Hi,
I would like to retire openscap-daemon in Rawhide. This package isn't
used by any other package. In past it was used as a plugin for Atomic
scan which doesn't exist anymore. It has never been used in the original
purpose as a compliance daemon. The upstream has been archived and there
hasn
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20230103.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20230104.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 2
Dropped packages:2
Upgraded packages: 124
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 9.40 MiB
Size of dropped packages
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2023 at 12:00:21PM +0100, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
>
> My understanding — which may be not be the whole picture — is that this is not
> supported by rpmautospec natively. Essentially, every spec file change is
> _supposed_ to caused the Release number to grow, so by definition, a com
On 03-01-2023 16:30, Vít Ondruch wrote:
I've adopted xaos to safeguard it from retirement. I'll be glad to
hand it over to you once you have become a Fedora packager.
Sandro, since you have adopted the package, you can also help Dale with
becoming packager:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US
Just to let everybody know, Ruby 3.2 has landed in Rawhide [1]. The
binary packages have been rebuilt, but there might be other
compatibility issue.
From top of my head, I know that sdformat will be FTBFS:
https://github.com/gazebosim/sdformat/pull/1216
If you need help fixing your package,
Hi,
just copy and paste [1], because IMO should be announced .
Best regards,
[1]
Neal Gompa wrote:
I've started working on the ImageMagick 7 upgrade in Rawhide now. I've
created a side-tag (f38-build-side-61543) and am working through the
builds now.
If you want to help with rebuilding revers
On Tue, 2023-01-03 at 21:21 -0800, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 1/3/23 18:02, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > But isn't missing inst.rescue boot option [2] ?
>
> That's a different thing. The rescue kernel is only to have all
> kernel
> modules available. The "inst.rescue" mode is available on netinst
> im
On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 04:43:23PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> mingw-pcreorphan 3 weeks ago
Note this is PCRE not PCRE2. Lots of packages, mainly Qt related,
seem to depend on it, and they should move to PCRE2 (packaged as
mingw-pcre2), although
On 3/01/2023 20:21, Onuralp SEZER wrote:
I will gladly take it, and any co-maintainers are welcome as well.
Thank you for your contributions to dlib as well.
Feel free to add me as a co-maintainer. I'm maintaining howdy in copr.
--
Arthur Bols
fas/irc: principis
___
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 8:18 AM Arthur Bols wrote:
>
> On 3/01/2023 20:21, Onuralp SEZER wrote:
> > I will gladly take it, and any co-maintainers are welcome as well.
> >
> > Thank you for your contributions to dlib as well.
> Feel free to add me as a co-maintainer. I'm maintaining howdy in copr.
On 03/01/2023 18:42, Miro Hrončok wrote:
* AGREED: APPROVED (+6,1,-1) This Change is implemented for Fedora
Linux 38 and we evaluate whether to retain it by Fedora Linux 40.
This Change must be implemented in a manner which packages are able
to trivially opt-out of retaining fra
On 04.01.23 14:16, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 04:43:23PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
mingw-pcreorphan 3 weeks ago
Note this is PCRE not PCRE2. Lots of packages, mainly Qt related,
seem to depend on it, and they should mov
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 8:30 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 03/01/2023 18:42, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >* AGREED: APPROVED (+6,1,-1) This Change is implemented for Fedora
> > Linux 38 and we evaluate whether to retain it by Fedora Linux 40.
> > This Change must be implemented
On 04/01/2023 14:44, Neal Gompa wrote:
Actually, the Change owners were prepared to give up. I was the one
that pushed for it to be reconsidered because of how much benefit it
gives to desktop Linux developers.
The original proposal received a lot of negative feedback. Only a few
big corporati
On 4/01/2023 14:19, Neal Gompa wrote:
Why is howdy in COPR and not in Fedora yet?
I don't really feel comfortable packaging it for Fedora. For one, there
are a lot of issues with it:
- pam needs to be configured manually
- It's not secure at all
- The config file is located in /lib64/security/h
Dne 04. 01. 23 v 12:45 Sandro napsal(a):
On 03-01-2023 16:30, Vít Ondruch wrote:
I've adopted xaos to safeguard it from retirement. I'll be glad to
hand it over to you once you have become a Fedora packager.
Sandro, since you have adopted the package, you can also help Dale with
becoming pack
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 8:50 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 04/01/2023 14:44, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > Actually, the Change owners were prepared to give up. I was the one
> > that pushed for it to be reconsidered because of how much benefit it
> > gives to desktop Linux developers.
>
> The
Dne 03. 01. 23 v 19:03 Todd Zullinger napsal(a):
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
Yes, this is what I was talking about too. Because rpmbuild does not set
%_sourcedir, it may fail to load some files. Even worse, it may load *wrong*
versions, e.g. when some old version is present in the ~/rpmb
On Wed, Jan 4 2023 at 02:49:30 PM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
. Only a few
big corporations will get benefit
Please, stop saying this. It's just not true. All Fedora users will
benefit from the performance improvements that we're able to make using
sysprof. Right now desktop devel
On 04/01/2023 15:25, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
All Fedora users will benefit from the performance improvements that
we're able to make using sysprof.
Maybe. Or maybe not. And the performance penalty is here and now.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 03:04:02PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> Dne 03. 01. 23 v 19:03 Todd Zullinger napsal(a):
> > Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >> Yes, this is what I was talking about too. Because rpmbuild does not set
> >> %_sourcedir, it may fail to load some files. Even worse, it ma
Got the update today :)
On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 4:31 AM Jonathan Wright via devel
wrote:
>
> I have a spec mostly ready to combine all of it back into a single spec file.
> Would you be open to discussing/reviewing that, merging it, then pushing
> that to stable?
>
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 9:
A fresh installation of Fedora 37 has by default the "--supervised"
option active in its gpg-agent systemd file
(/usr/lib/systemd/user/gpg-agent.service).
According to GnuPG Docs [1], this option is deprecated. Once gpg-agent
is invoked, the log of "systemctl --user status gpg-agent.service"
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 10:25 AM Chuck Anderson wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 03:04:02PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >
> > Dne 03. 01. 23 v 19:03 Todd Zullinger napsal(a):
> > > Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > >> Yes, this is what I was talking about too. Because rpmbuild does not set
>
Hi
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 10:38 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 10:25 AM Chuck Anderson wrote:
>
> > Perhaps this can be modified to create a layout that matches dist-git?
>
> Probably not, because Dist-Git is a Fedora-specific thing, so I
> wouldn't accept such a change in rpmde
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 10:51 AM Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> Hi
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 10:38 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 10:25 AM Chuck Anderson wrote:
>>
>> > Perhaps this can be modified to create a layout that matches dist-git?
>>
>> Probably not, because Dist-Git is
On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 at 09:39, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> = New business =
>
> #2923 Re-vote for Change proposal: Add -fno-omit-frame-pointer to default
> compilation flags
> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2923
Given the controversial nature of this one, why was it re-litigated at
short notice when a l
Dne 04. 01. 23 v 16:24 Chuck Anderson napsal(a):
On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 03:04:02PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 03. 01. 23 v 19:03 Todd Zullinger napsal(a):
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
Yes, this is what I was talking about too. Because rpmbuild does not set
%_sourcedir, it may fail t
Christopher Klooz wrote:
> A fresh installation of Fedora 37 has by default the "--supervised" option
> active in its gpg-agent systemd file
> (/usr/lib/systemd/user/gpg-agent.service).
>
> According to GnuPG Docs [1], this option is deprecated. Once gpg-agent is
> invoked, the log of "systemctl -
* Miro Hrončok:
> * #2923 Re-vote for Change proposal: Add -fno-omit-frame-pointer to
> default (mhroncok, 17:06:26)
> * LINK:
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/pull-request/230
> is the implementation (davide, 17:13:47)
> * AGREED: APPROVED (+6,1,-1) This Cha
On 1/4/23 10:05, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 04/01/2023 15:25, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>> All Fedora users will benefit from the performance improvements that
>> we're able to make using sysprof.
>
> Maybe. Or maybe not. And the performance penalty is here and now.
The optimizations en
On 2023-01-04 09:28, Florian Weimer wrote:
The change as voted simply does not work at a technical level because
-mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer is an architecture-specific GCC option
that
is not available on all Fedora architectures. I don't think
-fno-omit-frame-pointer is well-exercised on s39
Minutes:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2023-01-04/fedora_coreos_meeting.2023-01-04-16.29.html
Minutes (text):
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2023-01-04/fedora_coreos_meeting.2023-01-04-16.29.txt
Log:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2023-01
> The change as voted simply does not work at a technical level because
> -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer is an architecture-specific GCC option that
> is not available on all Fedora architectures. I don't think
> -fno-omit-frame-pointer is well-exercised on s390x, so I wouldn't want
> to use it ther
Neal Gompa kirjoitti 4.1.2023 klo 18.02:
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 10:51 AM Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 10:38 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 10:25 AM Chuck Anderson wrote:
Perhaps this can be modified to create a layout that matches dist-git?
Probably not, be
On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 09:08:54PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 4:49 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/XServerProhibitsByteSwappedClients
> >
> > This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
> > process, proposals are pu
Michael Catanzaro writes:
> [...]
> Please, stop saying this. It's just not true. All Fedora users will
> benefit from the performance improvements that we're able to make
> using sysprof. [...]
Then perhaps the Change could have had a dead-man-switch built in:
unless performance improvements du
On Wed, Jan 4 2023 at 03:42:43 PM -0500, Frank Ch. Eigler
wrote:
Then perhaps the Change could have had a dead-man-switch built in:
unless performance improvements due to this profiling change do not in
fact appear by F39 or F40, the Change should be automatically
reverted.
Question is how to
On 02. 12. 22 18:20, Jakub Kadlcik wrote:
Hello folks,
for a couple of years now, I've been interested in the Fedora package
review process. Our queue is in hundreds of waiting packages for as
long as I can remember. I believe the situation can be improved.
Since summer, I did ~40 package revie
On Wed, 2023-01-04 at 23:41 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 02. 12. 22 18:20, Jakub Kadlcik wrote:
> > Hello folks,
> >
> > for a couple of years now, I've been interested in the Fedora
> > package
> > review process. Our queue is in hundreds of waiting packages for as
> > long as I can remember.
Hi Fedora,
TeXLive 2022 (composed of texlive-base and texlive SRPMs) is landing in
rawhide today. I've done extensive local testing in mock to try to make
sure it doesn't break anything obvious... but the size and scope of TL
means that there are probably still some bugs introduced by this update.
On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 03:19:57PM -0500, David Cantrell wrote:
[...]
> > So I guess this means no remoting into ppc64 or s390x machines from
> > x86_64 or ppc64le machines without a configuration tweak?
>
> We don't have ppc64 builds anymore and I don't know the last release we had
> that was ppc
Hello guys,
I just wanted to announce that the service is already deployed and
that I am trying to figure out all the quirks and ask you to please be
patient.
But you were faster :-)
Thank you for the reports, please ping me with anything more that you
find. I am also trying to monitor what is hap
On 1/4/23 17:52, Tom Callaway wrote:
Hi Fedora,
TeXLive 2022 (composed of texlive-base and texlive SRPMs) is landing in
rawhide today. I've done extensive local testing in mock to try to make
sure it doesn't break anything obvious... but the size and scope of TL
means that there are probably
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 3:37 PM Christopher Klooz wrote:
>
> A fresh installation of Fedora 37 has by default the "--supervised"
> option active in its gpg-agent systemd file
> (/usr/lib/systemd/user/gpg-agent.service).
>
> According to GnuPG Docs [1], this option is deprecated. Once gpg-agent
> is
Hi Spot,
> TeXLive 2022 (composed of texlive-base and texlive SRPMs) is landing in
> rawhide today. I've done extensive local testing in mock to try to make sure
> it doesn't break anything obvious... but the size and scope of TL means that
> there are probably still some bugs introduced by thi
Michael Catanzaro writes:
>> Then perhaps the Change could have had a dead-man-switch built in:
>> unless performance improvements due to this profiling change do not in
>> fact appear by F39 or F40, the Change should be automatically
>> reverted.
>
> Question is how to measure that? Is it suffic
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2023-01-05 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.libera.chat.
Local time information (via. uitime):
= Day: Thursday ==
2023-01-05 09:00 PST US/Pacific
2023-01-05 12
Despite the size, I don't think TL updates have ever gone through that
process before. Not opposed to doing it though, do we need to revert those
builds from rawhide?
~spot
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 10:26 PM Peter Robinson wrote:
> Hi Spot,
>
> > TeXLive 2022 (composed of texlive-base and texlive
Hi, Spot!
On Thursday, 05 January 2023 at 05:46, Tom Callaway wrote:
> Despite the size, I don't think TL updates have ever gone through that
> process before. Not opposed to doing it though, do we need to revert those
> builds from rawhide?
You still have time to submit it as a Self-Contained Ch
On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 4:47 AM Tom Callaway wrote:
>
> Despite the size, I don't think TL updates have ever gone through that
> process before. Not opposed to doing it though, do we need to revert those
> builds from rawhide?
No, I don't think you need to revert it. The process is good to bette
51 matches
Mail list logo
