Re: Fedora RISC-V port needs to put shared objects into /usr/lib64/lp64d

On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 02:21:56PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Richard W. M. Jones: > > >> I don't want us to have RPM spec file hacks just to get RISC-V to > >> install in the correct locations. The symbolic link evidently does not > >> cover all cases. > > > > What cases aren't covered by

Re: Fedora RISC-V port needs to put shared objects into /usr/lib64/lp64d

* Richard W. M. Jones: > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 02:21:56PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Richard W. M. Jones: >> >> >> I don't want us to have RPM spec file hacks just to get RISC-V to >> >> install in the correct locations. The symbolic link evidently does not >> >> cover all cases. >> > >

Re: Fedora RISC-V port needs to put shared objects into /usr/lib64/lp64d

On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 06:07:38AM -0400, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 09:43:34AM +0300, David Abdurachmanov wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 1:12 PM Florian Weimer wrote: > > > > We most likely will not have ABIs installed in parallel, but we might > > > > change ABI. Curre

Re: Is there a policy for branches being merged or not

Am 28.04.24 um 23:44 schrieb Kevin Kofler via devel: Julian Sikorski wrote: In this case defaulting to cherry-picking would be a safer bet. Branches unintentionally separated can be merged, but branches unintentionally merged cannot be unmerged. This is only true if you are talking about merge

Re: Fedora RISC-V port needs to put shared objects into /usr/lib64/lp64d

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 08:19:41AM GMT, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 02:21:56PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > What cases aren't covered by the symlink? We have a full, working > > > Fedora/RISC-V distro using it at the moment. > > > > The symbolic link isn't in the buil

Re: Fedora RISC-V port needs to put shared objects into /usr/lib64/lp64d

On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 04:17:37PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Stephen Smoogen: > > > I guess we need to see what RPM owns that symlink and get it into the > > build root > > Sorry, I meant $RPM_BUILDROOT or %buildroot (the staging area used by > rpmbuild). That's not controlled by the syst

Re: how to do minor bump using %autorelease?

On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 01:44:05PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 1:28 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > > On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 10:41:59PM +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > I need to rebuild mame on F40 only for qt-6.7. On rawhide, > > > mame-0.265

Re: Fedora RISC-V port needs to put shared objects into /usr/lib64/lp64d

* Andrea Bolognani: > On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 08:19:41AM GMT, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 02:21:56PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >> > > What cases aren't covered by the symlink? We have a full, working >> > > Fedora/RISC-V distro using it at the moment. >> > >> > The sym

Re: Fedora RISC-V port needs to put shared objects into /usr/lib64/lp64d

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 09:49:34 +0200 Florian Weimer wrote: > * Richard W. M. Jones: > > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 02:21:56PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> * Richard W. M. Jones: > >> > >> >> I don't want us to have RPM spec file hacks just to get RISC-V to > >> >> install in the correct locat

Re: pipenv removal in F40

On 30. 04. 24 8:13, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: I vaguely remember that pipenv retirement was briefly discussed here on the ML, yet I was surprised that F40 doesn't have pipenv anymore. IMO, this would have been announced more prominently as a self contained change, as I expect more python dev

Re: Fedora RISC-V port needs to put shared objects into /usr/lib64/lp64d

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 10:02:52AM GMT, Florian Weimer wrote: > > Shouldn't the symlink point in the opposite direction anyway? > > /usr/lib64/lp64d is the actual canonical path, /usr/lib64 is just for > > compatibility. > > > > Though apparently (see elsewhere in the thread) Gentoo does it this >

Re: pipenv removal in F40

Miro Hrončok wrote: > If you wish to help, I guess you can send a pull request to the release > notes... Or Mattia could simply unretire and adopt the package. Kevin Kofler -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscrib

Re: pipenv removal in F40

Il 30/04/24 10:47 AM, Kevin Kofler via devel ha scritto: > Miro Hrončok wrote: >> If you wish to help, I guess you can send a pull request to the release >> notes... > Or Mattia could simply unretire and adopt the package. > Yeah, well... no! :-) I've re-read the former discussion about pipenv bei

Non-responsive maintainer check for lkundrak

Hi, I'm trying to reach the maintainer of phosh [1] and phoc [2]. Allan has tried to reach out for him without success [3] so I created bug [4] for this non-responsive maintainer check. If someone knows how to contact him, please let me know. Best Regards, Tomi Lähteenmäki [1]

Re: Fedora RISC-V port needs to put shared objects into /usr/lib64/lp64d

Am Dienstag, 30. April 2024, 19:00:33 +11 schrieb Andrea Bolognani: > > Shouldn't the symlink point in the opposite direction anyway? > /usr/lib64/lp64d is the actual canonical path, /usr/lib64 is just for > compatibility. > > Though apparently (see elsewhere in the thread) Gentoo does it this >

Re: Non-responsive maintainer check for lkundrak

Dne 30. 04. 24 v 12:25 odp. Tomi Lähteenmäki napsal(a): Hi, I'm trying to reach the maintainer of phosh [1] and phoc [2]. Allan has tried to reach out for him without success [3] so I created bug [4] for this non-responsive maintainer check. If someone knows how to contact him, please let me

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20240430.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20240429.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20240430.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 31 Added packages: 4 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 80 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 877.18 KiB Size of dropped packages:0

Re: F41 Change Proposal: Drop Mandatory Requires on JRE (system-wide)

On 25. 4. 2024 17:46, Michel Lind wrote: On 4/24/24 11:14 AM, Aoife Moloney wrote: Wiki - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Drop_Mandatory_Requires_on_JRE Announced - https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f41-change-proposal-drop-mandatory-requires-on-jre-system-wide/114186 [snip]

Re: F41 Change Proposal: Drop Mandatory Requires on JRE (system-wide)

Marián, I echo your concerns, however, regarding jars with multiple bytecode versions, aren't java rpm expected to build their sources with one specific JDK? (per the guidelines) how can multiple bytecode version end up in the JAR in that scenario? Regarding the proposal as a whole, I think