[Bug 2277538] perl-Module-CoreList-5.20240420 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277538 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-2636dca223 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-2636dca223` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-2636dca223 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=2277538 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277538%23c6 -- ___ 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 2277544] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20240427 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277544 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-69568978ed has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-69568978ed` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-69568978ed 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=2277544 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277544%23c6 -- ___ 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] Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing report
The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing: Age URL 6 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-b002585dd2 openssl3-3.2.1-1.1.el8 The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing valkey-7.2.5-5.el8 Details about builds: valkey-7.2.5-5.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2024-703a24d903) A persistent key-value database Update Information: fixes working dir move redis compat symlinks to compat sub-package first build for epel7 update to 7.2.5 update to 7.2.5-rc1 initial build, rc1 ChangeLog: * Mon Apr 29 2024 Jonathan Wright - 7.2.5-5 - improve migration scripts - rename compat package - fix working dir * Mon Apr 22 2024 Nathan Scott - 7.2.5-3 - remove version_no_tilde code * Mon Apr 22 2024 Nathan Scott - 7.2.5-2 - move redis compat symlinks to compat subpackage * Wed Apr 17 2024 Jonathan Wright - 7.2.5-1 - update to 7.2.5 rhbz#2275379 * Fri Apr 12 2024 Jonathan Wright - 7.2.5~rc1-2 - add compat subpackage with migration scripts from redis * Fri Apr 12 2024 Jonathan Wright - 7.2.5~rc1-1 - update to 7.2.5-rc1 * Tue Apr 9 2024 Jonathan Wright - 7.2.4~rc1-1 - Initial package build, release candidate References: [ 1 ] Bug #2276080 - Please branch and build valkey for EPEL 7 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2276080 -- ___ 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] Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing report
The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing valkey-7.2.5-5.el7 Details about builds: valkey-7.2.5-5.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2024-e4f1fcc09e) A persistent key-value database Update Information: fixes working dir move redis compat symlinks to compat sub-package first build for epel7 ChangeLog: * Mon Apr 29 2024 Jonathan Wright - 7.2.5-5 - improve migration scripts - rename compat package - fix working dir * Mon Apr 22 2024 Nathan Scott - 7.2.5-3 - remove version_no_tilde code * Mon Apr 22 2024 Nathan Scott - 7.2.5-2 - move redis compat symlinks to compat subpackage * Wed Apr 17 2024 Jonathan Wright - 7.2.5-1 - update to 7.2.5 rhbz#2275379 * Fri Apr 12 2024 Jonathan Wright - 7.2.5~rc1-2 - add compat subpackage with migration scripts from redis * Fri Apr 12 2024 Jonathan Wright - 7.2.5~rc1-1 - update to 7.2.5-rc1 * Tue Apr 9 2024 Jonathan Wright - 7.2.4~rc1-1 - Initial package build, release candidate References: [ 1 ] Bug #2276080 - Please branch and build valkey for EPEL 7 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2276080 -- ___ 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
[Bug 2277544] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20240427 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277544 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-f3dfe51aac has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-f3dfe51aac` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-f3dfe51aac 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=2277544 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277544%23c5 -- ___ 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 2277524] perl-version-0.9932 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277524 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-6f477c0763 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-6f477c0763` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-6f477c0763 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=2277524 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277524%23c5 -- ___ 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 2277538] perl-Module-CoreList-5.20240420 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277538 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-c9627e21bb has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-c9627e21bb` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-c9627e21bb 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=2277538 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277538%23c5 -- ___ 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] Fedora EPEL 9 updates-testing report
The following Fedora EPEL 9 Security updates need testing: Age URL 5 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-bab8814ee2 python-aiohttp-3.9.5-1.el9 3 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-0c24da3136 chromium-124.0.6367.78-1.el9 3 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-25c9732d41 clamav-1.0.6-1.el9 3 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-f5884f808a gdcm-3.0.12-7.el9 The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 9 updates-testing borgmatic-1.8.11-1.el9 html2ps-1.0-0.52.b7.el9 rust-stability-0.2.0-1.el9 rust-stability0.1-0.1.1-1.el9 rust-termion-3.0.0-1.el9 rust-termion2-2.0.3-1.el9 valkey-7.2.5-5.el9 Details about builds: borgmatic-1.8.11-1.el9 (FEDORA-EPEL-2024-58f8b54d59) Simple Python wrapper script for borgbackup Update Information: #815: Add optional Healthchecks auto-provisioning via "create_slug" option. #851: Fix lack of file extraction when using "extract --strip-components all" on a path with a leading slash. #854: Fix a traceback when the "data" consistency check is used. #857: Fix a traceback with "check --only spot" when the "spot" check is unconfigured. ChangeLog: * Mon Apr 29 2024 Felix Kaechele - 1.8.11-1 - update to 1.8.11 References: [ 1 ] Bug #2277853 - borgmatic-1.8.11 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277853 html2ps-1.0-0.52.b7.el9 (FEDORA-EPEL-2024-5edb43a8ec) HTML to PostScript converter Update Information: This update brings a new html2ps package, an HTML to PostScript converter. ChangeLog: * Wed Jan 24 2024 Fedora Release Engineering - 1.0-0.52.b7 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_40_Mass_Rebuild * Sat Jan 20 2024 Fedora Release Engineering - 1.0-0.51.b7 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_40_Mass_Rebuild * Mon Jul 31 2023 Petr Pisar - 1.0-0.50.b7 - Disable rendering MathML with TeX (bug #1695946) * Thu Jul 20 2023 Fedora Release Engineering - 1.0-0.49.b7 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_39_Mass_Rebuild * Tue Jul 4 2023 Petr Pisar - 1.0-0.48.b7 - Correct invoking paper tool (bug #2219360) * Thu Jan 19 2023 Fedora Release Engineering - 1.0-0.47.b7 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_38_Mass_Rebuild * Mon Jan 9 2023 Petr Pisar - 1.0-0.46.b7 - Convert a License tag to an SPDX format * Sun Jan 8 2023 Tom Callaway - 1.0-0.45.b7 - update to use "paper" instead of "paperconf" * Thu Jul 21 2022 Fedora Release Engineering - 1.0-0.44.b7 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_37_Mass_Rebuild * Mon May 30 2022 Jitka Plesnikova - 1.0-0.43.b7 - Perl 5.36 rebuild References: [ 1 ] Bug #2277201 - Please provide html2ps for epel9 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277201 rust-stability-0.2.0-1.el9 (FEDORA-EPEL-2024-28b1dbec22) Rust API stability attributes for the rest of us Update Information: Update the stability crate to version 0.2.0. Add a compat package for version 0.1 of the stability crate. Update the termion crate to version 3.0.0. Add a compat package for version 2 of the termion crate. ChangeLog: * Sat Apr 27 2024 Fabio Valentini - 0.2.0-1 - Update to version 0.2.0; Fixes RHBZ#2272848 rust-stability0.1-0.1.1-1.el9 (FEDORA-EPEL-2024-28b1dbec22) Rust API stability attributes for the rest of us Update Information: Update the stability crate to version 0.2.0. Add a compat package for version 0.1 of the stability crate. Update the termion crate to version 3.0.0. Add a compat package for version 2 of the termion crate.
Re: isomd5sum 1.2.4-1 checksum bug
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 12:20:37PM GMT, Brian C. Lane wrote: > I screwed up the isomd5sum checksums in the 1.2.4 release while trying > to fix support for small isos. I've reverted the change and 1.2.4-2 is > building for rawhide and Fedora 40. Thanks to Jonathan Billings for the > bug report (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277398). Thanks Billings! > The bad version made it into Fedora 40 and Rawhide. > > With the bad version it will implant a checksum that is too short by 3 > characters, but checking it will pass if you use 1.2.4-1 -- but not if > you use any of the previous versions. You can check for the bad checksum > by running checkisomd5sum --verbose and look for ';FR' at the end of the > reported checksum. :( > > Spot checking the Fedora 40 netinst and workstation isos I don't see the > bad checksums so it looks like the build system was using a previous > version of implantisomd5 for the released isos. Thats good. > Currently in rawhide the isos have the bad checksums, so the builders > will need to be updated to isomd5sum-1.2.4-2 to fix this. Well, livemedia creation is done in a chroot in koji, so it should pick that up in tomorrow's rawhide automatically. I don't think anything needs manually updating, but if I am missing something let me know. kevin -- ___ 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 (2024-04-29)
= # #meeting:fedoraproject.org: fesco = Meeting started by @mhayden:fedora.im at 2024-04-29 19:00:56 Meeting summary --- * TOPIC: Init Process (@mhayden:fedora.im, 19:01:17) * TOPIC: #3198 Request to update Kubernetes version in Fedora 38 (@mhayden:fedora.im, 19:03:59) * AGREED: Leave the kubernetes version at 1.26 in #3198 for F38 (+7, 0, -0) (@mhayden:fedora.im, 19:11:42) * TOPIC: #3203 Change: Replace Redis with Valkey (@mhayden:fedora.im, 19:12:10) * AGREED: Wait to vote on change #3203 as it is currently written with a plan to revisit it before F41 change freeze. (+6, 0, -1) (@mhayden:fedora.im, 19:48:33) * ACTION: Revisit change #3203 in 2 weeks once jonathanspw has the work done on the compat pkg (@mhayden:fedora.im, 20:04:42) * TOPIC: Next week's chair (@mhayden:fedora.im, 20:06:17) * ACTION: zbyszek to host next week's meeting (@mhayden:fedora.im, 20:09:02) * TOPIC: Open floor (@mhayden:fedora.im, 20:09:07) Meeting ended at 2024-04-29 20:10:10 Action items * Revisit change #3203 in 2 weeks once jonathanspw has the work done on the compat pkg * zbyszek to host next week's meeting People Present (lines said) --- * @mhayden:fedora.im (82) * @conan_kudo:matrix.org (52) * @zbyszek:fedora.im (34) * @jonathanspw:fedora.im (34) * @dcantrell:fedora.im (21) * @tstellar:fedora.im (19) * @nirik:matrix.scrye.com (18) * @zodbot:fedora.im (16) * @jistone:fedora.im (14) * @reconditerose:matrix.org (10) * @humaton:fedora.im (6) * @sgallagh:fedora.im (6) * @meetbot:fedora.im (2) * @linux_mclinuxface:matrix.org (1) -- Major Hayden -- ___ 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: rapidyaml 0.6.0 and c4core 0.2.0 coming to Rawhide
In one week (2024-05-06), or slightly later, I plan to update the rapidyaml package to 0.6.0[1] and the c4core package to 0.2.0[2] in F41/Rawhide. This includes an SONAME version bump in both cases, with specific breaking changes documented in the upstream release notes[3][4]. An impact check in COPR did not reveal any problems[5]. I will use a side tag for the update, and I will rebuild dependent packages c4fs and c4log as primary maintainer. Unless I’m asked not to, I will also rebuild jsonnet using provenpackager privilege. No other packages should be affected. [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rapidyaml/pull-request/2 [2] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/c4core/pull-request/9 [3] https://github.com/biojppm/rapidyaml/releases/tag/v0.6.0 [4] https://github.com/biojppm/c4core/releases/tag/v0.2.0 [5] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/music/rapidyaml/packages/ -- ___ 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
isomd5sum 1.2.4-1 checksum bug
I screwed up the isomd5sum checksums in the 1.2.4 release while trying to fix support for small isos. I've reverted the change and 1.2.4-2 is building for rawhide and Fedora 40. Thanks to Jonathan Billings for the bug report (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277398). The bad version made it into Fedora 40 and Rawhide. With the bad version it will implant a checksum that is too short by 3 characters, but checking it will pass if you use 1.2.4-1 -- but not if you use any of the previous versions. You can check for the bad checksum by running checkisomd5sum --verbose and look for ';FR' at the end of the reported checksum. Spot checking the Fedora 40 netinst and workstation isos I don't see the bad checksums so it looks like the build system was using a previous version of implantisomd5 for the released isos. Currently in rawhide the isos have the bad checksums, so the builders will need to be updated to isomd5sum-1.2.4-2 to fix this. Nobody except Jonathan noticed because normally the same version making the checksum is used to check it. He was using mkksiso to make a custom iso which resulted in the new iso failing the test at boot time due to the iso having 1.2.3-23 on it and his host having 1.2.4-1 on it. Hopefully this doesn't cause too many problems for people, Brian -- Brian C. Lane (PST8PDT) - weldr.io - lorax - parted - pykickstart -- ___ 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: LLVM Packaging Ideas for Fedora 41
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 4:38 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > Both of my LLVM dependent packages: iwyu and pocl. On every LLVM major > release they break and I have to wait for the upstream to release a new > version. I would hope that there are more examples than O(1), as processes should not be determined by O(1) numbers. In any case, since this is *every* release, is there any good reason these are not somewhere in the LLVM CI/QA workflows? Sounds like good test cases, and good test cases are typically hard to find. -- ___ 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: LLVM Packaging Ideas for Fedora 41
Neal Gompa writes: > You also have to do new package > reviews for each new version instead of using the compatibility > package exception to branch older releases into compatibility > packages. I don't think this will be needed because it is one of the exceptions [1]: The package is being created so that multiple versions of the same package can coexist in the distribution (or coexist between EPEL and RHEL). The package MUST be properly named according to the naming guidelines and MUST NOT conflict with all other versions of the same package. AFAIU, this proposal is following all the requirements mentioned in this exception. [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/#_package_review_process -- Tulio Magno -- ___ 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: LLVM Packaging Ideas for Fedora 41
On 29/04/2024 16:41, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: Do we have any idea how many code bases are actually sensitive to the specific llvm version? Both of my LLVM dependent packages: iwyu and pocl. On every LLVM major release they break and I have to wait for the upstream to release a new version. -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org) -- ___ 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: LLVM Packaging Ideas for Fedora 41
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 2:25 PM Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho wrote: > Considering that LLVM releases usually happen very late in Fedora's > development cycle, if the default LLVM version is changed, packages may > start to FTBFS very late in the development cycle if they buildrequire > the default LLVM version. > > Notice that, in this proposal, packages that would prefer to use the new > version may still update them by buildrequiring the new versioned package. I would rather see the llvm base package(s) always be the latest (and perhaps greatest), and for there to be something like a llvm-not-the-latest (or some other well known name) so that those whose packages are known to be llvm version sensitive can make a one-time change to use the not-the-latest version of llvm (i.e. put the onus of using not-the-latest with the package(r)s that need not-the-latest, or some specific version) so that they can be more assured of not having last minute FTBFS issues. Do we have any idea how many code bases are actually sensitive to the specific llvm version? I suspect that there are a few likely well known and expected code bases, and most code bases are (mostly) agnostic. -- ___ 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: LLVM Packaging Ideas for Fedora 41
Nico Kadel-Garcia writes: > On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 12:35 AM Tom Stellard wrote: >> * Invert the order of compat/main packages. Instead of having the compat >> package be >> the old version, and the main package be the new version, we would have the >> compat package >> be newer and the main package be older. This would allow us to introduce a >> new version of >> llvm without impacting other packages that depend on the main version of >> LLVM. > > My first thought is "don't make me hurt you". So are my second and > third thoughts. Please do not leave the nominally obsolete version as > the default cnotemporary version, the "main" release should always be > the defult. I'm not sure I understood this part or if there was a miscommunication somewhere. Considering that LLVM releases usually happen very late in Fedora's development cycle, if the default LLVM version is changed, packages may start to FTBFS very late in the development cycle if they buildrequire the default LLVM version. Notice that, in this proposal, packages that would prefer to use the new version may still update them by buildrequiring the new versioned package. With that said: do you really think that it's better to let packages FTBFS late in the Fedora development cycle? If that's still true, could you elaborate it, please? > New, pre-release versions should be as short-lived as > possible. AFAIU, there are no plans to increase the time pre-release version will be kept. -- Tulio Magno -- ___ 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: Fedora RISC-V port needs to put shared objects into /usr/lib64/lp64d
* Stephen Smoogen: > I guess we need to see what RPM owns that symlink and get it into the > build root Sorry, I meant $RPM_BUILDROOT or %buildroot (the staging area used by rpmbuild). That's not controlled by the system package manager, obviously. Thanks, Florian > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 08:22 Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Richard W. M. Jones: > > >> I don't want us to have RPM spec file hacks just to get RISC-V to > >> install in the correct locations. The symbolic link evidently does not > >> cover all cases. > > > > What cases aren't covered by the symlink? We have a full, working > > Fedora/RISC-V distro using it at the moment. > > The symbolic link isn't in the buildroot. If shared objects are listed > explicitly in %files (as some guidelines recommend) and upstream > hard-codes the ABI directory names for installation purposes, the build > fails. > > Setting %_libdir to /usr/lib64/lp64d instead might work. Fixing > upstream to honor --libdir=/usr/lib64 in ./configure might be another > option. > > Thanks, > Florian > -- > ___ > 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 -- ___ 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: Feedback wanted: Testing side-tag for switching dnf5 in Rawhide
Hi Adam, > Just to follow up on this: the Kiwi container build test failure > pointed to some changes that will be required to the Fedora kiwi config > when this change lands. I have filed a PR for that - > https://pagure.io/fedora-kiwi-descriptions/pull-request/46 - which > should only be merged when this update is getting pushed. I tweaked the > openQA test to make those changes on-the-fly when testing this update, > and now it passes. > > By inference it occurred to me to check the osbuild configs also and I > found a likely-required change there, so I sent a PR for that - > https://github.com/osbuild/images/pull/637 - which has been merged. We > would need the osbuild folks to deploy that change to prod before this > update lands in Rawhide, otherwise some osbuild-driven image builds > will most likely start to fail. > Oh, great! We were planning to handle these ourselves, so thanks a lot for help! > The Cockpit update test failures turned out to be just stricter > defaults in the new dnf exposing a bug in how the openQA tests handle > the advisory repo (the side repo that contains the packages from the > update under testing). I fixed that, and now the tests pass. > Great, thanks! Regards, Jan On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 8:20 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2024-04-24 at 22:56 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Thu, 2024-04-25 at 07:42 +0200, Jan Kolarik wrote: > > > Hello everyone, > > > > > > We've prepared a side-tag for testing Rawhide with dnf5 as the default > > > package manager. Instructions for installing the packages from the > side-tag > > > can be found at the following link [1]. > > > > > > Please provide feedback in Bodhi or on this mailing list regarding the > use > > > cases you're familiar with from the existing dnf command, and share > your > > > experience with this new version. > > > > > > If there's no negative feedback regarding any critical functionality, > we > > > plan to push the packages from the side-tag to Rawhide next week. > > > > > > [1] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-8a41ea93a2 > > > > The update failed a couple of openQA tests. I will take a closer look > > into the reason in the morning, I'm busy reneedling things for the GTK > > update at present. > > Just to follow up on this: the Kiwi container build test failure > pointed to some changes that will be required to the Fedora kiwi config > when this change lands. I have filed a PR for that - > https://pagure.io/fedora-kiwi-descriptions/pull-request/46 - which > should only be merged when this update is getting pushed. I tweaked the > openQA test to make those changes on-the-fly when testing this update, > and now it passes. > > By inference it occurred to me to check the osbuild configs also and I > found a likely-required change there, so I sent a PR for that - > https://github.com/osbuild/images/pull/637 - which has been merged. We > would need the osbuild folks to deploy that change to prod before this > update lands in Rawhide, otherwise some osbuild-driven image builds > will most likely start to fail. > > The Cockpit update test failures turned out to be just stricter > defaults in the new dnf exposing a bug in how the openQA tests handle > the advisory repo (the side repo that contains the packages from the > update under testing). I fixed that, and now the tests pass. > -- > Adam Williamson (he/him/his) > Fedora QA > Fedora Chat: @adamwill:fedora.im | Mastodon: @ad...@fosstodon.org > https://www.happyassassin.net > > > > -- > ___ > 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
Fedora rawhide compose report: 20240429.n.0 changes
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20240428.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20240429.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:2 Dropped images: 2 Added packages: 0 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 24 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 0 B Size of dropped packages:0 B Size of upgraded packages: 308.53 MiB Size of downgraded packages: 0 B Size change of upgraded packages: -18.08 MiB Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B = ADDED IMAGES = Image: KDE live aarch64 Path: Spins/aarch64/iso/Fedora-KDE-Live-aarch64-Rawhide-20240429.n.0.iso Image: i3 live aarch64 Path: Spins/aarch64/iso/Fedora-i3-Live-aarch64-Rawhide-20240429.n.0.iso = DROPPED IMAGES = Image: LXQt live aarch64 Path: Spins/aarch64/iso/Fedora-LXQt-Live-aarch64-Rawhide-20240428.n.0.iso Image: Workstation live aarch64 Path: Workstation/aarch64/iso/Fedora-Workstation-Live-aarch64-Rawhide-20240428.n.0.iso = ADDED PACKAGES = = DROPPED PACKAGES = = UPGRADED PACKAGES = Package: crun-vm-0.2.0-1.fc41 Old package: crun-vm-0.1.3-3.fc41 Summary: An OCI Runtime that runs VM images RPMs: crun-vm Size: 4.40 MiB Size change: 84.71 KiB Changelog: * Mon Apr 15 2024 Alberto Faria - 0.1.3-4 - Drop unnecessary dependency on shadow-utils * Mon Apr 15 2024 Alberto Faria - 0.1.3-5 - Add missing dependency on passt * Sun Apr 28 2024 Alberto Faria - 0.1.3-6 - Drop Fedora 38 support * Sun Apr 28 2024 Alberto Faria - 0.2.0-1 - Update to 0.2.0 Package: dropbear-2024.85-1.fc41 Old package: dropbear-2024.84-1.fc41 Summary: Lightweight SSH server and client RPMs: dropbear Size: 744.13 KiB Size change: 17 B Changelog: * Mon Apr 29 2024 Federico Pellegrin - 2024.85-1 - Update to 2024.85 (rhbz#2277102) Package: golang-github-onsi-ginkgo-2-2.17.2-1.fc41 Old package: golang-github-onsi-ginkgo-2-2.15.0-1.fc40 Summary: A Modern Testing Framework for Go RPMs: golang-github-onsi-ginkgo-2 golang-github-onsi-ginkgo-2-devel Size: 15.32 MiB Size change: -25.99 KiB Changelog: * Sun Apr 28 2024 Mikel Olasagasti Uranga - 2.17.2-1 - Update to 2.17.2 - Closes rhbz#2267864 Package: golang-github-youmark-pkcs8-1.2-1.fc41 Old package: golang-github-youmark-pkcs8-1.1-11.fc40 Summary: Parse and convert private keys in PKCS#8 format RPMs: golang-github-youmark-pkcs8-devel Size: 22.87 KiB Size change: 4.66 KiB Changelog: * Sun Apr 28 2024 Mikel Olasagasti Uranga - 1.2-1 - Update to 1.2 - Closes rhbz#2277044 Package: hugo-0.125.4-1.fc41 Old package: hugo-0.124.1-2.fc41 Summary: The world???s fastest framework for building websites RPMs: golang-github-gohugoio-hugo-devel hugo Size: 116.18 MiB Size change: 66.24 KiB Changelog: * Sun Apr 28 2024 W. Michael Petullo - 0.125.4-1 - Update to 0.125.4 Package: js-jquery-ui-1.13.3-1.fc41 Old package: js-jquery-ui-1.13.2-5.fc40 Summary: jQuery user interface RPMs: js-jquery-ui Size: 204.29 KiB Size change: 458 B Changelog: * Sun Apr 28 2024 Mattias Ellert - 1.13.3-1 - Update to version 1.13.3 Package: magic-8.3.471-2.fc41 Old package: magic-8.3.471-1.fc41 Summary: A very capable VLSI layout tool RPMs: magic magic-doc Size: 8.10 MiB Size change: -1.57 KiB Changelog: * Sun Apr 28 2024 Mamoru TASAKA - 8.3.471-2 - Update SPDX identifier Package: maven-shade-plugin-3.5.3-1.fc41 Old package: maven-shade-plugin-3.5.2-2.fc41 Summary: Maven plugin for packaging artifacts in an uber-jar RPMs: maven-shade-plugin maven-shade-plugin-javadoc Size: 331.86 KiB Size change: -1.20 KiB Changelog: * Sun Apr 28 2024 Nicolas De Amicis - 3.5.3-1 - Bump to 3.5.3 Package: nginx-1:1.26.0-1.fc41 Old package: nginx-1:1.24.0-8.fc40 Summary: A high performance web server and reverse proxy server RPMs: nginx nginx-all-modules nginx-core nginx-filesystem nginx-mod-devel nginx-mod-http-image-filter nginx-mod-http-perl nginx-mod-http-xslt-filter nginx-mod-mail nginx-mod-stream Size: 8.22 MiB Size change: 744.45 KiB Changelog: * Sun Apr 28 2024 Felix Kaechele - 1:1.26.0-1 - update to 1.26.0 - add Sergey Kandaurov's PGP public key - add Roman Arutyunyan's PGP public key - remove Maxim Dounin's PGP public key - enable experimental HTTP/3 module - refresh patches - update default config http2 directive - remove outdated custom error pages, reducing maintenance burden Package: nudoku-4.0.0-1.fc41 Old package: nudoku-3.0.0-4.fc40 Summary: Ncurses based Sudoku game RPMs: nudoku Size: 158.18 KiB Size change: 4.28 KiB Changelog: * Mon Apr 29 2024 Daniel Milnes - 4.0.0-1 - Update to 4.0.0 (rhbz#2277653) Package: perl-Compress-Raw-Bzip2-2.212-1.fc41 Old package: perl-Compress-Raw-Bzip2-2.211-1.fc41 Summary: Low-level interface to bzip2 compression
Schedule for Monday's FESCo Meeting (2024-04-29)
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo meeting Monday at 19:00 UTC in #meeting:fedoraproject.org on Matrix. To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto or run: date -d '2024-04-29 19:00 UTC' Links to all issues to be discussed can be found at: https://pagure.io/fesco/report/meeting_agenda = Discussed and Voted in the Ticket = None this week = Followups = None this week = New business = #3198 Request to update Kubernetes version in Fedora 38 https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3198 #3203 Change: Replace Redis with Valkey https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3203 = Open Floor = For more complete details, please visit each individual issue. The report of the agenda items can be found at https://pagure.io/fesco/report/meeting_agenda If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can reply to this e-mail, file a new issue at https://pagure.io/fesco, e-mail me directly, or bring it up at the end of the meeting, during the open floor topic. Note that added topics may be deferred until the following meeting. -- ___ 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: Fedora RISC-V port needs to put shared objects into /usr/lib64/lp64d
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 3:31 PM Stephen Smoogen wrote: > > I guess we need to see what RPM owns that symlink and get it into the build > root > > Stephen Smoogen, Red Hat Automotive > Let us be kind to one another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle. -- > Ian MacClaren > > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 08:22 Florian Weimer wrote: >> >> * Richard W. M. Jones: >> >> >> I don't want us to have RPM spec file hacks just to get RISC-V to >> >> install in the correct locations. The symbolic link evidently does not >> >> cover all cases. >> > >> > What cases aren't covered by the symlink? We have a full, working >> > Fedora/RISC-V distro using it at the moment. >> >> The symbolic link isn't in the buildroot. If shared objects are listed >> explicitly in %files (as some guidelines recommend) and upstream >> hard-codes the ABI directory names for installation purposes, the build >> fails. >> >> Setting %_libdir to /usr/lib64/lp64d instead might work. Fixing >> upstream to honor --libdir=/usr/lib64 in ./configure might be another >> option. >> We never patched the filesystem package to properly introduce the symlink. It's extremely rare that it wouldn't be available in buildroot, but it does happen. Cheers, david -- ___ 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: Fedora RISC-V port needs to put shared objects into /usr/lib64/lp64d
I guess we need to see what RPM owns that symlink and get it into the build root Stephen Smoogen, Red Hat Automotive Let us be kind to one another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle. -- Ian MacClaren On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 08:22 Florian Weimer wrote: > * Richard W. M. Jones: > > >> I don't want us to have RPM spec file hacks just to get RISC-V to > >> install in the correct locations. The symbolic link evidently does not > >> cover all cases. > > > > What cases aren't covered by the symlink? We have a full, working > > Fedora/RISC-V distro using it at the moment. > > The symbolic link isn't in the buildroot. If shared objects are listed > explicitly in %files (as some guidelines recommend) and upstream > hard-codes the ABI directory names for installation purposes, the build > fails. > > Setting %_libdir to /usr/lib64/lp64d instead might work. Fixing > upstream to honor --libdir=/usr/lib64 in ./configure might be another > option. > > Thanks, > Florian > -- > ___ > 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: Fedora RISC-V port needs to put shared objects into /usr/lib64/lp64d
* Richard W. M. Jones: >> I don't want us to have RPM spec file hacks just to get RISC-V to >> install in the correct locations. The symbolic link evidently does not >> cover all cases. > > What cases aren't covered by the symlink? We have a full, working > Fedora/RISC-V distro using it at the moment. The symbolic link isn't in the buildroot. If shared objects are listed explicitly in %files (as some guidelines recommend) and upstream hard-codes the ABI directory names for installation purposes, the build fails. Setting %_libdir to /usr/lib64/lp64d instead might work. Fixing upstream to honor --libdir=/usr/lib64 in ./configure might be another option. Thanks, Florian -- ___ 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: how to do minor bump using %autorelease?
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 11:44 AM Fabio Valentini wrote: > No, this will make a Release like 2.1.fc40 - which is not what's > needed (which would be 1.fc40.1). > So it doesn't work because -e adds a component *before* the dist-tag, > *and* because the main number is still incremented. Since [.minorbump] is a documented method for packaging, if autorelease does not support it is feature incomplete. If one wants/needs to use [.minorbump] now, or in the future, autorelease is not currently the tool to use. I'll let the autorelease authors decide whether autorelease needs to be updated to support [.minorbump]. -- ___ 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: Is there a policy for branches being merged or not
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 11:35 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 10:27:26AM +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: > > > I know this is just a cosmetic issue, but choices made by the > > primary maintainers should be respected IMO. > > I agree in general, but sometimes if you're making mechanical changes > across 100s of packages it's hard to do this in practice. I make sure to read the (bulk) change proposals and if I care about how they may impact my packages I will try to perform the changes in advance (so any mechanical changes find nothing to do). Choosing to let the automation do whatever it is going to do is still a choice. I attempt to choose wisely. -- ___ 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 2277607] perl-Module-Faker-0.026 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277607 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||2277730 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277730 [Bug 2277730] Review Request: perl-Data-Fake - Declaratively generate fake structured data for testing -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277607 -- ___ 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: how to do minor bump using %autorelease?
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 1:28 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 10:41:59PM +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I need to rebuild mame on F40 only for qt-6.7. On rawhide, > > mame-0.265-1.fc41 is already built against it so I only need to > > build mame-0.265-1.fc40.1. Can it be done using %autorelease? > > I don't think anyone answered your actual question which is ... > > Release: %autorelease -e 1 No, this will make a Release like 2.1.fc40 - which is not what's needed (which would be 1.fc40.1). So it doesn't work because -e adds a component *before* the dist-tag, *and* because the main number is still incremented. Fabio -- ___ 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: Is there a policy for branches being merged or not
On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 10:27:26AM +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: > Hello, > > is there a general recommendation regarding keeping git release > branches separate vs merged? I have been keeping mine separate. > Originally to avoid release and changelog conflicts when > cherry-picking, but I got used to it and kept doing it after > converting to %autorelase and %autochangelog. I actually don't think this really matters much, but I try to keep branches merged, until they require cherry picking for a specific reason. As a concrete example: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nbdkit/commits/rawhide https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nbdkit/commits/f40 These two branches were merged until a couple of months ago when rawhide required the bash-completion-devel package (which is not in F40), and then I switched to cherry picking. Later still we switched F40 to a different upstream branch so now they're completely separate. > Recently one of my packages got it branches merged by a > provenpackager doing a deps rebuild. If there is no policy to merge, > this is disappointing as force-pushes as not allowed and branches > once merged cannot be unmerged. If this last bit true? > I know this is just a cosmetic issue, but choices made by the > primary maintainers should be respected IMO. I agree in general, but sometimes if you're making mechanical changes across 100s of packages it's hard to do this in practice. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com libguestfs lets you edit virtual machines. Supports shell scripting, bindings from many languages. http://libguestfs.org -- ___ 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] PR #12: Update macros.perl
mspacek commented on the pull-request: `Update macros.perl` that you are following: `` @huakim Hi, could you describe what are you trying to resolve or what is the intention of your changes? `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl/pull-request/12 -- ___ 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: how to do minor bump using %autorelease?
On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 10:41:59PM +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote: > Hello, > > I need to rebuild mame on F40 only for qt-6.7. On rawhide, > mame-0.265-1.fc41 is already built against it so I only need to > build mame-0.265-1.fc40.1. Can it be done using %autorelease? I don't think anyone answered your actual question which is ... Release: %autorelease -e 1 (https://docs.pagure.org/Fedora-Infra.rpmautospec/autorelease.html) Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com libguestfs lets you edit virtual machines. Supports shell scripting, bindings from many languages. http://libguestfs.org -- ___ 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: how to do minor bump using %autorelease?
Fabio Valentini wrote: > No, that's just wrong. > The "upgrade path" (wrt/ NVRs) is no longer enforced across release > boundaries. AFAIK, all supported release-upgrade methods now use > distro-sync or something equivalent, so NVR-based "upgrade path" is just > not important any more. That just does not make sense: We enforce upgrade paths from Rawhide to Rawhide (!) requiring lots of unnecessary Epoch bumps when things need to be reverted (which is normal for a development running release), but we happily allow the ones that actually matter to end users to break? All this just so that lazy packagers do not have to increment a number (in most cases a single-character change, in some cases (such as a minor bump or every 10 major bumps) a two-character change, rarely more) when doing a new build. Kevin Kofler -- ___ 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 2277544] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20240427 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277544 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2 ||0240427-1.fc41 Last Closed||2024-04-29 09:57:22 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-e66f985cd1 (perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20240427-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 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=2277544 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277544%23c4 -- ___ 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 2277544] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20240427 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277544 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-69568978ed (perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20240427-1.fc39) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-69568978ed -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277544 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277544%23c2 -- ___ 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 2277544] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20240427 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277544 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-f3dfe51aac (perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20240427-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-f3dfe51aac -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277544 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277544%23c3 -- ___ 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: Intention to take over orphaned packages: php-aws-sdk3, php-ralouphie-getallheaders, php-guzzlehttp-guzzle6
> On 04/24/2024 4:21 PM CEST Remi Collet wrote: > > I can probably help for PHP reviews Thank you, appreciated! > Notice: > > - php-ralouphie-getallheaders: this is a compat layer providing a > missing function in PHP < 7.3 for php-fpm users > > Please check you really still need it ;) Good point, that dependency comes from php-guzzlehttp-psr7 which still depends on php-ralouphie-getallheaders even in newer versions :-/ > - php-guzzlehttp-guzzle6: this was version 6 > > A new package is probably needed for version 7 > > See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1982627 > (this stalled review was for 7.3.0, current is 7.8.1) Right and aws-sdk-php seem to be fine with guzzlehttp/guzzle ^7.4.5 but as you stated, not packaged in Fedora yet. > - php-aws-sdk3: is really outdated (3.191.10 => 3.305.1) > > New version probably have different dependencies Yeah going through them right now to get an understanding what current dependencies are missing in Fedora. > I suspect you may need awscrt extension which is quite > a nightmare as it bundles tons of libaws-* You suspect right, "aws/aws-crt-php": "^1.2.3". > https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/pecl/php-pecl-awscrt.git/tree/ Wow cool, thanks for sharing. Is there a reasons you didn't use your package to create one for Fedora? It looks like you did all the heavy lifting already. What I can already tell: I opened a can of worms with my wish to keep php-aws-sdk3 alive. It will be a challenge but a good learning opportunity too. Dom -- The Wombelix Post https://dominik.wombacher.cc -- ___ 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: how to do minor bump using %autorelease?
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 11:17 AM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> Michael J Gruber wrote:
> > A minor bump (as in %{?dist}[.]) only comes into play
> > if a "lower" branch needs to move forward without creating a version
> > ahead of a "higher" branch. And (independent of autorelease) you cannot
> > do that unless you use divergent git branches and cherry-picks in
> > dist-git, in which case "version" makes sense per branch only anyways.
>
> But Release MUST maintain the upgrade path from one release to the next.
No, that's just wrong.
The "upgrade path" (wrt/ NVRs) is no longer enforced across release boundaries.
AFAIK, all supported release-upgrade methods now use distro-sync or
something equivalent, so NVR-based "upgrade path" is just not
important any more.
Fabio
--
___
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: how to do minor bump using %autorelease?
Michael J Gruber wrote:
> A minor bump (as in %{?dist}[.]) only comes into play
> if a "lower" branch needs to move forward without creating a version
> ahead of a "higher" branch. And (independent of autorelease) you cannot
> do that unless you use divergent git branches and cherry-picks in
> dist-git, in which case "version" makes sense per branch only anyways.
But Release MUST maintain the upgrade path from one release to the next.
Also, no, you do not necessarily need to allow the branches to diverge. If
you keep your branches fast-forwarded, you can just fast-forward the
"rebuild for libfoo in Fn" commit with the minor bump to all branches, but
build it only in the fn branch where it is relevant. The minor bump ensures
that doing that maintains the correct upgrade path, so you do not have to
push unnecessary rebuilds to releases where it is not relevant.
> In a dist-git where you work with release branches "contained" in
> rawhide - and use macros extensively - you automatically have commits
> which you merge down but which don't affect all branches, e.g. rebuild
> commits for dependencies or mass rebuilds. I'm not saying this is the best
> way of doing things (we should do it differently), but it's a common
> pattern. So you can have the "f40 mass rebuild" commit in an f39 branch.
> And in a world where you have and accept that, you can also push a
> "rebuild for libfoo" to rawhide and merge down to f40 if that is what
> you need to have f40 versions <= rawhide versions.
Sure, but as I explained above, this only works properly if you do a minor
bump rather than a full bump to Release. Otherwise you have to rebuild
everywhere or you break the upgrade path.
> But as others have pointed out, in the light of distrosync and
> macro-determined differences etc. we may just as well give up the
> illusion that "-5" means the same in different branches, and
> consequently lift the sorting policy between different branches.
But that breaks the upgrade path, so it is a no go.
Kevin Kofler
--
___
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 2277544] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20240427 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277544 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-e66f985cd1 (perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20240427-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-e66f985cd1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277544 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277544%23c1 -- ___ 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 2277538] perl-Module-CoreList-5.20240420 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277538 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||perl-Module-CoreList-5.2024 ||0420-1.fc41 Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2024-04-29 09:06:23 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-5abd5ee3a3 (perl-Module-CoreList-5.20240420-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 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=2277538 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277538%23c4 -- ___ 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 2277607] perl-Module-Faker-0.026 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277607 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added CC|jples...@redhat.com,| |ppi...@redhat.com | Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277607 -- ___ 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 2277538] perl-Module-CoreList-5.20240420 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277538 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-c9627e21bb (perl-Module-CoreList-5.20240420-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-c9627e21bb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277538 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277538%23c2 -- ___ 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 2277538] perl-Module-CoreList-5.20240420 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277538 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-5abd5ee3a3 (perl-Module-CoreList-5.20240420-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-5abd5ee3a3 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277538 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277538%23c1 -- ___ 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: how to do minor bump using %autorelease?
Kevin Kofler via devel venit, vidit, dixit 2024-04-28 23:55:37:
> Julian Sikorski wrote:
> > I need to rebuild mame on F40 only for qt-6.7. On rawhide,
> > mame-0.265-1.fc41 is already built against it so I only need to build
> > mame-0.265-1.fc40.1. Can it be done using %autorelease?
>
> No, which is why you should not be using %autorelease.
>
> I would just replace %autorelease with a correctly manually bumped Release
> in the specfile as part of doing the rebuild.
>
> Just letting %autorelease do its thing and ending up with a full bump would
> be incorrect, so it should not even be considered as an option.
Bumping to mame-0.265-1.fc40 to mame-0.265-2.fc40 for a rebuild against
a changed dependency is the normal and recommended way of doing
rebuilds, whether you bump manually or using autolease.
A minor bump (as in %{?dist}[.]) only comes into play
if a "lower" branch needs to move forward without creating a version
ahead of a "higher" branch. And (independent of autorelease) you cannot
do that unless you use divergent git branches and cherry-picks in
dist-git, in which case "version" makes sense per branch only anyways.
In a dist-git where you work with release branches "contained" in
rawhide - and use macros extensively - you automatically have commits
which you merge down but which don't affect all branches, e.g. rebuild commits
for dependencies or mass rebuilds. I'm not saying this is the best way
of doing things (we should do it differently), but it's a common
pattern. So you can have the "f40 mass rebuild" commit in an f39 branch.
And in a world where you have and accept that, you can also push a
"rebuild for libfoo" to rawhide and merge down to f40 if that is what
you need to have f40 versions <= rawhide versions.
But as others have pointed out, in the light of distrosync and
macro-determined differences etc. we may just as well give up the
illusion that "-5" means the same in different branches, and
consequently lift the sorting policy between different branches.
Michael
--
___
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 2277524] perl-version-0.9932 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277524 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Fixed In Version||perl-version-0.99.32-1.fc41 Last Closed||2024-04-29 08:12:23 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-76a19af61f (perl-version-0.99.32-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 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=2277524 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277524%23c4 -- ___ 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 2277538] perl-Module-CoreList-5.20240420 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277538 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added CC|jples...@redhat.com,| |mspa...@redhat.com, | |spo...@gmail.com, | |st...@silug.org | Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277538 -- ___ 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 2277524] perl-version-0.9932 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277524 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-6f477c0763 (perl-version-0.99.32-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-6f477c0763 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277524 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277524%23c3 -- ___ 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 2277524] perl-version-0.9932 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277524 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-76a19af61f (perl-version-0.99.32-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-76a19af61f -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277524 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277524%23c2 -- ___ 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 2277396] perl-Business-ISBN-Data-20240426.001 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277396 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||perl-Business-ISBN-Data-202 ||40426.001-1.fc41 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Last Closed||2024-04-29 06:48:27 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-44e5a0d5de (perl-Business-ISBN-Data-20240426.001-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 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=2277396 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277396%23c2 -- ___ 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 2277396] perl-Business-ISBN-Data-20240426.001 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277396 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2024-44e5a0d5de (perl-Business-ISBN-Data-20240426.001-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-44e5a0d5de -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277396 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202277396%23c1 -- ___ 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 2277396] perl-Business-ISBN-Data-20240426.001 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277396 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC|jples...@redhat.com,| |ka...@ucw.cz, | |mspa...@redhat.com, | |p...@city-fan.org | Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277396 -- ___ 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
