later. They will feel deceived when their in-house software breaks
right away.
Björn Persson
pgpm670uT9BXv.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signatur
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an e
uest" is or why I would want to
create one. "Request refreshing the repo" would have been clearer.
Björn Persson
pgpdRlx6Wrb5N.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signatur
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraprojec
be the "result" of those clicks, not part of the question.
A user interface shall make it clear to the user that if they click on
this widget it will increase/decrease that number. This is achieved by
using the same word in the question as in the label beside the sum.
Users shall not ne
be automated somehow;
> grab the NVR before the mass rebuild, file a bugzilla ticket,
> keep on pestering the maintainer until a build with higher NVR
> appears.
That seems to be done already. See the periodic "List of long term FTBFS
packages to be retired"
that's when you want unbundled packages. Patching over 200
packages is certainly a lot of work, but patching multiple bundled
copies is even more work.
Thus I don't see how bundling would help with those format string bugs.
Björn Persson
pgpq6LUGPVETb.pgp
Description:
; changes like the SPDX migration shouldn't be a special case here -
> after all, the spec file changes will never end up in repositories if
> they're pushed but never built.
If I correct a typo in a comment, I should bump the release
Björn Persson wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > And, if there are packages which need to be
> > rebuilt against GCC 15 before the mass rebuild (like packages using Ada),
> > feel free to build them into the side-tag.
>
> I'll start on the Ada packages.
That did
Björn Persson wrote:
> There seems to be a regression on S390x:
>
> gprconfig --batch -o /dev/null --validate
> raised SYSTEM.OBJECT_READER.FORMAT_ERROR :
> System.Object_Reader.ELF64_Ops.Initialize: unrecognized architecture
> Load address: 0x2aa1b38
This fresh commit
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> And, if there are packages which need to be
> rebuilt against GCC 15 before the mass rebuild (like packages using Ada),
> feel free to build them into the side-tag.
I'll start on the Ada packages. Some of them may have to wait until
tomorrow.
ne.
If user accounts and groups will now be deleted automatically, is
anything done to purge their privileges to prevent that scenario?
Björn Persson
pgpalLqoHvbSO.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signatur
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists
ids
forwarding and the recipient enforces DMARC, because DMARC imposes
requirements on the From field of the email header. That, I believe, is
when this mailing list rewrites the From field, and the forwarding
alias server would have to do the same. You can tell which posters have
strict DMARC r
hout cat, cp, ls, mv, rm
et cetera. I have always assumed that those commands will always be
present, and that I don't need to explicitly require Coreutils.
Chris' argument that the usage of chmod is an implementation detail in
the macro is also valid.
Björn Persson
pgpu1fw2
lled by default, but they're not getting pulled in on updates ...
> not sure why.
The main package must also obsolete itself. Otherwise it doesn't work.
Don't ask me to explain why.
I tried to stress that point. Can you suggest better wording to get the
point across?
Björn Persson
ities. The way to achieve that used to be an arcane mystery, but as
it happens, I wrote it down last year:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_one_to_many_replacement
Björn Persson
pgp298dZO6xct.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signatur
--
___
th gnupg2
and gnupg2-verify.
Björn Persson
pgp4bmt_Iiinl.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signatur
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduc
hen we would need to coordinate this change with
the "Fix limitations in gpgverify" change to make changes in the right
order.
Björn Persson
pgpQTe4OGq29u.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signatur
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedor
ch file also added the reversion (and
an untrue changelog entry), so there is no point in the Git history
where the patch had any effect:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/aide/c/a003ad04cf2504564c0497c9cce5e5aecb9d601b
The whole thing is utterly useless. Was the patch produced by a
language m
Fesco decided that they preferred to have gpgverify moved from
redhat-rpm-config to a separate package. I have now reworked the change
proposal to describe how that will be done.
Björn Persson
pgpSA2tOtFFB1.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signatur
for the usual concept of tags attached to things, but sounds
weird when you think of tags as containers of packages.
Björn Persson
pgpVSGreiECLH.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signatur
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lis
PM, I expected it to
work analogously to documentation files, but when I checked, files
under /usr/share/licenses were *not* automatically marked as license
files. Thus I put constructs like "%license %{_licensedir}/%{name}" in
my spec files, and that h
dency
chain rpm-build → rpm-build-libs → rpm-sign-libs → /usr/bin/gpg2, which
always pulls in gnupg2.
Björn Persson
pgpbHTRs72qff.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signatur
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscrib
.
Although, if the only function of those macros is to expand to nothing
when the real macros are absent, then maybe another solution is to
reference them in spec files with a question mark to express "if it is
defined":
%{?buildsystem_rebar3_build foo}
Björn Persson
pgpihQBWD85IF.pgp
Des
not only another build made elsewhere.
Björn Persson
pgp3WR0IuRsCj.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signatur
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora C
701 - 723 of 723 matches
Mail list logo
