Re: F40 Change Proposal: Optimized Binaries for the AMD64 Architecture (System-Wide)

On 1/19/24 18:58, Robert Marcano via devel wrote: On 12/28/23 1:25 PM, Robert Marcano wrote: On 12/28/23 12:58 PM, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Aoife Moloney said: Systemd will be modified to insert the additional directories into the `$PATH` environment variable (affecting all progra

Re: F40 Change Proposal: Optimized Binaries for the AMD64 Architecture (System-Wide)

* Panu Matilainen: > Using something path-based will also exclude EVERYTHING started with a > shebang. I guess we didn't want to optimize those > Python/Perl/Ruby/whatnot scripts here? > > A path based approach isn't anywhere near worth the mess it creates. A > humble opinion. I'm not sure if it'

Re: HEADSUP boost and tbb rebuilds starting in a side tag

On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 at 12:10, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > On Saturday, 20 January 2024 at 17:59, Tom Hughes via devel wrote: > > On 20/01/2024 16:07, Jerry James wrote: > > > > > Upstream has this in src/tbb/CMakeLists.txt: > > > > > > if (CMAKE_SIZEOF_VOID_P EQUAL 8) > > > set(T

Sequoia PGP : What are the options for expired third party GPG signing keys?

Following Fedora’s migration to Sequoia PGP, it seems that it isn’t possible to import an expired signing key anymore. rpm --import https://some.domain/public-keys/SOME_EXPIRED_RPM_KEY.public error: Certificate : The certificate is expired: The primary key is not live error: https://some.domain/

Sequoia PGP : What are the options for expired third party GPG signing keys?

Following Fedora’s migration to Sequoia PGP, it seems that it isn’t possible to import an expired signing key anymore. rpm --import https://some.domain/public-keys/SOME_EXPIRED_RPM_KEY.public error: Certificate : The certificate is expired: The primary key is not live error: https://some.domain/

Re: Sequoia PGP : What are the options for expired third party GPG signing keys?

Hi Antoine, Antoine Zellmeyer via devel writes: > Following Fedora’s migration to Sequoia PGP, it seems that it isn’t possible > to import an expired signing key anymore. > > rpm --import https://some.domain/public-keys/SOME_EXPIRED_RPM_KEY.public > error: Certificate : > The certificate is expi

Re: Sequoia PGP : What are the options for expired third party GPG signing keys?

Thanks ! I'll follow this issue. And sorry for the duplicate thread, double clicked on the send button by mistake and it seems to have created a duplicate ^^' -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to deve

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20240122.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20240121.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20240122.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:5 Dropped images: 3 Added packages: 1 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 73 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 17.73 KiB Size of dropped packages:0 B

Re: Sequoia PGP : What are the options for expired third party GPG signing keys?

Hi Antoine Antoine Zellmeyer via devel writes: > Thanks ! I'll follow this issue. Great. I posted a fix. It would be helpful if you could test that it works for your case. Specifically, it would be helpful to hear back that it: - imports the certificate, and - you are able to install pac

Re: GCC 14 error for asio

On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 12:23:27PM +0100, Julian Sikorski wrote: > asio started failing to build with gcc-14 [1]. The error is: Seems (thanks Patrick for reducing and analyzing it) it is a GCC bug, https://gcc.gnu.org/PR113544 Hopefully it will be fixed soon. Jakub -- ___

Re: HEADSUP boost and tbb rebuilds starting in a side tag

On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 at 13:24, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 at 12:10, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > > > On Saturday, 20 January 2024 at 17:59, Tom Hughes via devel wrote: > > > On 20/01/2024 16:07, Jerry James wrote: > > > > > > > Upstream has this in src/tbb/CMakeList

Re: Fedora Linux 37 is EOL

Ok I have re-ran the script again, this time it finished so I believe all F37 bugs are now closed . If you come across any open ones, do let me know and I will re-run the autoclose script. Thanks! Aoife On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 8:22 PM Sandro wrote: > On 15-01-2024 09:52, Vít Ondruch wrote: > >

Re: Fedora Linux 40 Change Proposal Submission Deadlines have now passed

On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 11:02 PM Elliott Sales de Andrade < quantum.anal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 4:33 PM Aoife Moloney wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Please note that we are now past all change proposal submission >> deadlines. Thank you to all who have submitted changes to Fedo

Heads up: openQA update test failures due to ongoing FAS outage

Due to the ongoing FAS outage - https://status.fedoraproject.org/ - many updates failed openQA testing, because part of the openQA web browser test happens to be to open https://accounts.fedoraproject.org and check it looks as expected. Obviously right now it does not. As this is not a critica

Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

tl;dr: Buildroot overrides should be restricted to releng members and packagers should use on-demand side-tags instead. I'd like to ascertain whether there are any remaining use-cases for which buildroot overrides are preferable to (or necessary instead of) on-demand side-tags. We've had support

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

> I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that are not covered by side tags One use case that I sometimes encounter is requiring a newer version for a dependency, that is submitted to Bodhi with a side-tag. Since the build is in a side-tag, I can't access it without bui

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

* blinxen: >> I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that > are not covered by side tags > > One use case that I sometimes encounter is requiring a newer version > for a dependency, that is submitted to Bodhi with a side-tag. Since > the build is in a side-tag, I can't a

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

On 22. 01. 24 19:07, Stephen Gallagher wrote: I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that are not covered by side tags. If you know of any, please speak up. Every time somebody asks this, I say: Pull Requests CI I opened https://pagure.io/fedora-ci/general/issue/240 al

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

* Stephen Gallagher: > I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that > are not covered by side tags. If you know of any, please speak up. The overrides are more discoverable: With side tags, you really have to k

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 1:53 PM Florian Weimer wrote: > > * blinxen: > > >> I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that > > are not covered by side tags > > > > One use case that I sometimes encounter is requiring a newer version > > for a dependency, that is submitted t

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 1:55 PM Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Stephen Gallagher: > > > I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that > > are not covered by side tags. If you know of any, please speak up. > > The overrides are more discoverable: > >

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 1:55 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 22. 01. 24 19:07, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that > > are not covered by side tags. If you know of any, please speak up. > > Every time somebody asks this, I say: Pull Reque

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

On Mon Jan 22, 2024 at 13:07 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > tl;dr: Buildroot overrides should be restricted to releng members and > packagers should use on-demand side-tags instead. Previous discussion from December 2022: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.o

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 07:39:52PM +0100, blinxen wrote: > > I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that are > not covered by side tags > > One use case that I sometimes encounter is requiring a newer version for a > dependency, > that is submitted to Bodhi with a side-tag

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

On 22. 01. 24 20:04, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 1:55 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: On 22. 01. 24 19:07, Stephen Gallagher wrote: I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that are not covered by side tags. If you know of any, please speak up. Every time

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 2:11 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 22. 01. 24 20:04, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 1:55 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > >> > >> On 22. 01. 24 19:07, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > >>> I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that > >>> ar

Re: Fedora Linux 40 Change Proposal Submission Deadlines have now passed

After being helpfully told how to move the wiki page without needing to create a new one, the typo has now been fixed. On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 5:37 PM Aoife Moloney wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 11:02 PM Elliott Sales de Andrade < > quantum.anal...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 18, 2

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

* Stephen Gallagher: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 1:55 PM Florian Weimer wrote: >> >> * Stephen Gallagher: >> >> > I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that >> > are not covered by side tags. If you know of any, please speak up. >> >> The overrides are more discoverable: >

Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2024-01-22)

= # #meeting:fedoraproject.org: fesco = Meeting started by @jistone:fedora.im at 2024-01-22 19:30:53 Meeting summary --- * TOPIC: #3145 Delay mass rebuild for Fedora 40 until f40-build-side-81394 side-tag is mer

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

On 22. 01. 24 20:20, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 2:11 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: In the meantime, if we otherwise disabled free-access buildroot overrides, this would definitely be grounds for granting an exception. How would that work? Would I ask FESCo every time I need to

Planning to unretire rust-zopfli and rust-oxipng

As required by the Package Retirement Process[1], this email announces that I plan to unretire the rust-zopfli and rust-oxipng packages. Both were retired because they were “no longer needed,” but I would like to package the oxipng command-line tool, which is similar to the existing optipng too

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

Il 22/01/24 19:39, blinxen ha scritto: > > I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that > are not covered by side tags > > One use case that I sometimes encounter is requiring a newer version for > a dependency, > that is submitted to Bodhi with a side-tag. Since the build

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

Il 22/01/24 19:07, Stephen Gallagher ha scritto: > tl;dr: Buildroot overrides should be restricted to releng members and > packagers should use on-demand side-tags instead. > > I'm fully in agreement with such proposal. Do note however that there's currently no way to restrict BRO usage in Bodhi,