Re: c++ packaging of contour terminal and libunicode

The detailed information: https://gist.github.com/topazus/b4bfd63b8cbce70acd4dac02a087d785 ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.f

Re: c++ packaging of contour terminal and libunicode

I tried to add -DCMAKE_POSITION_INDEPENDENT_CODE:BOOL=ON to %cmake, it still does not compile and occurred the same error in the same position. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedo

Re: c++ packaging of contour terminal and libunicode

Felix Wang wrote: > /usr/bin/ld: /tmp/ccW09Umc.ltrans0.ltrans.o: relocation R_X86_64_PC32 > against symbol `_ZTIZN8logstore4SinkC4EbRSoEUlSt17basic_string_viewIcSt11char_traitsIcEEE_' > can not be used when making a shared object; recompile with -fPIC Pass -DCMAKE_POSITION_INDEPENDENT_CODE:BOOL=O

Re: Some boost breakage in Fedora Rawhide

Which has a successful build in rawhide now. On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 8:08 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 at 18:23, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > > > > Dne 23. 02. 23 v 12:41 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): > > >

Re: livcd-creator gives incorrect checksum for recently rebuilt local repo packages

Btw, this is how I define my repo in the kickstart file: repo --name=MyBaseRepo --baseurl=file:///home/itsme/rpmbuild/RPMS/$basearch I have never had this issue before, even as recently as a week ago. Thanks! On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 09:52:07 PM CST, Globe Trotter via devel wrote:

Re: livcd-creator gives incorrect checksum for recently rebuilt local repo packages

Todd is right, we ditched createrepo back in F30 an what's left is a symlink to createrepo_c. On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 4:52 AM Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > > OK, I tried createrepo_c . but I get the same error. > > Here is what I tried: > > > createrepo_c --update . > > And now, nothing from

Re: livcd-creator gives incorrect checksum for recently rebuilt local repo packages

OK, I tried createrepo_c . but I get the same error. Here is what I tried: createrepo_c  --update  . And now, nothing from the local repo come in. Suggestions? On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 09:27:13 PM CST, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 4:15 AM Globe Tr

Re: livcd-creator gives incorrect checksum for recently rebuilt local repo packages

Alexander Ploumistos wrote: > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 4:15 AM Globe Trotter via devel > wrote: >> I wonder if anyone has any suggestions on how to get >> around this problem. I create my local repo using >> >> createrepo . >> >> inside my RPMS/x86_64 directory. > > Is there a specific reason you

Re: livcd-creator gives incorrect checksum for recently rebuilt local repo packages

On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 4:15 AM Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > I wonder if anyone has any suggestions on how to get around this problem. I > create my local repo using > > createrepo . > > inside my RPMS/x86_64 directory. Is there a specific reason you are not using createrepo_c? Does that giv

Re: livcd-creator gives incorrect checksum for recently rebuilt local repo packages

Hi, I wonder if anyone has any suggestions on how to get around this problem. I create my local repo using createrepo . inside my RPMS/x86_64 directory. I have done this in the past too. So, am at a loss as to what is causing this problem. TIA. On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 10:35:03

Re: c++ packaging of contour terminal and libunicode

updated contour .spec file: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/topazus/f81005cb85762ce2cf6e138f0b1cede1/raw/9745fd9c7b01d9c7d7a9619b93b22a8219ce7ad4/contour.spec ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to deve

Re: questions about requesting new package into official Fedora repository?

Much thanks for your detailed explanation. Very helpful. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code

Re: c++ packaging of contour terminal and libunicode

libunicode repo URL: https://github.com/contour-terminal/libunicode contour terminal repo URL: https://github.com/contour-terminal/contour ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproj

c++ packaging of contour terminal and libunicode

spec file URL of libunicode: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/topazus/e30b83d669600756894a77b5258c9405/raw/5f402302ae0527732ad112059906c2a239239c34/libunicode.spec spec file URL of contour: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/topazus/f81005cb85762ce2cf6e138f0b1cede1/raw/c29f456daa0a440529a4ffe20

Re: how to specify distribution (f37, say, not fc37) in a spec file

Excellent, thank you. no, I am not planning to maintain EPEL branches. On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 07:53:08 PM CST, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 2:39 AM Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > I am writing a spec file for SliM, the Simple Login Manager for Fedora 37

Re: how to specify distribution (f37, say, not fc37) in a spec file

On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 2:39 AM Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > I am writing a spec file for SliM, the Simple Login Manager for Fedora 37. I > was thiniking of changing the default login image to the Fedora one. It > appears that that is stored in the RPM: f37-backgrounds-base and the file is

how to specify distribution (f37, say, not fc37) in a spec file

Hi, I am writing a spec file for SliM, the Simple Login Manager for Fedora 37. I was thiniking of changing the default login image to the Fedora one. It appears that that is stored in the RPM: f37-backgrounds-base and the file is /usr/share/backgrounds/f37/default/f37-01-day.png  So, my quest

Re: providing gpg verification for a package without signature

To answer my own question, by the trial-and-error method, it seems that the current default needs to be taken out from the conf file. On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 02:48:52 PM CST, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: Sorry, I had a question on the xserver_arguments in the slim.conf file.

review swap: ancient - Modern decompressor for old data compression formats

ocp (Open Cubic Player for MOD/S3M/XM/IT/MIDI music files) has grown a new dependency on libancient. I submitted a new package review request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165381 Review Request: ancient - Modern decompressor for old data compression formats This is a collection

Re: Bodhi_enabled ? Re: F38 Change complete (100% complete) deadline today

On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 07:53:57PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 7:41 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 06:00:08AM +, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > > On Tue, 2023-02-21 at 16:40 -0500, Ben Cotton wrote: > > > > As of today, F38 Changes should be 100% com

Re: providing gpg verification for a package without signature

Sorry, I had a question on the xserver_arguments in the slim.conf file. The old (1.3.6) file had xserver_arguments commented out, but the new (1.4.0) file replaces it with xserver_arguments   -nolisten tcp -deferglyphs 16 The default zserver is still the same: default_xserver /usr/bin/X S

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers

.. in case of parcellite, there's clearly active upstream working towards new release 1.2.2 - so I fail to see any reason to think about orphan :) ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.f

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers

> lxsession-edit, lxpolkit is now built from lxsession.src.rpm, so no need for > these > anymore. > parcellite is not in LXDE spin, LXDE spin uses clipit, so I did not take this. Okay. Well, we should retire properly lxsession-edit and lxpolkit then. I've taken both. As well, parcellite is taken

Re: providing gpg verification for a package without signature

Sorry, forgot to add: I will ask the slim-fork maintainer if he will sign the release tarballs. On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 10:51:14 AM CST, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: Todd, I only became aware of this fork yesterday, and have packaged it and put it on bugzilla: https://bu

Re: providing gpg verification for a package without signature

Todd, I only became aware of this fork yesterday, and have packaged it and put it on bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173236 Hopefully, someone who can will review and approve it. Someone did review it, but is not eligible to approve. Thanks! On Sunday, February 26, 2

Re: providing gpg verification for a package without signature

Hi, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > I have been trying to package slim again. The package does not come with a > signature or a gpg key. > > From > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_source_file_verification > I don't see an option of what to do if there is no signat

Re: providing gpg verification for a package without signature

Thanks, so it appears that no GPG verification is needed in this case, then. I thought it was needed for everything. Thanks again for the clarification! On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 10:29:30 AM CST, Ben Beasley wrote: “Where the upstream project publishes OpenPGP signatures of their

Re: providing gpg verification for a package without signature

“Where the upstream project publishes OpenPGP signatures of their releases, Fedora packages SHOULD verify that signature as part of the RPM build process.” Most upstreams don’t sign their releases this way, so most Fedora packages don’t need to worry about it. If upstream did provide signatures,

Re: Some boost breakage in Fedora Rawhide

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 at 18:23, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > Dne 23. 02. 23 v 12:41 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 12:28:48PM +0100, Kalev Lember wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 12:17 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek < > >> zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: > >> I think you

providing gpg verification for a package without signature

Hello, I have been trying to package slim again. The package does not come with a signature or a gpg key. From https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_source_file_verification I don't see an option of what to do if there is no signature provided. Any suggestions or point

Re: Feedback wanted for a proposed improvement to RPM's ELF dependency generator

On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 08:40:07AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 10:56:30AM -0800, Gordon Messmer wrote: > > On 2023-02-20 10:01, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > >Does it have to be something which looks so much like it might be a > > >version number? For example it coul

Fedora 38 compose report: 20230226.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-38-20230225.n.0 NEW: Fedora-38-20230226.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:1 Dropped images: 3 Added packages: 0 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 0 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 0 B Size of dropped packages:0 B Size of upgraded

Planned sobump for libddcutil from libddcutil.so.3 to libddcutil.so.4

Hi all, I am planning to update ddcutil to latest version this week. The update will contain a sobump from libddcutil.so.3 to libddcutil.so.4. I checked that nothing is linked to libddcutil.so.3 but just in case anyone have any need please bring this up to me :) Cheers, Qiyu Yan

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20230226.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20230225.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20230226.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 3 Added packages: 20 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 90 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 2.29 MiB Size of dropped packages:0 B