Hi,
clipgrab fails to compile on rawhide with this error message [1]:
/libQt5Network.so /usr/lib64/libQt5Xml.so /usr/lib64/libQt5Positioning.so
/usr/lib64/libQt5Core.so -lGL -lpthread
/usr/bin/ld: warning: libsmime3.so, needed by
/usr/lib64/libQt5WebEngineCore.so, not found (try using -rpath
On Friday, 18 December 2020, Tom Stellard wrote:
> On 12/17/20 11:05 AM, Ben Cotton wrote:
>
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Enable_Spec_File_Preprocessing
>>
>>
>> == Summary ==
>> This change should enable an opt-in spec file preprocessor in Fedora
>> infrastructure for the benefit of
Am 17.12.20 um 17:12 schrieb Tom Callaway:
Okay, this one has me stumped. Any chromium package I build through
rawhide refuses to render most of the strings.
Afaik chromium can't access libva anymore. On the pinephone, where i
noticed this bug, it said so itself.
Best regards,
Marius
Hi, sorry for posting here if this is not correct.
I'm upgraing a f32 cloud edition to f33 and I found this problem which
I can't solve:
$ sudo dnf system-upgrade --releasever 33 --skip-broken --allowerasing -vvv
download
I get this response:
Error:
Problem: conflicting requests
- package c
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64), 1/7 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-32-20201217.0):
ID: 743480 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
On 12/18/20 1:19 AM, clime wrote:
I'd very much like to understand the impact of this on the following:
1) Provenpackagers doing mass spec changes/updates.
If the mass spec change/update doesn't involve an rpkg macro, then
there is no difference.
I don't understand how there is no difference
On 12/18/20 12:57 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 12:24:10AM +0100, clime wrote:
It would be possible to specify the spec template as an rpm Source so
it would get included into the resulting srpm as well.
Yeah I was thinking the spec file templating system could automaticall
It's a problem (undefined references) inside the 'qt5-qtwebengine' package.
On 18/12/20 10:01, Martin Gansser wrote:
Hi,
clipgrab fails to compile on rawhide with this error message [1]:
/libQt5Network.so /usr/lib64/libQt5Xml.so /usr/lib64/libQt5Positioning.so
/usr/lib64/libQt5Core.so -lGL -l
Dne pá 18. 12. 2020 10:52 dop. uživatel Miro Hrončok
napsal:
> On 12/18/20 1:19 AM, clime wrote:
> >> I'd very much like to understand the impact of this on the following:
> >>
> >>
> >> 1) Provenpackagers doing mass spec changes/updates.
> > If the mass spec change/update doesn't involve an rpkg
On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 4:07 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-12-17 at 07:32 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
>
> I'm working on building the new openexr package but the unit tests are
> failing but just on aarch64 and s390x.
>
>
> Since is testing building, wh not mock with forcearch [1] ?
>
We
Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event
for Fedora 34 Rawhide 20201218.n.0. Please help run some tests for this
nightly compose if you have time. For more information on nightly
release validation testing, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki
On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 12:04:29PM +0100, Antonio T. sagitter wrote:
> It's a problem (undefined references) inside the 'qt5-qtwebengine' package.
>
> On 18/12/20 10:01, Martin Gansser wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >clipgrab fails to compile on rawhide with this error message [1]:
> >
> >/libQt5Network.so /
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20201217.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20201218.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 4
Added packages: 2
Dropped packages:2
Upgraded packages: 76
Downgraded packages: 1
Size of added packages: 2.92 MiB
Size of dropped packages:4.33
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 2:45 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 12/9/20 7:44 PM, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > == Scope ==
> > * Proposal owners:
> > We will go through the Fedora release and determine what nodejs
> > packages Fedora should package. We will implement nodejs library
> > bundling on those we alr
On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 11:17:21 -0800
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> If you upgrade in f33 or rawhide to nss 3.59, all your firefox add-ons
> will stop working. Worse they will appear corrupted, so you will have
> to remove them and re-install them (after downgrading nss).
>
> For now, downgrade nss or avoi
On 18/12/2020 14:33, James Szinger wrote:
I see nss.x86_64 3.59.0-3.fc33 in today’s updates. Is this fixed or
are there going to be a lot of unhappy Firefox users? The bug is
still open.
From https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1658942:
* Tue Dec 15 2020 Bob Relyea - 3.59
On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 03:04:01 +0100
clime wrote:
> I wouldn't call it "deprecating rpmbuild". That's certainly not at all
> my intention.
>
> As a side-point, I think the cases where bare rpmbuild is used to
> build an rpm/srpm from a dist-git repo are rather limited because you
> probably need t
many thanks for your workaround.
Regards
Martin
___
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-condu
Missing expected images:
Iot dvd x86_64
Iot dvd aarch64
Failed openQA tests: 7/15 (aarch64), 1/16 (x86_64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-IoT-34-20201217.0):
ID: 743831 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_zezere_server@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/743831
On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 00:51:49 +0100
clime wrote:
> Well, the users here are still packagers here no? I thought the "User"
> in the title means "end user" who shouldn't be affected by it. Maybe
> Ben can clarify this.
I am making a distinction between Fedora packagers who use the Fedora
infrastruc
Missing expected images:
Xfce raw-xz armhfp
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
1 of 43 required tests failed
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
below
Failed openQA tests: 11/180 (x86_64), 15/122 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in
On 11/30/20 2:06 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
Hi,
As part of the f34 change request[1] for removing make from the
buildroot, I will be doing a mass update of packages[2] to add
BuildRequires: make where it is needed.
If you are a package maintainer and would prefer to update your packages
on you
On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 at 16:23, James Szinger wrote:
>
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 00:51:49 +0100
> clime wrote:
>
> > Well, the users here are still packagers here no? I thought the "User"
> > in the title means "end user" who shouldn't be affected by it. Maybe
> > Ben can clarify this.
>
> I am making
On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 at 15:53, James Szinger wrote:
>
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 03:04:01 +0100
> clime wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't call it "deprecating rpmbuild". That's certainly not at all
> > my intention.
> >
> > As a side-point, I think the cases where bare rpmbuild is used to
> > build an rpm/srpm f
On Fri, 2020-12-18 at 07:33 -0700, James Szinger wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 11:17:21 -0800
> Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> > If you upgrade in f33 or rawhide to nss 3.59, all your firefox add-ons
> > will stop working. Worse they will appear corrupted, so you will have
> > to remove them and re-instal
On 12/18/20 3:52 PM, James Szinger wrote:
No. One can also download the sources from upstream using spectool or
similar, even wget or curl. My local work flow is typically get or
create spec file and patches, spectool -g, rpmbuild -bs, mock.
Unrelated to the topic at hand, but why do people
Hello,
On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 5:53 PM Robert-André Mauchin wrote:
>
> On 12/18/20 3:52 PM, James Szinger wrote:
> >
> > No. One can also download the sources from upstream using spectool or
> > similar, even wget or curl. My local work flow is typically get or
> > create spec file and patches,
Robert-André Mauchin writes:
> On 12/18/20 3:52 PM, James Szinger wrote:
>>
>> No. One can also download the sources from upstream using spectool or
>> similar, even wget or curl. My local work flow is typically get or
>> create spec file and patches, spectool -g, rpmbuild -bs, mock.
>>
>
> U
On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 at 18:20, Robbie Harwood wrote:
>
> Robert-André Mauchin writes:
>
> > On 12/18/20 3:52 PM, James Szinger wrote:
> >>
> >> No. One can also download the sources from upstream using spectool or
> >> similar, even wget or curl. My local work flow is typically get or
> >> creat
On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 10:25:30 +0100
Guido Aulisi wrote:
> Hi, sorry for posting here if this is not correct.
Probably more appropriate for the user list.
> I'm upgraing a f32 cloud edition to f33 and I found this problem which
> I can't solve:
>
> $ sudo dnf system-upgrade --releasever 33 --ski
clime writes:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 at 18:20, Robbie Harwood wrote:
>>
>> Robert-André Mauchin writes:
>>
>> > On 12/18/20 3:52 PM, James Szinger wrote:
>> >>
>> >> No. One can also download the sources from upstream using spectool or
>> >> similar, even wget or curl. My local work flow is ty
Il giorno ven, 18/12/2020 alle 10.33 -0700, stan via devel ha scritto:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 10:25:30 +0100
> Guido Aulisi wrote:
>
> > Hi, sorry for posting here if this is not correct.
>
> Probably more appropriate for the user list.
Yes, but I found an issue regarding this list:
Package hwda
Am 18.12.20 um 20:37 schrieb Guido Aulisi:
Yes, but I found an issue regarding this list:
Package hwdata in F32 is newer than the one in F33.
hwdata-0.342-1.fc32 | hwdata-0.341-1.fc33
This happens with different packages from time to time and is nothing
special.
Try this for your upgrade a
Il giorno ven, 18/12/2020 alle 22.42 +0100, Marius Schwarz ha scritto:
> Am 18.12.20 um 20:37 schrieb Guido Aulisi:
> >
> > Yes, but I found an issue regarding this list:
> > Package hwdata in F32 is newer than the one in F33.
> >
> > hwdata-0.342-1.fc32 | hwdata-0.341-1.fc33
>
> This happens wi
On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 9:32 AM Troy Dawson wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 3:18 AM Till Maas wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > this does not seem to be self-contained, since it seems to affect people
> > outside the SIG (it states that this is also affecting packages that are
> > not owned by the SI
On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 2:19 PM Troy Dawson wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 3:52 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >
> > On 12/9/20 7:44 PM, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NodejsLibrariesBundleByDefault
> > >
> > > ...
> > > * Policies and guidelines: N/A (not a System Wi
On 2020-12-18 11:13 a.m., Robbie Harwood wrote:
clime writes:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 at 18:20, Robbie Harwood wrote:
Robert-André Mauchin writes:
On 12/18/20 3:52 PM, James Szinger wrote:
No. One can also download the sources from upstream using spectool or
similar, even wget or curl. My
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64), 1/7 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-33-20201218.0):
ID: 744289 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
38 matches
Mail list logo
