Re: F38 Proposal: SPDX License Phase 1 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Maxwell G via devel writes: > On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 10:06:44 AM CDT Miroslav Suchý wrote: >> > Do we need to %if-%else it in the spec file? I recall some discussion >> > about this on the legal list, but I see no >> > guidelines proposed here. >> >> If you maintain one spec for all

[Bug 2083048] Add perl-Sort-Naturally to EPEL9

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2083048 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version|

Re: SELinux problems with Fedora 36?

On 5/17/22 17:19, Adam Williamson wrote: On Tue, 2022-05-17 at 09:33 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote: I don't remember seeing any change proposals around SELinux for the Fedora 36 release but there seems to be several issues reported one way or another...

Need help with LTO running out of memory

libfabric 1.15.1 builds on x86_64 are failing because the final LTO link seems to consume all available memory: libtool: link: gcc -shared -fPIC -DPIC src/.libs/src_libfabric_la-fabric.o src/.libs/src_libfabric_la-fi_tostr.o src/.libs/src_libfabric_la-perf.o src/.libs/src_libfabric_la-log.o

[Bug 2074633] perl-bignum-0.65 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074633 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |ERRATA Fixed In

Re: F38 Proposal: SPDX License Phase 1 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 9:02:11 AM CDT Ben Cotton wrote: > == Summary == > Transition from Fedora's short name of licenses to standardized > [https://spdx.org/licenses/SPDXlicense] > [https://spdx.dev/specifications/formula]. I just noticed that both of these links are dead... -- Thanks,

Re: SELinux problems with Fedora 36?

On Tue, 2022-05-17 at 09:33 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote: > I don't remember seeing any change proposals around SELinux for the Fedora > 36 release but there seems to be several issues reported one way or > another... > >

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers

On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 02:12:12PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they > are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure > that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason: >

[EPEL-devel] Re: python-passlib for python38 module

On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 1:05:20 PM CDT Leon Fauster via epel-devel wrote: > PS: Is it only my impression or do others feel also the same. Starting > with EL8 the expenses just for the platform (distribution) gets more and > more attention in our daily work. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Re: F38 Proposal: SPDX License Phase 1 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 7:50 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > Does that make sense? Yes, and a great idea. That would definitely work well for me (as long as the spdx macro was backported to all the usual suspects). ___ devel mailing list --

Re: F38 Proposal: SPDX License Phase 1 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 17. 05. 22 17:06, Miroslav Suchý wrote: Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:59 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): Thanks for the explanation. Could this be explicitly written in the change proposal? Yes. I will amend the proposal with FAQ posted in this thread. Also, when you say "after F38 branching", does that

Re: F38 Proposal: SPDX License Phase 1 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 5/17/22 14:35, David Cantrell wrote: I think a better thing to do would be to use a scanner like scancode[1] to check the source tree in question and then construct a License expression for the spec file from its results. In many cases it will be the same as what we have in the spec file,

Re: F38 Proposal: SPDX License Phase 1 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 05:46:25PM +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 2:41 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel > wrote: > > > But I think this change also requires automatic conversion of all > > available SPECs, because manual conversion will take years. > > Automating where

[Bug 2087276] New: perl-XML-LibXSLT-2.002000 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2087276 Bug ID: 2087276 Summary: perl-XML-LibXSLT-2.002000 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-XML-LibXSLT Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

Re: F38 Proposal: SPDX License Phase 1 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 3:07 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > Do we need to %if-%else it in the spec file? I recall some discussion about > > this on the legal list, but I see no > > guidelines proposed here. > > If you maintain one spec for all branches then you will need %if-%else. And > yes, it

[EPEL-devel] Re: python-passlib for python38 module

Am 17.05.22 um 18:08 schrieb Maxwell G: On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 9:58:33 AM CDT Leon Fauster via epel-devel wrote: https://paste.centos.org/view/06187bdb adapts https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-passlib/blob/main/f/python-passlib.spec to build it locally (for the sake of progress I

Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2022-05-17)

=== #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2022-05-17) === Meeting started by mhroncok at 17:00:07 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2022-05-17/fesco_(2022-05-17).2022-05-17-17.00.log.html .

Re: F38 Proposal: SPDX License Phase 1 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 2:41 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > But I think this change also requires automatic conversion of all > available SPECs, because manual conversion will take years. Automating where possible (the existing license has a one-to-one mapping) is desirable, but

[Bug 2087216] perl-Math-BigInt-GMP-1.6011 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2087216 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value

Re: F38 Proposal: SPDX License Phase 1 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 17/05/2022 17:06, Miroslav Suchý wrote: No. Old branches i.e. f35, f36 and f37 will keep using the old short names. No change there. The same for epel9-. Then most maintainers will continue to use the old names. I want my Git history to be linear. -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev

[EPEL-devel] Re: python-passlib for python38 module

On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 9:58:33 AM CDT Leon Fauster via epel-devel wrote: > https://paste.centos.org/view/06187bdb > > adapts > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-passlib/blob/main/f/python-passlib.spec > > to build it locally (for the sake of progress I disabled the tests/nose >

Re: F37 proposal: Build all JDKs in Fedora against in-tree libraries and with static stdc++lib (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 09:13:32PM +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote: > Hello! > My apologies, I had accidentally dropped out of computer world for a while, > and here a world spins ahead! Thanx a lot for many valuable feedback! > see the clarifications of most concerns: This mail appears to have copied

Re: F38 Proposal: SPDX License Phase 1 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 10:06:44 AM CDT Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > Do we need to %if-%else it in the spec file? I recall some discussion about > > this on the legal list, but I see no > > guidelines proposed here. > > If you maintain one spec for all branches then you will need %if-%else. And

Re: F38 Proposal: SPDX License Phase 1 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Ignoring the question (for now) of whether SPDX identifiers will be allowed in f37 and older branches, can you clarify “after F38 branching”? If the Change is targeting F38, then it seems like SPDX identifiers should be allowed in Rawhide after what I think would generally be called “F37

Re: F38 Proposal: SPDX License Phase 1 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 10:21:39 AM CDT Miro Hrončok wrote: > That includes both MIT and BSD, right? > Yes. I believe LGPLv2(+) is also ambiguous, because SPDX differentiates between 2.0 and 2.1. There may be others. -- Thanks, Maxwell G (@gotmax23) Pronouns: He/Him/His signature.asc

[Bug 2087216] New: perl-Math-BigInt-GMP-1.6011 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2087216 Bug ID: 2087216 Summary: perl-Math-BigInt-GMP-1.6011 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-Math-BigInt-GMP Keywords: FutureFeature,

Re: F37 proposal: Build all JDKs in Fedora against in-tree libraries and with static stdc++lib (System-Wide Change proposal)

Once upon a time, Daniel P. Berrangé said: > At its heart the certification is a "sticker" that asserts our > JDK has passed the TCK test suite. IOW, saying that we don't need > certification of JDK is effectively saying that we don't need to do > testing of JDK in Fedora. Comprehensive testing

[EPEL-devel] Re: python-passlib for python38 module

On 17. 05. 22 16:58, Leon Fauster via epel-devel wrote: Am 17.05.22 um 14:57 schrieb Stephen Smoogen: On Tue, 17 May 2022 at 07:02, Josh Boyer > wrote:     On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 3:42 PM Leon Fauster via epel-devel     mailto:epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org>>

Re: F38 Proposal: SPDX License Phase 1 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:22 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 17. 05. 22 17:19, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:11 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > >> > >> Dne 17. 05. 22 v 17:01 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): > >>> > >>> Is this going to be part of phase 1? Could you please explicitly say

Re: SELinux problems with Fedora 36?

On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 3:34 PM Richard Shaw wrote: > > I don't remember seeing any change proposals around SELinux for the Fedora 36 > release but there seems to be several issues reported one way or another... > >

Non-responsive maintainer check: adeza - Alfredo Deza

Hi all, I tried to contact Alfredo by email using his RH's address, but got no answer from him nor a bounce from the server. It seems he has not been an employee since 2020. Checking with fedora_active_user: Last login in FAS: adeza 2019-12-16 ERROR:active-user:No such user: 'adeza' Opened

Re: F38 Proposal: SPDX License Phase 1 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:19 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 17. 05. 22 17:08, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:02 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > >> > >> On 17. 05. 22 16:52, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > >>> Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:18 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): > So, is it actually allowed to

Re: F38 Proposal: SPDX License Phase 1 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 17. 05. 22 17:19, Neal Gompa wrote: On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:11 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote: Dne 17. 05. 22 v 17:01 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): Is this going to be part of phase 1? Could you please explicitly say that in the change proposal? No, it is not part of phase 1. Sorry for the

Re: F38 Proposal: SPDX License Phase 1 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 17. 05. 22 17:06, Miroslav Suchý wrote: Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:59 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): Thanks for the explanation. Could this be explicitly written in the change proposal? Yes. I will amend the proposal with FAQ posted in this thread. Awesome! Also, when you say "after F38 branching",

Re: F37 proposal: Build all JDKs in Fedora against in-tree libraries and with static stdc++lib (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:09 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 04:20:56PM +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote: > > On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 02:11:03PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > > > First - our burden. We ahve to certify each binary. This is quite long > > > > and

Re: F38 Proposal: SPDX License Phase 1 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:11 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > Dne 17. 05. 22 v 17:01 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): > > > > Is this going to be part of phase 1? Could you please explicitly say that > > in the change proposal? > > No, it is not part of phase 1. Sorry for the confusion. I meant, yes we will

Re: F38 Proposal: SPDX License Phase 1 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 17. 05. 22 17:08, Neal Gompa wrote: On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:02 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: On 17. 05. 22 16:52, Miroslav Suchý wrote: Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:18 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): So, is it actually allowed to use SPDX identifiers when this phase is activated, or not? SPDX identifiers

Re: F37 proposal: Build all JDKs in Fedora against in-tree libraries and with static stdc++lib (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 5:09 PM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 04:20:56PM +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote: > > On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 02:11:03PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > > > First - our burden. We ahve to certify each binary. This is quite long > > > > and

[Bug 2087201] perl-Math-BigInt-FastCalc-0.5013 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2087201 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Fixed

Re: F38 Proposal: SPDX License Phase 1 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Dne 17. 05. 22 v 17:01 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): Is this going to be part of phase 1? Could you please explicitly say that in the change proposal? No, it is not part of phase 1. Sorry for the confusion. I meant, yes we will do the automatic conversion one day. But according to current plan,

Re: F37 proposal: Build all JDKs in Fedora against in-tree libraries and with static stdc++lib (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 04:20:56PM +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 02:11:03PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > > First - our burden. We ahve to certify each binary. This is quite long > > > and lenghty process. Onl once it is certified, we can release it (with > > >

Re: F38 Proposal: SPDX License Phase 1 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 11:02 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 17. 05. 22 16:52, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:18 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): > >> So, is it actually allowed to use SPDX identifiers when this phase is > >> activated, or not? > > > > SPDX identifiers will be allowed when

[Bug 2087137] perl-DBIx-Class-0.082843 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2087137 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value

Re: F38 Proposal: SPDX License Phase 1 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:59 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): Thanks for the explanation. Could this be explicitly written in the change proposal? Yes. I will amend the proposal with FAQ posted in this thread. Also, when you say "after F38 branching", does that mean it will not be allowed in f35, f36 and

Re: F38 Proposal: SPDX License Phase 1 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 17. 05. 22 16:52, Miroslav Suchý wrote: Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:18 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): So, is it actually allowed to use SPDX identifiers when this phase is activated, or not? SPDX identifiers will be allowed when all these conditions will be met: * Change approved by FESCO * after F38

[EPEL-devel] Re: python-passlib for python38 module

Am 17.05.22 um 14:57 schrieb Stephen Smoogen: On Tue, 17 May 2022 at 07:02, Josh Boyer > wrote: On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 3:42 PM Leon Fauster via epel-devel mailto:epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org>> wrote: > > Hi all, > > with the

Re: F38 Proposal: SPDX License Phase 1 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 17. 05. 22 16:54, Miroslav Suchý wrote: Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:38 Vitaly Zaitsev via devel napsal(a): But I think this change also requires automatic conversion of all available SPECs, because manual conversion will take years. We will do automatic conversion (openning PR) when the

Re: F38 Proposal: SPDX License Phase 1 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:38 Vitaly Zaitsev via devel napsal(a): But I think this change also requires automatic conversion of all available SPECs, because manual conversion will take years. We will do automatic conversion (openning PR) when the conversion can be done automatically. But there are

Re: F38 Proposal: SPDX License Phase 1 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Dne 17. 05. 22 v 16:18 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): So, is it actually allowed to use SPDX identifiers when this phase is activated, or not? SPDX identifiers will be allowed when all these conditions will be met: * Change approved by FESCO * after F38 branching * documentation with conversion

[Bug 2087201] New: perl-Math-BigInt-FastCalc-0.5013 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2087201 Bug ID: 2087201 Summary: perl-Math-BigInt-FastCalc-0.5013 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-Math-BigInt-FastCalc Keywords:

Re: F38 Proposal: SPDX License Phase 1 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 9:02:11 AM CDT Ben Cotton wrote: > In this phase, we want to provide documentation and tooling to allow > maintainers to begin using SPDX license ids instead of the old Fedora > short names. This move is opt-in. +1 for this change. I am not a fan of having to remember

[EPEL-devel] Re: python-passlib for python38 module

On Monday, May 16, 2022 2:41:57 PM CDT Leon Fauster via epel-devel wrote: > with the "upcoming" ansible-core migration, I wonder if its possible to > provide a python-passlib package (or stream) for the python38 > environment (ansible-core dependency). Yes, it's possible. You can create a

Re: F38 Proposal: SPDX License Phase 1 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 17/05/2022 16:02, Ben Cotton wrote: This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee. +1 for

Re: F37 proposal: Build all JDKs in Fedora against in-tree libraries and with static stdc++lib (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 17/05/2022 14:36, Stephen Smoogen wrote: I am going to ask you once to dial back your rhetoric. Calling people liars for having definitions of firmware and drivers isn't helpful to this conversation. I've never called people liars in this thread. Just said that the quoted statement isn't

Re: F37 proposal: Build all JDKs in Fedora against in-tree libraries and with static stdc++lib (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 02:11:03PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > First - our burden. We ahve to certify each binary. This is quite long > > and lenghty process. Onl once it is certified, we can release it (with > > small unwritten exception in rawhide) > > Just stop doing TCK

Re: F38 Proposal: SPDX License Phase 1 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 17. 05. 22 16:02, Ben Cotton wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if

F38 Proposal: SPDX License Phase 1 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved by the Fedora Engineering Steering

F38 Proposal: SPDX License Phase 1 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved by the Fedora Engineering Steering

Re: How much free space in /var is required for upgrades?

On 5/16/22 18:55, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 2:55 PM Dusty Mabe wrote: >> >> >> >> On 5/16/22 12:10, Chris Murphy wrote: >>> On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 3:20 PM przemek klosowski via devel >> >>> >>> Unfortunately, I believe that the current upgrade workflow requires a

Fedora-Rawhide-20220517.n.0 compose check report

Missing expected images: Minimal raw-xz armhfp Compose PASSES proposed Rawhide gating check! All required tests passed Failed openQA tests: 10/231 (x86_64), 20/161 (aarch64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20220516.n.0): ID: 1270135 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso

Re: F37 proposal: Build all JDKs in Fedora against in-tree libraries and with static stdc++lib (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 5/17/22 08:33, Stephen Smoogen wrote: > On Mon, 16 May 2022 at 23:18, Neal Gompa wrote: > >> On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 9:54 PM Andrew Hughes >> wrote: >>> >>> On 19:36 Tue 10 May , Florian Weimer wrote: * Vitaly Zaitsev via devel: > On 10/05/2022 15:29, Ben Cotton wrote: >>

Re: F37 proposal: Build all JDKs in Fedora against in-tree libraries and with static stdc++lib (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 8:33 AM Stephen Smoogen wrote: > > > > On Mon, 16 May 2022 at 23:18, Neal Gompa wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 9:54 PM Andrew Hughes wrote: >> > >> > On 19:36 Tue 10 May , Florian Weimer wrote: >> > > * Vitaly Zaitsev via devel: >> > > >> > > > On 10/05/2022

[EPEL-devel] Re: python-passlib for python38 module

On Tue, 17 May 2022 at 07:02, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 3:42 PM Leon Fauster via epel-devel > wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > with the "upcoming" ansible-core migration, I wonder if its possible to > > provide a python-passlib package (or stream) for the python38 > >

Re: F37 proposal: Build all JDKs in Fedora against in-tree libraries and with static stdc++lib (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 5/17/22 08:11, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: >> Quite a few packages are dleivered as blobs... Still. Be sure we are NOT >> going to do that > In additon there are many excludes in various binary >> drivers. > > Lie. Fedora doesn't have any binary drivers in repositories. All Fedora >

Re: F37 proposal: Build all JDKs in Fedora against in-tree libraries and with static stdc++lib (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Tue, 17 May 2022 at 08:11, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On 16/05/2022 21:13, Jiri Vanek wrote: > > > > Quite a few packages are dleivered as blobs... Still. Be sure we are NOT > going to do that > In additon there are many excludes in various binary >

Re: F37 proposal: Build all JDKs in Fedora against in-tree libraries and with static stdc++lib (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Mon, 16 May 2022 at 23:18, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 9:54 PM Andrew Hughes > wrote: > > > > On 19:36 Tue 10 May , Florian Weimer wrote: > > > * Vitaly Zaitsev via devel: > > > > > > > On 10/05/2022 15:29, Ben Cotton wrote: > > > Also, my sympathy for this argument is a

[Bug 2087137] New: perl-DBIx-Class-0.082843 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2087137 Bug ID: 2087137 Summary: perl-DBIx-Class-0.082843 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-DBIx-Class Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

Re: F37 proposal: Build all JDKs in Fedora against in-tree libraries and with static stdc++lib (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 16/05/2022 21:13, Jiri Vanek wrote: Not necessarily. In small project, sure, bundled libraries will get rotten, but project like OpenJDK, where 99% of its builds uses the in tree copies, can not allow itself to have security holes in them. Not true. Popular packages like freetype,

Re: F37 proposal: Build all JDKs in Fedora against in-tree libraries and with static stdc++lib (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 17/05/2022 05:08, Neal Gompa wrote: Even for C/C++ code, dependency managers exist. Notably Conan is quite popular. If we wanted to, we could map Conan dependencies to RPM packaged content. Btw, we now have a packaged version of vcpkg[1] on Fedora 35+. [1]:

[EPEL-devel] Re: python-passlib for python38 module

On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 3:42 PM Leon Fauster via epel-devel wrote: > > Hi all, > > with the "upcoming" ansible-core migration, I wonder if its possible to > provide a python-passlib package (or stream) for the python38 > environment (ansible-core dependency). > > The current status: > > # rpm -q

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20220517.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20220516.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20220517.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 1 Added packages: 3 Dropped packages:4 Upgraded packages: 74 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 1.65 MiB Size of dropped packages:1.03

Fedora-Cloud-34-20220517.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-34-20220516.0): ID: 1270052 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL:

[Test-Announce] Fedora 37 Rawhide 20220517.n.0 nightly compose nominated for testing

Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event for Fedora 37 Rawhide 20220517.n.0. Please help run some tests for this nightly compose if you have time. For more information on nightly release validation testing, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki