Re: Auto-assign packager sponsors to tickets?

2023-04-04 Thread Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
On 04/04/2023 23:42, Kevin Fenzi wrote: But then after a outcry... "We are reverting this change for now. More details to follow." Yes, after a lot of negative feedback they (temporary?) reverted this change. Even their own vcpkg (package manager by Microsoft) uses these hashes to verify down

Review requests: python-flask-mailman, python-flask-mongoengine, mingw-gsettings-desktop-schemas

2023-04-04 Thread Sandro Mani
Hi I'd appreciate review of the following packages: Needed for updating python-flask-security-too (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2171671): - python-flask-mailman: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2184588 - python-flask-mongoengine: https://bugzilla.redhat.c

Re: Auto-assign packager sponsors to tickets?

2023-04-04 Thread Otto Liljalaakso
Benson Muite kirjoitti 4.4.2023 klo 10.43: Response times to pull requests can vary. Most people who want to be packagers are submitting something new. The above would work well for SIGS which package related software. In particular, if a package can be adopted by a SIG, then the person submit

Re: Auto-assign packager sponsors to tickets?

2023-04-04 Thread Otto Liljalaakso
Kalev Lember kirjoitti 4.4.2023 klo 10.36: On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 9:22 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: On 04/04/2023 07:52, Otto Liljalaakso wrote: Perhaps new package requests could more often be handled in a way where an existing packager assumes the mai

Re: Any interest in maintaining spyder (python IDE)?

2023-04-04 Thread Mukundan Ragavan
On 4/3/23 12:53, Blaise Pabon wrote: Hi Mukundan, Jonathan, I have been working on becoming a fedora maintainer and I would love to help. When I followed the links to the build logs I got a 404. Blaise Hi Blaise, I will be happy to help you with becoming a packager. I am also happy to

Re: Orphaned: kitty

2023-04-04 Thread Ian B via devel
Thanks Pavel, and thankyou to the previous maintainer for their efforts. On Tuesday, 4 April 2023 at 09:18:32 pm AEST, Major Hayden via devel wrote: On Mon, Apr 3, 2023, at 18:32, Pavel Solovev wrote: > I'm packaging required go dependencies and I'll grab it. Thank you, Pavel! ;) -- M

Re: Auto-assign packager sponsors to tickets?

2023-04-04 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 10:00:20AM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > On 04/04/2023 09:36, Kalev Lember wrote: > > That's not exactly true. Yes, non-packagers can't upload files to the > > lookaside cache, but they can update the 'sources' and '.gitignore' > > files in git. > > GitHub has st

Re: Auto-assign packager sponsors to tickets?

2023-04-04 Thread Björn Persson
Jakub Kadlcik wrote: > > From this thread I get > > the opposite impression, that Pagure tickets are processed quickly and > > FE-NEEDSPONSOR blockers are not looked at. If so, I propose the policy > > is updated to ask for a Pagure ticket in every case. > > I get the same impression and I would

Fedora Linux 38 final freeze

2023-04-04 Thread Tomas Hrcka
Hi all, Today, 2023-04-04, is an important day on the Fedora Linux 38 schedule [1], with significant cut-offs. Today we have the Final Freeze [2] which starts at 14:00 UTC. This means that only packages which fix accepted blocker or freeze exception bugs [3][4][5] will be marked as 'stable' and i

Multiple soname bumps Scotch PETSc Sundials Bout++

2023-04-04 Thread Antonio T. sagitter
Hi all. We are ready to upgrade multiple libraries: Scotch-7.0.3 PETSc-3.18.5 Sundials-6.5.1 Bout++-5.0.0 In one week at least, these libraries + related dependencies + a new Python package (python-zoidberg, needed by bout++) will be built in a f39 side-tag Best Regards -- --- Antonio Tr

Re: [Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Prioritized bugs and issues

2023-04-04 Thread Ben Cotton
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 6:00 AM wrote: > > You are kindly invited to the meeting: >Prioritized bugs and issues on 2023-04-05 from 10:00:00 to 11:00:00 > America/Indiana/Indianapolis >At fedora-meetin...@irc.libera.chat > > More information available at: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en

Re: nodejs broken?

2023-04-04 Thread Sérgio Basto
On Tue, 2023-04-04 at 10:23 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 9:45 AM Sérgio Basto > wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2023-03-16 at 11:19 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 1:16 PM Jerry James > > > > ... > > I found a problem related with yarnpkg rpm, the

Re: F39 proposal: RPM 4.19 (System-Wide Change proposal)

2023-04-04 Thread Neal Gompa
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 10:32 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > On 04/04/2023 15:15, Neal Gompa wrote: > > But overall? I don't think so. > > Web browsers, game engines, audio/video editing software. > Portions of web browsers and game engines (multimedia bits and physics libraries, which we

Re: F39 proposal: RPM 4.19 (System-Wide Change proposal)

2023-04-04 Thread Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
On 04/04/2023 15:15, Neal Gompa wrote: But overall? I don't think so. Web browsers, game engines, audio/video editing software. -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org) ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscr

Re: redhat-lsb-core

2023-04-04 Thread Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden
On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 10:19:56AM -0400, Steven A. Falco wrote: On 4/4/23 09:56 AM, Neal Gompa wrote: On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 9:49 AM Steven A. Falco wrote: On 4/4/23 05:58 AM, ser...@serjux.com wrote: Please open a bug report , I'm reviewing redhat-lsb [1] , this package is so old that stil

Re: F39 proposal: RPM 4.19 (System-Wide Change proposal)

2023-04-04 Thread Dan Čermák
Chris Adams writes: > Once upon a time, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek said: >> On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 11:17:50AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> > Why a subrpm? Should be possible to just arrange for one src.rpm to >> > build the library twice and install the x86-64-v3 into >> > /usr/lib64/glibc-

Re: redhat-lsb-core

2023-04-04 Thread Mamoru TASAKA
Steven A. Falco wrote on 2023/04/04 5:13: I'm confused by the Requires for redhat-lsb-core. According to "dnf repoquery --requires redhat-lsb-core" there is no requirement for esmtp.  But according to "dnf repoquery --whatrequires esmtp", redhat-lsb-core does require esmtp. Well, somebody ma

Re: nodejs broken?

2023-04-04 Thread Stephen Gallagher
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 9:45 AM Sérgio Basto wrote: > > On Thu, 2023-03-16 at 11:19 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 1:16 PM Jerry James ... > I found a problem related with yarnpkg rpm, the macro % __find_requires > finds that yarn scripts uses and needs /usr/bin/node ,

Re: redhat-lsb-core

2023-04-04 Thread Steven A. Falco
On 4/4/23 09:56 AM, Neal Gompa wrote: On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 9:49 AM Steven A. Falco wrote: On 4/4/23 05:58 AM, ser...@serjux.com wrote: On 2023-04-03 21:13, Steven A. Falco wrote: I'm confused by the Requires for redhat-lsb-core. According to "dnf repoquery --requires redhat-lsb-core" ther

Re: redhat-lsb-core

2023-04-04 Thread Neal Gompa
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 9:49 AM Steven A. Falco wrote: > > On 4/4/23 05:58 AM, ser...@serjux.com wrote: > > On 2023-04-03 21:13, Steven A. Falco wrote: > >> I'm confused by the Requires for redhat-lsb-core. > >> > >> According to "dnf repoquery --requires redhat-lsb-core" there is no > >> requireme

Re: redhat-lsb-core

2023-04-04 Thread Steven A. Falco
On 4/4/23 05:58 AM, ser...@serjux.com wrote: On 2023-04-03 21:13, Steven A. Falco wrote: I'm confused by the Requires for redhat-lsb-core. According to "dnf repoquery --requires redhat-lsb-core" there is no requirement for esmtp.  But according to "dnf repoquery --whatrequires esmtp", redhat-ls

Re: nodejs broken?

2023-04-04 Thread Sérgio Basto
On Thu, 2023-03-16 at 11:19 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 1:16 PM Jerry James > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 11:09 AM Jerry James > > wrote: > > > I see the same with a couple of my packages.  A look at > > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nodejs suggest

Re: F39 proposal: RPM 4.19 (System-Wide Change proposal)

2023-04-04 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 09:05:43AM -0400, Stephen Smoogen wrote: > On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 at 08:52, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 11:17:50AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 07:37:59AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > > wrote: > > > >

Re: F39 proposal: RPM 4.19 (System-Wide Change proposal)

2023-04-04 Thread Neal Gompa
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 8:35 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > On 04/04/2023 11:17, Neal Gompa wrote: > > It seems that moving to -O3 would provide more gains than x86_64-v3. > > AVX2 can significantly boost the performance of modern processors in > SIMD operations. > Yes, provided they are d

Re: F39 proposal: RPM 4.19 (System-Wide Change proposal)

2023-04-04 Thread Chris Adams
Once upon a time, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek said: > On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 11:17:50AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Why a subrpm? Should be possible to just arrange for one src.rpm to > > build the library twice and install the x86-64-v3 into > > /usr/lib64/glibc-hwcaps/x86-64-v3/ > > Perhap

Re: F39 proposal: RPM 4.19 (System-Wide Change proposal)

2023-04-04 Thread Stephen Smoogen
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 at 08:52, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 11:17:50AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 07:37:59AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 02, 2023 at 09:54:04PM +0200, Dan Čermák wrote: > > > > The only be

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20230404.n.0 changes

2023-04-04 Thread Fedora Rawhide Report
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20230403.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20230404.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:1 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 14 Dropped packages:5 Upgraded packages: 95 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 1.27 MiB Size of dropped packages

Re: F39 proposal: RPM 4.19 (System-Wide Change proposal)

2023-04-04 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 11:17:50AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 07:37:59AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 02, 2023 at 09:54:04PM +0200, Dan Čermák wrote: > > > The only benchmark that *I* am aware of is this one done by Martin > > > Jambor: https:

Re: F39 proposal: RPM 4.19 (System-Wide Change proposal)

2023-04-04 Thread Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
On 04/04/2023 11:17, Neal Gompa wrote: It seems that moving to -O3 would provide more gains than x86_64-v3. AVX2 can significantly boost the performance of modern processors in SIMD operations. -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org) ___

Re: F39 proposal: RPM 4.19 (System-Wide Change proposal)

2023-04-04 Thread Stephen Smoogen
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 at 05:18, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 3:38 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: > > > > On Sun, Apr 02, 2023 at 09:54:04PM +0200, Dan Čermák wrote: > > > The only benchmark that *I* am aware of is this one done by Martin > > > Jambor: https://jamborm.github.i

Fedora 38 compose report: 20230404.n.0 changes

2023-04-04 Thread Fedora Rawhide Report
OLD: Fedora-38-20230403.n.0 NEW: Fedora-38-20230404.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 2 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 89 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 3.05 MiB Size of dropped packages:0 B Size of

Re: SPDX: Consistency of tools

2023-04-04 Thread Miro Hrončok
On 04. 04. 23 7:44, Miroslav Suchý wrote: AFAIK both tool has been already migrated and will complain when you use short format. At least rpmlint will not complain for old license identifiers. rpmlint-fedora-license-data contains both - /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml and - /etc/

Re: SPDX: Consistency of tools

2023-04-04 Thread Richard Shaw
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 12:45 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Dne 04. 04. 23 v 3:20 Richard Shaw napsal(a): > > I have updated my licensecount script which summarises the licenses in a > source and uses licensecheck to output SPDX licenses instead, but they > output the "short" form as far as I can tel

Re: Orphaned: kitty

2023-04-04 Thread Major Hayden via devel
On Mon, Apr 3, 2023, at 18:32, Pavel Solovev wrote: > I'm packaging required go dependencies and I'll grab it. Thank you, Pavel! ;) -- Major Hayden ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@list

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers

2023-04-04 Thread Sandro
On 04-04-2023 09:45, Miro Hrončok wrote: libunibreak orphan 3 weeks ago I've taken libunibreak since coolreader depends on it. Will update to latest release as time permits. -- Sandro ___ devel mailin

Re: SPDX: Consistency of tools

2023-04-04 Thread Petr Pisar
V Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 08:20:07PM -0500, Richard Shaw napsal(a): > While no matter what we do, there are maintainers that are not going to > proactively update their packages, until we unify the tools and > documentation to "do the right thing", we're pissing in the wind. > What surprised me is th

Re: Timeshift on Fedora

2023-04-04 Thread Sandro
On 03-04-2023 14:38, Steve Cossette wrote: I had a strange experience with Timeshift last week. For those that don't know, Timeshift is a software that allows you to make a backup of your system (As a snapshot) and restore it in case you need to. I installed it a couple weeks ago and made a back

Re: redhat-lsb-core

2023-04-04 Thread Neal Gompa
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 5:58 AM wrote: > > On 2023-04-03 21:13, Steven A. Falco wrote: > > I'm confused by the Requires for redhat-lsb-core. > > > > According to "dnf repoquery --requires redhat-lsb-core" there is no > > requirement for esmtp. But according to "dnf repoquery --whatrequires > > esm

Re: redhat-lsb-core

2023-04-04 Thread sergio
On 2023-04-03 21:13, Steven A. Falco wrote: I'm confused by the Requires for redhat-lsb-core. According to "dnf repoquery --requires redhat-lsb-core" there is no requirement for esmtp. But according to "dnf repoquery --whatrequires esmtp", redhat-lsb-core does require esmtp. Perhaps there is s

Re: F39 proposal: RPM 4.19 (System-Wide Change proposal)

2023-04-04 Thread Petr Pisar
V Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 07:37:59AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): > Yeah, I think that's the way to go. I think we should identify 100 > shared libraries which would be positively impacted by x86-64-v3 > and provide a -v3 subrpm for them. This would be a nice feature for > F40. > You

Re: F39 proposal: RPM 4.19 (System-Wide Change proposal)

2023-04-04 Thread Neal Gompa
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 3:38 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 02, 2023 at 09:54:04PM +0200, Dan Čermák wrote: > > The only benchmark that *I* am aware of is this one done by Martin > > Jambor: https://jamborm.github.io/spec-2022-07-29-levels/ > > This is very … underwhelming. x

Re: F39 proposal: RPM 4.19 (System-Wide Change proposal)

2023-04-04 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 07:37:59AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Sun, Apr 02, 2023 at 09:54:04PM +0200, Dan Čermák wrote: > > The only benchmark that *I* am aware of is this one done by Martin > > Jambor: https://jamborm.github.io/spec-2022-07-29-levels/ > > This is very … underwh

Re: SPDX: Consistency of tools

2023-04-04 Thread Neal Gompa
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 1:45 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > Dne 04. 04. 23 v 3:20 Richard Shaw napsal(a): > > WARNING: This is a small rant... > > np :) > > I decided to look up my packages on src.fedoraproject.org (I'm still not sure > if it's showing me all packages I'm admin of, or just main admi

Re: F39 proposal: RPM 4.19 (System-Wide Change proposal)

2023-04-04 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 11:02:53AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek: > > > And -Ofast is not something that can be enabled as a default build flag, > > because it leads to surprising and unpredictable behaviour in some > > cases. (*) > > I assume (*) refers to the the

Re: F39 proposal: RPM 4.19 (System-Wide Change proposal)

2023-04-04 Thread Florian Weimer
* Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek: > And -Ofast is not something that can be enabled as a default build flag, > because it leads to surprising and unpredictable behaviour in some > cases. (*) I assume (*) refers to the the strange-action-at-distance issue. It was recently fixed in GCC: --funsafe-

httpd 2.4.56 fixes CVE-2023-25690 (crit 9.8) and CVE-2023-27522 (high 7.5)

2023-04-04 Thread Marius Schwarz
Hi, httpd 2.4.56 fixes CVE-2023-25690 (crit 9.8) and CVE-2023-27522 (high 7.5) but Fedora packages do not name those fixes in the rpm changelog. These kind of infos are important for admins to know, so it would be wise to always add them and not just write "new version". Of course, this kind

Re: Auto-assign packager sponsors to tickets?

2023-04-04 Thread Miro Hrončok
On 01. 04. 23 23:14, Jakub Kadlčík wrote: What do you think? Would you be okay with a system like this? Please forward to sponsors that you know, if there is no strong disagreement, I'll proceed with the implementation. I myself am very careful about who do I sponsor. For instance, I only pick

Re: Auto-assign packager sponsors to tickets?

2023-04-04 Thread Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
On 04/04/2023 09:36, Kalev Lember wrote: That's not exactly true. Yes, non-packagers can't upload files to the lookaside cache, but they can update the 'sources' and '.gitignore' files in git. GitHub has stated[1] that they no longer guarantee hash stability between archive downloads. We di

Re: Auto-assign packager sponsors to tickets?

2023-04-04 Thread Benson Muite
On 4/4/23 10:14, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > On 04/04/2023 02:59, Jakub Kadlcik wrote: >> I get the same impression and I would agree with Otto's proposal to >> get rid of the FE-NEEDSPONSOR entirely. > > Looks good for me too. Opening a new Pagure ticket would be better, IMO. > This is hel

Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers

2023-04-04 Thread Miro Hrončok
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

Re: Auto-assign packager sponsors to tickets?

2023-04-04 Thread Benson Muite
On 4/4/23 08:52, Otto Liljalaakso wrote: > Benson Muite kirjoitti 4.4.2023 klo 7.02: >> May >> also want to automatically track unofficial reviews by prospective >> packagers, perhaps even requiring a certain number of unofficial reviews >> for the sponsorship process to start. > > Yes, I think th

Re: F39 proposal: RPM 4.19 (System-Wide Change proposal)

2023-04-04 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
On Sun, Apr 02, 2023 at 09:54:04PM +0200, Dan Čermák wrote: > The only benchmark that *I* am aware of is this one done by Martin > Jambor: https://jamborm.github.io/spec-2022-07-29-levels/ This is very … underwhelming. x86-64-v2 is essentially identical to x86-64-v1. x86-64-v3 is better. It even s

Re: Auto-assign packager sponsors to tickets?

2023-04-04 Thread Kalev Lember
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 9:22 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On 04/04/2023 07:52, Otto Liljalaakso wrote: > > Perhaps new package requests could more often be handled in a way where > > an existing packager assumes the maintainer position with the agreement > >

Re: Auto-assign packager sponsors to tickets?

2023-04-04 Thread Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
On 04/04/2023 07:52, Otto Liljalaakso wrote: Perhaps new package requests could more often be handled in a way where an existing packager assumes the maintainer position with the agreement that the submitter keeps the packager updated and in good condition, through pull requests. We have a se

Re: Auto-assign packager sponsors to tickets?

2023-04-04 Thread Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
On 04/04/2023 02:59, Jakub Kadlcik wrote: I get the same impression and I would agree with Otto's proposal to get rid of the FE-NEEDSPONSOR entirely. Looks good for me too. Opening a new Pagure ticket would be better, IMO. -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)