Re: Switch kwrite to kate (kde)?
On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 11:15 PM Reon Beon via devel wrote: > > Thoughts? No. Kate is more complex and confusing. KWrite was introduced as a deliberately simpler text editor, which is why we ship it by default instead of Kate. Kate is *built* on KWrite and extends it with lots of programmer-specific stuff. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers
Hello, I am new to this group and not yet part of the Packager group. I would like to contribute in maintaining of orphan package plantuml, if I am allowed to do so. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Games group?
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ga...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/6MY3KDQ3GQBVDULLOHOWMN7AAK2VLQ6V/ ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Review swap: python-colored-traceback
I have proposed a python-colored-traceback package at: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2033730 Would anyone like to do a review swap? I am anxious to get python-colored-traceback reviewed, because the existing python-pwntools package will require python-colored-traceback with the release of 4.7.0. -- Mike :wq ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: F36 Change: GHC compiler parallel version installs (Self-Contained Change proposal)
On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 11:00 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > So will the default version be the "ghc" package going forward? That's correct - general Haskell users/consumers should just continue to use the main ghc package and ghc-* libraries. ghcX.Y is for people who need/want to use or test different (newer/older) ghc versions, rather like the compatibility llvmX packages. ghc9.2 is already available in Rawhide and F35 updates testing, and ghc9.0 should be available soon too. > How will defaults be handled in future Fedora Linux releases? The main Fedora ghc package will continue to be maintained and upgraded along with the ecosystem. It is not completely clear yet if the ghc package set will move to ghc-9.0 in time for F36 GA, otherwise hopefully to ghc-8.10.7. ghcX.Y can also provide a better testing ground for packaging improvements (than the ghc modules) before they land in the main ghc package. It will make new minor ghc versions more easily available in Fedora (and EPEL where ghcX.Y will be even more meaningful). Jens ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Switch kwrite to kate (kde)?
Thoughts? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Non-responsive maintainer check for halfie
Hello, This is a non-responsive maintainer check for halfie. I have filed a bug for epel8/9 branch[1] and one for non-responsive maintainer[2]. Does anyone know how to contact halfie? [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2030902 [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035140 Regards, -- Robby Callicotte He/Him/His Timezone: America/Chicago IRC: c4t3l | Twitter: @robbycl2v signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Package wishlist site?
There's been a (short) discussion about having a wishlist last month: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/K3O5WRMT75UCWMRE6PCMBHRGMHMIBM63/ A.FI. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing report
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing: Age URL 7 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-1526755a59 singularity-3.8.5-2.el7 6 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-afc31f929c seamonkey-2.53.10.1-1.el7 The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing scitokens-cpp-0.6.2-4.el7 Details about builds: scitokens-cpp-0.6.2-4.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2021-b4052453a5) C++ Implementation of the SciTokens Library Update Information: Update to el9 build version. ChangeLog: * Tue Dec 21 2021 Derek Weitzel - 0.6.2-4 - Remove -Werror for depreciated OpenSSL 3 functions * Tue Sep 14 2021 Sahana Prasad - 0.6.2-3 - Rebuilt with OpenSSL 3.0.0 * Fri Jul 23 2021 Fedora Release Engineering - 0.6.2-2 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_35_Mass_Rebuild References: [ 1 ] Bug #2021907 - scitokens-cpp: FTBFS with OpenSSL 3.0.0 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2021907 [ 2 ] Bug #2033821 - Branch and build scitokens-cpp in epel9 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2033821 ___ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2031492] branch request: perl-Data-MessagePack for epel8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031492 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||perl-Data-MessagePack-1.01- ||6.el8 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed||2021-12-23 01:58:22 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-50e30ddd6f has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031492 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing report
The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing: Age URL 7 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-79302e6110 singularity-3.8.5-2.el8 6 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-820fb1124a seamonkey-2.53.10.1-1.el8 The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing dr_libs-0-0.12.20211222gitc5e5355.el8 icewm-2.9.3-1.el8 lexertl14-0.1.0-6.20211222git2ea71b8.el8 scitokens-cpp-0.6.2-4.el8 tsl-sparse-map-0.6.2-2.el8 Details about builds: dr_libs-0-0.12.20211222gitc5e5355.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2021-14e6ca4abf) Single-file audio decoding libraries for C/C++ Update Information: Update to [c5e5355](https://github.com/mackron/dr_libs/commit/c5e53558165585ae62 4a7d6c7908e698609093c8): `dr_mp3 - v0.6.32 - 2021-12-11`, `dr_flac - v0.12.33 - 2021-12-22`. **`dr_mp3 - v0.6.32 - 2021-12-11`**- Fix a warning with Clang. **`dr_flac - v0.12.32 - 2021-12-11`**- Fix a warning with Clang. **`dr_flac - v0.12.33 - 2021-12-22`**- Fix a bug with seeking when the seek table does not start at PCM frame 0. ChangeLog: * Wed Dec 22 2021 Benjamin A. Beasley 0-0.12 - Update to c5e5355 (dr_mp3 0.6.32, dr_flac 0.12.33) * Wed Dec 22 2021 Benjamin A. Beasley 0-0.11 - Let the -devel packages be noarch icewm-2.9.3-1.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2021-6ee0a286a6) Window manager designed for speed, usability, and consistency Update Information: Update to 2.9.3 ChangeLog: * Wed Dec 22 2021 Artem Polishchuk - 2.9.3-1 - chore(update): 2.9.3 * Fri Dec 10 2021 Artem Polishchuk - 2.9.2-1 - chore(update): 2.9.2 * Wed Dec 8 2021 Artem Polishchuk - 1.9.2-1 - chore(update): 1.9.2 lexertl14-0.1.0-6.20211222git2ea71b8.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2021-7093f13c3c) C++14 version of lexertl Update Information: Update to 2ea71b8: added a function, fixed static analysis findings ChangeLog: * Wed Dec 22 2021 Benjamin A. Beasley 0.1.0-6 - Update to 2ea71b8 * Wed Dec 22 2021 Benjamin A. Beasley 0.1.0-5 - Dep. on cmake-filesystem is now auto-generated * Wed Dec 22 2021 Benjamin A. Beasley 0.1.0-4 - Update to commit 488602f scitokens-cpp-0.6.2-4.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2021-e4e43f449d) C++ Implementation of the SciTokens Library Update Information: Update to el9 build version. ChangeLog: * Tue Dec 21 2021 Derek Weitzel - 0.6.2-4 - Remove -Werror for depreciated OpenSSL 3 functions * Tue Sep 14 2021 Sahana Prasad - 0.6.2-3 - Rebuilt with OpenSSL 3.0.0 * Fri Jul 23 2021 Fedora Release Engineering - 0.6.2-2 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_35_Mass_Rebuild References: [ 1 ] Bug #2021907 - scitokens-cpp: FTBFS with OpenSSL 3.0.0 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2021907 [ 2 ] Bug #2033821 - Branch and build scitokens-cpp in epel9 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2033821 tsl-sparse-map-0.6.2-2.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2021-ef16daae05) C++ implementation of a memory efficient hash map and hash set Update Information: Initial release of tsl-sparse-map, a C++ implementation of a memory efficient hash map and hash set ChangeLog: * Wed Dec 22 2021 Michel Alexandre Salim 0.6.2-2 - Do out-of-source builds on EPEL 8 * Thu Dec 16 2021 Michel Alexandre Salim 0.6.2-1 - Initial Fedora package References: [ 1 ] Bug
[Bug 2034048] perl-GD for EPEL 9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034048 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-378645c1ee has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-378645c1ee See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034048 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2034850] Please branch and build perl-Sub-Override in epel9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034850 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-d518498502 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-d518498502 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034850 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2033606] Add perl-Set-Scalar to EPEL 9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2033606 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-94b384bd9c has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-94b384bd9c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2033606 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2028913] Please branch and build perl-GDGraph in epel9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2028913 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-378645c1ee has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-378645c1ee See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2028913 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2031731] Please branch and build perl-ExtUtils-PkgConfig in epel9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031731 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-c38133a5af has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-c38133a5af See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031731 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2034851] Please branch and build perl-Throwable in epel9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034851 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-eff0978aad has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-eff0978aad See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034851 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2032513] Please branch and build perl-Sys-Virt in epel9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2032513 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-ea7d532d75 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-ea7d532d75 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2032513 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2030731] perl-SQL-Statement for EPEL 9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2030731 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-9f04c394fe has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-9f04c394fe See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2030731 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2030680] perl-DBD-CSV for EPEL 9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2030680 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-33f8fab3f1 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-33f8fab3f1 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2030680 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2031234] Please branch and build perl-DateTime-Format-SQLite in epel9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031234 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Fixed In Version||perl-DateTime-Format-SQLite ||-0.11-34.el9 Last Closed||2021-12-23 01:25:20 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-a360d29c9b has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031234 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2031484] Please branch and build perl-Hash-Merge in epel9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031484 Bug 2031484 depends on bug 2031490, which changed state. Bug 2031490 Summary: Please branch and build perl-Clone-PP in epel9 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031490 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031484 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2031490] Please branch and build perl-Clone-PP in epel9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031490 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |ERRATA Fixed In Version||perl-Clone-PP-1.08-4.el9 Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed||2021-12-23 01:25:17 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-b4b09cbbb9 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031490 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2031450] Please branch and build perl-XML-LibXSLT in epel9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031450 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-XML-LibXSLT-1.99-7.el9 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2021-12-23 01:25:12 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-63cc27a92e has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031450 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Package wishlist site?
On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 11:56 PM Jakub Kadlčík wrote: > TL;DR What about a place where people could ask for something to be > packaged in Fedora? There is https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintainers_wishlist ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Package wishlist site?
Hello, TL;DR What about a place where people could ask for something to be packaged in Fedora? I haven't seen almost any distribution having a package wishlist so it is either a bad idea (and doesn't have any real value) or everybody else missed a good opportunity. Or possibly they (maybe even Fedora) have it, but it is not advertised well. The use-cases, I imagine: 1. I am a non-technical Fedora user without the ability to learn RPM packaging, and I would like to have some software in the Fedora repositories. 2. I want to learn RPM packaging and I don't want to package hello.spec for the hundredth time 3. I want to become a Fedora packager but I don't work on an upstream project that is not already in the Fedora repositories. 4. I am bored and feeling altruistic Implementation options: 1. A standalone website - Sounds like a **lot** of work. We would need to submit and list the requests, subscribe with email, allow marking something as blocked by something else, etc. 2. Since the thing, I am describing is basically an issue tracker, we could create a project on Pagure and have just issues in it (similar to what https://pagure.io/fedora-magazine-newsroom has) or on GitHub (similar to what rpmfusion has https://github.com/rpmfusion-infra/fedy/issues/new/choose). I personally prefer this option because we could have this up-and-running in minutes, see if people find it useful and scratch it otherwise. 3. Bugzilla - More complicated setup than a project on Pagure/GitHub, more complex UI discouraging newbies and non-technical people to use it (which is a problem, since they are the target audience). On the other hand, we could easily link wished packages from package review tickets. 4. Wiki - I don't have many experiences with wikis but I never enjoyed working with them. IMHO they are a boring middle ground between static page generators and websites with a database, always being worse than those two. But if you think a wiki would be a good fit, I am fine with that. 5. Basically 2. or 3. but with a website, that presents the issues from Pagure or Bugzilla in a more friendly format. I can see some benefits to this, and I would certainly enjoy implementing it, but I see this as a long-term thing, only if the whole package wishlist idea works. Other distributions: - GNU/Guix - https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Group:Guix/Wishlist - That wiki actually looks good - OpenSuse - https://tr.opensuse.org/Paket_%C4%B0stek_Listesi_(Wishlist) - RPM Fusion - https://rpmfusion.org/Wishlist What do you think? Do we have anything like this? Should we try it? What option should we go with? Jakub ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: F36 Change: %set_build_flags for %build and %check (System-Wide Change proposal)
On 22. 12. 21 18:44, Tom Stellard wrote: I wasn't suggesting modifying the extension flags directly. What I meant was that we should be able to specify a set of flags for extensions to use when we build python, for example. And then extensions would pick up those flags up the same way they do now via a config file, header, etc. Python already does that. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Fix for python-tzlocal FTBFS
On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 5:16 AM Barry Scott wrote: > I have added a patch for the spec file for python-tzlocal.spec > that allows the 4.1 release to build. > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1993583 > > I can raise a PR if that helps, but I have not done that before > so pointers to the work flow would be welcomed. > A PR is best, that way even a provenpackager can easly help you out if the maintainer doesn't respond. The workflow is very similar to a PR in github if you've done that before. Also an email to -maintai...@fedoraproject.org will send an email to all the maintainers of a package and can be useful for a nudge. Thanks, Richard ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2033606] Add perl-Set-Scalar to EPEL 9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2033606 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-94b384bd9c has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-94b384bd9c -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2033606 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2034639] Upgrade perl-Template-Toolkit to 3.010
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034639 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Status|NEW |CLOSED Last Closed||2021-12-22 21:25:40 --- Comment #1 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- 3.010 in rawhide. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034639 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: F36 Change: %set_build_flags for %build and %check (System-Wide Change proposal)
On 12/22/21 01:56, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 21. 12. 21 v 21:56 Tom Stellard napsal(a):
On 12/21/21 01:42, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi Tom,
Since you are digging into this and AFAIK you are involved with toolchains,
this reminds me this dreaded issue:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284684
In short, various languages, such as Ruby embeds the build time options and
reuse them for build of extensions. And I wonder, would it be possible to
generalize this e.g. into some tool, which would set the environment variables
and would be usable outside of rpmbuild?
I think the only way to really generalize this is for the upstream projects to
make it easier for distros to manually specify the flags for extensions rather
than automatically taking the flags from the compiler invocation used to build
the interpreter.
I think this is limited POV. The issue is that the languages are actually
providing services to their extensions. IOW the languages are doing a lot of
probing for their build and they provides these results for their extensions,
therefore the extensions don't need to do so much probing. And that is
reasonable IMO.
I wasn't suggesting modifying the extension flags directly. What I meant was
that we should be able to specify a set of flags for extensions to use
when we build python, for example. And then extensions would pick up those
flags up the same way they do now via a config file, header, etc.
The problem is that everything is designed to be build on single system, which
is not the case for binary distribution.
Moreover, the binary distribution is using some flags for its build, but it
does not offer any generic way to reuse these flags for builds done outside of
the packaging environment. IOW if I install gcc on my system, it won't be using
all the hardening and other flags Fedora itself is using for its build and that
is something which should be improved IMO.
I don't think it would be too difficult to install a spec file (not an RPM spec
file,
a gcc spec file) that contains the default Fedora flags. Then users could build
with gcc -spec=fedora-flags to get the same set of flags. clang has a similar
feature
and could do the same thing.
I don't think we should change the compiler defaults to match what Fedora does,
though.
This causes too many headaches for developers who are trying to support
multiple distros.
-Tom
Vít
- Tom
Also, Fedora sets all these flags for purpose, but we won't let our users to
reuse them. So on top of my previous question, I wonder if we set these flags
on the right place and if there would not be better to set them more broadly
then just for RPMs.
Vít
Dne 20. 12. 21 v 18:41 Ben Cotton napsal(a):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SetBuildFlagsBuildCheck
== Summary ==
Call %set_build_flags macro automatically at the beginning of the
%build and %check phases of RPM builds in Fedora Linux. This will
ensure that the compiler flag environment variables are set for every
RPM build.
== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:tstellar| Tom Stellard]]
* Email:
== Detailed Description ==
The %set_build_flags macro exports common environment variables used
for building packages:
* CFLAGS
* CXXFLAGS
* FFLAGS
* FCFLAGS
* LDFLAGS
* LT_SYS_LIBRARY_PATH
* CC
* CXX
These environment variables are set to the compiler flags defined in
the system RPM configuration. This macro is currently implicitly
called when packages use some of the build system helper macros, like
%configure, %cmake, and %meson. However, not all packages use these
macros and so some packages do not use the correct compiler flags as
required by the Fedora packaging guidelines[1].
This change will be implemented by updating the %__spec_build_pre and
%__speck_check_pre macros in redhat-rpm-config to include
%set_build_flags. This will set these environment variables
automatically before the %build and %check sections. See the proposed
[https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/tstellar/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/c/a39741bbebd645c46e5d675920b4bffe390c95bb?branch=set-build-flags-build-check
implementation] for more details.
The purpose for making this change in both the %build and %check
sections is because sometimes test code gets built in the %check
sections for unit tests and this will ensure that the application code
and its tests are built with the same set of flags.
This change should have no impact on packages that already use
%set_build_flags either directly or indirectly through another macro.
It also won't impact any package that currently sets these environment
variables or modifies any of the %{build*_flags} macros in their
%build or %check sections.
[1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_compiler_flags
== Benefit to Fedora ==
This change will ensure that more packages are built using the correct
compiler flags, and bring them in compliance with the Fedora packaging
guidelines. It will also help improve the security of the
Re: Mock v2.16 release, mock-core-configs v36.4
On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 4:22:29 PM CET Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 10:14 AM Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 9:36:01 AM CET Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 5:49:34 PM CET Maxwell G wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 8:22:55 AM CST Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > > > On 19. 12. 21 22:39, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, December 19, 2021 10:22:57 PM CET Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > > > > >> So it seems that fedpkg doesn't (yet) know there's ~/.config/mock*
> > > > > >> at all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Proposed fix: https://pagure.io/rpkg/pull-request/595
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems that this would only fix the issue if the symbolic link has
> > > > > already > > > been created. But before that, `fedpkg --release epel8
> > > > > mockbuild` would still
> > > > > fail, wouldn't it? Can we fix that as well, even if it's fixed in some
> > > > > documentation only?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I think `fedpkg --release epel8 mockbuild` should print the same
> > > > error
> > > > message mock does when no default has been set, instead of defaulting
> > > > to a
> > > > non-functional koji config.
> > >
> > > Fedpkg _automatically_ downloads the relevant Koji config ('koji
> > > mock-config' variant, which is broken for normal users) when mock doesn't
> > > ship the appropriate config file (it doesn't by default).
> > >
> > > @onosek, would it be too bad if we made the Koji config download feature
> > > opt-in in fedpkg? Something like 'fedpkg mockbuild
> > > --use-koji-mock-config'?
> > > - when used, all local mock configuration is ignored
> > > - when not used, 'mock -r epel-8-x86_64' even if the config doesn't exist,
> > > which would automatically trigger the new Mock error message
> >
> > I'm trying to propose this:
> > https://pagure.io/rpkg/pull-request/597
> >
> > $ fedpkg mockbuild
> > Not downloading already downloaded pspg-5.5.2.tar.gz
> >
> > setting SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH=1639353600
> > Wrote: /tmp/pspg/pspg-5.5.2-1.el8.src.rpm
> > ERROR: Could not find required config file: /etc/mock/epel-8-x86_64.cfg
> > ERROR: There are those alternatives:
> > ERROR:
> > ERROR: [1] alma+epel-8-x86_64
> > ERROR: Use instead: mock -r alma+epel-8-x86_64 --resultdir
> > /tmp/pspg/results_pspg/5.5.2/1.el8 --rebuild
> > /tmp/pspg/pspg-5.5.2-1.el8.src.rpm
> > ERROR: Builds against AlmaLinux 8 repositories, together with the
> > official EPEL repositories.
> > ERROR: Project page: https://almalinux.org/
> > ERROR: Enable permanently by:
> > ERROR: $ ln -s /etc/mock/alma+epel-8-x86_64.cfg
> > /home/praiskup/.config/mock/epel-8-x86_64.cfg
> > ERROR:
> > ERROR: [2] centos+epel-8-x86_64
> > ERROR: Use instead: mock -r centos+epel-8-x86_64 --resultdir
> > /tmp/pspg/results_pspg/5.5.2/1.el8 --rebuild
> > /tmp/pspg/pspg-5.5.2-1.el8.src.rpm
> > ERROR: Builds against CentOS Linux 8 repositories, together with the
> > official EPEL repositories.
> > ERROR: This will reach end-of-life in January 2021.
> > ERROR: Enable permanently by:
> > ERROR: $ ln -s /etc/mock/centos+epel-8-x86_64.cfg
> > /home/praiskup/.config/mock/epel-8-x86_64.cfg
> > ERROR:
> > ERROR: [3] rhel+epel-8-x86_64
> > ERROR: Use instead: mock -r rhel+epel-8-x86_64 --resultdir
> > /tmp/pspg/results_pspg/5.5.2/1.el8 --rebuild
> > /tmp/pspg/pspg-5.5.2-1.el8.src.rpm
> > ERROR: Builds against Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 repositories, together
> > with the official EPEL repositories.
> > ERROR: This mimics what is done in the official EPEL build system, but
> > you need a Red Hat subscription:
> > ERROR:
> > https://rpm-software-management.github.io/mock/Feature-rhelchroots
> > ERROR: Enable permanently by:
> > ERROR: $ ln -s /etc/mock/rhel+epel-8-x86_64.cfg
> > /home/praiskup/.config/mock/epel-8-x86_64.cfg
> > ERROR:
> > ERROR: [4] rocky+epel-8-x86_64
> > ERROR: Use instead: mock -r rocky+epel-8-x86_64 --resultdir
> > /tmp/pspg/results_pspg/5.5.2/1.el8 --rebuild
> > /tmp/pspg/pspg-5.5.2-1.el8.src.rpm
> > ERROR: Builds against Rocky Linux 8 repositories, together with the
> > official EPEL repositories.
> > ERROR: Project page: https://rockylinux.org/
> > ERROR: Enable permanently by:
> > ERROR: $ ln -s /etc/mock/rocky+epel-8-x86_64.cfg
> > /home/praiskup/.config/mock/epel-8-x86_64.cfg
> > Could not execute mockbuild: Failed to execute command.
> >
>
> This is why I suggested that fedpkg needed the alias system instead of
> mock in the EPEL discussion. fedpkg already has a config file format
> for setting keys and values, so fedpkg should be extended to allow
> people to set the distro prefix to search for with epel targets (e.g.
> alma, rhel, centos-stream, etc.). Mock is basically the "dumb builder"
> whereas fedpkg is the high-level packager Swiss Army Knife tool to get
> stuff done.
Well, my opinion is quite the opposite: IMO it would be better if
fedpkg/pyrpkg know *nothing* about
[Bug 2005844] perl-GD-2.73-4.fc36 FTBFS: unable to generate comparison image for test 1: gdImageCreateFromGd2 error (GD2 image support has been disabled?)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2005844 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-12-22 15:59:08 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2005844 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2034048] perl-GD for EPEL 9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034048 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-378645c1ee has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-378645c1ee -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034048 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2028913] Please branch and build perl-GDGraph in epel9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2028913 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-378645c1ee has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-378645c1ee -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2028913 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: How do we announce new packages?
There are the "Fedora rawhide compose report" email coming (almost) daily into this ML, which contains list of added packages. Nevertheless, the "Changes" [1] process is the main way to announce and increase visibility of the new features which goes to Fedora. Vít [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/program_management/changes_policy/ Dne 22. 12. 21 v 14:07 Eduard Lucena napsal(a): Hello people. First of all, I'm not a developer or a packager, I just try to help with the little things I know to do. One thing I try to do is to check news, forums, ML and places where people talk about Fedora. A thing I noted is that a lot of people in magazines and news sites like phoronix, hacker news and other sites follow this list to get news about the project and it started to worry me that a big part of the traffic follow orphaned and retired packages, but nothing is never revealed/published when a new package enter the repositories or nothing similar, maybe a review swap but it's not enough. Trying to market the number of packages, the amount of free and open source software that we offer, how this could be measured and published? Is that something that require to much work? Br, -- Eduard Lucena Móvil: +56962318010 GNU/Linux User #589060 Ubuntu User #8749 Fedora Marketing Representative ___ devel mailing list --devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email todevel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines:https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives:https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Any interest in ROCm packaging?
Yes, this can't be updated until someone packages ROCM-Device-Libs unfortunately. If anyone volunteers, I'm happy to help review. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Mock v2.16 release, mock-core-configs v36.4
On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 10:14 AM Pavel Raiskup wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 9:36:01 AM CET Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 5:49:34 PM CET Maxwell G wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 8:22:55 AM CST Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > > On 19. 12. 21 22:39, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, December 19, 2021 10:22:57 PM CET Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > > > >> So it seems that fedpkg doesn't (yet) know there's ~/.config/mock*
> > > > >> at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > Proposed fix: https://pagure.io/rpkg/pull-request/595
> > > >
> > > > It seems that this would only fix the issue if the symbolic link has
> > > > already > > > been created. But before that, `fedpkg --release epel8
> > > > mockbuild` would still
> > > > fail, wouldn't it? Can we fix that as well, even if it's fixed in some
> > > > documentation only?
> > >
> > > Yes, I think `fedpkg --release epel8 mockbuild` should print the same
> > > error
> > > message mock does when no default has been set, instead of defaulting to a
> > > non-functional koji config.
> >
> > Fedpkg _automatically_ downloads the relevant Koji config ('koji
> > mock-config' variant, which is broken for normal users) when mock doesn't
> > ship the appropriate config file (it doesn't by default).
> >
> > @onosek, would it be too bad if we made the Koji config download feature
> > opt-in in fedpkg? Something like 'fedpkg mockbuild --use-koji-mock-config'?
> > - when used, all local mock configuration is ignored
> > - when not used, 'mock -r epel-8-x86_64' even if the config doesn't exist,
> > which would automatically trigger the new Mock error message
>
> I'm trying to propose this:
> https://pagure.io/rpkg/pull-request/597
>
> $ fedpkg mockbuild
> Not downloading already downloaded pspg-5.5.2.tar.gz
>
> setting SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH=1639353600
> Wrote: /tmp/pspg/pspg-5.5.2-1.el8.src.rpm
> ERROR: Could not find required config file: /etc/mock/epel-8-x86_64.cfg
> ERROR: There are those alternatives:
> ERROR:
> ERROR: [1] alma+epel-8-x86_64
> ERROR: Use instead: mock -r alma+epel-8-x86_64 --resultdir
> /tmp/pspg/results_pspg/5.5.2/1.el8 --rebuild
> /tmp/pspg/pspg-5.5.2-1.el8.src.rpm
> ERROR: Builds against AlmaLinux 8 repositories, together with the
> official EPEL repositories.
> ERROR: Project page: https://almalinux.org/
> ERROR: Enable permanently by:
> ERROR: $ ln -s /etc/mock/alma+epel-8-x86_64.cfg
> /home/praiskup/.config/mock/epel-8-x86_64.cfg
> ERROR:
> ERROR: [2] centos+epel-8-x86_64
> ERROR: Use instead: mock -r centos+epel-8-x86_64 --resultdir
> /tmp/pspg/results_pspg/5.5.2/1.el8 --rebuild
> /tmp/pspg/pspg-5.5.2-1.el8.src.rpm
> ERROR: Builds against CentOS Linux 8 repositories, together with the
> official EPEL repositories.
> ERROR: This will reach end-of-life in January 2021.
> ERROR: Enable permanently by:
> ERROR: $ ln -s /etc/mock/centos+epel-8-x86_64.cfg
> /home/praiskup/.config/mock/epel-8-x86_64.cfg
> ERROR:
> ERROR: [3] rhel+epel-8-x86_64
> ERROR: Use instead: mock -r rhel+epel-8-x86_64 --resultdir
> /tmp/pspg/results_pspg/5.5.2/1.el8 --rebuild
> /tmp/pspg/pspg-5.5.2-1.el8.src.rpm
> ERROR: Builds against Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 repositories, together
> with the official EPEL repositories.
> ERROR: This mimics what is done in the official EPEL build system, but
> you need a Red Hat subscription:
> ERROR: https://rpm-software-management.github.io/mock/Feature-rhelchroots
> ERROR: Enable permanently by:
> ERROR: $ ln -s /etc/mock/rhel+epel-8-x86_64.cfg
> /home/praiskup/.config/mock/epel-8-x86_64.cfg
> ERROR:
> ERROR: [4] rocky+epel-8-x86_64
> ERROR: Use instead: mock -r rocky+epel-8-x86_64 --resultdir
> /tmp/pspg/results_pspg/5.5.2/1.el8 --rebuild
> /tmp/pspg/pspg-5.5.2-1.el8.src.rpm
> ERROR: Builds against Rocky Linux 8 repositories, together with the
> official EPEL repositories.
> ERROR: Project page: https://rockylinux.org/
> ERROR: Enable permanently by:
> ERROR: $ ln -s /etc/mock/rocky+epel-8-x86_64.cfg
> /home/praiskup/.config/mock/epel-8-x86_64.cfg
> Could not execute mockbuild: Failed to execute command.
>
This is why I suggested that fedpkg needed the alias system instead of
mock in the EPEL discussion. fedpkg already has a config file format
for setting keys and values, so fedpkg should be extended to allow
people to set the distro prefix to search for with epel targets (e.g.
alma, rhel, centos-stream, etc.). Mock is basically the "dumb builder"
whereas fedpkg is the high-level packager Swiss Army Knife tool to get
stuff done.
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List
[Bug 2034850] Please branch and build perl-Sub-Override in epel9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034850 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-d518498502 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-d518498502 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034850 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2034851] Please branch and build perl-Throwable in epel9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034851 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-eff0978aad has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-eff0978aad -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034851 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: I quit packaging
I have taken freexl. I am willing to take pyshp, python-OWSLib, and readosm, but they have not been orphaned. Co-maintainers are (always) welcome. - Ben Beasley (FAS music) On 12/12/21 17:18, Emmanuel Seyman wrote: * Volker Fröhlich [12/12/2021 23:03] : All of my packages are up for grabs. For the curious, volter maintains the following packages: * cptutils * dans-gdal-scripts * e00compr * esniper * freexl * gdal * grass * libgeotiff * librasterlite2 * libspatialite * mingw-polyclipping * polyclipping * pyshp * python-OWSLib * python-phyghtmap * python-Rtree * qextserialport * qgis * readosm * routino * saga * snmptt * spatialindex * spatialite-tools * xerces-c * zabbix Emmanuel ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2031731] Please branch and build perl-ExtUtils-PkgConfig in epel9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031731 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-c38133a5af has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-c38133a5af -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031731 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: F36 Change: GHC compiler parallel version installs (Self-Contained Change proposal)
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 2:38 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GHC_parallel_version_installs > > > == Summary == > Introduce ghcX.Y packages to Fedora which can be parallel installed, > in addition to the main ghc package. > > == Owner == > * Name: [[User:Petersen|Jens Petersen]] > * Email: peter...@redhat.com > > > == Detailed Description == > Currently ghc modules are available in Fedora but they cannot be > installed in parallel. > This Change will enable being able to easily install multiple versions > of ghc in parallel, > which can be useful for development - both for working on different projects > and testing projects for compatibility across different ghc versions. > > == Feedback == > This was proposed to the Fedora Haskell mailing list already and so > far there were no objections. > > == Benefit to Fedora == > Parallel installs of ghc versions will allow more flexible Haskell > development using Fedora Linux. > > == Scope == > * Proposal owners: > ** update ghc-rpm-macros to support the packaging [done] > ** add ghc9.2 [built for rawhide] > ** add ghc9.0 [repo created] > ** add ghc8.10 [may not be needed for F36] > ** add ghc8.8 [stretch goal] > ** add cabal-install3.4 and/or cabal-install3.6 [stretch goal] > ** also backport ghcX.Y's to F35, F34, and EPEL > > * Other developers: N/A > * Release engineering: N/A > * Policies and guidelines: N/A (not needed for this Change) > * Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change) > * Alignment with Objectives: N/A > > == Upgrade/compatibility impact == > > These are new packages so upgrading from older releases should be fine. > Eventually future Fedora version upgrades will probably need to > obsolete very old ghcX.Y versions. > > == How To Test == > 1. dnf install ghc ghc9.2 ghc9.0 > > == User Experience == > Installing ghc, ghc9.0, and ghc9.2 will give you /usr/bin/ghc, > /usr/bin/ghc-9.0.x and /usr/bin/ghc-9.2.x. > Their Haskell libraries will have ghc versioned directories and .so files. > > == Dependencies == > N/A > > > == Contingency Plan == > > * Contingency mechanism: (What to do? Who will do it?) N/A (not a > System Wide Change) > * Contingency deadline: N/A (not a System Wide Change) > * Blocks release? N/A (not a System Wide Change) > > > == Documentation == > N/A (not a System Wide Change) > > == Release Notes == > With the introduction of versioned ghcX.Y packages multiple versions > of the Haskell GHC compiler can now be installed parallel in the > Fedora Linux. > So will the default version be the "ghc" package going forward? How will defaults be handled in future Fedora Linux releases? -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Fix for python-tzlocal FTBFS
Hi Barry, I'm an aspiring Fedora packager with a focus on python. I'm likely to run into the same situation soon. If you don't get any traction on this, I am happy to look around and see if I can find some useful examples. I'm in eastern time zone if you want to have a second pair of eyes. Cheers, Fas: blaise Gmail: Blaise On Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 8:02 AM Barry Scott wrote: > > > > On 22 Dec 2021, at 11:12, Barry Scott wrote: > > > > I have added a patch for the spec file for python-tzlocal.spec > > that allows the 4.1 release to build. > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1993583 > > > > I can raise a PR if that helps, but I have not done that before > > so pointers to the work flow would be welcomed. > > > > I need the 4.1 version for one of my copr projects. > > Just found that I also need a pytz-deprecation-shim. > I tried to build on copr into my tools-testing project with: > > $ copr-cli buildpypi --chroot=fedora-35-x86_64 > --packagename=pytz-deprecation-shim --pythonversions=3 tools-testing > > This fails reporting that setup.py is missing, which is true it provided > setup.cfg only. > I've not see setup.cfg before but a bit of searching I found that I can > build via: > > $ python3 -m build --no-isolation > > That builds a wheel. > > Is there an example .spec that I can use to package this setup.cfg only > PyPI project? > > Barry > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure > ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Fedora-IoT-35-20211222.0 compose check report
No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 1/15 (aarch64) Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-35-20211212.1): ID: 1090534 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1090534 Soft failed openQA tests: 1/16 (x86_64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-IoT-35-20211212.1): ID: 1090518 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1090518 Passed openQA tests: 15/16 (x86_64), 14/15 (aarch64) Installed system changes in test x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default@uefi: System load changed from 0.28 to 0.15 Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1085350#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1090525#downloads Installed system changes in test aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default_upload@uefi: System load changed from 0.54 to 0.40 Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1085360#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1090535#downloads -- Mail generated by check-compose: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: How do we announce new packages?
If newpackage is chosen in Bodhi update, it can be listed from it: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?search==__current__=__pending__=newpackage=1 Slight problem is rawhide only builds do not have newpackage updates in bodhi. I think they do not have any good place to watch them. It lists bunch of packages, but it seems only good coincidence. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?search==F36=newpackage Should the first successful rawhide build trigger newpackage update on current rawhide release? It would also handle case when new package is build only in Rawhide. Review bug then has to be closed manually, because it never passes ON_QA phase without build and bodhi update for stable release. Because the review bug is required for repository creation, I think it would be nice to simplify using it for initial update also on rawhide. Cheers, Petr On 12/22/21 14:07, Eduard Lucena wrote: > Hello people. > > First of all, I'm not a developer or a packager, I just try to help > with the little things I know to do. One thing I try to do is to check > news, forums, ML and places where people talk about Fedora. > > A thing I noted is that a lot of people in magazines and news sites > like phoronix, hacker news and other sites follow this list to get > news about the project and it started to worry me that a big part of > the traffic follow orphaned and retired packages, but nothing is never > revealed/published when a new package enter the repositories or > nothing similar, maybe a review swap but it's not enough. > > Trying to market the number of packages, the amount of free and open > source software that we offer, how this could be measured and > published? Is that something that require to much work? > > Br, > -- > Eduard Lucena > Móvil: +56962318010 > GNU/Linux User #589060 > Ubuntu User #8749 > Fedora Marketing Representative > > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure -- Petr Menšík Software Engineer Red Hat, http://www.redhat.com/ email: pemen...@redhat.com PGP: DFCF908DB7C87E8E529925BC4931CA5B6C9FC5CB ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Non-responsive maintainer hubbitus (Pavel Alexeev)
Le 21/12/2021 à 15:47, Remi Collet a écrit : Hi, Pavel is non responsive for a while Already managed 4 years ago https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1758 I've been maintaining for a while - php-pecl-gmagick - php-pecl-imagick - php-pecl-xmldiff Do you I need to follow the full workflow, or a fesco ticket is enough ? Non-responsive maintainer bugs php-pecl-imagick https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034917 php-pecl-gmagick https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034918 php-pecl-xmldiff https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034916 ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2031731] Please branch and build perl-ExtUtils-PkgConfig in epel9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031731 --- Comment #2 from Jitka Plesnikova --- I have admin rights to the package repo and I requested the branch. All dependencies are satisfied. https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/40007 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031731 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
How do we announce new packages?
Hello people. First of all, I'm not a developer or a packager, I just try to help with the little things I know to do. One thing I try to do is to check news, forums, ML and places where people talk about Fedora. A thing I noted is that a lot of people in magazines and news sites like phoronix, hacker news and other sites follow this list to get news about the project and it started to worry me that a big part of the traffic follow orphaned and retired packages, but nothing is never revealed/published when a new package enter the repositories or nothing similar, maybe a review swap but it's not enough. Trying to market the number of packages, the amount of free and open source software that we offer, how this could be measured and published? Is that something that require to much work? Br, -- Eduard Lucena Móvil: +56962318010 GNU/Linux User #589060 Ubuntu User #8749 Fedora Marketing Representative ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2031731] Please branch and build perl-ExtUtils-PkgConfig in epel9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031731 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Paul Howarth --- Will you be able to branch and build perl-ExtUtils-PkgConfig in epel9? I would be happy to be a co-maintainer if you do not wish to build it on epel9. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031731 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Fix for python-tzlocal FTBFS
> On 22 Dec 2021, at 11:12, Barry Scott wrote: > > I have added a patch for the spec file for python-tzlocal.spec > that allows the 4.1 release to build. > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1993583 > > I can raise a PR if that helps, but I have not done that before > so pointers to the work flow would be welcomed. > > I need the 4.1 version for one of my copr projects. Just found that I also need a pytz-deprecation-shim. I tried to build on copr into my tools-testing project with: $ copr-cli buildpypi --chroot=fedora-35-x86_64 --packagename=pytz-deprecation-shim --pythonversions=3 tools-testing This fails reporting that setup.py is missing, which is true it provided setup.cfg only. I've not see setup.cfg before but a bit of searching I found that I can build via: $ python3 -m build --no-isolation That builds a wheel. Is there an example .spec that I can use to package this setup.cfg only PyPI project? Barry ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2031815] perl-Regexp-Common for EPEL 9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031815 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added CC||p...@city-fan.org Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Paul Howarth --- Will you be able to branch and build perl-Regexp-Common in epel9? I would be happy to be a co-maintainer if you do not wish to build it on epel9. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031815 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2032513] Please branch and build perl-Sys-Virt in epel9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2032513 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-ea7d532d75 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-ea7d532d75 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2032513 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2034738] perl-Text-CSV_XS-1.47 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034738 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||perl-Text-CSV_XS-1.47-1.fc3 ||6 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Status|NEW |CLOSED Last Closed||2021-12-22 11:50:03 --- Comment #1 from Paul Howarth --- Build done: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=80323620 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034738 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers
On ke, 22 joulu 2021, Alexander Bokovoy wrote: On ke, 22 joulu 2021, Mat Booth wrote: On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 14:35, Alexander Bokovoy wrote: I picked up wsdl4j to prevent actions which would lead to tomcat, Dogtag, and FreeIPA being orphaned over Christmas break. Have you tried building tomcat without wsdl? I can't see where in the tomcat source it is used. Is it really a build dep? I haven't tried that yet. Looking at the spec, ant is called with -Dwsdl4j-lib.jar="$(build-classpath wsdl4j)" \ Looking at the tomcat source code, there are plenty of references to WSDL code, so it is definitely needed at runtime because WSDL definitions for servlets are parsed and used. Build environment insists on having WSDL jars in the class path (in build.xml): I did a quick test in mock for rawhide by removing BuildRequires for wsdl4j and the build succeeded with only one warning that wsdl4j jar was not found: $ grep wsdl results_tomcat/9.0.56/1.fc36/build.log ++ build-classpath wsdl4j /usr/bin/build-classpath: Could not find wsdl4j Java extension for this JVM + ant -Dbase.path=. -Dbuild.compiler=modern -Dcommons-daemon.jar=HACK -Dcommons-daemon.native.src.tgz=HACK -Djdt.jar=/usr/share/java/ecj/ecj.jar -Dtomcat-native.tar.gz=HACK -Dtomcat-native.home=. -Dcommons-daemon.native.win.mgr.exe=HACK -Dnsis.exe=HACK -Djaxrpc-lib.jar=HACK -Dwsdl4j-lib.jar= -Dbnd.jar=/usr/share/java/aqute-bnd/biz.aQute.bnd.jar -Dbndlib.jar=/usr/share/java/aqute-bnd/biz.aQute.bndlib.jar -Dbndlibg.jar=/usr/share/java/aqute-bnd/aQute.libg.jar -Dbndannotation.jar=/usr/share/java/aqute-bnd/biz.aQute.bnd.annotation.jar -Dosgi-annotations.jar=/usr/share/java/aqute-bnd/biz.aQute.bnd.annotation.jar -Dslf4j-api.jar=/usr/share/java/slf4j/slf4j-api.jar -Dosgi-cmpn.jar=/usr/share/java/osgi-compendium/osgi.cmpn.jar -Dversion=9.0.56 -Dversion.build=56 deploy I haven't run the resulting package with a real life workload, though. -- / Alexander Bokovoy Sr. Principal Software Engineer Security / Identity Management Engineering Red Hat Limited, Finland ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2034850] Please branch and build perl-Sub-Override in epel9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034850 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|holca...@gmail.com |jples...@redhat.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|emman...@seyman.fr, | |holca...@gmail.com, | |iarn...@gmail.com, | |jples...@redhat.com | Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Jitka Plesnikova --- https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/40006 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034850 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Advise needed: guideline for very big data rpms?
Hi, for a new project hopefully coming to soon to Fedora, I like to know the policy for really big data rpms. The project could offer 18 language files for a voice recognition system, which is ( unpacked ) up to 2.4 GB each and packed upto around 1.6~1.8 GB each. + 18 small ones ~50-60 MB each. So round about, we are talking about 40 GB just for those language packs just for the first release + a lot more for new updates per Fedora version, and those packages grow constantly over time. Of course, users do not need all of them at the same time, but they should be available. Is this a valid scenario for the Fedoraproject or would this be a nogo? Best regards, Marius Schwarz ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2034851] Please branch and build perl-Throwable in epel9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034851 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|emman...@seyman.fr, | |iarn...@gmail.com, | |jples...@redhat.com | --- Comment #1 from Jitka Plesnikova --- Missing perl-Sub-Quote: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/40004 perl-Throwable https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/40005 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034851 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2030731] perl-SQL-Statement for EPEL 9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2030731 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-9f04c394fe has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-9f04c394fe -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2030731 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
PyQt6 for fedora status?
I see that there are packages for qt6, but no python-qt6 yet. What is the plan for this please? I have built PyQt5 in the past and, time permitting, can offer help. Barry ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2031818] perl-Test-MockObject for EPEL 9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031818 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||2031796 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031796 [Bug 2031796] perl-Email-Sender for EPEL 9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031818 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2032447] perl-MooX-Types-MooseLike for EPEL 9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2032447 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||2031796 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031796 [Bug 2031796] perl-Email-Sender for EPEL 9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2032447 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2034851] Please branch and build perl-Throwable in epel9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034851 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||2031796 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031796 [Bug 2031796] perl-Email-Sender for EPEL 9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034851 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2034851] Please branch and build perl-Throwable in epel9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034851 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Summary|Please branch and build |Please branch and build |perl-Sub-Override in epel9 |perl-Throwable in epel9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034851 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2034850] Please branch and build perl-Sub-Override in epel9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034850 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||2031796 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031796 [Bug 2031796] perl-Email-Sender for EPEL 9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034850 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2033663] Add perl-Moo to EPEL 9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2033663 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||2031796 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031796 [Bug 2031796] perl-Email-Sender for EPEL 9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2033663 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2034030] Add perl-Test-MinimumVersion to EPEL 9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034030 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||2031796 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031796 [Bug 2031796] perl-Email-Sender for EPEL 9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034030 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Fix for python-tzlocal FTBFS
I have added a patch for the spec file for python-tzlocal.spec that allows the 4.1 release to build. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1993583 I can raise a PR if that helps, but I have not done that before so pointers to the work flow would be welcomed. I need the 4.1 version for one of my copr projects. Barry ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2031796] perl-Email-Sender for EPEL 9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031796 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||2033663, 2032447, 2034850, ||2034030, 2031818, 2034851 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031818 [Bug 2031818] perl-Test-MockObject for EPEL 9 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2032447 [Bug 2032447] perl-MooX-Types-MooseLike for EPEL 9 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2033663 [Bug 2033663] Add perl-Moo to EPEL 9 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034030 [Bug 2034030] Add perl-Test-MinimumVersion to EPEL 9 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034850 [Bug 2034850] Please branch and build perl-Sub-Override in epel9 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034851 [Bug 2034851] Please branch and build perl-Throwable in epel9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031796 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2034851] New: Please branch and build perl-Sub-Override in epel9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034851 Bug ID: 2034851 Summary: Please branch and build perl-Sub-Override in epel9 Product: Fedora EPEL Version: epel9 Status: NEW Component: perl-Throwable Assignee: jples...@redhat.com Reporter: emman...@seyman.fr QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: emman...@seyman.fr, iarn...@gmail.com, jples...@redhat.com, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Description of problem: Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034851 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2034850] New: Please branch and build perl-Sub-Override in epel9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034850 Bug ID: 2034850 Summary: Please branch and build perl-Sub-Override in epel9 Product: Fedora EPEL Version: epel9 Status: NEW Component: perl-Sub-Override Assignee: holca...@gmail.com Reporter: emman...@seyman.fr QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: emman...@seyman.fr, holca...@gmail.com, iarn...@gmail.com, jples...@redhat.com, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034850 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2033663] Add perl-Moo to EPEL 9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2033663 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||2031798 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031798 [Bug 2031798] perl-FCGI-Client for EPEL 9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2033663 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2031798] perl-FCGI-Client for EPEL 9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031798 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||2033663, 2032430 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2032430 [Bug 2032430] perl-Type-Tiny for EPEL 9 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2033663 [Bug 2033663] Add perl-Moo to EPEL 9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031798 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2032430] perl-Type-Tiny for EPEL 9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2032430 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||2031798 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031798 [Bug 2031798] perl-FCGI-Client for EPEL 9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2032430 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: F36 Change: %set_build_flags for %build and %check (System-Wide Change proposal)
Dne 21. 12. 21 v 21:56 Tom Stellard napsal(a):
On 12/21/21 01:42, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi Tom,
Since you are digging into this and AFAIK you are involved with
toolchains, this reminds me this dreaded issue:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284684
In short, various languages, such as Ruby embeds the build time
options and reuse them for build of extensions. And I wonder, would
it be possible to generalize this e.g. into some tool, which would
set the environment variables and would be usable outside of rpmbuild?
I think the only way to really generalize this is for the upstream
projects to
make it easier for distros to manually specify the flags for
extensions rather
than automatically taking the flags from the compiler invocation used
to build
the interpreter.
I think this is limited POV. The issue is that the languages are
actually providing services to their extensions. IOW the languages are
doing a lot of probing for their build and they provides these results
for their extensions, therefore the extensions don't need to do so much
probing. And that is reasonable IMO.
The problem is that everything is designed to be build on single system,
which is not the case for binary distribution.
Moreover, the binary distribution is using some flags for its build, but
it does not offer any generic way to reuse these flags for builds done
outside of the packaging environment. IOW if I install gcc on my system,
it won't be using all the hardening and other flags Fedora itself is
using for its build and that is something which should be improved IMO.
Vít
- Tom
Also, Fedora sets all these flags for purpose, but we won't let our
users to reuse them. So on top of my previous question, I wonder if
we set these flags on the right place and if there would not be
better to set them more broadly then just for RPMs.
Vít
Dne 20. 12. 21 v 18:41 Ben Cotton napsal(a):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SetBuildFlagsBuildCheck
== Summary ==
Call %set_build_flags macro automatically at the beginning of the
%build and %check phases of RPM builds in Fedora Linux. This will
ensure that the compiler flag environment variables are set for every
RPM build.
== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:tstellar| Tom Stellard]]
* Email:
== Detailed Description ==
The %set_build_flags macro exports common environment variables used
for building packages:
* CFLAGS
* CXXFLAGS
* FFLAGS
* FCFLAGS
* LDFLAGS
* LT_SYS_LIBRARY_PATH
* CC
* CXX
These environment variables are set to the compiler flags defined in
the system RPM configuration. This macro is currently implicitly
called when packages use some of the build system helper macros, like
%configure, %cmake, and %meson. However, not all packages use these
macros and so some packages do not use the correct compiler flags as
required by the Fedora packaging guidelines[1].
This change will be implemented by updating the %__spec_build_pre and
%__speck_check_pre macros in redhat-rpm-config to include
%set_build_flags. This will set these environment variables
automatically before the %build and %check sections. See the proposed
[https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/tstellar/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/c/a39741bbebd645c46e5d675920b4bffe390c95bb?branch=set-build-flags-build-check
implementation] for more details.
The purpose for making this change in both the %build and %check
sections is because sometimes test code gets built in the %check
sections for unit tests and this will ensure that the application code
and its tests are built with the same set of flags.
This change should have no impact on packages that already use
%set_build_flags either directly or indirectly through another macro.
It also won't impact any package that currently sets these environment
variables or modifies any of the %{build*_flags} macros in their
%build or %check sections.
[1]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_compiler_flags
== Benefit to Fedora ==
This change will ensure that more packages are built using the correct
compiler flags, and bring them in compliance with the Fedora packaging
guidelines. It will also help improve the security of the
distribution as many of the compiler flags help defend against common
security attacks.
== Scope ==
* Proposal owners:
** Make the necessary changes to redhat-rpm-config.
** Help debug any issues uncovered by this change during the mass
rebuild.
* Other developers:
** Report bugs to the proposal owner.
* Release engineering: [https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10482 #10482]
* Policies and guidelines: N/A (not needed for this Change)
* Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change)
* Alignment with Objectives:
== How To Test ==
This change will be tested by rebuilding packages as part of the
mass rebuild.
== User Experience ==
This change will make some packages less susceptible to security
exploits.
== Contingency Plan ==
* Contingency mechanism: The proposal owner will
[Bug 2030731] perl-SQL-Statement for EPEL 9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2030731 --- Comment #4 from Paul Howarth --- perl-DBD-CSV-0.58-3.el9 is built and added as a buildroot override. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2030731 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Mock v2.16 release, mock-core-configs v36.4
On Wednesday, December 22, 2021 9:36:01 AM CET Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 5:49:34 PM CET Maxwell G wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 8:22:55 AM CST Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > On 19. 12. 21 22:39, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, December 19, 2021 10:22:57 PM CET Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > > >> So it seems that fedpkg doesn't (yet) know there's ~/.config/mock* at
> > > >> all.
> > > >
> > > > Proposed fix: https://pagure.io/rpkg/pull-request/595
> > >
> > > It seems that this would only fix the issue if the symbolic link has
> > > already > > > been created. But before that, `fedpkg --release epel8
> > > mockbuild` would still
> > > fail, wouldn't it? Can we fix that as well, even if it's fixed in some
> > > documentation only?
> >
> > Yes, I think `fedpkg --release epel8 mockbuild` should print the same error
> > message mock does when no default has been set, instead of defaulting to a
> > non-functional koji config.
>
> Fedpkg _automatically_ downloads the relevant Koji config ('koji
> mock-config' variant, which is broken for normal users) when mock doesn't
> ship the appropriate config file (it doesn't by default).
>
> @onosek, would it be too bad if we made the Koji config download feature
> opt-in in fedpkg? Something like 'fedpkg mockbuild --use-koji-mock-config'?
> - when used, all local mock configuration is ignored
> - when not used, 'mock -r epel-8-x86_64' even if the config doesn't exist,
> which would automatically trigger the new Mock error message
I'm trying to propose this:
https://pagure.io/rpkg/pull-request/597
$ fedpkg mockbuild
Not downloading already downloaded pspg-5.5.2.tar.gz
setting SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH=1639353600
Wrote: /tmp/pspg/pspg-5.5.2-1.el8.src.rpm
ERROR: Could not find required config file: /etc/mock/epel-8-x86_64.cfg
ERROR: There are those alternatives:
ERROR:
ERROR: [1] alma+epel-8-x86_64
ERROR: Use instead: mock -r alma+epel-8-x86_64 --resultdir
/tmp/pspg/results_pspg/5.5.2/1.el8 --rebuild /tmp/pspg/pspg-5.5.2-1.el8.src.rpm
ERROR: Builds against AlmaLinux 8 repositories, together with the official
EPEL repositories.
ERROR: Project page: https://almalinux.org/
ERROR: Enable permanently by:
ERROR: $ ln -s /etc/mock/alma+epel-8-x86_64.cfg
/home/praiskup/.config/mock/epel-8-x86_64.cfg
ERROR:
ERROR: [2] centos+epel-8-x86_64
ERROR: Use instead: mock -r centos+epel-8-x86_64 --resultdir
/tmp/pspg/results_pspg/5.5.2/1.el8 --rebuild /tmp/pspg/pspg-5.5.2-1.el8.src.rpm
ERROR: Builds against CentOS Linux 8 repositories, together with the
official EPEL repositories.
ERROR: This will reach end-of-life in January 2021.
ERROR: Enable permanently by:
ERROR: $ ln -s /etc/mock/centos+epel-8-x86_64.cfg
/home/praiskup/.config/mock/epel-8-x86_64.cfg
ERROR:
ERROR: [3] rhel+epel-8-x86_64
ERROR: Use instead: mock -r rhel+epel-8-x86_64 --resultdir
/tmp/pspg/results_pspg/5.5.2/1.el8 --rebuild /tmp/pspg/pspg-5.5.2-1.el8.src.rpm
ERROR: Builds against Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 repositories, together
with the official EPEL repositories.
ERROR: This mimics what is done in the official EPEL build system, but you
need a Red Hat subscription:
ERROR: https://rpm-software-management.github.io/mock/Feature-rhelchroots
ERROR: Enable permanently by:
ERROR: $ ln -s /etc/mock/rhel+epel-8-x86_64.cfg
/home/praiskup/.config/mock/epel-8-x86_64.cfg
ERROR:
ERROR: [4] rocky+epel-8-x86_64
ERROR: Use instead: mock -r rocky+epel-8-x86_64 --resultdir
/tmp/pspg/results_pspg/5.5.2/1.el8 --rebuild /tmp/pspg/pspg-5.5.2-1.el8.src.rpm
ERROR: Builds against Rocky Linux 8 repositories, together with the
official EPEL repositories.
ERROR: Project page: https://rockylinux.org/
ERROR: Enable permanently by:
ERROR: $ ln -s /etc/mock/rocky+epel-8-x86_64.cfg
/home/praiskup/.config/mock/epel-8-x86_64.cfg
Could not execute mockbuild: Failed to execute command.
Pavel
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers
On ke, 22 joulu 2021, Mat Booth wrote: On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 14:35, Alexander Bokovoy wrote: I picked up wsdl4j to prevent actions which would lead to tomcat, Dogtag, and FreeIPA being orphaned over Christmas break. Have you tried building tomcat without wsdl? I can't see where in the tomcat source it is used. Is it really a build dep? I haven't tried that yet. Looking at the spec, ant is called with -Dwsdl4j-lib.jar="$(build-classpath wsdl4j)" \ Looking at the tomcat source code, there are plenty of references to WSDL code, so it is definitely needed at runtime because WSDL definitions for servlets are parsed and used. Build environment insists on having WSDL jars in the class path (in build.xml): -- / Alexander Bokovoy Sr. Principal Software Engineer Security / Identity Management Engineering Red Hat Limited, Finland ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2030680] perl-DBD-CSV for EPEL 9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2030680 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-33f8fab3f1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-33f8fab3f1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2030680 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers
On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 14:35, Alexander Bokovoy wrote: > > I picked up wsdl4j to prevent actions which would lead to tomcat, Dogtag, and > FreeIPA being orphaned over Christmas break. > Have you tried building tomcat without wsdl? I can't see where in the tomcat source it is used. Is it really a build dep? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Fedora-Cloud-35-20211222.0 compose check report
No missing expected images. Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-35-20211221.0): ID: 1090365 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1090365 ID: 1090376 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1090376 Passed openQA tests: 7/8 (x86_64), 7/8 (aarch64) -- Mail generated by check-compose: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Mock v2.16 release, mock-core-configs v36.4
On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 5:49:34 PM CET Maxwell G wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 21, 2021 8:22:55 AM CST Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 19. 12. 21 22:39, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > > On Sunday, December 19, 2021 10:22:57 PM CET Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > >> So it seems that fedpkg doesn't (yet) know there's ~/.config/mock* at
> > >> all.
> > >
> > > Proposed fix: https://pagure.io/rpkg/pull-request/595
> >
> > It seems that this would only fix the issue if the symbolic link has
> > already
> > been created. But before that, `fedpkg --release epel8 mockbuild` would
> > still
> > fail, wouldn't it? Can we fix that as well, even if it's fixed in some
> > documentation only?
>
> Yes, I think `fedpkg --release epel8 mockbuild` should print the same error
> message mock does when no default has been set, instead of defaulting to a
> non-functional koji config.
Fedpkg _automatically_ downloads the relevant Koji config ('koji
mock-config' variant, which is broken for normal users) when mock doesn't
ship the appropriate config file (it doesn't by default).
@onosek, would it be too bad if we made the Koji config download feature
opt-in in fedpkg? Something like 'fedpkg mockbuild --use-koji-mock-config'?
- when used, all local mock configuration is ignored
- when not used, 'mock -r epel-8-x86_64' even if the config doesn't exist,
which would automatically trigger the new Mock error message
Pavel
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
