On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 10:47:57AM -0400, Eric Mesa wrote:
> So...what is the proper path to get the perl folks to create epel8 branches
> in their repos
The same as with any other package: File a bug into Bugzilla.
-- Petr
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
On 5/19/20 5:16 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 15. 05. 20 22:36, Tom Callaway wrote:
I'm hoping that when texlive is able to fully install this issue will
go away. I just got a successful build for -21 that _should_ resolve
all the broken deps except for biber.
At this point I get:
nothing pr
On 5/19/20 6:03 AM, Richard Shaw wrote:
So I get the whole Fedora first, but...
Backstory:
FreeCAD has been in a terrible state in Fedora for a couple of years now
and I've nearly given up on trying to maintain the package a few times
now. The previous battle was with the Coin3D stack which f
On Tue, 2020-05-19 at 20:24 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-05-19 at 18:32 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > The most suspicious change between the two build envs that I can see is
> > openssl. GOOD has openssl-1.1.1g-1.fc33.x86_64 , and BAD has
> > openssl-1.1.1g-2.fc33.x86_64 . I'm g
On Tue, 2020-05-19 at 18:32 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> The most suspicious change between the two build envs that I can see is
> openssl. GOOD has openssl-1.1.1g-1.fc33.x86_64 , and BAD has
> openssl-1.1.1g-2.fc33.x86_64 . I'm gonna try doing an openssl build
> with the patch from -2 revert
On Tue, 2020-05-19 at 17:19 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-05-19 at 16:34 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2020-05-19 at 15:45 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > still, having trouble pinning down a culprit; it's not kernel-5.7.0-
> > > 0.rc6.1.fc33 as the 20200518.n.0 compo
On Tue, 2020-05-19 at 16:34 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-05-19 at 15:45 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > still, having trouble pinning down a culprit; it's not kernel-5.7.0-
> > 0.rc6.1.fc33 as the 20200518.n.0 compose failed, and that was run with
> > the previous kernel build, wh
On Tue, 2020-05-19 at 16:34 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> aha! This looks juicy. systemctl is linked against libpcap.so.1 , part
> of libpcap, which is in the list below, and this is the changelog for
> it:
>
> * Fri May 15 2020 Michal Ruprich - 14:1.9.1-4
> - Enabling rdma support in libpca
On Tue, 2020-05-19 at 15:45 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> still, having trouble pinning down a culprit; it's not kernel-5.7.0-
> 0.rc6.1.fc33 as the 20200518.n.0 compose failed, and that was run with
> the previous kernel build, which *succeeded* in the 20200517.n.0
> compose...
>
> I guess w
On Tue, 2020-05-19 at 15:58 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-05-19 at 18:55 -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> > > I guess we get to poke through everything built around the 17th
> > > and
> > > try
> > > to find a relevant change? :)
> >
> > Aren't highly complex, interdependent systems wit
On Tue, 2020-05-19 at 18:55 -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
>
> > I guess we get to poke through everything built around the 17th and
> > try
> > to find a relevant change? :)
>
> Aren't highly complex, interdependent systems with different owners of
> different components fun? :-)
well, they pay my
On Tue, 2020-05-19 at 15:45 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-05-19 at 18:16 -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> > But this is different, and it's the cause of your problem (well,
> > it's
> > the immediate cause anyway). The kernel-install script is failing
> > because it's passing /etc/kerne
On Tue, 2020-05-19 at 18:16 -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
>
> But this is different, and it's the cause of your problem (well, it's
> the immediate cause anyway). The kernel-install script is failing
> because it's passing /etc/kernel/install.d/ to something that wants
> something other than a direc
On Tue, 2020-05-19 at 19:02 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I was trying to chase down why modules.dep is no longer built in
> Rawhide (which affects supermin and therefore libguestfs), but it
> looks like there's a much more serious problem:
>
> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8
Hi Eric,
first and foremost sorry about not replying to the Bugzilla bug earlier,
the past weeks were unfortunately a bit crazy.
Eric Mesa writes:
> Hey there,
>
> I noticed that the i3 window manager wasn't available in EPEL8. Before
> trying to go through the process of becoming a package mai
On Fri, 15 May 2020 14:12:00 -0400 (EDT)
Charalampos Stratakis wrote:
> If you are not sure if your package links to libpython, a way to
> figure this out is to inspect the code for the Py_Initialize and the
> Py_Finalize calls [0]. If the code includes those calls, no action
> is required from
On Sat, 16 May 2020 at 16:31, Felix Schwarz wrote:
>
>
> Am 16.05.20 um 19:39 schrieb Antonio Trande:
> > `libb2-0.98.1` has been required on F31 [1] and EPEL7 [2]; it expects a
> > soname bump, so all dependent packages need to be rebuilt:
> >
> > $ repoquery --whatrequires libb2-devel --disabler
Adding the i3 SIG to the loop, maybe is something achievable by us.
Br,
El mar., 19 may. 2020 a las 14:11, Paul Howarth ()
escribió:
> On Tue, 19 May 2020 10:47:57 -0400
> Eric Mesa wrote:
> > I noticed that the i3 window manager wasn't available in EPEL8. Before
> > trying to go through the p
Howdy y'all,
The glances package prints out a warning that the user should upgrade
it via pip. This is wrong for obvious reasons. This issue was first
reported in bugzilla on 2019-11-18 [0]. I opened a pull request to
fix it 2019-12-22 [1]. The maintainer has not responded to the
bugzilla or t
Il giorno mar, 19/05/2020 alle 18.43 +0200, Dan Horák ha scritto:
> On Tue, 19 May 2020 17:42:29 +0200
> Guido Aulisi wrote:
>
> > Il giorno mar, 19/05/2020 alle 12.11 +0200, Florian Weimer ha
> > scritto:
> > > * Guido Aulisi:
> > >
> > > > I'm getting some strange errors from some packages bui
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Mon, 2020-05-18 at 15:36 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Aarch64_PointerAuthentication
>
> == Summary ==
> Arm Pointer Authentication (PAC) is a method of hardening code from
> Return Oriented Programming (ROP) a
On Tue, 19 May 2020, 18:10 Adam Williamson,
wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-05-19 at 10:43 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 10:31 AM Adam Williamson <
> adamw...@fedoraproject.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2020-05-19 at 08:49 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > > > I think here we need
On 5/18/20 3:36 PM, Ben Cotton wrote:
Arm Pointer Authentication (PAC) is a method of hardening code from
Return Oriented Programming (ROP) attacks. It uses a tag in a pointer
to sign and verify pointers. Branch Target Identification (BTI) is
another code hardening method, where the branch/jump t
On Tue, 19 May 2020 10:47:57 -0400
Eric Mesa wrote:
> I noticed that the i3 window manager wasn't available in EPEL8. Before
> trying to go through the process of becoming a package maintainer I
> decided to try and run it via copr to see how much modification was
> needed. For EPEL8 (as opposed t
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 11:40:50AM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 11:28 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
> wrote:
> > Next time FESCo should forbid gcc updates to unreleased versions in
> > branched Fedora releases.
> >
> > Now we need a new mass rebuild in Fedora 32 with fixed
I was trying to chase down why modules.dep is no longer built in
Rawhide (which affects supermin and therefore libguestfs), but it
looks like there's a much more serious problem:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8242/44698242/root.log
(from https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinf
Hello.
We plan to continue on our plan to disable automagic Python
bytecompilation so I'd like to summarize what you can expect.
If you don't know what I am talking about, please read this change [0]
and its second phase [1].
Currently, we have 130 packages with `%global _python_bytecompile
On Tue, 19 May 2020 17:42:29 +0200
Guido Aulisi wrote:
> Il giorno mar, 19/05/2020 alle 12.11 +0200, Florian Weimer ha scritto:
> > * Guido Aulisi:
> >
> > > I'm getting some strange errors from some packages built for f32
> > > with
> > > gcc 10.0 [0].
> > > Building with g++ 10.1 ardourd5 seem
On Tue, 2020-05-19 at 10:43 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 10:31 AM Adam Williamson
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2020-05-19 at 08:49 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > > I think here we need better ways of testing software in Rawhide other
> > than
> > > well, running Rawhide (VM or b
On Tue, 2020-05-19 at 17:50 +0200, Dan Horák wrote:
> On Tue, 19 May 2020 08:29:45 -0700
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2020-05-19 at 08:49 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > > I think here we need better ways of testing software in Rawhide
> > > other than well, running Rawhide (VM or bare m
On Tue, 19 May 2020 08:29:45 -0700
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-05-19 at 08:49 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > I think here we need better ways of testing software in Rawhide
> > other than well, running Rawhide (VM or bare metal), besides the
> > old mock chroot xnest hack. I'm open to s
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 10:31 AM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-05-19 at 08:49 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > I think here we need better ways of testing software in Rawhide other
> than
> > well, running Rawhide (VM or bare metal), besides the old mock chroot
> xnest
> > hack. I'm open to
Il giorno mar, 19/05/2020 alle 12.11 +0200, Florian Weimer ha scritto:
> * Guido Aulisi:
>
> > I'm getting some strange errors from some packages built for f32
> > with
> > gcc 10.0 [0].
> > Building with g++ 10.1 ardourd5 seems fine...
> >
> > It seems GCC 10.0 had some bugs that could be discov
On Tue, 2020-05-19 at 08:49 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> I think here we need better ways of testing software in Rawhide other than
> well, running Rawhide (VM or bare metal), besides the old mock chroot xnest
> hack. I'm open to suggestion here.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/ci/ ?
--
Adam
On 19. 05. 20 16:46, Christopher wrote:
Interesting that the survey shows that the most common response was that people
use it "not at all" and the overall response was negative, but the reaction to
that is, "improve the docs" and "works as intended". Am I the only one who
thinks that the peopl
Hello, Andy!
On Monday, 18 May 2020 at 22:37, Andy Mender wrote:
> Hello everyone!
>
> Introduction:
> After reading the Fedora docs on packaging, I decided I would like to join
> the Fedora project initially as a package maintainer/reviewer and perhaps
> later as a source code committer. Here's
Hey there,
I noticed that the i3 window manager wasn't available in EPEL8. Before
trying to go through the process of becoming a package maintainer I decided
to try and run it via copr to see how much modification was needed. For
EPEL8 (as opposed to 7) I was able to take the current spec file and
Interesting that the survey shows that the most common response was that
people use it "not at all" and the overall response was negative, but the
reaction to that is, "improve the docs" and "works as intended". Am I the
only one who thinks that the people pushing modularity aren't listening to
the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Tue, 2020-05-19 at 16:11 +0200, Felix Schwarz wrote:
> Am 19.05.20 um 15:55 schrieb Richard Shaw:
> > Thanks! I do overall enjoy contributing to Fedora but like a lot of
> > us 10 year
> > plus packagers, I'm accumulated many packages (some a lot
On Tue, May 19, 2020, 15:40 Jiri Vanek wrote:
> Hello!
>
> An raw schedule of mass rebuilds was added to the Java11 feature list:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Java11#Expected_schedule
>
> You can expect second copr-based mass rebuild, in 1st June 2020. Please
> try to fix your package
Am 19.05.20 um 15:55 schrieb Richard Shaw:
> Thanks! I do overall enjoy contributing to Fedora but like a lot of us 10 year
> plus packagers, I'm accumulated many packages (some a lot more trouble than
> others!) and while I have no intention of taking a hiatus or anything I'm
> trying to find a p
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 8:44 AM Felix Schwarz
wrote:
>
> However: Thank you Richard for taking care of PySide2. I contributed (tiny
> bits) to Fedora's PySide/Shiboken packages in the past and I can only guess
> how many hours you spent to get the new versions into Fedora.
>
Thanks! I do overall
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 8:37 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 19. 05. 20 15:19, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > Ask upstream to always test with develop version of Python, I believe
> > that services like Travis CI have 3.9-dev prepared so that they can
> > test early and adopt.
> >
> > Meanwh
Am 19.05.20 um 14:56 schrieb Igor Raits:
> I think we should get people who maintain Qt on board when updating
> Python so that they make sure to backport necessary patches from
> upstream when we upgrade Python.
Yeah, I think Richard got pretty unlucky when it comes to PySide2 (though
congrats f
Hello!
An raw schedule of mass rebuilds was added to the Java11 feature list:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Java11#Expected_schedule
You can expect second copr-based mass rebuild, in 1st June 2020. Please try to
fix your packages
until then, as on the result of this mass rebuild, futur
On 19. 05. 20 15:19, Richard Shaw wrote:
Ask upstream to always test with develop version of Python, I believe
that services like Travis CI have 3.9-dev prepared so that they can
test early and adopt.
Meanwhile, if they can just link all relevant fixes - just backport
them in
On 5/19/20 5:16 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 15. 05. 20 22:36, Tom Callaway wrote:
I'm hoping that when texlive is able to fully install this issue will
go away. I just got a successful build for -21 that _should_ resolve
all the broken deps except for biber.
At this point I get:
nothing pr
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 7:57 AM Igor Raits
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> On Tue, 2020-05-19 at 07:03 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > So I get the whole Fedora first, but...
> >
> > Backstory:
> >
> > FreeCAD has been in a terrible state in Fedora fo
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 01:49:53PM +0200, Felix Schwarz wrote:
>
> I see that the server returns "401 Unauthorized" when I try to change this via
> s.f.o. Is changing the bugzilla assignee only allowed for main admins?
Sorry for the slow response, you are correct only the main admins (and pagure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi Richard,
On Tue, 2020-05-19 at 07:03 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> So I get the whole Fedora first, but...
>
> Backstory:
>
> FreeCAD has been in a terrible state in Fedora for a couple of years
> now
> and I've nearly given up on trying to main
On 19. 05. 20 14:03, Richard Shaw wrote:
So I get the whole Fedora first, but...
Backstory:
FreeCAD has been in a terrible state in Fedora for a couple of years now and
I've nearly given up on trying to maintain the package a few times now. The
previous battle was with the Coin3D stack which
So I get the whole Fedora first, but...
Backstory:
FreeCAD has been in a terrible state in Fedora for a couple of years now
and I've nearly given up on trying to maintain the package a few times now.
The previous battle was with the Coin3D stack which finally got updated to
Coin4 in f32 (then Raw
I see that the server returns "401 Unauthorized" when I try to change this via
s.f.o. Is changing the bugzilla assignee only allowed for main admins?
Felix
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le.
> jskarvad gnuradio gr-air-modes gr-fcdproplus gr-hpsdr gr-iqbal gr-osmosdr
> gr-rds hamlib pidgin
pidgin - it calls Py_Initialize, so I kept is as is
hamlib - fixed & forwarded upstream
gnuradio stuff - it doesn't seem it calls Py_Initialize, but linking without
-python failed:
/usr/bin/ld: ..
On 15. 05. 20 22:36, Tom Callaway wrote:
I'm hoping that when texlive is able to fully install this issue will go away. I
just got a successful build for -21 that _should_ resolve all the broken deps
except for biber.
At this point I get:
nothing provides biber >= 2.14 needed by texlive-bib
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 11:58:47AM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 19.05.2020 11:40, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > As I wrote in my direct response to Guido, doing a mass rebuild for
> > fedora just isn't possible in released branches. So, the best we can
> > do is to deal with issues as p
Hello everyone,
We have finally evaluated all of your responses to the Modularity
survey. You can find the results posted on the Fedora community blog[1].
Thanks to all of you who filled the survey and provided detailed
explanation of what works and what not.
[1] https://communityblog.fedor
No missing expected images.
Passed openQA tests: 1/1 (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.fedorap
* Guido Aulisi:
> I'm getting some strange errors from some packages built for f32 with
> gcc 10.0 [0].
> Building with g++ 10.1 ardourd5 seems fine...
>
> It seems GCC 10.0 had some bugs that could be discovered only at
> runtime. Did you have any similar problems?
>
> Ciao
> Guido
> FAS: tartina
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 11:18:06AM +0200, Felix Schwarz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> it seems it is possible to use a -sig group as default bugzilla assignee but I
> don't know how to do it.
>
> If I go to pagure (src.fedoraproject.org) I can edit the bugzilla assignee but
> using "@certbot-sig" (or "certbot
No missing expected images.
Passed openQA tests: 1/1 (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.fedorap
On 19.05.2020 11:40, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> As I wrote in my direct response to Guido, doing a mass rebuild for
> fedora just isn't possible in released branches. So, the best we can
> do is to deal with issues as people become aware of them and report
> them, and then rebuild those few broken pa
Am 19.05.20 um 11:25 schrieb Fabio Valentini:
> Maybe the reason is that the @certbot-sig is registered as a
> "tracking" type group, whereas e.g. the new @java-maint-sig is
> registered as a "pkgdb" type group? I was able to successfully set
> overrides for the latter one.
You are probably right
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 11:28 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
> Next time FESCo should forbid gcc updates to unreleased versions in
> branched Fedora releases.
>
> Now we need a new mass rebuild in Fedora 32 with fixed gcc 10.1.1 version.
As I wrote in my direct response to Guido, doing a mass
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 11:18 AM Felix Schwarz
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> it seems it is possible to use a -sig group as default bugzilla assignee but I
> don't know how to do it.
>
> If I go to pagure (src.fedoraproject.org) I can edit the bugzilla assignee but
> using "@certbot-sig" (or "certbot-sig") d
On 19.05.2020 10:32, Guido Aulisi wrote:
> It seems GCC 10.0 had some bugs that could be discovered only at
> runtime. Did you have any similar problems?
GCC 10.0.1 was broken. Maintainers of gcc just used SVN trunk in
production without any real tests.
I experienced lots of ICEs and multiple cra
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 11:19 AM Ankur Sinha wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 19, 2020 10:44:05 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> >
> >
> > Good Morning!
> >
> > We were planning to discuss this from the Stewardship SIG point of
> > view during today's meeting, and I didn't want to announce any plans
> > bef
On Tue, May 19, 2020 10:44:05 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
>
> Good Morning!
>
> We were planning to discuss this from the Stewardship SIG point of
> view during today's meeting, and I didn't want to announce any plans
> before that.
>
> However, my suggestion would be to do the following th
Hi,
it seems it is possible to use a -sig group as default bugzilla assignee but I
don't know how to do it.
If I go to pagure (src.fedoraproject.org) I can edit the bugzilla assignee but
using "@certbot-sig" (or "certbot-sig") does not work (error message "Unable
to update the bugzilla assignee(s
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 10:33 AM Guido Aulisi wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I'm getting some strange errors from some packages built for f32 with
> gcc 10.0 [0].
> Building with g++ 10.1 ardourd5 seems fine...
>
> It seems GCC 10.0 had some bugs that could be discovered only at
> runtime. Did you have any simi
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 10:13 AM Ankur Sinha wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 12, 2020 18:45:12 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 6:17 PM Igor Raits
> > wrote:
> > > Count me in! I don't think I can help much, but at least can give some
> > > suggestions.
> > >
> > > > Let's make th
Hi,
I'm getting some strange errors from some packages built for f32 with
gcc 10.0 [0].
Building with g++ 10.1 ardourd5 seems fine...
It seems GCC 10.0 had some bugs that could be discovered only at
runtime. Did you have any similar problems?
Ciao
Guido
FAS: tartina
[0]: https://bugzilla.redhat.
On Tue, May 12, 2020 18:45:12 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 6:17 PM Igor Raits
> wrote:
> > Count me in! I don't think I can help much, but at least can give some
> > suggestions.
> >
> > > Let's make this happen.
> >
> > Good luck, Fabio!
>
> Thanks! Every bit of help c
Hello,
Please find the logs from yesterday's meeting here:
- HTML logs:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/neurofedora/neurofedora.2020-05-18-18.01.log.html
- HTML minutes:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/neurofedora/neurofedora.2020-05-18-18.01.html
The plain-text minutes a
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/1 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
ID: 600731 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/600731
--
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.i
75 matches
Mail list logo
