On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 5:37 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Soon. We have staging pretty close to all working, so I would expect
> sometime in the next weeks. We will announce deployment plans as we make
> them.
Excellent news! Do let us know if/how we can
help by testing (no change in AAA systems
sur
On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 1:10 AM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> > And why would I want to do Red Hat's / IBM's work for free?
> >
> > Contributing to Fedora provides value to me because I use Fedora myself.
> > In contrast, what would I gain from contributing to E
On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 6:39 PM Dan Horák wrote:
> The open question still is whether we should try to keep 64k as default
> as it would allow to find the remaining bugs and offer 4k kernel variant
> (COPR for ppc64le should be coming back soon), similar for the
> installer (a new remix/spin). Af
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 6:18 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> There is no good way to do this.
This is one of those cases where I occasionally
miss a mainframe fix update feature to prevent
certain bad automated results.
In SMP/E, there was the concept of HOLD's for
a fix. There were a
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:31 PM David Cantrell wrote:
> 2) I'm curious why GDBM was chosen instead of something like sqlite.
I believe sasldb only supports gdbm and
ndbm as alternatives to bdb.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 3:19 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CompilerPolicy
>
Ultimately, I think what the packaging guidelines should be if
the proposal is accepted are essentially:
For C/C++ projects:
If the upstream has no stated preference for the compiler,
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 3:30 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
> Or is it just a way of saying "we trust you to exercise good judgment"?
If one does not trust the packagers good
judgement you likely have a bigger
issue to address.
I doubt many packagers are going to
change from the default compiler
unless t
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 3:38 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> To me, this sounds like an excuse to avoid doing the right thing and
> leveraging the toolchain that offers the highest quality code
> generation (performance, security, etc.).
I am not in favor of switching the distro (or any
package) to the c
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 3:57 PM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> This is quite a niche problem that's unlikely to cause issues
> for most people, but its a illustration that swapping compilers
> out can have unexpected consequences/complications.
Presuming I am remembering my s390x history
correctly,
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 5:18 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 30.04.2021 16:23, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > Because distributing SSH keys to temporary VMs is hard?
>
> Kickstart + Ansible will fix all these issues.
Or, perhaps, cloud-init, for those using that approach.
___
On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 9:49 AM Евгений Пивнев wrote:
>
> Is there any real package .spec that use cc-toolset-9 as example?
> SCL documentation is too extensive and mostly about creating new SCL,
> I cannot find short description how simply to make one new package using
> modern C++.
>
Not sure
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 4:42 PM PGNet Dev wrote:
> I'd bet $0.05 and a half-eaten donut that most folks
*Most* folks are not the deciders. The deciders
(for their particular projects) have decided,
presumably based on what they believe is best
for their community. In this case, for Fedora
On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 8:44 AM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> Florian Weimer wrote:
> > Fedora doesn't require this yet.
>
> … and will hopefully not do so any time soon!
Just as with the elimination of 32-bit support
(both x86, and the upcoming arm retirement)
there will come a time for movi
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 2:46 AM Ian McInerney via devel
wrote:
> 1) How are these removed codecs handled in the library? Can we link an
> upstream application against FFMPEG in Fedora now and have it gracefully fail
> when it tries to access a non-free codec that was removed, or does the
> rem
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 3:00 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
> We do also have OpenH264 support enabled via dlopening the library, so
> if the openh264 package is present on the system, it'll "just work"
> and provide H.264 support. If it is not installed, it'll return the
> correct error for applications t
On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 5:06 AM Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> What would it take to get tall of the users of QtWebEngine onto 6.2? I
> don’t think Fedora should ship any version of QtWebEngine except the
> latest, since only the latest version appears to get regular patches.
Well, it is slightly m
On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 1:45 PM Richard Shaw wrote:
> In this instance, it's not clear to me whether sub-type changes are ABI
> breaking or not...
Looking only at the output of the compare, those are
ABI breaking changes, and you will need to rebuild
deps, but if those deps are actually using th
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 7:14 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> systemd-analyze security shows whether units use systemd hardening
> features. Those units may well use other features, and may well be
> very secure.
My vague recollection from running systemd-analyze security
from some time a
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 5:25 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> No, there's things we can do and are trying to do. ;)
I seem to remember that one of the issues
identified was (for those of us using gmail
for the notifications) was that google could
end up throttling emails.
I have a vague recollection tha
On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 5:03 AM Gordon Messmer wrote:
> I remember in the early days of deltarpm, it would frequently reduce the
> download size on my systems by 70-90%. I know that some people disliked
> that it made updates slower, but I always thought that reducing the
> bandwidth costs at our
On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 6:40 PM Alexander Sosedkin wrote:
> Good news is, RHEL-9 is gonna lead the way
> and thus will take a lot of the hits first.
> Fedora doesn't have to pioneer it.
> Bad news is, Fedora has to follow suit someday anyway,
> and this brings me to how does one land such a change
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 6:55 PM Ron Olson wrote:
>
> Hey all-
>
> I’m trying to build a new version of a package and got the aforementioned
> error, but only under EPEL 8, all other builds (Rawhide, F35, F34, EPEL 9)
> built fine. The failed build is at
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/tas
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 7:54 PM Richard Shaw wrote:
> Clang doesn't understand some options that gcc does, and a lot of it depends
> on the version of clang IIRC. For a while Fedora maintainers would modify
> clang to at least silently ignore these options but now it's much easier to
> specify
On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 5:05 PM Mattia Verga via devel
wrote:
> Maybe BR overrides usage should be restricted only to users with special
> needs (users in provenpackager or releng groups), while "normal" users
> should be forced to take the side-tag way?
As always, there are special cases. I ce
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 5:46 PM Richard Shaw wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 12:31 PM Tom Hughes via devel
> wrote:
==
>> Is it actually true though? You need to be able to find some space
>> for an EFI partition but assuming that can be done is there some
>> other reason you can't migrate from
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 12:59 AM Demi Marie Obenour
wrote:
>
> On 4/5/22 19:38, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > We either want users with NVIDIA hardware to be inside the Secure Boot
> > fold or we don't. I want them in the fold *despite* the driver that
> > needs signing is proprietary. That's a better us
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 1:16 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 9:07 PM Demi Marie Obenour
> wrote:
> >
> > On 4/5/22 16:09, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > This problem also makes life miserable for people working with third
> > > party open source kernel modules too. As a live streamer, f
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 12:15 PM Josh Boyer wrote:
> I agree 100%. I think this is actually getting to the crux of the
> issue, which is that while we have a lot of people that want BIOS
> support to continue, we effectively have nobody that wants to do the
> work to make it happen.
In a previou
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 4:41 PM Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> Myself, I will not enable OTP until there is a way to disable it again.
> Currently, once enabled, you are stuck with it and cannot go back if
> things break, which is too much risk for me.
In some ideal implementation turning on OTP woul
On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 2:59 PM Michael Catanzaro
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 7 2022 at 02:41:42 PM +, Gary Buhrmaster
> wrote:
> > I had thought there was an open (RFE) issue with
> > gnome-online-accounts to request support for
> > OTP use cases, although, as a hard pr
On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 10:05 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 03:43:07PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > Clover is described here:
> > https://github.com/CloverHackyColor/CloverBootloader
>
> This is interesting. Seems like considerable up-front work, but a much
> cleaner
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 6:01 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> Moving past the Big Three(tm), the actual
> cloud providers that matter from a Fedora context are the smaller
> outfits that principally serve Linux users. These are companies like
> DigitalOcean, Linode (Akamai), Hetzner, VexxHost, and others wh
On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 1:27 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> Windows 11 *does not matter* here.
(Windows) Desktop as a Service (DaaS)[0] may
change that faster than some expect (or faster
than some hope). There is a large push by
some orgs to move services off premise
into the cloud (for a number of sta
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 5:26 PM David Cantrell wrote:
> This was already addressed. Fedora should not be expected to jump through
> hoops to support vendors unwilling to participate in the open source Linux
> ecosystem. Users should stop buying their hardware -or- contribute to
> projects like
On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 12:38 AM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> Matthew Miller wrote:
> > We've got a 300+ message thread in just one week, with 66 different
> > participants. This handily beats discussions systemd-resolved,
> > btrfs-by-default, and even switching the default editor to nano.
>
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 9:12 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
> It'd be cool to see if we can make a bios-to-uefi thing like Clover work.
> That might be something interesting for the SIG to do. But, I don't think
> that's really a small project!
This is mostly off topic, and while I have not
carefully
On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 2:08 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 14/04/2022 15:31, John Reiser wrote:
> > Some of them even have "without data loss" in the page title.
>
> Without moving data to another physical drive this operation is too
> dangerous.
>
> I tried on my testing VM and lost a
On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 11:39 AM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
> I am also worried that this is just a delayed retirement, as it was for 32-
> bit i686, where the SIG was very quickly declared a failure, without even
> being given time to organize.
Well, presumably, if you are a member of the SI
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:50 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> Could we consider, in future, posting a clarification for journalists
> in flaming six-foot high letters (I exaggerate only slightly) at the
> top of *every* proposed Change page, and *every* official mail relating
> to a proposed Change,
On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 12:54 PM Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> In a similar (parallel) discussion related to future RHEL, it has been found
> this change also breaks resolution of many DNSSEC-secured domains which are
> still using SHA1 signatures. It is impossible to know how long it will be
> bef
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 2:41 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
> But I think this change also requires automatic conversion of all
> available SPECs, because manual conversion will take years.
Automating where possible (the existing license has a
one-to-one mapping) is desirable, but realistica
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 3:07 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > Do we need to %if-%else it in the spec file? I recall some discussion about
> > this on the legal list, but I see no
> > guidelines proposed here.
>
> If you maintain one spec for all branches then you will need %if-%else. And
> yes, it
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 7:50 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Does that make sense?
Yes, and a great idea.
That would definitely work well for me (as long
as the spdx macro was backported to all the
usual suspects).
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedor
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 9:55 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> Yeah, I think that proposal was not workable because of AVX2. The
> x86_64-v2 subarch adds SSSE3, SSE4.2, POPCNT, and CMPXCHG16B to the
> current x86_64 baseline. All of these instructions were present in the
> first Intel Macs launched in 2007,
On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 8:57 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Hmm, this should be easy to implement. Just one wiki page. I created:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packagers_for_hire
>
> Comments?
Rather than a wiki for which people may not
reliably curate (i.e. remove themselves) or
respond to quer
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 8:58 AM Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> I can't find *anyone* who likes modularity.
I like the concept of modules. But primarily
only if someone else is doing the actual
hard work that ends up being necessary
to build them.
___
deve
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 8:23 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 06/07/2021 23:27, Christian Stadelmann wrote:
> > In other words: I think it is too early to drop non-(U)EFI BIOS support.
>
> Btw, the upcoming Windows 11 will require full UEFI support, enabled
> UEFI Secure Boot and TPM 2.0.
On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 12:54 AM Jakub Kadlcik wrote:
> I am happy to announce that I deployed this little site
> https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-sponsors/
Thank you for doing this. Anything that reduces
the impedance for new people is overwhelming
a good thing.
It is easy for forget (especiall
On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 5:28 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 28/07/2021 15:07, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > Updates of user services take effect immediately (if so configured in
> > the providing packages).
>
> Restarting plasma-ksmserver.service, plasma-kwin_x11.service, etc. will
> cause a DE
On Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 3:19 PM Mattia Verga via devel
wrote:
> For updates, the term "karma" is used as the sum of all karma|feedback
> submitted by users, so I plan to rename this to "rating".
I dislike the term rating. Maybe just remove
the term karma, and simply count the thumbs
(stable by
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 12:43 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Does anyone have a preference here, or other comments on this plan?
Separate source package, given all the ways
qemu dependencies seem to be entwined all
over the place.
I am not sure I love the macro names, but
a rose is still a rose
On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 12:41 AM Ryan Bach via devel
wrote:
>
> https://release-monitoring.org/project/1887/
> 11.7.1
11.5, 11.6, and 11.7 are rolling/development
releases.
11.4(.4) is an LTS release, and would likely
be the next alternative version target for some
future package.
I would expec
On Sun, Dec 29, 2024 at 11:13 PM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > On 16/12/2024 21:43, Aoife Moloney via devel-announce wrote:
> >> removed support for GPU Generations prior to the
> >> 12th Gen GPUs. This effectively means that any hardware released
> >> befor
On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 2:13 PM Björn 'besser82' Esser
wrote:
> Python <= 3.12 is still building the crypt module, which links
> libcrypt.so; thus those packages should express an explicit BR in libxcrypt.
I never bothered to follow all the details
of the issue, but is there not a problem
where l
On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 2:27 PM ttys3 wrote:
>
> MariaDB 11.6.2 is a Stable (GA) release.
> https://mariadb.com/kb/en/mariadb-11-6-2-release-notes/
>
It is also a short term rolling release, with no
future fixes available, and you are expected to
upgrade to the next rolling 11.7 release (whic
On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 10:18 PM Fabio Valentini wrote:
> In "the spirit of transparency":
> FESCo agreed that a public ticket with a summary of the discussion in
> the private ticket should be filed, it just hasn't happened yet.
It is unclear, from that statement, whether it was
intended to cre
On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 9:17 PM Leigh Scott wrote:
>
> I have already withdrawn my FESCo election votes as I don't think any of the
> candidates are fit to rule.
> --
Until we have an independent review of
what individuals knew, and when did they
know it, and what actions they took (or
did not t
On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 10:03 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2024-12-16 at 15:42 -0500, David Cantrell wrote:
> > We neglected to make available the facts behind our decision quickly (In
> > some cases we were dealing with situations where reporters wanted to remain
> > anonymous
>
> This
On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 9:08 PM Fabio Valentini wrote:
> Let me be clear - FESCo is *not* usurping CoC responsibilities.
From the currently available public information,
I disagree(*), but I trust the Council will
eventually review and clarify (as they seem to
have agreed to do).
Gary
(*) T
On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 7:28 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
> I'm not sure today of everything we need to do to make things right, but the
> Council will work this week on immediate actions before the holiday, and
> then longer-term in January.
Thank you for the update. I was especially
concerned abo
On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 1:33 AM Josh Stone wrote:
On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 1:33 AM Josh Stone wrote:
> As a result of more than a month of debate in the latest
> private FESCo ticket on his conduct, the Committee voted – seven in
> favor, two against – to remove Peter from the provenpackager gr
On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 2:13 PM Chuck Anderson wrote:
> The policy as written also says to check the vacation calendar, so if you had
> marked yourself "away" on the calendar that would have perhaps avoided
> getting to the next step:
It can be a very bad idea to publicly document
when you are
On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 10:44 AM Fabio Valentini wrote:
> So if you see packages that *change* (either their dependencies, or
> their contents - but ignoring codegen differences with new compiler
> versions etc.) between the last build before the mass rebuild and the
> build performed during the
On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 6:26 PM Björn Persson wrote:
> If I correct a typo in a comment, I should bump the release and cause
> churn on build servers and mirrors, even though nothing at all changes
> in the binary package?
I do worry about server/storage usage, but in
my more innocent years I ha
On Sat, Jan 25, 2025 at 11:28 PM Frank Crawford
wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> Do we have any documentation or policies on how to convert an existing
> package (in this case logwatch) from using cron to using systemd
> timers?
>
> While it isn't too hard to fix up the spec file, the main thing I'm
> worrie
On Sat, Jan 25, 2025 at 11:05 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> Updated diff:
> Zbyszek
I have a preference for seeing packages follow
the current packaging guidelines (that I can find)
that say:
Create a .sysusers file with the user definition and
add it to the specfile as a sourc
libcbor will be updated to 0.12.0 in rawhide in the
next week or so, which includes a soname bump.
The list of affected packages in rawhide are:
libfido2
fwupd
I have rebuilt libfido2. For fwupd, I will need the
assistance of the fwupd maintainers (CC'ed),
Please use the side tag f43-build-sid
I accidentally did not specify a side-tag target,
so this build will break rawhide. Sorry for my
mistake.
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Condu
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 6:15 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> As a side note: if this sort of thing happens and you need something
> untagged for some reason, please file a releng ticket.
> ( https://pagure.io/releng )
> Thats likely to be seen/acted on much quicker than an list post.
Fair enough. I was
On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 9:10 AM Richard Hughes wrote:
> I tried this, but got "GenericError: Build already exists" -- I'm using
> %autorelease in the spec file -- do I have to disable that for the side tag
> and then re-enable it for the next rebase? Thanks.
As I understand it (from notes I ke
On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 10:56 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 6:53 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> > I'm a bit confused here tho, as my understanding is that upstream does
> > indeed plan to remove this in the upcoming cycle, so the gnome version
> > thats included in f43 (which this
On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 12:13 PM Gabriel L. Somlo wrote:
> This *sort-of* worked: systemd-networkd-wait-online took about two
> minutes before it failed with a timeout. However, that was long enough
> to hold back network-online.target, and by extension sendmail.service,
> so that the latter foun
On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 9:10 PM Gabriel L. Somlo wrote:
> Unless there's anything glaringly obvious that I'm too silly to notice
Are you using systemd-networkd or NetworkManager?
You have to enable the correct -wait service.
--
___
devel mailing list
On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 4:10 PM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> Can we just stop building for i686 in Fedora in general, instead of burning
> maintainer time figuring out deps problems like this... ? What's the
> blocker and how much longer do we have to put up with its burden in Fedora ?
Was there
On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 11:26 PM Ian Laurie via devel
wrote:
>
> Thanks guys. Seems in may case more that just a couple:
>
...
I *think* all those are part of the iptables-nft package
if you want to try to remove that package, and see
if the merge can be completed.
--
_
On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 12:52 AM Ian Laurie via devel
wrote:
> Reinstalling filesystem doesn't provide messaging relating to the merge
> script.
As I recall (someone else posted this)
you need to do a:
dnf reinstall filesystem -y | cat
to get the essential messages
about the why. Perhaps o
On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 3:17 PM Gabriel L. Somlo wrote:
>
> Adding `After=networ-online.target` to `sendmail.service` does *not*
> seem to help.
As I recall, the network is considered
"online" a lot earlier than you might
think (after the loopback is up?)
without additional requirements. If
you
On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 9:35 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> Those are some high profile and/or important pieces of Fedora functionality
> that seemingly depend on OpenSSL engines, and would (possibly[1]) need fixing
> unless OpenSSL 3 is going to be kept in Fedora as a compat package in parallel
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 3:26 AM Gary Buhrmaster
wrote:
>
> I accidentally did not specify a side-tag target,
> so this build will break rawhide. Sorry for my
> mistake.
Looks like the gating status failed ("Yah!"),
and I have explicitly unpushed it. I will
try to be more
On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 8:19 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> If you're not using sysusers, you're supposed/required to add the
> necessary provides manually.
So, for those that what want a common RPM
spec file that supports *all* current releases,
one should specify a:
Provides: user(mysql)
Provides
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 10:07 AM Aoife Moloney via devel-announce
wrote:
> By dropping completely the i686 architecture, Fedora will decrease the
> burden on package maintainers, release engineering, infrastructure,
> and users.
A completely out-of-the-box alternative
to reducing package maintai
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 4:02 PM Chris Adams wrote:
> Yeah, that's the catch. Has anybody tried talking to somebody at Valve
> (if they can be found)? This isn't a Fedora-exclusive issue; Ubuntu and
> SuSE (and all the downstreams of each) are probably looking at the same
> thing at some point.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 1:45 PM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> If we only want to build a small subset of packages as i686, then
> rather than doing it as an architecture in koji, IMHO, we could
> consider doing it as cross-compiled target, creating sub-RPMs
> from the native x86_64 package, as we d
"Review Request: faad2 - Library and frontend for decoding MPEG2/4 AAC"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2370973
Was this reviewed by Fedora Legal (I did not see
it in the email list archives, but I might have used
the wrong search criteria). Last I recall, some of
the patents for
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 10:47 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> It doesn't, though. It still means we have to maintain all the weird
> infrastructure for putting i686 packages in x86_64 repos, and any other
> work we want to do on infrastructure or testing has to account for that
> weirdness. That, to
On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 10:49 PM Chris Adams wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, in the US, there are claimed patents affecting parts of
> H.264 who's expirations are as far out as late 2030. It's not clear
> which versions/profiles of H.264 are affected by which patents, so not
> sure when parts of H.264
On Fri, Jul 4, 2025 at 9:27 AM Tom Hughes via devel
wrote:
> The problem is that isn't a few big netblocks from big AI companies, as
> they are relatively easy to deal with
And many (not all) of the big companies
actually respect the various directives as
to where to (not) crawl, and to throttle
I have a (somewhat?) strange situation
(or at least strange for me, maybe others
have this on a regular basis), that I wish
to understand how to proceed.
I have a library (libcbor, if it matters)
which has a new version with a soname
bump. It will require rebuilding of three
packages in a side ta
On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 7:52 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> We should probibly put this info into onboarding docs, it's just been a
> long time since it changed.
...
> I tried to announce things to devel-announce (which also cc to this
> list).
>
> Open to ideas on how to better announce things.
I think
On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 10:33 AM Richard Hughes via devel
wrote:
> That's exactly what Microsoft want to ask from vendors in the future, but I
> really wish them luck because when I asked them for the new PCR0 "golden
> hashes" for LVFS updates only one vendor complied, and and only for a few
On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 8:18 PM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> Leigh Scott wrote:
> > Why isn't fedora infra using Anubis to block LLM scrappers?
>
> Why should they? Anubis is a scourge that wastes massive energy for all
> legitimate browsers, breaks search engines, and if configured in a
> par
On Fri, Jul 4, 2025 at 4:27 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> If you're not going to use something like Cloudflare or Anubis
> sometimes you do *have* to do this just to keep the site up - we have
> blocked the entirety of Brazil from Fedora infra a couple of times so
> far (since, as Jelle noted, for
On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 11:41 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> FYI, the council has been working on a policy...
>
> https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/ai-policy-in-fedora-wip/144297/20
>
The most interesting thing is that at this point
the only approach is "it's complicated". That
is both exciting,
libcbor will be updated to 0.12.0 in rawhide in the
next week or so (sooner if the rebuilds are complete),
which includes a soname bump.
The list of affected packages in rawhide are:
libfido2
fwupd
qemu (I missed this the previous attempt, my bad).
I have tested the update using the mass pre-bui
On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 11:24 PM Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2025-07-17 at 15:26 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2025-07-17 at 15:18 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > In my opinion the situation is simple, as already several courts
> > > hinted, the output of an AI cannot be copyrighted,
On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 3:08 AM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> It's the same question as Chris asked, effectively. If you can identify
> the packages to revert them, you could just as easily skip them
> instead. The answer is 'maybe, but it's not trivial'.
>
> Note the correct requirement is not just
On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 6:46 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> Hey folks! I figured a wider heads-up about this might be useful.
>
> The owner of the "Dropping of cert.pem file" Change[0] committed the
> change to dist-git but did not build it, instead leaving it to be built
> as part of the mass rebu
On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 4:58 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> I'm all for documenting this better, but where?
>
> We could perhaps add something to the reminder about the mass rebuild
> coming up (which is supposed to be a week before I think?).
We get an email when the mass rebuild
has started (and fini
On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 8:51 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> If the system doesn't handle this scenario sensibly:
>
> * Submit a PR to libfoo that bumps its soname
> * Submit a PR to bar-app to rebuild it against the new libfoo soname
> * ???
> * Profit
>
> then it cannot be viable for Fedora. Broadl
301 - 399 of 399 matches
Mail list logo
