On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 at 13:26, Björn Persson wrote:
> Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 4:40 PM Stephen Gallagher
> wrote:
> > > It's possible that I'm in the minority here, but I honestly don't
> think anything should be pushed to dist-git unless it's intended to be
> built more
Dne 26. 01. 25 v 16:40 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a):
On Sat, Jan 25, 2025 at 12:24 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 24. 01. 25 22:13, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Note that side tags aren't the only issue. Sometimes a maintainer
> commits a bump to git but doesn't build it in a side tag or r
Retirement in effect with
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/glusterfs-coreutils/c/9b9b5240c2305cfa6dbeb9be7dbccc4b389939a7?branch=rawhide
Anoop C S.
On Thu, 2025-01-23 at 10:27 +0530, Anoop C S via devel wrote:
> On Fri, 2025-01-10 at 16:44 +0530, Anoop C S wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Following th
Dne 27. 01. 25 v 15:58 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a):
On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 9:40 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 26. 01. 25 v 16:40 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a):
On Sat, Jan 25, 2025 at 12:24 PM Miro Hrončok
wrote:
On 24. 01. 25 22:13, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Note
On Sa, 25.01.25 09:27, Peter Robinson (pbrobin...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > trousers
>
> Trousers needs to be the same as the the tpm2-tss as they both deal with
> the TPM (the former v1 variants the later TPMv2).
What's the background here? Is this about device access? i.e. do both
packages install
On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 3:32 AM Ian McInerney via devel
wrote:
>
> Were the FTBFS bugs filed differently this time? It appears that there were
> actually two FTBFS bugs filed against Audacity
> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2339522 and
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?i
Hello everyone,
Please join us at the next Open NeuroFedora team meeting on Monday, 27
January at 13:00 UTC. The meeting is a public meeting, and open for
everyone to attend. You can join us over on Matrix in the Fedora Meeting
channel:
https://matrix.to/#/#meeting:fedoraproject.org
You can use
Hello,
Fedora tooling got changed [1] , probably something to do with the new
gcc15.
Andrei
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GNUToolchainF42
On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 3:48 PM Ron Olson wrote:
> Hey all-
>
> I’m trying to fix build failures for swift-lang on F42 and while I’ve
> fixed
On Mon, 2025-01-27 at 20:52 +0100, Cristian Le via devel wrote:
> According to the CPP standard, and the deprecation was
> added in CPP20 [1] so would be best not to patch that part
> unconditionally in the gtest source. Maybe you could patch in a
> pragma to disable the warning instead?
>
> Anot
On 2025/01/27 21:15, Sérgio Basto via devel wrote:
On Mon, 2025-01-27 at 20:52 +0100, Cristian Le via devel wrote:
According to the CPP standard, and the deprecation was
added in CPP20 [1] so would be best not to patch that part
unconditionally in the gtest source. Maybe you could patch in a
p
On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 11:06:03AM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 3:32 AM Ian McInerney via devel
> wrote:
> >
> > Were the FTBFS bugs filed differently this time? It appears that there were
> > actually two FTBFS bugs filed against Audacity
> > (https://bugzilla.redhat.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 10:12 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> Dne 27. 01. 25 v 15:58 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a):
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 9:40 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
>>
>> Dne 26. 01. 25 v 16:40 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a):
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2025 at 12:24 PM Miro Hrončok
>> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 9:40 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> Dne 26. 01. 25 v 16:40 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a):
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2025 at 12:24 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
>> On 24. 01. 25 22:13, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > Note that side tags aren't the only issue. Sometimes a maintainer
>> > com
Does this RFC include an obligation for the 'major toolchain upgrades'
Fedora Change owners to rebuild the dependent packages ?
I mean - without a failed build it doesn't really make a difference to me.
FTBFS bugzilla ticket is something I note and try to solve.
However without a rebuild, the cha
Hi all,
For reference, this has been discussed at the last FPC meeting:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting-1_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2025-01-23/fpc.2025-01-23-17.00.log.html
And I filed a corresponding RFC with FESCo here:
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3347
In an effort to avoid the larg
On Sun, 2025-01-26 at 10:40 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Anything still on the list when the
> mass-rebuild is ready to start should be skipped and the bug should be
> marked as a blocker for Beta (to make sure it gets looked at).
Your regular reminder that this is not what the blocker proces
On Sun, 2025-01-26 at 10:40 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> It's possible that I'm in the minority here, but I honestly don't think
> anything should be pushed to dist-git unless it's intended to be built more
> or less immediately. Yes, even changes without an immediate functional
> impact like
Hi,
I just want check, if I'm thinking correctly before submitting a fix in
gtest package
The problem is on Rawhide I have this warning that make other packages
fail to build [1]
gtest source [2] source get __cplusplus value and include or
#include depending on __cplusplus value .
On rawhi
On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 8:02 PM Michal Schorm wrote:
>
> Does this RFC include an obligation for the 'major toolchain upgrades'
> Fedora Change owners to rebuild the dependent packages ?
No, but this is already happening to some degree.
For example, test builds with GCC snapshots were actually ha
According to the CPP standard, and the deprecation was added in CPP20
[1] so would be best not to patch that part unconditionally in the gtest
source. Maybe you could patch in a pragma to disable the warning instead?
Another option could be to drop the CPP standard check altogether and rely on
Alright, thanks for the explanation.
In that case, I think the RFC is a step in the right direction,
but I don't see it being useful, unless the change owners do the extra
step and file the FTBFS bugs to notify the maintainers.
They can do it already, but don't. Making them finish the change
soone
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the
FESCo meeting Tuesday at 17:00 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 '2025-01-28 17:00 UTC'
Links to all issues to be
On 2025-01-27 14:55, Michal Schorm wrote:
Alright, thanks for the explanation.
In that case, I think the RFC is a step in the right direction,
but I don't see it being useful, unless the change owners do the extra
step and file the FTBFS bugs to notify the maintainers.
They can do it already, bu
OLD: Fedora-eln-20250127.n.0
NEW: Fedora-eln-20250128.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 134
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 6
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 187.76 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size
On Mon, 2025-01-27 at 19:31 +, Sérgio Basto via devel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just want check, if I'm thinking correctly before submitting a fix
> in
> gtest package
>
> The problem is on Rawhide I have this warning that make other
> packages
> fail to build [1]
>
> gtest source [2] source get
On 28 January 2025 01:11:22 CET, "Sérgio Basto via devel"
wrote:
>On Mon, 2025-01-27 at 19:31 +, Sérgio Basto via devel wrote:
>>
>> On rawhide I got the warning, on Fedora 41 don't but __cplusplus of
>> GCC
>> compiler is the same (201703)
>
>
> __cplusplus value GCC on rawhide should be
26 matches
Mail list logo
