Re: Updating xorg-x11-server

Hi Sérgio On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 5:17 AM Sérgio Basto wrote: > On Thu, 2024-09-05 at 22:41 +, Leigh Scott wrote: > > Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > My understanding is the reason we hadn't was because of the > > > > NVIDIA > > > binary driver. > > > > It doesn't matter if it breaks 340xx, it's i

Removal of maven-local for Java 8, 11, 17

Hello. In Fedora 42, Javapackages project (the Java packaging tooling used for building Java packages) will stop supporting OpenJDK 8 (1.8), OpenJDK 11 and OpenJDK 17 for building RPM packages with. In Fedora 42 the only Java version supported for building Fedora packages will be OpenJDK 21. Later

Removal of osgi dependency generators

Hi. I'm considering deprecating and eventually removing osgi Provides/Requires generators. Does anyone have any objections? I don't see any reason to keep osgi generators. They used to be used for Eclipse packaging, but Eclipse in Fedora is long gone and it's not coming back. I am in the process

[heads up] update to astyle 3.6.1 with a soname bump in rawhide

Hi, I am going to update astyle to the latest 3.6.1 version that changes ABI and also changes soname. The 2 dependent packages (codeblocks and kdevelop) will be rebuilt in a side-tag. Dan -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedo

[SPDX] Rest of "trivial" migration

Below is last 198 packages that has 1:1 mapping to SPDX id. But most of them has some caveat. My intention is to NOT run this through script to avoid some mistake, but convert it manually in dist-git. I plan to convert * Public Domain to LicenseRef-Callaway-Public-Domain * "Redistributable, n

Re: [SPDX] Mass license change - batch #3 of all remaining packages

V Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 09:32:03PM +0200, Miroslav Suchý napsal(a): > Dne 28. 08. 24 v 11:53 dop. Miroslav Suchý napsal(a): > > Here is the third and last batch of changes for 972 packages > > (perl-JSON-Create to 0ad-data) > > Done. > > I am now running new check of all spec files to see what ca

Re: [SPDX] Rest of "trivial" migration

> fpc - can be trivially converted to GPL-2.0-or-later > AND LGPL-2.1-or-later WITH Qwt-exception-1.0 Please don't. FPC has an ongoing discussion in fedora-license-data [0], and the conclusion was that this most likely warrants a new exception identifier [1]. If we want to go with an existing

[SPDX] packages that are "not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX"

Bellow is list of packages that have licenses that are neither valid as Callaway nor as SPDX. I.e. the license cannot be validated neither using 'license-validate' nor using 'license-validate --old'. Some examples I checked (random selection): aldo.spec: License:    GPL-2.0-or-later AND GPL

Re: [SPDX] packages that are "not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX"

On Fri, 6 Sept 2024 at 09:49, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > Bellow is list of packages that have licenses that are neither valid as > Callaway nor as SPDX. I.e. the license cannot be validated neither using > 'license-validate' nor using 'license-validate --old'. > > Some examples I checked (random

Re: [SPDX] packages that are "not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX"

On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 10:49:07AM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Bellow is list of packages that have licenses that are neither valid as > Callaway nor as SPDX. I.e. the license cannot be validated neither using > 'license-validate' nor using 'license-validate --old'. > > Some examples I checked

Re: [SPDX] Mass license change - batch #3 of all remaining packages

Dne 06. 09. 24 v 10:29 dop. Petr Pisar napsal(a): I'm not sure it was a systemic mistake or just the two packages were special. Very likely a bug in my quick'n'dirty script. :) -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCA Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys -- ___

Re: [SPDX] packages that are "not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX"

V Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 10:49:07AM +0200, Miroslav Suchý napsal(a): > Bellow is list of packages that have licenses that are neither valid as > Callaway nor as SPDX. I.e. the license cannot be validated neither using > 'license-validate' nor using 'license-validate --old'. [...] > There is 236 such

(fedora) Re: Proposed CHOST change for the 64bit time_t transition

Seems like the fedora list moderators decided to not let the follow-ups pass to the fedora-dev list, so please if you're interested follow the discussion on one of the other involved mailing lists. I'm fairly sure this is also relevant here. E.g., see for the thread https://sourceware.org/pipe

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20240906.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20240905.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20240906.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:1 Dropped images: 1 Added packages: 2 Dropped packages:2 Upgraded packages: 136 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 6.46 MiB Size of dropped packages

Re: Updating xorg-x11-server

It was removed from the kernel not xorg. https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-Drop-Old-UMS-DRM-Infra Sérgio Basto wrote: > On Thu, 2024-09-05 at 22:41 +, Leigh Scott wrote: > > Neal Gompa wrote: > > My understanding is the reason we hadn't was because of the > > NVIDIA > > binary driver. > > I

Re: Orphaning harvey

On 9/5/24 12:06 PM, Przemek Klosowski via devel wrote: Do you think that is a technical decision, based e.g. on dependencies they need, or a business decision to use the app store? It's their right to choose, but I'm curious whether it reflects the broader developer sentiment towards flatpaks.

Re: [SPDX] packages that are "not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX"

> lazarus Hmm, I'm pretty certain I converted that. > %global license_ide GPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.0 WITH > Classpath-exception-2.0 > %global license_lcl GPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.0 WITH > Classpath-exception-2.0 AND MPL-1.1 AND Apache-2.0 Bah, silly mistake on my part. This was "LGPLv2

Re: [SPDX] packages that are "not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX"

There are still packages in this list that appear to have valid license expressions, but aren’t amenable to spec-file grepping because they use the %shrink macro to split long license expressions across multiple lines. Looking at this list: music  c4core fcitx5-mozc gi-docgen libpri lumina

Re: [SPDX] packages that are "not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX"

On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 10:49:07 GMT, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > python-graph-tool    ankursinha Hrm, this seems fine with license-validate-23-1.fc40.noarch: > $ rpmspec -P ./python-graph-tool.spec | grep "^License" > License:LGPL-3.0-or-later AND BSL-1.0 AND BSD-3-Clause AND > GPL-3.0-or-lat

Re: [SPDX] packages that are "not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX"

On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 10:49:07 GMT, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > python-llvmlite  ankursinha This one also looks fine: > $ rpmspec -P python-llvmlite.spec | grep "^License" > License:BSD-2-Clause AND Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception AND > LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain > $ license-validate

Re: [SPDX] packages that are "not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX"

Both python-graph-tool and python-llvmlite also use the %{shrink: …} macro in their spec files. You’ve demonstrated how they can be validated correctly by first allowing RPM to form the License expression in a single line, rather than grepping the spec file directly. On 9/6/24 7:19 AM, Ankur S

Re: Updating xorg-x11-server

On Thu, 2024-09-05 at 18:54 +0200, Neal Gompa wrote: > My understanding is the reason we hadn't was because of the NVIDIA > binary driver. For the desktops that still use X11 and the X11 DDX > instead of the modesetting driver, that could be a problem if the ABI > broke. Here it says, some NVIDIA

Re: [SPDX] packages that are "not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX"

Dne 06. 09. 24 v 12:55 odp. Artur Frenszek-Iwicki napsal(a): Bah, silly mistake on my part. This was "LGPLv2+", so should be "LGPL-2.0-or-later". Yes. You are not alone. There is lot of such typos. But there is another problem. LGPL-2.0-or-later is allowed license, but LGPL-2.0-or-later

Re: [SPDX] packages that are "not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX"

I need a class again on how to do this... I remember years ago being told we should try to come up with what the effective license is, so if the package has sources that are both GPL--or-later and they have both GPL 2 and GPL 3 sources that the combination should be considered GPL-3-or-later. Or s

Re: [SPDX] packages that are "not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX"

On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 06:52:03AM -0500, Richard Shaw wrote: > I need a class again on how to do this... I remember years ago being told > we should try to come up with what the effective license is, so if the > package has sources that are both GPL--or-later and they have both GPL 2 > and GPL 3 s

Re: Updating xorg-x11-server

On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 1:47 PM Sérgio Basto wrote: > > On Thu, 2024-09-05 at 18:54 +0200, Neal Gompa wrote: > > My understanding is the reason we hadn't was because of the NVIDIA > > binary driver. For the desktops that still use X11 and the X11 DDX > > instead of the modesetting driver, that coul

Re: [SPDX] packages that are "not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX"

Dne 06. 09. 24 v 12:16 odp. Petr Pisar napsal(a): This package looks good for me. Last change in a License tag was on 2022-12-20 and current value "GPL-1.0-or-later OR Artistic-1.0-Perl" is valid. Indeed. Did you simply grep spec files instead of letting RPM to parse them? I was about to sa

Re: [SPDX] packages that are "not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX"

Dne 06. 09. 24 v 1:08 odp. Ben Beasley napsal(a): There are still packages in this list that appear to have valid license expressions, but aren’t amenable to spec-file grepping because they use the %shrink macro to split long license expressions across multiple lines. Looking at this list: mu

Re: [SPDX] packages that are "not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX"

Dne 06. 09. 24 v 1:33 odp. Ben Beasley napsal(a): Both python-graph-tool and python-llvmlite also use the %{shrink: …} macro in their spec files. You’ve demonstrated how they can be validated correctly by first allowing RPM to form the License expression in a single line, rather than grepping th

Re: (fedora) Re: Proposed CHOST change for the 64bit time_t transition

On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 10:21 AM Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > Seems like the fedora list moderators decided to not let the follow-ups pass > to the fedora-dev list, > so please if you're interested follow the discussion on one of the other > involved mailing lists. > I'm fairly sure this is also

Re: [SPDX] packages that are "not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX"

Dne 06. 09. 24 v 1:57 odp. Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a): I need a class again on how to do this... I remember years ago being told we should try to come up with what the effective license is, so if the We (owners of the change) are indeed considering doing workshops on how to identify license.

Re: [SPDX] packages that are "not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX"

On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 7:52 AM Richard Shaw wrote: > > I need a class again on how to do this... I remember years ago being told we > should try to come up with what the effective license is, so if the package > has sources that are both GPL--or-later and they have both GPL 2 and GPL 3 > source

Re: Updating xorg-x11-server

On Fri, 2024-09-06 at 13:58 +0200, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 1:47 PM Sérgio Basto > wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2024-09-05 at 18:54 +0200, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > My understanding is the reason we hadn't was because of the > > > NVIDIA > > > binary driver. For the desktops that still

Re: Updating xorg-x11-server

On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 2:50 PM Sérgio Basto wrote: > I'd like to understand, so what in "X server 21.1" broke ? from this > thread [1] only 340xx driver stopped to work , 390xx supports xorg-21.1 > Both these branches are dead, 340 in 2019 and 390 in 2022. -- You cannot discover new oceans unl

Review swaps (python packages)

Hello! And once again I have a few Python packages queued for reviewing and I am willing to review yours in return. Come pick your own one! * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2309362 python-eth_typing - Python types for type hinting commonly used Ethereum types * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2309366 pyt

Re: [SPDX] Rest of "trivial" migration

On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 2:25 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > coin-or-Sample - can be trivially converted to LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain The coin-or projects are usually EPL-1.0 or EPL-2.0. And I see an EPL-2.0 license file in upstream's git repository: https://github.com/coin-or-tools/Data-Sample

Re: RPM dependency generator sanity check

On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 1:50 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 01, 2024 at 09:54:38PM +, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 1, 2024 at 9:40 PM Dridi Boukelmoune > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I can't say I'm proud of this hack but at least, the error message > > > > > shows up to

Re: (fedora) Re: Proposed CHOST change for the 64bit time_t transition

On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 8:06 AM Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 10:21 AM Andreas K. Huettel > wrote: > > > > Seems like the fedora list moderators decided to not let the follow-ups > > pass to the fedora-dev list, > > so please if you're interested follow the discussion on on

Re: Orphaning harvey

On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 12:48 PM Ben Beasley wrote: > > On 9/5/24 12:06 PM, Przemek Klosowski via devel wrote: > > > Do you think that is a technical decision, based e.g. on dependencies > > they need, or a business decision to use the app store? It's their > > right to choose, but I'm curious whet

Re: [Fedocal] Reminder meeting : ELN SIG

On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 8:00 AM wrote: > > Dear all, > > You are kindly invited to the meeting: >ELN SIG on 2024-09-06 from 12:00:00 to 13:00:00 US/Eastern >At fedora-meet...@irc.libera.chat > > The meeting will be about: > = # #meeting:fedoraproject.org

Re: Something wrong with rawhide (41) keys?

On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 11:41:59PM GMT, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2024-09-05 at 20:48 -0400, Gabriel L. Somlo wrote: > > Hi Kevin, > > > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 2024 11:01:07 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 07:03:05AM GMT, Gabriel L. Somlo wrote: > > > > As of righ

Fedora eln compose report: 20240906.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-eln-20240905.n.1 NEW: Fedora-eln-20240906.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 4 Dropped packages:1 Upgraded packages: 67 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 12.26 MiB Size of dropped packages:2.19 MiB

Re: Something wrong with rawhide (41) keys?

On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 09:49:55 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Thu, 2024-09-05 at 20:48 -0400, Gabriel L. Somlo wrote: > > > Hi Kevin, > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 2024 11:01:07 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 07:03:05AM GMT, Gabriel L. Somlo wrote: > > > > > As

Re: Something wrong with rawhide (41) keys?

On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 01:59:16PM GMT, Gabriel L. Somlo wrote: > > Nope, running that returns no output. Any chance the f40 > mock-core-configs are still testing, or somehow behind the ones on f41 > or whatever everyone else who is *not* running into my issue is using? :D No, it should be in sta

Re: [SPDX] packages that are "not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX"

On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 02:03:20PM GMT, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Dne 06. 09. 24 v 1:33 odp. Ben Beasley napsal(a): > > Both python-graph-tool and python-llvmlite also use the %{shrink: …} > > macro in their spec files. You’ve demonstrated how they can be validated > > correctly by first allowing RPM

Re: (fedora) Re: Proposed CHOST change for the 64bit time_t transition

On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 11:03:49AM GMT, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 8:06 AM Dridi Boukelmoune > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 10:21 AM Andreas K. Huettel > > wrote: > > > > > > Seems like the fedora list moderators decided to not let the follow-ups > > > pass to th

Re: Something wrong with rawhide (41) keys?

On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 11:42:43AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 01:59:16PM GMT, Gabriel L. Somlo wrote: > > > > Nope, running that returns no output. Any chance the f40 > > mock-core-configs are still testing, or somehow behind the ones on f41 > > or whatever everyone else w

Fedora 41 compose report: 20240906.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-41-20240903.n.0 NEW: Fedora-41-20240906.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:4 Dropped images: 4 Added packages: 3 Dropped packages:2 Upgraded packages: 21 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 3.44 MiB Size of dropped packages:127.49 KiB

Re: [SPDX] packages that are "not valid neither as Callaway nor as SPDX"

Dne 06. 09. 24 v 8:43 odp. Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): Can you do a updated run so we can see how many are left after that change? Yes. The analysis is already running. But it takes almost a day to finish. -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCA Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys -- ___