Il 01/06/21 21:57, Eike Rathke ha scritto:
> Hi Kamil,
>
> On Tuesday, 2021-06-01 10:38:40 +0200, Kamil Paral wrote:
>
>> I'd still prefer if I didn't have to register an IRC nick and didn't need
>> to communicate with Appservice and NickServ (I just wish to forget about
>> IRC completely), hopeful
Hi,
On 6/2/21 12:47 AM, François Cami wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:36 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 4:34 PM Otto Urpelainen wrote:
>>>
>>> Hans de Goede kirjoitti 1.6.2021 klo 21.02:
Hi,
On 6/1/21 6:20 PM, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> Hello all.
> Am 02.06.2021 um 03:09 schrieb Michel Alexandre Salim via devel
> :
>
> On Mon, 2021-05-31 at 15:19 +0200, Peter Boy wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Am 28.05.2021 um 23:08 schrieb Chris Murphy <
>>> li...@colorremedies.com>:
>>>
……
>>>
>>> All I mean by this is to push back on the idea that the p
The students of subjects like Mathematics and Chemisty need to attend labs and
do some practical, and in doing so they are not able to spare time for writing
assignment. The students of science subjects need help for assignment writing
so they engage the firm called https://www.assignmentwriting
Adding broader audience:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cdparanoia/pull-request/4
Neither @pjones nor @ajax are responding.
Regards,
Jiri
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedor
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 6:53 AM Jiri Kucera wrote:
>
> Adding broader audience:
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cdparanoia/pull-request/4
>
> Neither @pjones nor @ajax are responding.
>
I'll deal with it.
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
_
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 6:54 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 6:53 AM Jiri Kucera wrote:
> >
> > Adding broader audience:
> > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cdparanoia/pull-request/4
> >
> > Neither @pjones nor @ajax are responding.
> >
>
> I'll deal with it.
>
This is done, a
Hi,
just a brief heads up notice. The openexr 3.0 will lend in Rawhide soon and
so all affected packagers [1] should prepare the fixes for this change. If
you can, use the COPR environment for testing your package with the new
openexr version.
You can expect an updated list of build statuses in C
On Monday, 17 May 2021 at 19:16, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 1:13 PM Matthew Miller
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 10:19:05AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > > ** Package [https://github.com/libsdl-org/sdl12-compat
> > > libsdl12-compat] ([https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_b
Thanks Neal!
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 1:06 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 6:54 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 6:53 AM Jiri Kucera wrote:
> > >
> > > Adding broader audience:
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cdparanoia/pull-request/4
> > >
> > > Neither @pj
I believe this patch is not correct.
"The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the *binary*
rpm."
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/
In the README file there is writted: "cdparanoia (the command line tool) is
released under the GPLv2
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 7:47 AM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
>
> On Monday, 17 May 2021 at 19:16, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 1:13 PM Matthew Miller
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 10:19:05AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > > > ** Package [https://github.com
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 8:15 AM Andrea Musuruane wrote:
>
> I believe this patch is not correct.
>
> "The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the binary rpm."
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/
>
> In the README file there is writte
>
> The issue here is that there's not a way to describe the SRPM license
> separate from the binary RPM license. So that information is important
> for SRPM distribution.
>
But Licensing Guidelines make clear that the License: field refers to the
binary packages not source ones.
BR,
Andrea
Will projects switch hosting?
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Fosshost-Freenode
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https
> So, it doesn't really matter if two source files are distributed under the
> GPLv2+ license.
> The resulting binary (i.e. /usr/bin/cdparanoia) will always be GPLv2.
> […]
> But Licensing Guidelines make clear that the License: field refers to the
> binary packages not source ones.
>
> BR,
>
>
Hi!
On Wednesday, 02 June 2021 at 14:16, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 7:47 AM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, 17 May 2021 at 19:16, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 1:13 PM Matthew Miller
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, May 17, 2021 a
I personally think the individual packages approach will be easier to maintain
in the long run. (If you do go down that road, I’m planning to help review
them.)
– Ben Beasley
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send a
On 6/2/21 9:07 AM, Benjamin Beasley wrote:
I personally think the individual packages approach will be easier to maintain
in the long run. (If you do go down that road, I’m planning to help review
them.)
I am leaning in that direction, too. Mohamed (the current maintainer)
and I (new co-main
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Sphinx4
== Summary ==
Sphinx 4, popular Python documentation generator and framework, has
been released in May 2021. It brings many bug fixes, new features
including breaking changes and removes long deprecated functions.
In Fedora 35 we will update
[https
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 10:30 AM Major Hayden wrote:
> On 6/2/21 9:07 AM, Benjamin Beasley wrote:
> > I personally think the individual packages approach will be easier to
> maintain in the long run. (If you do go down that road, I’m planning to
> help review them.)
>
> I am leaning in that direct
On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 01:31:15PM -, Benjamin Beasley wrote:
> > So, it doesn't really matter if two source files are distributed under the
> > GPLv2+ license.
> > The resulting binary (i.e. /usr/bin/cdparanoia) will always be GPLv2.
> > […]
> > But Licensing Guidelines make clear that the Li
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 11:41 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 01:31:15PM -, Benjamin Beasley wrote:
> > > So, it doesn't really matter if two source files are distributed under
> > > the GPLv2+ license.
> > > The resulting binary (i.e. /usr/bin/cdparanoia) wil
On 6/1/21 5:51 PM, Ron Olson wrote:
Hey all, I’m trying to build my package for EPEL and got a strange error
clang-11: error: argument unused during compilation:
'-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1'
[-Werror,-Wunused-command-line-argument]
clang-11: error: argument unused during co
Hello, everyone,
Please participate in the Annual Fedora Contributor Survey 2021!
* https://fedoraproject.limequery.com/2021
The survey is anonymous, it has 44 questions and It is targeting
Fedora contributors of all kinds and asks about your default choices
of applications and services.
At the
Hm, I do have %global toolchain clang set, which interestingly enough was not
picked up by the %cmake macro (thus my explicit setting of CXX and CC) so I
guess for the time being I’ll revert to manually building without the macros. :\
On 2 Jun 2021, at 10:51, Tom Stellard wrote:
> On 6/1/21 5:5
On 6/2/21 10:57 AM, Ron Olson wrote:
Hm, I do have %global toolchain clang set, which interestingly enough was not
picked up by the %cmake macro (thus my explicit setting of CXX and CC) so I
guess for the time being I’ll revert to manually building without the macros. :\
Can you show me your
https://github.com/tachoknight/libdispatch-packaging-fedora/blob/main/libdispatch.spec
On 2 Jun 2021, at 12:59, Tom Stellard wrote:
> On 6/2/21 10:57 AM, Ron Olson wrote:
>> Hm, I do have %global toolchain clang set, which interestingly enough was
>> not picked up by the %cmake macro (thus my
Hi,
On 6/1/21 10:33 PM, Otto Urpelainen wrote:
> Hans de Goede kirjoitti 1.6.2021 klo 21.02:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 6/1/21 6:20 PM, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
>>> Hello all.
>>>
>>> doxbox-staging is trying to overwrite the regular dosbox package:
>>>
>>> Installing:
>>> dosbox-staging
Am 02.06.21 um 17:42 schrieb Neal Gompa:
For what it's worth, I prefer the effective license approach too. I'm
just working with what people tell me. :(
If we just mention the source license(s) in the License tag this means it will
become harder to check if some software can depend on a speci
On 6/2/21 10:57 AM, Ron Olson wrote:
Hm, I do have %global toolchain clang set, which interestingly enough was not
picked up by the %cmake macro (thus my explicit setting of CXX and CC) so I
guess for the time being I’ll revert to manually building without the macros. :\
It looks to me like
NOTE: This is the first meeting we'll have on IRC.LIBERA.CHAT
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2021-06-03 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.libera.chat.
Local time information (via. uitime):
= Day: Thursday ==
Greetings everyone.
I'd like to let everyone know that koji.fedoraproject.org hubs have been
upgraded to 1.25.0 and all builders have been upgraded/reinstalled with
fedora 34.
As some of you may know, armv7 (32bit arm) builders were stuck on f32
last cycle when everything else moved to f33. This
I've orphaned luit. The only user of it was xterm and it recently dropped
support for luit so there are no users left. Whether there are *any* users
left is unclear too :)
The luit package we shipped is still the freedesktop.org one which has been
unmaintained for about a decade now. Upstream now
34 matches
Mail list logo
