On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 9:18 PM Gary Buhrmaster
wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 9, 2023 at 1:05 AM Brendan Conoboy wrote:
>
> > RHEL making this change does not imply or require that Fedora do the
> same.
>
> I am neither suggesting Fedora should do so, or
> not do so, but just as a hypothetical, should Fed
On Sat, 2023-09-09 at 04:17 +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 9, 2023 at 1:05 AM Brendan Conoboy wrote:
>
> > RHEL making this change does not imply or require that Fedora do the same.
>
> I am neither suggesting Fedora should do so, or
> not do so, but just as a hypothetical, should F
On Sat, Sep 9, 2023 at 1:05 AM Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> RHEL making this change does not imply or require that Fedora do the same.
I am neither suggesting Fedora should do so, or
not do so, but just as a hypothetical, should Fedora
choose to do so, do you know if RedHat would be
amenable for suc
On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 7:34 PM Maxwell G wrote:
> 2023-09-09T01:05:39Z Brendan Conoboy :
>
> > All new issues found or desired in RHEL (Or CentOS Stream) need to be
> > filed on issues.redhat.com[http://issues.redhat.com].
> Hi Brendan,
>
> Thanks for the update.
>
> How can I watch (i.e. get ema
Does anyone know how to contact Karsten Hopp (karsten)? This email is part
of the non-responsive maintainer process (
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2237962).
The activity report at https://src.fedoraproject.org/user/karsten/ shows no
activity in the past year, and fedora-active-user
2023-09-09T01:05:39Z Brendan Conoboy :
All new issues found or desired in RHEL (Or CentOS Stream) need to be
filed on issues.redhat.com[http://issues.redhat.com].
Hi Brendan,
Thanks for the update.
How can I watch (i.e. get email notifications about) specific packages'
bugs in Jira like I c
Hi folks,
In March of this year, Josh Boyer sent out a message to Fedora's devel list
letting everybody know RHEL was going to move from bugzilla.redhat.com to
issues.redhat.com (Jira) in the future [1]. The work on this activity
has proceeded with relative quiet since, although a couple weeks ag
Hi Kenneth,
> I'm not 100% clear on the process. I have a .spec file that passes fedpkg
> mockbuild.
>
> I submitted the request to
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238052.
>
> Is that all? What else should I do?
Well the package is already in Fedora with a maintainer [1] so you
d
On 2023-09-08 12:58, Kai A. Hiller wrote:
I’m trying to recreate – on the level of RPMs – a Fedora system as
resolved by DNF at an earlier moment in time (think lockfile).
Collecting a list of the installed RPMs and their versions for a given
system is easily done via `dnf list installed`; thou
On 08-09-2023 16:48, Sérgio Basto wrote:
done [1] thanks , btw another question I don't need do a new build
isn't it ?
No, since there was no license change - in your case not even the
specifier changed 😄
and if the license format changed , should we build a new release ? and
in all branche
Hi Kai,
On Fri, Sep 08, 2023 at 09:58:58PM +0200, Kai A. Hiller wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I’m trying to recreate – on the level of RPMs – a Fedora system as resolved
> by DNF at an earlier moment in time (think lockfile). Collecting a list of
> the installed RPMs and their versions for a given system i
Hello,
I’m trying to recreate – on the level of RPMs – a Fedora system as
resolved by DNF at an earlier moment in time (think lockfile).
Collecting a list of the installed RPMs and their versions for a given
system is easily done via `dnf list installed`; though, afaict these
RPMs in their ex
I'm not 100% clear on the process. I have a .spec file that passes fedpkg
mockbuild.
I submitted the request to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2238052.
Is that all? What else should I do?
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
On Fri, 2023-09-08 at 18:50 +0200, Jun Aruga (he / him) wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 6:06 PM Yaakov Selkowitz
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2023-09-08 at 17:53 +0200, Jun Aruga wrote:
> > > I am running the scratch build for rpms/ruby [1] rawhide branch
> > > right
> > > now, and I see the followin
> > Why is the following one not a proper solution? I don't understand it.
> >
> > ```
> > Requires: %{_bindir}/nm
> > ```
>
> RPM cannot evaluate the %{_bindir} in Requires:. So it's essentially
> looking for a virtual provides with those literal characters, which it
> won't find.
OK. I understan
> > > DEBUG util.py:442:- nothing provides python3.12dist(unicorn) >=
> > > 1.0.2~rc1 needed by python3-pwntools-4.9.0-4.fc39.noarch from build
> >
> > This is a result of
> > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/unicorn/c/27cee3896b9c51abe3139222024e0a4def5e30e1?branch=rawhide
> >
> > Therefore,
Hey All,
As a part of the changeset[0] we had infra help us out with Images and
QA help us out with
criterion [1] and OpenQA test[2]. As a final step, we have finally
added Toolbx as a crit-path under "workstation" [3] .
We have a Toolbx Test day on 2023-09-14 [4] , come and help us iron
out any
Dne 08. 09. 23 v 19:02 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a):
On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 12:51 PM Jun Aruga (he / him) wrote:
On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 6:06 PM Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
On Fri, 2023-09-08 at 17:53 +0200, Jun Aruga wrote:
I am running the scratch build for rpms/ruby [1] rawhide branch right
no
On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 12:51 PM Jun Aruga (he / him) wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 6:06 PM Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2023-09-08 at 17:53 +0200, Jun Aruga wrote:
> > > I am running the scratch build for rpms/ruby [1] rawhide branch right
> > > now, and I see the following error i
=
#fedora-meeting: ELN (2023-09-08)
=
Meeting started by sgallagh at 16:00:43 UTC. The full logs are available
at
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2023-09-08/eln.2023-09-08-16.00.log.html
.
Meeting summary
On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 6:06 PM Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2023-09-08 at 17:53 +0200, Jun Aruga wrote:
> > I am running the scratch build for rpms/ruby [1] rawhide branch right
> > now, and I see the following error in the root.log on only s390x CPU
> > architecture. Do you know what's wro
On Fri, 2023-09-08 at 17:53 +0200, Jun Aruga wrote:
> I am running the scratch build for rpms/ruby [1] rawhide branch right
> now, and I see the following error in the root.log on only s390x CPU
> architecture. Do you know what's wrong?
>
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10591
Hi,
I am running the scratch build for rpms/ruby [1] rawhide branch right
now, and I see the following error in the root.log on only s390x CPU
architecture. Do you know what's wrong?
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=105910607
s390x:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/task
Hi all,
I've joined virtually the Opportunity Open Source conference at IIT
Mandi, India, where we as OpenPrinting held track about the recent
events in our group.
Brief summary:
- current CUPS 2.4.x works with classic drivers and printer
applications, as whole 2.x series will
- Till work
On Fri, 2023-09-08 at 15:55 +0200, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> Am Fr., 8. Sept. 2023 um 15:45 Uhr schrieb Sérgio Basto
> :
> >
> > On Fri, 2023-09-08 at 08:39 +0200, Sandro wrote:
> > > On 08-09-2023 02:36, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > > xdg-utils is a MIT License [1] what SPDX license have [2] ? if
>
Am Fr., 8. Sept. 2023 um 15:45 Uhr schrieb Sérgio Basto :
>
> On Fri, 2023-09-08 at 08:39 +0200, Sandro wrote:
> > On 08-09-2023 02:36, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > xdg-utils is a MIT License [1] what SPDX license have [2] ? if it
> > > is
> > > already a valid SPDX formula , what I should write on ch
On Fri, 2023-09-08 at 08:39 +0200, Sandro wrote:
> On 08-09-2023 02:36, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > xdg-utils is a MIT License [1] what SPDX license have [2] ? if it
> > is
> > already a valid SPDX formula , what I should write on changelog ?
>
> Something like:
>
> - Migrated to SPDX license (noop)
OLD: Fedora-39-20230907.n.0
NEW: Fedora-39-20230908.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 8
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of upgraded
Hi!
Would someone be willing to review swap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235768 with me?
Thanks!
--
Jonathan
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Getting back to this thread, because the good news is that things have
improved and there is now easier way to bootstrap packages in Koji using
side-tags:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Update_Guide/#_using_macros_in_a_side_tag
and `%_with_bootstrap` macro.
h
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20230907.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20230908.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:6
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 6
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 210
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 22.29 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0
On Thursday, 07 September 2023 at 22:40, František Šumšal wrote:
[...]
> Both abipkgdiff and rpmsodiff seem to be happy, i.e. there were no
> added/changed/removed symbols between 1.2.0 and 1.2.1, so the bump
> should be safe.
Excellent, this means the version update should be transparent to any
p
32 matches
Mail list logo
