New default behaviour at %prep section spec-file

Hi all. As I noticed Fedora change default behaviour at %prep section of spec-file. Now by default executed %{set_build_flags} and added "-p1" parameter to %autosetup for applying patches. Is it really? Are there other changes? When will these changes be included in the Packaging Guidelines? ___

Re: New default behaviour at %prep section spec-file

On Wed, 2023-03-01 at 12:22 +0300, Vascom wrote: > Hi all. > > As I noticed Fedora change default behaviour at %prep section of > spec-file. > > Now by default executed %{set_build_flags} and added "-p1" parameter > to %autosetup for applying patches. > > Is it really? > Are there other changes?

Re: New default behaviour at %prep section spec-file

Thanks. About %autosetup - my mistake too. Thread closed. ср, 1 мар. 2023 г. в 13:48, Sérgio Basto : > > On Wed, 2023-03-01 at 12:22 +0300, Vascom wrote: > > Hi all. > > > > As I noticed Fedora change default behaviour at %prep section of > > spec-file. > > > > Now by default executed %{set_buil

Re: Update of catch to Catch2 v3

On 28/02/2023 17:05, Vitaly Zaitsev wrote: The tests passed on GitHub CI, but not on Fedora Koji. Maybe FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 or GLIB assertions strikes again. Found issue. Current Fedora catch v3 build uses Debug configuration and fails on assertions (src/catch2/catch_test_case_info.cpp:147). Pl

Fedora 38 compose report: 20230301.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-38-20230228.n.0 NEW: Fedora-38-20230301.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 2 Added packages: 3 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 10 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 6.97 MiB Size of dropped packages:0 B Size of

Re: SPDX Statistics - University of Constantinople edition

Omair Majid kirjoitti 1.3.2023 klo 5.13: Hi, Miroslav Suchý writes: The list of packages needed to be converted is again here: https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/packages-without-spdx-final.txt List by package maintainers is here https://pagure.io/copr/license-v

Re: Update of catch to Catch2 v3

On 01/03/2023 12:26, Vitaly Zaitsev wrote: Found issue. Current Fedora catch v3 build uses Debug configuration and fails on assertions (src/catch2/catch_test_case_info.cpp:147). Fixed this issue in upstream. But switching Fedora package to the Release configuration will be great too. -- Sinc

Re: c++ packaging of contour terminal and libunicode

Dan Horák wrote: > another option is to build the internal libs as static, then they won't > have to be installed. Try appending > -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS:BOOL=OFF > to the cmake flags I guess this is also why the OP ran into the error with the non-PIC code in the static library in the RPM build and

Re: F39 proposal: Modernize Thread Building Blocks for Fedora 39 (System-Wide Change proposal)

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > Parallel runtime installation is obviously required. > But is it necessary to have parallel installation of devel headers? > It might be less work to have conflicting -devel packages and just > BuildRequire one or the other. Conflicting -devel packages are an a

Proposed integrated mingw packaging guidelines [Re: Planning to start unifying native and mingw packages]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 03:00:06PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 03:57:37PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 3:49 PM Daniel P. Berrangé > > wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 10:13:18PM +0100, Sandro Mani wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > > >

Re: Proposed integrated mingw packaging guidelines [Re: Planning to start unifying native and mingw packages]

On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 7:45 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > Fast forward 6 months and evidentally no one else was enthusiastic about > updating the MinGW packaging guidelines, so I've taken on that task myself > :-) > Thanks for volunteering! I converted one of my packages but honestly I've had

Re: Proposed integrated mingw packaging guidelines [Re: Planning to start unifying native and mingw packages]

On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 01:45:11PM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > Our goal is to strongly encourage the use of integrated mingw packaging, > but still allow native package maintainers the discretion to opt-out of > this if they feel strongly against handling mingw themselves. The keys > terms o

Re: Proposed integrated mingw packaging guidelines [Re: Planning to start unifying native and mingw packages]

On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 01:58:05PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 01:45:11PM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > Our goal is to strongly encourage the use of integrated mingw packaging, > > but still allow native package maintainers the discretion to opt-out of > > this

Re: c++ packaging of contour terminal and libunicode

I open an issue of the upstream repo and reported the maintainer, It was fixed by explicitly setting the libs as static. And thanks for your clear clarification. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to dev

Packit service not submitting builds or updates for branched / F38

Hi all, $SUBJECT is now happening for (at least) the second time with F38. It looks like the packit service is mis-configured and does not submit any builds updates for "branched": https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?user=packit Having updates in Fedora 37 (stable branch) and Rawhide (devel

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

Petr Pisar wrote: > Would that affect all clients? No. updateinfo.xml can only be downloaded > by clients requesting that data. People doing "dnf upgrade" can safely > skip it. Keep in mind that updateinfo.xml is also used by GUI updaters such as dnfdragora or plasma-pk-updates to display details

Re: Changes to Bugzilla API key requirements

Kevin P. Fleming wrote: > Not O365, but Google Workspace... that ship sailed some time ago (I'm > sending this using Thunderbird going through Google Workspace, so at > least I don't have to *see* GMail...) #facepalm# 🤦 Kevin Kofler ___ devel ma

Re: Packit service not submitting builds or updates for branched / F38

Hi, we have already been informed about the issue and fix for the issue is ready (will be deployed to production next Tuesday, unless we hit any issues in the staging instance) https://github.com/packit/packit/pull/1863 This issue has been hit after a change in the Bodhi API that introdu

Re: Changes to Bugzilla API key requirements

Based on feedback, the 30-day auto-revocation is being dropped[1]. The 12-month key lifetime will still apply. [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2174291 -- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Fedora Program Manager Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis _

Re: Packit service not submitting builds or updates for branched / F38

On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 5:34 PM Matej Focko wrote: > > Hi, > > we have already been informed about the issue and fix for the issue is > ready (will be deployed to production next Tuesday, unless we hit any > issues in the staging instance) > > https://github.com/packit/packit/pull/1863 > > Thi

Fedora CoreOS Meeting Minutes 2023-03-01

Minutes: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2023-03-01/fedora_coreos_meeting.2023-03-01-16.30.html Minutes (text): https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2023-03-01/fedora_coreos_meeting.2023-03-01-16.30.txt Log: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2023-

Re: SPDX Statistics - University of Constantinople edition

Dne 01. 03. 23 v 4:13 Omair Majid napsal(a): One package that I care about (`dotnet7.0`) was added to Fedora after the Let's-move-Fedora-to-SPDX decision was finalized. So the package has been using SPDX identifiers since the original package review. How do I make sure such a package is recogniz

Re: SPDX Statistics - University of Constantinople edition

On Wed Mar 1, 2023 at 20:57 +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Dne 01. 03. 23 v 4:13 Omair Majid napsal(a): > > One package that I care about (`dotnet7.0`) was added to Fedora after > > the Let's-move-Fedora-to-SPDX decision was finalized. So the package has > > been using SPDX identifiers since the or

Package Tutorial bug - missing BuildRequires gcc

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Packaging_Tutorial_ GNU_Hello/ The tutorial says: Lines which are not needed (e.g. BuildRequires and Requires) can be commented out with the hash # for now. However, I believe that this line is needed. I'm new so perhaps I'm missing somet

Re: Package Tutorial bug - missing BuildRequires gcc

On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 3:35 PM Kenneth Goldman wrote: > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Packaging_Tutorial_ > GNU_Hello/ > > > The tutorial says: > > Lines which are not needed (e.g

Re: SPDX Statistics - University of Constantinople edition

> Maxwell G writes: > If you don't want to clone every distgit repository and use the git > log, [...] Even if you did, there is full copy of the git data tarred up nightly at https://src.fedoraproject.org/repo/git-seed-latest.tar.xz which would probably save a big load of time. - J< _

Re: F39 proposal: Modernize Thread Building Blocks for Fedora 39 (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 02:36:18PM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > Parallel runtime installation is obviously required. > > But is it necessary to have parallel installation of devel headers? > > It might be less work to have conflicting -devel packages

Re: F39 proposal: Modernize Thread Building Blocks for Fedora 39 (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 11:06:21AM -0800, Thomas Rodgers wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 7:46 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek < > zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 01:46:24PM +, Ian McInerney via devel wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 6:42 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > > >

packaging tutorial error - /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn mock-chroot debug advice

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Packaging_Tutorial_ GNU_Hello/ ~~~ when running that tutorial (Fedora 37, x86), I get this error: ERROR: Exception(/home/kgold/hello/hello-2.10-1.fc37.src.rpm) Config(fedora-37-x86_64) 0 minutes 18 seconds INFO: Results

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20230301.n.1 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20230228.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20230301.n.1 = SUMMARY = Added images:4 Dropped images: 1 Added packages: 3 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 278 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 7.54 MiB Size of dropped packages:0 B

FontAwesome 6.x inches closer

The maintainers of the packages I am about to mention are BCCed on this email. A couple of months ago, I talked about updating the fontawesome-fonts package to version 6.x. I want to give an update on where things stand. See https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jjames/FontAwesome6/ for builds

Re: SPDX Statistics - University of Constantinople edition

On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 4:33 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > However, in both cases at least I notice the unrelated change in the diff. In > my worldview, both are chaotic (read: they violate my imaginary commit-purity > O.C.D. rules), but they are not evil (nothing is "hidden"). In the MIT SPDX > licens

RE: fedpkg: Failed to get repository name from Git url or pushurl

There's Source, Source0, and sources. What are the definitions? The tutorial doesn't have a 'sources' tag. Is that documented? What should it be? The hello tutorial has the URL to the tarball in Source: but it also says to use wget to download the tarball. The Source: tag doesn't have a list

RE: Package Tutorial bug - missing BuildRequires gcc

Yes, but … if the tutorial has a sample .spec file, I think it would help the new user if it was 100% complete. From: Elliott Sales de Andrade Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 3:38 PM To: Development discussions related to Fedora Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Package Tutorial bug - missing BuildReq

Re: packaging tutorial error - /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn mock-chroot debug advice

Kenneth Goldman wrote: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Packaging_Tutorial_ > GNU_Hello/ > > ~~~ > > when running that tutorial (Fedora 37, x86), I get this error: > > ERROR: Exception(/home/kgold/hello/hello-2.10-1.fc37.src.rpm) > Config(fedora-37-x

Re: Package Tutorial bug - missing BuildRequires gcc

> Kenneth Goldman writes: > but … if the tutorial has a sample .spec file, I think it would > help the new user if it was 100% complete. I believe that the section "A Complete hello.spec File" at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Packaging_Tutorial_GNU_Hello/#_a_comple

Re: Package Tutorial bug - missing BuildRequires gcc

On 01/03/2023 21:35, Kenneth Goldman wrote: However, I believe that this line is needed. I'm new so perhaps I'm missing something. BuildRequires: gcc See the next step: Additional build tools are defined by adding BuildRequires: rows to the specfile. In Fedora, GCC is the standard compiler