Re: [Package Review] f37-backgrounds

2022-08-07 Thread Luna Jernberg
Hey! Will help test later today, coming back with results during the day On 8/7/22, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: > Hello team, > > f37-backgrounds is ready for review for the incoming Fedora 37 Beta. > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2116103 > > > Reviewer welcome. > > -- > Luya

How to add epel9 branch to my package's git clone?

2022-08-07 Thread Barry Scott
I want to build my packages for epel9. But that branch is not setup in git. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pycxx How do I add epel9? Barry ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@

Re: How to add epel9 branch to my package's git clone?

2022-08-07 Thread Mikel Olasagasti
Hi Barry, Hau idatzi du Barry Scott (ba...@barrys-emacs.org) erabiltzaileak (2022 abu. 7, ig. (10:40)): > > I want to build my packages for epel9. But that branch is not setup in git. > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pycxx > > How do I add epel9? You need to request the branch to be

Re: [Package Review] f37-backgrounds

2022-08-07 Thread Luna Jernberg
Hey Again! Got all the extras background showing up with this package but the default wallpaper, did not get installed or changed at all On Sun, Aug 7, 2022 at 10:21 AM Luna Jernberg wrote: > Hey! > > Will help test later today, coming back with results during the day > > On 8/7/22, Luya Tshimb

Re: rpmautospec by default

2022-08-07 Thread Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
On 06/08/2022 16:10, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: During the FESCo panel during Nest one of the conclusions was that FESCo should take a more proactive role in pushing changes in Fedora. We talked about enabling koschei by default and other similar things. Here's my attempt to start with s

Re: CC0 reclassified as "not allowed" for code (reposted from legal list)

2022-08-07 Thread Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
On 06/08/2022 01:49, Richard Fontana wrote: CC0 has been listed by Fedora as a 'good' license for code and content (corresponding to allowed and allowed-content under the new system). Fedora has enforced this CC0 for many years and now it is "not allowed". This is so ridiculous. This is a f

PSA: koji armv7hl builders locking up

2022-08-07 Thread Fabio Valentini
Hi all, TL;DR: It seems like armv7hl koji builders are locking up, most often when running dnf to install the buildroot or to install dependencies. I've seen many people getting hit by this issue: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/10833 So, if your build takes unusually long time on

Re: rpmautospec by default

2022-08-07 Thread Fabio Valentini
On Sun, Aug 7, 2022 at 11:37 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > On 06/08/2022 16:10, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > During the FESCo panel during Nest one of the conclusions was that FESCo > > should > > take a more proactive role in pushing changes in Fedora. We talked about > > ena

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20220807.n.0 changes

2022-08-07 Thread Fedora Rawhide Report
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20220806.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20220807.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 1 Added packages: 0 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 90 Downgraded packages: 1 Size of added packages: 0 B Size of dropped packages:0 B Size

Re: rpmautospec by default

2022-08-07 Thread Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
On 07/08/2022 12:21, Fabio Valentini wrote: I think you're confusing the %forge macros with rpmautospec here. rpmautospec is actively (though, at times, slowly) maintained by nphilipp and other CPE members: https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/rpmautospec Oops, my bad. +1 from me then. -- Sincerely,

Re: rpmautospec by default

2022-08-07 Thread Leigh Scott
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 10:11 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > > As the maintainer of rpmdevtools, I will probably not accept changes > upstream to change to rpmautospec in the templates, since rpmautospec > doesn't work outside of Fedora and there's been no advocacy to make > rpmautospec a cros

Re: CC0 reclassified as "not allowed" for code (reposted from legal list)

2022-08-07 Thread Stephen Smoogen
On Sun, Aug 7, 2022 at 05:46 Vitaly Zaitsev via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On 06/08/2022 01:49, Richard Fontana wrote: > > CC0 has been listed by Fedora as a 'good' license for code and content > > (corresponding to allowed and allowed-content under the new system). > > Fedora

Re: Submit your questions and vote: Fedora on the Framework Laptop

2022-08-07 Thread Jun Aruga (he / him)
Thanks for attending this talk session! Now the recording is available on the event platform Hopin. And I created the detailed chapters (timecodes) of the video. You can see the link below to find it. https://pagure.io/flock/issue/389#comment-809656 Jun On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 6:23 PM Jun Aruga (

Re: rpmautospec by default

2022-08-07 Thread Fabio Valentini
On Sun, Aug 7, 2022 at 3:23 PM Leigh Scott wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 10:11 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > > > > > As the maintainer of rpmdevtools, I will probably not accept changes > > upstream to change to rpmautospec in the templates, since rpmautospec > > doesn't work outside of

Re: PSA: koji armv7hl builders locking up

2022-08-07 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On Sun, Aug 07, 2022 at 12:10:44PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > Hi all, > > TL;DR: It seems like armv7hl koji builders are locking up, most often > when running dnf to install the buildroot or to install dependencies. Yeah. ;( > I've seen many people getting hit by this issue: > https://pagu

Re: CC0 reclassified as "not allowed" for code (reposted from legal list)

2022-08-07 Thread Kevin Kofler via devel
Richard Fontana wrote: > We plan to classify CC0 as allowed-content only, so that CC0 would no > longer be allowed for code. One more concern I see is that, since CC0 by design does not require attribution, there is actually no way to know that the package does not contain unattributed CC0 code

Re: CC0 reclassified as "not allowed" for code (reposted from legal list)

2022-08-07 Thread Richard Fontana
Kevin Kofler wrote: > One more concern I see is that, since CC0 by design does not require > attribution, there is actually no way to know that the package does not > contain unattributed CC0 code that was unilaterally relicensed by a third > party. That is true [1] although the point generali

Non-responsive maintainer check for hguemar

2022-08-07 Thread Jonathan Wright via devel
Per the unresponsive package maintainer policy I'm checking if anyone has a way to contact Haïkel Guémar (FAS hguemar). https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2116206 Lack of updates to one of his packages, python-pyperclip is holding up other packages. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bu

Re: List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in 1 week

2022-08-07 Thread Elliott Sales de Andrade
On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 8:56 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > Dear maintainers. > > Based on the current fail to build from source policy, the following packages > will be retired from Fedora 37 approximately one week before branching (next > week). > The F37 schedule says the retirement occurs on the

Re: [Package Review] f37-backgrounds

2022-08-07 Thread Luna Jernberg
Works now thanks :) https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/%40design-suite/fxx-backgrounds/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04708570-f37-backgrounds/ On Sun, Aug 7, 2022 at 11:18 AM Luna Jernberg wrote: > Hey Again! > > Got all the extras background showing up with this package but the defau