Hi,
get a build error [1] when compiling vdr-epg-daemon-1.2.3 on Fedora 37.
How can I fix this?
Thanks a lot
[1] https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8613/90398613/build.log
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscri
On Tue, 2022-07-26 at 10:12 +0200, Petr Pisar wrote:
> V Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 11:47:24PM +0200, Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> > On 25. 07. 22 23:38, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 08:57:39AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Per the Fedora 37 schedule[1
Hi,
On 01.08.22 14:55, Miro Hrončok wrote:
php-aws-sdk3 lcts
php-pimple lcts
both fixed.
Best,
Christopher
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fe
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 12:46:08PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 01:28:03PM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> > Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > > I do expect Fedora reviewers to do more than just look at a handful of
> > > source files though. For any package review,
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCo (2022-08-02)
===
Meeting started by decathorpe at 17:01:36 UTC. The full logs are
available at
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2022-08-02/fesco.2022-08-02-17.01.log.html
Meeting summary
--
On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 7:27 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 02. 08. 22 19:02, Iñaki Ucar wrote:
> > To begin with, untag Frantisek's build from f37, please. Tom prepared
> > the side tag to rebuild the packages there, but I believe he's not
> > currently available...
>
> I've opened https://pagure.io
On Mon, 2022-08-01 at 12:13 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> I do expect Fedora reviewers to do more than just look at a handful of
> source files though. For any package review, the header of every source
> file should checked. Random sampling is not sufficient to identify the
> exceptions which
On 02. 08. 22 19:02, Iñaki Ucar wrote:
On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 at 18:47, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Hello folks,
looks like R was update to 4.2 in a side tag, but a rebuild for ICU 71.1
shipped it in Rawhide prematurely. As a result, none of the R-* package
installs.
OMG
I wonder if we shall revert
On 02. 08. 22 18:55, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 02. 08. 22 18:31, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 01:32:07PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Could you please share a link to the existing script?
https://pagure.io/releng/blob/main/f/scripts/mass_rebuild_file_bugs.py
I wonder if it's hitti
On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 at 18:47, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> looks like R was update to 4.2 in a side tag, but a rebuild for ICU 71.1
> shipped it in Rawhide prematurely. As a result, none of the R-* package
> installs.
OMG
> I wonder if we shall revert the 4.2 update in dist-git and r
On 02. 08. 22 18:31, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 01:32:07PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Could you please share a link to the existing script?
https://pagure.io/releng/blob/main/f/scripts/mass_rebuild_file_bugs.py
I wonder if it's hitting a limit from bugzilla now, or perhaps a
Hello folks,
looks like R was update to 4.2 in a side tag, but a rebuild for ICU 71.1
shipped it in Rawhide prematurely. As a result, none of the R-* package installs.
I wonder if we shall revert the 4.2 update in dist-git and rebuild 4.1 with
ICU 71.1 now.
$ repoquery -q --repo=koji --what
On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 01:32:07PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >
> > Could you please share a link to the existing script?
> >
https://pagure.io/releng/blob/main/f/scripts/mass_rebuild_file_bugs.py
I wonder if it's hitting a limit from bugzilla now, or perhaps a paging
issue? It definitely see
I've taken ownership of RBTools, csound, and gpart.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 4:50 AM 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
ok had to define the correct vdr-devel version in the spec file, now i get a
other error message:
+ '[' -f /usr/lib/rpm/generate-rpm-note.sh ']'
+ /usr/lib/rpm/generate-rpm-note.sh vdr-epg-daemon 1.2.3-3.fc37 x86_64
+ cd vdr-epg-daemon-1.2.3
+ /usr/bin/make -O -j48 V=1 VERBOSE=1
(cd lib && /usr/
Hmm,
I am really sorry for this, I'd messed up a lot somehow.
I'll take a deeper look tomorrow morning, but from a quick look:
- webkit is now being built against the new icu, passed on i686 of
architectures, it'll hopefully be done before the next compose.
- brltty was FTBFS before, however, the
On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 4:03 PM Stephen Gallagher
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 6:04 PM Frantisek Zatloukal
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 7:46 PM Stephen Gallagher
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 5:20 AM Frantisek Zatloukal
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> >
* Martin Gansser:
> Hi,
>
> get a build error [1] when compiling vdr-epg-daemon-1.2.3 on Fedora 37.
>
> How can I fix this?
> Thanks a lot
>
> [1] https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8019/89928019/build.log
Looks definitely a bit weird. There's no include for . I
have no idea how thi
On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 6:04 PM Frantisek Zatloukal wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 7:46 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 5:20 AM Frantisek Zatloukal
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Later today, I'll be starting with rebuilds of packages depending on icu.
>> > Th
* Neal Gompa:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 7:23 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>>
>> * Fabio Valentini:
>>
>> > I think the problem here is not that GPLcompatibility of *new*
>> > licenses may need to be determined,
>>
>> I don't understand why this is necessary. What would we do with this
>> information?
On 8/1/22 18:13, Marek Kasik wrote:
Hi,
I plan to rebase poppler to 22.08.0 once it is available. The release
usually happens at the beginning of month so I'm waiting for it now.
Once it is ready, I'll build it in a side tag and will post it here. I
plan to merge the side tag with buildroot n
On 8/1/22 13:43, Dusty Mabe wrote:
Seems like this bug is
relatedhttps://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907030
We are hitting this issue in Fedora CoreOS CI on VMs with 1G of RAM.
This also affects the Fedora 36 Cloud Base image provided as Vagrant box:
$ vagrant init fedora/36-cloud-b
On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 7:23 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Fabio Valentini:
>
> > I think the problem here is not that GPLcompatibility of *new*
> > licenses may need to be determined,
>
> I don't understand why this is necessary. What would we do with this
> information? Would it impact what ca
On 02. 08. 22 10:26, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 02. 08. 22 2:23, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 03:43:39PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 03:04:50PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 25. 07. 22 17:57, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
21713 builds have been tagged into f37, there is c
Hi,
get a build error [1] when compiling vdr-epg-daemon-1.2.3 on Fedora 37.
How can I fix this?
Thanks a lot
[1] https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8019/89928019/build.log
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscri
* Fabio Valentini:
> I think the problem here is not that GPLcompatibility of *new*
> licenses may need to be determined,
I don't understand why this is necessary. What would we do with this
information? Would it impact what can become part of Fedora in any way?
Thanks,
Florian
___
On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 11:05 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Ralf Corsépius:
>
> > Am 31.07.22 um 18:57 schrieb Richard Fontana:
> >> There are so few non-legacy, today-commonly-used,
> >> generally-accepted-as-FOSS licenses that are not viewed as
> >> GPLv3-compatible that I think it might be bett
On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 6:45 PM Stephen Smoogen wrote:
>
> Since a lot of code is going to have a LOT of different licences which for
> some seem to grow every minor upstream release it would be better for the RPM
> License tag to have something like:
>
> License: It's complicated. (Please see /u
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 09:14:18PM -, Richard Fontana wrote:
> Looks like the License: field is limited to 70 characters if I am reading
> this correctly:
> https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/blob/2b5b271b0e013c1b023df7f5775a59cb4078d5f5/docs/manual/spec.md#license
I believe that'
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://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life
Note: If
* Miroslav Suchý:
> 260 characters is output of two packages: glibc.x86_64 and glibc.i686
>
> $ rpm -q glibc.x86_64 --qf "%{license}"|wc -c
> 130
Ah, good point. However, both numbers are still larger than 70. 8-)
Thanks,
Florian
___
devel mailing li
Dne 02. 08. 22 v 10:24 Florian Weimer napsal(a):
* Richard Fontana:
Looks like the License: field is limited to 70 characters if I am reading this
correctly:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/blob/2b5b271b0e013c1b023df7f5775a59cb4078d5f5/docs/manual/spec.md#license
I don't think
On 02. 08. 22 2:23, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 03:43:39PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 03:04:50PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 25. 07. 22 17:57, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
21713 builds have been tagged into f37, there is currently 1144 failed
builds that need to b
* Richard Fontana:
> Looks like the License: field is limited to 70 characters if I am reading
> this correctly:
> https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/blob/2b5b271b0e013c1b023df7f5775a59cb4078d5f5/docs/manual/spec.md#license
I don't think so:
$ rpm -q glibc --qf "%{license}" | wc -c
34 matches
Mail list logo
