Re: libtool issue with EPEL10

On 10/27/24 20:17, Orion Poplawski wrote: I'm trying to build netcdf in EPEL10 but the test suite is failing to run with: /builddir/build/BUILD/netcdf-c-4.9.2/build/ncgen3/.libs/lt-ncgen3: error while loading shared libraries: libnetcdf.so.19: cannot open shared object file: No such file or d

Fedora eln compose report: 20241030.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-eln-20241029.n.0 NEW: Fedora-eln-20241030.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 0 Dropped packages:69 Upgraded packages: 32 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 0 B Size of dropped packages:299.72 MiB Size

Michel's package orphaning thread - part 2: gambit-c (Scheme compiler)

On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 09:26:49AM -0500, Michel Lind wrote: > Dear all, > > Between different work and personal commitments, and evolving interest > over time, I sometimes find myself overstretched when it comes to > maintaining packages, and some of these packages (and needless to say, > their u

Re: What is the status of i686 in Fedora?

On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 03:21:47PM +0100, Marián Konček wrote: > Hi, AFAIK the current Fedora Guidelines allow documentation to be built > separately and bundled in the binary RPMs: > > * > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/what-can-be-packaged/#prebuilt-binaries-or-librar

Fedora CoreOS rebasing to Fedora Linux 41

Fedora Linux 41 was released today [[1]]. The Fedora CoreOS `testing` stream has been rebased and is currently rolling out. In two weeks, it will be promoted to the `stable` stream. For more information about Fedora 41, see the Fedora Project’s list of official Changes [[2]] and the Fedora CoreOS

Re: What is the status of i686 in Fedora?

* Stephen Gallagher: > We still have i686 in Fedora for multilib use-cases. There's no > expectation for i686 to be an install target, so maybe it would be > acceptable to only build the docs on %java_arches and just exclude > them on i686? Koji broadcasts noarch packages built on a subset of arc

Re: libtool issue with EPEL10

I can’t add much detail about why this is different between Rawhide and EPEL10, but I can get a successful EPEL10 build by adding     export LD_LIBRARY_PATH="$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}" at the beginning of %check. It’s probably good enough to just add that (unconditionally, since it does no ha

Re: What is the status of i686 in Fedora?

Hi, AFAIK the current Fedora Guidelines allow documentation to be built separately and bundled in the binary RPMs: * https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/what-can-be-packaged/#prebuilt-binaries-or-libraries ``` Some examples of content which is permissible: * Packa

Re: New spec incompatibility between rawhide and epel wrt patches

First of all, if there is some difference between Fedora and EPEL, I'd encourage you to keep the spec files simply different. That is why we have branches after all. But to your specific question about `%patch` syntax, there is a hope that RHEL will support the new syntax: https://issues.red

Re: What is the status of i686 in Fedora?

On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 9:48 AM Iker Pedrosa wrote: > Hi, > > Recently, Linux-PAM released v1.7.0 > , which among > other changes, now requires the fop package to build the documentation. > However, this package depends on Java, which is

What is the status of i686 in Fedora?

Hi, Recently, Linux-PAM released v1.7.0 , which among other changes, now requires the fop package to build the documentation. However, this package depends on Java, which is missing for the i686 architecture

strange reproducibility problem with QImage

Hi, Calibre builds are irreproducible, various png icons differ slightly between builds [1]. I know where the issue occurs, but I'm at a loss where the fix should be applied. We have Qt experts and enthusiasts in Fedora, so I thought I'd post here… Icons are rendered [2] using the following code:

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20241029.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20241028.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20241029.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:1 Dropped images: 1 Added packages: 3 Dropped packages:8 Upgraded packages: 65 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 85.57 KiB Size of dropped packages

Re: Gating failure: Guest couldn't be provisioned: Artemis resource ended in 'error' state

Hi Florian, We are sorry, it was an infrastructure issue , and we were out for an extended weekend so the fix took a bit, it should be better now: https://artifacts.dev.testing-farm.io/b706baf8-159a-4d22-a53f-a69a26a02cc8 Restarted here ^ Best regards, /M On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 4:08 PM Flori

Re: New spec incompatibility between rawhide and epel wrt patches

The alternative syntax that is backward compatible is using “-P 0" instead of "0". On Tue, Oct 29, 2024, 10:09 AM Susi Lehtola wrote: > Hi, > > > it appears rpm has now deprecated the old %patch syntax in rawhide, which > means > that any old-style expressions > > %patch0 -p1 -b .overflow > > mu

Re: New spec incompatibility between rawhide and epel wrt patches

Hi Susi, Susi Lehtola writes: > Hi, > > > it appears rpm has now deprecated the old %patch syntax in rawhide, which > means > that any old-style expressions > > %patch0 -p1 -b .overflow > > must now be written as > > %patch 0 -p1 -b .overflow > > Unfortunately, all the epel branches, in turn, d

Re: New spec incompatibility between rawhide and epel wrt patches

On Tue, 29 Oct 2024 11:08:50 +0200 Susi Lehtola wrote: > Hi, > > > it appears rpm has now deprecated the old %patch syntax in rawhide, which > means > that any old-style expressions > > %patch0 -p1 -b .overflow > > must now be written as > > %patch 0 -p1 -b .overflow or as %patch -P 0 -p1

New spec incompatibility between rawhide and epel wrt patches

Hi, it appears rpm has now deprecated the old %patch syntax in rawhide, which means that any old-style expressions %patch0 -p1 -b .overflow must now be written as %patch 0 -p1 -b .overflow Unfortunately, all the epel branches, in turn, do not support the new %patch syntax. This means that one

Re: Slower builds on non-x86_64 arches - number of cores?

* Kevin Fenzi: > On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 05:49:56PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Kevin Fenzi: >> >> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 09:07:59AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: >> >> * Kevin Fenzi: >> >> >> >> > As a side note, I removed s309x from the noarch_arches when that was >> >> > going on, but