Re: fedpkg: Failed to get repository name from Git url or pushurl -> %build

Kenneth Goldman wrote: > Let's see if I have this right ... > > %build > %configure > %make_build > > are not three separate steps. %build is the overall step, and the next two > lines > are the build steps. The blank line terminates the %build. Correct? A blank line has no special meaning.

Re: Release rpkg-1.66 and fedpkg-1.44

On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 08:13:57AM +0100, Ondrej Nosek wrote: > Hi all, > a new version rpkg-1.66 together with fedpkg-1.44 are released containing > both features and bugfixes. > Currently, only Fedora 37 (and Rawhide) packages are present in stable > repositories. > Other supported packages are w

Re: Assess impact of package changes with the mass prebuilder

Hello Fedora community, I'm pleased to announce that we released v1.0.0 of the tool, which marks completion of the features expected to be implemented for the COPR back-end. A detailed changelog is available here: https://gitlab.com/fedora/packager-tools/mass-prebuild/-/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md Am

Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 38 Candidate Beta-1.3 Available Now!

Tested server dvd and work fine on bare metal, but was greeted with: … … Reached target basic.target dracut-initqueue Unknown device:"/dev/run/install/repo//images/install.img": No such device dracut-initqueue: 'Unknown device "/sys/":No such device No problems. but I think it's a bit unfortunat

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20230308.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20230307.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20230308.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:6 Dropped images: 4 Added packages: 4 Dropped packages:1 Upgraded packages: 174 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 4.80 MiB Size of dropped packages

Fedora 38 compose report: 20230308.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-38-20230306.n.0 NEW: Fedora-38-20230308.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:6 Dropped images: 1 Added packages: 1 Dropped packages:1 Upgraded packages: 16 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 6.93 MiB Size of dropped packages:283.83 KiB

Re: How to depend on a .so.X in RPM specs?

On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 02:27:46PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 06. 03. 23 v 12:49 Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden napsal(a): While rubygem-openscap is retired in Fedora, the Foreman project still packages it. For context: rubygem-openscap can load libopenscap.so.8 and libopenscap.so.25 through

Re: Release rpkg-1.66 and fedpkg-1.44

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek kirjoitti 8.3.2023 klo 10.29: On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 08:13:57AM +0100, Ondrej Nosek wrote: Hi all, a new version rpkg-1.66 together with fedpkg-1.44 are released containing both features and bugfixes. Currently, only Fedora 37 (and Rawhide) packages are present in

Re: Release rpkg-1.66 and fedpkg-1.44

On 3/8/23 00:29, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 08:13:57AM +0100, Ondrej Nosek wrote: Hi all, a new version rpkg-1.66 together with fedpkg-1.44 are released containing both features and bugfixes. Currently, only Fedora 37 (and Rawhide) packages are present in stable r

Re: Release rpkg-1.66 and fedpkg-1.44

On 08. 03. 23 9:29, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 08:13:57AM +0100, Ondrej Nosek wrote: Hi all, a new version rpkg-1.66 together with fedpkg-1.44 are released containing both features and bugfixes. Currently, only Fedora 37 (and Rawhide) packages are present in stabl

Degradated modules support

For module maintainers, module users, and flatpak maintainers: Fedora infrustructure has long-standing problems with supporting modules. Namely, MBS is unable to build modules with deep dependencies and Bodhi is unable to accept multicontext modules

Re: Release rpkg-1.66 and fedpkg-1.44

On 08. 03. 23 15:40, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 08. 03. 23 9:29, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 08:13:57AM +0100, Ondrej Nosek wrote: Hi all, a new version rpkg-1.66 together with fedpkg-1.44 are released containing both features and bugfixes. Currently, only Fedora 37 (

Re: Degradated modules support

On Wed, Mar 8 2023 at 04:10:15 PM +0100, Petr Pisar wrote: That could also affect seemingly unrelated parts of Fedora like Flatpaks whose build process is based on modularity. I can address this. We intend to stop depending on modularity so that we can reliably build Flatpaks even when modul

F39 proposal: FontAwesome6 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FontAwesome6 This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee.

Fedora CoreOS Meeting Minutes 2023-03-08

Minutes: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2023-03-08/fedora_coreos_meeting.2023-03-08-16.31.html Minutes (text): https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2023-03-08/fedora_coreos_meeting.2023-03-08-16.31.txt Log: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2023

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers

On 06-03-2023 23:19, Miro Hrončok wrote: python-managesieveorphan 0 weeks ago I've taken managesieve. -- Sandro ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le

ATTENTION: Package updates missing from F38 (and sometimes F39)

Hello fellow packagers, Yep, it's that time of the release cycle again. What should be do about all the packages that are stuck at older versions in f38 than what's available on f37? If you see your package in the list below (with my description of what seems to be wrong with it), please ensure th

Re: ATTENTION: Package updates missing from F38 (and sometimes F39)

On Thu, 2023-03-09 at 01:30 +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > - gh-0:2.23.0-1.fc37 > gh-0:2.22.1-1.fc38 > > Looks like v2.22.1 was tagged into f38 *after* v2.23.0 was tagged, so > the older version took precedence ... gotta love koji not knowing how > to sort RPM versions :) It's not that it doesn'