Re: F41 Change Proposal - Python Built with gcc -03 (self-contained)

On 12. 04. 24 23:52, Aoife Moloney wrote: Wiki - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Python_built_with_gcc_O3 Discussion.fpo - https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f41-change-proposal-python-built-with-gcc-03-self-contained/112743 This is a proposed Change for Fedora Linux. This document r

Re: F41 branching completed

On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 10:17:41PM GMT, Peter Robinson wrote: > > It could be tagged for both. > > > Or would you prefer to just do another f42/rawhide build? > > I can do another build, I was looking to push a newer version but I > need to do some more testing before the bump to 1.4.x I just t

Re: Adopting and repurposing muon

On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 11:21 AM Link Dupont wrote: > I noticed that the up-and-coming meson-compliant build tool muon[1] is not > currently available in Fedora. While searching around, I found that a > dist-git repository[2] titled "muon" already exists, and used to contain a > KDE Plasma util

Re: F41 branching completed

On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 at 22:12, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 10:07:07PM GMT, Peter Robinson wrote: > > Hi Kevin, > > > > > Fedora Linux 41 has now been branched, please be sure to do a > > > 'git fetch -v' to pick up the new branch. As an additional reminder, > > > rawhide/41 has b

Re: F41 branching completed

On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 10:07:07PM GMT, Peter Robinson wrote: > Hi Kevin, > > > Fedora Linux 41 has now been branched, please be sure to do a > > 'git fetch -v' to pick up the new branch. As an additional reminder, > > rawhide/41 has been completely isolated from previous releases, which > > means

Re: F41 branching completed

Hi Kevin, > Fedora Linux 41 has now been branched, please be sure to do a > 'git fetch -v' to pick up the new branch. As an additional reminder, > rawhide/41 has been completely isolated from previous releases, which > means that anything you do for 41 you also have to do in the rawhide > branch a

Re: Missing Bugzilla component for a new package

On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 02:24:57PM GMT, Michal Schmidt wrote: > Thanks, I filed: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/12127 > Michal I'll note here what I added to the ticket already: Yeah, we are aware. This is more breakage from retiring pdc. ;( We actually have the new setup ( http

F41 branching completed

Hi All, Fedora Linux 41 has now been branched, please be sure to do a 'git fetch -v' to pick up the new branch. As an additional reminder, rawhide/41 has been completely isolated from previous releases, which means that anything you do for 41 you also have to do in the rawhide branch and do a buil

Re: Adopting and repurposing muon

Hi Link, I'll assume there's a precedent for "taking over the name of old packages" (might be just "you don't"), but even if there wasn't, choice 1) would be strange – it *is* a new package, so obviously, it should go through the review process. I'd favor 3) because `ninja-build` already exis

Adopting and repurposing muon

Hello, I noticed that the up-and-coming meson-compliant build tool muon[1] is not currently available in Fedora. While searching around, I found that a dist-git repository[2] titled "muon" already exists, and used to contain a KDE Plasma utility. It has been orphaned for a very long time (April

Unannounced soname bump in libre2

Hi, re2-20240702 just landed in rawhide [1]. The update comes with an soname bump from libre2.so.9 to libre2.so.11 and breaks quite some packages [2]: $ fedrq wrsrc -Xs -F name re2 CuraEngine_grpc_definitions bloaty ceph credentials-fetcher dnsdist grpc libarrow libphonenumber mtxclient nheko

Re: libatasmart broken by kernel 6.10

On 8/13/24 8:24 AM, Björn Persson wrote: Ian Pilcher wrote: libatasmart is used by udisks, collectd, etc. to monitor disk health, and it's broken by kernel 6.10. Could that also be what broke hdparm? It is. Looks like the commit is probably going to be reverted, https://lore.kernel.org/li

Re: libatasmart broken by kernel 6.10

Ian Pilcher wrote: > libatasmart is used by udisks, collectd, etc. to monitor disk health, > and it's broken by kernel 6.10. Could that also be what broke hdparm? With Linux 6.10.3-100.fc39.x86_64: # hdparm -C /dev/sda /dev/sda: SG_IO: bad/missing sense data, sb[]: f0 00 01 00 50 00 ff 0a 00

Re: Missing Bugzilla component for a new package

Thanks, I filed: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/12127 Michal On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 2:08 PM Ben Beasley wrote: > > I am confident this is not your fault, but I’m not sure exactly what’s going > wrong. Please consider filing an issue at > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/i

Re: Missing Bugzilla component for a new package

I am confident this is not your fault, but I’m not sure exactly what’s going wrong. Please consider filing an issue at https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issues to the effect that synchronization of Fedora components to Bugzilla appears to be delayed or broken. On Tue, Aug 13, 2024, at 6:

Re: Upcoming libpkgconf soname bump in Rawhide

Hey all, I've been able to take care of everything except build2, and I'm not sure why it's broken. Could someone take a look at it and submit it to f41-build-side-93739? Here's the task: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=121891824 On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 5:32 AM Neal Gompa wro

Missing Bugzilla component for a new package

Hello, Last week, I added a new package to Fedora: osu-micro-benchmarks I want to file a bug for it (to meet the Packaging Guidelines requirement about ExcludeArch). But I am unable to. I go to: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora but the Component field does not know about

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20240813.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20240812.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20240813.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:2 Dropped images: 3 Added packages: 16 Dropped packages:56 Upgraded packages: 114 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 1.09 GiB Size of dropped packages

Re: F41 Change Proposal: Switch to DNF5 (system-wide)

Hi, Could the code look at the older /etc/dnf/automatic.conf also please? > Sorry for the late response. I've created an upstream issue for that and we'll try to look into it before moving to stable. Regards, Jan On Fri, Jun 28, 2024

Re: systemd timers are not enabled by default even though listed in preset files

On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 12:22 PM Felix Schwarz wrote: > There is a long-standing issue with certbot that the certbot-renew timer is > not > enabled by default even though it is listed in "90-default.preset" > (fedora-release/epel-release): > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-release/blob