Release rpkg-1.66 and fedpkg-1.44

[Ondrej Nosek]

Hi all,
a new version rpkg-1.66 together with fedpkg-1.44 are released containing
both features and bugfixes.
Currently, only Fedora 37 (and Rawhide) packages are present in stable
repositories.
Other supported packages are waiting in testing repositories and should be
available in stable in the next two days.

Changelog (web documentation):
https://docs.pagure.org/rpkg/releases/1.66.html
https://docs.pagure.org/fedpkg/releases/1.44.html
Both released (rpkg & fedpkg) versions need to be installed together, they
contain some changes incompatible with older packages.

Updates:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?builds=rpkg-1.66-3.el7=rpkg-1.66-3.el8=rpkg-1.66-3.el9=rpkg-1.66-3.fc39=rpkg-1.66-3.fc36=rpkg-1.66-3.fc37=rpkg-1.66-3.fc38=fedpkg-1.44-2.el7=fedpkg-1.44-2.el8=fedpkg-1.44-2.el9=fedpkg-1.44-2.fc39=fedpkg-1.44-2.fc36=fedpkg-1.44-2.fc37=fedpkg-1.44-2.fc38

Alternative link:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=rpkg=1
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=fedpkg=1

rpkg is also available from PyPI.

Thanks to all contributors.
Special thanks to Otto Liljalaakso , who
contributed to many pull-requests.

Regards

>
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 38 Candidate Beta-1.3 Available Now!

[Luna Jernberg]

Works for me in Virtualbox did the i18n testing with it

On 3/8/23, rawh...@fedoraproject.org  wrote:
> According to the schedule [1], Fedora 38 Candidate Beta-1.3 is now
> available for testing. Please help us complete all the validation
> testing! For more information on release validation testing, see:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan
>
> Test coverage information for the current release can be seen at:
> https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/testcase_stats/38
>
> You can see all results, find testing instructions and image download
> locations, and enter results on the Summary page:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_38_Beta_1.3_Summary
>
> The individual test result pages are:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_38_Beta_1.3_Installation
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_38_Beta_1.3_Base
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_38_Beta_1.3_Server
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_38_Beta_1.3_Cloud
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_38_Beta_1.3_Desktop
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_38_Beta_1.3_Security_Lab
>
> All Beta priority test cases for each of these test pages [2] must
> pass in order to meet the Beta Release Criteria [3].
>
> Help is available on #fedora-qa on libera.chat [4], or on the
> test list [5].
>
> Current Blocker and Freeze Exception bugs:
> http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
>
> [1] http://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-38/f-38-quality-tasks.html
> [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan
> [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_38_Beta_Release_Criteria
> [4] https://web.libera.chat/?channels=#fedora-qa
> [5]
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/t...@lists.fedoraproject.org/
> ___
> test-announce mailing list -- test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to test-announce-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/test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
> ___
> 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, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[EPEL-devel] Re: Timeframe for EPEL retirement vs RHEL new package releases

[Carl George]

On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 2:18 PM Troy Dawson  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 11:38 AM Carl George  wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 8:52 AM Troy Dawson  wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 8:48 PM Carl George  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 5:42 AM Daniel P. Berrangé  
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > There is also the case of the RHEL rebuilds whose users consume EPEL
>> >> > packages. Depending how quick they are, the rebuild distros might not
>> >> > have their 9.2 rebuild ready for some days/weeks/months after RHEL-9.2
>> >> > is first available. My projects' upstream CI is all based on AlmaLinux
>> >> > and I don't want to see it broken again by premature capstone retirement
>> >> > from EPEL.
>> >>
>> >> Historically, when CentOS was a rebuild, many EPEL maintainers would
>> >> wait for corresponding CentOS rebuild release before changing their
>> >> EPEL packages to work on RHEL.  This was true both for soname rebuilds
>> >> and retirements.  CentOS would usually take about a month to catch up
>> >> to RHEL minor versions.  The new rebuilds are doing much better in
>> >> this area.  Alma is routinely getting their minor versions out 1-2
>> >> days after RHEL.  The other rebuilds aren't far behind.  If we were to
>> >> delay package retirements, I don't think it's necessary to delay for
>> >> more than a few days.
>> >
>> >
>> > Do you mean "a few days after both Alma and Rocky are up to the latest 
>> > release."  or "a few days after RHEL is released."?
>> >
>> > If you mean "a few days after RHEL is released." then I have to disagree 
>> > with you.
>> > It does no harm to leave the packages in EPEL for a few weeks/months.
>> > It does harm to rip the packages out too early.
>>
>> I do mean a few days after a RHEL release.  Between the distgit
>> retirement, compose, and mirror sync delay, the package doesn't become
>> unavailable for nearly a business week (~5 days).
>
>
> We already know this isn't true.
> We've had packagers accidentally retire packages early and people get hit 
> literally the next day.

Got any examples of this "next day" timing?  The problem in the
bugzilla linked at the start of this thread was that the retirement
took place long before the package was in RHEL.  I don't see any
mention in the bug of observing the lack of the package on the
mirrors, just discussion spurred by the maintainer commenting that he
performed the retirement.  Anecdotally I recall there being at least
several days delay between retirement and the rare complaints about
the package not being available in EPEL anymore.  If users are
consistently seeing the effects of a retirement the next day, then of
course waiting a little bit longer could make sense.

>
>
>>
>> Users that already
>> have the package installed are unaffected.  If a user is using a RHEL
>> rebuild that hasn't got their release done yet by that point, the only
>> effect is that the package is unavailable in the EPEL repo, but it's
>> still available for manual download from Koji or the snapshot
>> archives.  Harm is far too strong a word for this.  It's a temporary
>> annoyance that can be resolved by several workarounds, including
>> switching to a rebuild that gets releases done faster.
>>
>> It's important that EPEL packages don't take precedence over RHEL
>> packages, and you said yourself it's too difficult to continuously
>> monitor which packages are a lower NVR than their RHEL equivalent and
>> allow them to stay longer.  EPEL targets RHEL, and we should minimize
>> any delay of correcting issues that violate the core principle of
>> EPEL.
>
>
> RHEL has been very good (lately) about their NVR's being higher than EPEL's.
> If that is so, the EPEL packages don't take precedence over RHEL's.

They may not when you first check.  The risk in leaving the branch
active is that a maintainer may bump the version and/or release and
start overriding the RHEL package at any given time.  We don't
currently have a mechanism to freeze the distgit branch but leave the
package in the repo.  Our current calculus is "if the package is in
RHEL, it needs to be promptly retired from EPEL".  Leaving packages
longer means that someone needs to continually check that the
duplicating packages haven't started overriding their RHEL equivalent.

> I don't see the need for a rush.
> You seem like you are going for the letter of the principle instead of the 
> spirit of the principle.

Above I've identified the real risk of leaving duplicates active in
EPEL.  Both the letter and the spirit of our guidelines are to not
override RHEL packages.  That is what I'm focused on.  Please don't
assume anything beyond that.

> We know that the majority of our users are not RHEL users, they are clone 
> users.
> I see no reason to irritate the majority of our users just because we want to 
> "minimize delay".
>
> Troy
>
> ___
> epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To 

Re: fedpkg: Failed to get repository name from Git url or pushurl -> %build

[Alexander Ploumistos]

On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 12:15 AM Kenneth Goldman  wrote:
>
> Where are the macros defined?  I.e., %configure probably expands
> to ./configure and %make_build to make.

In addition to Chuck's reply, you can also use the --eval (or -E) flag
with rpm to see the values of variables or to what a macro actually
corresponds. For example, "rpm -E %{_isa}" gives "(x86-64)" on an
x86_64 host.
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing report

[updates]

The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing

munin-2.0.72-1.el7
resalloc-openstack-9.5-1.el7

Details about builds:



 munin-2.0.72-1.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2023-6147e7994c)
 Network-wide resource monitoring tool

Update Information:

Upstream update to 2.0.72. This version also adds support for munin-get to
download and install plugins from contrib.

ChangeLog:

* Tue Mar  7 2023 Kim B. Heino  - 2.0.72-1
- Upgrade to 2.0.72
- Add munin-get plugin directory
- Mangle /var/lib/munin-node SELinux
- Fix service startup order
* Thu Jan 19 2023 Fedora Release Engineering  - 
2.0.69-6
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_38_Mass_Rebuild




 resalloc-openstack-9.5-1.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2023-d135e9b8e0)
 Resource allocator scripts for OpenStack

Update Information:

new upstream release, the -new script has --security-group option

ChangeLog:

* Tue Mar  7 2023 Pavel Raiskup  - 9.5-1
- new upstream release, the -new script has --security-group option
* Fri Jan 20 2023 Fedora Release Engineering  - 9.4-2
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_38_Mass_Rebuild


___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: fedpkg: Failed to get repository name from Git url or pushurl -> %build

[Chuck Anderson]

On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 11:14:34PM +, Kenneth Goldman wrote:
> Let's see if I have this right ...
> 
> %build
> %configure
> %make_build
> 
> are not three separate steps.  %build is the overall step, and the next two 
> lines
> are the build steps.  The blank line terminates the %build.  Correct?

An unfortunate happenstance of RPM is that spec file script sections and
macros both start with the % character.  The main script sections are:

%prep %build %install %check %pre %post %preun %postun
(there are some others)

Some other sections that aren't scripts are:

%files %changelog %package

Other words that start with % are macros. That's what these are:

%setup
%autosetup
%configure
%make_build
%make_install

> Where are the macros defined?  I.e., %configure probably expands
> to ./configure and %make_build to make. 

/usr/lib/rpm/macros
/usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/*

> If I want to add some arguments to configure, 

%configure --argument1 --argument2 etc.

> and add an autoreconf step before configure, how would I do that?

I don't think there are any autoconf/autoreconf macros.  You just run
it directly, e.g:

%build
autoreconf -iv
%configure
%make_build

Sometimes the upstream source includes a script to do all the right
things with autoconf/autoreconf:

%build
./autogen.sh
%configure
%make_build
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2173127] perl-HTTP-Daemon-6.16 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173127

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version|perl-HTTP-Daemon-6.16-1.fc3 |perl-HTTP-Daemon-6.16-1.fc3
   |6   |6
   ||perl-HTTP-Daemon-6.16-1.fc3
   ||7



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-424636c7cb has been pushed to the Fedora 37 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=2173127
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2172670] perl-HTTP-Daemon-6.15 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172670

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version||perl-HTTP-Daemon-6.16-1.fc3
   ||7
 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2023-03-08 01:26:22



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-424636c7cb has been pushed to the Fedora 37 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=2172670
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2173461] perl-Test-Directory-0.052 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173461

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version|perl-Test-Directory-0.052-1 |perl-Test-Directory-0.052-1
   |.fc39   |.fc39
   |perl-Test-Directory-0.052-1 |perl-Test-Directory-0.052-1
   |.fc36   |.fc36
   ||perl-Test-Directory-0.052-1
   ||.fc37



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-e5b8a70a07 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 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=2173461
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2105085] CVE-2022-31081 perl-HTTP-Daemon: HTTP::Daemon allows request smuggling

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2105085
Bug 2105085 depends on bug 2173127, which changed state.

Bug 2173127 Summary: perl-HTTP-Daemon-6.16 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173127

   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=2105085
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2173461] perl-Test-Directory-0.052 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173461

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
   Fixed In Version|perl-Test-Directory-0.052-1 |perl-Test-Directory-0.052-1
   |.fc39   |.fc39
   ||perl-Test-Directory-0.052-1
   ||.fc36
Last Closed||2023-03-08 01:21:10



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-bc4f4c9f71 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 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=2173461
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2173127] perl-HTTP-Daemon-6.16 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173127

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version||perl-HTTP-Daemon-6.16-1.fc3
   ||6
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
Last Closed||2023-03-08 01:21:02



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-c230cc08c4 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 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=2173127
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[EPEL-devel] Re: Future of ClamAV on EPEL ?

[Orion Poplawski]

On 3/7/23 13:48, Stephen Smoogen wrote:



On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 at 15:00, Andrew C Aitchison > wrote:



This question is prompted by a question from kumar bava about EPEL7
on the ClamaAV Users list:
https://lists.clamav.net/pipermail/clamav-users/2023-March/013338.html 


EPEL currently ship the anti-virus ClamAV v0.103.8

 From September ClamAV 0.103 will be EOL, and all
supported versions will require Rust.

Rust is available on RHEL 7, 8 and 9 as a part of Red Hat Developer
Tools.
Does that mean that EPEL will or will not be able to continue packaging
ClamAV ?

ClamAV do provide rpms, so it may not be the end of the world if
ClamAV disappears from EPEL, but the details of the packing,
especially config locations and defaults may be different.


EPEL packages are maintained by volunteers who 'shephard' a particular 
package for as long as the volunteer can do so. I have cc'd the main 
ones I have seen making commits and builds in case they aren't following 
the epel-devel list closely.


That said, EL7 will only be around til June 2024. There will only be so 
much 'heavy-lifting' possible to keep things going in that time-frame


I've been looking into things and I think we will be able to update 
clamav in EL7 and EL8 to 1.0.X once 0.103.X goes EOL.  We're basically 
just waiting on one issue to get resolved at the moment:


https://github.com/Cisco-Talos/clamav/issues/842

--
Orion Poplawski
he/him/his  - surely the least important thing about me
IT Systems Manager 720-772-5637
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane   or...@nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 https://www.nwra.com/



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Test-Announce] Fedora 38 Candidate Beta-1.3 Available Now!

[rawhide]

According to the schedule [1], Fedora 38 Candidate Beta-1.3 is now
available for testing. Please help us complete all the validation
testing! For more information on release validation testing, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan

Test coverage information for the current release can be seen at:
https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/testcase_stats/38

You can see all results, find testing instructions and image download
locations, and enter results on the Summary page:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_38_Beta_1.3_Summary

The individual test result pages are:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_38_Beta_1.3_Installation
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_38_Beta_1.3_Base
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_38_Beta_1.3_Server
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_38_Beta_1.3_Cloud
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_38_Beta_1.3_Desktop
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_38_Beta_1.3_Security_Lab

All Beta priority test cases for each of these test pages [2] must
pass in order to meet the Beta Release Criteria [3].

Help is available on #fedora-qa on libera.chat [4], or on the
test list [5].

Current Blocker and Freeze Exception bugs:
http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current

[1] http://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-38/f-38-quality-tasks.html
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_38_Beta_Release_Criteria
[4] https://web.libera.chat/?channels=#fedora-qa
[5] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/t...@lists.fedoraproject.org/
___
test-announce mailing list -- test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-announce-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/test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

RE: fedpkg: Failed to get repository name from Git url or pushurl -> %build

[Kenneth Goldman]

> -Original Message-
> From: Vít Ondruch 
> Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 6:58 AM
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: fedpkg: Failed to get repository name from Git url or
> pushurl
> 
> > How does it know what to build.  Does it default to configure;make
> > or something similar?
> 
> You have to specify what are the right steps in the `%build` sections.
> In the tutorial, there are used the `%configure` + `%make_build` macros.
> You could use different build commands (or macros) at this place.

This really helps!

Let's see if I have this right ...

%build
%configure
%make_build

are not three separate steps.  %build is the overall step, and the next two 
lines
are the build steps.  The blank line terminates the %build.  Correct?

Where are the macros defined?  I.e., %configure probably expands
to ./configure and %make_build to make. 

If I want to add some arguments to configure, and add an autoreconf
step before configure, how would I do that?






smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

RE: Package Tutorial bug - missing BuildRequires gcc

[Kenneth Goldman]

> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Tibbitts 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 6:51 PM
> To: Kenneth Goldman 
> Cc: Development discussions related to Fedora 
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Package Tutorial bug - missing BuildRequires gcc
> 
> > Kenneth Goldman  writes:
> 
> > but … if the tutorial has a sample .spec file, I think it would help
> > the new user if it was 100% complete.
> 
> I believe that the section "A Complete hello.spec File" at
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__docs.fedoraproject.org_en-2DUS_package-2Dmaintainers_Packaging-
> 5FTutorial-5FGNU-5FHello_-23-5Fa-5Fcomplete-5Fhello-5Fspec-
> 5Ffile=DwIFaQ=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-
> siA1ZOg=DZCVG43VcL8GTneMZb8k8lEwb-O1GZktFfre1-
> mlmiA=eBYtndmk1vCkvHX6y2J15Jeb4NPWWyIr8LJxlHhQRhTpEaQ_m0uKlbT
> oGi5opX06=AcpJmiCpdwml9x3JU0z6dyLZo19mnWH66P6qtnJMlAs=
> is, as indicated, complete.  It does contain the necessary build dependency on
> gcc, as well as the others.  If I'm missing something, please feel free to 
> enlighten
> me.

I see.  This 'hello world' is structured to intentionally have errors.  This 
teaches
the reader how to debug.

I have no issue this approach except that it's unusual.  I suggest some text
at the top of the web page explaining this.

This will help the new student, who might be trained to 'stop reading
on the first error'.



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: fedpkg: Failed to get repository name from Git url or pushurl

[Otto Liljalaakso]

Petr Pisar kirjoitti 7.3.2023 klo 16.48:

V Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 02:19:11PM -, Betty Liu napsal(a):

I'm using CentOS stream 8 and I've downloaded the source code of yellow. In the 
same directory, I've made the spec file, but after I run
fedpkg --release f28 mockbuild


I worry that f28 is tool old and unknown to mock nowdays. Try a number between
f36 and f39. Those are currently supported Fedora releases.


It shows error

Failed to get repository name from Git url or pushurl
Failed to get ns from Git url or pushurl
warning: line 3: Possible unexpanded macro in: Release:%autorelease
error: %changelog entries must start with *
error: query of specfile /home/lucia/cs/fedora-packaging/hello/hello.spec 
failed, can't parse

Could not execute mockbuild: ('Could not download sources: %s', 
rpkgError('Could not get n-v-r-e from 
/home/lucia/cs/fedora-packaging/hello/hello.spec',))


I think that spec files which use %autorelease macro need to be processed from
a git repository.


Not true. If rpmautospec (that is where %autorelease and %autochangelog 
come from) is available, %autorelease and %autochangelog will evaluate 
to usable defaults even without a Git repository.


The Git related, scary looking output is just fedpkg being overly chatty 
about its internal workings. I have already submitted a pull request to 
move them to debug log level [1].


[1]: https://pagure.io/rpkg/pull-request/660


or as a quick workaround, modify the spec file like this >> Release:
%autorelease



Release:1%{?dist}


%changelog
%autochangelog


%changelog
* Tue Mar 07 2023 Betty Liu  - 2.10-1

That changes will resort to manually maintained release number and changelog
entries.


This workaround will work, and that is how the tutorial was before it 
was just recently converted to rpmautospec as part of Rpmautospec by 
Default [2].


[2]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Rpmautospec_by_Default

I think the Package Maintainer Docs should be explicit about expecting a 
supported Fedora release. I will take a look at adding such note.

___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[EPEL-devel] Re: Future of ClamAV on EPEL ?

[Stephen Smoogen]

On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 at 15:00, Andrew C Aitchison 
wrote:

>
> This question is prompted by a question from kumar bava about EPEL7
> on the ClamaAV Users list:
> https://lists.clamav.net/pipermail/clamav-users/2023-March/013338.html
>
> EPEL currently ship the anti-virus ClamAV v0.103.8
>
> From September ClamAV 0.103 will be EOL, and all
> supported versions will require Rust.
>
> Rust is available on RHEL 7, 8 and 9 as a part of Red Hat Developer Tools.
> Does that mean that EPEL will or will not be able to continue packaging
> ClamAV ?
>
> ClamAV do provide rpms, so it may not be the end of the world if
> ClamAV disappears from EPEL, but the details of the packing,
> especially config locations and defaults may be different.
>
>
EPEL packages are maintained by volunteers who 'shephard' a particular
package for as long as the volunteer can do so. I have cc'd the main ones I
have seen making commits and builds in case they aren't following the
epel-devel list closely.

That said, EL7 will only be around til June 2024. There will only be so
much 'heavy-lifting' possible to keep things going in that time-frame



> Thanks,
>
> --
> Andrew C. Aitchison  Kendal, UK
> and...@aitchison.me.uk
> ___
> 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, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>


-- 
Stephen Smoogen, Red Hat Automotive
Let us be kind to one another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle.
-- Ian MacClaren
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[EPEL-devel] Re: Future of ClamAV on EPEL ?

[Maxwell G]

On Tue Mar 7, 2023 at 15:24 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 3:00 PM Andrew C Aitchison
>  wrote:
> > Rust is available on RHEL 7, 8 and 9 as a part of Red Hat Developer Tools.
>
> Small clarification: Rust is available directly in RHEL 8 and 9, not
> as part of Red Hat Developer Tools.  I mention it because it means the
> EPEL considerations are different in terms of buildroot availability
> and requirements.

rust is also available in EPEL 7 proper[1].

[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust/tree/epel7

--
Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns: He/They
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[EPEL-devel] Re: Future of ClamAV on EPEL ?

[Josh Boyer]

On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 3:00 PM Andrew C Aitchison
 wrote:
>
>
> This question is prompted by a question from kumar bava about EPEL7
> on the ClamaAV Users list:
> https://lists.clamav.net/pipermail/clamav-users/2023-March/013338.html
>
> EPEL currently ship the anti-virus ClamAV v0.103.8
>
> From September ClamAV 0.103 will be EOL, and all
> supported versions will require Rust.
>
> Rust is available on RHEL 7, 8 and 9 as a part of Red Hat Developer Tools.

Small clarification: Rust is available directly in RHEL 8 and 9, not
as part of Red Hat Developer Tools.  I mention it because it means the
EPEL considerations are different in terms of buildroot availability
and requirements.

josh

> Does that mean that EPEL will or will not be able to continue packaging
> ClamAV ?
>
> ClamAV do provide rpms, so it may not be the end of the world if
> ClamAV disappears from EPEL, but the details of the packing,
> especially config locations and defaults may be different.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Andrew C. Aitchison  Kendal, UK
> and...@aitchison.me.uk
> ___
> 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, report it: 
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[EPEL-devel] Re: Timeframe for EPEL retirement vs RHEL new package releases

[Troy Dawson]

On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 11:38 AM Carl George  wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 8:52 AM Troy Dawson  wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 8:48 PM Carl George  wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 5:42 AM Daniel P. Berrangé 
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > There is also the case of the RHEL rebuilds whose users consume EPEL
> >> > packages. Depending how quick they are, the rebuild distros might not
> >> > have their 9.2 rebuild ready for some days/weeks/months after RHEL-9.2
> >> > is first available. My projects' upstream CI is all based on AlmaLinux
> >> > and I don't want to see it broken again by premature capstone
> retirement
> >> > from EPEL.
> >>
> >> Historically, when CentOS was a rebuild, many EPEL maintainers would
> >> wait for corresponding CentOS rebuild release before changing their
> >> EPEL packages to work on RHEL.  This was true both for soname rebuilds
> >> and retirements.  CentOS would usually take about a month to catch up
> >> to RHEL minor versions.  The new rebuilds are doing much better in
> >> this area.  Alma is routinely getting their minor versions out 1-2
> >> days after RHEL.  The other rebuilds aren't far behind.  If we were to
> >> delay package retirements, I don't think it's necessary to delay for
> >> more than a few days.
> >
> >
> > Do you mean "a few days after both Alma and Rocky are up to the latest
> release."  or "a few days after RHEL is released."?
> >
> > If you mean "a few days after RHEL is released." then I have to disagree
> with you.
> > It does no harm to leave the packages in EPEL for a few weeks/months.
> > It does harm to rip the packages out too early.
>
> I do mean a few days after a RHEL release.  Between the distgit
> retirement, compose, and mirror sync delay, the package doesn't become
> unavailable for nearly a business week (~5 days).


We already know this isn't true.
We've had packagers accidentally retire packages early and people get hit
literally the next day.



> Users that already
> have the package installed are unaffected.  If a user is using a RHEL
> rebuild that hasn't got their release done yet by that point, the only
> effect is that the package is unavailable in the EPEL repo, but it's
> still available for manual download from Koji or the snapshot
> archives.  Harm is far too strong a word for this.  It's a temporary
> annoyance that can be resolved by several workarounds, including
> switching to a rebuild that gets releases done faster.
>
> It's important that EPEL packages don't take precedence over RHEL
> packages, and you said yourself it's too difficult to continuously
> monitor which packages are a lower NVR than their RHEL equivalent and
> allow them to stay longer.  EPEL targets RHEL, and we should minimize
> any delay of correcting issues that violate the core principle of
> EPEL.
>

RHEL has been very good (lately) about their NVR's being higher than EPEL's.
If that is so, the EPEL packages don't take precedence over RHEL's.
I don't see the need for a rush.
You seem like you are going for the letter of the principle instead of the
spirit of the principle.
We know that the majority of our users are not RHEL users, they are clone
users.
I see no reason to irritate the majority of our users just because we want
to "minimize delay".

Troy
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[EPEL-devel] Future of ClamAV on EPEL ?

[Andrew C Aitchison]

This question is prompted by a question from kumar bava about EPEL7
on the ClamaAV Users list:
https://lists.clamav.net/pipermail/clamav-users/2023-March/013338.html

EPEL currently ship the anti-virus ClamAV v0.103.8

From September ClamAV 0.103 will be EOL, and all
supported versions will require Rust.

Rust is available on RHEL 7, 8 and 9 as a part of Red Hat Developer Tools.
Does that mean that EPEL will or will not be able to continue packaging
ClamAV ?

ClamAV do provide rpms, so it may not be the end of the world if
ClamAV disappears from EPEL, but the details of the packing,
especially config locations and defaults may be different.

Thanks,

--
Andrew C. Aitchison  Kendal, UK
   and...@aitchison.me.uk
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[EPEL-devel] Re: Timeframe for EPEL retirement vs RHEL new package releases

[Carl George]

On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 8:52 AM Troy Dawson  wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 8:48 PM Carl George  wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 5:42 AM Daniel P. Berrangé  
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > There is also the case of the RHEL rebuilds whose users consume EPEL
>> > packages. Depending how quick they are, the rebuild distros might not
>> > have their 9.2 rebuild ready for some days/weeks/months after RHEL-9.2
>> > is first available. My projects' upstream CI is all based on AlmaLinux
>> > and I don't want to see it broken again by premature capstone retirement
>> > from EPEL.
>>
>> Historically, when CentOS was a rebuild, many EPEL maintainers would
>> wait for corresponding CentOS rebuild release before changing their
>> EPEL packages to work on RHEL.  This was true both for soname rebuilds
>> and retirements.  CentOS would usually take about a month to catch up
>> to RHEL minor versions.  The new rebuilds are doing much better in
>> this area.  Alma is routinely getting their minor versions out 1-2
>> days after RHEL.  The other rebuilds aren't far behind.  If we were to
>> delay package retirements, I don't think it's necessary to delay for
>> more than a few days.
>
>
> Do you mean "a few days after both Alma and Rocky are up to the latest 
> release."  or "a few days after RHEL is released."?
>
> If you mean "a few days after RHEL is released." then I have to disagree with 
> you.
> It does no harm to leave the packages in EPEL for a few weeks/months.
> It does harm to rip the packages out too early.

I do mean a few days after a RHEL release.  Between the distgit
retirement, compose, and mirror sync delay, the package doesn't become
unavailable for nearly a business week (~5 days).  Users that already
have the package installed are unaffected.  If a user is using a RHEL
rebuild that hasn't got their release done yet by that point, the only
effect is that the package is unavailable in the EPEL repo, but it's
still available for manual download from Koji or the snapshot
archives.  Harm is far too strong a word for this.  It's a temporary
annoyance that can be resolved by several workarounds, including
switching to a rebuild that gets releases done faster.

It's important that EPEL packages don't take precedence over RHEL
packages, and you said yourself it's too difficult to continuously
monitor which packages are a lower NVR than their RHEL equivalent and
allow them to stay longer.  EPEL targets RHEL, and we should minimize
any delay of correcting issues that violate the core principle of
EPEL.

This should all be much simpler in EPEL 10.  Package retirement will
be per-minor-release.  We'll be able to actually follow the guidelines
in CentOS Stream, retiring the package in that EPEL repo without
affecting RHEL users.  When a new RHEL minor version happens, they'll
switch from an EPEL repo that has the package to an EPEL repo that
doesn't have the package (but it will be available in RHEL at that
point).  Anyone using an older minor version (whether EUS, a manually
pinned release, or a RHEL rebuild that is lagging) can explicitly
point to the EPEL repo that matches their minor version by passing the
`--releasever` flag to dnf with the appropriate value.

>
> Troy
>
> ___
> 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, report it: 
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue



-- 
Carl George
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: [HEADS UP] [SONAME BUMP] libcbor will be updated to 0.10.2 in rawhide with a soname bump

[Gary Buhrmaster]

On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 7:04 PM Richard Hughes  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 4:55 PM Gary Buhrmaster
>  wrote:
> > Let me know if you have any issues
> > with the build.
>
> All done, thanks.

Thank you.  I have submitted the side-tag update:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-45ad1ef176
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2023-03-07)

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

== Meeting summary

Minutes: 
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2023-03-07/fesco.2023-03-07-17.00.html
Minutes (text): 
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2023-03-07/fesco.2023-03-07-17.00.txt
Log: 
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2023-03-07/fesco.2023-03-07-17.00.log.html

Meeting summary
---
* init process  (zbyszek, 17:00:53)

* #2960 FESCo blocker bug: Popular third-party RPMs fail to
  install/update/remove in F38 due to security policies verification
  (zbyszek, 17:04:10)
  * An bodhi update has been submitted and tests indicate it solved the
issue.  (zbyszek, 17:05:40)

* #2958 F38 incomplete changes: 100% complete deadline  (zbyszek,
  17:05:44)
  * The ticket has three items, and they all seem to be on track.
(zbyszek, 17:07:47)

* #2951 Proposal: policy for resubmitting rejected proposals  (zbyszek,
  17:07:47)
  * AGREED: FESCo will make an effort to notify people when proposals
are resubmitted for voting without a formal change in the process
rules. A note will be added to FESCo_meeting_process. (+7,0,0)
(zbyszek, 17:18:25)

* Next week's chair  (zbyszek, 17:18:29)
  * ACTION: zbyszek will chair next meeting  (zbyszek, 17:19:14)

* Open Floor  (zbyszek, 17:19:18)
  * LINK: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1255
(zbyszek, 17:20:45)
  * https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1255  (zbyszek,
17:22:18)
  * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Rpmautospec_by_Default
(zbyszek, 17:22:25)

Meeting ended at 17:23:43 UTC.

Action Items

* zbyszek will chair next meeting


== Items voted in the ticket

#2952 Nonresponsive maintainer: Andy Mender 
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2952
APPROVED (+3, 0, 0)
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: [HEADS UP] [SONAME BUMP] libcbor will be updated to 0.10.2 in rawhide with a soname bump

[Gary Buhrmaster]

On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 4:32 PM Richard Hughes  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 3:55 PM Gary Buhrmaster
>  wrote:
> > I will rebuild libfido2.  For fwupd, I will need the maintainers
> > (CC'ed) or a proven packagers assistance.
>
> No problem at all, thanks for letting me know. Do you need me to do
> the build now?

The side-tag is ready for your build
(libcbor and libfido2 have already
been built).

Let me know if you have any issues
with the build.

Thanks!
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Test-Announce] DON'T BOTHER: Re: Fedora 38 Candidate Beta-1.2 Available Now!

[Adam Williamson]

On Tue, 2023-03-07 at 10:24 +, rawh...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
> According to the schedule [1], Fedora 38 Candidate Beta-1.2 is now
> available for testing. Please help us complete all the validation
> testing! For more information on release validation testing, see:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan
> 
> Test coverage information for the current release can be seen at:
> https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/testcase_stats/38
> 
> You can see all results, find testing instructions and image download
> locations, and enter results on the Summary page:
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_38_Beta_1.2_Summary

Important note: please don't bother testing this compose. For some
reason, none of the 'override' builds (the ones from updates-testing
which we list in the compose request ticket) actually got pulled into
the compose, so it's effectively just a nightly.

We'll work out why this happened and get a proper candidate done ASAP.
Sorry for the noise.
-- 
Adam Williamson (he/him/his)
Fedora QA
Fedora Chat: @adamwill:fedora.im | Mastodon: @ad...@fosstodon.org
https://www.happyassassin.net



___
test-announce mailing list -- test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-announce-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/test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[EPEL-devel] [Fedocal] Reminder meeting : EPEL Steering Committee

[tdawson]

Dear all,

You are kindly invited to the meeting:
   EPEL Steering Committee on 2023-03-08 from 16:00:00 to 17:00:00 US/Eastern
   At fedora-meet...@irc.libera.chat

The meeting will be about:
This is the weekly EPEL Steering Committee Meeting.

A general agenda is the following:

#topic aloha

#topic EPEL Issues https://pagure.io/epel/issues
* https://pagure.io/epel/issues?tags=meeting=Open

#topic Old Business (if needed)

#topic General Issues / Open Floor




Source: https://calendar.fedoraproject.org//meeting/9854/

___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: fedpkg: Failed to get repository name from Git url or pushurl

[Todd Zullinger]

Petr Pisar wrote:
> [...] Either turn that directory into a git repository (git
> init-db . && git add hello.spec && git commit -a) ...

Just a minor, tangential nit, `git init` is the preferred
and documented command.  The `git init-db` command is an
ancient name for it.  The documentation for `git-init-db`
has pointed users to `git init` since January 2007.  :)

-- 
Todd


signature.asc
Description: PGP 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2176194] perl-Test-Inter-1.10 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2176194



--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
the-new-hotness/release-monitoring.org's scratch build of
perl-Test-Inter-1.10-1.fc36.src.rpm for rawhide failed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=98406282


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2176194
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: DNF5 Test day - March 14th

[Priscila Gutierres]

Hello,

Now Kernel 6.2 test day is happening:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2023-03-05_Kernel_6.2_Test_Week
I encourage all of you to test the new kernel release and share your
results.

Priscila.

On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 11:51 AM Nicola Sella  wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> I would like to invite all of you to participate in the DNF5 test day,
> which will happen in one week, on the 14th of March.
>
> We are finalizing the test cases. All the information will be posted on
> test/test-announce mailing-lists as usual. For now, head over to the
> wiki[1] and save the date.[2]
>
> [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2023-03-14_Fedora_38_DNF_5
> [2] https://calendar.fedoraproject.org/QA/2023/3/13/#m10461
>
> Cheers,
>
> Nicola
>
> ___
> 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, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[HEADS UP] [SONAME BUMP] libcbor will be updated to 0.10.2 in rawhide with a soname bump

[Gary Buhrmaster]

libcbor will be updated to 0.10.2 in rawhide in the
next week or so, which includes a soname bump.

The list of affected packages in rawhide are:

libfido2
fwupd

I will rebuild libfido2.  For fwupd, I will need the maintainers
(CC'ed) or a proven packagers assistance.

I have used the Mass Prebuild tool (mpb) to verify that
all the packages rebuild successfully, so I do not anticipate
any surprises.

Please use the side tag f39-build-side-64500

Thanks!

Gary
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2176194] New: perl-Test-Inter-1.10 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2176194

Bug ID: 2176194
   Summary: perl-Test-Inter-1.10 is available
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: perl-Test-Inter
  Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
  Assignee: mspa...@redhat.com
  Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: mspa...@redhat.com,
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, ppi...@redhat.com
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Releases retrieved: 1.10
Upstream release that is considered latest: 1.10
Current version/release in rawhide: 1.09-14.fc38
URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Test-Inter/

Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/


More information about the service that created this bug can be found at:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Upstream_Release_Monitoring


Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging
changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your
responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still
correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added
upstream.


Based on the information from Anitya:
https://release-monitoring.org/project/3397/


To change the monitoring settings for the project, please visit:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Test-Inter


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2176194
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2176194] perl-Test-Inter-1.10 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2176194



--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
Created attachment 1948705
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1948705=edit
Update to 1.10 (#2176194)


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2176194
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 38 Candidate Beta-1.2 Available Now!

[Luna Jernberg]

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_38_Beta_1.2_Summary
Workstation Pre Beta image installs and works :)

On 3/7/23, rawh...@fedoraproject.org  wrote:
> According to the schedule [1], Fedora 38 Candidate Beta-1.2 is now
> available for testing. Please help us complete all the validation
> testing! For more information on release validation testing, see:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan
>
> Test coverage information for the current release can be seen at:
> https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/testcase_stats/38
>
> You can see all results, find testing instructions and image download
> locations, and enter results on the Summary page:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_38_Beta_1.2_Summary
>
> The individual test result pages are:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_38_Beta_1.2_Installation
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_38_Beta_1.2_Base
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_38_Beta_1.2_Server
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_38_Beta_1.2_Cloud
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_38_Beta_1.2_Desktop
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_38_Beta_1.2_Security_Lab
>
> All Beta priority test cases for each of these test pages [2] must
> pass in order to meet the Beta Release Criteria [3].
>
> Help is available on #fedora-qa on libera.chat [4], or on the
> test list [5].
>
> Current Blocker and Freeze Exception bugs:
> http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
>
> [1] http://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-38/f-38-quality-tasks.html
> [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan
> [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_38_Beta_Release_Criteria
> [4] https://web.libera.chat/?channels=#fedora-qa
> [5]
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/t...@lists.fedoraproject.org/
> ___
> test-announce mailing list -- test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to test-announce-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/test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
> ___
> 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, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: fedpkg: Failed to get repository name from Git url or pushurl

[Betty Liu]

Yeah thank you so much! I will switch to Fedora 37 and have a try again www
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: fedpkg: Failed to get repository name from Git url or pushurl

[Betty Liu]

Thank you for your quick response! I will switch to Fedora and have a try!
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[EPEL-devel] Re: Timeframe for EPEL retirement vs RHEL new package releases

[Troy Dawson]

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 8:48 PM Carl George  wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 5:42 AM Daniel P. Berrangé 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > There is also the case of the RHEL rebuilds whose users consume EPEL
> > packages. Depending how quick they are, the rebuild distros might not
> > have their 9.2 rebuild ready for some days/weeks/months after RHEL-9.2
> > is first available. My projects' upstream CI is all based on AlmaLinux
> > and I don't want to see it broken again by premature capstone retirement
> > from EPEL.
>
> Historically, when CentOS was a rebuild, many EPEL maintainers would
> wait for corresponding CentOS rebuild release before changing their
> EPEL packages to work on RHEL.  This was true both for soname rebuilds
> and retirements.  CentOS would usually take about a month to catch up
> to RHEL minor versions.  The new rebuilds are doing much better in
> this area.  Alma is routinely getting their minor versions out 1-2
> days after RHEL.  The other rebuilds aren't far behind.  If we were to
> delay package retirements, I don't think it's necessary to delay for
> more than a few days.
>

Do you mean "a few days after both Alma and Rocky are up to the latest
release."  or "a few days after RHEL is released."?

If you mean "a few days after RHEL is released." then I have to disagree
with you.
It does no harm to leave the packages in EPEL for a few weeks/months.
It does harm to rip the packages out too early.

Troy
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

DNF5 Test day - March 14th

[Nicola Sella]

Hello everyone,

I would like to invite all of you to participate in the DNF5 test day,
which will happen in one week, on the 14th of March.

We are finalizing the test cases. All the information will be posted on
test/test-announce mailing-lists as usual. For now, head over to the
wiki[1] and save the date.[2]

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2023-03-14_Fedora_38_DNF_5
[2] https://calendar.fedoraproject.org/QA/2023/3/13/#m10461

Cheers,

Nicola
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: fedpkg: Failed to get repository name from Git url or pushurl

[Petr Pisar]

V Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 02:19:11PM -, Betty Liu napsal(a):
> I'm using CentOS stream 8 and I've downloaded the source code of yellow. In 
> the same directory, I've made the spec file, but after I run 
> fedpkg --release f28 mockbuild 

I worry that f28 is tool old and unknown to mock nowdays. Try a number between
f36 and f39. Those are currently supported Fedora releases.

> It shows error
> 
> Failed to get repository name from Git url or pushurl
> Failed to get ns from Git url or pushurl
> warning: line 3: Possible unexpanded macro in: Release:%autorelease
> error: %changelog entries must start with *
> error: query of specfile /home/lucia/cs/fedora-packaging/hello/hello.spec 
> failed, can't parse
> 
> Could not execute mockbuild: ('Could not download sources: %s', 
> rpkgError('Could not get n-v-r-e from 
> /home/lucia/cs/fedora-packaging/hello/hello.spec',))
> 
I think that spec files which use %autorelease macro need to be processed from
a git repository. Either turn that directory into a git repository (git
init-db . && git add hello.spec && git commit -a), or as a quick workaround,
modify the spec file like this:

> Release:%autorelease
>
Release:1%{?dist}

> %changelog
> %autochangelog
>
%changelog
* Tue Mar 07 2023 Betty Liu  - 2.10-1

That changes will resort to manually maintained release number and changelog
entries.

-- Petr


signature.asc
Description: PGP 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: fedpkg: Failed to get repository name from Git url or pushurl

[Scott Talbert]

On Tue, 7 Mar 2023, Betty Liu wrote:


Hi, I'm a beginner at fedora packaging and following the guide in the 
documentation.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
I'm using CentOS stream 8 and I've downloaded the source code of yellow. In the 
same directory, I've made the spec file, but after I run
fedpkg --release f28 mockbuild
It shows error

Failed to get repository name from Git url or pushurl
Failed to get ns from Git url or pushurl
warning: line 3: Possible unexpanded macro in: Release:%autorelease
error: %changelog entries must start with *
error: query of specfile /home/lucia/cs/fedora-packaging/hello/hello.spec 
failed, can't parse

Could not execute mockbuild: ('Could not download sources: %s', 
rpkgError('Could not get n-v-r-e from 
/home/lucia/cs/fedora-packaging/hello/hello.spec',))

I've checked the other threads but they cannot solve my problem. I also tried 
fedpkg mockbuild it shows the same. And also for fedpkg --name hello mockbuild, 
get error Could not execute mockbuild: /home/lucia/cs/fedora-packaging/hello is 
not a valid repo

I think there is some problem for the source code? I'm so sorry but I really 
don't know how to fix this bug QAQ

Following is my spec file:
Name:   hello
Version:2.10
Release:%autorelease
Summary:Produces a familiar, friendly greeting

License:GPL-3.0-or-later
URL:https://www.gnu.org/software/hello/
Source0:https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/hello/hello-%{version}.tar.gz

#BuildRequires:
#Requires:

%description
The GNU Hello program produces a familiar, friendly greeting. Yes, this is
another implementation of the classic program that prints "Hello, world!" when
you run it.

%prep
%autosetup


%build
%configure
%make_build


%install
#rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%make_install


%files
#%license add-license-file-here
#%doc add-docs-here



%changelog
%autochangelog


Hi,

Most likely the issue is that the version of RPM on CentOS Stream 8 
doesn't understand the %autorelease and %autochangelog macros, which are 
relatively new.  Unfortunately, the Fedora Packaging Guidelines for the 
most part assume you are using a supported Fedora release and not CentOS.


I would recommend switching to use Fedora if you want to learn Fedora 
packaging.


Regards,
Scott
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

fedpkg: Failed to get repository name from Git url or pushurl

[Betty Liu]

Hi, I'm a beginner at fedora packaging and following the guide in the 
documentation.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
I'm using CentOS stream 8 and I've downloaded the source code of yellow. In the 
same directory, I've made the spec file, but after I run 
fedpkg --release f28 mockbuild 
It shows error

Failed to get repository name from Git url or pushurl
Failed to get ns from Git url or pushurl
warning: line 3: Possible unexpanded macro in: Release:%autorelease
error: %changelog entries must start with *
error: query of specfile /home/lucia/cs/fedora-packaging/hello/hello.spec 
failed, can't parse

Could not execute mockbuild: ('Could not download sources: %s', 
rpkgError('Could not get n-v-r-e from 
/home/lucia/cs/fedora-packaging/hello/hello.spec',))

I've checked the other threads but they cannot solve my problem. I also tried 
fedpkg mockbuild it shows the same. And also for fedpkg --name hello mockbuild, 
get error Could not execute mockbuild: /home/lucia/cs/fedora-packaging/hello is 
not a valid repo

I think there is some problem for the source code? I'm so sorry but I really 
don't know how to fix this bug QAQ

Following is my spec file:
Name:   hello
Version:2.10
Release:%autorelease
Summary:Produces a familiar, friendly greeting

License:GPL-3.0-or-later
URL:https://www.gnu.org/software/hello/
Source0:https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/hello/hello-%{version}.tar.gz   


#BuildRequires:  
#Requires:   

%description
The GNU Hello program produces a familiar, friendly greeting. Yes, this is
another implementation of the classic program that prints "Hello, world!" when
you run it.

%prep
%autosetup


%build
%configure
%make_build


%install
#rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%make_install


%files
#%license add-license-file-here
#%doc add-docs-here



%changelog
%autochangelog

Thanks for any helping QAQ
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

biber license correction

[Petr Pisar]

biber-2.19 will correct a license from ((GPL+ or Artistic 2.0) and
Artistic 2.0) to (Artistic-2.0).

-- Petr


signature.asc
Description: PGP 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2175955] biber-2.19 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2175955



--- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar  ---
You are right. I opened an update request for biblatex (bug #2176089).


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2175955
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2175955] biber-2.19 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2175955

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||2176089





Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2176089
[Bug 2176089] Upgrade biblatex to 3.19
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2175955
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2149282] perl-PAR-Packer-1.057 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149282

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
 Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
Last Closed||2023-03-07 11:23:36




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149282
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20230307.n.0 changes

[Fedora Rawhide Report]

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20230306.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20230307.n.0

= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images:  1
Added packages:  3
Dropped packages:2
Upgraded packages:   151
Downgraded packages: 0

Size of added packages:  1009.76 KiB
Size of dropped packages:15.69 MiB
Size of upgraded packages:   2.93 GiB
Size of downgraded packages: 0 B

Size change of upgraded packages:   11.19 MiB
Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B

= ADDED IMAGES =

= DROPPED IMAGES =
Image: Kinoite dvd-ostree x86_64
Path: Kinoite/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Kinoite-ostree-x86_64-Rawhide-20230306.n.0.iso

= ADDED PACKAGES =
Package: python-datetimerange-1.2.0-1.fc39
Summary: Python module DateTimeRange
RPMs:python3-datetimerange
Size:22.95 KiB

Package: qt6-qtspeech-6.4.2-1.fc39
Summary: Qt6 - Speech component
RPMs:qt6-qtspeech qt6-qtspeech-devel qt6-qtspeech-examples
Size:945.71 KiB

Package: xmvn-generator-1.1.0-1.fc39
Summary: RPM dependency generator for Java
RPMs:xmvn-generator
Size:41.09 KiB


= DROPPED PACKAGES =
Package: belle-sip-1.4.2-17.fc38
Summary: Linphone SIP stack
RPMs:belle-sip belle-sip-devel
Size:2.17 MiB

Package: golang-github-deepmap-oapi-codegen-1.8.2-6.fc38
Summary: Generate Go client and server boilerplate from OpenAPI 3 specifications
RPMs:golang-github-deepmap-oapi-codegen 
golang-github-deepmap-oapi-codegen-devel
Size:13.52 MiB


= UPGRADED PACKAGES =
Package:  CTL-1.5.2-21.fc39
Old package:  CTL-1.5.2-20.fc38
Summary:  The Color Transformation Language
RPMs: CTL CTL-devel CTL-docs OpenEXR_CTL
Size: 5.61 MiB
Size change:  -681 B
Changelog:
  * Mon Mar 06 2023 Nicolas Chauvet  - 1.5.2-21
  - rebuilt


Package:  MUSIC-1.1.16-10.20201002git8c6b77a.fc39
Old package:  MUSIC-1.1.16-10.20201002git8c6b77a.fc38
Summary:  The MUltiSimulation Coordinator
RPMs: MUSIC-common MUSIC-mpich MUSIC-mpich-devel MUSIC-openmpi 
MUSIC-openmpi-devel python3-MUSIC-mpich python3-MUSIC-openmpi
Size: 7.47 MiB
Size change:  40.21 KiB

Package:  R-lubridate-1.9.2-1.fc39
Old package:  R-lubridate-1.8.0-2.fc38
Summary:  Make dealing with dates a little easier
RPMs: R-lubridate
Size: 4.57 MiB
Size change:  -62.56 KiB
Changelog:
  * Fri Mar 03 2023 Tom Callaway  - 1.9.2-1
  - update to 1.9.2


Package:  R-styler-1.9.1-1.fc39
Old package:  R-styler-1.7.0-2.fc38
Summary:  Non-Invasive Pretty Printing of R Code
RPMs: R-styler
Size: 882.88 KiB
Size change:  28.65 KiB
Changelog:
  * Mon Mar 06 2023 Tom Callaway  - 1.9.1-1
  - update to 1.9.1


Package:  aardvark-dns-1.5.0-6.fc39
Old package:  aardvark-dns-1.5.0-4.fc38
Summary:  Authoritative DNS server for A/ container records
RPMs: aardvark-dns
Size: 3.80 MiB
Size change:  183 B
Changelog:
  * Mon Mar 06 2023 Lokesh Mandvekar  - 1.5.0-5
  - migrated to SPDX license

  * Mon Mar 06 2023 Lokesh Mandvekar  - 1.5.0-6
  - exclusivearch: golang_arches_future


Package:  at-spi2-core-2.47.90-1.fc39
Old package:  at-spi2-core-2.47.1-2.fc38
Summary:  Protocol definitions and daemon for D-Bus at-spi
RPMs: at-spi2-atk at-spi2-atk-devel at-spi2-core at-spi2-core-devel atk 
atk-devel
Size: 6.34 MiB
Size change:  -15.15 KiB
Changelog:
  * Sat Mar 04 2023 David King  - 2.47.90-1
  - Update to 2.47.90


Package:  baobab-44~rc-1.fc39
Old package:  baobab-44~beta-1.fc39
Summary:  A graphical directory tree analyzer
RPMs: baobab
Size: 1.85 MiB
Size change:  5.54 KiB
Changelog:
  * Mon Mar 06 2023 David King  - 44~rc-1
  - Update to 44.rc


Package:  bind9-next-32:9.19.10-1.fc39
Old package:  bind9-next-32:9.19.9-3.fc38
Summary:  The Berkeley Internet Name Domain (BIND) DNS (Domain Name System) 
server
RPMs: bind9-next bind9-next-chroot bind9-next-devel 
bind9-next-dlz-filesystem bind9-next-dlz-ldap bind9-next-dlz-mysql 
bind9-next-dlz-sqlite3 bind9-next-dnssec-utils bind9-next-doc bind9-next-libs 
bind9-next-license bind9-next-utils
Size: 17.90 MiB
Size change:  -35.18 KiB
Changelog:
  * Mon Mar 06 2023 Petr Menk  - 32:9.19.10-1
  - Update to 9.19.10 (#2170097)


Package:  btrfs-progs-6.2.1-1.fc39
Old package:  btrfs-progs-6.1.3-1.fc38
Summary:  Userspace programs for btrfs
RPMs: btrfs-progs btrfs-progs-devel libbtrfs libbtrfsutil 
python3-btrfsutil
Size: 5.71 MiB
Size change:  -24.15 KiB
Changelog:
  * Mon Mar 06 2023 Neal Gompa  - 6.2.1-1
  - Update to 6.2.1


Package:  buildah-1.29.1-2.fc39
Old package:  buildah-1.29.1-1.fc39
Summary:  A command line tool used for creating OCI Images
RPMs: buildah buildah-tests
Size: 135.86 MiB
Size change:  33.05 KiB
Changelog:
  * Mon Mar 06 2023 Lokesh Mandvekar  - 1.29.1-2
  - migrated to SPDX license


Package:  cargo2rpm-0.1.3-1.fc39
Old package:  cargo2rpm-0.1.2-1.fc39
Summary:  Translation layer between

[Test-Announce] Fedora 38 Candidate Beta-1.2 Available Now!

[rawhide]

According to the schedule [1], Fedora 38 Candidate Beta-1.2 is now
available for testing. Please help us complete all the validation
testing! For more information on release validation testing, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan

Test coverage information for the current release can be seen at:
https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/testcase_stats/38

You can see all results, find testing instructions and image download
locations, and enter results on the Summary page:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_38_Beta_1.2_Summary

The individual test result pages are:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_38_Beta_1.2_Installation
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_38_Beta_1.2_Base
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_38_Beta_1.2_Server
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_38_Beta_1.2_Cloud
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_38_Beta_1.2_Desktop
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_38_Beta_1.2_Security_Lab

All Beta priority test cases for each of these test pages [2] must
pass in order to meet the Beta Release Criteria [3].

Help is available on #fedora-qa on libera.chat [4], or on the
test list [5].

Current Blocker and Freeze Exception bugs:
http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current

[1] http://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-38/f-38-quality-tasks.html
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_38_Beta_Release_Criteria
[4] https://web.libera.chat/?channels=#fedora-qa
[5] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/t...@lists.fedoraproject.org/
___
test-announce mailing list -- test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-announce-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/test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Take 1 minute to help with Infra & Releng Team with a decision - closing tomorrow

[Michal Konecny]

The survey is now closed.

We had 67 responses and 67% of those responses are for favor to keep 
gain/trouble labels. So we will keep them, it seems that majority of 
community is happy with them as they are.


Thank you for the responses.

On behalf of I Team,
Michal

On 06. 03. 23 10:22, Michal Konecny wrote:

Hi everyone,

this survey will be closed tomorrow, so you have last day to fill it. 
We will share the results once the survey will be closed. Thanks 
everybody for helping us decide.


On behalf of I Team,
Michal

On 07. 02. 23 16:24, Michal Konecny wrote:

Hi everyone,

it came to Infra & Releng Team (sub-team in CPE that is taking care 
of Fedora Infra, Fedora Release Engineering and CentOS Infra) 
attention that there is a confusion about the labels we are using for 
issues in our trackers. Namely fedora-infrastructure, releng and 
centos-infra. There was even a request to change them to something 
less confusing.


So we want to decide if this is really need to change, so we ask you 
to take this quick survey [0] (this is an anonymous survey, nothing 
is collected by us) to see if the change is really needed or people 
are happy with current labels.


The survey will be closed on 7th March 2023.

On behalf of I Team,
Michal

[0] - https://forms.gle/J2HWDkw1UNuj8HYD8



___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[rpms/perl-Locale-Codes] PR #22: 3.73 bump

[Michal Josef Špaček]

mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Locale-Codes` that you 
are following.

Merged pull-request:

``
3.73 bump
``

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Locale-Codes/pull-request/22
___
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue