On Friday, 11 April 2025 at 10:01, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
[...]
> Yes, that sounds like an accurate description of how things would have gone,
> had somebody started the process! But it seems that this window has
> closed already, because of the decision to release F42 on Thursday. Reve
OLD: Fedora-eln-20250414.n.0
NEW: Fedora-eln-20250415.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 45
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of
On 14/4/25 21:14, Fabio Valentini wrote:
As I understand it, the migration will happen automatically as soon as
it is possible, so you *can't* do it earlier manually.
My wrinkle is a bit different.
My /usr/local/sbin is a link, but my /usr/sbin still exists even though
it contains nothing but
On Tue, Apr 15 2025 at 01:19:10 AM +02:00:00, Fabio Valentini
wrote:
The non-responsive maintainer process requires that the maintainer is
*entirely unresponsive*,
which is a much higher bar than for this proposed, less-consequential
process.
If the maintainer is not unresponsive, why can't y
On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 12:31 AM Michael Catanzaro
wrote:
>
>
> I think the practical effect of the lightweight process will be: new
> contributor likely becomes the de facto maintainer of the package,
> while bug reports continue to be assigned to the non-responsive main
> admin.
>
> Maybe it's b
Dear all,
Over the past months FESCo has been considering my proposal to have a
lighter weight process to get needed changes for Fedora packages
(whether getting a PR merged and built, or a package branched, etc.) -
since the alternatives up to now is just pinging a PR or bugzilla
issue, or escala
I think the practical effect of the lightweight process will be: new
contributor likely becomes the de facto maintainer of the package,
while bug reports continue to be assigned to the non-responsive main
admin.
Maybe it's better to just rip the band-aid off and acknowledge that
when a main
On Mon, 2025-04-14 at 18:19 +0200, Neal Gompa wrote:
> It definitely is.
Ah, I see, you are right, the dnf4 has a history entry from the pkcon.
Nice.
Bye,
Milan
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe
Quick question: why not using dnf5 backend for PackageKit?
On 2025-04-14 8:51 a.m., Milan Crha wrote:
On Mon, 2025-04-14 at 16:48 +0200, Neal Gompa wrote:
> Common history was always a thing.
Hi,
are you sure? The `pkcon update` is not part of the `dnf4 history`, is
it? I cannot imagin
On Mon, 2025-04-14 at 09:07 +0200, Dominic Hopf via devel wrote:
> the list of `dnf repoquery --whatrequires=libsoup`
Hi,
I see I'm dull and did not include the list, even I should. Let me
correct it now (see below).
Bye,
Milan
$ dnf repoquery --whatrequires=libsoup
Updati
Hi, I do not have much experience with other projects, but when I was
doing my OpenGL project at uni, I chose libepoxy. It seemed like a very
simple, zero-configuration drop-in replacement. I just had to #include
its GL headers and link the library.
Afaik with GLAD you have to do some build st
On Monday, 14 April 2025 09:53:30 CEST Marián Konček wrote:
> Hi, I do not have much experience with other projects, but when I was
> doing my OpenGL project at uni, I chose libepoxy. It seemed like a very
> simple, zero-configuration drop-in replacement. I just had to #include
> its GL headers and
On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 6:19 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 11:57 AM Milan Crha wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2025-04-14 at 16:48 +0200, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > Common history was always a thing.
> >
> > Hi,
> > are you sure? The `pkcon update` is not part of the `dnf4 history`
On 14/04/2025 12:18, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
I wanted to check it on my local system:
$ LC_ALL=C rpm -qf `find /usr/sbin /usr/local/sbin -type f`|sort -u
bpftool-7.5.0-2.fc42.x86_64
dnsmasq-2.90-4.fc42.x86_64
file /usr/sbin/avmcapictrl is not owned by any package
file /usr/sbin/capiinit is no
On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 12:14 PM wrote:
>
> Quick question: why not using dnf5 backend for PackageKit?
>
It doesn't exist yet. I haven't been able to write it because I
haven't been able to figure out how to use the DNF5 API. I've asked
for some introductory documentation on how to use the C++ AP
Hi,
I'm going to orphan package splint. There are several FTBFS reported and no
idea.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2261709
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2341375
Please feel free to step in and take ownership.
Regards
Raphael
--
On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 10:31 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
>
> Dne 14. 04. 25 v 10:02 Milan Crha napsal(a):
> > Hi,
> > I'd like to switch gnome-software in rawhide to use a dnf5 plugin
>
>
> Does it mean we will finally have common history for DNF5 and G-S? That
> would be sweet.
>
Common histo
On Mon, 2025-04-14 at 16:48 +0200, Neal Gompa wrote:
> Common history was always a thing.
Hi,
are you sure? The `pkcon update` is not part of the `dnf4 history`, is
it? I cannot imagine how that could be, but it's a long time I looked
on any such thing, thus I could be wrong.
Bye,
On Mon, 2025-04-14 at 16:30 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Does it mean we will finally have common history for DNF5 and G-S?
Hi,
yes, it means both the history and the cache will be common between the
two. No more disk space wasting.
Bye,
Milan
--
_
On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 11:57 AM Milan Crha wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2025-04-14 at 16:48 +0200, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > Common history was always a thing.
>
> Hi,
> are you sure? The `pkcon update` is not part of the `dnf4 history`, is
> it? I cannot imagine how that could be, but it's a long time
Hi,
if we want e.g. to build wxWidgets with EGL instead of GLX support, we need to
get rid of GLEW. The solution is to use GLAD [2].
GLEW is unmaintained and dead. The replacement is GLAD [2]. In case you're a
developer of an application which uses GLEW, migrating to GLAD is pretty
straight fo
> During the upgrade I've noticed this message output in the console:
> /usr/sbin cannot be merged, /usr/sbin/arptables points to
> /etc/alternatives/arptables
> I assume it's related to
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Unify_bin_and_sbin but I'm not
> sure if anything needs to be fixed.
Hi,
I'd like to switch gnome-software in rawhide to use a dnf5 plugin, to
move away from its dependency on the PackageKit. This had been
announced together with the dnf5 change proposal some time ago [1], but
due to some missing work on the gnome-software side it had been
postponed. As the
On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 6:21 AM Rajeesh K V wrote:
>
> > During the upgrade I've noticed this message output in the console:
> > /usr/sbin cannot be merged, /usr/sbin/arptables points to
> > /etc/alternatives/arptables
> > I assume it's related to
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Unify_b
Dne 14. 04. 25 v 10:02 Milan Crha napsal(a):
Hi,
I'd like to switch gnome-software in rawhide to use a dnf5 plugin
Does it mean we will finally have common history for DNF5 and G-S? That
would be sweet.
Vít
, to
move away from its dependency on the PackageKit. This had been
ann
W dniu 14.04.2025 o 10:29, Michael J Gruber pisze:
A simpler check is `find /usr/sbin /usr/local/sbin -type f` which shows
you everything that isnot symlinked already.
`ls -l /usr/local/sbin` shows me that it is a directory symlink already,
whereas `ls -l /usr/sbin` shows me many symlinks plus t
Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote on Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 01:18:52PM +0200:
> I wonder where from all those "not owned by any package" files came from.
> This system is about 12 years old (was Fedora 19 at start).
I have a similar list of files in there, just looked at one at random:
> file /usr/sbin/capsh
On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 at 12:54, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> A few years ago we had the initalitive to get rid of problematic terms
> like "master"/"slave". Git changed its default branch name to 'main',
> we changed our default dist-git name to 'rawhide' (*). We also
> adjust
Rajeesh K V venit, vidit, dixit 2025-04-14 06:19:33:
> > During the upgrade I've noticed this message output in the console:
> > /usr/sbin cannot be merged, /usr/sbin/arptables points to
> > /etc/alternatives/arptables
> > I assume it's related to
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Unify_bi
On Mon, Apr 14, 2025, at 11:56 PM, Michel Lind wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Over the past months FESCo has been considering my proposal to have a
> lighter weight process to get needed changes for Fedora packages
> (whether getting a PR merged and built, or a package branched, etc.) -
> since the alterna
I've opened a PR which restores gdm/X11 support at:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gdm/pull-request/28#
It builds, I'll be able to test it in a few hours, but anybody is free and
welcome to give it a try once the scratch build finishes.
On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 10:22 PM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierz
31 matches
Mail list logo
