As I've been working on converting license tags to SPDX, I have found
myself frequently needing to determine the license for some file that
is not distributed by the package upstream, such as JavaScript and CSS
files copied in by documentation builders, or header files from
header-only packages. T
On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 7:36 PM Jerry James wrote:
> It is no longer possible to build the sympy documentation, due to
> missing dependencies. However, I have already noted other packages I
> maintain that need each of these. That tells me it is time to get
> them into Fedora. I would like to s
Bottom line opinion: hardened_malloc ... costs too much.
Attempting to be constructive: Psychologically, I might be willing to pay
a "security tax" of something like 17%, partly on the basis of similarity
to the VAT rate (Value Added Tax) in some parts of the developed world.
___
On Tue, 2022-08-30 at 18:07 +0200, Ralf Corsépius wrote:
>
> Am 29.08.22 um 15:43 schrieb Dan Čermák:
> > I agree, this needn't block F37, but I still think that this should be
> > fixed. Unless I use microdnf, I cannot upgrade my VPS with 1GB RAM that
> > happily hosts my home page, which is quit
Adding Daniel for awareness.
Regards.
Pablo
El mié., 31 ago. 2022 16:09, John Reiser escribió:
> Here is one end-to-end performance measurement of using hardened_malloc.
>
> sudo sh -c "echo 1 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches"
> /usr/bin/time rpmbuild -bc kernel-5.15.11-100.fc34.spec >rpmbuil
On Wed, 2022-08-31 at 12:43 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 12:10:00PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2022-08-30 at 09:14 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > > From my perspective, anything that blocks the release is on the
> > > critical path. So any time th
I have patched to add the unversioned .so
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libid3tag/c/607d7abf709add3e39690adfd3aef871c50d37c2?branch=rawhide
I don't think there is a need to rebuild dependant packages.
[leigh@mpd libid3tag]$ abipkgdiff libid3tag-0.15.1b-37.fc37.x86_64.rpm
libid3tag-0.16.2-
On 31/08/2022 16:07, Leigh Scott wrote:
Switching upstream has increased the .so version from libid3tag.so.0 to
libid3tag.so.0.16.2
It looks like a bug. I think they omitted the SOVERSION field when
switching to CMake.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 3:07 PM Leigh Scott wrote:
> Switching upstream has increased the .so version from libid3tag.so.0 to
> libid3tag.so.0.16.2
> I plan to do the rebuilds myself after checking everything builds ok in
> copr.
>
>
> Affected packages
>
> Fedora:
> audacity-0:3.1.3-5.fc37.x86_6
In one week (2022-09-07), or slightly later, I plan to update the c4core
library from 0.1.9 to 0.1.10 in Rawhide and F37, which will involve a
.so version bump. This should have no impact on other packagers; I will
handle the necessary rebuilds in c4fs, c4log, and rapidyaml.
https://src.fedora
Here is one end-to-end performance measurement of using hardened_malloc.
sudo sh -c "echo 1 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches"
/usr/bin/time rpmbuild -bc kernel-5.15.11-100.fc34.spec >rpmbuild.out 2>&1
For glibc, the result was
19274.30user 2522.87system 1:49:06elapsed 332%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdat
Switching upstream has increased the .so version from libid3tag.so.0 to
libid3tag.so.0.16.2
I plan to do the rebuilds myself after checking everything builds ok in copr.
Affected packages
Fedora:
audacity-0:3.1.3-5.fc37.x86_64
easytag-0:2.4.3-16.fc37.x86_64
gtkpod-0:2.1.5-21.fc37.x86_64
imlib2
On 30. 08. 22 20:15, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
2) One-time enablement of all existing packages
That should be doable. Right?
3) Automatic enablement of all new packages
That should be just a matter of changing the defaults. Correct?
I can implement points 2 and 3 easily, as long as there is co
On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 at 14:16, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 9:53 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> To submit more scratch builds we would need larger builder capacity.
> This doesn't necessarily mean more or better hardware.
> Better Koji configuration would help a lot.
> We have so
On 31. 08. 22 15:22, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 31. 08. 22 v 11:50 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
Hello license folks.
I see that Fedora's rpmlint is yet to be taught to understand SPDX:
python3-lxml.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause
python3-lxml.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT-CMU
Is this suppo
Dne 31. 08. 22 v 11:50 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
Hello license folks.
I see that Fedora's rpmlint is yet to be taught to understand SPDX:
python3-lxml.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause
python3-lxml.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT-CMU
Is this support tracked somewhere? I know openSUSE alread
Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event
for Fedora-IoT 37 RC 20220831.0. 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/QA:Release_validation_test_pl
Björn,
I won't be addressing the comments one-by-one, as it mostly boils down
to "I don't like the UI/UX" (how I read it, at least). And I
absolutely understand and accept that. On the other hand, we (as in
the people who developed this) are, well, developers, and that about
sums up the UX optimiz
OLD: Fedora-37-20220830.n.0
NEW: Fedora-37-20220831.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 2
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:7
Upgraded packages: 0
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:7.92 MiB
Size of
Actually, I am not owner, just maintainer 😬 So I'll just remove myself
from the package. But the other packagers are not active, so it will be
eventually orphaned.
Vít
Dne 31. 08. 22 v 14:43 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
I am orphaning rubygem-activeresource, because:
* I don't have any use for
I am orphaning rubygem-activeresource, because:
* I don't have any use for the package
* The upstream is not very active these days
The package is in reasonable shape if somebody is interested. Just fixed
one possible build issue.
Vít
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signat
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 12:10:00PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-08-30 at 09:14 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > From my perspective, anything that blocks the release is on the
> > critical path. So any time there's a violation of the release criteria
> > and the package is not on the cr
Thank you Kevin! This was it!
Strangely `dnf install bodhi-client` would not install v6. But manually
hauling it in via
https://download-ib01.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/updates/35/Everything/x86_64/Packages/b/bodhi-client-6.0.0-2.fc35.noarch.rpm
worked great.
Thank you for your help!
On
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 7:48 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 31. 08. 22 13:39, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 5:50 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello license folks.
> >>
> >> I see that Fedora's rpmlint is yet to be taught to understand SPDX:
> >>
> >> python3-lxml.x86_64: W: inv
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 03:20:10PM -0500, Jonathan Wright via devel wrote:
> Ah I see you got someone.
>
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 3:19 PM Jonathan Wright
> wrote:
>
> I'll trade you for a basic Python package: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/
> show_bug.cgi?id=2121258
I've taken this one
On 31. 08. 22 13:39, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 5:50 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
Hello license folks.
I see that Fedora's rpmlint is yet to be taught to understand SPDX:
python3-lxml.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause
python3-lxml.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT-CMU
Is this su
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 5:50 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> Hello license folks.
>
> I see that Fedora's rpmlint is yet to be taught to understand SPDX:
>
> python3-lxml.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause
> python3-lxml.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT-CMU
>
> Is this support tracked somewhere? I k
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 12:44 PM Michael J Gruber
wrote:
>
> Funny observation:
>
> - take up an orphaned package
> - refresh dashboard
> - see the package listed in your dashboard as "directly owned" as well as
> "orphaned ... ago" (red warning)
>
> Obviously, different parts of the aggregated
Funny observation:
- take up an orphaned package
- refresh dashboard
- see the package listed in your dashboard as "directly owned" as well as
"orphaned ... ago" (red warning)
Obviously, different parts of the aggregated information is aggregated on
different schedules ...
_
Hello license folks.
I see that Fedora's rpmlint is yet to be taught to understand SPDX:
python3-lxml.x86_64: W: invalid-license BSD-3-Clause
python3-lxml.x86_64: W: invalid-license MIT-CMU
Is this support tracked somewhere? I know openSUSE already uses SPDX, so
rpmlint probably knows how to r
30 matches
Mail list logo
