_setting changes]) We were intentionally delaying jdk11 on-boarding for stability reasons. But there is no such reason with 17 (for recall, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Java11) Major incompatibility is again (as we were bumping 8->11) encapsulation. What was hidden is now even more hidden and few more parts were hidden. Luckily, most of the projects, when shifted to 11, did it properly. Still few projects may hit usage of some newly restricted APIs. === "Political disclaimer" === In old bumps, 6->7, 7-8 we, Red Hat's openjdk team, were a driving force to bump the system JDK. In case, of jdk11 were a bit reluctant for stability reasons, so we updated as late as possible. In case of jdk17, there are no known stability issues, and we hear fedora people to to ask for jdk17 as system jdk as soon as possible. So targeting f36, nearly year after jdk17 release. If it is not a wish of Fedora community, we can postpond to F37 or even later == Benefit to Fedora == JDK17 is out just shortly, but its compatibility with 11 is quite good and its stability is promissing. Although we can expect some family of packages to remain on jdk8 for ever, and some other (much smaller) family of packages will remain on jdk11 for a while, the javastack should be ok to go. Both jdk8 and jdk11 will remain part of Fedora while they are supported usptream, and there is a target audience in our OS. == Scope == === keep java-11-openjdk (+JDK8 of course) but remove its java/javac versionless provides, make java-17-openjdk providing java, javac and other versionless provides (+ keep java-latest-opendjk as rolling bleeding edge of STS JDKs) === * will guarantee fedora to be pure JDK17 distro. * will allow maintainers of JDK17 or up incompatible packages to keep using JDK11 (and JDK8), however this is just false hope. ** if such an package depends on package build by JDK17, JDK11 and JDK8 may not be able to pick up that dependency. ** this may lead to quite a lot of bundling or compat packages, but may be acceptable ** people developing JDK8 and JDK11 applications will very likely stay with fedora:) ** those was not so bad when JDK11 was moved to system JDK. While quite a lot of users will rejoice, there may be cases where application is very hard to migrate to JDK11, so the contingency plan should be taken very serious. Bytecode version * It appeared, that several applications have to build by jdk8, while works fine with jdk11 * it lead to manual work on align libraries on 1.8 byte code version. see https://pagure.io/java-maint-sig/issue/7 * Other approaches how to avoid this in next update (jdk17, aprox f36, minimal bytecode 7) were mentioned here: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/javapackages-tools/pull-request/3#comment-50266 Workflow * announce as by https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/program_management/changes_policy/#_essential_communication * tune java-latest-openjdk package (for all live Fedoras) * clone java-17-openjdk package (for all live Fedoras) * several rounds of mass rebuilds ( see https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Changes/Java17#Expected_schedule) ** from coper ** over side tag ** to koji Change o
Re: [Test-Announce] 2021-11-01 @ 15:00 UTC - Fedora QA Meeting
Hello! Will miss the meeting today, as i will be at my new $Dayjob On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 6:10 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > # Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting > # Date: 2021-11-01 > # Time: 15:00 UTC > (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto) > # Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.libera.chat > > Greetings testers! > > Now Fedora 35 validation is (finally) behind us, let's check in on > status, and get the 36 cycle going. > > If anyone has any other items for the agenda, please reply to this > email and suggest them! Thanks. > > == Proposed Agenda Topics == > > 1. Previous meeting follow-up > 2. Fedora 35 status and final pre-release plans > 3. Fedora 36 cycle preview > 4. Release criteria / validation test changes from Fedora 35 cycle > 5. Open floor > -- > Adam Williamson > Fedora QA > IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha > https://www.happyassassin.net > > ___ > test-announce mailing list -- test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to > test-announce-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/test-annou...@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 > ___ 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: F36 Change: Remove .la files from buildroot (Self-Contained Change proposal)
On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 09:37:40AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RemoveLaFiles > > == Summary == > Autools/libtool-based projects frequently install files ending in > `.la` in their `make install`. These files are usually unwanted. Many > projects therefore end up with a variation of `find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > -name "*.la" -delete` in their `%install section`. > > `*.la` files are "libtool archives" and provide additional metadata > for library files and come from a time before the introduction of the > ELF format. Today, they are only consumed by libtool itself. Refer to > https://autotools.io/libtool/lafiles.html. > > This changes proposes to instead use the `%__brp_remove_la_files` > macro in `redhat-rpm-config`'s `%__os_install_post` to remove the > `*.la` files automatically. This has been added to RPM 4.17. Yes! There are quite a few of these "junk files" left around by build systems that many packages have to remove: - .packlist (Perl) - .dune-keep (OCaml/dune) - *.cmti (OCaml) - *.bs (Perl) - *~ (gcc build removes these) Should we have a more systematic way to remove them? Rich. > > > == Owner == > * Name: [[User:FASAcountName| Timm Bäder]] > * Email: tbae...@redhat.com > > > == Detailed Description == > (not provided) > > == Benefit to Fedora == > This change removes a widely used line of shell script from many spec > files. The advantage is cleaner and easier to maintain spec files as > well as more sensible defaults for rpm package builds. > > While looking at what packages will be affected by this change, I > already found several packages that ship and install `.la` files by > accident. These packages will be fixed to not ship them. > > == Scope == > * Proposal owners: > ** Update packaging guidelines to mention the automatic removal of > `*.la` files and mention the mechanism for opting out of this > behavior. > * Other developers: > ** For the packages already removing their `*.la` files manually, > there should be no change. For packages that want to install such > packages, the package maintainers need to opt out of the automatic > removal. > > * Release engineering: [https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10353 #10353] > * Policies and guidelines: N/A (not needed for this Change) > * Alignment with Objectives: > > == Upgrade/compatibility impact == > The following packages ship `.la` files currently (queried via `$ > repoquery --repo=rawhide -f '*.la' --source | pkgname | sort | uniq`): > > > > `*.la` files explicitly listed in `%files` (this includes packages > that modify the `*.la` file(s) but don't list them in `%files` > explicitly): > * arts > * gambas3 > * chafa > * ImageMagick > * kdebase3 > * kdegames3 > * kdelibs3 > * kdewebdev > * kdissert > * libmodsecurity > * libsecp256k1 > * mingw-sane-backends > * mingw-speexdsp > * neon > * openldap > * pinball > * qt5-qtbase > * qt5-qtfeedback > * qt5-qtremoteobjects > * qt5-qttools > * subversion > * unicornscan > * xfce4-calculator-plugin > > > > No mention of `*.la` files in the spec file: > * gcc-avr > * calf > * cross-gcc > * djview4 > * filezilla > * gforth > * gnome-do > * gnome-subtitles > * google-authenticator > * GraphicsMagick - But probably needs them just like ImageMagick > * gstreamer1-doc > * jpilot > * kguitar > * liferea > * mcabber > * mousepad > * octave > * opencryptoki > * pragha > * taxipilot > * xfce4-timer-plugin > > > > Tries to delete them but fails: > * aqbanking > * binutils (fixed) > * flatpak > * gretl > * gutenprint > * gwenhywfar > * kdepim3 > * koffice-kivio > * OpenIPMI > * owfs > * util-linux > > > > == How To Test == > > Whether a RPM package ships `.la` files can be checked either via the > `repoquery` command from above or via querying a local `.rpm` file > directly: `rpm -q --files ./my-package.rpm | grep '\.la$'`. The latter > command can be used for local testing. > > If a package currently ships any `*.la` files but only does so > accidentally, nothing needs to be done and the package will > automatically stop shipping those files after it is rebuilt with this > change in effect. > > If a package whishes to keep shipping `*.la` files, the package > maintainer can opt out of the automatic removal by setting > `%__brp_remove_la_files` to `%nil`: `%global __brp_remove_la_files > %nil` > > If the package currently removes all `*.la` files manually via some > form of `find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -name "*.la" -delete` or similar, it is > recommended (but not required) to remove that line. > > > > == User Experience == > > Users should not notice any change. > > == Dependencies == > There are no dependencies. Only `redhat-rpm-config` needs to adapt to > the change. > > == Contingency Plan == > > * Contingency mechanism: The change can simply be reverted in the > `redhat-rpm-config` package. Packages that have already removed the > manual deletion of `*.la` files need to revert this change too. > Packages that have opted out of the aut
"Trojan Source" and Fedora
The latest dramatically-named fancy-website infosec thing is called "Trojan Source". See https://www.trojansource.codes/ if you want to marvel at the presentation, complete with ominous hacker hex codes and rolling fog over dark water. It's not really a vulnerability in the traditional sense, but the idea that unicode bidirectional characters can be used to hide code in patches. That code is invisible to humans when viewed with most software that is just trying to do its job in formatting unicode correctly, but the code can be formatted in a way that makes various compilers and interpreters actually do something meaningful with it. Many tools and compilers are getting updates to check for this. See for example this for the Rust compiler: https://blog.rust-lang.org/2021/11/01/cve-2021-42574.html For Fedora: Pierre-Yves Chibon has scanned dist-git and we've not found any such suspicious characters in patches or spec files, so we're confident that this hasn't been used to attack Fedora Linux packages to date. For the future, there's a new mitigation in pagure which will be deployed soon: https://pagure.io/pagure/c/8bacd4da4fa6de578b818aa7a4b36bbeaaa243d7?branch=master This will give a warning if a PR contains bidirectional characters. (These characters _can_ be used for their intended purpose, after all, so we're not just blocking them.) Plus, David Cantrell has rpminspect checks and Nick Clifton is expanding annobin to check ELF objects. And Huzaifa Sidhpurwala helped immensely in coordinating our response. Thanks everyone for doing this, keeping Fedora safe and trustworthy! -- 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: "Trojan Source" and Fedora
On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 11:17:52AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: The latest dramatically-named fancy-website infosec thing is called "Trojan Source". See https://www.trojansource.codes/ if you want to marvel at the presentation, complete with ominous hacker hex codes and rolling fog over dark water. It's not really a vulnerability in the traditional sense, but the idea that unicode bidirectional characters can be used to hide code in patches. That code is invisible to humans when viewed with most software that is just trying to do its job in formatting unicode correctly, but the code can be formatted in a way that makes various compilers and interpreters actually do something meaningful with it. Many tools and compilers are getting updates to check for this. See for example this for the Rust compiler: https://blog.rust-lang.org/2021/11/01/cve-2021-42574.html For Fedora: Pierre-Yves Chibon has scanned dist-git and we've not found any such suspicious characters in patches or spec files, so we're confident that this hasn't been used to attack Fedora Linux packages to date. For the future, there's a new mitigation in pagure which will be deployed soon: https://pagure.io/pagure/c/8bacd4da4fa6de578b818aa7a4b36bbeaaa243d7?branch=master This will give a warning if a PR contains bidirectional characters. (These characters _can_ be used for their intended purpose, after all, so we're not just blocking them.) Plus, David Cantrell has rpminspect checks and Nick Clifton is expanding annobin to check ELF objects. Code will be merged today for rpminspect and I am going to make new releases of rpminspect and associated data packages. rpminspect will gain a new 'unicode' inspection that will check text files in SRPMs as well as the %prep'ed source tree(s) used to build to binary RPMs. And Huzaifa Sidhpurwala helped immensely in coordinating our response. Thanks everyone for doing this, keeping Fedora safe and trustworthy! Thanks, -- David Cantrell Red Hat, Inc. | Boston, MA | EST5EDT ___ 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-20211101.n.0 compose check report
Missing expected images: Xfce raw-xz armhfp Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check! 1 of 43 required tests failed openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING** below Failed openQA tests: 2/206 (x86_64), 7/141 (aarch64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20211031.n.0): ID: 1048186 Test: x86_64 universal install_sata@uefi **GATING** URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1048186 Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20211031.n.0): ID: 1048041 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso apps_startstop URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1048041 ID: 1048129 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso server_cockpit_basic@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1048129 ID: 1048144 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz gedit@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1048144 ID: 1048155 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz desktop_printing@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1048155 ID: 1048246 Test: aarch64 universal install_asian_language@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1048246 ID: 1048251 Test: aarch64 universal install_european_language@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1048251 ID: 1048255 Test: aarch64 universal install_cyrillic_language@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1048255 ID: 1048285 Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_minimal_64bit@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1048285 Soft failed openQA tests: 4/206 (x86_64), 2/141 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20211031.n.0): ID: 1048022 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso gedit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1048022 ID: 1048061 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso evince URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1048061 ID: 1048062 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso gedit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1048062 ID: 1048067 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1048067 ID: 1048140 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz install_arm_image_deployment_upload@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1048140 ID: 1048157 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1048157 Passed openQA tests: 200/206 (x86_64), 132/141 (aarch64) New passes (same test not passed in Fedora-Rawhide-20211031.n.0): ID: 1047945 Test: x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1047945 ID: 1048065 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 base_package_install_remove@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1048065 ID: 1048089 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso anaconda_help@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1048089 ID: 1048172 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_minimal_uefi@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1048172 ID: 1048194 Test: x86_64 universal install_multi_empty@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1048194 Installed system changes in test x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default_upload: System load changed from 1.21 to 0.87 Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1047521#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1048006#downloads Installed system changes in test x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default@uefi: Used swap changed from 8 MiB to 9 MiB System load changed from 0.83 to 0.98 Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1047534#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1048019#downloads Installed system changes in test x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default_upload: System load changed from 2.34 to 1.17 Average CPU usage changed from 59.45714286 to 41.9667 Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1047547#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1048032#downloads Installed system changes in test x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default@uefi: Used swap changed from 6 MiB to 2 MiB Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1047552#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1048037#downloads Installed system changes in test x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso install_default@uefi: Used swap changed from 9 MiB to 11 MiB System load changed from 1.06 to 0.75 Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1047565#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1048050#downloads Installed system changes in test x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso install_default_upload: Used swap changed from 13 MiB to 8 MiB System load changed from 1.86 to 1.36 Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1047567#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1
Re: F36 Change: Remove .la files from buildroot (Self-Contained Change proposal)
V Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 02:50:27PM +, Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a): > There are quite a few of these "junk files" left around by build systems > that many packages have to remove: > > - .packlist (Perl) > These are actually useful for a few Perl tools which need to enumarate installed CPAN distributions. Usually various packers and bundlers. But the files are incompatible with RPM because their content changes with each newly installed Perl module, both with DNF and CPAN. Terefore we delete them and sacrifies fearures of the packer tools. Theoretically we could manage the .packlist file with an RPM file trigger but I worry it would be too slow. For the full disclosure, those files are a local database of installed Perl modules and a mapping to a (CPAN) distribution. Nevertheless their creation can be supressed with proper build options. > - *.bs (Perl) > When the files are empty (which has been true on Linux for ages), they can be removed. Ideally we could change a Perl build machinery not to produce them at all. But I hazily remember that it's not easy because they are used for side effects, e.g. as Makefile targets. The files are used for setting dynamic linker before dlopening Perl binary modules. (An anolog to to the very libtool archives.) > Should we have a more systematic way to remove them? > We could. But I'm not sure we should clutter rpmbuild with language specific hacks. -- Petr 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
Intent to retire: Field3D
OpenImageIO (the only consumer I can find) has recently depreciated support as OpenVDB has long since supplied the equivalent functionality. 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
Re: F36 Change: java-17-openjdk as system JDK in F36 (System-Wide Change proposal)
On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 09:37:42AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > == Dependencies == > Around 2000 packages will need attendance (that is aprox 1/3 of time > of jdk11 bump, but It seems, that 1100 packages remained on jdk8) > $ repoquery -q --whatrequires java-headless |wc -l > 1007 > $ repoquery -q --whatrequires java | wc -l > 53 > $ repoquery -q --whatrequires java-devel | wc -l > 28 > $ repoquery -q --whatrequires java-1.8.0-openjdk-headless |wc -l > 1003 > $ repoquery -q --whatrequires java-1.8.0-openjdk | wc -l > 80 > $ repoquery -q --whatrequires java-1.8.0-openjdk-devel | wc -l > 42 > $ repoquery -q --whatrequires java-11-openjdk-headless |wc -l > 1030 > $ repoquery -q --whatrequires java-11-openjdk | wc -l > 78 > $ repoquery -q --whatrequires java-11-openjdk-devel | wc -l > 36 Shouldn't those queries be done with 'repoquery --arch src' ? > == Contingency Plan == > * If the mass rebuild, after the change application, breaks to much > packages, or some important will be unfixable, jdk11 must be restored > back to the position of system jdk. > * Contingency mechanism: Return jdk8 as system jdk and mass rebuild > again. Note, that this may be very hard, because during build of > packages by jdk8, by jdk11 built dependencies will be picekd up, so > build will fail. Maybe several iterations of mass rebuild will be > needed. > * Contingency deadline: beta freeze Hmm, so if the contingency plan may require a few rounds of rebuilds, should we activate it earlier than beta freeze? At the beta freeze we expect things to be "testable", and if at that point we are with a bunch of java applications that will not run, it'll be hard to test things. So I think we should move this a bit earlier. Zbyszek ___ 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: F36 Change: Remove .la files from buildroot (Self-Contained Change proposal)
> Pull request implementing `%__brp_remove_la_files` in the upstream rpm > repository: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1674 This looks like it risks deleting more files than intended. If some package uses country codes or domain names in filenames, then this change could silently delete files specific to Laos. Language codes occur as filename suffixes. Apache can use them to serve web pages in the client's preferred language. This change risks deleting files written in latin. If there is a more reliable way to recognize a Libtool archive by inspecting the file's content, then I think the script should do that to verify that files with a ".la" suffix really are Libtool archives before deleting them. Björn Persson pgp2yAnXNNShR.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signatur ___ 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: F36 Change: Remove .la files from buildroot (Self-Contained Change proposal)
On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 09:37:40AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > == Summary == > Autools/libtool-based projects frequently install files ending in > `.la` in their `make install`. These files are usually unwanted. Many > projects therefore end up with a variation of `find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > -name "*.la" -delete` in their `%install section`. > > `*.la` files are "libtool archives" and provide additional metadata > for library files and come from a time before the introduction of the > ELF format. Today, they are only consumed by libtool itself. Refer to > https://autotools.io/libtool/lafiles.html. I read the mythbuster page, and I still don't understand if removing the file has any effect or not. Will there be any difference in builds (for package builds and end-user builds)? > == Scope == > * Proposal owners: > ** Update packaging guidelines to mention the automatic removal of > `*.la` files and mention the mechanism for opting out of this > behavior. > * Other developers: > ** For the packages already removing their `*.la` files manually, > there should be no change. For packages that want to install such > packages, the package maintainers need to opt out of the automatic > removal. If this change is implemented, manual removal in packages becomes unnecessary. Will you do a 'mass change' sweep to drop those removals? > If a package whishes to keep shipping `*.la` files, the package > maintainer can opt out of the automatic removal by setting > `%__brp_remove_la_files` to `%nil`: `%global __brp_remove_la_files > %nil` Why would anyone want to do that? (I'm not talking about the case mentioned elsewhere in the thread were a non-libtool file is removed by a mistake, but the actual case where one would want to keep distributing a libtool file.) Zbyszek ___ 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
FedoraRespin-34-updates-20211101.0 compose check report
No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 4/45 (x86_64) ID: 1048656 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_fprint URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1048656 ID: 1048667 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_live URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1048667 ID: 1048675 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_login URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1048675 ID: 1048677 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso apps_startstop URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1048677 Soft failed openQA tests: 1/45 (x86_64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) ID: 1048658 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso gedit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1048658 Passed openQA tests: 40/45 (x86_64) -- 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: F36 Change: Remove .la files from buildroot (Self-Contained Change proposal)
On 01/11/2021 14:37, Ben Cotton wrote: Autools/libtool-based projects frequently install files ending in `.la` in their `make install`. These files are usually unwanted. Many projects therefore end up with a variation of `find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -name "*.la" -delete` in their `%install section`. +1 for this change. SPECs can be simplified. -- 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: F36 Change: Package information on ELF objects (System-Wide Change proposal)
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 07:37:27PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > These are reasonable examples that demonstrate how developers and > users could benefit from the change proposal. Could more things like > this be added to: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Package_information_on_ELF_objects... Copied as a paragraph here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Package_information_on_ELF_objects#Why_do_this_in_Fedora.3F ___ 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
SCM git pushes rejected?
This has happened to me twice today, it gets rejected the first time and then works: $ git merge f35 && git push && fedpkg build --nowait Updating 93320b4..b127b9e Fast-forward .gitignore | 2 ++ OpenImageIO.spec | 44 +++- sources | 2 +- 3 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) Total 0 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0), pack-reused 0 remote: Unspecified ref refs/heads/f34 is blocked remote: Denied push for ref 'refs/heads/f34' for user 'hobbes1069' remote: All changes have been rejected To ssh://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/rpms/OpenImageIO ! [remote rejected] f34 -> f34 (pre-receive hook declined) error: failed to push some refs to 'ssh:// pkgs.fedoraproject.org/rpms/OpenImageIO' [build@hobbes OpenImageIO]$ git push Total 0 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0), pack-reused 0 remote: Emitting a message to the fedora-messaging message bus. remote: * Publishing information for 19 commits remote: Sending to redis to log activity and send commit notification emails remote: * Publishing information for 19 commits remote: - to fedora-message remote: 2021-11-01 19:50:08,343 [WARNING] pagure.lib.notify: pagure is about to send a message that has no schemas: pagure.git.receive remote: remote: Create a pull-request for f34 remote:https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/OpenImageIO/diff/rawhide..f34 remote: To ssh://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/rpms/OpenImageIO 93320b4..b127b9e f34 -> f34 Anyone else seeing this? ___ 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: SCM git pushes rejected?
On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 02:51:49PM -0500, Richard Shaw wrote: > This has happened to me twice today, it gets rejected the first time and > then works: snip... > > Anyone else seeing this? One other report: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/10301 Not sure whats going on there yet, but please do all your info to the ticket if you can... another datapoint might help track it down. 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: F36 Change: Remove .la files from buildroot (Self-Contained Change proposal)
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > Why would anyone want to do that? (I'm not talking about the case > mentioned elsewhere in the thread were a non-libtool file is removed > by a mistake, but the actual case where one would want to keep > distributing a libtool file.) The kdelibs3 plugin loader breaks down horribly if you remove the .la file under it. (This was fixed in kdelibs 4, but the kdelibs3 compat library stack still ships those .la files for that reason.) Kevin Kofler ___ 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-35-20211101.0 compose check report
No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 1/15 (aarch64) Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-35-20211021.0): ID: 1048997 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1048997 Soft failed openQA tests: 1/16 (x86_64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-IoT-35-20211021.0): ID: 1048977 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1048977 Passed openQA tests: 15/16 (x86_64), 14/15 (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
Non-responsive maintainer check for pgordon
Hello, does somebody know how to contact Peter Gordon? I am aware that my request is for EPEL, but I would be even happy to maintain the EPEL branches myself in case of a negative response. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1990157 I also filed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2019217 to follow the non-responsive maintainer policy. Regards, Robert pgpK8CGgEPVit.pgp 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: F36 Change: Remove .la files from buildroot (Self-Contained Change proposal)
I think Björn Persson’s concerns are reasonable. Hopefully they can be easily addressed, since I would be happy to see this change implemented. At least six packages I maintain or regularly contribute to could be simplified. I spot-checked a libtool .la file to see what typical contents looked like. I’ve pasted the entire file for libfakekey inline at the bottom of this message as an example. The following page has some additional information about the format: https://autotools.io/libtool/lafiles.html I’m not aware of a formal specification for this format—and I haven’t tested this suggestions against a corpus of packages—but I suspect that “files ending in .la that contain a line matching /^dlname=/” would be a very successful heuristic. While it’s not always the best tool for automation, libmagic/file(1) was also able to confirm the type: $ file libfakekey.la libfakekey.la: libtool library file, ASCII text - Sample libtool library file begins here - # libfakekey.la - a libtool library file # Generated by libtool (GNU libtool) 2.4.6 # # Please DO NOT delete this file! # It is necessary for linking the library. # The name that we can dlopen(3). dlname='libfakekey.so.0' # Names of this library. library_names='libfakekey.so.0.0.1 libfakekey.so.0 libfakekey.so' # The name of the static archive. old_library='' # Linker flags that cannot go in dependency_libs. inherited_linker_flags='' # Libraries that this one depends upon. dependency_libs=' -lX11 -lXtst' # Names of additional weak libraries provided by this library weak_library_names='' # Version information for libfakekey. current=0 age=0 revision=1 # Is this an already installed library? installed=no # Should we warn about portability when linking against -modules? shouldnotlink=no # Files to dlopen/dlpreopen dlopen='' dlpreopen='' # Directory that this library needs to be installed in: libdir='/usr/lib64' - Sample libtool library file ends here - On 11/1/21 13:50, Björn Persson wrote: Pull request implementing `%__brp_remove_la_files` in the upstream rpm repository: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1674 This looks like it risks deleting more files than intended. If some package uses country codes or domain names in filenames, then this change could silently delete files specific to Laos. Language codes occur as filename suffixes. Apache can use them to serve web pages in the client's preferred language. This change risks deleting files written in latin. If there is a more reliable way to recognize a Libtool archive by inspecting the file's content, then I think the script should do that to verify that files with a ".la" suffix really are Libtool archives before deleting them. Björn Persson ___ 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
