Re: %firewalld_reload macro is a bad idea

Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 11:14:56AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote: >> I got bit on an EPEL 8 system by upgrading munin-node and losing >> networking to my podman containers. I started digging and found that >> munin uses the %firewalld_reload macro in %post. Then I dug a lit

Re: Guidance on individual packages requiring x86_64-v2 baseline ?

Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Neal Gompa said: >> We may also want to start having a conversation about moving to >> x86_64-v2 RPM arch for x86_64 across the board if we're going to start >> encountering stuff like this. > > Is there a good decoder ring for which CPUs are which level? L

Re: Three steps we could take to make supply chain attacks a bit harder

Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Dominique Martinet wrote: >> Before making each of these safer we should make sshd not link with so >> many things in the first place. > > Indeed. E.g., Arch Linux does not transitively link sshd against liblzma. > Fedora does because of this innocuous-looking patc

Re: Orphaning all my packages

Sérgio Basto wrote: > On Tue, 2023-10-03 at 10:25 -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote: >> a project >> where the primary sponsor and downstream no longer provides >> source code freely and openly > > what you are talking about ? all RHEL Source are freely available on > Cent

Re: Orphaning all my packages

Hi, Michael J Gruber wrote: > Thank you for all the effort you have put into maintaining these > packages so far, for the benefit of all of Fedora, and consequently > its downstream! Thanks! > Your reasons resonate with me, though I'm not taking the same > conclusions. Have you arranged "success

Orphaning all my packages

these additional packages: asciidoc git-filter-repo rpmlint Thanks, -- Todd Zullinger ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://doc

Re: Red Hat & Fedora -- largely stepping out of this ecosystem

Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On 6/26/23 18:47, Jeff Law wrote: >> What Red Hat has done may be technically legal and perhaps good for >> its business. However, to me it's ethically unconscionable. Those >> who know me know I'm not an zealot, but I do have a baseline set of >> ethical values and Red

Re: Fedora ELN Plans for Summer 2023

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 Stream 10 branch creation in Gitlab for all >>> packages in the Fedor

Re: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

I wrote: > I may attempt to resolve some of the issues, but if there's > some documentation on the changes it would make it a lot > easier. :) I filed an upstream PR with a couple of commits: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpmlint/pull/1066 This fixes the test suite and works in

Re: HEADS UP: RPM 4.19 soname bump in Rawhide

Hi, Michal Domonkos wrote: > We're currently preparing an update to RPM 4.19 ALPHA for Rawhide in a > side-tag. The new version features a soname bump: Is there a porting guide for rpm python users? The rpmlint package has a number of test failures and quite likely other breakages which may not

Re: Place to write something up

Chris Adams wrote: > Kind of a random thing, but... I would like to write up how to use GRUB2 > to do BIOS-PXE+UEFI-PXE+UEFI-HTTP boot. I asked for the Fedora packages > to include the needed PXE bit, and it does now (thanks!), so I feel I > owe a good explanation on how to use it. :) > > I don't

Re: It’s time to transform the Fedora devel list into something new

TLDR; I'm in the "please, not a web forum" camp, but I also feel like this is effectively a foregone conclusion, unfortunately. As a maintainer of a small number of packages, I follow devel to keep up with changes affecting the distribution and occasionally chime in or find areas where I can help

Re: default bash history (non)preservation

Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Michael Catanzaro said: >> On Tue, Apr 11 2023 at 12:18:58 PM -0500, Chris Adams >> wrote: >>>I wouldn't do that part; that's additional disk I/O for every prompt. >>>Especially when the system might be having issues, users (especially >>>root) don't need so

Re: default bash history (non)preservation

Chris Murphy wrote: > I've implemented the suggested two line change to > .bash_profile: > > # User specific environment and startup programs > shopt -s histappend > PROMPT_COMMAND="history -a;$PROMPT_COMMAND" > [...] > Any thoughts? As others have said, enabling this by default has consequences

Re: %patchN deprecated?

Florian Festi wrote: > On 3/29/23 10:31, Michael J Gruber wrote: >> Has `%patchN` been deprecated in favour of `%patch N`? > > Yes, see %patch section on > https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/spec.html Quoting that: %patch is used to apply patches on top of the just unpacked

Re: Dogtag-pki is not installable on F38/Rawhide because it fails the GPG check even if you attempt to skip the check

Hi, Chris Kelley wrote: > TL;DR dogtag-pki is not installable on F38/Rawhide because > it fails the GPG check (F37 and prior are fine), even if > --nogpgcheck is specified, and I don't understand why. > > 1) Why does the key not work? > 2) Why does --nogpgcheck not work? It seems like it must be

Re: Fwd: License: GPL-3.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-or-later

Tomas Korbar wrote: > Extending the question here. > > -- Forwarded message - > From: Tomas Korbar > Date: Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 9:51 AM > Subject: License: GPL-3.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-or-later > To: > > > Hi guys, > I am doing the conversion of license tags in my projects and i

Re: fedpkg: Failed to get repository name from Git url or pushurl

Petr Pisar wrote: > [...] Either turn that directory into a git repository (git > init-db . && git add hello.spec && git commit -a) ... Just a minor, tangential nit, `git init` is the preferred and documented command. The `git init-db` command is an ancient name for it. The documentation for `gi

Re: packaging tutorial error - /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn mock-chroot debug advice

Kenneth Goldman wrote: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Packaging_Tutorial_ > GNU_Hello/ > > ~~~ > > when running that tutorial (Fedora 37, x86), I get this error: > > ERROR: Exception(/home/kgold/hello/hello-2.10-1.fc37.src.rpm) > Config(fedora-37-x

Re: livcd-creator gives incorrect checksum for recently rebuilt local repo packages

Alexander Ploumistos wrote: > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 4:15 AM Globe Trotter via devel > wrote: >> I wonder if anyone has any suggestions on how to get >> around this problem. I create my local repo using >> >> createrepo . >> >> inside my RPMS/x86_64 directory. > > Is there a specific reason you

Re: providing gpg verification for a package without signature

Hi, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > I have been trying to package slim again. The package does not come with a > signature or a gpg key. > > From > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_source_file_verification > I don't see an option of what to do if there is no signat

Re: Fedora Linux 38 branched

Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: >> 'git pull --rebase' is a strange command to suggest. I does the job, >> but almost by accident, and it's confusing things by mixing in rebasing. >> Can we make this just say 'git fetch' or 'git fetch -v' ? > > The thing is, you

Re: Fedoras GnuPG default option is deprecated

Christopher Klooz wrote: > A fresh installation of Fedora 37 has by default the "--supervised" option > active in its gpg-agent systemd file > (/usr/lib/systemd/user/gpg-agent.service). > > According to GnuPG Docs [1], this option is deprecated. Once gpg-agent is > invoked, the log of "systemctl -

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

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > Yes, this is what I was talking about too. Because rpmbuild does not set > %_sourcedir, it may fail to load some files. Even worse, it may load *wrong* > versions, e.g. when some old version is present in the ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/. > Personally, I have dozens of s

Re: opensubdiv: strange failure on doc subpackage

Hi, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: > Hello team, > > While building opensubdiv, the failure[1] occurred on doc subpackage with > the following line: > > BuildError: The following noarch package built differently on different > architectures: opensubdiv-doc-3.5.0-1.fc38.noarch.rpm > rpmdiff output was

Re: Mystery fedpkg srpm failure

Hi, Florian Weimer wrote: > I don't see what spec file aspect is causing this failure: > > $ fedpkg clone -a cups-bjnp > Cloning into 'cups-bjnp'... > remote: Enumerating objects: 278, done. > remote: Counting objects: 100% (278/278), done. > remote: Compressing objects: 100% (222/222), done. > r

Re: Question about git signed tags

Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > On 29/11/2022 09:24, Bob Hepple wrote: >> "... Arch supports signed git tags. I'm hoping Fedora does too. > > On Fedora you must upload source tarball, its signature and public key to > the Fedora look-aside cache A minor expansion on that; the public key / upstr

Re: %{bash_completions_dir} or %{%bash_completion_dir} what is the correct macro ?

Sérgio Basto wrote: > I fully agree with this commit, maybe you can go ahead with an official > PR. Done, thanks! EPEL8 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/pull-request/57 EPEL7 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/pull-request/58 -- Todd signature.asc Description

Re: %{bash_completions_dir} or %{%bash_completion_dir} what is the correct macro ?

Sérgio Basto wrote: > in an effort to do things correctly and without hacks > I noticed that redhat-rpm-config-202-1.fc35.noarch defines > %bash_completions_dir and epel-rpm-macros %defines bash_completion_dir > > Which one is the correct ? hopefully we have a few case [1] (18) vs [2] > (14) > I

Re: SPDX - How to handle MIT and BSD

Neal Gompa wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 11:05 AM Todd Zullinger wrote: >> Am I missing something obvious or does licensecheck not work >> as expected? This is with licensecheck-3.3.0-2.fc36.noarch. > > licensecheck does not follow/use SPDX-License-Identifier at al

Re: SPDX - How to handle MIT and BSD

Neal Gompa wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 6:24 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: >> Do we have a command line tool for this? Does licensecheck support SPDX >> identifiers? >> >> (I find the use of browser extension for this very weird. I have the LICENSE >> file unpackaged with the sources on my machine, I

Re: Karma for OpenSSL needed

Ian Laurie wrote: > On 11/2/22 04:22, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > I've just pushed the updates for OpenSSL fixing 2 CVEs evaluated as HIGH. > Could you please check the freshly pushed builds to get necessary karma > ASAP? > > Are we not fixing Fedora 35?  It

Re: Failed RPM database migrations

Hi, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2042147#c2 > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RelocateRPMToUsr > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2042099 > > The RPM database is supposed to move from /var/lib/rpm to > /usr/lib/sysimage/rpm. This was supposed to happe

rpmlint %forgeautosetup support (was: Re: F38 Proposal: SPDX License Phase 1 (Self-Contained Change proposal))

Hi, Sergey Mende wrote: >> Mildly related, I've been working on getting rpmlint updated >> to 2.3.0 and now 2.4.0. I filed a PR to get comments from >> other rpmlint maintainers and (hopefully) catch any bugs I >> may have introduced: >> >> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rpmlint/pull-req

Re: F38 Proposal: SPDX License Phase 1 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 03. 10. 22 12:09, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> And how is this change related to: >> >> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rpmlint/c/2beb19345e6644cb1b5ee8092b8533c8984cd21c?branch=rawhide > > I was unaware of this change at all. > > Tom, should rpmlint ditch that file instead

Re: Inactive packagers to be removed after the F37 release

Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 10:03:35AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> Isn't peer review much better and easier solution over all? We could also >> require signed commits I guess. > > I think it would slow things down quite a lot to require peer review of > every commit. > > I'd pe

Re: The future of FMN (Fedora Messaging Notifications)

Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Lest it sound like everyone just wants it to behave this way, I > personally _do_ like getting emails for actions I did myself. > I find that later when I am looking back to see what changed by who I > can (sometimes surprisingly) find out it was me. :) > > So, I would prefe

Re: More is not Less

Hi, Ron Olson wrote: > Sorry if I missed something, but under Rawhide I > discovered when I tried to “more somefile.txt” I got > “less” behavior, while Fedora 35 still runs more like, uh, > more. I'm not quite sure what "less" behavior you mean, so I'm only guessing. If you mean that more doesn'

Re: GitHub source URLs not working

Fabio Valentini wrote: > Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 8:37 PM Susi Lehtola >> I am experiencing problems updating packages employing GitHub source >> URLs. For instance, [...] >> https://github.com/pyscf/pyscf/archive/v2.0.1/pyscf-2.0.1.tar.gz >> Download failed: >> 404 Client Error: Not Found for url: >>

Re: RPMLint 2.0 released!

Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 03. 06. 21 21:51, Tom Callaway wrote: >> I have landed rpmlint 2.0.0 in rawhide, along with Mirek Suchý's toml >> configs (with updates for the licenses.toml). PRs, bug reports, and >> suggestions welcome. > > Thanks, spot! > > I'm looking at the stuck Python 3.10 rebuild

Re: git push permission denied

Tony Breeds wrote: > One annoying gotcha I hit after adding the new key to my agent was that > many places now failed to auth as it tried each key in my agent and > exceeded the MaxAuthTries in sshd The IdentitiesOnly option to ssh is useful for that. From ssh_config(1): Specifies that ssh(1)

Re: src.fedoraproject.org branch conversion to rawhide/main tomorrow

Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 12:11:45PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: >> Would it be possible to add the sequence of commands to the proposal to >> convert an existing clone with unpushed changes? >> >> I think it is something along the lines of (for src.fedoraproject.org): >

Re: src.fedoraproject.org branch conversion status

[re-sending to devel instead of devel-announce, apologies if this arrives twice.] Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Greetings everyone and thanks for your patience with us today. Thank you Kevin and all the folks who help make such changes happen relatively seamlessly. :) > You will want to re-clone any repo

Re: git -> cvs (was: Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers (see note about xinetd))

Hi, Ian McInerney wrote: > Why not split the cvs package like git and create a cvs-core package that > actually contains the cvs executables/files and then only BR/require that > from git/git-cvs? That would be the more immediate solution that prunes the > affected packages from the xinetd orphani

Re: git -> cvs (was: Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers (see note about xinetd))

Hi, Sérgio Basto wrote: > Like tftp we may replace xinetd by systemd service files [1] , > if we replace cvs-inetd by a systemd service, the problem is solved. > > [1] > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tftp/c/15a26fcde8a0078766b6bbba183d89f920e51535?branch=master The cvs package has suppo

Re: git -> cvs (was: Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers (see note about xinetd))

Hi, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 11:17:38AM -0500, Todd Zullinger wrote: >> The cvs and cvsps BR's are for the test suite, since we >> prefer to use the comprehensive test suite that git >> includes. So dropping those BR's is not a useful op

Re: git -> cvs (was: Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers (see note about xinetd))

Hi, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 12:09:00PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: >> rjones: xinetd, numad > > Your "packager dashboard"[1] which I found for the first time today is > very useful! > > Turns out the problem for my package is this weird ol' dependency chain: > > coc

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers (see note about xinetd)

Michael J Gruber wrote: >> = NOTE about xinetd = >> >> Many packagers are listed as affected by xinetd. The dependency chain is: >> >> cvs (kasal, ppisar) >> cvs-inetd.noarch requires xinetd >> >> git (amahdal, besser82, chrisw, pcahyna, pstodulk, skisela, tmz) >>

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make nano the default editor

I wrote: > Zdenek Dohnal wrote: >> CCing Git maintainer to see whether it can be implemented or not. I somehow forgot to say that I'm just one of several maintainers for the git package. :) I've Cc'd the git-maintainers alias to include the other folks. -- Todd signature.asc Description: PGP

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make nano the default editor

Hi, Zdenek Dohnal wrote: > To be honest, I'm sad about the change. It is just a default though, and I'll certainly change it on my systems. But like many others, I too can still recall (decades ago) being dumped into vi and having no clue how to do anything -- including just exiting. > I'm not

Re: Transitioning scripts relying on libcgroup-tools to the cgroup’s unified hierarchy (v2)

Hi, E.N. virgo wrote: >> Why are replying from there instead of using your email client normally? > I set this list to send digests instead of individual messages; > so, I was using other means to get to the in-reply-to field. If you're using the "Plain Text Digests" delivery mode, you might try

Re: [External] Re: Fedora+Lenovo

Markus Larsson wrote: > While I'm fine with spending 2500€ of company money on a > work machine, I'm rather hesitant to spend that kind of > money on laptops for the kids :) Isn't that where some good, old-fashioned nepotism comes in? The kids get a title, a valuable first entry on their CV, and a

Re: git-core deps under f32

I wrote: > clime wrote: >> It seems the f32's git-core got many more deps for some reason, even >> such as dbus-broker or systemd. [...] > I'll try to poke a bit in the next few days as I can make > some time. I had not noticed the inflated depchain. Thank > you for pointing it out. I was curiou

Re: git-core deps under f32

Hi, clime wrote: > Hello, > > I very much appreciate the git-core package but there seems to be some > change under f32 which makes it download many more deps during > installation. > > This is f32: > > $ mock -r fedora-32-x86_64 install git-core > ... > = > Package > ==

Re: rubygem-asciidoctor Fedora 31 update

Hi Ivan. Ivan Chavero wrote: > Are there any plans to upgrade the spec file of rubygem-asciidoctor for > Fedora 31 to the 2.0.10 version? Unfortunately, I don't think it would be an appropriate update for Fedora 31. And update from 1.5.6 to 2.0.10 would cause some package builds to break and tha

Re: F32 (gcc) compiler cannot create executables due to annobin

Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 11:54:54PM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski > wrote: >>> Known issue? >> >> The above was with gcc-10.0.1-0.9.fc32 and annobin-9.06-1.fc32. >> >> Looks like it was fixed in the meantime as another build gets >> gcc-10.0.1-0.8.fc32 and the same

Re: How to reuild wdune ?

Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Mon, Dec 23, 2019, 17:45 J. Scheurich wrote: >> $ git commit >> error: gpg failed to sign the data >> fatal: failed to write commit object >> >> Same problem 8-( >> > Looks like you have the option to sign your git commits turned on globally, > probably in ~/.gitconfig

Re: Trouble with install ordering and SELinux config

Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 2:21 AM Orion Poplawski wrote: >> >> On 11/1/19 1:47 PM, Daniel Walsh wrote: >>> Flat pack should be doing a requires(post): selinux-policy-base >>> >>> To make sure it is installed before flatpack. >> >> Thanks. The proper incantation actually th

Re: HEADS-UP: Asciidoctor 2.0.10

Hi, I wrote: > I'm planning to push asciidoctor-2.0.10 to rawhide in the > next few days. This has now been built and should show up in the next rawhide compose. > This is a major bump from our current 1.5.8, but upstream > has worked hard to fix regressions found since the initial > 2.0.0 relea

Re: HEADS-UP: Asciidoctor 2.0.10

Hi Fabio, Fabio Valentini wrote: > I'm the maintainer of rubygem-jekyll-asciidoc, and I think there > shouldn't be issues with it when updating rubygem-asciidoctor. > The Jekyll AsciiDoc plugin is published by the asciidoctor project > themselves, so I just hope they know what they're doing :) He

Re: HEADS-UP: Asciidoctor 2.0.10

Hi Robert-André, Robert-André Mauchin wrote: > Using Igor's whatrequires script > (https://gist.github.com/ignatenkobrain/a2b21a4db497a2a4b441e3957fcc8483), we > get: Nice. I didn't know about that one either. > PACKAGE DEPENDENT >

Re: HEADS-UP: Asciidoctor 2.0.10

Hi Miro, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 25. 09. 19 17:10, Todd Zullinger wrote: >> dnf repoquery -q --qf '%{name}' --archlist=src --releasever=rawhide \ >> --disablerepo='*' --enablerepo=rawhide-source \ >> --whatrequires asciidoctor --whatrequire

Re: HEADS-UP: Asciidoctor 2.0.10

Hi Vit, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Dne 24. 09. 19 v 17:47 Todd Zullinger napsal(a): >> These srpm's require asciidoctor or rubygems-asciidoctor: >> >> awesome >> booth >> hugo >> ipmctl >> js8call >> mod_auth_mell

HEADS-UP: Asciidoctor 2.0.10

Hi all, I'm planning to push asciidoctor-2.0.10 to rawhide in the next few days. This is a major bump from our current 1.5.8, but upstream has worked hard to fix regressions found since the initial 2.0.0 release back in March. The 2.0.0 release notes can be found at: https://github.com/asci

Re: Over 500 orphaned packages seeking new maintainers

Miro Hrončok wrote: > Note that jgit is not (yet) orphaned nor retired, and its dependencies might > be picked up by somebody. I suggest to remove the dep in rawhide temporarily > (to make the next weeks reports more readable and shorter to calculate (the > present one took 2 days)). Once the dust

Re: Over 500 orphaned packages seeking new maintainers

Hi, Pavel Cahyna wrote: > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 12:59:22PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: >> On 29. 07. 19 12:37, Miro Hrončok wrote: >>> The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they >>> are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure >>> that the pa

Re: Can we use SCLs for building for EPEL 6?

Neal Gompa wrote: > If devtoolset is available for EPEL6 (which I think it is?) I don't believe devtoolset was enabled for el6 in koji. When it was added to the mock configs for el6/el7, the consensus on the epel list was that it would be added to el6 if there was sufficient demand. I've only see

Re: Could not execute import_srpm

Antonio Trande wrote: > On 09/04/19 22:29, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >> Can any of you folks seeing this: >> >> Run this script: >> https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/tWt5LBT13-~d22wBpo38uQ/raw >> >> and send me the output? > > Sorry, > > how this script works? You can download the script (using P

Re: Orphaned packages to be retired (Java packages in 3 weeks)

Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:38:47AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: >> rjones: apache-ivy, maven-jar-plugin, maven-javadoc-plugin, gradle, >> xmvn, plexus-utils > > I'm unclear what if anything I could do (apart from maintaining loads > of Java packages which isn't going to h

Re: question on spec file for building rpm with source file that includes python and C code

Hi, Globe Trotter wrote: > Thanks, and that takes care of it. Glad that helped. > Thanks also for letting me know of preferred options. I am > quite new to this and so any advice is always helpful. > > I will see if the copr maintainer wants to host my build. > fetchmail 7.0.0 alpha has suppo

Re: question on spec file for building rpm with source file that includes python and C code

Hi, Globe Trotter wrote: > Here is my fetchmail.spec: [...] > %build > autoreconf -if > %configure PYTHON-: --enable-POP3 --enable-IMAP [...] You want "PYTHON=:", not "PYTHON-:". The goal is to set the PYTHON variable. I tend to put such definitions before the configure call, e.g.: %build

Re: question on spec file for building rpm with source file that includes python and C code

Hi, [BTW, something is wrong with your mail client's quoting. It is very hard to read your replies when your reply and the text to which you are replying to are at the same quote level.] Globe Trotter wrote: > Thanks! I see. Actually, I am not that keen on packaging > fetchmailconf. I think that

Re: /usr/bin/ld is broken in rawhide

Orion Poplawski wrote: > With current koji buildroot I end up with: > > + ls -l /usr/bin/ld /usr/bin/ld.bfd /usr/bin/ld.gold /usr/bin/ldd > --w---. 1 root root 3814880 Feb 27 04:00 /usr/bin/ld > -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 1841608 Feb 26 15:02 /usr/bin/ld.bfd > -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 3814880 Feb

Re: Fedora 30 Mass Branching

Hi, Mohan Boddu wrote: > Fedora 30 has now been branched, Thanks, to you and the releng team. :) > please be sure to do a git pull --rebase to pick up the > new branch A simple 'git fetch' should suffice to pick up the f30 branch. Depending on the state of one's repository, the 'git pull --reb

Re: RFE: fedpkgdiff?

Hi, Richard Shaw wrote: > Out of curiosity I took a look at abipkgdiff that's provided by the > libabigail package and it's a python wrapper around abipkgdiff. I'm a > little rusty on Python but I could probably use that as a very nice > starting point... > > The next question is what package wou

Re: Can we please stop enforcing Signed-off-by commits?

Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 11:18 AM John Harris wrote: >> >> On Friday, January 18, 2019 8:14:32 AM EST Stephen Gallagher wrote: >>> Note: Adding the Signed-off-by: line to a patch should be a conscious >>> act and means that you certify you have the rights to submit this w

Re: mass-removal of LANG=anything-not-C.UTF-8 in packages

Hi Zbigniew, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > I'll do a mass update to use C.UTF-8 for the packages in the list that > follows, next week. I'll do test builds locally, and I'll only push to > dist-git if the local builds succeed. Let me know if you want your > package to be excluded. > git

Re: Cannot find -latomic when building for epel7 aarch64

Sérgio Basto wrote: > I had checked mock-core-config [1] , which are in use in copr (I guess) > and can't enable developer tools . > But on koji runs well , can you review this ? please . > > I could build azureus [4] on koji [2] which need eclipse-swt , but not > on copr `Error: No Package found

Re: Cannot find -latomic when building for epel7 aarch64

Jonathan Dieter wrote: > On Fri, 2018-10-19 at 21:37 -0700, Josh Stone wrote: >> On 10/19/18 6:19 PM, Robert-André Mauchin wrote: >>> On samedi 20 octobre 2018 00:31:50 CEST Jonathan Dieter wrote: I'm trying to build duperemove[1] for epel7[2], and it's building on all the arches except a

Re: Fedora should replace mailing lists with Discourse

Máirín Duffy wrote: > So our Hyperkitty version is old here. I can't reporduce the issue on > mailman3.org's HK, which is newer. I suspect this is a bug that's been fixed. Indeed it was. An infrastructure ticket was filed ~7 months back¹ and the issue was addressed upstream in 7558682 ("Fix quot

Re: Fedora Packaging Guidelines on docs.fedoraproject.org

Brian (bex) Exelbierd wrote: > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 11:03 PM Björn Persson wrote: > >> Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >>> Indeed, asciidoctor works a bit better than asciidoc does but still >>> converts quickly. It's actually in the "rubygem-asciidoctor" package. >> >> Maybe I'll try that next t

Re: many legit devel@ emails marked as spam by gmail (dmarc reject)

Hi, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Todd Zullinger: > >> On the users list we enabled Mailman's DMARC mitigations >> several months ago. That has allowed posts from users >> @yahoo and other domains with strict DMARC settings to reach >> list subscribers @gmail

Re: many legit devel@ emails marked as spam by gmail (dmarc reject)

Chris Murphy wrote: > Semi-related to the "Attention Gmail users, please turn off HTML" > thread; anyone *not* using gmail (e.g. all Yahoo email users) are > having their emails put into spam by google mail. > > >>This message has a from address in yahoo.co.uk but has failed yahoo.co.uk's >>requ

Re: Linking commits to builds on dist-git

Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:27:43AM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 10:16:13AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: >>> ability to write to git, but there are a variety of ways to deal with that. >> >> I'm pretty sure we used to do this at one poi

Re: /results_* and /*.rpm in .gitignore (was: Source tarballs are being placed in git?)

Tim Landscheidt wrote: > Todd Zullinger wrote: > >> […] > >> For example, the rpmlint's .gitignore contains the >> following¹: > >> /*.rpm >> /results_rpmlint/ >> /rpmlint-*/ >> /rpmlint-*.tar.gz > >> […] > > Apropo

Re: Source tarballs are being placed in git?

Thomas Moschny wrote: > 2018-07-24 20:28 GMT+02:00 Todd Zullinger : >> Years >> ago, I submitted a patch to fedpkg/rpkg to have it resepct >> the existing .gitignore, such that if you have a pattern >> which matches the source being added, fedpkg won't add >>

Re: Source tarballs are being placed in git?

Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:32:45PM -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote: >> Artur Iwicki wrote: >>> That section of the guide is a bit poorly worded. You should *not* use "git >>> add" on source tarballs. These should be added only via mea

Re: Source tarballs are being placed in git?

Artur Iwicki wrote: > That section of the guide is a bit poorly worded. You should *not* use "git > add" on source tarballs. These should be added only via means of "fedpkg > new-sources $FILES; git add ./sources". I believe what the guide means under > "new source files" is e.g. when upstream d

Re: Packages which needlessly use %defattr

Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Wed, 04 Jul 2018 12:18:00 +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: >> What about just doing a mass specfile update now? I think asking >> individual maintainers to fix their packages isn't worth their >> time. It's a safe change, > > Is it? I haven't found whether this

Re: Heads up: Python 3.7 rebuild in progress

Miro Hrončok wrote: > We have 170 packages with blocked dependencies. > We also have 176 packages that fail to build from source (+ ~10 more that > are being handled). > > I need your help, I cannot possibly fix 178 packages. > > I've opened bugzillas for some, but let me ask you via e-mail befor

Re: How to make DNS resolving fail early in mock?

I wrote: > It should be possible to manually override the resolv.conf > now by bind mounting an empty file on /etc/resolv.conf in > the chroot. I've been meaning to play with this, but have > not made time to do it until just now. > > I thought something like this would work: > > touch /etc/mock

Re: How to make DNS resolving fail early in mock?

Miro Hrončok wrote: > Hi, since our Koji builds have disabled internet access, I want to do the > same, so I have more Koji consistent builds. > > I have the following in /etc/mock/site-defaults.cfg: > > config_opts['use_host_resolv'] = True # or False, no difference > config_opts['rpmbu

Re: Fedora Workstation and Third-Party Repositories

Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On 04/27/2018 05:39 PM, David Benoit wrote: >> Ah, I did not realize the repositories were disabled in the rpm. Would it >> be appropriate for me to update this >> >> page to mention that under the

Re: DNF producing nonsense results (and a bogus F28 updates compose?)

Coge Micro wrote: > It should be working fine already. I had same issues, but it seems fine > already and "dnf upgrade" passes without warnings. You're just hitting a stale mirror. :) The perl update which vim-enhanced and vim-X11 require is still in testing: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/

Re: Fw: fedmsg notification

Hi Pierre, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 01:28:02PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski > wrote: >> On Monday, 09 April 2018 at 13:20, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: >> [...] >>> Finally the reason this has not been correctly announced is that we are >>> still >>> investigatin

Re: [EPEL-devel] Re: Ansible in EL7

James Hogarth wrote: > On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, 00:59 Todd Zullinger, wrote: >> Red Hat announced today that Ansible was being deprecated >> from the extras channel. Their advice is that those who >> have "previously installed Ansible and its dependencies from >> t

Re: [EPEL-devel] Ansible in EL7

James Hogarth wrote: > I was under the impression that as of 2.4.0 in EL7 we removed ansible > from EPEL7 since Red Hat included it in their extras repo, and EPEL > policy is not to conflict. > > I was surprised just now to see ansible 2.5.0 on a test centos system, > when it wasn't in extras, and

Re: release-monitoring is telling me it has noticed (new) ceph-13.0.x

Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote: > according to https://release-monitoring.org/project/267/ > > But the Homepage: in the above and the Source: in the .spec would seem > to be saying that http://download.ceph.com/tarballs/ is where > the-new-hotness is looking. If you pull up the 'Edit' page you can check

Re: Fedora mass rebuild 2018

Paul Howarth wrote: > On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 15:04:44 + > Tom Hughes wrote: > >> On 23/02/18 14:33, Paul Howarth wrote: >>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 18:49:02 +0100 >>> Marek Polacek wrote: proftpd: timeouts in tests, but in koji it's fine >>> >>> I get this too. If I build with mock -

Re: Fedora mass rebuild 2018

Tom Hughes wrote: > On 23/02/18 14:33, Paul Howarth wrote: >> On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 18:49:02 +0100 >> Marek Polacek wrote: >>> proftpd: timeouts in tests, but in koji it's fine >> >> I get this too. If I build with mock --old-chroot then it works fine. > > So the obvious difference is that mo

  1   2   >