On 3/29/23 18:58, Todd Zullinger wrote:
Florian Festi wrote:
On 3/29/23 10:31, Michael J Gruber wrote:
Has `%patchN` been deprecated in favour of `%patch N`?
Yes, see %patch section on
https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/spec.html
Quoting that:
%patch is used to apply
On 30/03/2023 02:54, Simon Pichugin wrote:
I understand that it's not the correct way... Could you please suggest
how something like this can be achieved? (during the upgrade - check if
the old and the new package versions are the same)
You should use %triggerun instead:
%triggerun -- %{name}
Il 30/03/23 01:26, Miro Hrončok ha scritto:
> On 28. 03. 23 10:57, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
>> Most of the updates which have notes longer than 10k characters are
>> rawhide automatic updates which copies the RPM changelog over and over,
> What will happen now, when an automatic rawhide like t
Hi Simon,
On March 30, 2023 12:54:49 AM UTC, Simon Pichugin wrote:
>Hi folks,
>I've spent some time experimenting and trying to implement something like
>this ($subject):
>
>During `%preun servers`:
>
>export OLD_VERSION="$(rpm -qa openldap | awk -F- '/^openldap/ &&
>split($2,ver,/\./) >= 1 {
On 3/27/23 1:19 AM, Andreas Schneider wrote:
On Sunday, 26 March 2023 01:56:32 CEST Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Two weeks ago we had:
* 23107 spec files in Fedora
* 29503license tags in all spec files
* 20302 tags have not been converted to SPDX yet
* 8096 tags can be trivially converted using `
Hello team,
Blender 3.5.0 got released today at this time of writing. Unfortunately,
failure occurred with the following link possibly related to cycles:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=99301805
Can someone investigate the problem?
Thanks
___
Hi folks,
I've spent some time experimenting and trying to implement something like
this ($subject):
During `%preun servers`:
export OLD_VERSION="$(rpm -qa openldap | awk -F- '/^openldap/ &&
split($2,ver,/\./) >= 1 {print ver[1] "." ver[2] "." ver[3]}')"
Then, during `%post servers`
if
On 28. 03. 23 10:57, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
Most of the updates which have notes longer than 10k characters are
rawhide automatic updates which copies the RPM changelog over and over,
What will happen now, when an automatic rawhide like this is created? Will the
notes be truncated, or w
On 28. 03. 23 10:57, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
I want to point out that copying the full upstream
changelogs into updates notes is not recommended.
It's actually forbidden.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs
"They must never simply contain an entire copy
On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 12:09 AM Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
> Additionally, the smallest offerings of popular VPS providers have
> just 1 or 2 GB of RAM, is Fedora Server no longer supported on systems
> like these?
> Do we need to update the documentation for system requirements? Ping
> cloud hosti
On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 4:09 AM Alexander Ploumistos
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> TL;DR:
> DNF memory usage during upgrades from F37 to F38 on a couple of Fedora
> Cloud images (with 2 GB of RAM each) led to oomd kicking in and
> killing the upgrade process. It might be worth looking into before the
> fin
On Wed, 2023-03-29 at 13:11 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 11:24:40AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2023-03-28 at 08:57 +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
> > >
> > > Other changes between the currently deployed Bodhi 7.0.1 and the
> > > upcoming Bodhi 7.1.1 I en
On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 11:24:40AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-03-28 at 08:57 +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
> >
> > Other changes between the currently deployed Bodhi 7.0.1 and the
> > upcoming Bodhi 7.1.1 I encourage you to look at the upstream changelog
> > at https://git
Dne 29. 03. 23 v 17:09 Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a):
** As mentioned above and at
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/update-existing-packages/,
automatic conversion is not possible for a lot of packages and will
need direct review. For example, legacy license identifiers that
cannot be a
Hi Fedora,
TeXLive 2023 (composed of texlive-base and texlive SRPMs) is in rawhide
now. I've done local testing to try to make sure it doesn't break anything
obvious... but the size and scope of TL means that there are probably still
some bugs introduced by this update.
Change wiki page here: htt
Minutes:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2023-03-29/fedora_coreos_meeting.2023-03-29-16.30.html
Minutes (text):
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2023-03-29/fedora_coreos_meeting.2023-03-29-16.30.txt
Log:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2023
On Tue, 2023-03-28 at 08:57 +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
>
> Other changes between the currently deployed Bodhi 7.0.1 and the
> upcoming Bodhi 7.1.1 I encourage you to look at the upstream changelog
> at https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/releases
So another fairly notable change is th
Florian Festi wrote:
> On 3/29/23 10:31, Michael J Gruber wrote:
>> Has `%patchN` been deprecated in favour of `%patch N`?
>
> Yes, see %patch section on
> https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/spec.html
Quoting that:
%patch is used to apply patches on top of the just unpacked
On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 03:16:29PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_2
>
> 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
On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 2:01 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> Hmm, that'd mean thousands of pull requests… I think if we agree to
> this, it would make sense to just push a fix directly. Each pull request
> ticket is a few mails, and with 8096 expected pull requests, that is
> quite a lot
OLD: Fedora-38-20230328.n.0
NEW: Fedora-38-20230329.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 9
Added packages: 3
Dropped packages:25
Upgraded packages: 55
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 1.76 MiB
Size of dropped packages:90.73 MiB
On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 12:30 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 28. 03. 23 v 16:01 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
> > Hmm, that'd mean thousands of pull requests… I think if we agree to
> > this, it would make sense to just push a fix directly. Each pull request
> > ticket is a few mails, an
Dne 28. 03. 23 v 16:01 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
Hmm, that'd mean thousands of pull requests… I think if we agree to
this, it would make sense to just push a fix directly. Each pull request
ticket is a few mails, and with 8096 expected pull requests, that is
quite a lot of churn.
I
On 29. 03. 23 10:31, Michael J Gruber wrote:
Has `%patchN` been deprecated in favour of `%patch N`?
Yes. However...
I got a push by a proven packager to one of the packages which I maintain, commit subject
and changelog entry "Fix deprecated patch rpm macro". It contains no
explanation and
On 3/29/23 10:31, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> Has `%patchN` been deprecated in favour of `%patch N`?
Yes, see %patch section on
https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/spec.html
> I got a push by a proven packager to one of the packages which I maintain,
> commit subject and changelog
Has `%patchN` been deprecated in favour of `%patch N`?
I got a push by a proven packager to one of the packages which I maintain,
commit subject and changelog entry "Fix deprecated patch rpm macro". It
contains no explanation and no reference whatsoever. I didn't find any heads up
notice, nor i
I also would like to get involved into the packaging of nim-lang. Although I
maintain a few Fedora packages, my understanding of fedora rpm packaging and
many other related knowledge, which I know a little about nim-lang, may not
statisfy the packaging of nim-lang, but I will have a try.
__
27 matches
Mail list logo
