Re: F35 Change: Package information on ELF objects (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Mon, 2021-04-12 at 23:10 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > Or in other words: packaging metadata are sources too. If they change > (and a version bump constitutes a change) the output might change, > and > that's expected. What's key really is that the only things that can > effect generated ou

Re: Stepping down as Fedora Jam maintainer

On Monday, April 12, 2021 7:52:24 AM PDT Matthew Miller wrote: > On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 11:38:40PM -, JT Pennington wrote: > > > I'd like to volunteer to pick up the Fedora Jam project and maintain it. > > > Awesome -- thanks JT! > > -- > Matthew Miller > > Fedora Project Leader > __

New Fedora Developer Portal release

Hello, long overdue release has landed to: https://developer.fedoraproject.org/ Please check the updated website! Most notable changes (in no particular order): - Removed search, due to plugin incompatability [1]. - Updated Ruby install page [2]. - Nodejs page update [3]. - New Web Applicat

Re: Grub 2 protected packages

On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 11:51 PM Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 4:01 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > Ideally, we should change to a system similar to what openSUSE does > > and have the RPMs install bootloader content into /usr, then execute a > > helper program that copies things o

Re: [Ocaml-devel] Re: Need feedback on ocaml-atd review request

On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 5:33 PM Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: > ok, the camlzip OPAM module still uses Makefiles to install, and rather > than trying to make sure I override the right environment variables to > get it to build correctly, I figured I'd rather fix opam2rpm to support > Zip archives:

Re: Grub 2 protected packages

On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 4:01 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > > Ideally, we should change to a system similar to what openSUSE does > and have the RPMs install bootloader content into /usr, then execute a > helper program that copies things over to /boot and configures things > properly (we should still hav

Re: Stepping down as Fedora Jam maintainer

Erich, you want to transfer those two pagure repos over to me? You should still have my email from back in the day, but let me know if there's anything info you want to pass long on things you were working on, current issues you were aware of, things that were requested or planned, etc. ___

Re: F35 Change: Package information on ELF objects (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Mo, 12.04.21 20:40, Fedora Development ML (devel@lists.fedoraproject.org) wrote: > On Mon, 2021-04-12 at 15:46 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Package_information_on_ELF_objects > > Putting packaging info into a binary guarantees that each successive > packa

Re: F35 Change: Package information on ELF objects (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Mo, 12.04.21 16:14, David Malcolm (dmalc...@redhat.com) wrote: > So I want to push back on the idea that a single package can be > associated with a coredump, or be the one responsible for the crash: > any or all of the ELF objects linked into the process could be at > fault. The example in th

Planned Outage - teams.fedoraproject.org - 2021-04-13 08:30 UTC

Planned Outage - teams.fedoraproject.org - 2021-04-13 08:30 UTC There will be an outage starting at 2021-04-13 08:30 UTC, which will last approximately 1 hour. To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto or run: date -d '2021-04-13 08:3

Re: F35 Change: Package information on ELF objects (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Mon, 2021-04-12 at 15:46 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Package_information_on_ELF_objects Putting packaging info into a binary guarantees that each successive package containing ELF binaries will not contain exactly the same binaries, even if there are no cha

Re: Packaging new Compiz 0.9 version

Good to know, thanks for answer. Can we package then separate compat version with 0.9 version? Still WIP build [1] but fully working. And already filed some bugs [2] upstream. [1] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/atim/compiz0.9/ [2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/compiz/+bug/1923481 _

Re: F35 Change: Package information on ELF objects (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Mon, 2021-04-12 at 15:46 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Package_information_on_ELF_objects > > == Summary == > All binaries (executables and shared libraries) are annotated with an > ELF > note that identifies the rpm distributing this file. > > == Owner == >

F35 Change: Package information on ELF objects (System-Wide Change proposal)

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Package_information_on_ELF_objects == Summary == All binaries (executables and shared libraries) are annotated with an ELF note that identifies the rpm distributing this file. == Owner == * Name: [[User:Zbyszek|Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]] * Email: zbys...@

Re: F35 Change: Debuginfod By Default (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Bjorn wrote: >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DebuginfodByDefault > > The change page lacks a discussion of security implications. An informed > decision requires answers to questions such as: [...] Thank you for your questions. Added a section and placed initial answers there: https:

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers

> portmidi mjg, orphan, xavierb 0 weeks ago Taking since I was co-maintaining anyways and maintain a dependency of portmidi. Though, anyone is welcome to take over. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraprojec

Re: Packaging new Compiz 0.9 version

The official fedora spin requires compiz-0.88. compiz-0.88 is under active development and does perfectly match Mate-desktop. In the past gnome itself decided not to use compiz in favor of mutter. As Mate spin owner i am against to update compiz only because of gnome-flash, which was never offici

Fedora-34-20210412.n.0 compose check report

Missing expected images: Xfce raw-xz armhfp Minimal raw-xz armhfp Failed openQA tests: 15/189 (x86_64), 4/127 (aarch64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-34-20210411.n.0): ID: 853214 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_repository_hd_variation URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.or

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers

On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 18:32:52 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > neuro-sig: openigtlink, ctk Taken these for the neuro-sig (which had admin access to these already). -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Time zone: Europe/London

Fedora-Rawhide-20210412.n.0 compose check report

Missing expected images: Minimal raw-xz armhfp Xfce raw-xz armhfp Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check! 3 of 43 required tests failed openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING** below Failed openQA tests: 17/189 (x86_64), 11/127 (aarch64) New failures (sa

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: Orphaning the cura-lulzbot package set

On 01. 03. 21 15:36, Tom Callaway wrote: This fork of cura has basically been abandoned by upstream, and the new company that acquired Lulzbot has gone out of compliance with the source code for the firmware. They have made it very clear that they have no real interest in working with the commu

Re: dnf repoquery and installed module problem

On 12. 04. 21 14:23, Richard Shaw wrote: I'm trying to collect the provides from the openexr package so I know what needs to be rebuilt in Rawhide but the repoquery command fails due to a module I have installed: $ dnf repoquery --repoid rawhide --provides openexr > provides Fedora - Rawhide -

Re: [Reminder] Fedora IoT Test Week is Starting Today! 12 April 2021

Yikes! The above links, while textually correct, don't link to the correct pages! Please either copy/paste the above links or use the following hyperlinks. [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2021-04-12_Fedora_34_IoT_Edition [1] https://testdays.fedoraproject.org/events/110 Geoff Marr IRC

Re: Grub 2 protected packages

On Mo, 12.04.21 11:22, Colin Walters (walt...@verbum.org) wrote: > But, trying to change the traditional RPM path seems quite tricky to > do safely without having a window where the grub binaries are > deleted from `/boot` e.g. Wouldn't it suffice to just start marking the files as %ghost in an R

Re: Gating feedback from early adopters after almost 2 years: It doesn't seem to work

On 10. 04. 21 7:50, Stef Walter wrote: Hey Miro, Sad to hear that it's been so rough. On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 9:59 AM Miro Hrončok > wrote: Hello, I was torn whether to share this here or not. I don't want to be the one who always complains about things,

Re: Grub 2 protected packages

On Mon, Apr 12, 2021, at 10:52 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > O > (Of course, sd-boot works this way: the RPM packages drop EFI binaries > into /usr/, and "bootctl install" and "bootctl update" will copy them > into the boot loader partitions, carefully and defensively in order > not to corrupt

Re: Stepping down as Fedora Jam maintainer

On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 11:38:40PM -, JT Pennington wrote: > I'd like to volunteer to pick up the Fedora Jam project and maintain it. Awesome -- thanks JT! -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject

Re: Grub 2 protected packages

On Mo, 12.04.21 06:00, Neal Gompa (ngomp...@gmail.com) wrote: > > In fact, the presence of a bunch of other files in /boot in > > grub2-efi-x64 seems like a bad idea. IMO, just installing the grub2 > > packages should either not modify /boot (which is not the exclusive > > property of grub2 and of

Re: Grub 2 protected packages

On So, 11.04.21 03:53, Robert Scheck (rob...@fedoraproject.org) wrote: > My intention of packaging efifs for Fedora was to get systemd-boot handling > my ext4 XBOOTLDR (https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/17756), which > still is not working, because of the two issues mentioned there (and le

[Reminder] Fedora IoT Test Week is Starting Today! 12 April 2021

Hello testers! This is a friendly reminder that the Fedora IoT Test Week is starting today, 12 April 2021! See the test day wiki page [0] and the testday app [1] for more information on how to get started testing. Please note that this test week is a little different... Since Fedora is expected t

Fedora 34 compose report: 20210412.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-34-20210411.n.0 NEW: Fedora-34-20210412.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:1 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 0 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 0 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 0 B Size of dropped packages:0 B Size of upgraded

Heads Up: openexr 3.0 coming to Rawhide

I'm currently in the process of testing all deps in my COPR. Assuming no major issues are found I'll setup a side tag to perform all the builds. I expect to be done by this coming weekend. Affected packages are: alembic aqsis bcd blender calligra CTL darktable Field3D freeimage gegl04 gimp gmic g

Re: dnf repoquery and installed module problem

Never mind... It's still annoying but I has assumed it failed, but stdout went to the file as expected. Thanks, Richard ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Cod

dnf repoquery and installed module problem

I'm trying to collect the provides from the openexr package so I know what needs to be rebuilt in Rawhide but the repoquery command fails due to a module I have installed: $ dnf repoquery --repoid rawhide --provides openexr > provides Fedora - Rawhide - Developmental packages for t 12 MB/s | 57

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20210412.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20210411.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20210412.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 1 Added packages: 1 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 31 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 149.69 KiB Size of dropped packages:0

Re: Grub 2 protected packages

On 4/12/21 3:51 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: I dropped it by mistake when rebasing to 2.06, sorry about that. I've fixed it now in F33, F34 and Rawhide. i see rawhide has 'stable' already; and that F33/F34 are 'pending->testing'. thx! ___ deve

Re: Grub 2 protected packages

On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 5:43 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 09:04:09PM -, Filippe LeMarchand wrote: > > > This shouldn't be the case. Unless there's a bug, grub2 may be > > > installed an unused. If it interferes with sd-boot, please file > > > a bug. > > > >

Re: Grub 2 protected packages

On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 09:04:09PM -, Filippe LeMarchand wrote: > > This shouldn't be the case. Unless there's a bug, grub2 may be > > installed an unused. If it interferes with sd-boot, please file > > a bug. > > The grub2-efi-x64 package contains directory > /boot/loader/entries. AFAICT this

Fedora-Cloud-32-20210412.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64), 1/7 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-32-20210411.0): ID: 852815 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://op

Next Open NeuroFedora Meeting: 1300 UTC on Monday, 12th April (Today)

Hello everyone, Please join us at the next Open NeuroFedora team meeting on Monday 12th April (today!) at 1300UTC in #fedora-neuro on IRC (Freenode). The meeting is a public meeting, and open for everyone to attend. You can join us over: IRC: https://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=#fedora-neuro

Re: Grub 2 protected packages

On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 2:29 PM PGNet Dev wrote: > > > Ordinarily, no. But in this case, since GRUB 2.06~rc1 is required to > > solve major critical vulnerabilities and it's very difficult to pull > > the patch set that fixes it (>115 patches!) backwards, GRUB got moved > > forward instead. > > >

Fedora-Cloud-33-20210412.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64), 1/7 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-33-20210411.0): ID: 852748 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://op