Am 07.04.24 um 17:15 schrieb Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek:
Hi everyone,
I'm revisting the topic of rpmautospec because I was doing some work
on various packages, and it's annoying that some packages are using
rpmautospec and others are not.
All my packages have been converted, so in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2272408
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version||perl-PDL-2.87.0-1.fc41
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2272408
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #3 from
Not all commits correspond with a new release downstream, and not all
commit messages are relevant to the end user to be part of the change
log. For example, commits related with increasing gating test coverage
efforts, or setting up gating.yaml itself. Another example is linting
setting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2273785
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2273784
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Fixed In Version|
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> I'm revisting the topic of rpmautospec because I was doing some work
> on various packages, and it's annoying that some packages are using
> rpmautospec and others are not.
The fix for that inconsistency would be to ban rpmautospec. It just makes
everything
Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> I've noticed a trend in proposed changes in the way Fedora works.
I am fed up of this salami tactic as well. When we complain about the new
stuff, we invariably get told "don't worry, you don't have to use it, it's
all optional", but the plan is always to make it
I wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 7 2024 at 13:52:26 +00:00:00, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
>> Hmm, why? Oh, rpm uses cmake, and cmake has it's own special
>> detection of python, and it found /usr/bin/python3.13t that I have
>> installed, and subsequently it got all the paths wrong.
>
> That's why
On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 10:11:56PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 7, 2024 at 10:10 PM Fabio Valentini wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 7, 2024 at 7:06 PM Antonio T. sagitter
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all.
> > >
> > > Can this update be re-activated or i have to rebuild everything?
> > >
On Sun, Apr 7, 2024 at 10:10 PM Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 7, 2024 at 7:06 PM Antonio T. sagitter
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all.
> >
> > Can this update be re-activated or i have to rebuild everything?
> > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-c154b725ab
>
> I'm not sure
On Sun, Apr 7, 2024 at 7:06 PM Antonio T. sagitter
wrote:
>
> Hi all.
>
> Can this update be re-activated or i have to rebuild everything?
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-c154b725ab
I'm not sure how the update got into the "obsoleted" state without
being obsoleted by
On Sun Apr 7, 2024 at 15:15 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> I think it's time to switch to rpmautospec completely.
> Thus, the proposal:
> - new packages MUST use rpmautospec
> - packagers SHOULD convert their packages
> - provenpackagers MAY convert existing packages
> (e.g. when
On Sun, Apr 7, 2024 at 9:22 PM Leon Fauster via devel
wrote:
>
> Am 07.04.24 um 17:15 schrieb Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I'm revisting the topic of rpmautospec because I was doing some work
> > on various packages, and it's annoying that some packages are using
> >
Am 07.04.24 um 17:15 schrieb Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek:
Hi everyone,
I'm revisting the topic of rpmautospec because I was doing some work
on various packages, and it's annoying that some packages are using
rpmautospec and others are not.
All my packages have been converted, so in day-to-day
On Sun, Apr 7, 2024 at 5:48 PM Tom Hughes via devel
wrote:
>
> On 07/04/2024 16:15, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>
> > I think it's time to switch to rpmautospec completely.
> > Thus, the proposal:
> > - new packages MUST use rpmautospec
> > - packagers SHOULD convert their packages
> > -
Hi all.
Can this update be re-activated or i have to rebuild everything?
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-c154b725ab
Regards
--
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
mailto: sagit...@fedoraproject.org
GPG key: 0x40FDA7B70789A9CD
Hi all.
Can this update be re-activated or i have to rebuild everything?
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2024-c154b725ab
Regards
--
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
mailto: sagit...@fedoraproject.org
GPG key: 0x40FDA7B70789A9CD
On Sun, Apr 7, 2024 at 11:16 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm revisting the topic of rpmautospec because I was doing some work
> on various packages, and it's annoying that some packages are using
> rpmautospec and others are not.
>
> All my packages have been
On Sun, 2024-04-07 at 15:15 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm revisting the topic of rpmautospec because I was doing some work
> on various packages, and it's annoying that some packages are using
> rpmautospec and others are not.
>
> All my packages have been
* Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek [07/04/2024 15:56] :
>
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 05:47:57PM +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> >
> > This doesn't solve the problem you have so that's a no-go as well.
>
> In what way doesn't it solve the problem?
In your original post, you stated "When working with
That's why you should never build packages outside of mock.
Kevin Kofler
On Sun, Apr 7 2024 at 13:52:26 +00:00:00, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 10:15:47PM +, Zbigniew
Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
One particular issue I have with CMake as a downstream
On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 05:47:57PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 07. 04. 24 17:15, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I'm revisting the topic of rpmautospec because I was doing some work
> > on various packages, and it's annoying that some packages are using
> >
On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 05:47:57PM +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> * Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek [07/04/2024 15:35] :
> >
> > OK, so if there was an opt-out, [...]
>
> This doesn't solve the problem you have so that's a no-go as well.
In what way doesn't it solve the problem?
The problem was
On 07/04/2024 16:15, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
I think it's time to switch to rpmautospec completely.
Thus, the proposal:
- new packages MUST use rpmautospec
- packagers SHOULD convert their packages
- provenpackagers MAY convert existing packages
(e.g. when they want to push some
On 07. 04. 24 17:15, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'm revisting the topic of rpmautospec because I was doing some work
on various packages, and it's annoying that some packages are using
rpmautospec and others are not.
All my packages have been converted, so in day-to-day
* Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek [07/04/2024 15:35] :
>
> OK, so if there was an opt-out, [...]
This doesn't solve the problem you have so that's a no-go as well.
Emmanuel
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an
On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 03:30:01PM +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 7, 2024 at 3:23 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> >
> > Dne 07. 04. 24 v 5:15 odp. Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
> >
> > I think it's time to switch to rpmautospec completely.
> >
> > -1 from me.
> >
> > While I
On Sun, Apr 7, 2024 at 3:23 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> Dne 07. 04. 24 v 5:15 odp. Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
>
> I think it's time to switch to rpmautospec completely.
>
> -1 from me.
>
> While I enjoy simplicity of rpmautospec in some of my packages.
>
> I have bunch of packages
Dne 07. 04. 24 v 5:15 odp. Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
I think it's time to switch to rpmautospec completely.
-1 from me.
While I enjoy simplicity of rpmautospec in some of my packages.
I have bunch of packages where the spec is present also in upstream and the package is build
OLD: Fedora-40-20240406.n.0
NEW: Fedora-40-20240407.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 5
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of upgraded
Hi everyone,
I'm revisting the topic of rpmautospec because I was doing some work
on various packages, and it's annoying that some packages are using
rpmautospec and others are not.
All my packages have been converted, so in day-to-day work, I don't
even think about %changelog. When working with
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2273785
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #1 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2273778
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|jples...@redhat.com |p...@city-fan.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2273784
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #1 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2273785
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|jples...@redhat.com |p...@city-fan.org
On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 10:15:47PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> One particular issue I have with CMake as a downstream maintainer is
> it's often very hard to override linking or compilation options
> or when the project is using one of the cmake find scripts that gets
> something
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2273784
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Doc Type|---
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20240406.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20240407.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:3
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 1
Dropped packages:5
Upgraded packages: 40
Downgraded packages: 1
Size of added packages: 199.06 MiB
Size of dropped packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2273376
Emmanuel Seyman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version||perl-Data-Munge-0.101-1.fc4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2273397
Emmanuel Seyman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Fixed In Version|
41 matches
Mail list logo
