Review swaps

Happy New Year! I am in need of some package reviews to update parts of the OCaml stack: - ocaml-bos: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031160 - ocaml-odoc-parser: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036395 - ocaml-mdx: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036396 - oca

Mic recording issues from browsers

Greetings! I've been banging my head against this wall for a while now, and would really appreciate some pointers. I can no longer record Google Meet meetings using RecordRTC (https://www.webrtc-experiment.com/RecordRTC/). This promptly became a problem once I upgraded from F33 to F35. I'm fairly

Fedora-IoT-35-20220101.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 3/15 (aarch64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-IoT-35-20211225.0): ID: 1093952 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso podman@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1093952 ID: 1093956 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso podma

Re: F36 Change: Relocate RPM database to /usr (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Sat, Jan 01, 2022 at 12:52:57PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > > Given that the "shared-memory file contains no persistent content", > > it seems like "rpmdb.sqlite-shm" could be a symlink to > > /dev/shm/rpmdb.sqlite-shm", or to some other tmpfs location. > It does seem like maybe it could. I'd

Re: F36 Change: Relocate RPM database to /usr (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 01:41:01PM -0800, Gordon Messmer wrote: > Given that the "shared-memory file contains no persistent content", > it seems like "rpmdb.sqlite-shm" could be a symlink to > /dev/shm/rpmdb.sqlite-shm", or to some other tmpfs location. It does seem like maybe it could. I'd defini

Re: F36 Change: DIGLIM (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Sat, Jan 1, 2022 at 5:51 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > On 31/12/2021 20:03, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > > Sounds like, if this is enabled, they'll need a GPG key associated > > with their personal repository. > > Locally built packages are always unsigned. > They don't have to be, but

Fedora-Rawhide-20220101.n.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check! 24 of 43 required tests failed, 17 results missing openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING** below Failed openQA tests: 103/228 (x86_64), 68/159 (aarch64) New failures (same test not faile

Re: Missing ownership /usr/share/locale/ directories

On 01/01/2022 13:09, Tom Hughes via devel wrote: Surely a symlink from mo to ro would be better so that people can set LANG=ro (the correct code) and get all the translations for Moldovan regardless of whether packages use the old or new code for it. I think this would create problems since pac

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20220101.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20211231.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20220101.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:2 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 0 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 35 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 0 B Size of dropped packages:0 B Size

Re: Missing ownership /usr/share/locale/ directories

On 01/01/2022 12:01, Fabio Valentini wrote: I'm pretty sure I won't add ownership of /usr/share/locale/mo to literally dozens of packages just so this minor issue is "fixed". I think the filesystem package should create and own it. Surely a symlink from mo to ro would be better so that people

Re: Missing ownership /usr/share/locale/ directories

On Sat, Jan 1, 2022 at 12:46 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 02:41:56PM +0100, Arthur Bols wrote: > > The origin of /usr/share/locale/mo/LC_MESSAGES/[iso_3166.mo|iso_3166-1.mo] > > is [1]. This file provides translation of ISO 3166-1 to Moldovan. The file > > name

Re: Missing ownership /usr/share/locale/ directories

On Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 02:41:56PM +0100, Arthur Bols wrote: > The origin of /usr/share/locale/mo/LC_MESSAGES/[iso_3166.mo|iso_3166-1.mo] > is [1]. This file provides translation of ISO 3166-1 to Moldovan. The file > names seems to be created using iso-639 codes, but the problem is that the > "mo"

Re: How do we announce new packages?

Fabio Valentini writes: > On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 9:09 PM Matthew Miller > wrote: >> >> On Sat, Dec 25, 2021 at 09:15:38PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: >> > So ... maybe we could have a mailing list for this? >> > >> > Maybe "awesome-announce" or "the-new-shinyness" (I'm kidding! I'm bad >> >

Re: Copr - look back at 2021

On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 03:33:05PM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Let me sum up what the Copr team did during 2021: Lots of great stuff, thanks! >We had an initial meeting about rebase-helper automatically opening PR in > src.fedoraproject.org. There is even some >code written

Re: List of packages with problematic license

On Sat, Jan 1, 2022 at 11:12 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > (snip) > > rust-ambient-authority.spec > rust-base100.spec > rust-cap-primitives.spec > rust-cap-rand.spec > rust-cap-std.spec > rust-cranelift-bforest.spec > rust-cranelift-codegen-meta.spec > rust-cranelift-codegen-shared.spec > rust-cran

Re: F36 Change: DIGLIM (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 31/12/2021 20:03, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: Sounds like, if this is enabled, they'll need a GPG key associated with their personal repository. Locally built packages are always unsigned. -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org) ___ de

List of packages with problematic license

I am processing results of license-validate audit, but it takes longer... So I am providing raw results of what I have. If you are maintainer one of these packages you may expect either BZ report or Pagure PR for your package in upcoming days/weeks. In the attachment you will find more details

Fedora-Cloud-34-20220101.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-34-20211231.0): ID: 1093330 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://op

Fedora-Cloud-35-20220101.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-35-20211231.0): ID: 1093314 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://op