Re: Revocation of provenpackager access from pbrobinson

On Tue, Dec 17, 2024, 14:37 Peter Robinson wrote: > > > On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 at 13:28, Vít Ondruch wrote: > >> >> This is not recent example, but really bad example of PP's work IMHO: >> >> >> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/c/c31c7edb6913eb7417ee68c59997548df2943dde >> > > That was from

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: 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: small problem with vendored deps in rust packages

On Mon, Dec 2, 2024 at 1:16 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek < zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 01, 2024 at 04:54:12PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > There's a WIP of a simplified "conditional vendor" handling here: > > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-vhost-device-sound/pull-requ

Re: small problem with vendored deps in rust packages

On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 12:23 AM Kalev Lember wrote: > On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 11:56 PM Fabio Valentini > wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 11:50 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek >> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Yaakov, >> > >> > I was looking

Re: small problem with vendored deps in rust packages

On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 11:56 PM Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 11:50 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: > > > > Hi Yaakov, > > > > I was looking to update rust-zram-generator and I noticed the following: > > > > commit 820c5ec20c000e2f0ef57d19970311901d598cf1 > >

Re: Thunderbird FTBFS on ppc64le

On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 5:35 PM Dan Horák wrote: > On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 17:17:02 +0100 > Eike Rathke wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On Monday, 2024-11-11 17:12:19 +0100, Eike Rathke wrote: > > > > > Then with v128.4.0 on 2024-10-28 also on f40 > > > (no link here anymore, I excluded ppc64le on f40 to g

Re: Moving away from the term "karma" in Bodhi

On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 12:05 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 5:59 AM Lukas Ruzicka wrote: > >> Well, I am very sad about this step and I feel very sorry that you are >> trying to remove the word karma from the process. I believe that Karma >> denotes one of the most powerful, the

Re: Fedora 42: The Answer to Life, The Universe and Everything

On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 8:27 PM Joe Doss wrote: > On 11/4/24 10:32 AM, Neal Gompa wrote: > > To be honest, I think we should bring back codenames overall, but I'll > > take the one-off for now. > > I am with you Neal. I loved codenames back in the day. Especially Fedora > 17's Beefy Miracle! ;) >

Re: Fedora 42: The Answer to Life, The Universe and Everything

On Mon, Nov 4, 2024, 17:01 Peter Lemenkov wrote: > Hello All! > Stephen, that's an amazing idea! You have my +1. > I also think it's an amazing idea and +1 from me as well. -- Kalev -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsub

Summary/Minutes from today's Fedora Flatpak Packaging SIG Meeting (2024-04-15)

Text Log: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting-1_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2024-04-15/flatpak-sig.2024-04-15-15.03.log.txt HTML Log: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting-1_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2024-04-15/flatpak-sig.2024-04-15-15.03.log.html Text Minutes: https://meetbot.fedoraproje

Summary/Minutes from today's Fedora Flatpak Packaging SIG Meeting (2024-03-18)

Text Log: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting-1_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2024-03-18/flatpak-sig.2024-03-18-15.30.log.txt HTML Log: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting-1_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2024-03-18/flatpak-sig.2024-03-18-15.30.log.html Text Minutes: https://meetbot.fedoraproje

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F39 to F40

On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 12:41 AM Garry T. Williams wrote: > Problem 3: package network-scripts-ppp-2.5.0-3.fc39.x86_64 from @System > requires network-scripts, but none of the providers can be installed > - network-scripts-10.20-1.fc39.x86_64 from @System does not belong to a > distupgrade re

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F39 to F40

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 1:28 PM hhlp wrote: > Error: > > Problem: problem with installed package > gnome-shell-extension-pop-shell-1.2.0^21.aafc945-1.fc39.noarch > - package gnome-shell-extension-pop-shell-1.2.0^21.aafc945-3.fc40.noarch > from fedora requires (gnome-shell >= 45~ with gnome-she

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F39 to F40

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 12:07 PM hhlp wrote: > al good as always good work only add --allowerasing in my case > Please don't add --allowerasing when doing this test because it hides the issues that we are interested in. -- Kalev -- ___ devel mailing

Re: Provides: libmupdf.so.23.10()(64bit) missing on *EL

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 5:30 PM Michael J Gruber wrote: > Yes. That is: running `/usr/lib/rpm/elfdeps --provides` on F39 against > the two files libmupdf.so.23.10 rpmdev-extracted from the koji scratch > builds for fc39 and el9 yields > > libmupdf.so.23.10()(64bit) > > in both cases. I could try

Re: GNOME package builds this cycle

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 7:01 PM Florian Weimer wrote: > I think I fixed up the RPM spec files of the Vala packages that didn't > do the required rebuilds with Fedora's patched Vala compiler (roughly: > run touch **.vala, add BuildRequires: vala, as appropriate). I changed > packages only if I sa

GNOME package builds this cycle

Hi all, Just a quick heads up that it's David King (amigadave on IRC) and not me who's doing GNOME package builds in Fedora for the next 6 months or so - during the Fedora 40 / GNOME 46 release cycle. David has already started with GNOME 46.alpha builds in rawhide. We also have a new person helpi

Re: Heads up: libgweather4 to libgweather rename in rawhide

Thanks for helping think about this, both of you! Let me try to reply to both of your emails in the same reply. On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 8:04 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 1:38 PM Yaakov Selkowitz > wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2024-01-10 at 19:13 +0100,

Re: Heads up: libgweather4 to libgweather rename in rawhide

Hi Yaakov, On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 6:47 PM Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: > Since the previous libgweather versions were 40.y and the new versions > are 4.4.z, shouldn't there be an Epoch? > I was thinking about this hard as well and I managed to convince myself that it should be fine without an epoch

Heads up: libgweather4 to libgweather rename in rawhide

Hi all, Just a quick heads up that I'm in the process of renaming libgweather4 package back to libgweather - we only ship a single libgweather version in rawhide (and in F39), so there is no need any more to have the API version encoded in the package name in order to make it parallel installable.

Heads up: libmutter soname bump in rawhide

A quick heads up that mutter 46.alpha (par of gnome-shell 46.alpha, https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-d7b40ac758) bumped its soname from libmutter-13.so.0 to libmutter-14.so.0. GNOME packages depending on mutter (gnome-shell, gnome-kiosk) are all rebuilt as part of the same bodhi

Re: Re: [heads-up] evolution-data-server libecal-2.0 soname version bump in rawhide

On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 6:42 PM Milan Crha wrote: > On Tue, 2024-01-09 at 18:36 +0100, Kalev Lember wrote: > > Looks like this has a bit of a mid air collision with gnome-shell > > 46.alpha that's in a different bodhi update: > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/upda

Re: Re: [heads-up] evolution-data-server libecal-2.0 soname version bump in rawhide

On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 6:25 PM Milan Crha wrote: > On Mon, 2024-01-08 at 18:40 -0800, kevin wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 11:05:33AM +0100, Milan Crha wrote: > > >elementary-calendar > > >evolution-chime (which is part of pidgin-chime) > > >gnome-panel > > >phosh > > >

Re: f39-candidate ~> f39-build stuck or something?

On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 1:01 PM Milan Crha wrote: > Hi again, > with the problem on the rawhide, I managed to build evolution-data- > server update for F39 with no problem, but the chain-build [1] to > wait for the f39-build refresh/update to have the new eds. It waited > for 2 hours, whic

Re: Inactive packages removed from packager group

I picked up cairo and gtksourceview5. -- Kalev -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-c

Re: appstream soname bump in Rawhide (special info for AppStreamQt users!)

On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 9:18 AM Milan Crha wrote: > I'm sorry for a late response, I forgot of this. I tried to build > gnome-software in your side tag, but it fails due to the appstream > packages cannot be installed together: > > Error: Transaction test error: > DEBUG util.py:446:file /usr/l

Re: appstream soname bump in Rawhide (special info for AppStreamQt users!)

On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 4:34 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > * Flatpak has an upstream change that needs backporting[1] or a new > release. > * GNOME Software has a merge request open[2]. > * libadwaita has an upstream change that needs backporting[3]. > * malcontent needs work done. > > Please address the

Re: OK to have same license file in multiple sub-packages?

On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 5:47 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > How it conflicts? > > %files > > %license LICENSE > > %files doc > > %license LICENSE > > should not create any conflicts. And this is recomended way to do it. > I guess the conflicts happen when the LICENSE file changes between builds and

Heads up: libpeas updated to 2.0 together with new libpeas1 compat package

Hi all, A quick heads up that I built updated libpeas 2.0 for F39 and rawhide and added a new libpeas1 compat package so that existing packages that use libpeas 1.x continue working without needing changes - the libpeas API has had a major revision in version 2.0 and it's not just the matter of re

Re: Specify koji build machine mem req via. spec file

On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 2:04 PM Julian Sikorski wrote: > Does a hammer smaller than -g1 also exist for issues like: > > relocation truncated to fit: R_X86_64_32 against `.debug_info' > https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/1615/107091615/build.log > > Thanks for the info in advance. > So

Re: Specify koji build machine mem req via. spec file

On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 10:07 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Dne 04. 10. 23 v 11:43 Martin Stransky napsal(a): > > Hello guys, > > > > Is there's a way how to set requested amount of ram for koji builders? > > > > I'd like to use it as Firefox builds fail recently due low memory, like > > https://bugz

Re: Specify koji build machine mem req via. spec file

On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 11:44 AM Martin Stransky wrote: > Hello guys, > > Is there's a way how to set requested amount of ram for koji builders? > > I'd like to use it as Firefox builds fail recently due low memory, like > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241690 I looked at the first

Re: GNOME 45.0 builds for Fedora

On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 4:09 PM Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 4:00 PM Kalev Lember > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 3:49 PM Fabio Valentini > wrote: > >> > >> I just prepared updates for rust-glycin-utils, rust-glycin, and >

Re: GNOME 45.0 builds for Fedora

On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 3:49 PM Fabio Valentini wrote: > I just prepared updates for rust-glycin-utils, rust-glycin, and > glycin-loaders (from the current v0.1 pre-releases to the recently > published stable releases), and only just now remembered that you > might want to include them in the GNO

GNOME 45.0 builds for Fedora

Hi all, GNOME 45.0 upstream tarball date is this weekend and I'm coordinating the downstream builds for F39 and rawhide. A quick note where we are in the release schedule: Fedora 39 Beta was declared GO yesterday and is going to ship with GNOME 45.beta. We have the 45.rc mega-update in Bodhi (

Re: Why %{?dist} started unfolding to fc40{?with_bootstrap:~bootstrap}

On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 11:39 PM Mikhail Gavrilov < mikhail.v.gavri...@gmail.com> wrote: > Today %{?dist} in spec file started unfolding to > fc40{?with_bootstrap:~bootstrap} when I builded mesa locally in the mock > container. > Yesterday %{?dist} unfolded to fc40 and it expected behavior. > Hi

Summary/Minutes from today's Fedora Flatpak Packaging SIG Meeting (2023-08-07)

ing log follows down below. 8/7/2023, 4:01:44 PM - Kalev Lember: Welcome to our bi-weekly Flatpak SIG meeting. 8/7/2023, 4:01:51 PM - travier (@siosm:matrix.org) joined the room 8/7/2023, 4:01:58 PM - travier (@siosm:matrix.

Re: GNOME 45.beta builds for Fedora

On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 5:54 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2023-08-07 at 12:24 +0200, Kalev Lember wrote: > > It's also fine to build directly in rawhide if it's just a single > > package update that doesn't depend on anything else. We are still a > > w

Re: GNOME 45.beta builds for Fedora

On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 12:34 PM Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 12:26 PM Kalev Lember > wrote: > Hi Kalev, > > Might it be a better idea to wait with building things until *after* > the mass branching? > > I have only ever seen things fail when rawhide si

GNOME 45.beta builds for Fedora

Hi all, I'm coordinating GNOME builds for Fedora this cycle and we have GNOME 45.beta release coming up. The upstream tarball date was in the weekend, but a lot of modules are still missing releases and I expect them to trickle in during the first half of the weekend. At the same time, on Fedor

Re: Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

On 7/3/23 09:23, Victor Toso wrote: On Sat, Jul 01, 2023 at 10:09:15PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote: Victor (CC'd), do you want to pick up grilo and grilo-plugins? Sure, I'll keep maintaining both in Fedora. Excellent! Can you click on the "Take" button at https://src.fe

Re: Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

On 6/29/23 16:47, Bastien Nocera wrote: Hello, As part of the same process outlined in Matthias Clasen's "LibreOffice packages" email, my upstream and downstream work on desktop Bluetooth, multimedia applications (namely totem, rhythmbox and sound-juicer) and libfprint/fprintd is being stoppe

Re: Announcing fmt library soversion bump

On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 8:03 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > FTBFS: > > 0ad > arbor > CuraEngine > bout++ > cachelib > dolphin-emu > folly > freeopcua > gerbera > luxcorerender > mangohud > wasmedge > watchman > I fixed 0ad from that list and built it in the

Re: Announcing fmt library soversion bump

On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 1:12 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Results: 37 builds succeeded, 19 failed. > > FTBFS: > > 0ad > arbor > CuraEngine > bout++ > cachelib > contour-terminal > dnf5 > dolphin-emu > easyrpg-player > folly > freeopcua > gerbera > gnuradio

Re: Is there a chance to phase out `/lib64` directory?

On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 11:02 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: > I don't think that GCC is always the best example to follow. > > Nevertheless, wouldn't it be worth of phasing out the /lib64? I don't > know what is the history behind, but I don't think this layout is > conceptual. > I would like to have a

Re: releng-bot owns my package in SCM - belcard

On Sun, Jun 18, 2023 at 12:01 PM Philip Wyett wrote: > Hi, > > After completing a package-review for belcard[1], I tried to create the > repo, seems that the repo > after a couple of attempts got created, but is owned by 'releng-bot' and > not myself 'kathenas'. How > can I get this resolved? >

Re: Fedora ELN Plans for Summer 2023

On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 6:08 PM Todd Zullinger wrote: > Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 11:53 AM Miro Hrončok > wrote: > >> > >> On 16. 06. 23 15:39, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > >>> This leads me to my next schedule announcement: we will be performing > >>> the initial CentOS

Summary/Minutes from today's Fedora Flatpak Packaging SIG Meeting (2023-06-12)

= #fedora-meeting: Fedora Flatpak Packaging SIG = Meeting started by kalev at 14:00:07 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2023-06-12/flatpak-sig.2023-06-12-14

Summary/Minutes from today's Fedora Flatpak Packaging SIG Meeting (2023-05-15)

It's a bit hard to read format this time because zodbot dropped off irc half way through and I had to manually capture the log from my irc client. 16:01 < kalev> #startmeeting Fedora Flatpak Packaging SIG 16:01 < kalev> #meetingname flatpak-sig 16:01 < kalev> #topic Init process 16:01 < zodbot>

Re: disabling yum modular repos by default?

On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 1:27 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 12:32 AM Jens-Ulrik Petersen > wrote: > > > > I have been thinking about proposing a Change to Fedora 39, > > which would disable yum modular repos by default in installs. > > I thought I would float the idea here first. >

Re: Orphaning despite having maintainers?

On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 11:04 AM Alexander Bokovoy wrote: > Hi, > > This morning I woke up to find that packages I maintain were orphaned > out of blue. Nobody contacted the maintainers, nobody raised any tickets > to releng, as far as I can see. Yet, releng ran the orphaning from what > I saw in

Re: Auto-assign packager sponsors to tickets?

On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 9:22 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On 04/04/2023 07:52, Otto Liljalaakso wrote: > > Perhaps new package requests could more often be handled in a way where > > an existing packager assumes the maintainer position with the agreement > >

Summary/Minutes from today's Fedora Flatpak Packaging SIG Meeting (2023-04-03)

= #fedora-meeting: Fedora Flatpak Packaging SIG = Meeting started by kalev at 14:00:19 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2023-04-03/flatpak-sig.2023-04-03-14

Re: F39 proposal: SPDX License Phase 2 (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 12:30 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Dne 28. 03. 23 v 16:01 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): > > Hmm, that'd mean thousands of pull requests… I think if we agree to > > this, it would make sense to just push a fix directly. Each pull request > > ticket is a few mails, an

Re: F39 proposal: Changes of defaults in createrepo_c-1.0.0 (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 5:06 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek < zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: > We should probably make it ^(/etc/|/bin/|/sbin/|/usr/bin/|/usr/sbin/). > Split-usr > distros are a blast from the past, but adding the extra paths wouldn't > change > anything for us, since we don't use them.

Re: Status of AVIF support in Fedora

On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 7:29 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On 20/03/2023 17:08, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > Going forward, I'm going to turn it into an add-on package, i.e. ship > > only the two plugins we can't ship in Fedora: > > In a subpack

Summary/Minutes from today's Fedora Flatpak Packaging SIG Meeting (2023-03-20)

=== #fedora-meeting-2: Fedora Flatpak Packaging SIG === Meeting started by kalev at 15:03:20 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2023-03-20/flatpak-sig.2023-

Re: The GPG keys listed for the "Fedora rawhide openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64" repository are already installed but they are not correct for this package.

On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 3:47 PM Reon Beon via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Fedora rawhide openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64 1.6 MB/s | 1.6 kB > 00:00 > GPG key at file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > (0x18B8E74C) is already installed > The GPG keys listed

Summary/Minutes from today's Fedora Flatpak Packaging SIG Meeting (2023-03-06)

= #fedora-meeting: Fedora Flatpak Packaging SIG = Meeting started by kalev at 15:00:19 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2023-03-06/flatpak-sig.2023-03-06-15

Re: Some boost breakage in Fedora Rawhide

On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 12:17 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek < zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: > The problem is more widespread :( > > $ (dnf5 repoquery --whatrequires 'libboost_thread.so.1.78.0()(64bit)'; > dnf5 repoquery --whatrequires 'libboost_iostreams.so.1.78.0()(64bit)'; dnf5 > repoquery --whatre

Summary/Minutes from today's Fedora Flatpak Packaging SIG Meeting (2023-02-20)

= #fedora-meeting: Fedora Flatpak Packaging SIG = Meeting started by kalev at 15:00:22 UTC. The full logs are available athttps://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2023-02-20/flatpak-sig.2023-02-20-15.0

Summary/Minutes from today's Fedora Flatpak Packaging SIG Meeting (2023-02-06)

= #fedora-meeting: Fedora Flatpak Packaging SIG = Meeting started by kalev at 15:00:13 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2023-02-06/flatpak-sig.2023-02-06-15

Re: List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in February​

On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 11:08 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > Oh but they are different. FTBFS are not urgent and the policy is only set > to > retire packages that FTBFS for more than 2 release cycles. > > For a package to be considered for retirement in February 23, it would > have to > fail to build:

Summary/Minutes from today's Fedora Flatpak Packaging SIG Meeting (2023-01-23)

= #fedora-meeting: Fedora Flatpak Packaging SIG = Meeting started by kalev at 15:00:33 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2023-01-23/flatpak-sig.2023-01-23-15

Re: valgrind on Fedora

On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 2:21 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > Also want to mention that your valgrind command line is ... a little > naive. Many other options are useful. Here's what we use in nbdkit: > > > https://gitlab.com/nbdkit/nbdkit/-/blob/a5f804180240aea7031470cb8ed294f904268f0a/wrapper.c

Re: List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in February

On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 5:02 PM Mamoru TASAKA wrote: > Kalev Lember wrote on 2023/01/12 0:03: > > Hi Mamoru, > > > > Out of curiosity, why? Do you actually need libgnome? I was hoping it > would > > get removed this cycle so we can finally stop shipping the

Re: List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in February

On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 3:51 PM Mamoru TASAKA wrote: > Miro Hrončok wrote on 2023/01/11 21:58: > > libgnome alexl, caolanm, > gnome-sig, > > mbarnes, rhughes, > rstrode, > > I've just fixed now: > https://ko

Re: Starting Flatpak SIG

On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 10:55 AM Kalev Lember wrote: > Hi all, > > Hopefully most people are back from vacations now so I think we can go on > with organizing the first Flatpak SIG meeting. > > I have created a whenisgood poll for the next week: > https://whenisgood.net/s3rz

Re: Starting Flatpak SIG

Hi all, Hopefully most people are back from vacations now so I think we can go on with organizing the first Flatpak SIG meeting. I have created a whenisgood poll for the next week: https://whenisgood.net/s3rzh5h Please put your name in there and what times would work for you. I am thinking that

Re: F38 proposal: Rpmautospec by Default (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 10:27 PM Otto Liljalaakso wrote: > Kalev Lember kirjoitti 3.1.2023 klo 11.19: > > We might need to update package maintainer documents to be clear about > this > > though, so that people know that they should use 'fedpkg srpm' and not > &

Re: F38 proposal: Rpmautospec by Default (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 10:13 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek < zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 09:32:58AM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > On 02/01/2023 21:44, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > - fedpkg mockbuild > > > > But it doesn't work correctly (will alway

Re: F39 proposal: Replace DNF with DNF5 (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 2:16 PM Vít Ondruch wrote: > Good to know. Thx. Please tell me that part of the plan is renaming dnf5 > => dnf and I'll shut up. > I second to this. While it makes sense to temporarily introduce a parallel installable dnf5 to enable easier early testing, I think dnf5 shou

Starting Flatpak SIG

Hi all, I would like to kick of a Fedora Flatpak Packaging SIG that meets regularly and has IRC meetings. Our flatpaks have gotten some bad rep recently and I think for a good reason. We don't have a lot of them and we only have a handful of people working on them. We also have a fairly obvious

Re: Starting Flatpak SIG

On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 8:45 PM Stephen Smoogen wrote: > > > On Thu, 8 Dec 2022 at 14:39, Onuralp SEZER < > thunderbir...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > >> Hello Kalev, >> Please see pagure IRC is place for new channels and etc : >> https://pagure.io/irc (that is a better place for track IRC stuff a

Re: Starting Flatpak SIG

On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 6:30 PM Timothée Ravier wrote: > > Please put your name in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Flatpak if > > you are interested and I'll try to organize a poll for a weekly meeting > > time. I'd suggest to start the meetings on the second week of January > > when the holid

Starting Flatpak SIG

Hi all, I would like to kick of a Fedora Flatpak Packaging SIG that meets regularly and has IRC meetings. Our flatpaks have gotten some bad rep recently and I think for a good reason. We don't have a lot of them and we only have a handful of people working on them. We also have a fairly obvious

Re: Review Request: ImageMagick7

On Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 5:38 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > On Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 11:34 AM Kalev Lember > wrote: > > > > On Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 5:26 PM Sérgio Basto wrote: > >> > >> On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 11:57 +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > >&

Re: Review Request: ImageMagick7

On Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 5:26 PM Sérgio Basto wrote: > On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 11:57 +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > On 03/12/2022 00:30, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > > The proposal now is to keep ImageMagick 6 and make a new package > > > with > > > ImageMagick 7 , when we have all application

Re: Some reasons I really dislike buildroot overrides and would like us to get rid of them soon

On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 10:30 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > So there's this CI ticket ATM[0] about whether the environment in which > CI tests are run should or should not include and update from the > 'buildroot' repo, which contains both: > > 1. Packages that have been pushed stable since the last

Re: Can we retire mozjs68 in rawhide?

On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 10:44 AM Florian Weimer wrote: > I don't see anything depending on it in the RPM specs file archive. > > It looks like the configure script might get confused when building with > future C compilers which do not accept implicit function declarations, > and it's probably no

Re: Inactive packagers to be removed after the F37 release

On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 8:33 PM Kalev Lember wrote: > On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 7:20 PM Mattia Verga via devel < > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > >> - rpms/sysprof >> > > I took sysprof as I've been de facto maintaining it for years. > ... and als

Re: Inactive packagers to be removed after the F37 release

On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 7:20 PM Mattia Verga via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > - rpms/sysprof > I took sysprof as I've been de facto maintaining it for years. -- Kalev ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubs

Re: [HEADS UP] Rebuild of wxGTK wxGLCanvas-using packages

Hi Scott, On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 6:23 PM Scott Talbert wrote: > Hi all, > > In order to fix some incompatibilities with wxWidgets wxGLCanvas (which is > currently built with OpenGL EGL support) and several package users which > are expecting OpenGL GLX support, I need to rebuild wxWidgets with

Re: HEADS-UP: Upcoming retirement of long-term-unused packages for Rust crates

Hi Fabio, On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 5:14 PM Fabio Valentini wrote: > - rust-constant_time_eq > Can you leave rust-constant_time_eq out please? 'authenticator' that I'm packaging depends on it. -- Kalev ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproje

Re: Bad paths in *.pc (pkgconf) files

On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 11:35 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > David (CC'd) is working on the Fedora RISC-V port and he noticed that > some *.pc files in Fedora contain incorrect paths. For example[1]: > > $ pkgconf --libs libcares > -L/usr/usr/lib64 -lcares > > $ pkgconf --libs libasyncns >

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers

On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:44 PM Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:17 PM Kalev Lember > wrote: > > > > I went ahead and picked up fragments and gnome-feeds. If anyone else is > interested in them even a tiny bit, please let me know. I'd appreciate &

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers

I went ahead and picked up fragments and gnome-feeds. If anyone else is interested in them even a tiny bit, please let me know. I'd appreciate co-maintainers a lot here. Thanks, Kalev ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe

Re: When is a file dependency appropriate?

On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 2:51 PM Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Dne 06. 10. 22 v 14:38 Kalev Lember napsal(a): > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 11:05 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: > >> BTW re-reading the ticket and since there are talks about DNF5, maybe it >> would be worth of reopening

Re: When is a file dependency appropriate?

On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 11:05 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: > BTW re-reading the ticket and since there are talks about DNF5, maybe it > would be worth of reopening the discussion. I think we could generally > do better and I see two options: > > 1) There seems to be a way to download additional data if n

Re: Heads up: GNOME 43.0 megaupdate is in testing

On 9/21/22 12:59, Kalev Lember wrote: On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 12:42 PM Vít Ondruch <mailto:vondr...@redhat.com>> wrote: I have just reported this against mutter: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2128660 <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2128660>

Re: Heads up: GNOME 43.0 megaupdate is in testing

On 9/21/22 18:02, Kamil Paral wrote: Hi Kalev, while it's not essential, I find it unfortunate that Night Light controls are now broken, I think many people use it: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-control-center/-/issues/2056

Re: Heads up: GNOME 43.0 megaupdate is in testing

On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 12:42 PM Vít Ondruch wrote: > I have just reported this against mutter: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2128660 > > This was reported upstream a while ago upstream and there are fixes > since yesterday. Not sure if it qualifies as a blocker and how to mark

Re: Heads up: GNOME 43.0 megaupdate is in testing

Hi Vit, On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 11:03 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: > Kalev, > > Could you please look at [1] which was addressed in F36 but never for > Rawhide, i.e. F37 ATM. > > However I see that there is GDM 43 now. I should probably give it a try > (while the upstream ticket comments [2, 3] don't m

Heads up: GNOME 43.0 megaupdate is in testing

Hi all, Just a quick heads up that the GNOME 43.0 final release megaupdate is now in F37 updates-testing: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-0bd68bbb43 This is the GNOME version that's we'll be shipping F37 Final with, so please make sure to test it and file issues for things t

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F36 to F37

On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 3:52 PM Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Mon, Sep 19 2022 at 12:08:10 AM +0200, Robert-André Mauchin > wrote: > > Error: Transaction test error: > > file /usr/bin/WebKitWebDriver from install of > > webkit2gtk4.1-2.37.91-1.fc37.x86_64 > > conflicts with file from package w

Re: WebKitGTK package naming

On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 3:53 AM Kevin Kofler via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Hi, > > the latest webkitgtk package now uses the following subpackage names: > * webkit2gtk4.0 and webkit2gtk4.1 are for GTK 3, > * webkit2gtk5.0 are for GTK 4. > > As you can see, the WebKitGTK sover

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F36 to F37

On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 9:52 PM Alexander Ploumistos < alex.ploumis...@gmail.com> wrote: > The only issues I've encountered were related to nautilus extensions. > Bugs are open for all of them and I submitted a PR for an rpmfusion > package. > > However, I think that for people on Workstation who

Re: Orphaned various packages (GNOME / GObject libraries)

On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 11:47 AM Fabio Valentini wrote: > I expect that editorconfig, graphite2, libcloudproviders to be picked > up by GNOME package maintainers, since they're dependencies of core > GNOME or Fedora Workstation components (CC @kalev). > Thanks! I picked up those 3. -- Kalev ___

Re: Thoughts welcome: interface between automated test gating and the "critical path"

On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 3:16 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 12:00 PM Adam Williamson > wrote: > > > So, one of the implicit questions here is, is it OK to keep twinning > > these two sets of consequences, or should we split them up? > > Yes, it's okay to keep two sets of consequen

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >