Re: Fedora 34 Change: PostgreSQL 13 (Self-Contained Change)

> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/PostgreSQL_13 On Tuesday, January 12, 2021 9:57:02 PM CET Ben Cotton wrote: > As postgresql packages are built against the separated libpq package, > an incompatibility between major versions can occur with new minor > upstream releases. For example, when b

Re: Chromium built in rawhide does not render most strings

* Kevin Kofler via devel: > But the thing is, fstatat is not really a newer version of fstat, it > unfortunately has very different security properties. fstat allows > retrieving the stat metadata only of already open files (if you know or > guess the fd). On the other hand, fstatat allows retr

Re: In which order does ELN build packages, what build root is it using?

On 10/2/20 2:55 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote: BTW and since Orion also takes care of VTK package, why or how this happen [1] ? why or how vtk-devel requires things that doesn't exist (yet) in fedora-eln ? [1] mock -r fedora-eln-x86_64 --install vtk-devel - nothing provides libjawt.so(SUNWprivate_

Re: Policy proposal (draft): Don't push knowingly broken or work-in-progress work to dist git

Miro Hrončok wrote: > 1. Untested changes > > Packager pushes a "simple update" to dist git without checking if it even > builds. It doesn't. Packager has no time to fix this, so they move on for > now. Or they submit a build but never check if it actually built. > Provenpackagers who need to rebu

Re: Backwards-incompatible RPM format change in Fedora 34?

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 04:58:09PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > I've been told that it is not (easily) possible, so a new build is running > now. Yeah, It may be possible, but not super easy. ;( Hopefully the mass rebuild will fix up any of these left. Additionally, there's a rpm version i

Re: Policy proposal (draft): Don't push knowingly broken or work-in-progress work to dist git

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 03:59:43PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > Hello, > ...snip... > > > Before I try to word it more carefully I'd like to hear some feedback on > this. What do you think? In general I think it's a good policy, but we should make sure it's worded in a nice way. ie, please don'

Re: Fedora 34 Mass Rebuild

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 03:16:11PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 5:10 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 02:17:28PM -0500, Mohan Boddu wrote: > > > We are delaying the mass rebuild by a day as of now due to bugs in gcc > > > and dwz. As of now, we are

Re: PackageKit-gtk3-module i686 (x86_32) is missing in Fedora 33 repositories

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 01:00:58PM +0100, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > Le lun. 25 janv. 2021 à 12:29, Kamil Paral a écrit : > > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:17 AM Graham White > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I'm trying to get to the bottom of bug #1901065 - > >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/sho

Re: 32bit arm builder issues

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 12:19:13PM +, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 8:55 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 08:21:48PM +, Peter Robinson wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 7:54 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 08:38:44PM

Re: How to change FAS username and email

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 06:40:09PM +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 5:37 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > Soon. We have staging pretty close to all working, so I would expect > > sometime in the next weeks. We will announce deployment plans as we make > > them. > > Excellent ne

Fedora 35 Change: Add Fedora Kinoite as a variant (Self-Contained Change proposal)

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Fedora_Kinoite == Summary == Introduce Fedora Kinoite as a variant of Fedora alongside Fedora Silverblue. == Owner == * Name: [[User:siosm| Timothée Ravier]] (travier AT redhat DOT com) * FESCo shepherd: [[User:Ngompa| Neal Gompa]] (ngompa13 A gmail D com)

Re: Fedora 34 Change: PostgreSQL 13 (Self-Contained Change)

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 03:57:02PM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/PostgreSQL_13 > > > == Summary == > Update of PostgreSQL (`postgresql` and `libpq` components) in Fedora > from version 12 to version 13 in the non-modular (main) builds. > > Also, there will be

Re: Fedora 34 Change: Localization measurement and tooling (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Done, with a merge proposal. "[..] We could probably try to merge both tools together by writing down the goals each tool want to achieve. Measuring the usage of transtats would help to identify if some features are to be preserved. Workshop is to be organized to build a plan. Proposed date is

Re: Backwards-incompatible RPM format change in Fedora 34?

Pavel Raiskup writes: > On Monday, January 25, 2021 7:50:08 PM CET Dan Čermák wrote: >> Pavel Raiskup writes: >> >> > On Monday, January 25, 2021 8:18:33 AM CET Panu Matilainen wrote: >> >> On 1/22/21 8:19 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: >> >> > On Fri, 2021-01-22 at 09:57 +0200, Panu Matilainen wro

Re: Policy proposal (draft): Don't push knowingly broken or work-in-progress work to dist git

Miro Hrončok writes: > On 25. 01. 21 19:32, Robbie Harwood wrote: >> Miro Hrončok writes: >> >>> Before I try to word it more carefully I'd like to hear some feedback >>> on this. What do you think? >> >> It seems to me that this problem would be better solved by making >> rebuilds smarter. I

fedpkg request-repo is broken

Hi all, While working on master to rawhide change [0], we made changes to fedpkg and other tools, while we thought of coordinating about when to release it (post mass rebuild) fedpkg-1.40-2 got released with the changes in F33 and rawhide. This has issues with processing new repo requests [1]. I

Re: Soname bump for clang-libs

On 1/25/21 7:00 AM, Tom Stellard wrote: On 1/24/21 7:42 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 23. 01. 21 2:18, Tom Stellard wrote: On 1/21/21 7:28 AM, Tom Stellard wrote: Hi, We are going to be building clang-11.1.0 for rawhide, which changes the soname of libclang.so and libclang-cpp.so. This is unusu

Re: Backwards-incompatible RPM format change in Fedora 34?

On Monday, January 25, 2021 7:50:08 PM CET Dan Čermák wrote: > Pavel Raiskup writes: > > > On Monday, January 25, 2021 8:18:33 AM CET Panu Matilainen wrote: > >> On 1/22/21 8:19 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > >> > On Fri, 2021-01-22 at 09:57 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: > >> >> On 1/21/21 8:37 PM,

Re: Policy proposal (draft): Don't push knowingly broken or work-in-progress work to dist git

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 13:58, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 01:42:17PM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 13:30, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek < > zbys...@in.waw.pl> > > wrote: > > > > > > If this was some other code which was tied into some

Re: Policy proposal (draft): Don't push knowingly broken or work-in-progress work to dist git

On 25. 01. 21 19:32, Robbie Harwood wrote: Miro Hrončok writes: Before I try to word it more carefully I'd like to hear some feedback on this. What do you think? I'm struggling to understand what you think this will accomplish. I want packagers to have a documented "dos and don'ts" of wha

Re: Policy proposal (draft): Don't push knowingly broken or work-in-progress work to dist git

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 01:42:17PM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 13:30, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 07:19:45PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > On 25. 01. 21 19:03, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > >On Mon, Jan 25, 2021

Re: Backwards-incompatible RPM format change in Fedora 34?

Hi Pavle, Pavel Raiskup writes: > On Monday, January 25, 2021 8:18:33 AM CET Panu Matilainen wrote: >> On 1/22/21 8:19 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: >> > On Fri, 2021-01-22 at 09:57 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: >> >> On 1/21/21 8:37 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 10:53 +01

Re: Policy proposal (draft): Don't push knowingly broken or work-in-progress work to dist git

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 13:30, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 07:19:45PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 25. 01. 21 19:03, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > >On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 03:59:43PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > >>1. Packagers MUST NOT push changes

Re: Policy proposal (draft): Don't push knowingly broken or work-in-progress work to dist git

On 25. 01. 21 19:29, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 07:19:45PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 25. 01. 21 19:03, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 03:59:43PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: 1. Packagers MUST NOT push changes that are not considered

Re: Policy proposal (draft): Don't push knowingly broken or work-in-progress work to dist git

Miro Hrončok writes: > Before I try to word it more carefully I'd like to hear some feedback > on this. What do you think? I'm struggling to understand what you think this will accomplish. Leaving aside ideological disagreement about the nature of rawhide (I don't think rawhide should be expec

Re: Policy proposal (draft): Don't push knowingly broken or work-in-progress work to dist git

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 07:19:45PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 25. 01. 21 19:03, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > >On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 03:59:43PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > >>1. Packagers MUST NOT push changes that are not considered ready to > >>be built and shipped at the time of th

Re: Policy proposal (draft): Don't push knowingly broken or work-in-progress work to dist git

On 25. 01. 21 19:03, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 03:59:43PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: 1. Packagers MUST NOT push changes that are not considered ready to be built and shipped at the time of the push. Using Pull Requests (clearly marked as not ready to be merged) i

Re: Policy proposal (draft): Don't push knowingly broken or work-in-progress work to dist git

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 03:59:43PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > 1. Packagers MUST NOT push changes that are not considered ready to > be built and shipped at the time of the push. Using Pull Requests > (clearly marked as not ready to be merged) is a better place to > present/save changes that are n

Re: Policy proposal (draft): Don't push knowingly broken or work-in-progress work to dist git

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 04:43:21PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > But that would involve at least six new steps that would've to be > automated: 1) Creating a fork on src.fp.o (plus error handling around > already existing forks), 2) Cloning the fork instead of the main repo, > 3) Automatically cr

Re: Backwards-incompatible RPM format change in Fedora 34?

On 25. 01. 21 16:32, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 25. 01. 21 15:49, Pavel Raiskup wrote: On Monday, January 25, 2021 8:18:33 AM CET Panu Matilainen wrote: On 1/22/21 8:19 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2021-01-22 at 09:57 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 1/21/21 8:37 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:

Re: Policy proposal (draft): Don't push knowingly broken or work-in-progress work to dist git

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 4:37 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 10:31 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > > On 25. 01. 21 16:19, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > I'm fully in favor of this and I'd really like to see us add some > > > degree of CI gating to support it. > > > > Note tha

Re: Policy proposal (draft): Don't push knowingly broken or work-in-progress work to dist git

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 10:31 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 25. 01. 21 16:19, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > I'm fully in favor of this and I'd really like to see us add some > > degree of CI gating to support it. > > Note that unfortunately CI gating happens too late. It has no capability to > bloc

Re: Soname bump for clang-libs

On 1/25/21 7:30 AM, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 4:00 PM Tom Stellard wrote: On 1/24/21 7:42 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 23. 01. 21 2:18, Tom Stellard wrote: On 1/21/21 7:28 AM, Tom Stellard wrote: Hi, We are going to be building clang-11.1.0 for rawhide, which changes the

Re: Backwards-incompatible RPM format change in Fedora 34?

On 25. 01. 21 15:49, Pavel Raiskup wrote: On Monday, January 25, 2021 8:18:33 AM CET Panu Matilainen wrote: On 1/22/21 8:19 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2021-01-22 at 09:57 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 1/21/21 8:37 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 10:53 +0100, Kevin

Re: Policy proposal (draft): Don't push knowingly broken or work-in-progress work to dist git

On 25. 01. 21 16:19, Stephen Gallagher wrote: I'm fully in favor of this and I'd really like to see us add some degree of CI gating to support it. Note that unfortunately CI gating happens too late. It has no capability to block commits that fail to build, because it only tests successful buil

Re: Soname bump for clang-libs

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 4:00 PM Tom Stellard wrote: > > On 1/24/21 7:42 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 23. 01. 21 2:18, Tom Stellard wrote: > >> On 1/21/21 7:28 AM, Tom Stellard wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> We are going to be building clang-11.1.0 for rawhide, which changes the > >>> soname of li

Re: Boost 1.75.0 in rawhide, with soname change

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 15:21, Iñaki Ucar wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 15:20, Iñaki Ucar wrote: > > > > On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 14:32, Iñaki Ucar wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 13:58, Jonathan Wakely > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 25/01/21 12:33 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >

Re: Policy proposal (draft): Don't push knowingly broken or work-in-progress work to dist git

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 10:00 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > Hello, > > When we work on rebuilding Python packages with new Python version and when > other provenpackagers rebuild multiple packages at once, I've seen several > problems with packages failing to build from source and/or creating unexpec

Re: Soname bump for clang-libs

On 1/24/21 7:42 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 23. 01. 21 2:18, Tom Stellard wrote: On 1/21/21 7:28 AM, Tom Stellard wrote: Hi, We are going to be building clang-11.1.0 for rawhide, which changes the soname of libclang.so and libclang-cpp.so. This is unusual for clang, since the soname will chan

Policy proposal (draft): Don't push knowingly broken or work-in-progress work to dist git

Hello, When we work on rebuilding Python packages with new Python version and when other provenpackagers rebuild multiple packages at once, I've seen several problems with packages failing to build from source and/or creating unexpected breakage in rawhide when built. Usually, some of the foll

Re: ELN build order

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 3:48 PM Vít Ondruch wrote: > (snip) >> I think that ELN should try to follow the Rawhide build order. If it can't >> do that, then it should wait for manual intervention. > > > This is on our todo list, but we have been balancing a lot of things at the > same time and h

Re: Backwards-incompatible RPM format change in Fedora 34?

On Monday, January 25, 2021 8:18:33 AM CET Panu Matilainen wrote: > On 1/22/21 8:19 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Fri, 2021-01-22 at 09:57 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: > >> On 1/21/21 8:37 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > >>> On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 10:53 +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: >

Re: ELN build order

Dne 25. 01. 21 v 10:20 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Dne 11. 01. 21 v 15:15 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a): On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 5:55 AM Vít Ondruch > wrote: Can the ELN be fixed to stop doing rebuild like this? Of course the issue is not in rubygem-thin but t

Re: Boost 1.75.0 in rawhide, with soname change

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 15:20, Iñaki Ucar wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 14:32, Iñaki Ucar wrote: > > > > On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 13:58, Jonathan Wakely > > wrote: > > > > > > On 25/01/21 12:33 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > >>>rstudio -- error: 'bind' is not a member of 'boost' > > > >>>

Re: Boost 1.75.0 in rawhide, with soname change

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 14:32, Iñaki Ucar wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 13:58, Jonathan Wakely > wrote: > > > > On 25/01/21 12:33 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > >>>rstudio -- error: 'bind' is not a member of 'boost' > > >>>http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1673105 > > >>

Re: Fedora 34 Mass Rebuild

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 5:10 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 02:17:28PM -0500, Mohan Boddu wrote: > > We are delaying the mass rebuild by a day as of now due to bugs in gcc > > and dwz. As of now, we are expecting to start mass rebuild tomorrow, > > Jan 21st 2021. There is a ne

Re: live respin archive

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 06:03, Sérgio Basto wrote: > On Sun, 2021-01-24 at 17:45 -0800, Samuel Sieb wrote: > > On 1/24/21 5:40 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > > On Sun, 2021-01-24 at 16:42 -0800, Samuel Sieb wrote: > > > > On 1/23/21 1:09 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > > > > Have we a FedoraRespin-32 ? w

Fedora Copr on IPv6 // Highlights from the recent copr release

I'm happy I can announce that Copr should work newly for IPv6-only clients (IOW became available both on IPv4 and IPv6): $ host copr.fedorainfracloud.org copr.fedorainfracloud.org is an alias for copr-fe.aws.fedoraproject.org. copr-fe.aws.fedoraproject.org has address 3.225.109.36 copr-fe.

Re: List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in February

On 20. 01. 21 14:15, Chihurumnaya Ibiam wrote: I'd like sugar-view-slides and sugar-visualmatch to be exempted as I'm working on both. Note that sugar-visualmatch was already retired when we had this conversation, because it was orphaned for 6+ weeks. No idea why it was still part of the rep

Re: Boost 1.75.0 in rawhide, with soname change

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 13:58, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On 25/01/21 12:33 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >>>rstudio -- error: 'bind' is not a member of 'boost' > >>>http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1673105 > >> > >>I'm going to look into this. > > The patch to add -DBOOST_BIN

Re: PackageKit-gtk3-module i686 (x86_32) is missing in Fedora 33 repositories

* Graham White: > I'm trying to get to the bottom of bug #1901065 - > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901065 > > Anyone know why PackageKit-gtk3-module.i686 has been removed from the > Fedora 33 repositories? This package was there for Fedora 32 and > checking Koji it looks like the

Re: Boost 1.75.0 in rawhide, with soname change

On 25/01/21 12:33 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: rstudio -- error: 'bind' is not a member of 'boost' http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1673105 I'm going to look into this. The patch to add -DBOOST_BIND_GLOBAL_PLACEHOLDERS got removed again a few days ago, but it's still need

Re: Boost 1.75.0 in rawhide, with soname change

On 25/01/21 12:05 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 25/01/21 10:00 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: Tom Rodgers completed the Boost 1.75.0 build for the change https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F34Boost175 and I've rebuilt most of the packages that depend on it. The following packages failed t

Re: 32bit arm builder issues

On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 8:55 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 08:21:48PM +, Peter Robinson wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 7:54 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 08:38:44PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 03:21:14PM -0800

Re: Boost 1.75.0 in rawhide, with soname change

On 25/01/21 10:00 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: Tom Rodgers completed the Boost 1.75.0 build for the change https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F34Boost175 and I've rebuilt most of the packages that depend on it. The following packages failed to build. I'll look at the ones that appear to be

Re: PackageKit-gtk3-module i686 (x86_32) is missing in Fedora 33 repositories

Le lun. 25 janv. 2021 à 12:29, Kamil Paral a écrit : > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:17 AM Graham White > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I'm trying to get to the bottom of bug #1901065 - >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901065 >> >> Anyone know why PackageKit-gtk3-module.i686 has been rem

Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers

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 Note: If

Re: PackageKit-gtk3-module i686 (x86_32) is missing in Fedora 33 repositories

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:17 AM Graham White wrote: > Hi, > > I'm trying to get to the bottom of bug #1901065 - > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901065 > > Anyone know why PackageKit-gtk3-module.i686 has been removed from the > Fedora 33 repositories? This package was there for Fe

Re: live respin archive

On Sun, 2021-01-24 at 17:45 -0800, Samuel Sieb wrote: > On 1/24/21 5:40 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > On Sun, 2021-01-24 at 16:42 -0800, Samuel Sieb wrote: > > > On 1/23/21 1:09 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > > > Have we a FedoraRespin-32 ? we might want install a Fedora 32 . > > > > > > Live respins a

Re: Boost 1.75.0 in rawhide, with soname change

On 25/01/21 11:41 +0100, Iñaki Ucar wrote: On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 11:31, Iñaki Ucar wrote: On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 11:08, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > Tom Rodgers completed the Boost 1.75.0 build for the change > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F34Boost175 > and I've rebuilt most of the p

Re: Boost 1.75.0 in rawhide, with soname change

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 11:31, Iñaki Ucar wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 11:08, Jonathan Wakely > wrote: > > > > Tom Rodgers completed the Boost 1.75.0 build for the change > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F34Boost175 > > and I've rebuilt most of the packages that depend on it. > > >

Re: Boost 1.75.0 in rawhide, with soname change

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 11:31, Iñaki Ucar wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 11:08, Jonathan Wakely > wrote: > > > > Tom Rodgers completed the Boost 1.75.0 build for the change > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F34Boost175 > > and I've rebuilt most of the packages that depend on it. > > >

Re: Boost 1.75.0 in rawhide, with soname change

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 11:08, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > Tom Rodgers completed the Boost 1.75.0 build for the change > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F34Boost175 > and I've rebuilt most of the packages that depend on it. > > The following packages failed to build. I'll look at the ones tha

Re: Boost 1.75.0 in rawhide, with soname change

On Monday, 25 January 2021 at 11:00, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > Tom Rodgers completed the Boost 1.75.0 build for the change > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F34Boost175 > and I've rebuilt most of the packages that depend on it. > > The following packages failed to build. I'll look at the one

PackageKit-gtk3-module i686 (x86_32) is missing in Fedora 33 repositories

Hi, I'm trying to get to the bottom of bug #1901065 - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901065 Anyone know why PackageKit-gtk3-module.i686 has been removed from the Fedora 33 repositories? This package was there for Fedora 32 and checking Koji it looks like the 32-bit version is st

Boost 1.75.0 in rawhide, with soname change

Tom Rodgers completed the Boost 1.75.0 build for the change https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F34Boost175 and I've rebuilt most of the packages that depend on it. The following packages failed to build. I'll look at the ones that appear to be due to Boost changes. OpenImageIO -- libOpenImag

Fedora 33 network configuration (ifcfg*) migration guide available?

With Fedora 33 network configuration is by default persisted in /etc/NetworkManager/system-connections/*.nmconnection files. The old /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg* files are „legacy“. They are still being processed for the time being, but obviously it is time to migrate. (cf https://fedo

Re: 32bit arm builder issues

Hi, > I'm now trying (in staging) moving them back to direct boot from uefi. > If that doesn't work on f33, It should do. Starting with f33 kernel + grub2 are working just fine. You an use a regular anaconda install and shouldn't see much of a difference between aarch64 and armhfp in uefi mod

Re: ELN build order

Dne 11. 01. 21 v 15:15 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a): On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 5:55 AM Vít Ondruch > wrote: Can the ELN be fixed to stop doing rebuild like this? Of course the issue is not in rubygem-thin but the issue is that once the Ruby side tag was m

Re: fedora SRPM auto building

On 1/24/21 10:34 PM, Billa Surendra wrote: I am trying to install RPM on riscv target  (QEMU), but its throwing error. Even Though gzip/bzip2/xz are installed in target. Error: */home # uname -a Linux C-DAC 5.4.1 #1 SMP Wed Dec 30 17:01:02 IST 2020 riscv64 GNU/Linux Is this Fedora? The kern