PSA: openQA failures in tests using Firefox

2022-05-24 Thread Adam Williamson
Hi, folks. You may be noticing more failures than usual in openQA tests that use Firefox. This is caused by a rather vexing combination of Firefox wanting to show "helpful" popups on startup: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1703903 and what I think is some kind of odd regression in F

Re: SPDX identifiers in old branches?

2022-05-24 Thread Gary Buhrmaster
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 12:47 AM Maxwell G wrote: > I don't follow. What "rpm spec file support" are you referring to? I interpreted the proposal as adding a new stanza SPDX: in addition to License: which requires changing the definition. The follow up suggested that the license field be differ

Fedora-Rawhide-20220524.n.1 compose check report

2022-05-24 Thread Fedora compose checker
(same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20220524.n.0): ID: 1277730 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default@uefi **GATING** URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1277730 ID: 1277763 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_login URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1277763 ID

Re: SPDX identifiers in old branches?

2022-05-24 Thread Maxwell G via devel
On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 7:08:13 PM CDT Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > I don't think that is going to work unless the rpm spec > file support would be backported to previous releases > (without another macro that tries to do some magic). I don't follow. What "rpm spec file support" are you referring to?

Re: SPDX identifiers in old branches?

2022-05-24 Thread Miro Hrončok
On 24. 05. 22 22:11, Miroslav Suchý wrote: As reaction to   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 there were two similar feedbacks: * maintainer of package wants to use SPDX in both new and old branches (including f36, epel7...) * Bodhi cannot recognize old short nam

Re: SPDX identifiers in old branches?

2022-05-24 Thread Chris Adams
Once upon a time, Gary Buhrmaster said: > On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 11:29 PM Chris Adams wrote: > > Would it make sense to make ALL the new tags be SPDX:, at least for > > an interim period (of years most likely) where both old and new tags are > > allowed? > > I don't think that is going to work

Re: SPDX identifiers in old branches?

2022-05-24 Thread Gary Buhrmaster
On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 11:29 PM Chris Adams wrote: > Would it make sense to make ALL the new tags be SPDX:, at least for > an interim period (of years most likely) where both old and new tags are > allowed? I don't think that is going to work unless the rpm spec file support would be backported

Re: SPDX identifiers in old branches?

2022-05-24 Thread Chris Adams
Once upon a time, Maxwell G via devel said: > I already brought this up previously, but how will we handle license > identifiers such as MIT that are valid in both SPDX and Fedora but have > different meanings? We won't know whether it's specifically referring to the > MIT/Expat License (SPDX)

Re: SPDX identifiers in old branches?

2022-05-24 Thread Maxwell G via devel
On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 3:11:39 PM CDT Miroslav Suchý wrote: > We see no reason why not to do that. It should not cause any harm. If **you** know of any reason we should not propose > this, please tell us now. I already brought this up previously, but how will we handle license identifiers suc

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20220524.n.1 changes

2022-05-24 Thread Fedora Rawhide Report
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20220524.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20220524.n.1 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 0 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 43 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 0 B Size of dropped packages:0 B Size

Re: F37 proposal: Enhance Persian Font Support (Self-Contained Change proposal)

2022-05-24 Thread Hedayat Vatankhah
On ۱۴۰۱/۳/۲ ۱۱:۵۵ بعدازظهر, Sebastian Crane wrote: As something of a typography enthusiast, I'm very much in support of this. For English, the consistent fonts on Fedora Workstation make a noticeable and positive effect on the general aesthetic, so anything that can widen that benefit would be a

Re: F37 proposal: Enhance Persian Font Support (Self-Contained Change proposal)

2022-05-24 Thread Hedayat Vatankhah
On ۱۴۰۱/۳/۲ ۹:۰۲ بعدازظهر, Michael Catanzaro wrote: On Mon, May 23 2022 at 11:54:30 AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: Default Persian font will be changed automatically on upgrades. Good, but how will you achieve this? We finally noticed that noto fonts don't get installed when upgrading F35 -> F

Re: SPDX identifiers in old branches?

2022-05-24 Thread Gary Buhrmaster
On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 8:11 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > And the Packaging Guidelines will be altered that in old active branches you > may use either the old shortname or the new > SPDX identifiers. What will better work for you. > > We see no reason why not to do that. It should not cause any h

Re: PSA: I am not getting all email from Fedora, reach me directly if you need me

2022-05-24 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 07:08:00PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > Hello Fedorans, > > this is a just a heads up: If I ignored your question in a Pagure issue, or > your pull request, possibly haven't replied to your bugzilla report or a > devel thread... it's because my email is broken and I don't g

Re: F37 proposal: Build all JDKs in Fedora against in-tree libraries and with static stdc++lib (System-Wide Change proposal)

2022-05-24 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 04:57:54PM +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote: > > We are testing also upstream. note that RH is maintainer of ojdk 11 and 8, > so we have to. But that is much easier, as the usptream is static within > intree libraries. And we have to run also for 17 and 18/19 as we need this > refe

SPDX identifiers in old branches?

2022-05-24 Thread Miroslav Suchý
As reaction to   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 there were two similar feedbacks: * maintainer of package wants to use SPDX in both new and old branches (including f36, epel7...) * Bodhi cannot recognize old short names in old branches and new SPDX formulas in n

Re: F37 proposal: Build all JDKs in Fedora against in-tree libraries and with static stdc++lib (System-Wide Change proposal)

2022-05-24 Thread Fabio Valentini
On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 5:03 PM Jiri Vanek wrote: > I replied it already in that thread, but happy to repeat: > It will help, but less then it seems so. > Now we can drop 8. Soem legacy applciations will be unhappy, as EOL of jdk8 > is in some 4 years, so fedora will suffer a bit. But it will be

Re: F37 proposal: Build all JDKs in Fedora against in-tree libraries and with static stdc++lib (System-Wide Change proposal)

2022-05-24 Thread Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
On 24/05/2022 21:00, Jiri Vanek wrote: I repeat what was told several times.We really do no t like this change, especially in its full sound of one static build repacked to all ive fedoras, but we have nto found a better way. 1. Stop doing TCK certification. Most Fedora OpenJDK users don't nee

Interested in an updated "Exploring Our Bugs" talk at Nest?

2022-05-24 Thread Ben Cotton
At Nest With Fedora last year, I presented a talk called "Exploring Our Bugs"[1]. In this talk, I took a look at some summary data about Fedora Linux bugs since F19. I'm considering proposing this for Nest 2022. The new talk would mostly be an update with bugs up through F34, but if there were part

Re: F37 proposal: Build all JDKs in Fedora against in-tree libraries and with static stdc++lib (System-Wide Change proposal)

2022-05-24 Thread Jiri Vanek
On 5/24/22 18:37, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: On 24/05/2022 16:31, Jiri Vanek wrote: The goal is to go as shim and cisco - to build in koji, certify, and repack. shim and openh264 have a good reason for this - legal issues. OpenJDK doesn't. Sorry, but I can't treat the laziness of the m

Re: F37 proposal: Build all JDKs in Fedora against in-tree libraries and with static stdc++lib (System-Wide Change proposal)

2022-05-24 Thread Demi Marie Obenour
On 5/24/22 10:57, Jiri Vanek wrote: > > > On 5/23/22 20:40, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >> So, just replying here since this is a nice monster of a thread. ;( >> >> First, just to clear up some previous coments, shim does build against >> the oldest stable Fedora in koji and then is manually tagged into n

Re: F37 proposal: Build all JDKs in Fedora against in-tree libraries and with static stdc++lib (System-Wide Change proposal)

2022-05-24 Thread Chris Adams
Once upon a time, Vitaly Zaitsev said: > Sorry, but I can't treat the laziness of the > maintainers as a good reason. Can you PLEASE stop with the personal attacks? -- Chris Adams ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe

PSA: I am not getting all email from Fedora, reach me directly if you need me

2022-05-24 Thread Miro Hrončok
Hello Fedorans, this is a just a heads up: If I ignored your question in a Pagure issue, or your pull request, possibly haven't replied to your bugzilla report or a devel thread... it's because my email is broken and I don't get some (many) Fedora emails. Other colleagues from Red Hat report t

[Test-Announce] Re: Fedora 37 Rawhide 20220524.n.0 nightly compose nominated for testing

2022-05-24 Thread Adam Williamson
On Tue, 2022-05-24 at 09:53 +, rawh...@fedoraproject.org wrote: > Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event > for Fedora 37 Rawhide 20220524.n.0. Please help run some tests for this > nightly compose if you have time. For more information on nightly

Re: F37 proposal: Build all JDKs in Fedora against in-tree libraries and with static stdc++lib (System-Wide Change proposal)

2022-05-24 Thread Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
On 24/05/2022 16:31, Jiri Vanek wrote: The goal is to go as shim and cisco - to build in koji, certify, and repack. shim and openh264 have a good reason for this - legal issues. OpenJDK doesn't. Sorry, but I can't treat the laziness of the maintainers as a good reason. -- Sincerely, Vital

Re: F37 proposal: Build all JDKs in Fedora against in-tree libraries and with static stdc++lib (System-Wide Change proposal)

2022-05-24 Thread Jiri Vanek
On 5/21/22 13:38, Neal Gompa wrote: On Sat, May 21, 2022 at 7:28 AM Jiri Vanek wrote: On 5/20/22 14:57, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: On 20/05/2022 14:28, Jiri Vanek wrote: wait, what? What do you mean? And waht give you this impression? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MoveFedoraJDKsT

Re: F37 proposal: Build all JDKs in Fedora against in-tree libraries and with static stdc++lib (System-Wide Change proposal)

2022-05-24 Thread Jiri Vanek
On 5/23/22 20:40, Kevin Fenzi wrote: So, just replying here since this is a nice monster of a thread. ;( First, just to clear up some previous coments, shim does build against the oldest stable Fedora in koji and then is manually tagged into newer ones. This is not at all a good process. It on

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Fedora Source-git SIG

2022-05-24 Thread csomh
Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: Fedora Source-git SIG on 2022-05-25 from 14:30:00 to 15:30:00 GMT At meet.google.com/mic-otnv-kse The meeting will be about: Meeting of the Fedora source-git SIG Agenda: https://pagure.io/fedora-source-git/sig/issues?tags=meeting&status=Open

Re: FESCo election nominations are now open

2022-05-24 Thread Ben Cotton
This is your final reminder of the nomination period for FESCo elections. You may nominate yourself (or someone else, with their permission) at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/SteeringCommittee/Nominations . Nominations must be made by 2359 UTC on Wednesday 25 May. We currently have fou

Re: F37 proposal: Build all JDKs in Fedora against in-tree libraries and with static stdc++lib (System-Wide Change proposal)

2022-05-24 Thread Jiri Vanek
On 5/21/22 13:51, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: On 21/05/2022 13:22, Jiri Vanek wrote: shim? Built on Koji from sources as shim-unsigned, then uploaded to Microsoft for signing. This is a special legal case, just like openh264 and Cisco. Both of them built from sources on Fedora infra.

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 37 Boost 1.78 rebuilds starting in a side tag

2022-05-24 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On Thu, 5 May 2022 at 09:46, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 04. 05. 22 1:34, Thomas Rodgers wrote: > > We are starting the rebuilds for > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F37Boost178 > > in the f37-boost > > side tag. > > > > If your pack

Fedora-Rawhide-20220524.n.0 compose check report

2022-05-24 Thread Fedora compose checker
Missing expected images: Minimal raw-xz armhfp Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check! 20 of 43 required tests failed, 17 results missing openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING** below Failed openQA tests: 113/231 (x86_64), 65/161 (aarch64) New failures

[modules] 'fedpkg request-branch' - how ?

2022-05-24 Thread Michal Schorm
Hello, I want to create a new module stream. All the RPMs repos and the Module repo exist. I just need new branches in all of them. However I've run into a deadlock. Non-release branches require SL to be defined. And SL before it is defined checks that such a branch exists. | fedpkg request-bran

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20220524.n.0 changes

2022-05-24 Thread Fedora Rawhide Report
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20220523.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20220524.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:6 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 4 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 111 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 1.70 MiB Size of dropped packages:0 B

[Test-Announce] Fedora 37 Rawhide 20220524.n.0 nightly compose nominated for testing

2022-05-24 Thread rawhide
Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event for Fedora 37 Rawhide 20220524.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

Fedora-Cloud-34-20220524.0 compose check report

2022-05-24 Thread Fedora compose checker
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-34-20220523.0): ID: 1277043 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://op

Help with annocheck output

2022-05-24 Thread Iñaki Ucar
Hi, I'm trying to understand why annocheck is complaining in [1] about _FORTIFY_SOURCE and _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS when these flags are defined (see [2]). A specific example, the first function reported: Hardened: /usr/lib/flexiblas/libflexiblas_fallback_lapack.so: FAIL: fortify test because -D_FORT

Re: Fedora 37: Add kernel parameters that help prevent local exploits

2022-05-24 Thread Marcin Juszkiewicz
W dniu 19.05.2022 o 05:15, Hellosway Here via devel pisze: Add `slab_nomerge init_on_alloc=1 init_on_free=1 page_alloc.shuffle=1 pti=on randomize_kstack_offset=on vsyscall=none ` as default kernel command line arguments. Some of them are a matter of kernel configuration options. Which is bett

Re: Announcing the Fedora BIOS boot SIG

2022-05-24 Thread Hans de Goede
Hi, On 5/23/22 08:41, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2022-05-20 at 12:18 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> Now that FESCo has decided (1) that Fedora will keep supporting BIOS >> booting, the people working on Fedora's bootloader stack will need >> help from the Fedora community to ke

seahorse license change from GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ to GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and CC-BY-SA

2022-05-24 Thread David King
While updating seahorse to the latest version, I noticed that the user documentation was incorrectly listed as being under the GFDL. After confirming with upstream, I updated to to the current CC-BY-SA license: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/seahorse/-/merge_requests/199 -- https://amigadave.c