On 27. 04. 24 6:34, Tom Stellard wrote:
...
* Switch to python-style compat/main packages. In order to make the packaging
more
consistent between the main package (e.g. llvm) and the compat package (e.g.
llvm18),
we would retire the un-versioned dist-git for llvm, and create a new versioned
d
Well this is surprising. I agree it would be better to have either gimp2
repo or just private branch with GIMP 3 preparations under current GIMP
repository. But at the same time I understand Nil's workflow.
I just hope once the GIMP 3 is out and buildable/operational in Fedora
rawhide the gimp3 re
On 5/11/24 01:04, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Florian Festi wrote:
>> We have an even easier solution for you: You can just run the script at
>> [3] with -n on your own spec files to get them changed to the %patch N
>> variant. If you do that right now they will not break nor will they be
>> to
On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3
> >
>
> What the heck? This should have been gimp2 for the old version, not
> gimp3 for the new version...
Also, how did this pass rev
On 5/11/24 12:56, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 01:28:07PM +0200, Florian Festi wrote:
>> Anyone interested in picking this up? I remember quite a few people
>> being exited about this when it was announced with the rpm-4.19 Change.
>
> I would be interested in makin
On Mon, May 13, 2024, 11:50 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <
domi...@greysector.net> wrote:
> On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3
> > >
> >
> > What the heck? Th
On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 01:28:07PM +0200, Florian Festi wrote:
> Hi everyone!
>
> RPM 4.19 added automatic sysuser handling [1]. In Fedora 39 this feature
> was not enabled right away [2] as it requires some care to properly
> transition to it. Also going back to 4.18 was technically still the
> f
Le 29/04/2024 à 11:32, domi...@wombacher.cc a écrit :
On 04/24/2024 4:21 PM CEST Remi Collet wrote:
I suspect you may need awscrt extension which is quite
a nightmare as it bundles tons of libaws-*
You suspect right, "aws/aws-crt-php": "^1.2.3".
https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/pecl
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 12:14:14PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2024, 11:50 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <
> domi...@greysector.net> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
On 5/13/24 13:07, Florian Festi wrote:
On 5/11/24 12:56, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 01:28:07PM +0200, Florian Festi wrote:
Anyone interested in picking this up? I remember quite a few people
being exited about this when it was announced with the rpm-4.19 Change.
On Mon, May 13, 2024, 12:34 Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 12:14:14PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > On Mon, May 13, 2024, 11:50 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <
> > domi...@greysector.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > > On Sun,
On 13. 05. 24 12:34, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 12:14:14PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Mon, May 13, 2024, 11:50 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <
domi...@greysector.net> wrote:
On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio
On 5/13/24 13:24, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 01:28:07PM +0200, Florian Festi wrote:
Hi everyone!
RPM 4.19 added automatic sysuser handling [1]. In Fedora 39 this feature
was not enabled right away [2] as it requires some care to properly
transition to it. Also going back
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 12:38:06PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2024, 12:34 Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>
> > On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 12:14:14PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 13, 2024, 11:50 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <
> > > domi...@greysector.net> wrote:
>
On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 12:14, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2024, 11:50 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <
> domi...@greysector.net> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20240512.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20240513.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 2
Added packages: 2
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 14
Downgraded packages: 1
Size of added packages: 2.17 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Hi everyone,
On Mon, 2024-05-13 at 11:49 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3
> > >
> >
> > What the heck?
On Mon, 13 May 2024 11:49:47 +0200
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3
> > >
> >
> > What the heck? This should have be
Upstream Node.js has not supported the i686 architecture officially
since Node.js 10.x (released in 2018). As of Node.js 22, it appears
that v8 will no longer build at all on that architecture.
I'm not particularly willing to go to any great lengths to keep it
alive on i686, but I want to know if
Hi Fedora users, developers, and friends!
It's time to start thinking about Test Days for Fedora 41.
For anyone who isn't aware, a Test Day is an event usually focused
around IRC for interaction and a Wiki page for instructions and results,
with the aim being to get a bunch of interested users an
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 2:02 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> Upstream Node.js has not supported the i686 architecture officially
> since Node.js 10.x (released in 2018). As of Node.js 22, it appears
> that v8 will no longer build at all on that architecture.
>
> I'm not particularly willing to go
Hi
I'll be building gdal-3.9.0 for rawhide shortly, which carries a soname
bump. I'll be submitting the builds to the f41-build-side-89329 side
tag, and rebuild all of the dependent packages as well:
GMT
mapserver
liblas
python-fiona
postgis
merkaartor
bes
qmapshack
Dne 13. 05. 24 v 13:24 Nils Philippsen napsal(a):
Hi everyone,
On Mon, 2024-05-13 at 11:49 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto
wrote:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3
What th
Dne 13. 05. 24 v 11:39 Florian Festi napsal(a):
%patch otoh (now) is a regular (though internally implemented) macro
that is expanded with other macros and though can be used in other
macros and expressions.
Do I read correctly that we can now use `%patch` in e.g. `%check`
section? Interest
Dne 10. 05. 24 v 15:20 Florian Festi napsal(a):
On 5/10/24 14:10, Vít Ondruch wrote:
I'd actually prefer the `%patch 1` syntax (which is also the first on
the list [1]). Yes, I understand that `%patch -P1` is to stay on the
safe side, but this is Fedora change, not RHEL or EPEL change.
But if
On 5/13/24 16:09, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 13. 05. 24 v 11:39 Florian Festi napsal(a):
%patch otoh (now) is a regular (though internally implemented) macro
that is expanded with other macros and though can be used in other
macros and expressions.
Do I read correctly that we can now use `%patc
Dne 27. 04. 24 v 6:58 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
* Switch to python-style compat/main packages. In order to make the packaging
more
consistent between the main package (e.g. llvm) and the compat package (e.g.
llvm18),
we would retire the un-versioned dist-git for llvm, and create a new versioned
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 3:23 PM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
>
> Dne 27. 04. 24 v 6:58 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
>
> * Switch to python-style compat/main packages. In order to make the
> packaging more
> consistent between the main package (e.g. llvm) and the compat package (e.g.
> llvm18),
> we would reti
Dne 13. 05. 24 v 15:23 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Dne 27. 04. 24 v 6:58 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
* Switch to python-style compat/main packages. In order to make the packaging
more
consistent between the main package (e.g. llvm) and the compat package (e.g.
llvm18),
we would retire the un-versione
Dne 13. 05. 24 v 15:28 Fabio Valentini napsal(a):
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 3:23 PM Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 27. 04. 24 v 6:58 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
* Switch to python-style compat/main packages. In order to make the packaging
more
consistent between the main package (e.g. llvm) and the compat
Dne 13. 05. 24 v 15:22 Panu Matilainen napsal(a):
On 5/13/24 16:09, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 13. 05. 24 v 11:39 Florian Festi napsal(a):
%patch otoh (now) is a regular (though internally implemented) macro
that is expanded with other macros and though can be used in other
macros and expression
Dne 10. 05. 24 v 14:16 Petr Pisar napsal(a):
V Fri, May 10, 2024 at 01:13:53PM +0200, Lumír Balhar napsal(a):
I might have an idea how to make building Perl packages faster and their
buildroot a little bit smaller.
perl-devel depends on systemtap-sdt-devel and that package contains a single
sc
On Saturday 27 April 2024 05:34:29 BST Tom Stellard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> * Build compat packages (e.g. llvm18) as early as possible. When we package
> a new major release of llvm, we create a compat package so that packages
> that aren't compatible with the new version can still use the old version.
Hi -
> > > > I also did a test rebuild of all packages directly build-requiring
> > > > systemtap-sdt-devel and identified these packages that really need the
> > > > dtrace script: [...]
> > (The logistic challenge there will be side-tag rebuilding all those
> > after a systemtap subrpm split.)
>
On 5/13/24 07:16, Simon Farnsworth via devel wrote:
On Saturday 27 April 2024 05:34:29 BST Tom Stellard wrote:
Hi,
* Build compat packages (e.g. llvm18) as early as possible. When we package
a new major release of llvm, we create a compat package so that packages
that aren't compatible with th
V Mon, May 13, 2024 at 04:14:53PM +0200, Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
> Dne 10. 05. 24 v 14:16 Petr Pisar napsal(a):
> > V Fri, May 10, 2024 at 01:13:53PM +0200, Lumír Balhar napsal(a):
> > > I also did a test rebuild of all packages directly build-requiring
> > > systemtap-sdt-devel and identified these
On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 11:29 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 10. 05. 24 10:55, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > Hot news:
> >
> > SPDX v3 has been published. The biggest change for us is that license
> > expression allows lowercase operators (and, or, with). This got into the
> > specification because
V Mon, May 13, 2024 at 11:11:05AM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler napsal(a):
> > > > > I also did a test rebuild of all packages directly build-requiring
> > > > > systemtap-sdt-devel and identified these packages that really need the
> > > > > dtrace script: [...]
> > > (The logistic challenge there will
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the
FESCo meeting Monday at 19:00 UTC in #meeting:fedoraproject.org
on Matrix.
To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto
or run:
date -d '2024-05-13 19:00 UTC'
Links to all issues to be
Miro Hrončok writes:
> It first showed up in
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python3.13/pull-request/58
>
> The Ci has all the logs, e.g.
>
> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8452/117468452/build.log
Thanks for these links.
It looks like this is happening because the tests a
Greetings,
If I read the history correctly, your pull request went without reply, then
automation or mass operation retired erlang-xmpp because it failed to install.
So obviously the maintainer had left the package without care.
Retiring the package was of course not efficient, I would have bee
On 13. 05. 24 15:38, Vít Ondruch wrote:
And TBH, for me as a Fedora used with no special interest in Python, the
current Python versioning sucks hard. How am I supposed to tell what is the
current version just looking at e.g. the repository? Is it `python3.12` or is
it already `python3.13`? Des
On 13. 05. 24 20:04, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho wrote:
Miro Hrončok writes:
It first showed up in
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python3.13/pull-request/58
The Ci has all the logs, e.g.
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8452/117468452/build.log
Thanks for these link
On 13/05/2024 15:41, Vít Ondruch wrote:
we can spent time adjusting upstream projects to be compatible with the
latest llvm
Feel free to start with pocl. It still doesn't support LLVM 18.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
--
___
On 13/05/2024 00:58, Sérgio Basto wrote:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3
The gimp package should be updated to 3.0, and the existing 2.x version
should move to the gimp2 compatibility package.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
--
Hi,
gdk-pixbuf 2.42.11 has dropped support for several uncommon image
formats. This is causing several applications to crash in Fedora
rawhide [1][2]. (The change also got backported to F40 and F39, but
I've reverted it there.)
Benjamin Gilbert has proposed reenabling the removed loaders [3]
On 13. 05. 24 17:11, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
Hi -
I also did a test rebuild of all packages directly build-requiring
systemtap-sdt-devel and identified these packages that really need the
dtrace script: [...]
(The logistic challenge there will be side-tag rebuilding all those
after a systemtap
On 13/05/2024 13:24, Nils Philippsen wrote:
If I’m not off track, renaming the existing version to “gimp2” would at
least make people install it as an update to “gimp-2.10.x” without any
real benefit to them. And it would make ”gimp” jump to version 3 which
is wildly different
Fedora is a bleed
Hi -
> > OK, build-time dependency changes may not need the side tag but do
> > need a spec update to prevent a FTBFS at next build.
>
> Only those packages that actually need dtrace would require changes. Such
> changes could land gradually as needed.
They'd have to land at the next respin of e
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 8:36 PM Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> gdk-pixbuf 2.42.11 has dropped support for several uncommon image
> formats. This is causing several applications to crash in Fedora
> rawhide [1][2]. (The change also got backported to F40 and F39, but
> I've reverted it there.)
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 8:38 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 13/05/2024 13:24, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> > If I’m not off track, renaming the existing version to “gimp2” would at
> > least make people install it as an update to “gimp-2.10.x” without any
> > real benefit to them. And it wo
On Mon, May 13 2024 at 08:50:04 PM +02:00:00, Fabio Valentini
wrote:
Just out of curiosity, would glycin be a better mechanism than
gdk-pixbuf for loading "untrusted" images / "unsafe" image formats?
Its loaders are sandboxed via SECCOMP and support for most image
formats is implemented in Rust
Text Log:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2024-05-13/fesco.2024-05-13-19.01.log.txt
HTML Log:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2024-05-13/fesco.2024-05-13-19.01.log.html
Text Minutes:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting_
On Mon, 2024-05-13 at 13:09 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 12:14, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > On Mon, May 13, 2024, 11:50 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <
> > domi...@greysector.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > >
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 1:36 PM Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> gdk-pixbuf 2.42.11 has dropped support for several uncommon image
> formats. This is causing several applications to crash in Fedora
> rawhide [1][2]. (The change also got backported to F40 and F39, but
> I've reverted it there.)
Thanks M
On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 13:27, Dan Horák wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2024 11:49:47 +0200
> Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
[...]
> > Also, how did this pass review?
> >
> > License:LGPLv3+
>
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3/blob/rawhide/f/gimp3.spec
> contains
>
> License:
On 10. 05. 24 22:45, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 10. 05. 24 v 11:29 dop. Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
So we can now have packages with uppercase AND/ORs and packages with
lowercase and/ors and we can no longer quickly recognize SPDX expression by
observing uppercase AND/ORs?
That does not sound li
On Mon, 2024-05-13 at 14:58 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> Dne 13. 05. 24 v 13:24 Nils Philippsen napsal(a):
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > On Mon, 2024-05-13 at 11:49 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> > wrote:
> > > On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > > On Sun, May 12, 2024 a
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 11:44 AM Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 11:29 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >
> > On 10. 05. 24 10:55, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > > Hot news:
> > >
> > > SPDX v3 has been published. The biggest change for us is that license
> > > expression allows lowerca
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 3:28 PM Richard Fontana wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 11:44 AM Fabio Valentini wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 11:29 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > >
> > > On 10. 05. 24 10:55, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > > > Hot news:
> > > >
> > > > SPDX v3 has been published.
Dne 13. 05. 24 v 5:38 odp. Fabio Valentini napsal(a):
Can we at least still recommend to use the AND / OR / WITH
capitalization for Fedora license tags, even if the lower-case ones
are technically considered valid now?
The other way round. We will not encourage using lower case and all our
exa
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 5:23 PM Nils Philippsen wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2024-05-13 at 14:58 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
...
> > Why would you push Gimp 3 into Fedora <= 40?
>
> Why wouldn’t I? It’s technically feasible without really jumping
> through hoops, and I don’t want to force users to upgrade the
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 10:09 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
>
> Dne 13. 05. 24 v 15:22 Panu Matilainen napsal(a):
> > On 5/13/24 16:09, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >>
> >> Dne 13. 05. 24 v 11:39 Florian Festi napsal(a):
> >>> %patch otoh (now) is a regular (though internally implemented) macro
> >>> that is ex
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> the %check section
> (which, if I remember correctly is run AFTER the creation of the
> binary RPMs)
No, it runs after %install but before the files are packaged up. It's
possible for %check to make changes to what was staged in %install and
have those changes appear in
64 matches
Mail list logo
