Re: qhotkey - CMAKE_INSTALL_LIBDIR does not work

The `CMAKE_INSTALL_LIBDIR` should not be an absolute path, and afaict `%{_libdir}` expands to absolute path. Maybe you can patch the CMakeLitsts.txt to accept a variable of QT_VERSION and alter the install directive there. On 2024/07/08 10:18, Martin Gansser wrote: Hi, with the option -DCM

Re: PR for rebuild and autochangelog

On 2024/07/09 17:09, Sandro via devel wrote: On 09-07-2024 17:01, David Bold wrote: Is it possible to have a PR without any code changes? Is there an alternative, recommended way to ask for rebuilds? Specifically in the case of %autorelease, you can bump the release with an empty commit: g

Re: whatcanidoforfedora.org is stale

On 2024/07/12 11:49, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: Should we just put a huge redirect on whatcanidoforfedora to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Welcome? I edited https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Welcome to have the nice "Welcome to Fedora!" banner at the top. The page was a bit cool without a

Re: the sad state of installability tests

Hi Zbyszek, On 2024/07/14 20:04, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: I'm looking for a solution which doesn't just skip the installability tests altogether. On PRs with zuul or FedoraCI automation, the same instability tests that are done for Bodhi are performed. But what would help is to make

Re: the sad state of installability tests

On 2024/07/15 13:52, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 01:26:09PM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote: V Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 08:45:53AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): Maybe I conflate installability tests with rpmdeplint tests. We need both: A test which checks that

Re: [Java related] packaging Italian ID card middleware

Hi Marian, Thanks for the comments. We all had our turns being horrified by this project. The more you look at it the more you want to use bleach as eye-drops. Germano is trying to write an issue to at least try to steer the upstream project in a more sensible directions. On the CMake side,

Re: How to make the rpminspect test required to pass Zuul CI?

On the dist-git I don't think there is any. For bodhi though you can make `gating.yaml` file. Here [1] is one which includes `rpminspect` ```yaml --- !Policy product_versions:   - fedora-* decision_contexts:   - bodhi_update_push_stable subject_type: koji_build rules:   - !PassingTestCaseRule {t

Re: flatpak vs pkg-config system libdir

On 2024/08/01 17:27, Owen Taylor wrote: On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 9:24 AM Neal Gompa wrote: Well, if you have a general package that's shipped in every buildroot for flatpak builds, you can ship your own wrapper, and I can make it check if RPM_BUILD_ROOT is defined *and* this file exi

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F40 to F41

On my system I get an exiv2/krita issue and a re2 issue: ``` Error:  Problem 1: problem with installed package krita-5.2.2-7.fc40.x86_64   - package krita-5.2.2-11.fc41.x86_64 from fedora requires libexiv2.so.27()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed   - krita-5.2.2-7.fc40.x86_64 f

Re: An update on RHEL moving to issues.redhat.com

It might also be worth mentioning that both gitea and forgejo support Github Actions [1][2]. I did not personally test them, but it might be good for the familiarity and reuse of the maintained Github Actions library. One missing thing are Github applications, but I don't think we are using som

Re: Automate your Fedora package maintenance using Packit

Agree it should be in Fedora CI. Maybe it can be added to the Zuul CI, or the default scratch build. But to run Fedora CI, the source would need to be in the look-aside cache. I think it would be ok that if the packit run is pull_from_upstream that a licensecheck is run (after the spectool -g

Re: Specify koji build machine mem req via. spec file

Hi Stephen, Could you also share the links for where the strategies for large builds is, I am also curious about this? Is it within koji or another framework? On 2023/10/04 14:41, Stephen Smoogen wrote: On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 at 05:44, Martin Stransky wrote: Hello guys, Is there's a

Re: Specify koji build machine mem req via. spec file

sets take this into account? I believe %ctest ones do that, but I've found an MPI related situation where I need to override this. Also are the options equivalent in copr as well? On 2023/10/04 15:32, Stephen Smoogen wrote: On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 at 09:24, Cristian Le via devel wrote

Re: libsodium upcoming update (soname change ?)

Just want to share about fedrq, since I was also bitten by such issues. It gets all packages that BuildRequires/Requires a specific package. Should be able to make a thread of the corresponding -maintainers mailing list and share a copr project about this upgrade. On 2023/10/04 15:43, Remi Co

Re: zuul-config-generator - add your packages to Zuul CI seamlessly

Can join the #fedora-ci:fedoraproject.org matrix group. On 2024/02/06 14:16, Sandro wrote: On 06-02-2024 10:32, Karolina Surma wrote: Please note, if you want to add hundreds of packages at once, coordinate with the Zuul folks -- they know best how much it can handle. Do you happen to have co

Re: zuul-config-generator - add your packages to Zuul CI seamlessly

Are you using IRC? The IRC bridge is dead I think around that time. You might have to use a proper matrix client in this case. We are active even yesterday. On 2024/02/06 14:38, Sandro wrote: On 06-02-2024 14:27, Cristian Le via devel wrote: Can join the #fedora-ci:fedoraproject.org matrix

Re: zuul-config-generator - add your packages to Zuul CI seamlessly

2024 14:43, Cristian Le via devel wrote: Are you using IRC? The IRC bridge is dead I think around that time. You might have to use a proper matrix client in this case. I joined the Matrix room (https://matrix.to/#/#fedora-ci:fedora.im). We are active even yesterday. Then I somehow do not get

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F39 to F40

Hi, Here's my contribution to this: error upgrading `flang-devel` https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267221 On 2024/02/21 8:11, Miroslav Suchý wrote: Do you want to make Fedora 40 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and try to run: # Run this only if you use default Fedora

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

Zbyszek While I am in favor of autospec, I agree with the comment that it doesn't work well outside of koji. - builds in copr work. The builds themselves work, but in my experience they do not increase the `release`, nor do they handle `autochangelog`. Are there ways around it if we want

Re: Adding additional flag in cmake-rpm-macros to disallow the use of the FetchContent module

On 2024/05/27 10:09, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: On 27/05/2024 02:46, Kan-Ru Chen wrote: It is documented that FIND_PACKAGE_ARGS argument in FetchContent_Declare should instruct it to find system packages first. This only works as expected in very rare cases. The library name in FetchCon

Re: CPack breakage with RPM 4.20

Hi, RPM 4.20 broke CPack, which is commonly used by many developers to produce RPM packages: https://gitlab.kitware.com/cmake/cmake/-/issues/26021 The bugzilla bug linked at the top has been resolved. Still the CPack RPM is still fairly outdated and weird in some places, e.g. defining BuildR

Re: Rust review swaps (for Taskwarrior 3 update)

On 2024/09/17 12:35, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 11:23 AM Ankur Sinha wrote: Hi folks, I have a few rust packages that need to be reviewed for Taskwarrior v3. Would anyone like to swap reviews please? -https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2307663: rust-google-clou

Re: Non-responsive maintainer ngompa

You can find contact information in the accounts page [1], although Neal's is a huge one, not sure which one is the most relevant to use other than the matrix channel. I have left a comment on the PR with more details on what you can do to contact and make the PR more reviewable, but it genera

Re: Need help with pybind11 c++ compilation warning/error

On 5 February 2025 06:17:01 CET, Orion Poplawski wrote: >cc1plus: all warnings being treated as errors >gmake[2]: *** [libmambapy/CMakeFiles/bindings.dir/build.make:96: >libmambapy/CMakeFiles/bindings.dir/src/libmambapy/bindings/legacy.cpp.o] Error >1 > >I'm guessing 'SR.32262' is some kind of

Re: FTB due to 'too many arguments to function'

On 2025/01/19 18:32, Michael J Gruber wrote: Mattia Verga venit, vidit, dixit 2025-01-19 18:28:04: For example: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/7044/127997044/build.log I don't know much of C, from what I've read online those functions are declared without arguments and then us

Re: GCC defined(__cplusplus) one rawhide

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

Re: GCC defined(__cplusplus) one rawhide

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

Re: GCC __cplusplus definition on rawhide

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

Re: Non-responsive maintainer sham1

If anyone knows how to contact sham1, please let me know. I've sent an email to his/her personal email but haven't got a response. The pull request has been unreviewed for more than 3 weeks:https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/maildir-utils/pull-request/9 I don't know sham1, but I presume you

Re: Non-responsive maintainer sham1

On 1/15/25 2:33 PM, Fabio Valentini wrote: No, AFAIK the @fedoraproject.org email alias should work for all users who are in CLA+1 or something (so it should work for all members of the "packager" group, for example, since signing the CLA is prerequisite for joining the "packager" group). Inde

Re: Non-standard options removal from %cmake

On 2025/03/18 11:35, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: At the technical level, you may be completely right. But at the level of the organization of the work in the distro, this change is very disruptive. Yes, I am not arguing that the pushing of my PR without a change proposal was a bad idea

Re: packaging: prefer git archives to upstream archives for Source

On 2025/03/31 13:32, Leigh Scott wrote: Using github/gitlab sources is non-starter IMO as they rarely include the submodules. In the case of submodules I have had good experience using `%forgemeta`. From a package that I am working on, I can share the simple skeleton of how it looks like

Re: Non-standard options removal from %cmake

On 2025/03/18 0:56, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: Cristian Le via devel wrote: Coming back to `LIB_SUFFIX` and `*_INSTALL_DIR`, those should have never been added globally [2] Why not? All of those, similar to `CMAKE_POLICY_VERSION_MINIMUM` hide an underlying issue that should have been

Re: CMake 4.0 and other change proposals

On 2025/04/17 1:23, Jerry James wrote: I have fixed the following packages: - breakid - coin-or-lemon - cvc5 - symbol Thanks for the work on those :). I have submitted some further improvements for breakid upstream, but other than that, all looks good. This is also a good time to check the

Re: F42 Change Proposal: CMake drop non-standard variables (system-wide)

On 2025/04/16 14:03, Neal Gompa wrote: Shouldn't this be targeted at Fedora Linux 43? Yes, that is my intent, wiki page indicates F43 as well, but for some reason the email was created for F42. Don't know what's up with that. -- ___ devel mailing lis

Re: F42 Change Proposal: CMake drop non-standard variables (system-wide)

On 2025/04/16 13:58, Richard Shaw wrote: While I agree with the general premise of this change, I don't think it's practical for all affected packagers to browse through over 2300 builds to look for their packages. Fair point I have an email draft ready with a list of affected packages, I wi

Re: F42 Change Proposal: CMake drop non-standard variables (system-wide)

On 2025/04/17 10:28, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: On 16/04/2025 13:47, Aoife Moloney wrote: == Benefit to Fedora == * Avoid packaging issue due to the current assumption that the the paths used are meant to be absolute paths. * Encourage upstream build system modernization and standardizatio

Re: fedora-ci.koji-build.rpmdeplint.functional no longer exists for gating

On 2025/04/25 11:44, Dimitris Soumis wrote: Hello, By defining a |- !PassingTestCaseRule {test_case_name: fedora-ci.koji-build.rpmdeplint.functional} | in gating.yaml as stated in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/ci/g

Re: Builds and updates missing from Fedora 42 compared to Fedora 41

On 2025/03/11 17:17, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 5:12 PM Michael J Gruber wrote: Given the many packit related ones - does packit have a concept of "follow Fedora release branching" (like COPR), or do packit users have to update their config after a branch event? Many projec

Re: Non-standard options removal from %cmake

On 2025/03/12 13:22, Michael J Gruber wrote: Interesting. This is also a perfect example of how *not* to write git commit nor changelog messages: everybody who can read those few lines of diff will know what got removed and that it wasn't "standard" (or else it would not have been defined manua

Re: Proposal: Allow all packagers to push empty commits to any package

On 2025/02/20 14:54, Ben Beasley wrote: Note that as long as we’re on Pagure, it’s impossible to make a PR for an empty commit. Right, that is indeed a nuisance. There is a dirty hack to it [1]: 1. Try to create the PR as normal and be greeted by a disabled "Create Pull Request" 2. Enter de

Re: Proposal: Allow all packagers to push empty commits to any package

On 2025/02/20 13:17, Miro Hrončok wrote: What if we allowed all packagers to push empty commit to any package? That should eliminate *some* need for provenpackager access. We would also communicate in our policies that such bumps do not require prior agreement with the maintainers to avoid con

Re: How to deal with static libraries and cmake?

On 2025/05/11 22:42, Orion Poplawski wrote: To be clear, I would prefer to be able to still package and ship the static libraries in a separate package.  Although I am considering just dropping the static build as well.  But I think the HPC / scientific community still has a reasonably high in

Re: How to deal with static libraries and cmake?

On 10 May 2025 05:42:07 CEST, Orion Poplawski wrote: > * The installation package was faulty and contained > > "/usr/lib64/cmake/SuiteSparse_config/SuiteSparse_configTargets.cmake" > > but not all the files it references. > > >Is there some way that packages can handle having the static l

Re: Noctua Presentation

On 11 May 2025 03:24:14 CEST, Neal Gompa wrote: >Huh, I think we retired this years ago in favor of >python-pycryptodomex: >https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pycryptodomex > >If you've still got projects using pycryptodome, you should port them >to pycryptodomex. > I believe you are con

Re: CMake 4.0 and other change proposals

On 2025/05/19 17:05, Andrea Musuruane wrote: Hi,    I need help with this: On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 11:54 PM Cristian Le via devel wrote: Legend: ✅: Build success ❌: Build failure when CMake change is applied 😖: Build failure even without the change (formatted the

Re: CMake 4.0 and other change proposals

To update on the current status, I have created a hackmd document [1]. I haven't filled it in with the packages that were fixed so far. If anyone wants to pick up any of the packages, feel free to edit the document and mark the package as assigned (🗳️). I have left it very open, but please don

Re: [EPEL10] Contributor’s fix to opendmarc ignored due to structural and infrastructure barriers

Hi Kurita-san, I believe most of this is a miscommunication and some issues with the infrastructure. The primary mode of contribution for non-packagers is to open PRs in the src.fedoraproject.org. Regarding the ssh issue, this is indeed a known issue because only packagers have access to pus

Re: F43 Change Proposal: X11Libre (system-wide)

On 2025/06/25 5:21, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: Chris Adams wrote: Given the questionable changes made to X.Org by the lead (only?) developer of X11Libre before being removed from the project, including possible license violations The "license violations" are actually moving a few lines of m

Re: Double Precision Build for Bullet Physics

On 2025/06/14 5:03, Claire R wrote: Any movement on this? MyGUI is in the process of being unretired and once it is I'd like to get to work packaging openMW ASAP. Am I good to use a double precision build linked statically, or should I wait? I would say go ahead with the static linking approa

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers

On 2025/06/17 9:32, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: I orphaned it because it's not maintained. Psi-plus is now the primary upstream from the same authors. Why not retire and obsolute them with the psi-plus package? -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@

Re: Double Precision Build for Bullet Physics

On 8 June 2025 03:09:31 CEST, Rich Mattes wrote: >It's possible to build both with and without double precision enabled, >Debian is doing it with some patches. I'll take a look at how we can do >something similar in Fedora. I checked the notes on openmw. It seems to be a Debian-only patch, and

Re: Double Precision Build for Bullet Physics

On 7 June 2025 03:05:04 CEST, Claire R wrote: > This is because their build requires Bullet’s CMAKE flag, > USE_DOUBLE_PRECISION, to be enabled. At first glance, the USE_DOUBLE_PRECISION is not *explicitly* set to off, so the intent of the packagers is not clear on that point. It would help a

Re: Double Precision Build for Bullet Physics

On 7 June 2025 07:48:50 CEST, Claire R wrote: >Note that I will be building it with my own build of mygui, as mygui is >currently retired, but that shouldn't be too relevant at the moment; right now >I want to tackle the potential blocker of our bullet build first. Perfectly fine, just do it

Re: Packaging sccache – collaborator request!

On 10 June 2025 20:15:25 CEST, "Marcus Müller" wrote: > - the spec generated by rust2rpm doesn't tell me much; an rpmbuild of the >result lists about 100 missing dependencies of the kind "crate(base64/default)" Most dependencies are actually already packaged, but upstream is outdated (see rus

Re: Double Precision Build for Bullet Physics

On 8 June 2025 21:01:03 CEST, Claire R wrote: >Is upsetream in this case referring to openMW or bullet physics? Was referring to bullet physics upstream and how it doesn't respond to open PRs. -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.or

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Deprecate RPM Macros for setup.py-based Python Builds (self-contained)

I believe some clarification for this proposal is in order On 2025/06/07 14:49, Aoife Moloney wrote: Old: %build %py3_build New: %build %pyproject_wheel The %py3_build expands to `python3 setup.py build` [1] which is the interface that is being removed. %pyproject_wheel expands to

Re: F43 Change Proposal: Deprecate RPM Macros for setup.py-based Python Builds (self-contained)

On 2025/06/10 15:08, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 10. 06. 25 13:59, Cristian Le via devel wrote: I believe some clarification for this proposal is in order What kind of clarification do you think is needed? Not necessarily in the change proposal, but for the people who were confused in this

Re: Need helps to build LuxCoreDeps

On July 9, 2025 6:18:25 AM GMT+02:00, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: > >It seems like luxcore has a hard dependencies with luxcoredeps hence the >following failure: > >''' > >LuxCore Dependencies - Required version: 1.0.0 >-- Configuring incomplete, errors occurred! >CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:65

Re: Need helps to build LuxCoreDeps

On July 8, 2025 6:16:21 AM GMT+02:00, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: >Hello team, > >Upstream luxcore made a change to their 2.10 version release requiring a new >luxcoredeps dependencies via conan build manager. Can someone help to >effectively build a packaged version? Just ignore the luxcoredep

Re: Introducing Provides bash(*)

On 2025/07/15 16:06, Jerry James wrote: These days PROMPT_COMMAND is an array. You can add to it, rather than override it. Thanks for that insight. It seems that the array is supported [1], and the note is outdated? I can't read the bash script there well, but isn't the DEBUG trap also no

Introducing Provides bash(*)

Hi all, During the review of bash-preexec [1] we came up on the issue that according to the documentation, this package would be in conflict with any other bash script that use the variable `PROMPT_COMMAND` or `DEBUG` #  Note: This module requires two Bash features which you must not otherwi

Re: tartube: files not found after using pyproject_* macros

On 2025/07/16 18:56, Brian C. Lane wrote: Projects using pyproject.toml cannot install arbitrary data outside of site-packages, except for script wrappers. That depends on the build backend. Setuptools still provides `|package-data` (or something along those lines) to install in the system p

Re: CMake 4.0 and other change proposals

On 2025/07/26 17:41, Orion Poplawski wrote: Do we have a date for when these changes are going to land in Fedora? I did not set a deadline, mostly because the work is done in PRs and copr repos. There is a hard deadline based on the forking of RHEL, but I don't know when that is. There was a

Re: CMake 4.0 and other change proposals

To give a current status on this. CMake 4.0 change: - Status NEW: 472 - Status ASSIGNED: 24 - Status NEW (blocked): 6 - Status MODIFIED: 2 - Status ON_QA: 2 CMake ninja change: - Status NEW: 142 - Status ASSIGNED: 8 - Status NEW (blocked): 5 - Status MODIFIED: 2 CMake drop install vars change:

Re: bodhi testing arguments/environment variables

On 2025/07/31 15:42, Pavol Sloboda wrote: Hello, I am currently reworking the tests for bodhi for Mariadb from STI to TMT as per the fedora change [0] and I came across an issue with the versioned vs unversioned rpms of Mariadb (this issue seems to be present in the STI tests as well), where

Re: CI failed to pick up the test suite

On 2025/07/31 11:04, Andrei Radchenko wrote: Hello, I just updated this test plan in new nodejs [0], filling missing pieces like gating yaml, testing fmf data. Scratch build ran but stuck on pending and not proceeding to testing. I suspect it might be because I *just* introduced them. But n