Re: Fwd: OpenSceneGraph and gdal need to be rebuild for Fedora 34

Am Mittwoch, dem 16.06.2021 um 21:18 +0200 schrieb Björn 'besser82' Esser: > Am Mittwoch, dem 16.06.2021 um 19:53 +0200 schrieb Jiri Kucera: > > Adding devel-list for a broader audience. My side tag will expire > > for > > a couple of days. Can some proven packager add me please to gdal, > > OpenSc

Re: F35 Change: Broken RPATH will fail rpmbuild (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 10:58:13PM -0700, Tom Stellard wrote: > On 6/16/21 2:11 PM, Charalampos Stratakis wrote: > >On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 1:56 AM Tom Stellard >> wrote: > > > >On 5/7/21 10:48 AM, Ben Cotton wrote: > > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Chan

Re: F35 Change: Broken RPATH will fail rpmbuild (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 6/16/21 2:11 PM, Charalampos Stratakis wrote: On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 1:56 AM Tom Stellard mailto:tstel...@redhat.com>> wrote: On 5/7/21 10:48 AM, Ben Cotton wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Broken_RPATH_will_fail_rpmbuild

Re: Package maintainer docs: Package Retirement: `git rm` all files in the other branches

przemek klosowski via devel kirjoitti 17.6.2021 klo 6.21: On 6/16/21 6:26 PM, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: Otto Urpelainen wrote: Also, if the intent is to get rid of the package completely, should not adding it to fedora-obsolete-packages be required as well? Why? Adding working packages to

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2021-06-17 16:00 UTC)

NOTE: This is the second meeting we'll have on IRC.LIBERA.CHAT  Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2021-06-17 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.libera.chat.  Local time information (via. uitime): = Day: Thursday =

Re: x86_64-v2 in Fedora

On June 17, 2021 12:08:44 AM UTC, Neal Gompa wrote: >On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 6:08 PM Kevin Kofler via devel > wrote: >> >> Neal Gompa wrote: >> > Yeah, I think that proposal was not workable because of AVX2. The >> > x86_64-v2 subarch adds SSSE3, SSE4.2, POPCNT, and CMPXCHG16B to the >> > curren

Re: Package maintainer docs: Package Retirement: `git rm` all files in the other branches

On 6/16/21 6:26 PM, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: Otto Urpelainen wrote: Also, if the intent is to get rid of the package completely, should not adding it to fedora-obsolete-packages be required as well? Why? Adding working packages to fedora-obsolete-packages forces removing them from users'

Re: [HEADS UP] Moving to sip 5 in Rawhide

On Wed, 16 Jun 2021, Elliott Sales de Andrade wrote: Hi, Just a heads-up, I've been working on converting packages from sip 4 to sip 5 in Rawhide. (sip is the Python bindings generation system used by PyQt and wxPython.) I see we have Qt6, but not PyQt6, in Fedora 34. Is this what's requir

Re: [HEADS UP] Moving to sip 5 in Rawhide

On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 at 22:51, Scott Talbert wrote: > > Hi, > > Just a heads-up, I've been working on converting packages from sip 4 to > sip 5 in Rawhide. (sip is the Python bindings generation system used by > PyQt and wxPython.) > I see we have Qt6, but not PyQt6, in Fedora 34. Is this what's

[HEADS UP] Moving to sip 5 in Rawhide

Hi, Just a heads-up, I've been working on converting packages from sip 4 to sip 5 in Rawhide. (sip is the Python bindings generation system used by PyQt and wxPython.) I'm planning on opening pull requests against the affected packages soon. Please DO NOT merge these PRs yet - they need to

systemd unit auto-enabling question

I'm running around in circles here not getting anywhere, so maybe someone on this list has the answer :) I have three packages [1], lets call them - server - manager (Conflicts: alternative-manager) - alternative-manager (Conflicts: manager) The server on its own is relatively dumb, it needs a ma

Re: Let's retire original glib and gtk+

Sorry, didn't see this when it first came through. On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 4:18 AM Sérgio Basto wrote: > I propose, for F36, the retire of Gconf2 (1) > > dnf repoquery --disablerepo='*' \ > --enablerepo={rpmfusion-{non,}free-,}rawhide --recursive \ > --whatrequires "libgconf*" --qf "%{repoid} %{s

Re: Let's retire original glib and gtk+

On Thu, 27 May 2021 at 11:55, Tom Callaway wrote: > > FWIW, I have retired xmms. Upstream is long gone, and it was being held > together by spider-webs anyways. Is there any copr where this is somewhat maintained? gtk+ was the best gtk (yeah just because of xmms), it's sad to see it go. Thanks,

Re: x86_64-v2 in Fedora

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 6:08 PM Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > Neal Gompa wrote: > > Yeah, I think that proposal was not workable because of AVX2. The > > x86_64-v2 subarch adds SSSE3, SSE4.2, POPCNT, and CMPXCHG16B to the > > current x86_64 baseline. All of these instructions were present in t

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Fedora Classroom - RPM Packaging 101

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: Fedora Classroom - RPM Packaging 101 on 2021-06-17 from 12:00:00 to 13:30:00 UTC At https://bluejeans.com/473822117 The meeting will be about: # Fedora Classroom on RPM packaging Join the classroom by following [this link](https://bluejeans

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Fedora Classroom - RPM Packaging 101

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: Fedora Classroom - RPM Packaging 101 on 2021-06-17 from 12:00:00 to 13:30:00 UTC At https://bluejeans.com/473822117 The meeting will be about: # Fedora Classroom on RPM packaging Join the classroom by following [this link](https://bluejeans

RFP: Just

Hi there, I maintain a command runner, written in Rust: https://github.com/casey/just It's very much like make, except a lot nicer, and doesn't have a build system, so it's just for saving and running commands. It's reasonably popular, and I wanted to request that it be packaged Fedora, since al

Re: Package maintainer docs: Package Retirement: `git rm` all files in the other branches

Otto Urpelainen wrote: > Also, if the intent is to get rid of the package completely, should not > adding it to fedora-obsolete-packages be required as well? Why? Adding working packages to fedora-obsolete-packages forces removing them from users' machines just because they are no longer in the r

Re: x86_64-v2 in Fedora

Florian Weimer wrote: > Right, I have yet to encounter anyone who can't run the new el9 binaries > on their hardware. We had a few issues, but they were all > misconfiguration of hypervisors or software emulators. Let me introduce you to my notebook: [kevin@laptop64 ~]$ cat /etc/fedora-release F

Re: x86_64-v2 in Fedora

Neal Gompa wrote: > Yeah, I think that proposal was not workable because of AVX2. The > x86_64-v2 subarch adds SSSE3, SSE4.2, POPCNT, and CMPXCHG16B to the > current x86_64 baseline. All of these instructions were present in the > first Intel Macs launched in 2007, as I recall. Still means my Core

Re: F35 Change: Broken RPATH will fail rpmbuild (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 1:56 AM Tom Stellard wrote: > On 5/7/21 10:48 AM, Ben Cotton wrote: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Broken_RPATH_will_fail_rpmbuild > > > > == Summary == > > Enable broken RPATH detection > > [ > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_brp_bu

Re: x86_64-v2 in Fedora

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 9:52 PM Benjamin Beasley wrote: > > At the risk of overextending an already well-elaborated thread, I would like > to point out that my main workstation, for Fedora packaging and other > purposes, has an Intel Q6600 (Core 2 Quad) that does NOT meet the > requirements for

Re: x86_64-v2 in Fedora

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 02:57:17PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > >We'll at least gather information about capabilities of Fedora > >users hardware. > Telemetry is evil. It must not be allowed. Well, that's certainly A Position. I don't think it's anything nearly so absolute, though, and

Re: x86_64-v2 in Fedora

> In this case it doesn't 'matter' it is a small segment of users. It is > a > segment of our maintainers who are. We either have to listen to them, 'fire > them', or buy them replacement hardware. Since we are already overloaded, > firing them has not been on the table. Buying replacement hardware

Re: Experience on src.fedoraproject.org as non-packager

Kevin Fenzi kirjoitti 16.6.2021 klo 19.57: On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 03:05:59PM +0200, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote: It would be my recommendation to add a third "URL" to it and that's the fedpkg command to clone. Yeah, might be a reasonable idea indeed. Can you file a issue at https://pagur

Re: Fwd: OpenSceneGraph and gdal need to be rebuild for Fedora 34

Björn answered the other part, so I'm responding to this part: On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 07:53:11PM +0200, Jiri Kucera wrote: > Can some proven packager add me please to gdal, > OpenSceneGraph, and vtk as a co-maintainer so I can do rebuilds for libgta? This is a misconception: provenpackagers can

Re: Fwd: OpenSceneGraph and gdal need to be rebuild for Fedora 34

Am Mittwoch, dem 16.06.2021 um 19:53 +0200 schrieb Jiri Kucera: > Adding devel-list for a broader audience. My side tag will expire for > a couple of days. Can some proven packager add me please to gdal, > OpenSceneGraph, and vtk as a co-maintainer so I can do rebuilds for > libgta? > > Cheers, >

Re: Date format

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 7:27 PM Rémi Lauzier via devel wrote: > > So it seem that the date format for changelog in .spec file are somewhat > different between package. Rust2rpm produce a format, the same that automatic > scratch build produce. But there are developer that use another format in

Fwd: OpenSceneGraph and gdal need to be rebuild for Fedora 34

Adding devel-list for a broader audience. My side tag will expire for a couple of days. Can some proven packager add me please to gdal, OpenSceneGraph, and vtk as a co-maintainer so I can do rebuilds for libgta? Cheers, Jiri -- Forwarded message - From: Jiri Kucera Date: Fri, Ju

Re: Can't login with kinit using 2FA

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 07:16:09PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > I don't have enrolled my OTP. I am afraid, that once I enroll my OPT, I'd > need to use it every time to refresh my kerberos ticket. That would destroy > the GOA experience. yes, once enrolled you do have to always use it. But you

Re: Can't login with kinit using 2FA

On Wed, Jun 16 2021 at 09:54:02 AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: I think there are plans to improve this use case in krb5 utils. I suppose we could also see if GOA could support this case somehow and add a dep on fedora-packager-kerberos. Where should I file that? gitlab? Or would someone else lik

Re: Can't login with kinit using 2FA

On Wed, Jun 16 2021 at 07:16:09 PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: I don't have enrolled my OTP. I am afraid, that once I enroll my OPT, I'd need to use it every time to refresh my kerberos ticket. That would destroy the GOA experience. The other problem is that once you enroll an OTP, it's not pos

Re: x86_64-v2 in Fedora

On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 at 12:45, przemek klosowski via devel wrote: > > > On 6/16/21 12:09 PM, Florian Weimer wrote > >> I'm missing something---I get identicaloutput on my v3 Core i7-4810MQ > > Why do you expect different output? > > Stephen was showing off his 'oldest' system and I assumed that it

Date format

So it seem that the date format for changelog in .spec file are somewhat different between package. Rust2rpm produce a format, the same that automatic scratch build produce. But there are developer that use another format in there package. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-owned_ttf_parser

Re: Can't login with kinit using 2FA

Dne 16. 06. 21 v 18:54 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 01:24:58PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 15. 06. 21 v 23:26 Michael Catanzaro napsal(a): On Tue, Jun 15 2021 at 09:18:34 PM +0200, Dan Horák wrote: make sure you have the fedora-packager-kerberos package installed, I suspe

Re: Experience on src.fedoraproject.org as non-packager

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 03:05:59PM +0200, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote: > Interesting, I had not tried that. > > What I used was the clone button. That shows a small dialog with this (as > packager): > >Source Code > > SSH > GIT > > As non-packager it does NOT have the SSH U

Re: Can't login with kinit using 2FA

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 01:24:58PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Dne 15. 06. 21 v 23:26 Michael Catanzaro napsal(a): > > On Tue, Jun 15 2021 at 09:18:34 PM +0200, Dan Horák wrote: > > > make sure you have the fedora-packager-kerberos package installed, I > > > suspect the last update of fedora-pa

Re: x86_64-v2 in Fedora

On 6/16/21 12:09 PM, Florian Weimer wrote I'm missing something---I get identicaloutput on my v3 Core i7-4810MQ Why do you expect different output? Stephen was showing off his 'oldest' system and I assumed that it was some Penryn-era relic, so I expected a <= v1 result. One cohort of people

Re: x86_64-v2 in Fedora

* przemek klosowski via devel: > I'm missing something---I get identicaloutput on my v3 Core i7-4810MQ Why do you expect different output? > Is this supposed to run HWCAP and show the result, or just show the > HWCAP configuration and possible choices? It shows capabilities (as defined by the h

Re: x86_64-v2 in Fedora

* Neal Gompa: > On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 8:57 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel > wrote: >> >> On 16.06.2021 14:45, Frantisek Zatloukal wrote: >> > We'll at least gather information about capabilities of Fedora users >> > hardware. >> >> Telemetry is evil. It must not be allowed. >> > > So how do you pr

rpmautospec deployment into production

Hi everybody, we've scheduled the rpmautospec plugin to be deployed into production for tomorrow, from 14:00 UTC on. This means installing the relevant packages and restarting kojid processes on the builders, which will restart any tasks which are being processed at that time, i.e. expect delays

Re: x86_64-v2 in Fedora

On 6/16/21 8:45 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: oh cool. this even works on CentOS and RHEL systems: ``` smooge@xanadu ~]$ podman run fedora:latest /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 --help ... Subdirectories of glibc-hwcaps directories, in priority order:   x86-64-v4   x86-64-v3 (supported, searched

Re: Introduction: Trevor McKay

On 6/15/21 10:11 PM, Trevor McKay wrote: Hello everyone, My name is Trevor and I was hoping to contribute to the Fedora project in the form of packaging. I was told the first step would be to introduce myself here. I have a few years of Linux experience as well as Rust, Python and C/C++ developm

Re: Introduction: Trevor McKay

On 6/16/21 5:11 AM, Trevor McKay wrote: Hello everyone, My name is Trevor and I was hoping to contribute to the Fedora project in the form of packaging. I was told the first step would be to introduce myself here. I have a few years of Linux experience as well as Rust, Python and C/C++ developme

Re: Introduction: Trevor McKay

> Welcome! Thanks! > I think Fedora has pretty nice Python packaging and I think rust skills are > also > a welcome addition as there is a growing number of rust software in the open > source ecosystem. > > You can check out the SIG pages for Rust+Python. There are separate mailing > lists for t

Re: x86_64-v2 in Fedora

On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 at 08:46, Frantisek Zatloukal wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 2:20 PM Florian Weimer wrote: > >> On Fedora 34 or later, you can use “/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 --help”. >> If x86-64-v2 shows up as “supported”, there is compatibile: >> >> | Subdirectories of glibc-hwcaps

Fedora-IoT-35-20210616.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 2/16 (x86_64), 3/15 (aarch64) Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-35-20210613.0): ID: 909778 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_zezere_server URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/909778 ID: 909779 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_os

Re: x86_64-v2 in Fedora

On 16.06.2021 15:00, Neal Gompa wrote: So how do you propose we figure out what kind of hardware we need to work with, further develop, or such? No way. And that's fine. -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org) ___ devel mailing list --

Re: Experience on src.fedoraproject.org as non-packager

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 01:33:08PM +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote: On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 14:03:26 +0200, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote: Hello everyone, Hi Ewoud, Even though I've now been sponsored as a packager, I did want to share my experience since it was a bit frustrating. If you do have a

Re: x86_64-v2 in Fedora

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 8:57 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > On 16.06.2021 14:45, Frantisek Zatloukal wrote: > > We'll at least gather information about capabilities of Fedora users > > hardware. > > Telemetry is evil. It must not be allowed. > So how do you propose we figure out what kind

Re: x86_64-v2 in Fedora

On 16.06.2021 14:45, Frantisek Zatloukal wrote: We'll at least gather information about capabilities of Fedora users hardware. Telemetry is evil. It must not be allowed. -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org) ___ devel mailing list --

Re: x86_64-v2 in Fedora

> Am 16.06.2021 um 14:16 schrieb Stephen John Smoogen : > > > > … > feel comfortable using. People in academia usually have tight capex budgets ++1 As an example, we have still to use as a server for production > [root@hydra ~]# cat /proc/cpuinfo > processor : 0 > vendor_id : Genuin

Re: x86_64-v2 in Fedora

On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 at 08:16, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 at 04:29, Daniel P. Berrangé > wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 05:34:02PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: >> > Hey all, >> > >> > Earlier this week, I was helping with processing features for openSUSE >> > Leap 15.4

Re: x86_64-v2 in Fedora

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 2:20 PM Florian Weimer wrote: > On Fedora 34 or later, you can use “/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 --help”. > If x86-64-v2 shows up as “supported”, there is compatibile: > > | Subdirectories of glibc-hwcaps directories, in priority order: > | x86-64-v4 > | x86-64-v3 (supp

Re: x86_64-v2 in Fedora

On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 at 08:19, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Stephen John Smoogen: > > > I used this > > > https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/631217/how-do-i-check-if-my-cpu-supports-x86-64-v2 > > to see what cpu instructions are at each level > > > > ``` > > #!/usr/bin/awk -f > > > > BEGIN { >

Re: x86_64-v2 in Fedora

> Am 16.06.2021 um 13:47 schrieb Björn Persson : > But I'm already planning to reinstall that one with Debian, > ... so it won't hurt me > if Fedora stops working there. Do we really want to recommend this to our users? The ability to continue using ‚mature', functional hardware was and

Re: Experience on src.fedoraproject.org as non-packager

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 14:03:26 +0200, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote: > Hello everyone, Hi Ewoud, > Even though I've now been sponsored as a packager, I did want to share my > experience since it was a bit frustrating. > > If you do have a FAS account, you can log in on src.fedoraproject.org an

Fedora-Rawhide-20210616.n.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check! 4 of 43 required tests failed openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING** below Failed openQA tests: 27/134 (aarch64), 22/198 (x86_64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20

Re: Rubygem package smoke testing [was: Re: F35 Change: Python Packaging Guidelines overhaul (System-Wide Change proposal)]

Dne 16. 06. 21 v 13:36 Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden napsal(a): On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 01:17:31PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 15. 06. 21 v 19:34 Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden napsal(a): On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 01:51:12PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 15. 06. 21 13:46, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel w

Re: x86_64-v2 in Fedora

* Stephen John Smoogen: > I used this > https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/631217/how-do-i-check-if-my-cpu-supports-x86-64-v2 > to see what cpu instructions are at each level > > ``` > #!/usr/bin/awk -f > > BEGIN { > while (!/flags/) if (getline < "/proc/cpuinfo" != 1) exit 1 > if (/

Re: x86_64-v2 in Fedora

On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 at 04:29, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 05:34:02PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > Hey all, > > > > Earlier this week, I was helping with processing features for openSUSE > > Leap 15.4[1] and I discovered that they're planning on introducing > > x86_64-v2 to

Re: Unannounced pcre2-posix SONAME bump, I think

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 12:19:48PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 01:10:48PM +0200, Lukas Javorsky wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I'm the one to blame, I'm really sorry about that, it was a new experience > > for > > me and I didn't know it has its own workflow. > > > > Co

Experience on src.fedoraproject.org as non-packager

Hello everyone, Even though I've now been sponsored as a packager, I did want to share my experience since it was a bit frustrating. If you do have a FAS account, you can log in on src.fedoraproject.org and can even fork repositories. However, on the clone URL you only see the anonymous git

Re: Unannounced pcre2-posix SONAME bump, I think

The build has been untagged. I want to apologize one more time. This experience will be written in my mind forever. Thank you to everyone who helped with this On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 1:30 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 01:23:02PM +0200, Lukas Javorsky wrote: > > > I bel

Re: x86_64-v2 in Fedora

Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > #!/usr/bin/awk -f > > BEGIN { > while (!/flags/) if (getline < "/proc/cpuinfo" != 1) exit 1 > if (/lm/&&/cmov/&&/cx8/&&/fpu/&&/fxsr/&&/mmx/&&/syscall/&&/sse2/) level = > 1 > if (level == 1 && > /cx16/&&/lahf/&&/popcnt/&&/sse4_1/&&/sse4_2/&&/ssse3/) level

Rubygem package smoke testing [was: Re: F35 Change: Python Packaging Guidelines overhaul (System-Wide Change proposal)]

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 01:17:31PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 15. 06. 21 v 19:34 Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden napsal(a): On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 01:51:12PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 15. 06. 21 13:46, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: If that is not possible with reasonable effort, at least

Fedora Developer Portal update

Hello, Fedora Developer Portal just got an update. Notable changes: - Added R language pages [1] - Added Maven section to Java page [2] - Updated Python pages [3] Any feedback is welcome! [1] https://developer.fedoraproject.org/tech/languages/r/r-installation.html [2] https://developer.f

Re: Unannounced pcre2-posix SONAME bump, I think

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 01:23:02PM +0200, Lukas Javorsky wrote: > > I believe we need a Fedora administrator of some kind to > > untag it. > Do you know where I could find some? I'm hoping on this mailing list :-) Rich. > > The bigger problem is how can we build util-linux against the new > > li

Re: Can't login with kinit using 2FA

Dne 15. 06. 21 v 23:26 Michael Catanzaro napsal(a): On Tue, Jun 15 2021 at 09:18:34 PM +0200, Dan Horák wrote: make sure you have the fedora-packager-kerberos package installed, I suspect the last update of fedora-packager wasn't right Whatever is needed for Fedora kerberos to work needs to

Re: x86_64-v2 in Fedora

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 12:52:22PM +0200, Eugene Syromiatnikov wrote: > Oops, I confused "Gen 3" above with x86_64-v3; however, with regards to > v2 support, Westmere-based Pentiums/Celerons were released in 2011 > and do not support SSE4.1/4.2. And until the Silvermont core (in 2013) the Atom fam

Re: Unannounced pcre2-posix SONAME bump, I think

> I believe we need a Fedora administrator of some kind to > untag it. Do you know where I could find some? > The bigger problem is how can we build util-linux against the new > library. I guess pcre2 will have to supply a compat subpackage ... Yes, we will discuss this for sure, we'll just discu

Re: Unannounced pcre2-posix SONAME bump, I think

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 01:10:48PM +0200, Lukas Javorsky wrote: > Hello, > > I'm the one to blame, I'm really sorry about that, it was a new experience for > me and I didn't know it has its own workflow. > > Could you please help me with "How to untag it" properly and that this change > doesn't b

Re: F35 Change: Python Packaging Guidelines overhaul (System-Wide Change proposal)

Dne 15. 06. 21 v 19:34 Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden napsal(a): On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 01:51:12PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 15. 06. 21 13:46, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: If that is not possible with reasonable effort, at least a basic smoke test (such as importing the packaged module) *M

Re: Unannounced pcre2-posix SONAME bump, I think

Hello, I'm the one to blame, I'm really sorry about that, it was a new experience for me and I didn't know it has its own workflow. Could you please help me with "How to untag it" properly and that this change doesn't break anything else? Thank you so much and apologies for the inconvenience Luk

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20210616.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20210615.n.1 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20210616.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 10 Dropped packages:1 Upgraded packages: 33 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 1.48 MiB Size of dropped packages

Re: Unannounced pcre2-posix SONAME bump, I think

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 12:00:37PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=26566365 > > Seems to have gone from: > /usr/lib64/libpcre2-posix.so.2 > to: > /usr/lib64/libpcre2-posix.so.3 > > This broke a few things, notably util-linux. My attempt to

Unannounced pcre2-posix SONAME bump, I think

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=26566365 Seems to have gone from: /usr/lib64/libpcre2-posix.so.2 to: /usr/lib64/libpcre2-posix.so.3 This broke a few things, notably util-linux. My attempt to rebuild util-linux failed, so I'm still looking at that. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Vi

Re: x86_64-v2 in Fedora

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 12:37:57PM +0200, Eugene Syromiatnikov wrote: > On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 09:28:47AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 05:34:02PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > Hey all, > > > > > > Earlier this week, I was helping with processing features for openS

Re: x86_64-v2 in Fedora

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 09:28:47AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 05:34:02PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > Hey all, > > > > Earlier this week, I was helping with processing features for openSUSE > > Leap 15.4[1] and I discovered that they're planning on introducing > > x

Re: x86_64-v2 in Fedora

Hi, On 6/16/21 12:19 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 12:01:29PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 6/16/21 10:28 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 05:34:02PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: Hey all, Earlier this week, I was helping w

Re: x86_64-v2 in Fedora

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 12:01:29PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 6/16/21 10:28 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 05:34:02PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > >> Hey all, > >> > >> Earlier this week, I was helping with processing features for openSUSE > >> Leap 15.4[1] a

Fedora-IoT-34-20210616.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 2/16 (x86_64), 3/15 (aarch64) Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-34-20210610.0): ID: 909339 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_zezere_server URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/909339 ID: 909340 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_os

Re: x86_64-v2 in Fedora

Hi, On 6/16/21 10:28 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 05:34:02PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: >> Hey all, >> >> Earlier this week, I was helping with processing features for openSUSE >> Leap 15.4[1] and I discovered that they're planning on introducing >> x86_64-v2 to openSUSE s

Fedora-Cloud-34-20210616.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 8/8 (x86_64) Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-Cloud-34-20210615.0): ID: 909368 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 base_package_install_remove URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/909368 ID: 909369 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-

Re: Bringing glibc 2.34 snapshots to Fedora 35 and CentOS Stream 9

glibc-2.33.9000-18.fc35 with the first set of changes has been tagged into Fedora rawhide. Thanks, Florian > TL;DR: glibc 2.34 snapshots are coming. libpthread as a separate library > creates problems, so we are removing it. There may be some > hickups. Full updates with “dnf update” are recomme

Re: x86_64-v2 in Fedora

Hello, I have already benchmarked this when Arch was considering a similar move: https://openbenchmarking.org/result/2103142-HA-UARCHLEVE55 There is no or negligible performance benefit of compiling for x86_64-v2 versus amd64 baseline. For discussion see [1]. Beforehand, I have explicitly sele

Re: F35 Change: Python Packaging Guidelines overhaul (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 16. 06. 21 10:10, Alfredo Moralejo Alonso wrote: On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 7:41 PM Miro Hrončok > wrote: On 15. 06. 21 19:34, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote: > And for those of us who also maintain packages for EL7/8, what's the > availability of t

Re: x86_64-v2 in Fedora

On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 05:34:02PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > Hey all, > > Earlier this week, I was helping with processing features for openSUSE > Leap 15.4[1] and I discovered that they're planning on introducing > x86_64-v2 to openSUSE soon. The reference for this change was that > RHEL 9 is go

Re: F35 Change: Python Packaging Guidelines overhaul (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 7:41 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 15. 06. 21 19:34, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote: > > And for those of us who also maintain packages for EL7/8, what's the > > availability of these macros? > > Whenever technically possible, we add our new Python macros to EPEL 7+. > Som

Re: Introduction: Trevor McKay

Am 16.06.21 um 05:12 schrieb Trevor McKay: My name is Trevor and I was hoping to contribute to the Fedora project in the form of packaging. Welcome! introduce myself here. I have a few years of Linux experience as well as Rust, Python and C/C++ development. I am, however, completely new to p

Fedora-Cloud-33-20210616.0 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-33-20210615.0): ID: 909322 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://op