Il 02/06/23 01:55, Sandro ha scritto:
>
> However, it surprises me that for a package, that is part of the
> deliverables of Fedora releases, no coordination effort was made to
> transition the package from Red Hat maintenance to Fedora maintenance. I
> would even go as far as that this should have
Hi Orion,
There are two ways to remove the debugging symbols:
1) strip --strip-debug your_library.so
2) objcopy --strip-debug your_library.so
Below is an example of both approaches:
1) Method using strip:
paul$ objdump --syms libfoo.so | grep debug
ld .debug_aranges
I'm trying to resolve this packaging issue with Lmod:
https://artifacts.dev.testing-farm.io/4d7bee41-8d21-42fb-8c57-e5ffbf58119f/
debuginfo
BAD /usr/share/lmod/8.7.25/lib/tcl2lua.so in Lmod-8.7.25-2.fc38 on i686
contains debugging symbols
I've dealt with a couple of issues here:
https://src.
On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 11:05 AM Omair Majid wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks your thoughts!
>
> Neal Gompa writes:
>
> > That's actually a lot better than it was when I helped with dotnet
> > package review and bootstrap with 3.1.
>
> Heh. That's very true! 3.1 had at least two source packages that had
I can help co-maintaining and I think I can bring another co-maintainer.
We've been creating custom libreoffice packages for a project so, we can
bring a little experience
El jue, 1 jun 2023 a las 14:17, Gwyn Ciesla via devel (<
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org>) escribió:
> I've taken ownership of
On 01-06-2023 21:59, Christian Schaller wrote:
On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 2:36 PM Demi Marie Obenour
wrote:
Why is a Flatpak a better choice for LibreOffice?
--
Sincerely,
Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers)
There are a lot of ways to answer this, but from any upstream the advantage
of Flatpak
Gwyn Ciesla via devel wrote:
> I've taken ownership of libreoffice for the time being, at least to keep
> the lights on.
Also of the many dependencies?
As far as I can tell, from the list in the orphaned package report, all
these are part of the LibreOffice stack:
> flute
Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> I haven’t written Java in years, but my understanding is
> that AOT compilation has three major advantages:
>
> 1. It reduces the size of total deliverables because the
>final executable only includes the libraries it needs.
This may be true for real AOT compilatio
Yes, sorry about that meant now of course 😃
On Thu, Jun 1, 2023, 6:45 PM Demi Marie Obenour
wrote:
> On 6/1/23 15:59, Christian Schaller wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 2:36 PM Demi Marie Obenour >
> > wrote:
> >> Why is a Flatpak a better choice for LibreOffice?
> >
> > There are a lot of wa
Hi folks! If you've noticed that an update currently fails gating for
no apparent reason, like this one:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-0714f51060
it's likely because of the ongoing Koji outage. Looking at the
greenwave response shows this:
"unsatisfied_requirements":[{"erro
On 6/1/23 15:59, Christian Schaller wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 2:36 PM Demi Marie Obenour
> wrote:
>> Why is a Flatpak a better choice for LibreOffice?
>
> There are a lot of ways to answer this, but from any upstream the advantage
> of Flatpak is that it means package once and then deploy e
> Am 01.06.2023 um 15:25 schrieb Jiri Vanek :
>
>> ...
> Me, as end user application provider would rather `dnf install/update java`
> then maintain 3rd aprty blob. At least the java is known to be working and on
> Fedora and is built by trusted infrastructure (which I case to agree for
> eve
I've taken ownership of libreoffice for the time being, at least to keep the
lights on. Co-maintainers, as always, welcome.
--
Gwyn Ciesla
she/her/hers
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love
-d. bowie
Sent with Proton Mai
On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 2:36 PM Demi Marie Obenour
wrote:
>
>
> Why is a Flatpak a better choice for LibreOffice?
> --
> Sincerely,
> Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers)
>
There are a lot of ways to answer this, but from any upstream the advantage
of Flatpak is that it means package once and then d
On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 8:00 AM wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> You are kindly invited to the meeting:
>ELN SIG on 2023-06-02 from 12:00:00 to 13:00:00 US/Eastern
>At fedora-meet...@irc.libera.chat
>
> The meeting will be about:
This week we will have a discussion about recent changes to x86_64,
Petr Menšík wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I have attended recently csnog.eu conference [1], where some interesting
> presentations took place. They were usually in Czech, so it is not
> something I am going to share more. But what took my interest were ipv6
> readiness with some exceptions. Fedo
On 6/1/23 14:30, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> Hey,
>
> as you've probably seen, the LibreOffice RPMS have recently been orphaned,
> and I thought it would be good to explain the reasons
> behind this.
>
> The Red Hat Display Systems team (the team behind most of Red Hat’s desktop
> efforts) has ma
Hey,
as you've probably seen, the LibreOffice RPMS have recently been orphaned, and
I thought it would be good to explain the reasons
behind this.
The Red Hat Display Systems team (the team behind most of Red Hat’s desktop
efforts) has maintained the LibreOffice packages in Fedora for years as
Hi,
Omair Majid writes:
> If/when RISC-V support lands in .NET (eg, minimum of
> https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/36748), we could use those
> tools (with hopefully minimal changes) to cross compile .NET for RISC-V.
>
> I can ask IBM to prioritize making these tools public.
Sorry, my in
On 6/1/23 07:33, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Jiri Vanek wrote:
>> At elast providing ofjava/openjdk is definitley out of scope.
>
> I do not think a Provides would be a trademark violation. It is a part of
> the standard procedure for renaming a package. But you would have to ask Red
> Hat L
Hi,
Thanks your thoughts!
Neal Gompa writes:
> That's actually a lot better than it was when I helped with dotnet
> package review and bootstrap with 3.1.
Heh. That's very true! 3.1 had at least two source packages that had to
be kept in sync. I think you seemed much happier with the 7.0 revie
On 5/31/23 19:58, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Jiri Vanek said:
I have fixed typo in the proposal " Should be built in oldest live EPEL" instead of
" Should be built in latest live EPEL", which was wrong.
At the moment though, the oldest live EPEL is 7, not 8.
Right. And we are n
On 5/31/23 20:02, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 07:38:38PM +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote:
Can you clarify this a bit? It sounds like some versions of the JDK in
Fedora will actually be built in EPEL. I feel that all Fedora packages
should actually built for Fedora, not RHEL.
A
On 6/1/23 15:08, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On 6/1/23 15:43, Robert Marcano via devel wrote:
On 6/1/23 8:33 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 08:28:18AM -0400, Robert Marcano via devel wrote:
On 6/1/23 3:51 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 05:27:47PM +02
All this change is about the burden of maintaining so many OpenJDK branches as packages in FEdora. Maybe Fedora should stop distributing ancient Java versions as one of our missions is to be cutting edge, maybe we are still encouraging too
many projects to stay running on Java 8.
I am saying
On 6/1/23 13:33, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
Jiri Vanek wrote:
At elast providing ofjava/openjdk is definitley out of scope.
I do not think a Provides would be a trademark violation. It is a part of
the standard procedure for renaming a package. But you would have to ask Red
Hat Legal for
On 6/1/23 15:43, Robert Marcano via devel wrote:
On 6/1/23 8:33 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 08:28:18AM -0400, Robert Marcano via devel wrote:
On 6/1/23 3:51 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 05:27:47PM +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote:
This was heavily dis
On 6/1/23 8:33 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 08:28:18AM -0400, Robert Marcano via devel wrote:
On 6/1/23 3:51 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 05:27:47PM +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote:
This was heavily discussed when we moved to portable build in rpms -
h
On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 08:28:18AM -0400, Robert Marcano via devel wrote:
> On 6/1/23 3:51 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 05:27:47PM +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> >>This was heavily discussed when we moved to portable build in rpms -
> >>https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes
On 6/1/23 3:51 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 05:27:47PM +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote:
This was heavily discussed when we moved to portable build in rpms -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/JdkInTreeLibsAndStdclibStatic
Long story short yes, if yo wish to distribute jdk *b
Dear all,
You are kindly invited to the meeting:
ELN SIG on 2023-06-02 from 12:00:00 to 13:00:00 US/Eastern
At fedora-meet...@irc.libera.chat
The meeting will be about:
Source: https://calendar.fedoraproject.org//meeting/10449/
___
devel maili
Jiri Vanek wrote:
> At elast providing ofjava/openjdk is definitley out of scope.
I do not think a Provides would be a trademark violation. It is a part of
the standard procedure for renaming a package. But you would have to ask Red
Hat Legal for a definite answer. I am not a lawyer.
That said,
Hi Kevin!
I read all your posts.
You are mroevoer correct with everything, exept simple renaming of packages,.
I'mnot sure it may work as strightforward. At elast providing ofjava/openjdk is
definitley out of scope.
As you wrote about the liberty of choice between temurins and fdeoara ona - can
On 5/31/23 20:38, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
Il 30/05/23 20:37, Aoife Moloney ha scritto:
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 only be implemented if approved
b
Hi I also come from China ~ I'm Betty and now I'm learning about how to become
a packager (so I think it's not the time to do a self-introduction in devel now
hhh)
Nice to have someone come from the same country! If you have the time maybe you
can teach me about packaging and community! You can
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 05:27:47PM +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote:
> This was heavily discussed when we moved to portable build in rpms -
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/JdkInTreeLibsAndStdclibStatic
> Long story short yes, if yo wish to distribute jdk *binary* it have
> to pass java compliance s
> Red Hat is a member. In fact there's an (internal) kick-off meeting
> for RISE today which I'll be attending.
I saw that Red Hat is a member of the RISE project on the page.
And it's really great to see that you will be attending the kick-off
meeting. Thank you for that. I am looking forward to
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 11:58:57PM +0200, Jun Aruga (he / him) wrote:
> This is exciting news related to the RISC-V ecosystem.
> I expect that the RISC-V Software Ecosystem (RISE) Project will be a
> leading organization to help open source projects by providing free
> RISC-V CI services to them, a
On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 6:18 AM Omair Majid wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> Neal Gompa writes:
>
> > Keep in mind that this isn't exactly the first time we've done this
> > either: the .NET runtime is similarly screwy for its bootstrap
> > process, and that's split across a couple of source packages.
> >
> >
On 6/1/23 00:33, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 09:05:23AM +0200, Xavier Bachelot wrote:
Hi,
I've updated libnfs from version 4.0.0 to version 5.0.2 in rawhide,
which implies a soname bump.
The build was done in f39-build-side-68410 sidetag.
The following packages need to b
Never mind, too many dashes.
qemu is building now:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101710059
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-top is 'top' for v
On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 09:05:23AM +0200, Xavier Bachelot wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've updated libnfs from version 4.0.0 to version 5.0.2 in rawhide,
> which implies a soname bump.
>
> The build was done in f39-build-side-68410 sidetag.
>
> The following packages need to be rebuild:
> - qemu
> - gvfs
>
Hi,
I've updated libnfs from version 4.0.0 to version 5.0.2 in rawhide,
which implies a soname bump.
The build was done in f39-build-side-68410 sidetag.
The following packages need to be rebuild:
- qemu
- gvfs
- xine-lib
I have already taken care of xine-lib, and made a scratch build for bot
43 matches
Mail list logo
