Re: OpenVPN 2.x with kernel acceleration

On 2/2/22 13:34, David Sommerseth wrote: > > Hi, > > An OpenVPN colleague of me, Antonio Quartulli (on Cc), has been working > on a kernel acceleration module for OpenVPN for quite some time. We > call this OpenVPN Data Channel Offload (DCO). This moves the tunnelled > network traffic to a new

Fedora-Rawhide-20220202.n.1 compose check report

No missing expected images. Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check! 8 of 43 required tests failed, 5 results missing openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING** below Failed openQA tests: 33/228 (x86_64), 18/159 (aarch64) ID: 1118192 Test: x86_64 Server-

[Test-Announce] Fedora 36 Rawhide 20220202.n.1 nightly compose nominated for testing

Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event for Fedora 36 Rawhide 20220202.n.1. Please help run some tests for this nightly compose if you have time. For more information on nightly release validation testing, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki

some errors found [was:] what is wrong with this conditional scriptlet on rpm.spec

On Wed, 2021-11-03 at 18:41 +, Sérgio Basto wrote: > On Wed, 2021-11-03 at 14:26 -0400, Ben Beasley wrote: > > I don’t know where to find documentation for operator precedence in > > RPM > > conditional expressions, but it looks like “!” binds more tightly > > than > > “>=”, so > > > >  > %i

Re: GNOME 42 builds for F36: use f36-gnome side tag

On Wed, 2022-02-02 at 09:11 +, David King wrote: > Hi all > > I am looking after GNOME builds this release cycle, as Kalev is away, > and I have requested a side tag for building GNOME packages intended for > F36. Please build updates of GNOME packages in the 42 series into the > f36-gnome

Re: [CoreOS] Fedora CoreOS Community Video Meeting 2022-02-02

On 2/1/22 13:12, Dusty Mabe wrote: > Hi All, > > Tomorrow we will be holding a video meeting for the Fedora CoreOS community. > > We will be discussing Fedora 36 changes as well as our high level goals. > > Time: 16:30 UTC (same as normal) on Wednesday February 2nd > Location: http

Re: mock, %{buildroot}, fc35

On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 06:41:16PM +0100, Alain Vigne wrote: > > My problem is : I don't know how to debug in the mock environment. (But, I > should persevere: there is always a solution, you proved it to me ;) > Try `mock shell`. You won't have Internet access inside, so if you need to add more

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2022-02-03 17:00 UTC)

 Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2022-02-03 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.libera.chat.  Local time information (via. uitime): = Day: Thursday == 2022-02-03 09:00 PST US/Pacific 2022-02-03 12

Re: mock, %{buildroot}, fc35

On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 11:41 AM Alain Vigne wrote: > Aahhh. Good job ! Now I understand ! You are right ! > This Requires should be a BuildRequires, correct, > (and I was right too ;) because in my environment (rpmbuild) I have this > mujs-devel package installed, and the files landed in my B

Re: mock, %{buildroot}, fc35

On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 6:29 PM Jerry James wrote: > On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 10:26 AM Jerry James wrote: > > The reason is in the build log: > > Checking for mujs... not found > > ... > > binding: fungw_mujs disabled > > Your spec file has this: > > %package -n %{libmujs} > Summar

OpenVPN 2.x with kernel acceleration

Hi, An OpenVPN colleague of me, Antonio Quartulli (on Cc), has been working on a kernel acceleration module for OpenVPN for quite some time. We call this OpenVPN Data Channel Offload (DCO). This moves the tunnelled network traffic to a new kernel module (ovpn-dco) and keep only the control cha

FedoraRespin-35-updates-20220202.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 2/46 (x86_64) ID: 1118104 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso gnome_text_editor URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1118104 ID: 1118125 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso apps_startstop URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1118125 Soft

Minutes for Tuesday's FESCo Meeting (2022-02-01)

=== #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2022-02-01) === Meeting started by tstellar at 18:02:09 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2022-02-01/fesco.2022-02-01-18.02.log.html . Meeting summary

Re: Package notes issues with python wheel building

On 02/02/2022 17:15, Alexander Bokovoy wrote: I guess we need to fix krb5 this way too. Current package notes implementation is awful. It should not touch linker flags. RPM post-build hooks should be used instead for adding annotations. -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)

Re: mock, %{buildroot}, fc35

On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 10:26 AM Jerry James wrote: > The reason is in the build log: > Checking for mujs... not found > ... > binding: fungw_mujs disabled Your spec file has this: %package -n %{libmujs} Summary: Scripting support for %{name}: MuJS Requires: %{libname} = %{versi

Re: mock, %{buildroot}, fc35

On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 9:31 AM Alain Vigne wrote: > What may lead you to this conclusion ? Because that's what the error message means. It means that there is a file pattern in %files that does not match anything in the buildroot. > My observation is: > The %make_install step install all files,

Re: mock, %{buildroot}, fc35

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 4:50:59 PM CET Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > On 02/02/2022 16:35, Pavel Raiskup wrote: > > And if not specified, mock tries to > > pick the mock configuration according the host system (so it uses > > '-r fedora-35-x86_64' on a fedora-35-x86_64 host system). > >

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

Still the same fallout from that rage quit ... I wouldn't mind taking adf-tribun-fonts (I already have two from that foundry), but I'm really wondering whether we should package fonts which no other package depends upon: It's easy for users to install them directly, packaged versions do not nec

Re: mock, %{buildroot}, fc35

Hello Jerry On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 5:07 PM Jerry James wrote: > On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 8:27 AM Alain Vigne > wrote: > > And indeed, same error: > > RPM build errors: > > error: File not found: > /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/libfungw-1.2.0-1.fc36.x86_64/usr/lib/puplug/fungw_mujs.* > > File not f

Re: Package notes issues with python wheel building

On ke, 02 helmi 2022, Simo Sorce wrote: So I got this bug about FTBFS: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2049643 These are bindings to C libs and use gcc to build .so files. Upon investigation the issue is that the default linker flags seem to point to non existing package note files

Package notes issues with python wheel building

So I got this bug about FTBFS: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2049643 These are bindings to C libs and use gcc to build .so files. Upon investigation the issue is that the default linker flags seem to point to non existing package note files, so the build fails. It was suggest to

Re: mock, %{buildroot}, fc35

* Alain Vigne [02/02/2022 16:07] : > > Can someone explain to me why my .srpm [1] > is not building in mock ? This fails with the following message: RPM build errors: error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/libfungw-1.2.0-1.fc36.x86_64/usr/lib64/libfungw_mujs.* error: File not found:

Re: mock, %{buildroot}, fc35

On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 8:27 AM Alain Vigne wrote: > And indeed, same error: > RPM build errors: > error: File not found: > /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/libfungw-1.2.0-1.fc36.x86_64/usr/lib/puplug/fungw_mujs.* > File not found: > /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/libfungw-1.2.0-1.fc36.x86_64/usr/lib64/l

Re: mock, %{buildroot}, fc35

On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 4:51 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On 02/02/2022 16:35, Pavel Raiskup wrote: > > And if not specified, mock tries to > > pick the mock configuration according the host system (so it uses > > '-r fedora-35-x86_64' on a fedora-35-x86_64

Re: mock, %{buildroot}, fc35

On 02/02/2022 16:35, Pavel Raiskup wrote: And if not specified, mock tries to pick the mock configuration according the host system (so it uses '-r fedora-35-x86_64' on a fedora-35-x86_64 host system). No. It uses /etc/mock/default.cfg. -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org) __

Re: mock, %{buildroot}, fc35

On 2/2/22 10:07 AM, Alain Vigne wrote: Can someone explain to me why my  .srpm  [1] is not building in mock ? I ran > mock filename.srpm Will it work in COPR, Koji ? [1] https://avigne.fedorapeople.org/libfungw-1.2.0-1.fc35.src.rpm

Re: mock, %{buildroot}, fc35

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 4:18:29 PM CET Ankur Sinha wrote: > On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 16:07:38 +0100, Alain Vigne wrote: > > Can someone explain to me why my .srpm [1] > > is not building in mock ? > > > > I ran > > > mock filename.srpm > > Have you had a chance to look at the mock man page,

Re: mock, %{buildroot}, fc35

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 4:07:38 PM CET Alain Vigne wrote: > Can someone explain to me why my .srpm [1] > is not building in mock ? > > I ran > > mock filename.srpm You did not provide the build logs. > Will it work in COPR, Koji ? > > [1] https://avigne.fedorapeople.org/libfungw-1.2.0-

Re: mock, %{buildroot}, fc35

Hello Ankur On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 4:18 PM Ankur Sinha wrote: > On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 16:07:38 +0100, Alain Vigne wrote: > > Can someone explain to me why my .srpm [1] > > is not building in mock ? > > > > I ran > > > mock filename.srpm > > Have you had a chance to look at the mock man page, or

Re: mock, %{buildroot}, fc35

On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 16:07:38 +0100, Alain Vigne wrote: > Can someone explain to me why my  .srpm  [1] > is not building in mock ? > > I ran > > mock filename.srpm Have you had a chance to look at the mock man page, or this wiki page? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_Mock_to_test_package_buil

mock, %{buildroot}, fc35

Can someone explain to me why my .srpm [1] is not building in mock ? I ran > mock filename.srpm Will it work in COPR, Koji ? [1] https://avigne.fedorapeople.org/libfungw-1.2.0-1.fc35.src.rpm TIA -- Alain V. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedo

Re: Fwd: conditional require (RPM dependency solving puzzle)

On 2/2/22 05:19 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 01. 02. 22 19:45, przemek klosowski wrote: On 2/1/22 12:54, Miro Hrončok wrote: Thanks to Steven, Stephen and Miro for finding this solution. Still, having to add flags and deleting the existing doc package is not completely gruntling---it works, bu

Mock v2.16 release, mock-core-configs v37

Hello folks. I know the current Mock+configs Bodhi updates have not meet stable so far. The main problem being resolved is that 'fedpkg mockbuild' on 'epel8' checked-out branch doesn't work properly ATM. I was informed by @onosek (maintainer, in CC) that fedpkg/rpkg release is being prepared tho

Re: GNOME 42 builds for F36: use f36-gnome side tag

Thank you for using side tag. It was not always the case and it caused me quite some pain. Vít Dne 02. 02. 22 v 10:11 David King napsal(a): Hi all I am looking after GNOME builds this release cycle, as Kalev is away, and I have requested a side tag for building GNOME packages intended fo

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

I contacted Rahul and he made me a co-maintainer on the chocolate-doom package. I've pushed a commit that fixes the build failures and updates the package from v3.0.0 to v3.0.1. The builds for rawhide, f35 and f34 had finished and have been submitted to bodhi. A.FI. _

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

On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 3:41 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 02. 02. 22 10:41, Parag Nemade wrote: > > I have submitted PR > > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/impallari-raleway-fonts/pull-request/2 > > < > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/impallari-raleway-fonts/pull-request/2> > > > which shou

Re: Fwd: conditional require (RPM dependency solving puzzle)

On 01. 02. 22 19:45, przemek klosowski wrote: On 2/1/22 12:54, Miro Hrončok wrote: Thanks to Steven, Stephen and Miro for finding this solution. Still, having to add flags and deleting the existing doc package is not completely gruntling---it works, but it's not automatic and, for the future,

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

On 02. 02. 22 10:41, Parag Nemade wrote: I have submitted PR https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/impallari-raleway-fonts/pull-request/2 which should fix that package building in Fedora releases. Thanks. I am afraid @ni

Fedora-Cloud-34-20220202.0 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-34-20220201.0): ID: 1117830 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://op

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

On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 7:39 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > Dear maintainers. > > Based on the current fail to build from source policy, the following > packages > should be retired from Fedora 36 approximately one week before branching. > > However, 5 weekly reminders are required and I forgot to start

GNOME 42 builds for F36: use f36-gnome side tag

Hi all I am looking after GNOME builds this release cycle, as Kalev is away, and I have requested a side tag for building GNOME packages intended for F36. Please build updates of GNOME packages in the 42 series into the f36-gnome side tag, using "fedpkg build –target=f36-gnome", or let me kn

Fedora-Cloud-35-20220202.0 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-35-20220201.0): ID: 1117812 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://op

Re: Action Required: Bugzilla - API Authentication changes

Dne 01. 02. 22 v 12:37 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): Target Dates: https://bugzilla.stage.redhat.com - Mon 07th Feb 00:00 UTC https://bugzilla.redhat.com - Mon 28th Feb 00:00 UTC This is challenging. Especially when the support in python-bugzilla landed just few weeks ago. I would really expect at