Re: On revoking provenpackager

* Adam Williamson: > Fedora is open by default. Everything is supposed to happen in the open > unless there is a specific reason for it to be done otherwise. This is > why we have ticket trackers for everything, public meetings, public > chat rooms, public forums, public package repos, a public bu

Fedora eln compose report: 20241217.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-eln-20241216.n.0 NEW: Fedora-eln-20241217.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 0 Dropped packages:1 Upgraded packages: 24 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 0 B Size of dropped packages:3.77 MiB Size of

Re: On revoking provenpackager from probinson

On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 at 19:50, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 11:03 PM Adam Williamson > wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2024-12-16 at 15:42 -0500, David Cantrell wrote: > > > We neglected to make available the facts behind our decision quickly > (In some cases we were dealing with situa

Re: On revoking provenpackager from probinson

On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 11:03 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Mon, 2024-12-16 at 15:42 -0500, David Cantrell wrote: > > We neglected to make available the facts behind our decision quickly (In > > some cases we were dealing with situations where reporters wanted to remain > > anonymous > > This

Re: On revoking provenpackager from probinson

On Mon, 2024-12-16 at 19:06 -0500, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: > On 12/16/24 17:03, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Mon, 2024-12-16 at 15:42 -0500, David Cantrell wrote: > > > We neglected to make available the facts behind our decision quickly (In > > > some cases we were dealing with situations where

Re: On revoking provenpackager from probinson

On 12/16/24 17:03, Adam Williamson wrote: On Mon, 2024-12-16 at 15:42 -0500, David Cantrell wrote: We neglected to make available the facts behind our decision quickly (In some cases we were dealing with situations where reporters wanted to remain anonymous This strikes me as problematic. Wh

Re: Revocation of provenpackager access from pbrobinson

Eduard Lucena writes: > Discussing things "privately", "internally" and all the words that > have been used during the conversation, is not in the Spirit of > Fedora. While I generally agree with you, there are absolutely some times and topics that must be discussed in private, especially topics

Re: Revocation of provenpackager access from pbrobinson

Dne 16. 12. 24 v 7:03 odp. Miro Hrončok napsal(a): And based on my experience, I doubt this particular provenpackager status was stripped based on something like that. Sure, I guess we all agree that the line is fuzzy and probably not very well documented/defined. That does not mean we use th

Re: On revoking provenpackager from probinson

On Mon, 2024-12-16 at 15:42 -0500, David Cantrell wrote: > We neglected to make available the facts behind our decision quickly (In some > cases we were dealing with situations where reporters wanted to remain > anonymous This strikes me as problematic. Why should there be a right to anonymity

Re: On revoking provenpackager from probinson

Thank you.  Leslie Satenstein On Monday, December 16, 2024 at 05:03:22 p.m. EST, Adam Williamson wrote: On Mon, 2024-12-16 at 15:42 -0500, David Cantrell wrote: > We neglected to make available the facts behind our decision quickly (In some > cases we were dealing with situatio

Re: Orphaning most of my packages

I took python-flask-babel Thanks Sandro On 16.12.24 22:25, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade wrote: Sorry for not orphaning some of these earlier. I was alway hoping to get time to work on these, but I basically do not have free time for a long time. Either way, I am still around :) I will keep at

Re: Orphaning most of my packages

On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 10:25 PM Paulo César Pereira de Andrade < paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com> wrote: > These are required by 0ad and MegaGlest that I no longer maintain > 0ad-data > libircclient > miniupnpc > nvidia-texture-tools > I picked up 0ad-data and nvidia-texture-tools since

Re: Orphaning most of my packages

I snagged SDL2_net as a dep of one of my packages, though I'm going to email the existing 3 co-maintainers on it and see if one of them want to take primary ownership of it. On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 3:25 PM Paulo César Pereira de Andrade < paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry f

Orphaning most of my packages

Sorry for not orphaning some of these earlier. I was alway hoping to get time to work on these, but I basically do not have free time for a long time. Either way, I am still around :) I will keep at least two, xedit that I use daily and lightning that I am upstream. Jerry James should take these,

Re: On revoking provenpackager from probinson

On 12/16/24 9:42 PM, David Cantrell wrote: > On behalf of FESCo, please accept our apology for how we communicated > the news regarding the revocation of provenpackager privileges for > Peter Robinson. This one was really difficult for us to figure out > how best to communicate and we have ma

F42 Change Proposal: Intel Compute Runtime - Upgrade with HW cut-off (self-contained)

Wiki - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/IntelCompute2025 Discussion Thread - https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f42-change-proposal-intel-compute-runtime-upgrade-with-hw-cut-off-self-contained/139842 This is a proposed Change for Fedora Linux. This document represents a proposed Change.

On revoking provenpackager from probinson

On behalf of FESCo, please accept our apology for how we communicated the news regarding the revocation of provenpackager privileges for Peter Robinson. This one was really difficult for us to figure out how best to communicate and we have made mistakes. We neglected to make available the fact

F42 Change Proposal: GNU Toolchain Update (gcc 15, binutils 2.44, glibc 2.41, gdb 15+) (system-wide)

Wiki - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GNUToolchainF42) Discussion Thread - https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f42-change-proposal-gnu-toolchain-update-gcc-15-binutils-2-44-glibc-2-41-gdb-15-system-wide/139839 This is a proposed Change for Fedora Linux. This document represents a propos

F42 Change Proposal: Stop building Atomic Dekstops for PPC64LE (self-contained)

Wiki - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/AtomicDesktopsNoPpc64le Discussion Thread - https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f42-change-proposal-stop-building-atomic-dekstops-for-ppc64le-self-contained/139835 This is a proposed Change for Fedora Linux. This document represents a proposed Chang

Re: Revocation of provenpackager access from pbrobinson

Hello FESCo, Peter, Packagers and all, First of all, I'm not a packager, not even a developer, but as a former member of Marketing team as a former Council member, I think this is the time when damage control communication is needed. Peter: > I personally think FESCo should be referring the p

Re: Revocation of provenpackager access from pbrobinson

On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 at 19:42, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 8:11 PM Gary Buhrmaster > wrote: > > > > On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 10:18 PM Fabio Valentini > wrote: > > > > > In "the spirit of transparency": > > > FESCo agreed that a public ticket with a summary of the discussion i

Re: Revocation of provenpackager access from pbrobinson

On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 8:11 PM Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 10:18 PM Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > In "the spirit of transparency": > > FESCo agreed that a public ticket with a summary of the discussion in > > the private ticket should be filed, it just hasn't happened yet.

Re: Revocation of provenpackager access from pbrobinson

On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 10:18 PM Fabio Valentini wrote: > In "the spirit of transparency": > FESCo agreed that a public ticket with a summary of the discussion in > the private ticket should be filed, it just hasn't happened yet. It is unclear, from that statement, whether it was intended to cre

Re: Revocation of provenpackager access from pbrobinson

On 16 Dec 2024 08:08, Stephen Smoogen wrote: > On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 at 20:33, Josh Stone wrote: > > > On Tuesday (2024-12-10), the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee > > (FESCo) met in a private meeting to discuss whether Fedora contributor > > Peter Robinson should retain his provenpackager pr

Re: Revocation of provenpackager access from pbrobinson

On Monday, 16 December 2024 at 16:25, Adam Williamson wrote: > This process does make me worry that I might get suddenly de-pp'ed at > some point too. I'm in the same boat; I know I've been guilty of pushing minor build fixes without asking. I've also touched hundreds of packages over the years

Re: What application uses an old version of mariadb?

On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 2:27 PM ttys3 wrote: > > MariaDB 11.6.2 is a Stable (GA) release. > https://mariadb.com/kb/en/mariadb-11-6-2-release-notes/ > It is also a short term rolling release, with no future fixes available, and you are expected to upgrade to the next rolling 11.7 release (whic

Re: Revocation of provenpackager access from pbrobinson

On 16. 12. 24 18:42, Adam Williamson wrote: On Mon, 2024-12-16 at 08:25 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: On Mon, 2024-12-16 at 10:17 +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: Looking at our guidance   https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Provenpackager_policy/ It is very non-specific   "Prior to

Re: Revocation of provenpackager access from pbrobinson

On Mon, 2024-12-16 at 08:25 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2024-12-16 at 10:17 +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > Looking at our guidance > > > >   https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Provenpackager_policy/ > > > > It is very non-specific > > > >   "Prior to making changes, pro

Re: Revocation of provenpackager access from pbrobinson

On Mon, 2024-12-16 at 10:17 +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > Looking at our guidance > >   https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Provenpackager_policy/ > > It is very non-specific > >   "Prior to making changes, provenpackagers should try to communicate >    with owners of a package in bu

bzip3 soname bump in bzip3-libs-1.5.1-1.fc42

I'm updating bzip3 component to 1.5.1 version whose library will changes a soname from libbzip3.so.0 to libbzip3.so.1 because it changes API and ABI. There is no reverse dependency in Fedora 42. Should you have a private package using that library, you will need to port it and rebuild it. See NEW

Re: s390x builders update

On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 10:48 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > Hey folks. I know many people have run into slowdowns on s390x builds of > late. There's 2 changes that hopefully will help that out: > > 1. I setup a 'ci' koji channel and restricted the number of s390x > builders in that channel. That shoul

Re: Revocation of provenpackager access from pbrobinson

Peter said: > some are *ignored*, some *sit for months without action*, others have outlined this in the thread as well. If there was a way where people *put a readme* or something with details I believe it would remove a LOT of the friction. (emphasis added). I think there is a frustrati

Re: Revocation of provenpackager access from pbrobinson

Dne 16. 12. 24 v 2:13 odp. Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a): If PP status were intended to beonly for the reason given in the original requests, then it seems to me that in some cases PP status would be something inherently time limited and thus revoked after the stated reason is satisfied. That isn'

Re: What application uses an old version of mariadb?

MariaDB 11.6.2 is a */Stable (GA) /* release. On Wed, Dec 11 2024 at 04:19:53 AM +00:00:00, Naheem Zaffar wrote: 11.7.1 is an RC

Re: Revocation of provenpackager access from pbrobinson

On Mon, Dec 16, 2024, 14:08 Stephen Smoogen wrote: > > I know that these sorts of matters are hard to deal with, but this entire > thing comes across more as something from the mythological Star Chamber > than something I would expect from Fedora. > > Yes, Peter is hard to get along with at times

Re: Revocation of provenpackager access from pbrobinson

On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 01:57:03PM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Dne 16. 12. 24 v 11:17 dop. Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a): > > By all means have personal preferences, but if someone is following > > documented Fedora procedures that should be considered fine, even if > > it doesn't align with pers

Re: Revocation of provenpackager access from pbrobinson

On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 at 20:33, Josh Stone wrote: > On Tuesday (2024-12-10), the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee > (FESCo) met in a private meeting to discuss whether Fedora contributor > Peter Robinson should retain his provenpackager privileges. Over the > last year, multiple private ticket

Re: Revocation of provenpackager access from pbrobinson

Dne 16. 12. 24 v 11:17 dop. Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a): By all means have personal preferences, but if someone is following documented Fedora procedures that should be considered fine, even if it doesn't align with personal preferences. PPs must state why they want PP status [1]. I always tho

Re: Revocation of provenpackager access from pbrobinson

On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 12:20:06PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 16. 12. 24 11:17, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > >"Prior to making changes, provenpackagers should try to communicate > > with owners of a package in bugzilla, dist-git pull requests, IRC, > > matrix, or email." > > > > Th

Re: Revocation of provenpackager access from pbrobinson

On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 12:18:00PM +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote: > Daniel P. Berrangé venit, vidit, dixit 2024-12-16 11:17:35: > > On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 04:49:32PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > [snip] > > [snip] > > > > > I do think we need a bit less ownership and a bit more shared > > >

Re: Revocation of provenpackager access from pbrobinson

On 16. 12. 24 11:17, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: "Prior to making changes, provenpackagers should try to communicate with owners of a package in bugzilla, dist-git pull requests, IRC, matrix, or email." This is sooo vague & open to interpretation I can easily see how differences of opin

Re: Revocation of provenpackager access from pbrobinson

Daniel P. Berrangé venit, vidit, dixit 2024-12-16 11:17:35: > On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 04:49:32PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: [snip] > [snip] > > > I do think we need a bit less ownership and a bit more shared > > responsibility with packaging. For packages which I maintain, I'm > > happy for

Re: Revocation of provenpackager access from pbrobinson

On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 04:49:32PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 03:15:11PM +, Peter Robinson wrote: > [...] > > I'm a little surprised by Peter's email that he also has little > insight into why this was done. But I have no reason to believe one > person over ano

Re: Revocation of provenpackager access from pbrobinson

On Saturday, 14 December 2024 at 23:17, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 3:41 AM Gary Buhrmaster > wrote: > > > > On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 1:33 AM Josh Stone wrote: > > > > > As a result of more than a month of debate in the latest > > > private FESCo ticket on his conduct, the Com

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20241216.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20241215.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20241216.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:9 Dropped images: 1 Added packages: 1 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 193 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 709.62 KiB Size of dropped packages:0