https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-replacing-existing-packages
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https:/
I am a co-maintainer (I think at least, I used to be co-) of PyPDF2 at least
for a while) or maintainer and I have noticed that the name has changed back to
pypdf (upstream). Is there an easy way to update the name of the package (in
the rpm) and importantly to make sure that the new pypdf rpm i
Did you find a co-maintainer for xfig? I use this package on and off and I
would not like to lose it.
On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 08:31:59 AM CDT, Hans de Goede
wrote:
Hi All,
I have been keeping the Fedora xfig package alive all these years
because I know that there are still use
On 5/5/23 21:31, Orion Poplawski wrote:
I'm just starting to look into the mingw packages and building mingw
executables with them - and in particular static building. I'm hoping
someone can clarify some things for me.
For "regular" libs we seem to have:
%{mingw32_bindir}/libexample-0.dll
%{
I'm just starting to look into the mingw packages and building mingw
executables with them - and in particular static building. I'm hoping
someone can clarify some things for me.
For "regular" libs we seem to have:
%{mingw32_bindir}/libexample-0.dll
%{mingw32_libdir}/libexample.dll.a
and for
Josef Řídký wrote:
> Based on the SPDX requirements, that should be correct. Some parts of the
> package are available under GPL-2.0-only and some under GPL-3.0-only
> license.
And they are not linked together? Because if they are, we have a problem!
Kevin Kofler
_
> Now it uses SPDX identifiers, but lowercase ors, should probably be uppercase
> ORs.
Yea. I've been reading through the spec lately, since I want to add proper SPDX
support to my project,
and it says joiners should be uppercase and parsers should match
case-sensitively.
> License expression o
On 05. 05. 23 17:09, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 03. 05. 23 v 14:38 Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a):
given we're not doing license minimization any more, I'm curious
what package is going to win the prize for the longest license tag :-)
So far:
rpm-specs/perl-Exporter-Tidy.spec: 0BSD or AAL
There is already an ancient similar request upstream with some hints how to
achieve that (it was to disable s390 buikders for noarch packages, though):
https://pagure.io/koji/issue/2229
Inviato da Proton Mail mobile
Messaggio originale
Il 5 Mag 2023, 18:19, Kevin Fenzi ha scrit
On 5/5/23 10:30, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 10:29:07AM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
On 5/5/23 09:45, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 09:41:01AM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
I'm trying to add mingw builds to the libssh package here:
https://src.fedora
On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 10:29:07AM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> On 5/5/23 09:45, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 09:41:01AM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> > > I'm trying to add mingw builds to the libssh package here:
> > >
> > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libssh/
On 5/5/23 09:45, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 09:41:01AM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
I'm trying to add mingw builds to the libssh package here:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libssh/pull-request/15
build is failing with:
Could not open %files file
/home/orion/f
On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 11:14 AM Orion Poplawski wrote:
>
> I've submitted a test version of autogenerating mingw pkgconfig provides
> and reqs here:
>
> https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2504
>
> This generates provides like:
>
> Provides: mingw32(libtiff-5.dll) mingw32(libtiffxx
This is a questionable representation though. The license in question is:
"Pick your favourite OSI approved license :)
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical";
It might be more appropriate to have a license identifier that
consists of those two lines.
On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 11:09 AM
On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 12:15:31PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 04. 05. 23 23:58, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 11:44:33PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > On 04. 05. 23 23:40, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 04:03:49PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > > > Hel
On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 09:41:01AM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> I'm trying to add mingw builds to the libssh package here:
>
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libssh/pull-request/15
>
> build is failing with:
>
> Could not open %files file
> /home/orion/fedora/libssh/libssh-0.10.4/ming
I'm trying to add mingw builds to the libssh package here:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libssh/pull-request/15
build is failing with:
Could not open %files file
/home/orion/fedora/libssh/libssh-0.10.4/mingw32-debugfiles.list: No such
file or directory
What am I doing wrong?
--
Or
On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 9:56 AM Chris Kelley wrote:
>
> As a purely logical expression, this simplifies to "GPL-2.0-or-later AND
> LGPL-2.1-or-later". Is that sort of simplification not allowed?
The short answer is, these are not truly logical expressions and
therefore they shouldn't necessarily
How fun! Thanks for the links and explanation.
On Fri, 5 May 2023 at 16:09, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 05. 05. 23 16:28, Mamoru TASAKA wrote:
> > Chris Kelley wrote on 2023/05/05 22:55:
> >> As a purely logical expression, this simplifies to "GPL-2.0-or-later AND
> >> LGPL-2.1-or-later". Is that s
I've submitted a test version of autogenerating mingw pkgconfig provides
and reqs here:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2504
This generates provides like:
Provides: mingw32(libtiff-5.dll) mingw32(libtiffxx-5.dll)
mingw32-libtiff = 4.4.0-2.fc39 mingw32-pkgconfig(libtiff-4)
On 05. 05. 23 16:28, Mamoru TASAKA wrote:
Chris Kelley wrote on 2023/05/05 22:55:
As a purely logical expression, this simplifies to "GPL-2.0-or-later AND
LGPL-2.1-or-later". Is that sort of simplification not allowed?
This is no longer allowed:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/lice
Dne 03. 05. 23 v 14:38 Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a):
given we're not doing license minimization any more, I'm curious
what package is going to win the prize for the longest license tag :-)
So far:
rpm-specs/perl-Exporter-Tidy.spec: 0BSD or AAL or AFL-3.0 or AGPL-3.0-only or APSL-2.0 or
Chris Kelley wrote on 2023/05/05 22:55:
As a purely logical expression, this simplifies to "GPL-2.0-or-later AND
LGPL-2.1-or-later". Is that sort of simplification not allowed?
This is no longer allowed:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_no_effective_license_analysis
As a purely logical expression, this simplifies to "GPL-2.0-or-later AND
LGPL-2.1-or-later". Is that sort of simplification not allowed?
On Fri, 5 May 2023, 13:20 Miro Hrončok, wrote:
> python-rpm-generators License tag changes from GPLv2+ to:
>
> GPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.1-or-later AND
> (
python-rpm-generators License tag changes from GPLv2+ to:
GPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.1-or-later AND (LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain OR
LGPL-2.1-or-later OR GPL-2.0-or-later)
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-rpm-generators/pull-request/67
Funny thing is that the "(LicenseRef-Fedora-
On 06. 04. 23 21:51, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 08:21:36AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Hello,
When using custom side tags like this:
$ fedpkg request-side-tag
$ fedpkg chain-build --target f38-build-side-... ...
One of the obstacles is that the initial waitrepo for the jo
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20230504.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20230505.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 5
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 135
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 3.75 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
On 04. 05. 23 23:58, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 11:44:33PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 04. 05. 23 23:40, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 04:03:49PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Hello folks,
...snip...
Would that be possible?
I don't think it currently is... but so
28 matches
Mail list logo
