Fedora-Cloud-33-20210721.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-33-20210720.0): ID: 932436 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://op

Fedora-Cloud-34-20210721.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-34-20210720.0): ID: 932452 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://op

[Test-Announce] Fedora 35 Rawhide 20210721.n.0 nightly compose nominated for testing

Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event for Fedora 35 Rawhide 20210721.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

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20210721.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20210719.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20210721.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:3 Dropped images: 3 Added packages: 11 Dropped packages:1 Upgraded packages: 216 Downgraded packages: 3 Size of added packages: 6.02 MiB Size of dropped packages

Re: Fedora 35 Mass Rebuild

Send updated notification with fixed links. BTW the links became active once the mass rebuild was started. 21.7 10:00 UTC On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 6:24 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek < zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 06:02:38PM +0200, Tomas Hrcka wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Per

Re: Fedora 35 Mass Rebuild

Can the packagers fix the failures in the f35-rebuild side tag by themselves > while the rebuild is in progress, or do they have to wait on merging the > tag? > > So I am unable to find any policy on this. But assuming that the mass rebuilds bump spec, the packager should be fine with creating a ne

Fedora-IoT-35-20210721.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 2/16 (x86_64), 3/15 (aarch64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-IoT-35-20210719.0): ID: 932838 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_zezere_server URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/932838 ID: 932840 Test: x86_64 IoT-dv

Fedora-Rawhide-20210721.n.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check! 1 of 43 required tests failed, 4 results missing openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING** below Failed openQA tests: 3/199 (x86_64), 10/138 (aarch64) New failures (same test not failed in

Fedora 35 Mass Rebuild update

Hi all, Per the Fedora 35 schedule[1] we will start a mass rebuild for Fedora 35 on Jul 21st, 2021. We will run a mass rebuild for Fedora 35 for the changes listed in: https://pagure.io/releng/issues?status=Open&tags=mass+rebuild The mass rebuild will be done in a side tag (f35-rebuild) and move

Fedora Zuul had been integrated with Testing Farm and TMT

Dear all, Today we are gladly announcing that the Zuul CI system for Fedora, which is running checks for pull requests against src.fedoraproject.org, will also run Test Management Tool (tmt) based tests via the new `rpm-tmt-test` check, if they are available. The test environment is the same as wi

Re: Fedora 35 Mass Rebuild update

On Wed, 21 Jul 2021, Tomas Hrcka wrote: Hi all, Per the Fedora 35 schedule[1] we will start a mass rebuild for Fedora 35 on Jul 21st, 2021. We will run a mass rebuild for Fedora 35 for the changes listed in: https://pagure.io/releng/issues?status=Open&tags=mass+rebuild The mass rebuild will b

Re: Fedora 35 Mass Rebuild update

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 9:01 AM Scott Talbert wrote: > It doesn't look like the mass rebuild is committing any changelog changes > to the specfiles it's rebuilding. Is that expected? In fact, the ones I've looked at are empty commits. There is a commit message, but no changes of any kind to the

Re: Fedora 35 Mass Rebuild update

On 21/07/2021 17:15, Jerry James wrote: In fact, the ones I've looked at are empty commits. There is a commit message, but no changes of any kind to the spec file: no release bump, no changelog entry. Yes, I can confirm[1]: Authored and Committed by releng 3 hours ago 0 file changed. 0 lines

Re: Fedora 35 Mass Rebuild update

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 9:30 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > On 21/07/2021 17:15, Jerry James wrote: > > In fact, the ones I've looked at are empty commits. There is a commit > > message, but no changes of any kind to the spec file: no release bump, > > no changelog entry. > > Yes, I can con

Re: Fedora 35 Mass Rebuild update

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 09:35:37AM -0600, Jerry James wrote: > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 9:30 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel > wrote: > > On 21/07/2021 17:15, Jerry James wrote: > > > In fact, the ones I've looked at are empty commits. There is a commit > > > message, but no changes of any kind to the

Re: Fedora 35 Mass Rebuild update

Hi all, sorry for the empty commit messages, we have migrated the script from fedpkg to plain git command to allows empty commits for rmpautospec enabled packages. The bug is now fixed and the script re-run, some packages will have one empty commit followed by the actual mass rebuild commit. Sorr

/usr/share/appdata vs /usr/share/metainfo

Hello, I was packaging a new application when I noticed that it installed its AppData file in `/usr/share/appdata`, instead of `%{metainfodir}`: `/usr/share/metainfo`. Never noticing the distinction before, I use dnf and find several other packages installing files there. Interestingly, the `

Re: /usr/share/appdata vs /usr/share/metainfo

On 21/07/2021 19:49, Lyes Saadi wrote: Ironically, I found some `.metainfo.xml` in `/usr/share/appdata` and some `.appdata.xml` in `/usr/share/metainfo`. /usr/share/metainfo - modern directory for the metainfo files. /usr/share/appdata - legacy, for compatibility purposes. New/updated packages

Re: F35 Change: Filtered Flathub Applications (System-Wide Change proposal)

Matt, You're correct, I was being very dramatic. I've since talked to Otaylor, and the only real problem is that the announcement of this change is misleading. Fedora isn't "filtering" anything, you're adding Flathub packages in a place they weren't available before. The announcement reads l

rpm-ostree cliwrap effort

I was originally thinking of this as a Change, but since it won't be enabled by default, and I think it's most useful to gather feedback from this group first: See https://coreos.github.io/rpm-ostree/cliwrap/ This is available since https://github.com/coreos/rpm-ostree/releases/tag/v2021.6 But

rpm-ostree and ostree-ext: supporting booting containers directly

Hi, this is to raise awareness of an effort we're driving from the Fedora CoreOS side here: "ship quay.io/coreos/fedora-coreos" at https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/812 Which builds on a bidirectional bridge between ostree and container images that lives here: https://gith

Re: glibc 2.34 vs firefox in rawhide vs mass build rebuild

* Florian Weimer: > Firefox in rawhide hasn't been built successfully since > firefox-89.0-1.fc35 (built 2021-06-02). Unfortunately that version does > not treat the clone3 system call correctly in its sandbox, so it won't > work with future glibc 2.34 snapshots. > > I fixed the issues to get fir

Re: Fedora 35 Mass Rebuild

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 01:52:26PM +0200, Tomas Hrcka wrote: > > > Can the packagers fix the failures in the f35-rebuild side tag by > themselves > while the rebuild is in progress, or do they have to wait on merging the > tag? > > > > So I am unable to find any policy on this.

Re: Java packaging issue on EPEL7

On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 7:24 AM Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 06:29 Vitaly Zaitsev via devel > wrote: >> >> On 20/07/2021 11:18, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: >> > You're violating the bundling and naming practices that EPEL and >> > Fedora have used for years, especially th

Re: Fedora Zuul had been integrated with Testing Farm and TMT

On 21. 07. 21 15:04, Miroslav Vadkerti wrote: Dear all, Today we are gladly announcing that the Zuul CI system for Fedora, which is running checks for pull requests against src.fedoraproject.org , will also run Test Management Tool (tmt) based tests via the new `

Re: Fedora Zuul had been integrated with Testing Farm and TMT

Hi Miro, yeah, this slipped through with the initial review. Was a Zuul misconfiguration: https://pagure.io/fedora-zuul-jobs-config/pull-request/129# Fabien fixed this 3 hours ago. It should be better on `recheck`. Trying now ... Best regards, /M On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 12:49 AM Miro Hrončok

Re: Fedora Zuul had been integrated with Testing Farm and TMT

On 22. 07. 21 1:02, Miroslav Vadkerti wrote: Hi Miro, yeah, this slipped through with the initial review. Was a Zuul misconfiguration: https://pagure.io/fedora-zuul-jobs-config/pull-request/129# Fabien fixed this 3 hours ago. It

Re: Fedora Zuul had been integrated with Testing Farm and TMT

FTR verified, when TMT is not around, it is now skipped: https://fedora.softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/status/change/189,a906cee4eafd4a13c699b8964a1a69f6acdd03c9 On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 1:04 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 22. 07. 21 1:02, Miroslav Vadkerti wrote: > > Hi Miro, > > > > yeah, this s

Re: Fedora 35 Mass Rebuild

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 3:53 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 01:52:26PM +0200, Tomas Hrcka wrote: > > > > > > Can the packagers fix the failures in the f35-rebuild side tag by > > themselves > > while the rebuild is in progress, or do they have to wait on mergi

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2021-07-22 16:00 UTC)

 Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2021-07-22 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.libera.chat.  Local time information (via. uitime): = Day: Thursday == 2021-07-22 09:00 PDT US/Pacific 2021-07-22 12

Re: Java packaging issue on EPEL7

On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 7:31 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > Hello. > > Found a strange RPM autodeps issue, related to Java packaging, only on > EPEL7. > > EPEL7 package contains additional auto-detected strict dependencies: > osgi(com.github.jnr.jffi) and osgi(com.sun.jna). That's why the

Re: guile22 -> gnutls -> lots of virt packages

On July 7, 2021 9:14:34 PM UTC, "Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek" wrote: >On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 06:21:08PM +0200, Petr Menšík wrote: >> What would be considered sufficient research about usage of guile? If >> package provides it as optional feature among many other features, >how >> should packag