Re: Fedpkg: Could not execute pre_push_check: Fail to upload files. Server returns status 403

Thanks. That worked. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https:

Re: fedrq - new repoquerying tool

On Sun Feb 12, 2023 at 05:31 +, Maxwell G wrote: > Hi Fedorians, > > I've been working on a repoquerying tool called fedrq [1] that I'd > like to share with you. Here's the elevator pitch: fedrq provides a > friendly interface to query the Fedora repositories. It makes it > really easy to query

Timeshift on Fedora

Good morning all, I had a strange experience with Timeshift last week. For those that don't know, Timeshift is a software that allows you to make a backup of your system (As a snapshot) and restore it in case you need to. I installed it a couple weeks ago and made a backup. I couldn't make a bt

Fedora 38 compose report: 20230403.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-38-20230402.n.0 NEW: Fedora-38-20230403.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:3 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 3 Dropped packages:1 Upgraded packages: 46 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 4.12 MiB Size of dropped packages:1.89 MiB Size

Re: Any interest in maintaining spyder (python IDE)?

You added me on it a while back and I haven't done anything with it yet, but I do still intend to work on it when I get a chance. On Sun, Apr 2, 2023 at 9:52 AM Mukundan Ragavan wrote: > > I have been maintaining spyder in Fedora for sometime now. Since the > time I took up maintaining spyder, t

Re: Orphaned: hstr

On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 5:12 PM Jonathan Wright via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > I've grabbed this package. I'll keep an eye on the GH issue and get an > update released once upstream releases patches/updates for the kernel > issues. > Thanks, Jonathan. I was a happy hstr user

Summary/Minutes from today's Fedora Flatpak Packaging SIG Meeting (2023-04-03)

= #fedora-meeting: Fedora Flatpak Packaging SIG = Meeting started by kalev at 14:00:19 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2023-04-03/flatpak-sig.2023-04-03-14

Re: Auto-assign packager sponsors to tickets?

Personally I'd not really like this solution. For some sponsors which have tons of time and can always take on people to mentor it will be great for those folks. For people who get "assigned" to sponsors that don't necessarily have time and don't update their status to unavailable or whatever at

Re: Auto-assign packager sponsors to tickets?

> Jakub Kadlčík writes: > Currently, we have 31 people waiting to be sponsored > https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/needsponsor.html many of > them waiting for months. To get to the point of waiting to be > sponsored, all of these people invested their time to learn the basics > of

Re: Orphaned: hstr

I built it for EPEL9 BTW :) On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 8:49 AM Kamil Paral wrote: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 5:12 PM Jonathan Wright via devel < > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > >> I've grabbed this package. I'll keep an eye on the GH issue and get an >> update released once upstream releas

Re: Auto-assign packager sponsors to tickets?

Dne 03. 04. 23 v 18:24 Jason Tibbitts napsal(a): If a package makes it through review but can't be imported because the prospective maintainer isn't in the packager group, they should file a ticket with the sponsors (https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/) and they will be taken care of. Again. T

Re: Auto-assign packager sponsors to tickets?

> Miroslav Suchý writes: > Again. This is not what we are telling them. Again? There's no need for that. In any case, what I wrote was the procedure I documented it when I set it up. If all of that documentation was lost, then I don't know what to say but that's not what was intended. I

Re: Any interest in maintaining spyder (python IDE)?

Hi Mukundan, Jonathan, I have been working on becoming a fedora maintainer and I would love to help. When I followed the links to the build logs I got a 404. Blaise On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 9:21 AM Jonathan Wright via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > You added me on it a while back

Re: Auto-assign packager sponsors to tickets?

Dne 03. 04. 23 v 19:09 Jason Tibbitts napsal(a): > Again. This is not what we are telling them. Again? There's no need for that. I apologize. It was not my intention to sound harsh. Is two years long enough? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1958193 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/sho

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20230403.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20230402.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20230403.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:2 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 2 Dropped packages:1 Upgraded packages: 133 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 2.68 MiB Size of dropped packages

Re: Auto-assign packager sponsors to tickets?

> Miroslav Suchý writes: > No, I'm not saying that. Somebody has enough courage to open the > package review, discuss it, get to the point that the package review > was approved. But did not have the courage to reach sponsors. It was > road block for them. That's an odd case, I suppose. I h

Future of encryption in Fedora

I just posted a thread on discussion.fedoraproject.org: https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/future-of-encryption-in-fedora/80397 to invite discussion of a requirements document and draft plan about what we might do for encrypting Fedora Workstation systems in the future. Please follow up ther

Re: Node.js repackaging status and questions

On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 7:33 AM Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 12:04 PM Iñaki Ucar wrote: > > ... > > - This repackaging has been pushed to F37 too. Why, if this was a F38 > > change? > > I agree, this is unusual. Hi, Node.js maintainer here. The changes I was making to F38 e

redhat-lsb-core

I'm confused by the Requires for redhat-lsb-core. According to "dnf repoquery --requires redhat-lsb-core" there is no requirement for esmtp. But according to "dnf repoquery --whatrequires esmtp", redhat-lsb-core does require esmtp. Perhaps there is some sort of transitive requirement that the

Re: redhat-lsb-core

On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 4:15 PM Steven A. Falco wrote: > > I'm confused by the Requires for redhat-lsb-core. > > According to "dnf repoquery --requires redhat-lsb-core" there is no > requirement for esmtp. But according to "dnf repoquery --whatrequires > esmtp", redhat-lsb-core does require esmt

Re: redhat-lsb-core

On 4/3/23 04:21 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 4:15 PM Steven A. Falco wrote: I'm confused by the Requires for redhat-lsb-core. According to "dnf repoquery --requires redhat-lsb-core" there is no requirement for esmtp. But according to "dnf repoquery --whatrequires esmt

Re: Auto-assign packager sponsors to tickets?

On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 01:52:49PM -0500, Jason Tibbitts wrote: > > Miroslav Suchý writes: > > > No, I'm not saying that. Somebody has enough courage to open the > > package review, discuss it, get to the point that the package review > > was approved. But did not have the courage to reach sp

Re: Future of encryption in Fedora

On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 03:28:32PM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: > I just posted a thread on discussion.fedoraproject.org: > > https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/future-of-encryption-in-fedora/80397 > > to invite discussion of a requirements document and draft plan about what > we might do for e

Re: Future of encryption in Fedora

On Mon, Apr 3 2023 at 01:41:48 PM -0700, Brian C. Lane wrote: This seems like exactly the kind of discussion that belongs on the devel list, not on a website that I have to remember to visit for updates. There is a notification bell in the right sidebar. Click it. ;)

Re: Auto-assign packager sponsors to tickets?

> It absoletely does. ;) And it even allows us to retrospectively see how many packagers were sponsored in the last month/year/... https://gist.github.com/FrostyX/47defa18348fbb917e73d7b2e7660ca2 Fedora-messaging is awesome :-) On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 10:33 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Mon, Apr

Re: Auto-assign packager sponsors to tickets?

Jason Tibbitts kirjoitti 3.4.2023 klo 20.09: Miroslav Suchý writes: In any case, what I wrote was the procedure I documented it when I set it up. If all of that documentation was lost, then I don't know what to say but that's not what was intended. I drove the change that made this happen.

Orphaned: kitty

The previous maintainer orphaned Kitty terminal package on 29th March 2023. See: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165819 https://sw.kovidgoyal.net/kitty/ ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Tuesday's FESCo Meeting canceled (2023-04-04)

We don't have any outstanding issues, so I am going to cancel the meeting tomorrow. I guess I can run the one next week. ;) = Discussed and Voted in the Ticket = Change: SPDX Licenses Phase 2 https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2972 APPROVED (+6,0,-0) Nonresponsive maintainer: Ross Lagerwall - rossl

Re: Orphaned: kitty

I'm packaging required go dependencies and I'll grab it. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code

Re: Auto-assign packager sponsors to tickets?

Thank you all for the feedback. > The bottom line is that package reviews can be quite time consuming. I > don't think the issue is with sponsorship itself. Sorry Jason, I probably didn't communicate my idea as clearly as I should. My intention wasn't to assign sponsors to review tickets and mak

SPDX: Consistency of tools

WARNING: This is a small rant... I have tried to keep up with the emails on the devel list around this but I admit that I haven't been able to devote the time to GROK them all. I decided to look up my packages on src.fedoraproject.org (I'm still not sure if it's showing me all packages I'm admin

Re: Auto-assign packager sponsors to tickets?

Thanks for this initiative Jakub. Automated builds on copr of packages proposed for review has been very helpful. On 4/4/23 03:59, Jakub Kadlcik wrote: > Thank you all for the feedback. > >> The bottom line is that package reviews can be quite time consuming. I >> don't think the issue is with sp

Re: Auto-assign packager sponsors to tickets?

Benson Muite kirjoitti 4.4.2023 klo 7.02: Thanks for this initiative Jakub. Automated builds on copr of packages proposed for review has been very helpful. I completely agree. Great work! Benson Muite kirjoitti 4.4.2023 klo 7.02: On 4/4/23 03:59, Jakub Kadlcik wrote: From this thread I ge

Re: SPDX: Consistency of tools

Dne 04. 04. 23 v 3:20 Richard Shaw napsal(a): WARNING: This is a small rant... np :) I decided to look up my packages on src.fedoraproject.org (I'm still not sure if it's showing me all packages I'm admin of, or just main admin) and start working through them one

Re: Auto-assign packager sponsors to tickets?

Benson Muite kirjoitti 4.4.2023 klo 7.02: May also want to automatically track unofficial reviews by prospective packagers, perhaps even requiring a certain number of unofficial reviews for the sponsorship process to start. Yes, I think that the sponsorship process should be made more rigid, w

Re: F39 proposal: RPM 4.19 (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 4/3/23 08:04, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Florian Festi: > >> On 3/31/23 15:40, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 3:42 PM Ben Cotton wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RPM-4.19 >>> == Detailed Description == RPM 4.19 contains various improvements