OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20220729.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20220730.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:2
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 6
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 76
Downgraded packages: 2
Size of added packages: 49.12 MiB
Size of dropped packages
I am preparing to update python-ezdxf from 0.17.2 to 0.18[1]. Since
there are some small API changes, the update will be for Rawhide only,
and I will wait one week (2022-08-06) to merge and build the PR.
However, this should not affect any other packages, since the sole
dependent package is pyt
Matthew Miller wrote:
> New guidance on “effective license” analysis
>
>
> Many software packages consist of code with different free and open
> source licenses. Previous practice often involved “simplification” of
> the package license field when the p
Hello folks,
I've been trying to update healpix package to latest version, so that I
can submit a PR to the package maintainer. Current version is a couple
of years old.
Unfortunately, the automated build process available in the package
itself isn't suitable for our needs, so each component (cur
Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> It's DRM, not ransomware.
Sounds to me like "it's not crap, it's poop". ;-)
> It's locking in, not deleting, your existing access
It sneakily encrypts your data forcing you to fulfill specific conditions to
access it, just like ransomware does.
> and tying it to spec
Florian Weimer wrote:
> But they also say this:
>
> | The default state of Secure Boot has a wide circle of trust which can
> | result in customers trusting boot components they may not need. Since
> | the Microsoft 3rd Party UEFI CA certificate signs the bootloaders for
> | all Linux distribution
On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 9:53 AM Mattia Verga via devel
wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> I've been trying to update healpix package to latest version, so that I
> can submit a PR to the package maintainer. Current version is a couple
> of years old.
>
> Unfortunately, the automated build process available
Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
> I'm at a dead end, can someone have a look at the scratch build [1] and
> explain me where's the fault?
What I see is that the hacks that you apply to configure are apparently not
working:
checking command to parse /usr/bin/nm -B output from gcc object...
./confi
On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 10:35 AM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
> What I see is that the hacks that you apply to configure are apparently not
> working:
>
> checking command to parse /usr/bin/nm -B output from gcc object...
> ./configure: line 7304: -e 's/^T .* \(.*\)$/extern int \1();/p' -e
> 's/
On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 11:44 AM Ben Beasley wrote:
>
> In python-ezdxf 0.18, a few new Python modules are included that are
> derived from other software. The License is therefore no longer simply
> “MIT.” Of the new modules in question, one is a fork of its original
> upstream. I have treated it
Thank you. As you guessed, the expression was constructed based on the
practices for multiple separable components that I am accustomed to from the
old guidelines. I hadn’t quite understood that the new guidelines treat that
situation differently. In that case, I agree with your suggested expres
On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 11:20 AM Matthew Miller
wrote:
>
>
> On behalf of all of the folks working on Fedora licensing improvements,
> I have a few things to announce!
>
>
> New docs site for licensing and other legal topics
> --
>
> All documentatio
12 matches
Mail list logo
