OLD: Fedora-eln-20250207.n.0
NEW: Fedora-eln-20250208.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 3
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of
Em sex., 7 de fev. de 2025 às 18:56, Chris Adams escreveu:
>
> Why is updating a Fedora 41 system with java-11-openjdk installed
> getting deprecation notices for a Fedora 42 change? I got:
>
> The java-11-openjdk package is deprecated and may no longer receive
> updates. Since f42 install a
On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 4:03 PM Kaleb Keithley wrote:
> side-tag f43-build-side-105129 has been created for rebuilding the dependent
> packages:
[snip]
> * myst-nb
I have built myst-nb in the side tag. Do you plan to do this for F42
also, or is this F43 only?
--
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone
I've already updated f42 once to libarrow-18.0.0. (liborc was at 2.0.x
already from f41.) I wasn't really planning on doing it again.
I dunno, I suppose I could be persuaded otherwise if there's a compelling
reason.
On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 4:37 PM Jerry James wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 4:03
On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 10:56 PM Chris Adams wrote:
>
> Why is updating a Fedora 41 system with java-11-openjdk installed
> getting deprecation notices for a Fedora 42 change? I got:
>
> The java-11-openjdk package is deprecated and may no longer receive
> updates. Since f42 install adoptium-
In order to fix various FTBFS bugs and bring these packages current, I'll be
bulding these along with their consumers, libetonyek, LapPlot and libreoffice,
since they have soname bumps. I'll be doing this in rawhide and f42. I don't
anticipate any drama but will use side tags just in case.
--
On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 04:54:36PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek:
>
> > Indeed. Apparently I was too hasty with the retirement. The package is
> > being unretired, so this be resolved soon.
>
> Do we need to add back the glibc dependency?
I don't think so. Unless w
liborc-2.1.0 and libarrow-19.0.0 are now built in the side tag
(f43-build-side-105129).
On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 6:02 PM Kaleb Keithley wrote:
> Arrow packages include libarrow*.rpm parquet*.rpm (libparquet*), and
> python-pyarrow*.rpm. Updating to Arrow 19.0.0
>
> ORC packages include liborc2*.
I think it's fairly easy to simply drop snappy support from pymongo,
which I have done in my pull requests here:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pymongo/pull-request/9
so I think we're all set. No worries.
On 2/7/25 08:18, Ben Beasley wrote:
It turns out that I didn’t make an error,
On Fri, 2025-02-07 at 18:13 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 04:54:36PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek:
> >
> > > Indeed. Apparently I was too hasty with the retirement. The package is
> > > being unretired, so this be resolved soo
Why is updating a Fedora 41 system with java-11-openjdk installed
getting deprecation notices for a Fedora 42 change? I got:
The java-11-openjdk package is deprecated and may no longer receive
updates. Since f42 install adoptium-temurin-java-repository and install
temurin-11-jre
https:
On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 2:52 PM Kaleb Keithley wrote:
> I've already updated f42 once to libarrow-18.0.0. (liborc was at 2.0.x
> already from f41.) I wasn't really planning on doing it again.
>
> I dunno, I suppose I could be persuaded otherwise if there's a compelling
> reason.
No, that's fine.
Once upon a time, Mateus Rodrigues Costa said:
> Em sex., 7 de fev. de 2025 às 18:56, Chris Adams escreveu:
> > Why is updating a Fedora 41 system with java-11-openjdk installed
> > getting deprecation notices for a Fedora 42 change? I got:
> >
> > The java-11-openjdk package is deprecated a
Hi,
I have a package awaiting review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2342141
Could someone please review this in exchange for me reviewing another
package?
I want to package Retro AIM Server but need this in first.
-Neel
--
___
devel
OpenJDK 11 is EOL in Fedora regardless of the Fedora version, it hasn’t
been updated in January for example.
Jiri may answer about the details of the package itself, but users should
migrate to a version that still receives security updates or use Adoptium
Temurin which is recommended - or of cour
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20250206.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20250207.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 3
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 152
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 67.85 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0
On Fri, Feb 7, 2025, 05:20 Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 6:16 PM Fabio Valentini
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 11:37 PM Richard Shaw
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > It seems to be the only reason for FTBFS. A single test is failing.
>> Upstream has no interest in supporting 32bit anym
Hi Sergio,
I have opened the relevant issue for you at
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-78335.
Feel free to add any comments.
Kind regards,
Dimitris
On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 11:56 PM Mikolaj Izdebski
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 7:51 PM Sérgio Basto via devel
> wrote:
> > BTW I'd like t
Yes, it looks like I probably made an error in dropping i686 support in
python-cramjam starting in Fedora 41.
The case of a package considering dropping i686 (python-cramjam) having
an indirect dependency from another arched package (python-pymongo) via
one or more noarch packages (python-snap
On Tue, 04 Feb 2025 09:20:24 -0500
"Colin Walters" wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2025, at 4:05 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>
> > So yeah, having a package with a sysusers file and files owned by the
> > users or groups defined therein works fine. (This was already possible
> > before
On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 01:49:57PM +0100, Ondrej Vasik wrote:
> Hi Zbigniew,
> yes, basesystem is there just to ensure installation order and it could
> probably be achieved by that PR.
> There is one more benefit from the retirement - as there are
> occasionally bug reports (that should be filed a
* Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 01:49:57PM +0100, Ondrej Vasik wrote:
>> Hi Zbigniew,
>> yes, basesystem is there just to ensure installation order and it could
>> probably be achieved by that PR.
>> There is one more benefit from the retirement - as there are
>> occasiona
On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 03:53:04PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> glibc depends on basesystem:
>
> Requires(pre): basesystem
> Requires: basesystem
>
> So the buildroot is currently broken.
It shouldn't be. filesystem has 'Provides: basesystem'.
Do you have more details about the issue?
Zbyszek
* Florian Weimer:
> * Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 01:49:57PM +0100, Ondrej Vasik wrote:
>>> Hi Zbigniew,
>>> yes, basesystem is there just to ensure installation order and it could
>>> probably be achieved by that PR.
>>> There is one more benefit from the retirement
You can see the problem in this attempted build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=128944651
The buildSRPMFromSCM task fails with:
DEBUG util.py:459: Failed to resolve the transaction:
DEBUG util.py:459: Problem 1: package dnf5-plugins-5.2.10.0-1.fc43.aarch64
from build req
On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 10:04:25AM -0500, Ben Beasley wrote:
> You can see the problem in this attempted build:
>
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=128944651
>
> The buildSRPMFromSCM task fails with:
>
> DEBUG util.py:459: Failed to resolve the transaction:
> DEBUG util.py:4
* Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 03:53:04PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> glibc depends on basesystem:
>>
>> Requires(pre): basesystem
>> Requires: basesystem
>>
>> So the buildroot is currently broken.
>
> It shouldn't be. filesystem has 'Provides: basesystem'.
> Do yo
It turns out that I didn’t make an error, per se: the version of
python-pymongo that was actually built, 4.2.0, didn’t have a dependency
on python3-snappy when I dropped i686 support in python-cramjam, and
this is still the case in Rawhide today. No amount of careful checking
would have allowed
* Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek:
> Indeed. Apparently I was too hasty with the retirement. The package is
> being unretired, so this be resolved soon.
Do we need to add back the glibc dependency?
Thanks,
Florian
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists
29 matches
Mail list logo
