Re: F36 Change: Golang 1.18 (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 3:14 PM Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 12:54 AM Ben Cotton wrote: > > > > Note that this replaces the approved Golang 1.17 Change > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/golang1.18 > > > > > > == Summary == > > Rebase of Golang package to upcoming

Re: About how Go is updated in Fedora

On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 5:01 AM Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 02:22:24PM +0100, Alejandro Saez Morollon wrote: > > A hypothetical new release cycle would look like this: > > > >- Fedora N release follows Go upstream as close as we can. > >- Fedora N-1 sticks with the lat

Fedora-Cloud-35-20211218.0 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-35-20211216.0): ID: 1089071 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://op

Is it possible to find out which packages were used when building the package?

Is it possible to find out which packages were used when building the package if the build logs are no longer there, and there are only two builded packages on hand (yesterday and today). This is necessary in order to understand why a package built from the same commit works differently. ___

Fedora-Cloud-34-20211218.0 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-34-20211217.0): ID: 1089087 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://op

Re: Is it possible to find out which packages were used when building the package?

On 18. 12. 21 10:22, Mikhail Gavrilov wrote: Is it possible to find out which packages were used when building the package if the build logs are no longer there, and there are only two builded packages on hand (yesterday and today). This is necessary in order to understand why a package built f

Re: Recent python-pytest-cov update in F34/F35 causes many FTBFS

On 17. 12. 21 21:41, Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2021-12-16 at 21:53 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 16. 12. 21 20:09, Ben Beasley wrote: It looks like python-pytest-cov was recently updated to 3.0.0 in F35[1] and F34[2]. I noticed this because, between my own packages and those maintained thr

Re: F36 Change: Golang 1.18 (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 9:35 AM Alejandro Saez Morollon wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 3:14 PM Fabio Valentini wrote: >> >> Will there be a separate go 1.18 mass rebuild in rawhide? >> Or will the f36 mass rebuild just happen with go 1.18 (beta/rc) present? >> > > Given the release schedu

Re: Mock v2.16 release, mock-core-configs v36.4

On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 4:16 AM Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 1:55 PM Pavel Raiskup wrote: > > > > Hello! > > > > I'm glad I can announce that we have a new release of Mock. See the full > > release notes [1]. The major change that happened is the removal of > > 'epel-8'

Re: Mock v2.16 release, mock-core-configs v36.4

On Sat, 2021-12-18 at 07:40 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 4:16 AM Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 1:55 PM Pavel Raiskup wrote: > > > Hello! > > > > > > I'm glad I can announce that we have a new release of Mock. See the full > > > release notes [1]. Th

Re: Mock v2.16 release, mock-core-configs v36.4

On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 11:00 AM Philip Wyett wrote: > > On Sat, 2021-12-18 at 07:40 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 4:16 AM Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 1:55 PM Pavel Raiskup wrote: > > > > Hello! > > > > > > > > I'm glad I can announce that we hav

Re: Mock v2.16 release, mock-core-configs v36.4

On Sat, 2021-12-18 at 11:34 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 11:00 AM Philip Wyett > wrote: > > On Sat, 2021-12-18 at 07:40 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 4:16 AM Nico Kadel-Garcia > > > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 1:55 PM Pavel Raiskup > >

Re: Recent python-pytest-cov update in F34/F35 causes many FTBFS

On Sat, 2021-12-18 at 11:49 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 17. 12. 21 21:41, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Thu, 2021-12-16 at 21:53 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > On 16. 12. 21 20:09, Ben Beasley wrote: > > > > It looks like python-pytest-cov was recently updated to 3.0.0 in F35[1] > > > > and

Review swap

Hi, can someone please review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2032487 This is basically a merge of votca-{tools,csg,xtp} to make building it easier (no more chain builds) and to allow for more testing. Plus it will package the tutorials as well. I am happy to review a package in exc

Re: Heads-up: trousers (TPM 1.2) silently orphaned

On Fri, 2021-12-17 at 10:35 -0800, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 10:11:53AM -0800, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > `trousers` got silently orphaned around the time an EPEL9 branch for it > > was requested: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2032

Re: About how Go is updated in Fedora

On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 09:11:08AM +0100, Alejandro Saez Morollon wrote: > But AFAIK, only users can select a module stream, right? I mean, packages > can't be build on top of a module stream > so new needs of package maintainers cannot be satisfy with modules. Packages _can_ build on top of a mod

Re: About how Go is updated in Fedora

On 18. 12. 21 9:11, Alejandro Saez Morollon wrote: On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 5:01 AM Matthew Miller > wrote: On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 02:22:24PM +0100, Alejandro Saez Morollon wrote: > A hypothetical new release cycle would look like this: > > 

Re: About how Go is updated in Fedora

On 18. 12. 21 19:04, Matthew Miller wrote: On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 09:11:08AM +0100, Alejandro Saez Morollon wrote: But AFAIK, only users can select a module stream, right? I mean, packages can't be build on top of a module stream so new needs of package maintainers cannot be satisfy with module

Re: Heads-up: trousers (TPM 1.2) silently orphaned

On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 1:13 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Fri, 2021-12-17 at 10:35 -0800, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 10:11:53AM -0800, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > `trousers` got silently orphaned around the time an EPEL9 branch for it

Re: F36 Change: Enable fs-verity in RPM (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 4:59 PM Colin Walters wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021, at 5:21 PM, Tom Stellard wrote: > > > > Did you test the impact this has on package build times? Particularly > > packages like llvm, clang, webkit2gtk3, etc. that have very large > > debuginfo files? > > I think f

Re: Mock v2.16 release, mock-core-configs v36.4

On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 8:03 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 4:16 AM Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 1:55 PM Pavel Raiskup wrote: > > > > > > Hello! > > > > > > I'm glad I can announce that we have a new release of Mock. See the full > > > release notes

Re: About how Go is updated in Fedora

On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 07:50:34PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > Just a note here: Even with default modular streams, non-modular > packages would still only be able to be built with one modular > stream -- the default one. So this isn't a consequence (not even > partly) of us deciding not to have d

Re: Is it possible to find out which packages were used when building the package?

Thanks, for answer. I build every day rpm packages from git locally with mock. And every build erases the contents of the `/var/lib/mock`. I did not save build log and I suppose that the rpm package itself does not contain information about what versions of packages was used for build. Briefly

Re: About how Go is updated in Fedora

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 2:25 PM Alejandro Saez Morollon wrote: > > I've been thinking a little about how Go is updated in Fedora. I would like > to hear other opinions about the current state of the releases and improve it. (snip) Sorry for not seeing this email earlier. I have been sending all

Re: About how Go is updated in Fedora

On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 10:34:34PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > Honestly, I do not see the problem with how things currently work. > Isn't it normal that "the new hotness" is first baked to perfection in > rawhide, until it is then released with the next stable Fedora > release? Well, going bac

Re: About how Go is updated in Fedora

On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 11:01 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 10:34:34PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > Honestly, I do not see the problem with how things currently work. > > Isn't it normal that "the new hotness" is first baked to perfection in > > rawhide, until it is the

Re: Mock v2.16 release, mock-core-configs v36.4

Dne 18. 12. 21 v 22:09 Nico Kadel-Garcia napsal(a): Discarding RHEL 7 and CentOS 7 for EPEL, and by implication Amazon Linux 2, will discourage people further from using RHEL based releases at all, I'd not consider it an encouragement to switch to RHEL 8. Commercial users are avoiding CentOS 8.

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20211217.n.1 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20211216.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20211217.n.1 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 1 Added packages: 7 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 195 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 8.83 MiB Size of dropped packages:0 B

Fedora-Rawhide-20211217.n.1 compose check report

No missing expected images. Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check! 20 of 43 required tests failed, 4 results missing openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING** below Failed openQA tests: 67/159 (aarch64), 95/228 (x86_64) New failures (same test not failed

Re: Mock v2.16 release, mock-core-configs v36.4

On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 6:14 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > Dne 18. 12. 21 v 22:09 Nico Kadel-Garcia napsal(a): > > Discarding RHEL 7 and CentOS 7 for > > EPEL, and by implication Amazon Linux 2, will discourage people > > further from using RHEL based releases at all, I'd not consider it an > > e

Re: About how Go is updated in Fedora

On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 3:35 AM Alejandro Saez Morollon wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 5:01 AM Matthew Miller > wrote: >> >> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 02:22:24PM +0100, Alejandro Saez Morollon wrote: >> > A hypothetical new release cycle would look like this: >> > >> >- Fedora N releas

Re: Mock v2.16 release, mock-core-configs v36.4

I see there is a more specific thread where just these issues have been discussed. I'll take this over to https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/issues/755 . to avoid cluttering a general Fedora maliling list. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@list

Re: Is it possible to find out which packages were used when building the package?

On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 4:38 PM Mikhail Gavrilov wrote: > > Thanks, for answer. I build every day rpm packages from git locally with > mock. And every build erases the contents of the `/var/lib/mock`. I did not > save build log and I suppose that the rpm package itself does not contain > inform