Re: F41 Change Proposal: Make OpenSSL distrust SHA-1 signatures by default (system-wide)

I wish this proposal included some examples of what might get broken and what will keep working. I guess I am not the only one who have very vague understanding what is difference between "signatures" and "hashing" or other purposes SHA1 can be used for. Vít Dne 08. 06. 24 v 0:43 Aoife

Re: Enabling RPM based sysuser handling

Dne 06. 06. 24 v 22:25 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): Hi, I think all the issues wrt. sysusers in systemd and setup have been resolved. On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 11:34:51AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 02:01:09PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: On

Re: RPM_* env variables vs macros

Dne 04. 06. 24 v 9:27 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Dne 04. 06. 24 v 8:11 Panu Matilainen napsal(a): On 6/3/24 17:18, Eike Rathke wrote: Hi Panu, On Monday, 2024-06-03 15:55:09 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: or better yet, ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}. Why better? In general, the RPM_* environment

RPM_* env variables vs macros

Dne 04. 06. 24 v 8:11 Panu Matilainen napsal(a): On 6/3/24 17:18, Eike Rathke wrote: Hi Panu, On Monday, 2024-06-03 15:55:09 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: or better yet, ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}. Why better? In general, the RPM_* environment variables available to build scriptlets are what

Re: Fedora Elections - Voting is now open!

Dne 22. 05. 24 v 16:28 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Dne 21. 05. 24 v 16:27 Sandro napsal(a): On 21-05-2024 16:22, Steven A. Falco wrote: On 5/21/24 10:17 AM, Sandro wrote: On 21-05-2024 15:47, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 21. 05. 24 v 15:45 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Dne 21. 05. 24 v 15:31 Steven

Re: Fedora Elections - Voting is now open!

Dne 21. 05. 24 v 16:27 Sandro napsal(a): On 21-05-2024 16:22, Steven A. Falco wrote: On 5/21/24 10:17 AM, Sandro wrote: On 21-05-2024 15:47, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 21. 05. 24 v 15:45 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Dne 21. 05. 24 v 15:31 Steven A. Falco napsal(a): I'm getting the "410 Gone&quo

Re: Fedora Elections - Voting is now open!

Dne 21. 05. 24 v 15:45 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Dne 21. 05. 24 v 15:31 Steven A. Falco napsal(a): I'm getting the "410 Gone" message, too. Tried multiple times since yesterday with no luck. Yes, this is the message. + ~~~ This resource is no longer available. No forwardi

Re: Fedora Elections - Voting is now open!

at 9:41 AM Sandro <mailto:li...@penguinpee.nl>> wrote:     On 21-05-2024 09:47, Vít Ondruch wrote: > And it does not work again     What issue / error are you experiencing?     It seems to work for others. Looking at the badges front page, the badge     has been awarded as rece

Re: Node.js 22.x coming to Rawhide/F41

It seems that it breaks at least two of my packages unfortunately: https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-ejs https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-execjs The former is using the latter, so the real issue is likely in the latter. I don't have cycles to investigate more

Re: Fedora Elections - Voting is now open!

And it does not work again Vít Dne 20. 05. 24 v 22:03 František Šumšal napsal(a): Can confirm that the badge link now works as expected, thank you! On 5/20/24 20:18, Aoife Moloney wrote: So the wiki page error has been fixed, thanks for letting me know! The badge error, I  have created

Re: rich deps result in packages being uninstalled from buildroot

Dne 17. 05. 24 v 7:16 Panu Matilainen napsal(a): On 5/16/24 16:10, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 16. 05. 24 v 14:28 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 01:14:16PM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote: Proper solution is actually minimazing content of the minimal build root Most

Re: rich deps result in packages being uninstalled from buildroot

Dne 16. 05. 24 v 14:28 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 01:14:16PM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote: Proper solution is actually minimazing content of the minimal build root Most of the packages in the buildroot are libraries, pulled in via dependencies. @buildsys-build

Re: LLVM Packaging Ideas for Fedora 41

Dne 15. 05. 24 v 12:10 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): On 15. 05. 24 10:08, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 14. 05. 24 v 18:35 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): On 14. 05. 24 16:02, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 13. 05. 24 v 20:23 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): On 13. 05. 24 15:38, Vít Ondruch wrote: And TBH, for me as a Fedora

Re: SPDX Statistics - Hulk edition

It is still not late to introduce e.g. `%callaway_licenses` macro and enclose the old licenses into such macro, to make it more obvious that those licenses were not converted yet. This should have been done from the start Vít Dne 13. 05. 24 v 23:41 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a): Dne 13.

Re: GIMP 3.0 in F41?

Dne 13. 05. 24 v 23:22 Nils Philippsen napsal(a): On Mon, 2024-05-13 at 14:58 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: Why would you push Gimp 3 into Fedora <= 40? Why wouldn’t I? It’s technically feasible without really jumping through hoops, and I don’t want to force users to upgrade the OS – or w

Re: LLVM Packaging Ideas for Fedora 41

Dne 14. 05. 24 v 18:35 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): On 14. 05. 24 16:02, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 13. 05. 24 v 20:23 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): On 13. 05. 24 15:38, Vít Ondruch wrote: And TBH, for me as a Fedora used with no special interest in Python, the current Python versioning sucks hard. How am

Re: LLVM Packaging Ideas for Fedora 41

Dne 13. 05. 24 v 20:23 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): On 13. 05. 24 15:38, Vít Ondruch wrote: And TBH, for me as a Fedora used with no special interest in Python, the current Python versioning sucks hard. How am I supposed to tell what is the current version just looking at e.g. the repository

Re: Mass Package Change: Turn deprecated %patchN syntax into %patch -PN

Dne 14. 05. 24 v 2:03 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a): On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 10:09 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 13. 05. 24 v 15:22 Panu Matilainen napsal(a): On 5/13/24 16:09, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 13. 05. 24 v 11:39 Florian Festi napsal(a): %patch otoh (now) is a regular (though internally

Re: Mass Package Change: Turn deprecated %patchN syntax into %patch -PN

Dne 14. 05. 24 v 11:26 Tim Landscheidt napsal(a): Vít Ondruch wrote: %patch otoh (now) is a regular (though internally implemented) macro that is expanded with other macros and though can be used in other macros and expressions. Do I read correctly that we can now use `%patch` in e.g

Re: Smaller buildroot for Perl packages

Dne 10. 05. 24 v 14:16 Petr Pisar napsal(a): V Fri, May 10, 2024 at 01:13:53PM +0200, Lumír Balhar napsal(a): I might have an idea how to make building Perl packages faster and their buildroot a little bit smaller. perl-devel depends on systemtap-sdt-devel and that package contains a single

Re: Mass Package Change: Turn deprecated %patchN syntax into %patch -PN

Dne 13. 05. 24 v 15:22 Panu Matilainen napsal(a): On 5/13/24 16:09, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 13. 05. 24 v 11:39 Florian Festi napsal(a): %patch otoh (now) is a regular (though internally implemented) macro that is expanded with other macros and though can be used in other macros

Re: LLVM Packaging Ideas for Fedora 41

Dne 13. 05. 24 v 15:28 Fabio Valentini napsal(a): On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 3:23 PM Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 27. 04. 24 v 6:58 Neal Gompa napsal(a): * Switch to python-style compat/main packages. In order to make the packaging more consistent between the main package (e.g. llvm

Re: LLVM Packaging Ideas for Fedora 41

Dne 13. 05. 24 v 15:23 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Dne 27. 04. 24 v 6:58 Neal Gompa napsal(a): * Switch to python-style compat/main packages. In order to make the packaging more consistent between the main package (e.g. llvm) and the compat package (e.g. llvm18), we would retire the un

Re: LLVM Packaging Ideas for Fedora 41

Dne 27. 04. 24 v 6:58 Neal Gompa napsal(a): * Switch to python-style compat/main packages. In order to make the packaging more consistent between the main package (e.g. llvm) and the compat package (e.g. llvm18), we would retire the un-versioned dist-git for llvm, and create a new versioned

Re: Mass Package Change: Turn deprecated %patchN syntax into %patch -PN

Dne 10. 05. 24 v 15:20 Florian Festi napsal(a): On 5/10/24 14:10, Vít Ondruch wrote: I'd actually prefer the `%patch 1` syntax (which is also the first on the list [1]). Yes, I understand that `%patch -P1` is to stay on the safe side, but this is Fedora change, not RHEL or EPEL change

Re: Mass Package Change: Turn deprecated %patchN syntax into %patch -PN

Dne 13. 05. 24 v 11:39 Florian Festi napsal(a): %patch otoh (now) is a regular (though internally implemented) macro that is expanded with other macros and though can be used in other macros and expressions. Do I read correctly that we can now use `%patch` in e.g. `%check` section?

Re: GIMP 3.0 in F41?

Dne 13. 05. 24 v 13:24 Nils Philippsen napsal(a): Hi everyone, On Mon, 2024-05-13 at 11:49 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote: On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto wrote: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3 What

Re: Mass Package Change: Turn deprecated %patchN syntax into %patch -PN

I'd actually prefer the `%patch 1` syntax (which is also the first on the list [1]). Yes, I understand that `%patch -P1` is to stay on the safe side, but this is Fedora change, not RHEL or EPEL change. But if you insist on `-P1`, then please skip all packages I am associated with. I'd prefer

Re: F41 Change Proposal - Reproducible Package Builds (System-Wide)

Dne 15. 04. 24 v 11:10 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a): Dne 13. 04. 24 v 1:16 odp. Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): The proposal explicitly states that we don't want Perl in all buildroots. How many seconds we save by NOT pulling Perl? Per each build? In total for whole release cycle? I

Re: F41 Change Proposal - Reproducible Package Builds (System-Wide)

Dne 13. 04. 24 v 21:04 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 01:38:49PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 01:41:59PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 1:18 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: Yes. But actually I

Re: Updating Taskwarrior to v3

Our guidelines suggest that the "main" package should be unversioned, while if needed, the "compat" packages should include version: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#multiple So if you want to introduce new package, then please introduce `task2` and update the

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

Dne 09. 04. 24 v 19:06 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 12:57:33PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 12:56 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 09:41:01AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 08. 04. 24 v 10:43 Zbigniew

Re: "fedpkg local" builds fail for rust packages

Dne 09. 04. 24 v 14:15 Fabio Valentini napsal(a): On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 1:19 PM Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 08. 04. 24 v 12:32 Neal Gompa napsal(a): Packaged Rust crates work *fine* for local development as long as you are willing to cut yourself off from crates.io. Unlike *every other language

Re: "fedpkg local" builds fail for rust packages

Dne 08. 04. 24 v 12:32 Neal Gompa napsal(a): On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 6:17 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 03:33:35PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 9:51 AM Michael J Gruber wrote: So you're saying that those packages are in the repos for everyone

Re: convert everything to rpmautospec?

Dne 08. 04. 24 v 10:43 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): And we already have a significant fraction of packages using rpmautospec, Actually, could you quantify the "significant fraction"? Thx Vít OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature --

Re: F42 Change Proposal: Fedora Plasma Workstation (System-Wide)

Dne 04. 04. 24 v 17:32 Kevin Kofler via devel napsal(a): Neal Gompa wrote: By default, GNOME only presents the close window button. The other buttons are missing, and there isn't really an intuitive way to discover the other window management actions. I agree that there are no other

Re: F42 Change Proposal: Fedora Plasma Workstation (System-Wide)

Dne 04. 04. 24 v 0:44 Kevin Kofler via devel napsal(a): Leon Fauster via devel wrote: I already had RHL installed on a Sun IPX with Gnome, so I'm biased. Interesting that you were not put off by the changes that have happened to GNOME since the old RHL days. I tried GNOME 1 at one point long

Re: Three steps we could take to make supply chain attacks a bit harder

Dne 30. 03. 24 v 18:26 Artem S. Tashkinov via devel napsal(a): Hi, It was sheer luck that the exploit was discovered and major distros haven't yet included it in their stable releases. It's quite possible and plausible it could have reached RHEL, Debian, Ubuntu, SLES and other distros and

Re: Three steps we could take to make supply chain attacks a bit harder

Dne 30. 03. 24 v 22:14 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 08:00:29PM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: I think there's some useful points here, but this would need to be qualified and/or made more flexible to be applied. For

Re: [SPDX] Mass license change: Intro and change of "Bitstream Vera" to "Bitstream-Vera"

Dne 27. 03. 24 v 7:40 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a): Dne 26. 03. 24 v 6:00 odp. Artur Frenszek-Iwicki napsal(a): If we're going to introduce any kind of (semi-)automatic conversion of existing license tags, I think it'd be good to make "convert «and» and «or» to upper-case" part of the process.

Re: F41 Change Proposal: Switch to DNF 5 (System-Wide)

Dne 26. 03. 24 v 8:02 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 06:39:35AM +0100, Jan Kolarik wrote: Previously, I had issues that migration from DNF4 to DNF5 left a lot of data in /var/cache. How is this going to be addressed? I don't think it is fair to leave those

Re: F41 Change Proposal: Switch to DNF 5 (System-Wide)

Dne 25. 03. 24 v 16:46 Aoife Moloney napsal(a): === Reduced footprint === The dnf5 package is a fully-featured package manager that doesn't require Python dependencies. It also reduces the number of software management tools in Fedora by replacing both the dnf and microdnf packages. The

Re: Review swap

Isn't the wasi-sdk just umbrella project? Is it really needed? We have llvm / clang, we have wasi-libc, what else do you need? Vít Dne 06. 03. 24 v 11:08 Jan Horak napsal(a): Hi, if anyone is willing to make a review for wasi-sdk - build require for the Firefox rlbox sandboxing of the used

Re: Update gumbo-parser to 0.12.1/libgumbo SONAME bump

Dne 01. 03. 24 v 19:58 Adam Williamson napsal(a): On Fri, 2024-03-01 at 09:34 +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote: Am Fr., 1. März 2024 um 07:55 Uhr schrieb Ralf Corsépius : Hi, I intend to update gumbo-parser to 0.12.1 in rawhide. This comes along with an soname bump libgumbo to libgumbo.so.2

Re: libxslxwriter (misspelled package) in zombie state

Dne 03. 03. 24 v 10:55 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): On 02. 03. 24 23:28, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Sat, Mar 02, 2024 at 10:16:02PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 02. 03. 24 11:31, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 10:00:20AM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at

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

Dne 25. 02. 24 v 18:02 Ralf Corsépius napsal(a): Am 24.02.24 um 10:12 schrieb Samuel Sieb: On 2/24/24 00:47, Ralf Corsépius wrote: Am 24.02.24 um 01:36 schrieb Samuel Sieb: On 2/23/24 15:38, Sérgio Basto wrote: On Sat, 2024-02-24 at 00:06 +0100, Ralf Corsépius wrote: Am 23.02.24 um

Re: mock: ImportError: /lib64/libdnf.so.2: undefined symbol: g_once_init_enter_pointer

Dne 21. 02. 24 v 18:38 Jun Aruga (he / him) napsal(a): On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 6:09 PM Stephen Smoogen wrote: On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 at 12:05, Miroslav Suchý wrote: Dne 21. 02. 24 v 17:38 Jun Aruga (he / him) napsal(a): $ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --shell

Re: Help with creating first PR for a package

Dne 20. 02. 24 v 9:21 Loren M. Lang napsal(a): On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 06:08:53AM -0300, Priscila Gutierres wrote: I created this post based on my own experience: https://dev.to/prinewgirl/a-recipe-made-to-create-your-first-pr-for-the-fedora-project-21be Hope it helps. Thanks, with these and

Re: The semiannual "Transaction failed: Signature verification failed." exercise

Dne 16. 02. 24 v 18:27 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 09:46:05AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: Other solution could be if Rawhide lived in rawhide repos instead of f41. I'm not sure I follow... rawhide is in a rawhide repo? pub/fedora/linux/development/rawhide/ I stand

Re: The semiannual "Transaction failed: Signature verification failed." exercise

Dne 16. 02. 24 v 3:03 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 07:57:37PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: It's this time of the year again: ... Could we please do something so that this doesn't happen? Dunno, generate and distribute the keys earlier so that mock and

Re: dnf-4.19.0 without filelists in Rawhide soon

/usr/bin/BINARYNAME is part of the primary metadata AFAIK Vít Dne 14. 02. 24 v 10:49 Jan Kolarik napsal(a): Hi Marcin, > So no more "dnf install /usr/bin/BINARYNAME" in default setup? In the case where a file path argument is provided to dnf, it will automatically attempt to download the

Orphaning rubygem-rest-client

Hi, I have orphaned rubygem-rest-client. It used to be dependency of Vagrant up until version 2.2.11. Nothing depends on it now, therefore I orphaned the package. There are not know issues with the package (except flaky test suite) and the upstream is a bit stalled. Vít

Re: sd_notify in mock

Ping? Anybody? Vít Dne 11. 01. 24 v 15:00 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Working on update of rubygem-puma, I observe following test failure trying build rubygem-rails in Mock: ~~~ /usr/share/ruby/socket.rb:68:in `connect': Errno::EACCES: Permission denied - connect(2) for /run/host/notify

Re: just to let you know FESCo agreed to a preliminary injunction while we consider this issue

Dne 31. 01. 24 v 14:44 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 08:45:37AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: One additional point I forgot to address: the initial concern was that the KDE SIG would be implicitly responsible for maintaining these packages if they are

Re: Fedora Linux 37 is EOL

-run the autoclose script. Thanks! Aoife On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 8:22 PM Sandro wrote: On 15-01-2024 09:52, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Any update? This ticket is still open: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235331 I believe the script is chugging along.

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides

Dne 23. 01. 24 v 8:58 Mattia Verga via devel napsal(a): Il 22/01/24 19:07, Stephen Gallagher ha scritto: tl;dr: Buildroot overrides should be restricted to releng members and packagers should use on-demand side-tags instead. I'm fully in agreement with such proposal. Do note however that

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers

Dne 17. 01. 24 v 12:45 Priscila Gutierres napsal(a): Hello James, I started some months ago as a maintainer and I have been learning since then. One important thing I've learned is to ask if  "this package should be kept or should it be retired?" Good hint is typically in dist-git Pagure,

sd_notify in mock

Working on update of rubygem-puma, I observe following test failure trying build rubygem-rails in Mock: ~~~ /usr/share/ruby/socket.rb:68:in `connect': Errno::EACCES: Permission denied - connect(2) for /run/host/notify (Puma::SdNotify::NotifyError)     from /usr/share/ruby/socket.rb:68:in

Re: Fedora Linux 37 is EOL

Dne 08. 01. 24 v 13:00 Sandro napsal(a): On 05-12-2023 18:45, Tomas Hrcka wrote: Fedora Linux 37 has gone end of life for updates and support on 2023-12-05. No more updates of any kind, including security updates or security announcements, will be available for Fedora Linux 37 after the said

Re: Package GNU Hello build errors

Just FTR, there is attachment with logs. I have not noticed it on the first look, but Leigh did :) Vít Dne 07. 01. 24 v 1:41 Alexander Ploumistos napsal(a): Hello Patrick, What was the command you issued? Were there any errors before the excerpt you've posted? Does your user belong to the

Re: CMake's check-compiles fails to parse WITH_GZFILEOP

Dne 05. 01. 24 v 11:10 Milan Crha napsal(a): Hi, On Fri, 2024-01-05 at 10:35 +0100, Honza Horak wrote: Not sure whether it's a regression in zlib-ng or something to be changed in evolution-data-server though Neither do I. The eds check uses information from pkg-config output for

Re: CMake's check-compiles fails to parse WITH_GZFILEOP

zlib-devel-1.2.13-4.fc39.x86_64 vs zlib-ng-compat-devel-2.1.5-1.fc40.x86_64 Just guessing. I might be completely wrong. Vít Dne 05. 01. 24 v 9:59 Milan Crha napsal(a): Hi, this is new to me. I'm trying to build evolution-data-server in a side tag for rawhide and the build [1] fails

Re: F40 Change Proposal: Ruby 3.3 (System-Wide)

in Fedora 40, Fedora becomes the superior Ruby development platform. == Owner == * Name: [[User:vondruch| Vít Ondruch]] * Email: vondr...@redhat.com * Name: [[User:mtasaka| Mamoru Tasaka]] * Email: mtas...@fedoraproject.org == Detailed Description == Ruby 3.3 is upstream's new major release

Re: F40 Change Proposal: Optimized Binaries for the AMD64 Architecture (System-Wide)

parallel installability without configuring dnf and possibly make it more convenient for cross-platform development. On 2. 1. 2024 16:23, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 02. 01. 24 v 13:42 Stephen Smoogen napsal(a): On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 at 06:21, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 28. 12. 23 v 17:12 Aoife

Re: F40 Change Proposal: Optimized Binaries for the AMD64 Architecture (System-Wide)

Dne 02. 01. 24 v 13:42 Stephen Smoogen napsal(a): On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 at 06:21, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 28. 12. 23 v 17:12 Aoife Moloney napsal(a): The dynamic linker already has the `glibc-hwcaps` mechanism to load optimized implementations of ''shared objects'' [3]. This means

Re: F40 Change Proposal: Optimized Binaries for the AMD64 Architecture (System-Wide)

Dne 28. 12. 23 v 17:12 Aoife Moloney napsal(a): The dynamic linker already has the `glibc-hwcaps` mechanism to load optimized implementations of ''shared objects'' [3]. This means that packages can provide optimized libraries and they linker will be automatically load them from separate

Re: F40 Change Proposal: F40 Change Proposal: Unify /usr/bin and /usr/sbin (System-Wide)

Dne 21. 12. 23 v 10:20 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Dne 20. 12. 23 v 20:53 Aoife Moloney napsal(a): ** Adjust `%_sbindir` in `/usr/lib/rpm/macros` (part of `rpm` package). Packages will be updated automatically during the mass rebuild. Isn't the ultimate goal to drop the `%_sbindir` all

Re: F40 Change Proposal: F40 Change Proposal: Unify /usr/bin and /usr/sbin (System-Wide)

Dne 20. 12. 23 v 20:53 Aoife Moloney napsal(a): ** Adjust `%_sbindir` in `/usr/lib/rpm/macros` (part of `rpm` package). Packages will be updated automatically during the mass rebuild. Isn't the ultimate goal to drop the `%_sbindir` all together? Shouldn't at minimum the packaging guidelines

Re: Intention to update httpcomponents-core and httpcomponents-client to major version 5

I don't think you need review for versioned packages: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/#_package_review_process Unless you really want, of course. Vít Dne 13. 12. 23 v 14:29 Marián Konček napsal(a): I will provide compat packages of version 4.

Orphaning rubygem-rails-deprecated_sanitizer

Hi all, This was broken by recent rubygem-rails-html-sanitizer update. The fix would be probably easy, but while this used to be needed by rubygem-rails-dom-testing (and Rails in general), it is not needed anymore. I am not even sure if upstream would care to fix this, because well, the name

Re: Proven to be sickened

Dne 05. 12. 23 v 5:56 Jason Tibbitts napsal(a): Kevin Kofler via devel writes: My pet peeve is provenpackagers or comaintainers who add unwanted automagic (autorelease, autosetup, autochangelog) to my packages. That really shouldn't be happening for anything which wasn't officially made

Re: Update on the Modern C initiative

Dne 02. 12. 23 v 17:42 Florian Weimer napsal(a): * Vít Ondruch: Dne 01. 12. 23 v 11:40 Milan Crha napsal(a): On Thu, 2023-11-30 at 18:09 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: Again, some of these are false positives. Hi, I think the errors from the configure time of the script

Re: Update on the Modern C initiative

Dne 01. 12. 23 v 11:40 Milan Crha napsal(a): On Thu, 2023-11-30 at 18:09 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: Again, some of these are false positives. Hi, I think the errors from the configure time of the script are not always problems, are they? This probably falls into the configuration

Re: Update on the Modern C initiative

Dne 30. 11. 23 v 18:09 Florian Weimer napsal(a): This message is realted to: The final patches for GCC 14 are currently under upstream review and should land very soon.

Re: DNF5: Checking signatures of packages installed out of a repository?

Dne 20. 11. 23 v 16:40 Neal Gompa napsal(a): On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 5:02 PM Leon Fauster via devel wrote: Am 14.11.23 um 22:04 schrieb Christopher: On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 9:30 AM Michael Catanzaro wrote: On Tue, Nov 14 2023 at 08:16:39 AM -0500, Christopher wrote: I think for the sake

Re: DNF5: Checking signatures of packages installed out of a repository?

Not saying I am going to request Fedora to benefit from this, but since you have mentioned such feature, it would be super useful, if you also linked to an appropriate documentation. Vít Dne 14. 11. 23 v 14:12 Jaroslav Mracek napsal(a): I would like to highlight a cool feature of DNF5 -

Re: DNF5: Checking signatures of packages installed out of a repository?

Dne 31. 10. 23 v 16:23 Petr Pisar napsal(a): Hello, DNF5 got a complaint that "dnf update https://...; skips verifying package signatures: $ sudo dnf update

Re: Execute RPM dependency generators on the .spec file which ships them

: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/pull-request/159 Vít Dne 16. 10. 23 v 16:39 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Dne 16. 10. 23 v 16:35 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a): Dne 16. 10. 23 v 16:16 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Can somebody help me please with a package review? The package can't be simpler. https

Re: Execute RPM dependency generators on the .spec file which ships them

Dne 16. 10. 23 v 16:35 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a): Dne 16. 10. 23 v 16:16 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Can somebody help me please with a package review? The package can't be simpler. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2244428 Thx in advance Done. You are welcome. Thx a lot

Re: Execute RPM dependency generators on the .spec file which ships them

Can somebody help me please with a package review? The package can't be simpler. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2244428 Thx in advance Vít Dne 06. 10. 23 v 18:06 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): I am still playing with idea of executing RPM dependency generators on the .spec

Re: Execute RPM dependency generators on the .spec file which ships them

herefore we could not benefit from it without changing the macros. Vít Dne 06. 10. 23 v 18:06 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): I am still playing with idea of executing RPM dependency generators on the .spec file which ships them. I have created RPM RFE ticket quite a while ago here: https://git

Re: Execute RPM dependency generators on the .spec file which ships them

Dne 09. 10. 23 v 9:21 Petr Pisar napsal(a): V Fri, Oct 06, 2023 at 06:06:14PM +0200, Vít Ondruch napsal(a): I am still playing with idea of executing RPM dependency generators on the .spec file which ships them. I have created RPM RFE ticket quite a while ago here: https://github.com/rpm

Execute RPM dependency generators on the .spec file which ships them

I am still playing with idea of executing RPM dependency generators on the .spec file which ships them. I have created RPM RFE ticket quite a while ago here: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/782 So for no luck with having this implemented. However, I think there is

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Allow Removal of tzdata (System-Wide)

Dne 22. 09. 23 v 16:01 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 10:43:05AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233281#c3 This probably answers my question. So heads up to others. Dne 22. 09. 23 v 10:39 Vít Ondruch napsal

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Allow Removal of tzdata (System-Wide)

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233281#c3 This probably answers my question. So heads up to others. Vít Dne 22. 09. 23 v 10:39 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Was this implemented in past days? I am asking because this FTBFS suggest so: https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Allow Removal of tzdata (System-Wide)

Was this implemented in past days? I am asking because this FTBFS suggest so: https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-timecop?collection=f40 Vít Dne 26. 06. 23 v 17:54 Aoife Moloney napsal(a): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/AllowRemovalOfTzdata This document represents a

Re: Automate your Fedora package maintenance using Packit

I was proposing some methods how to enable download of sources for e.g. CI purposes here: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1132#comment-769233 But without too much success. But of course, CI could also be improved to download the required sources, if there is proper source URL.

Re: The new Change discussion process is painful

Dne 14. 09. 23 v 11:15 Emmanuel Seyman napsal(a): * Vít Ondruch [14/09/2023 10:50] : Apart from documentation, where this was announced? On Discourse? Because I don't remember any email about this change. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message

Re: The new Change discussion process is painful

Dne 13. 09. 23 v 20:22 Stephen Smoogen napsal(a): On Wed, 13 Sept 2023 at 14:14, Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2023-09-13 at 20:07 +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: > > From there, it's up to people where they see and respond to them. > >

Re: The new Change discussion process is painful

If I was subscribed to some categories without doing anything, e.g. "Package Reviews Swaps" (why I cannot copy the string from UI , this is precisely the annoyance with web applications), why I have not been subscribed to "Change proposals"? Vít Dne 13. 09. 23 v 19:40 Matthew Miller

Re: The new Change discussion process is painful

Dne 13. 09. 23 v 9:08 Remi Collet napsal(a): Le 13/09/2023 à 08:09, Adam Williamson a écrit : On Wed, 2023-09-13 at 05:51 +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: Hi, it is really a pain that the Change discussion is now hidden in a web forum behind a web link, instead of happening right here

Re: checksec: Problem: conflicting requests in s390x

Dne 08. 09. 23 v 19:02 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a): On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 12:51 PM Jun Aruga (he / him) wrote: On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 6:06 PM Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: On Fri, 2023-09-08 at 17:53 +0200, Jun Aruga wrote: I am running the scratch build for rpms/ruby [1] rawhide branch right

Re: Bootstrapping package with circular dependencies in koji

Getting back to this thread, because the good news is that things have improved and there is now easier way to bootstrap packages in Koji using side-tags: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Update_Guide/#_using_macros_in_a_side_tag and `%_with_bootstrap` macro.

Orphaning rubygem-pr_geohash

I have oprhaned rubygem-pr_geohash. This package is currently FTBFS, broken by update of rubygem-minitest 5.19. The fix would be likely trivial. However, this was packaged as a dependency of rubygem-sunspot, which never got into Fedora after all (rhbz#721061), so it is finally time to let this

Re: Adding Passim as a Fedora 40 feature?

Dne 28. 08. 23 v 21:52 Richard Hughes napsal(a): On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 at 15:53, Vít Ondruch wrote: Sorry, I am probably missing something, but how this would help my computer (or three I have at home)? One computer downloads the 2MB from the CDN and the other two download it from the first

Re: F40 Change Proposal: SQLAlchemy 2

ssion at Change Proposals - Fedora Discussion" So a summary might be sufficient to attract interested readers to the discussion? best regards On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 9:52 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: Thank you for sharing this. However, I wonder why is just the summary shared? Vít Dne 24. 08.

Re: F40 Change Proposal: SQLAlchemy 2

Thank you for sharing this. However, I wonder why is just the summary shared? Vít Dne 24. 08. 23 v 11:46 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): == Summary == The python-sqlalchemy package is upgraded to major version 2. A compatibility package python-sqlalchemy1.4 is added to the

Re: Adding Passim as a Fedora 40 feature?

Sorry, I am probably missing something, but how this would help my computer (or three I have at home)? Why should I have anything like this installed on my computer(s)? Why they should talk "secretly" to each other? And why there is need to download ~2 MB of data every day? My laptop has just

Re: SPDX Statistics - Voyager 2 edition

Dne 22. 08. 23 v 15:07 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Dne 22. 08. 23 v 13:21 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a): |2) r||ust-btrd: License: ||GPL-2.0| This is not on SPDX list, it should be either |GPL-2.0-only or ||GPL-2.0-or-later| This is not on SPDX list *anymore*. It used to be valid identifier

Re: SPDX Statistics - Voyager 2 edition

Dne 22. 08. 23 v 13:21 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a): |2) r||ust-btrd: License: ||GPL-2.0| This is not on SPDX list, it should be either |GPL-2.0-only or ||GPL-2.0-or-later| This is not on SPDX list *anymore*. It used to be valid identifier not long ago. I am afraid that this identifies

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >