V Tue, May 17, 2022 at 05:06:44PM +0200, Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
> Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:59 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> > Also, when you say "after F38 branching", does that mean it will not be
> > allowed in f35, f36 and f37 branches?
>
> No. Old branches i.e. f35, f36 and f37 will keep using the o
Maxwell G via devel writes:
> On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 10:06:44 AM CDT Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>> > Do we need to %if-%else it in the spec file? I recall some discussion
>> > about this on the legal list, but I see no
>> > guidelines proposed here.
>>
>> If you maintain one spec for all branche
On 5/17/22 17:19, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2022-05-17 at 09:33 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
I don't remember seeing any change proposals around SELinux for the Fedora
36 release but there seems to be several issues reported one way or
another...
https://ask.fedoraproject.org/t/high-number-o
libfabric 1.15.1 builds on x86_64 are failing because the final LTO link
seems to consume all available memory:
libtool: link: gcc -shared -fPIC -DPIC
src/.libs/src_libfabric_la-fabric.o
src/.libs/src_libfabric_la-fi_tostr.o src/.libs/src_libfabric_la-perf.o
src/.libs/src_libfabric_la-log.o
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 9:02:11 AM CDT Ben Cotton wrote:
> == Summary ==
> Transition from Fedora's short name of licenses to standardized
> [https://spdx.org/licenses/SPDXlicense]
> [https://spdx.dev/specifications/formula].
I just noticed that both of these links are dead...
--
Thanks,
Maxwel
On Tue, 2022-05-17 at 09:33 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> I don't remember seeing any change proposals around SELinux for the Fedora
> 36 release but there seems to be several issues reported one way or
> another...
>
> https://ask.fedoraproject.org/t/high-number-of-selinux-issues-after-upgrading-t
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 02:12:12PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> 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://fed
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 7:50 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Does that make sense?
Yes, and a great idea.
That would definitely work well for me (as long
as the spdx macro was backported to all the
usual suspects).
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedor
On 17. 05. 22 17:06, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:59 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
Thanks for the explanation. Could this be explicitly written in the change
proposal?
Yes. I will amend the proposal with FAQ posted in this thread.
Also, when you say "after F38 branching", does that me
On 5/17/22 14:35, David Cantrell wrote:
I think a better thing to do would be to use a scanner like
scancode[1] to
check the source tree in question and then construct a License expression for
the spec file from its results. In many cases it will be the same as what we
have in the spec file, ju
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 05:46:25PM +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 2:41 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
> wrote:
>
> > But I think this change also requires automatic conversion of all
> > available SPECs, because manual conversion will take years.
>
> Automating where possib
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 3:07 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > Do we need to %if-%else it in the spec file? I recall some discussion about
> > this on the legal list, but I see no
> > guidelines proposed here.
>
> If you maintain one spec for all branches then you will need %if-%else. And
> yes, it
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2022-05-17)
===
Meeting started by mhroncok at 17:00:07 UTC. The full logs are available
at
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2022-05-17/fesco_(2022-05-17).2022-05-17-17.00.log.html
.
Me
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 2:41 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
> But I think this change also requires automatic conversion of all
> available SPECs, because manual conversion will take years.
Automating where possible (the existing license has a
one-to-one mapping) is desirable, but realistica
On 17/05/2022 17:06, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
No. Old branches i.e. f35, f36 and f37 will keep using the old short
names. No change there. The same for epel9-.
Then most maintainers will continue to use the old names. I want my Git
history to be linear.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@ea
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 09:13:32PM +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> Hello!
> My apologies, I had accidentally dropped out of computer world for a while,
> and here a world spins ahead! Thanx a lot for many valuable feedback!
> see the clarifications of most concerns:
This mail appears to have copied i
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 10:06:44 AM CDT Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > Do we need to %if-%else it in the spec file? I recall some discussion about
> > this on the legal list, but I see no
> > guidelines proposed here.
>
> If you maintain one spec for all branches then you will need %if-%else. And
Ignoring the question (for now) of whether SPDX identifiers will be
allowed in f37 and older branches, can you clarify “after F38 branching”?
If the Change is targeting F38, then it seems like SPDX identifiers
should be allowed in Rawhide after what I think would generally be
called “F37 branc
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 10:21:39 AM CDT Miro Hrončok wrote:
> That includes both MIT and BSD, right?
>
Yes. I believe LGPLv2(+) is also ambiguous, because SPDX differentiates between
2.0 and 2.1. There may be others.
--
Thanks,
Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns: He/Him/His
signature.asc
Descrip
Once upon a time, Daniel P. Berrangé said:
> At its heart the certification is a "sticker" that asserts our
> JDK has passed the TCK test suite. IOW, saying that we don't need
> certification of JDK is effectively saying that we don't need to do
> testing of JDK in Fedora. Comprehensive testing of
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:22 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 17. 05. 22 17:19, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:11 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> >>
> >> Dne 17. 05. 22 v 17:01 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> >>>
> >>> Is this going to be part of phase 1? Could you please explicitly say that
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 3:34 PM Richard Shaw wrote:
>
> I don't remember seeing any change proposals around SELinux for the Fedora 36
> release but there seems to be several issues reported one way or another...
>
> https://ask.fedoraproject.org/t/high-number-of-selinux-issues-after-upgrading-to-
Hi all,
I tried to contact Alfredo by email using his RH's address, but got no
answer from him nor a bounce from the server. It seems he has not been
an employee since 2020.
Checking with fedora_active_user:
Last login in FAS:
adeza 2019-12-16
ERROR:active-user:No such user: 'adeza'
Opened
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:19 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 17. 05. 22 17:08, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:02 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >>
> >> On 17. 05. 22 16:52, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> >>> Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:18 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> So, is it actually allowed to u
On 17. 05. 22 17:19, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:11 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 17. 05. 22 v 17:01 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
Is this going to be part of phase 1? Could you please explicitly say that in
the change proposal?
No, it is not part of phase 1. Sorry for the confu
On 17. 05. 22 17:06, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:59 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
Thanks for the explanation. Could this be explicitly written in the change
proposal?
Yes. I will amend the proposal with FAQ posted in this thread.
Awesome!
Also, when you say "after F38 branching", d
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:09 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 04:20:56PM +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> > On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 02:11:03PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > > > First - our burden. We ahve to certify each binary. This is quite long
> > > > and leng
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:11 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> Dne 17. 05. 22 v 17:01 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> >
> > Is this going to be part of phase 1? Could you please explicitly say that
> > in the change proposal?
>
> No, it is not part of phase 1. Sorry for the confusion. I meant, yes we will
On 17. 05. 22 17:08, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:02 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 17. 05. 22 16:52, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:18 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
So, is it actually allowed to use SPDX identifiers when this phase is
activated, or not?
SPDX identifiers wi
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 5:09 PM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 04:20:56PM +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> > On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 02:11:03PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > > > First - our burden. We ahve to certify each binary. This is quite long
> > > > and lengh
Dne 17. 05. 22 v 17:01 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
Is this going to be part of phase 1? Could you please explicitly say that in
the change proposal?
No, it is not part of phase 1. Sorry for the confusion. I meant, yes we will do the automatic conversion one day. But
according to current plan, it
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 04:20:56PM +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 02:11:03PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > > First - our burden. We ahve to certify each binary. This is quite long
> > > and lenghty process. Onl once it is certified, we can release it (with
> > > s
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:02 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 17. 05. 22 16:52, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:18 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> >> So, is it actually allowed to use SPDX identifiers when this phase is
> >> activated, or not?
> >
> > SPDX identifiers will be allowed when al
Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:59 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
Thanks for the explanation. Could this be explicitly written in the change proposal?
Yes. I will amend the proposal with FAQ posted in this thread.
Also, when you say "after F38 branching", does that mean it will not be allowed in f35, f36 and f37
On 17. 05. 22 16:52, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:18 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
So, is it actually allowed to use SPDX identifiers when this phase is
activated, or not?
SPDX identifiers will be allowed when all these conditions will be met:
* Change approved by FESCO
* after F38 b
On 17. 05. 22 16:54, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:38 Vitaly Zaitsev via devel napsal(a):
But I think this change also requires automatic conversion of all available
SPECs, because manual conversion will take years.
We will do automatic conversion (openning PR) when the conversion
Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:38 Vitaly Zaitsev via devel napsal(a):
But I think this change also requires automatic conversion of all available SPECs, because manual conversion will take
years.
We will do automatic conversion (openning PR) when the conversion can be done automatically. But there are de
Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:18 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
So, is it actually allowed to use SPDX identifiers when this phase is activated, or not?
SPDX identifiers will be allowed when all these conditions will be met:
* Change approved by FESCO
* after F38 branching
* documentation with conversion cha
On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 9:02:11 AM CDT Ben Cotton wrote:
> In this phase, we want to provide documentation and tooling to allow
> maintainers to begin using SPDX license ids instead of the old Fedora
> short names. This move is opt-in.
+1 for this change. I am not a fan of having to remember two
On 17/05/2022 16:02, Ben Cotton wrote:
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved
by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee.
+1 for thi
On 17/05/2022 14:36, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
I am going to ask you once to dial back your rhetoric. Calling people
liars for having definitions of firmware and drivers isn't helpful to
this conversation.
I've never called people liars in this thread. Just said that the quoted
statement isn't t
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 02:11:03PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > First - our burden. We ahve to certify each binary. This is quite long
> > and lenghty process. Onl once it is certified, we can release it (with
> > small unwritten exception in rawhide)
>
> Just stop doing TCK certific
On 17. 05. 22 16:02, Ben Cotton wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if appro
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved
by the Fedora Engineering Steering Co
On 5/16/22 18:55, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 2:55 PM Dusty Mabe wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/16/22 12:10, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 3:20 PM przemek klosowski via devel
>>
>>>
>>>
Unfortunately, I believe that the current upgrade workflow requires a
>
Missing expected images:
Minimal raw-xz armhfp
Compose PASSES proposed Rawhide gating check!
All required tests passed
Failed openQA tests: 10/231 (x86_64), 20/161 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20220516.n.0):
ID: 1270135 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso ap
On 5/17/22 08:33, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2022 at 23:18, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 9:54 PM Andrew Hughes
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 19:36 Tue 10 May , Florian Weimer wrote:
* Vitaly Zaitsev via devel:
> On 10/05/2022 15:29, Ben Cotton wrote:
>>
>>
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 8:33 AM Stephen Smoogen wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 16 May 2022 at 23:18, Neal Gompa wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 9:54 PM Andrew Hughes wrote:
>> >
>> > On 19:36 Tue 10 May , Florian Weimer wrote:
>> > > * Vitaly Zaitsev via devel:
>> > >
>> > > > On 10/05/2022 15:
On 5/17/22 08:11, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
>> Quite a few packages are dleivered as blobs... Still. Be sure we are NOT
>> going to do that > In additon there are many excludes in various binary
>> drivers.
>
> Lie. Fedora doesn't have any binary drivers in repositories. All Fedora
> pack
On Tue, 17 May 2022 at 08:11, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On 16/05/2022 21:13, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>
>
> > Quite a few packages are dleivered as blobs... Still. Be sure we are NOT
> going to do that > In additon there are many excludes in various binary
> drive
On Mon, 16 May 2022 at 23:18, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 9:54 PM Andrew Hughes
> wrote:
> >
> > On 19:36 Tue 10 May , Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > * Vitaly Zaitsev via devel:
> > >
> > > > On 10/05/2022 15:29, Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> > Also, my sympathy for this argument is a l
On 16/05/2022 21:13, Jiri Vanek wrote:
Not necessarily. In small project, sure, bundled libraries will get
rotten, but project like OpenJDK, where 99% of its builds uses the in
tree copies, can not allow itself to have security holes in them.
Not true. Popular packages like freetype, fontconfi
On 17/05/2022 05:08, Neal Gompa wrote:
Even
for C/C++ code, dependency managers exist. Notably Conan is quite
popular. If we wanted to, we could map Conan dependencies to RPM
packaged content.
Btw, we now have a packaged version of vcpkg[1] on Fedora 35+.
[1]: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpm
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20220516.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20220517.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 3
Dropped packages:4
Upgraded packages: 74
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 1.65 MiB
Size of dropped packages:1.03
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-34-20220516.0):
ID: 1270052 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event
for Fedora 37 Rawhide 20220517.n.0. 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
56 matches
Mail list logo
