Re: F38 updates stuck in pending

On Friday, 30 June 2023 at 08:23, Bojan Smojver via devel wrote: > If anyone reading this email has special powers to get some of the > week old F38 updates unstuck from pending, please click the magic > button. 😁 > > An example of such an update: > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2

Re: Announcing fmt library soversion bump

Vitaly, On Friday, 30 June 2023 at 07:42, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > The side tag has been merged: > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-4e8e736635 > > FTBFS (final): > > arbor (not related to fmt, some tests failed on s390x) > CuraEngine > bout++ > cachelib > dolphin-emu

Re: Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 4:41 AM Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > Bastien Nocera wrote: > > As part of the same process outlined in Matthias Clasen's "LibreOffice > > packages" email, my upstream and downstream work on desktop Bluetooth, > > multimedia applications (namely totem, rhythmbox and sou

Package deprecation policy

There is at present no policy on when and why packages should be deprecated. Have made a proposal to allow deprecation of packages only when they fail to build or are a security concern. In other cases, orphaning and retirement should be done. Comments and suggestions for improvement are welcome.

Re: F38 updates stuck in pending

Yeah, a ticket may be a better idea. I am not a maintainer of those packages, so don't want to overstep. -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of

Re: Fedora 38 Cinnamon Desktop - LIGHTDM.SERVICE FAIL..!!!!

+0.01s] DEBUG: Logging to /var/log/lightdm/lightdm.log [+0.01s] DEBUG: Starting Light Display Manager 1.32.0, UID=0 PID=5197 [+0.01s] DEBUG: Loading configuration dirs from /usr/share/lightdm/lightdm.conf.d [+0.01s] DEBUG: Loading configuration from /usr/share/lightdm/lightdm.conf.d/50-backup-log

Re: F38 updates stuck in pending

https://pagure.io/releng/issue/11508 -- Bojan ___ 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-conduc

Re: Fedora 38 Cinnamon Desktop - LIGHTDM.SERVICE FAIL..!!!!

sudo dnf -y in lightdm-autologin-greeter >> sudo lightdm --test-mode --debug [+0.00s] DEBUG: Logging to /var/log/lightdm/lightdm.log [+0.00s] DEBUG: Starting Light Display Manager 1.32.0, UID=0 PID=5256 [+0.00s] DEBUG: Loading configuration dirs from /usr/share/lightdm/lightdm.conf.d [+0.00s] DE

Re: Towards enabling rpm sysusers integration

On Thu, Jun 29, 2023, at 3:55 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote: >> last time I looked auditd is started later than >> systemd-sysusers. Hence not sure if sysusers would actually generate >> audit messages that auditd could pick them up. > > For the rpm integration, "started later" is irrelevant as the us

How to deal with sysusers files inside the package

I'm looking at converting my package (where I'm also the upstream) to use sysusers.d but I'd prefer shipping the sysusers.d file inside the source tarball rather than in packaging. This allows me to use the same definition on Debian, which I think is a huge benefit of systemd standardizing thes

Re: Announcing fmt library soversion bump

On 30/06/2023 10:01, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: As it is, you're forcing the above maintainers to scramble to fix their packages at the beginning of summer holiday season. Announced: 23.05.2023. Rebuild started: 27.06.2023. FTBFS packages announced: 28.06.2023. Side tag merged: 30.06

Re: Fedora 38 Cinnamon Desktop - LIGHTDM.SERVICE FAIL..!!!!

> sudo dnf -y in lightdm-autologin-greeter > > > [+0.00s] DEBUG: Logging to /var/log/lightdm/lightdm.log > [+0.00s] DEBUG: Starting Light Display Manager 1.32.0, UID=0 PID=5256 > [+0.00s] DEBUG: Loading configuration dirs from > /usr/share/lightdm/lightdm.conf.d > [+0.00s] DEBUG: Loading configu

Re: Package deprecation policy

Dne 30. 06. 23 v 10:34 Benson Muite napsal(a): There is at present no policy on when and why packages should be deprecated. Have made a proposal to allow deprecation of packages only when they fail to build There is a catch. Packages which are FTBFS cannot be marked as deprecated, because t

Re: Announcing fmt library soversion bump

On Friday, 30 June 2023 at 12:37, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > On 30/06/2023 10:01, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > As it is, you're forcing the above maintainers to > > scramble to fix their packages at the beginning of summer holiday > > season. > > Announced: 23.05.2023. > Rebuil

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20230630.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20230629.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20230630.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:1 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 2 Dropped packages:1 Upgraded packages: 95 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 116.64 KiB Size of dropped packages

Re: Fedora 38 Cinnamon Desktop - LIGHTDM.SERVICE FAIL..!!!!

Might be a shot into the dark, but I had this problem a few times, when I had lightdm installed, but not the X-server. For example on my laptop, I have following packages present: # rpm -qa | grep -i Xorg xorg-x11-xauth-1.1.2-2.fc37.x86_64 xorg-x11-xbitmaps-1.1.2-2.fc37.noarch xorg-x11-xinit-1.4.0

rubygem-rdiscount license correction

Since its review, rubygem-rdiscount was clasified as ASL 1.1, but as far as I can tell, it was always BSD licensed. Therefore I have changed the license tag to BSD-3-Clause which should be in line with upstream: https://github.com/davidfstr/rdiscount/blob/8c890c56cecaa85cebe671d12f4724215876062

Re: rubygem-rdiscount license correction

Vít Ondruch wrote on 2023/06/30 21:14: Since its review, rubygem-rdiscount was clasified as ASL 1.1, but as far as I can tell, it was always BSD licensed. Therefore I have changed the license tag to BSD-3-Clause which should be in line with upstream: https://github.com/davidfstr/rdiscount/blob

Re: rubygem-rdiscount license correction

On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 9:00 AM Mamoru TASAKA wrote: > > Vít Ondruch wrote on 2023/06/30 21:14: > > Since its review, rubygem-rdiscount was clasified as ASL 1.1, but as far as > > I can tell, it was always BSD licensed. Therefore I have changed the > > license tag to BSD-3-Clause which should be

Re: Red Hat & Fedora -- largely stepping out of this ecosystem

I agree with RH's decision. I write software and release it as gpl3, source, it and all build Makefiles! I give it out, and to those, I ask, only to provide me with bug reports or some patch ideas to make the offering better. What should I do, if the person I gave the software to, removes

Re: Red Hat & Fedora -- largely stepping out of this ecosystem

On Thu, 2023-06-29 at 23:57 +, Piotr Szubiakowski wrote: > Hey! > > On Thu, 2023-06-29 at 19:12 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > > > > On 6/26/23 18:47, Jeff Law wrote: > > > > > What Red Hat has done may be technically legal and perhaps > > > > > good > > > > > for > > > > > its business. >

Re: Package deprecation policy

On 6/30/23 14:00, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Dne 30. 06. 23 v 10:34 Benson Muite napsal(a): >> There is at present no policy on when and why packages should be >> deprecated.  Have made a proposal to allow deprecation of packages only >> when they fail to build > > > There is a catch. Packages which

Re: Package deprecation policy

On 6/30/23 04:34, Benson Muite wrote: There is at present no policy on when and why packages should be deprecated. Have made a proposal to allow deprecation of packages only when they fail to build or are a security concern. In other cases, orphaning and retirement should be done. Comments and

Re: Red Hat & Fedora -- largely stepping out of this ecosystem

Am 30.06.23 um 16:05 schrieb Sérgio Basto: On Thu, 2023-06-29 at 23:57 +, Piotr Szubiakowski wrote: Hey! On Thu, 2023-06-29 at 19:12 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: On 6/26/23 18:47, Jeff Law wrote: What Red Hat has done may be technically legal and perhaps good for its business. Somethin

Re: Package deprecation policy

On 6/30/23 17:05, Ben Beasley wrote: > On 6/30/23 04:34, Benson Muite wrote: >> There is at present no policy on when and why packages should be >> deprecated.  Have made a proposal to allow deprecation of packages only >> when they fail to build or are a security concern.  In other cases, >> orpha

Re: Is there a chance to phase out `/lib64` directory?

Kevin Kofler via devel writes: > Carlos O'Donell wrote: >> And assembling those sysroots is not straight forward. > > The easiest way is to unpack a live image. If you are targeting an Arch- > based or similar distro, you will probably get away with just unpacking the > image, because it install

Re: Is there a chance to phase out `/lib64` directory?

On 6/30/23 07:45, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho wrote: Kevin Kofler via devel writes: Carlos O'Donell wrote: And assembling those sysroots is not straight forward. The easiest way is to unpack a live image. If you are targeting an Arch- based or similar distro, you will probably get away

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 39 Python 3.12 rebuilds to start in a side tag this week

On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 at 07:50, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 13. 06. 23 14:02, Tomas Hrnciar wrote: > > Hello, > > > > in order to deliver Python 3.12, we are running a coordinated rebuild in a > > side > > tag. > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Python3.12 > >

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 39 Python 3.12 rebuilds to start in a side tag this week

On 29. 06. 23 22:37, Jerry James wrote: On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 6:03 AM Tomas Hrnciar wrote: If you'd like to build a package after we already rebuilt it, you should be able to build it in the side tag via: on branch rawhide: $ fedpkg build --target=f39-python $ koji wait-repo f39-python --bu

Re: Red Hat & Fedora -- largely stepping out of this ecosystem

On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 01:41:18PM +, Leslie Satenstein via devel wrote: > What should I do, if the person I gave the software to, removes my > copyright, rebrands the software and sells my software as their own? > Is it right? And when I release a bug fix, they take it, insert the > fix int

Re: Red Hat & Fedora -- largely stepping out of this ecosystem

Am 30.06.23 um 15:41 schrieb Leslie Satenstein via devel: What should I do, if the person I gave the software to, removes my copyright, rebrands the software and sells my software as their own? Is it right? And when I release a bug fix, they take it, insert the fix into the rebr

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Allow Removal of tzdata (System-Wide)

On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 at 19:10, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > Hello Patsy, > > On 26. 06. 23 17:54, Aoife Moloney wrote: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/AllowRemovalOfTzdata > > > > == Summary == > > Allow the removal of tzdata especially on containers in order to minimize > > size. > > ... >

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Allow Removal of tzdata (System-Wide)

On 6/30/23 10:22, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 at 19:10, Miro Hrončok wrote: We would also need to ensure UTC work even without tzdata installed. Yes, that would be useful. Although IMHO even that seems like a nice-to-have not an absolute showstopper. Most containerized workloa

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Allow Removal of tzdata (System-Wide)

On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 at 11:39, Ian Pilcher wrote: > On 6/30/23 10:22, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 at 19:10, Miro Hrončok wrote: > >> We would also need to ensure UTC work even without tzdata installed. > > > > Yes, that would be useful. > > > > Although IMHO even that seems lik

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Allow Removal of tzdata (System-Wide)

On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 at 16:38, Ian Pilcher wrote: > Rather than expecting runtimes and applications to be fixed to work > without any timezone information, perhaps the best way forward would be > to create a tzdata-utc (and similar Java and Python packages). > > (Sorry if this has already been sugge

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Allow Removal of tzdata (System-Wide)

Once upon a time, Jonathan Wakely said: > From the change proposal: > > == Feedback == > In June of 2021, we proposed creating a new tzdata sub-package that > would only provide the UTC timezone. As part of the discussion around > this proposal, it was recommended that we completely remove tzdat

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Allow Removal of tzdata (System-Wide)

On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 at 11:50, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 at 16:38, Ian Pilcher wrote: > > Rather than expecting runtimes and applications to be fixed to work > > without any timezone information, perhaps the best way forward would be > > to create a tzdata-utc (and similar Java

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 39 Python 3.12 rebuilds to start in a side tag this week

On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 9:02 AM Petr Viktorin wrote: > The use_tracing was fixed for most code, but still remained in > profiling/tracing support. > I filed a PR for Cython: > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/Cython/pull-request/46 > > (Hoping for a Cython 3 release soon -- things are getting fi

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Build JDKs once, repack everywhere (System-Wide) - Proposal Addendum

On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 01:23:42PM -0700, Tom Stellard wrote: > On 6/29/23 10:42, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 10:14:31AM -0700, Tom Stellard wrote: > > > On 6/29/23 09:52, Jiri Vanek wrote: > > > > Hi Tom! > > > > > > > > Thanx a lot of for input. Although I did my bes with the

Re: Red Hat & Fedora -- largely stepping out of this ecosystem

Hi Leon. I replied inline. Leslie Satenstein On Friday, June 30, 2023 at 11:16:48 a.m. EDT, Leon Fauster via devel wrote: Am 30.06.23 um 15:41 schrieb Leslie Satenstein via devel: >    What should I do, if the person I gave the software to, removes my >    copyright, rebrands

Re: Red Hat & Fedora -- largely stepping out of this ecosystem

That's not what is happening on those patches, Leslie. The RH engineers are adding the patches to the package which is basically how backporting works (as in all distros that do it), and then adding themselves as the maintainers that added the patches. Well documented as it should. They did not

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 39 Python 3.12 rebuilds to start in a side tag this week

On 30. 06. 23 18:13, Jerry James wrote: On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 9:02 AM Petr Viktorin wrote: The use_tracing was fixed for most code, but still remained in profiling/tracing support. I filed a PR for Cython: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/Cython/pull-request/46 (Hoping for a Cython 3 rel

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Build JDKs once, repack everywhere (System-Wide) - Proposal Addendum

On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 08:14:01PM +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote: > Hi Kevin! > I'm unabel to answer that. First release will be a bit experiemntal > for sure. But final target is sure - to persist the underlying > portables and to enable srpm rebuild as comfortably as possible. Sure. > As far rawhide

Re: How to deal with sysusers files inside the package

Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote: > I'm looking at converting my package (where I'm also the upstream) to > use sysusers.d but I'd prefer shipping the sysusers.d file inside the > source tarball rather than in packaging. This allows me to use the same > definition on Debian, which I think is a h

Re: Package deprecation policy

Ben Beasley wrote: > There are other valid reasons to deprecate packages. Upstream > deprecation is one of them. IMHO, it is not. Packages that are not actively maintained upstream tend to be very little maintenance effort in Fedora, because there are no new upstream releases to pick up. You jus

Re: Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

Peter Robinson wrote: > I would hardly say Libreoffice, bluetooth on the desktop and certain > iDevice pieces is "killing all work on the desktop" it's more focusing > on things that are important to their customers in those contexts. What corporate desktop customers do not use LibreOffice? If RH

Re: Red Hat & Fedora -- largely stepping out of this ecosystem

Leslie Satenstein via devel wrote: > What should I do, if the person I gave the software to, removes my > copyright, rebrands the software and sells my software as their own? Is it > right? And when I release a bug fix, they take it, insert the fix into the > rebranded copy they are selling, and th

Re: Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

On Sat, Jul 1, 2023 at 1:00 AM Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > What corporate desktop customers do not use LibreOffice? I know two big-name scientific instrument manufacturers that offer RHEL workstations on which to run the control software. I suspect there are other domains with similar use c

Re: Orphaning packages (was LibreOffice packages)

On 29/06/2023 16:47, Bastien Nocera wrote: Hello, As part of the same process outlined in Matthias Clasen's "LibreOffice packages" email, my upstream and downstream work on desktop Bluetooth, multimedia applications (namely totem, rhythmbox and sound-juicer) and libfprint/fprintd is being sto

Re: F36 Change: Default To Noto Fonts (System-Wide Change proposal)

> I would like to point to a problem with the current config regarding Arabic > font. > For Arabic text, The dejavu sans is still being displayed in many webpages in > firefox > instead of the noto sans. > However, when switching the system language to arabic, firefox correctly > displays noto >

Re: F36 Change: Default To Noto Fonts (System-Wide Change proposal)

Dejavu was default font in Fedora for many many years, so many packages still rely/assume it. Likely more than necessary, eg in current Fedora Rawhide... $ sudo dnf repoquery -q --whatrequires dejavu-sans-fonts | grep -v i686 | wc -l 43 After the new `default-fonts` Change for Fedora 39, one cou