Re: Heads Up: OpenEXR / Imath 3.1 update

2021-08-20 Thread Richard Shaw 
OpenEXR and Imath builds are complete and dependencies are now being
rebuilt, all in a side tag.

Thanks,
Richard
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Any recent changes to the arm builders?

2021-08-20 Thread Neal Gompa 
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 12:45 AM Florian Weimer  wrote:
>
> * Neal Gompa:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 8:59 AM Dennis Gilmore  wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 3:11 PM Florian Weimer  wrote:
> >> >
> >> > * Dennis Gilmore:
> >> >
> >> > > We intentionally never looked at enabling that and always had no plans
> >> > > to support multi-lib on Arm
> >> >
> >> > It's not multilib.  Buildroots aren't multilib.
> >> >
> >> > I'm pretty sure no one but Fedora is building 32-bit Arm binaries on
> >> > 32-bit Arm kernels.  It's very much a dead end.
> >> >
> >> > Debian uses 64-bit kernels:
> >> >
> >> > | Package: glibc
> >> > | Version: 2.31-16
> >> > | Source Version: 2.31-16
> >> > | Distribution: sid
> >> > | Machine Architecture: arm64
> >> > | Host Architecture: armhf
> >> > | Build Architecture: armhf
> >> > | Build Type: any
> >>
> >> There is some magic that's needed for multi-lib that will be needed
> >> for the AArch64 host's rpm to install the rpms into a 32bit chroot.
> >
> > There is no "magic" other than qemu-user-static needing to be
> > installed. Mock will transparently handle everything just fine. It's
> > how I build foreign architecture packages on my computer.
>
> No, the code would run natively, without QEMU, like i686 on an x86-64
> kernel.  There is no emulation.

That depends on the CPU. As Dennis and Peter like to remind me,
armv7hl backwards compatibility is *optional* in AArch64 CPUs (which
was really a stupid idea, but whatever). There are several AArch64
CPUs that lack it. Maybe we're lucky and ours have it like the RPi CPU
does, but not all do. My AMD Opteron A1000 board doesn't, for example.


-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Test-Announce] 2021-08-23 @ 15:00 UTC - Fedora QA Meeting

2021-08-20 Thread Adam Williamson 
# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting
# Date: 2021-08-23
# Time: 15:00 UTC
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto)
# Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.libera.chat

Greetings testers!

We didn't meet for a few weeks, so let's get together and check
in. I don't have much specific for the agenda.

If anyone has any other items for the agenda, please reply to this
email and suggest them! Thanks.

== Proposed Agenda Topics ==

1. Previous meeting follow-up
2. Fedora 35 status and Change check-in
3. Test Day / community event status
4. Open floor
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA
IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha
https://www.happyassassin.net

___
test-announce mailing list -- test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Blender failure to build on all repos

2021-08-20 Thread Luya Tshimbalanga 
Thank you for pointer. After applying a patch made by a co-maintainer, another 
issue occurred at that line:

/usr/include/pxr/usd/usdShade/output.h:303:10: note:   candidate expects 1 
argument, 2 provided
/usr/include/pxr/usd/usdShade/output.h:310:10: note: candidate: 'bool 
pxrInternal_v0_21__pxrReserved__::UsdShadeOutput::ConnectToSource(const 
pxrInternal_v0_21__pxrReserved__::UsdShadeOutput&) const'
  310 | bool ConnectToSource(UsdShadeOutput const &sourceOutput) const;
  |  ^~~
/usr/include/pxr/usd/usdShade/output.h:310:10: note:   candidate expects 1 
argument, 2 provided
gmake[2]: *** [source/blender/io/usd/CMakeFiles/bf_usd.dir/build.make:107: 
source/blender/io/usd/CMakeFiles/bf_usd.dir/intern/usd_writer_abstract.cc.o] 
Error 1
gmake[2]: Leaving directory 
'/builddir/build/BUILD/blender-2.93.3/redhat-linux-build'

The source build is on 
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/luya/blender-egl/build/2531231/ 
including the patch. Unfortunately, the issue is outside my scope.

Luya Tshimbalanga
Fedora Design Suite maintainer
Fedora Design Team
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: New maintainer experience

2021-08-20 Thread Kalev Lember 


On 8/20/21 9:32 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:

On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 11:03:27PM +0200, Iago Rubio wrote:

Right now, I was aiming for rarian.

It was orphaned a week ago, but the packager dashboard shows many
dependencies that will be in trouble in a month:

  - dia
  - etherape
  - gconf-editor
  - glade2
  - gnome-search-tool
  - gnome-translate
  - grhino
  - gtk-v4l
  - mail-notification
  - pioneers
  - qalculate-gtk
  - stardict
  - ucview
  - viking
  - xiphos
  - xiphos

There is an email by Mukundan Ragavan on the list stating it was going
to be orphaned because notning depends on it on rawhide.

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/MLIT6EJ4RIWJKW34E7BVGUQMC2AP4QFK/

He used this repoquery to check it out:

# dnf repoquery --releasever rawhide --whatrequires librarian\*
Last metadata expiration check: 0:02:50 ago on Wed 11 Aug 2021 06:03:30
PM EDT.
rarian-compat-0:0.8.1-27.fc34.x86_64
rarian-devel-0:0.8.1-27.fc34.i686
rarian-devel-0:0.8.1-27.fc34.x86_64

But my results for the "rairian" package differ:

[iago@rawhide]$ dnf repoquery --releasever rawhide --whatrequires
"rarian*"
Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:26 ago on Thu 19 Aug 2021 10:34:56
PM CEST.
alleyoop-0:0.9.8-18.fc35.x86_64
etherape-0:0.9.18-8.fc35.x86_64
gnome-translate-0:0.99-39.fc35.x86_64
grhino-0:0.16.1-13.fc35.x86_64
mail-notification-0:5.4-100.git.9ae8768.fc35.x86_64
pioneers-0:15.6-3.fc35.x86_64
rarian-compat-0:0.8.1-27.fc34.x86_64
rarian-devel-0:0.8.1-27.fc34.i686
rarian-devel-0:0.8.1-27.fc34.x86_64
ucview-0:0.33-21.fc35.i686
ucview-0:0.33-21.fc35.x86_64

It seems most packages requires rarian-compat as - I guess - most used
it as a replacement for scrollkeeper.

alleyoop  -> rarian-compat -> rarian
etherape  -> rarian-compat -> rarian
gnome-translate   -> rarian-compat -> rarian
grhino-> rarian-compat -> rarian
mail-notification -> rarian-compat -> rarian
pioneers  -> rarian-compat -> rarian
ucview-> rarian-compat -> rarian

The other problem stated by Mukundan was: "Last upstream release was in
2008 and this is currently FTBFS on rawhide/F35".

Indeed the package doesn't build, but it's a combination of ancient
autotools & libtool and rpath rpm checks failing.

I got it building on rawhide by fiddling with the sources and now I can
get a working rpm.

I have to put all the commands and patches on the spec file, but it
don't looks like it's going to be a huge problem.

Most Makefile.am files need to be touch, but the changes are minimal.

Should I go fot it or I'd rather search for other package on the wish
list ?


That sounds fine to me to revive it. You might mail Mukundan directly
about it. He may be willing to sponsor you and help out...


I would offer a different opinion here.

I am not sure it's worth keeping rarian alive at this point: any app
that's maintained upstream has by now been migrated away from
scrollkeeper (rarian-compat) and I think removing rarian from the distro
would be a good nudge to remove all the rest of the obsolete packages
that still depend on it.

It's awesome that you are looking for ways to work on Fedora, but I
would rather let rarian go at this point.

--
Kalev
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: New maintainer experience

2021-08-20 Thread Kevin Fenzi 
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 11:03:27PM +0200, Iago Rubio wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-08-18 at 08:56 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 08:15:36PM +0700, Didik Supriadi wrote:
> > > I think ppl now can go to
> > > https://packager-dashboard.fedoraproject.org/user/orphan to see
> > > orphaned
> > > packages.
> > 
> > IMHO, we should not point people to this list.y
> 
> Then I messed it up by editing the Wiki. 
> 
> Should I revert the Wiki to the non-working orphans page ?

No, I don't know that we have any kind of consensus on this, that was
just my opinion. 

> > I think it might be better to
> > suggest pacakging something the user users thats not packaged, or
> > looking for more simple requests on the wishlist?
> 
> I checked out the wishlist and the first entry is the orphans page,
> that leads to the link I edited to the packager dashboard orphans.
> 
> So I am now a bit confused on what should be the path to look for a new
> package.
> 
> It seems there is no consensus on this issue.

Yeah. I think both the wishlist and the orphans list are probibly bad. 
Ideally we would have a small list of things that are somewhat easy
looking to package for new folks who are looking for something. I am not
sure who would be willing to maintain such a list though. ;( 

> Right now, I was aiming for rarian.
> 
> It was orphaned a week ago, but the packager dashboard shows many
> dependencies that will be in trouble in a month:
> 
>  - dia
>  - etherape
>  - gconf-editor
>  - glade2
>  - gnome-search-tool
>  - gnome-translate
>  - grhino
>  - gtk-v4l
>  - mail-notification
>  - pioneers
>  - qalculate-gtk
>  - stardict
>  - ucview
>  - viking
>  - xiphos
>  - xiphos
> 
> There is an email by Mukundan Ragavan on the list stating it was going
> to be orphaned because notning depends on it on rawhide.
> 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/MLIT6EJ4RIWJKW34E7BVGUQMC2AP4QFK/
> 
> He used this repoquery to check it out:
> 
> # dnf repoquery --releasever rawhide --whatrequires librarian\*
> Last metadata expiration check: 0:02:50 ago on Wed 11 Aug 2021 06:03:30
> PM EDT.
> rarian-compat-0:0.8.1-27.fc34.x86_64
> rarian-devel-0:0.8.1-27.fc34.i686
> rarian-devel-0:0.8.1-27.fc34.x86_64
> 
> But my results for the "rairian" package differ:
> 
> [iago@rawhide]$ dnf repoquery --releasever rawhide --whatrequires
> "rarian*"
> Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:26 ago on Thu 19 Aug 2021 10:34:56
> PM CEST.
> alleyoop-0:0.9.8-18.fc35.x86_64
> etherape-0:0.9.18-8.fc35.x86_64
> gnome-translate-0:0.99-39.fc35.x86_64
> grhino-0:0.16.1-13.fc35.x86_64
> mail-notification-0:5.4-100.git.9ae8768.fc35.x86_64
> pioneers-0:15.6-3.fc35.x86_64
> rarian-compat-0:0.8.1-27.fc34.x86_64
> rarian-devel-0:0.8.1-27.fc34.i686
> rarian-devel-0:0.8.1-27.fc34.x86_64
> ucview-0:0.33-21.fc35.i686
> ucview-0:0.33-21.fc35.x86_64
> 
> It seems most packages requires rarian-compat as - I guess - most used
> it as a replacement for scrollkeeper.
> 
> alleyoop  -> rarian-compat -> rarian
> etherape  -> rarian-compat -> rarian
> gnome-translate   -> rarian-compat -> rarian
> grhino-> rarian-compat -> rarian
> mail-notification -> rarian-compat -> rarian
> pioneers  -> rarian-compat -> rarian
> ucview-> rarian-compat -> rarian
> 
> The other problem stated by Mukundan was: "Last upstream release was in
> 2008 and this is currently FTBFS on rawhide/F35".
> 
> Indeed the package doesn't build, but it's a combination of ancient
> autotools & libtool and rpath rpm checks failing.
> 
> I got it building on rawhide by fiddling with the sources and now I can
> get a working rpm.
> 
> I have to put all the commands and patches on the spec file, but it
> don't looks like it's going to be a huge problem.
> 
> Most Makefile.am files need to be touch, but the changes are minimal.
> 
> Should I go fot it or I'd rather search for other package on the wish
> list ?

That sounds fine to me to revive it. You might mail Mukundan directly
about it. He may be willing to sponsor you and help out... 

kevin


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Fedora-IoT-36-20210820.2 compose check report

2021-08-20 Thread Fedora compose checker 
Missing expected images:

Iot dvd x86_64
Iot dvd aarch64

Failed openQA tests: 3/16 (x86_64), 2/15 (aarch64)

Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-36-20210820.0):

ID: 953046  Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/953046
ID: 953047  Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/953047
ID: 953053  Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/953053
ID: 953062  Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default_upload@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/953062
ID: 953065  Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/953065

Skipped non-gating openQA tests: 26 of 31
-- 
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Intent to retire python-typer and python-typer-cli

2021-08-20 Thread Ben Beasley 
Unless someone convinces me of another plan, I intend to retire 
python-typer and python-typer-cli in F35 and Rawhide in one week 
(2021-08-27).


I myself introduced these two packages to Fedora quite recently 
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1964742, 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1974118). No other packages 
currently depend on them.


Upstream was in a period of inactivity that was not too worrisome at the 
time, but has become much more concerning as they have not responded at 
all to issues or PR’s on this project and have not made the necessary 
(nontrivial) changes to work with the new major release (8.x) of 
python-click. Please see https://github.com/tiangolo/typer/issues/313 
for an overview of the situation and links to additional relevant issues.


It might be possible to sustain these two packages in Fedora 35 by 
introducing a click 7.x compatibility package, but this is not a 
long-term solution, and I have no confidence that these projects will be 
sustainably maintained in the future.

___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

(Re)orphaning jakarta-commons-httpclient

2021-08-20 Thread Jerry James 
I picked up jakarta-commons-httpclient in an attempt to keep
ant-contrib building.  That proved impossible, so I removed all
dependencies on ant-contrib from packages I maintain instead.  That
means I don't need jakarta-commons-httpclient, so I am orphaning it
again.

These packages still depend on it:
ant-contrib
fop

-- 
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Fedora-35-20210820.n.0 compose check report

2021-08-20 Thread Fedora compose checker 
No missing expected images.

Failed openQA tests: 21/205 (x86_64), 18/141 (aarch64)

New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-35-20210819.n.0):

ID: 952484  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_printing
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952484
ID: 952571  Test: aarch64 Server-raw_xz-raw.xz 
install_arm_image_deployment_upload@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952571
ID: 952581  Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz desktop_background@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952581
ID: 952583  Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz desktop_browser@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952583
ID: 952641  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_minimal_uefi@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952641

Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-35-20210819.n.0):

ID: 952408  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_freeipa_replication_master
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952408
ID: 952409  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_role_deploy_domain_controller
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952409
ID: 952421  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso realmd_join_cockpit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952421
ID: 952435  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso realmd_join_sssd
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952435
ID: 952438  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_freeipa_replication_replica
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952438
ID: 952439  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_realmd_join_kickstart
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952439
ID: 952442  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_freeipa_replication_client
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952442
ID: 952458  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_update_graphical
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952458
ID: 952459  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_background
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952459
ID: 952477  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_background
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952477
ID: 952478  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso apps_startstop
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952478
ID: 952502  Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso desktop_background
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952502
ID: 952528  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso 
server_freeipa_replication_master@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952528
ID: 952530  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso 
server_role_deploy_domain_controller@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952530
ID: 952545  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso server_realmd_join_kickstart@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952545
ID: 952547  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso 
server_freeipa_replication_replica@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952547
ID: 952552  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso realmd_join_cockpit@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952552
ID: 952553  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso realmd_join_sssd@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952553
ID: 952564  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso 
server_freeipa_replication_client@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952564
ID: 952565  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso server_cockpit_basic@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952565
ID: 952584  Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz gedit@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952584
ID: 952622  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_software_raid
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952622
ID: 952643  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_server_domain_controller
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952643
ID: 952656  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_server_domain_controller
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952656
ID: 952664  Test: x86_64 universal memtest
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952664
ID: 952669  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_software_raid@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952669
ID: 952680  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_realmd_client
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952680
ID: 952681  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_realmd_client
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952681
ID: 952683  Test: aarch64 universal install_asian_language@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952683
ID: 952693  Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_server_domain_controller@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952693
ID: 952707  Test: aarch64 universal install_blivet_software_raid@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952707
ID: 952711  Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_2_server_domain_controller@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952711
ID: 952716  Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_realmd_client@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952716
ID: 952731  Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_2_realmd_client@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject

Re: Askbot certificate expired

2021-08-20 Thread Kevin Fenzi 
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 04:28:22PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 10:09:06PM +0200, Iago Rubio wrote:
> > What's the right place to file a bug for this ?
> 
> 
> Fedora Infrastructure would be the right place. In fact...
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/10140

Just FYI, askbot is now redirected to a post on ask explaining what
happened. 

kevin


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Fedora-IoT-35-20210820.0 compose check report

2021-08-20 Thread Fedora compose checker 
No missing expected images.

Failed openQA tests: 3/15 (aarch64)

New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-IoT-35-20210808.0):

ID: 952936  Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_zezere_server@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952936
ID: 952938  Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_zezere_ignition@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952938

Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-35-20210808.0):

ID: 952927  Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952927

Soft failed openQA tests: 3/16 (x86_64), 1/15 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)

Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-IoT-35-20210808.0):

ID: 952908  Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952908
ID: 952909  Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952909
ID: 952915  Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952915
ID: 952924  Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default_upload@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952924

Passed openQA tests: 13/16 (x86_64), 11/15 (aarch64)

Installed system changes in test x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso 
install_default_upload: 
1 services(s) added since previous compose: getty@tty6.service
System load changed from 0.39 to 0.07
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/943661#downloads
Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952908#downloads

Installed system changes in test x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso 
install_default@uefi: 
Used mem changed from 223 MiB to 200 MiB
1 services(s) added since previous compose: getty@tty6.service
System load changed from 0.35 to 0.07
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/943660#downloads
Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952909#downloads

Installed system changes in test aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso 
install_default_upload@uefi: 
1 services(s) added since previous compose: getty@tty6.service
System load changed from 0.59 to 0.14
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/943677#downloads
Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952924#downloads
-- 
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Fedora-Rawhide-20210820.n.0 compose check report

2021-08-20 Thread Fedora compose checker 
No missing expected images.

Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
3 of 43 required tests failed, 1 result missing
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING** 
below
Unsatisfied gating requirements that could not be mapped to openQA tests:
MISSING: fedora.Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2.x86_64.64bit - compose.cloud_autocloud

Failed openQA tests: 20/207 (x86_64), 22/141 (aarch64)

New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20210816.n.0):

ID: 951923  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_login
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/951923
ID: 951927  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso evince
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/951927
ID: 951939  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_live
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/951939
ID: 951972  Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 
base_service_manipulation@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/951972
ID: 952042  Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz desktop_browser@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952042
ID: 952043  Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz gedit@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952043
ID: 952162  Test: aarch64 universal install_arabic_language@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952162
ID: 952168  Test: aarch64 universal install_mirrorlist_graphical@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952168
ID: 952171  Test: aarch64 universal install_european_language@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952171
ID: 952181  Test: aarch64 universal install_cyrillic_language@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952181

Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20210816.n.0):

ID: 951865  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_freeipa_replication_master
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/951865
ID: 951866  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso 
server_role_deploy_domain_controller **GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/951866
ID: 951877  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso modularity_tests
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/951877
ID: 951878  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso realmd_join_cockpit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/951878
ID: 951892  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso realmd_join_sssd **GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/951892
ID: 951895  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_freeipa_replication_replica
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/951895
ID: 951896  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_realmd_join_kickstart 
**GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/951896
ID: 951899  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_freeipa_replication_client
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/951899
ID: 951935  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso apps_startstop
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/951935
ID: 951987  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso 
server_freeipa_replication_master@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/951987
ID: 951989  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso 
server_role_deploy_domain_controller@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/951989
ID: 952004  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso server_realmd_join_kickstart@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952004
ID: 952006  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso 
server_freeipa_replication_replica@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952006
ID: 952010  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso modularity_tests@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952010
ID: 952011  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso realmd_join_cockpit@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952011
ID: 952012  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso realmd_join_sssd@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952012
ID: 952023  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso 
server_freeipa_replication_client@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952023
ID: 952024  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso server_cockpit_basic@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952024
ID: 952081  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_software_raid
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952081
ID: 952102  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_server_domain_controller
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952102
ID: 952115  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_server_domain_controller
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952115
ID: 952123  Test: x86_64 universal memtest
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952123
ID: 952128  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_software_raid@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952128
ID: 952139  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_realmd_client
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952139
ID: 952140  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_realmd_client
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952140
ID: 952142  Test: aarch64 universal install_asian_language@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952142
ID: 952152  Test

[Test-Announce] Fedora-IoT 35 RC 20210820.0 nightly compose nominated for testing

2021-08-20 Thread rawhide 
Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event
for Fedora-IoT 35 RC 20210820.0. 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/QA:Release_validation_test_plan

Test coverage information for the current release can be seen at:
https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/testcase_stats/35iot

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

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora-IoT_35_RC_20210820.0_Summary

The individual test result pages are:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora-IoT_35_RC_20210820.0_General

Thank you for testing!
-- 
Mail generated by relvalconsumer: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/relvalconsumer
___
test-announce mailing list -- test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: New RPM submission (dovecot-fts-xapian)

2021-08-20 Thread Emmanuel Seyman 
* Ankur Sinha [20/08/2021 12:27] :
>
> I totally understand the point of the system we have in place, but I do
> see how it doesn't quite address the case of upstream developers or
> individuals who'd just like to maintain their few packages.


To be fair, the system does address the case of the upstream developers:
it is recommended that they co-maintain the packages of their software but
leave ownership of the packages to experienced packagers.

This has been explained to Joan a number of times.

> So, here, I'd rather have Joan, who is the developer and has been
> actively engaging with the community to get the package included
> (including going through the review), and so who I'd trust to look after
> their package, on the team than not.

The small issue I have is that, while Joan claims to want to become a
packager in the mails he sends to the devel list@, he a) is very secretive
about what steps he has taken to seek out a sponsor and b) has said in
the review bug that he has no intentions of following the guidelines.

Let's hope this dichotomy gets resolved sooner than later.

Emmanuel
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Fedora Linux 35 Beta blocker status summary

2021-08-20 Thread Ben Cotton 
As a reminder, the F35 Beta freeze begins on Tuesday.

Action summary


Accepted blockers
-
1. pipewire — pipewire-0.3.31-4.fc35.x86_64 no audio devices found
(due to pipewire-media-session user session service not being
automatically enabled on update) — NEW
ACTION: Maintainer to automatically enable/start
pipewire-media-session on upgrade

2. distribution — Fedora 35 backgrounds not present on
release-blocking desktops — NEW
ACTION: Design team to package f35 backgrounds

Proposed blockers
-

1. PackageKit — GNOME Software updates fail with "Prepared update not
found" error — NEW
ACTION:


Bug-by-bug detail
=

Accepted blockers
-
1. pipewire — https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1983861 — NEW
pipewire-0.3.31-4.fc35.x86_64 no audio devices found (due to
pipewire-media-session user session service not being automatically
enabled on update)

Updates to pipewire do not start pipewire-media-session. Users have to
manually start the service.

2. distribution — https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1993238 — NEW
Fedora 35 backgrounds not present on release-blocking desktops

Backgrounds!


Proposed blockers
-

1. PackageKit — https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1995817 — NEW
GNOME Software updates fail with "Prepared update not found" error
GNOME Software package updates fail when attempting to update a
package due to a PackageKit file not being found.

-- 
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Fedora Program Manager
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Fedora 35 compose report: 20210820.n.0 changes

2021-08-20 Thread Fedora Rawhide Report 
OLD: Fedora-35-20210819.n.0
NEW: Fedora-35-20210820.n.0

= SUMMARY =
Added images:3
Dropped images:  1
Added packages:  4
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages:   77
Downgraded packages: 0

Size of added packages:  196.75 KiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of upgraded packages:   1.55 GiB
Size of downgraded packages: 0 B

Size change of upgraded packages:   1.09 MiB
Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B

= ADDED IMAGES =
Image: Mate live x86_64
Path: Spins/x86_64/iso/Fedora-MATE_Compiz-Live-x86_64-35-20210820.n.0.iso
Image: LXDE live x86_64
Path: Spins/x86_64/iso/Fedora-LXDE-Live-x86_64-35-20210820.n.0.iso
Image: LXQt live x86_64
Path: Spins/x86_64/iso/Fedora-LXQt-Live-x86_64-35-20210820.n.0.iso

= DROPPED IMAGES =
Image: Python_Classroom live x86_64
Path: Labs/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Python-Classroom-Live-x86_64-35-20210819.n.0.iso

= ADDED PACKAGES =
Package: perl-B-COW-0.004-5.module_f35+12499+2570a370
Summary: Additional B helpers to check Copy On Write status
RPMs:perl-B-COW
Size:122.04 KiB

Package: perl-HTTP-Daemon-6.12-4.module_f35+12499+2570a370
Summary: Simple HTTP server class
RPMs:perl-HTTP-Daemon
Size:33.79 KiB

Package: perl-Test-Fatal-0.016-2.module_f35+12499+2570a370
Summary: Incredibly simple helpers for testing code with exceptions
RPMs:perl-Test-Fatal
Size:25.38 KiB

Package: perl-Test-Needs-0.002006-7.module_f35+12499+2570a370
Summary: Skip tests when modules not available
RPMs:perl-Test-Needs
Size:15.55 KiB


= DROPPED PACKAGES =

= UPGRADED PACKAGES =
Package:  GLC_lib-2.5.0-9.fc35
Old package:  GLC_lib-2.5.0-8.fc35
Summary:  C++ class library for OpenGL application based on Qt 4
RPMs: GLC_lib GLC_lib-devel
Size: 3.39 MiB
Size change:  -370 B
Changelog:
  * Thu Aug 19 2021 Bj??rn Esser  - 2.5.0-9
  - Rebuild (quazip)


Package:  NetworkManager-1:1.32.10-2.fc35
Old package:  NetworkManager-1:1.32.6-1.fc35
Summary:  Network connection manager and user applications
RPMs: NetworkManager NetworkManager-adsl NetworkManager-bluetooth 
NetworkManager-cloud-setup NetworkManager-config-connectivity-fedora 
NetworkManager-config-server NetworkManager-dispatcher-routing-rules 
NetworkManager-libnm NetworkManager-libnm-devel NetworkManager-ovs 
NetworkManager-ppp NetworkManager-team NetworkManager-tui NetworkManager-wifi 
NetworkManager-wwan
Size: 29.00 MiB
Size change:  16.20 KiB
Changelog:
  * Tue Aug 10 2021 Fernando Fernandez Mancera  - 
1:1.32.8-1
  - update to 1.32.8 release

  * Thu Aug 19 2021 Wen Liang  - 1:1.32.10-1
  - update to 1.32.10 release

  * Thu Aug 19 2021 Thomas Haller  - 1:1.32.10-2
  - platform: fix capturing IPv4 addresses from platform for assuming after 
restart


Package:  aqute-bnd-5.2.0-5.fc35
Old package:  aqute-bnd-5.2.0-4.fc35
Summary:  BND Tool
RPMs: aqute-bnd aqute-bnd-javadoc aqute-bndlib bnd-maven-plugin
Added RPMs:   bnd-maven-plugin
Size: 4.52 MiB
Size change:  88.34 KiB
Changelog:
  * Tue Aug 10 2021 S??rgio Basto  - 5.2.0-5
  - reenable bnd-maven-plugin


Package:  awscli-1.20.25-1.fc35
Old package:  awscli-1.20.24-1.fc35
Summary:  Universal Command Line Environment for AWS
RPMs: awscli
Size: 2.09 MiB
Size change:  70 B
Changelog:
  * Thu Aug 19 2021 Gwyn Ciesla  - 1.20.25-1
  - 1.20.25


Package:  bgpq4-1.2-1.fc35
Old package:  bgpq4-0.0.9-1.fc35
Summary:  Automate BGP filter generation based on routing database 
information
RPMs: bgpq4
Size: 275.48 KiB
Size change:  6.14 KiB
Changelog:
  * Thu Aug 19 2021 Robert Scheck  1.2-1
  - Upgrade to 1.2 (#1995834)


Package:  bind-32:9.16.20-2.fc35
Old package:  bind-32:9.16.19-4.fc35
Summary:  The Berkeley Internet Name Domain (BIND) DNS (Domain Name System) 
server
RPMs: bind bind-chroot bind-devel bind-dlz-filesystem bind-dlz-ldap 
bind-dlz-mysql bind-dlz-sqlite3 bind-dnssec-doc bind-dnssec-utils bind-doc 
bind-libs bind-license bind-pkcs11 bind-pkcs11-devel bind-pkcs11-libs 
bind-pkcs11-utils bind-utils python3-bind
Size: 26.13 MiB
Size change:  20.64 KiB
Changelog:
  * Tue Aug 17 2021 Petr Menk  - 32:9.16.20-1
  - Update to 9.16.20

  * Thu Aug 19 2021 Petr Menk  - 32:9.16.20-2
  - Fix map file format regression


Package:  bind-dyndb-ldap-11.9-6.fc35
Old package:  bind-dyndb-ldap-11.9-5.fc35
Summary:  LDAP back-end plug-in for BIND
RPMs: bind-dyndb-ldap
Size: 528.31 KiB
Size change:  -1.14 KiB
Changelog:
  * Thu Aug 19 2021 Petr Menk  - 11.9-6
  - Rebuilt for BIND 9.16.20 (#1995289)


Package:  bletchmame-2.6-4.20210720git46115fd.fc35
Old package:  bletchmame-2.6-3.20210720git46115fd.fc35
Summary:  MAME emulator frontend
RPMs: bletchmame
Size: 1.86 MiB
Size change:  -51 B
Changelog:
  * Thu Aug 19 2021 Bj??rn Esser  2.6-4
  - Rebuild (quazip)


Package:  busybox-1:1.34.0-1.fc35
Old package:  busybox

Support for excluding packages enabled in Fedora CI and RHEL 9 CI

2021-08-20 Thread Miroslav Vadkerti 
Hi,

Testing Farm Team is glad to announce possibility to test packages with
conflicting RPMs in Fedora CI [1] and RHEL9 CI [2] via the `exclude` option
in the `prepare` step in the TMT test definition [3].

For an example of a test using this see (test excludes maven-openjdk8 from
installation):
https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms/maven/-/merge_requests/7/diffs

Relevant issues:
https://pagure.io/fedora-ci/general/issue/184
https://issues.redhat.com/browse/TFT-489

Best regards,
/M

[1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/ci/tmt/
[2] https://docs.engineering.redhat.com/display/TT/Quick+Start+Guide
[3] https://tmt.readthedocs.io/en/stable/spec/plans.html#install

-- 
Miroslav Vadkerti :: Senior Principal QE :: Testing Farm / BaseOS QE / OSCI
IRC mvadkert #tft #baseosci #osci :: GPG 0x7B5B2E95
TPB-C 2C215 :: Mobile +420 773 944 252
Red Hat Czech s.r.o, Purkyňova 115, 612 00, Brno, CR
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Fedora-IoT-36-20210820.0 compose check report

2021-08-20 Thread Fedora compose checker 
Missing expected images:

Iot dvd x86_64
Iot dvd aarch64

Failed openQA tests: 3/16 (x86_64), 2/15 (aarch64)

ID: 952356  Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952356
ID: 952357  Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952357
ID: 952363  Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952363
ID: 952372  Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default_upload@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952372
ID: 952375  Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/952375

Skipped non-gating openQA tests: 26 of 31
-- 
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Test-Announce] Fedora 35 Branched 20210820.n.0 nightly compose nominated for testing

2021-08-20 Thread rawhide 
Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event
for Fedora 35 Branched 20210820.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/QA:Release_validation_test_plan

Notable package version changes:
python-blivet - 20210811.n.0: python-blivet-3.4.0-5.fc35.src, 20210820.n.0: 
python-blivet-3.4.1-1.fc35.src

Test coverage information for the current release can be seen at:
https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/testcase_stats/35

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

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_35_Branched_20210820.n.0_Summary

The individual test result pages are:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_35_Branched_20210820.n.0_Installation
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_35_Branched_20210820.n.0_Base
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_35_Branched_20210820.n.0_Server
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_35_Branched_20210820.n.0_Cloud
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_35_Branched_20210820.n.0_Desktop
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_35_Branched_20210820.n.0_Security_Lab

Thank you for testing!
-- 
Mail generated by relvalconsumer: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/relvalconsumer
___
test-announce mailing list -- test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Heads up: gupnp soname bump coming to f35 and rawhide

2021-08-20 Thread Kalev Lember 


Hi all,

I am building new gupnp/gupnp-av/gupnp-dlna 1.3.x that come with soname
bumps for both f35 and rawhide.

I'll take care of rebuilds of dependent packages. Hopefully it goes
smooth because I didn't expect soname bumps. (And the spec files had
so.* globbed so it caught me off guard. I've fixed the globs now.) I'll
post a follow up and file tickets in bugzilla if I have trouble getting
some dependencies to build against the new soname.

It's all in side tags so it shouldn't immediately break anything if
the rebuilds don't go smoothly.

--
Kalev
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Heads Up: OpenEXR / Imath 3.1 update

2021-08-20 Thread Richard Shaw 
I've done quite a bit of checking on builds using a COPR so I don't believe
these updates make anything worse than they already are and might help in a
few cases.

As usual, the plan is to build in a side tag and I plan to update both
rawhide and f35.

Thanks,
Richard
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Maintanenace of redhat-rpm-macros

2021-08-20 Thread Nick Clifton 
Hi Guys,

If it helps I would be happy to volunteer to be a co-maintainer, especially
when it comes to assembler and linker command line options...

Cheers
  Nick
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Fedora-IoT-34-20210820.0 compose check report

2021-08-20 Thread Fedora compose checker 
No missing expected images.

Failed openQA tests: 1/15 (aarch64)

Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-34-20210818.0):

ID: 951832  Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/951832

Soft failed openQA tests: 1/16 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)

Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-IoT-34-20210818.0):

ID: 951820  Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/951820

Passed openQA tests: 14/15 (aarch64), 15/16 (x86_64)

New passes (same test not passed in Fedora-IoT-34-20210818.0):

ID: 951841  Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_zezere_server@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/951841
ID: 951843  Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_zezere_ignition@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/951843

Installed system changes in test x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso 
install_default_upload: 
System load changed from 0.10 to 0.23
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/950740#downloads
Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/951813#downloads

Installed system changes in test aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso 
install_default_upload@uefi: 
System load changed from 0.40 to 0.25
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/950755#downloads
Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/951829#downloads
-- 
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Maintanenace of redhat-rpm-macros

2021-08-20 Thread Florian Weimer 
* Kevin Fenzi:

> I'd also be happy to help, but that said... I wonder if we couldn't ask
> the FPC to take it over? Or would that be too slow/too many people to
> get things done? Just thinking that they should know the pending
> guidelines and what macros make sense, etc. 

I have been unable to update the build flags documented in the packaging
guide:

  
  

At the time, it was not possible to send a PR, if I recall correctly.
This issue has had assignees ever since, but nothing happened.  I don't
know what “In Committee” means exactly.

So I'm not sure if build flags maintenance will happen there.

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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: New RPM submission (dovecot-fts-xapian)

2021-08-20 Thread Ankur Sinha 
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 11:34:51 +0100, Joan Moreau via devel wrote:
> Package is created properly, spec file is already maintained : https://
> github.com/grosjo/fts-xapian/tree/master/PACKAGES/RPM
> 
> 
> but now, honestly, I don't really know what to do.
> 
> Any help very welcome

Well, "pushing it to the repos" is not the issue---it is that whoever
takes it up commits to maintaining it in the long run. If no one has
stepped up yet, I guess we don't have anyone at the moment who feels
they can assign resources to do this.

Community folks:

I totally understand the point of the system we have in place, but I do
see how it doesn't quite address the case of upstream developers or
individuals who'd just like to maintain their few packages. I do
understand that we'd like all package maintainers to participate in
general packaging activities, but at a practical level we mostly tend to
look after our packages and what emerges from this is that our
collective activities take care of the complete package set.

So, here, I'd rather have Joan, who is the developer and has been
actively engaging with the community to get the package included
(including going through the review), and so who I'd trust to look after
their package, on the team than not.

So, unless someone has really strong concerns about it, I'm going to
sponsor Joan to the packager group.

-- 
Thanks,
Regards,
Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) | 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha
Time zone: Europe/London


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Fwd: A new version of "OCamlbuild" has been detected: "4.02.3" newer than "0.10.0", packaged as "ocaml-ocamlbuild"

2021-08-20 Thread Richard W.M. Jones 

new issue:
https://github.com/fedora-infra/anitya/issues/1168

for the incorrect Fedora version, I added a comment to this existing issue:
https://github.com/fedora-infra/anitya/issues/1167

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
Fedora Windows cross-compiler. Compile Windows programs, test, and
build Windows installers. Over 100 libraries supported.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Fwd: A new version of "OCamlbuild" has been detected: "4.02.3" newer than "0.10.0", packaged as "ocaml-ocamlbuild"

2021-08-20 Thread Richard W.M. Jones 
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 08:50:16AM -0600, Jerry James wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 8:48 AM Richard W.M. Jones  wrote:
> > Where are you seeing 4.02.3?  I can't see that in the upstream
> > repository.
> 
> Go to https://github.com/ocaml/ocamlbuild/releases.  Scroll all the
> way to the bottom and hit the "Next" button.

OK I see it now.  I was checking tags in the git repo.

What's interesting is github says: "This commit does not belong to any
branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the
repository."

Anyway this likely happened because ocamlbuild used to be a part of
the ocaml source, so this is a commit from back then.

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-builder quickly builds VMs from scratch
http://libguestfs.org/virt-builder.1.html
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: New RPM submission (dovecot-fts-xapian)

2021-08-20 Thread Vitaly Zaitsev via devel 

On 20/08/2021 12:34, Joan Moreau via devel wrote:

but now, honestly, I don't really know what to do.


You need to find a sponsor:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group

--
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: New RPM submission (dovecot-fts-xapian)

2021-08-20 Thread Joan Moreau via devel 
Package is created properly, spec file is already maintained : 
https://github.com/grosjo/fts-xapian/tree/master/PACKAGES/RPM


but now, honestly, I don't really know what to do.

Any help very welcome

On 2021-08-18 20:09, Ben Beasley wrote:


Relevant history:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953340
https://github.com/grosjo/fts-xapian/issues/82

In short, a package was submitted and approved, but the submitter (who 
is also the upstream author) is discouraged by the need to seek 
sponsorship into the packager group.


-

The package looks straightforward to maintain, and there are a lot of 
packagers on this list who could potentially do it, but even a simple 
package takes some effort. Hopefully you'll find someone who is a user 
of your program or who finds it interesting enough for one personal 
reason or another to pick up where you left off.


On 8/18/21 2:36 PM, Joan Moreau via devel wrote:


Hi

How to find someone able to push the code in a RPM package ?

Reminder

- Source code : https://github.com/grosjo/fts-xapian/ 



- Reference : https://doc.dovecot.org/configuration_manual/fts/ 



- Existing ArchLinux package (not AUR)  
:https://archlinux.org/packages/?q=dovecot-fts-xapian 



- Existing Debian/Ubuntu package : 
https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/dovecot-fts-xapian 



For me, the current process Fedora is just too complicated, so I need 
help to find someone who knows the process quite well.


Thank you

___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Askbot certificate expired

2021-08-20 Thread Ankur Sinha 
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 23:20:35 +0200, Iago Rubio wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-08-19 at 16:28 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 10:09:06PM +0200, Iago Rubio wrote:
> > > What's the right place to file a bug for this ?
> > 
> > Fedora Infrastructure would be the right place. In fact...
> > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/10140
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> I was wondering why there was nothing on bugzilla.

> Nice to know about Pagure.io as it was going under the radar.
> 
> I have read about it here and there, but I've never got what was used
> for by Fedora.

Bugzilla is primarily used for software bugs, so any bugs in packages in
Fedora goes there. Pagure.io is used by different Fedora teams/SIGs for
their ticketing and SCM needs.


-- 
Thanks,
Regards,
Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) | 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha
Time zone: Europe/London


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: [Heads-up] Introduction of OpenSSL 3.0.0 in F36

2021-08-20 Thread Sahana Prasad 
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 11:11 PM Neal Gompa  wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 3:55 PM Sahana Prasad  wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > No major progress on this task yet.
> > I found out that the compat package needs some more fixing.
> > I have more time in the coming days, so I should
> > have an update soon hopefully.
>
> Let us know if you need help with getting the compat stuff fixed up.
> We're happy to help! :)
>

Thanks Neal. It is fixed now and dnf builds well with it and OpenSSL 3.0 in
my copr repo.
Performing some more tests now.

Thank you,
Regards,
Sahana Prasad

>
>
>
> --
> 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
> ___
> 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 on the list, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
>
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Updating quazip to version 1.1 in rawhide - rebuild of several packages in side-tag needed

2021-08-20 Thread Björn 'besser82' Esser 
Am Donnerstag, dem 19.08.2021 um 15:04 +0200 schrieb Björn 'besser82'
Esser:
> Am Donnerstag, dem 19.08.2021 um 12:49 +0200 schrieb Björn 'besser82'
> Esser:
> > Am Donnerstag, dem 19.08.2021 um 12:43 +0200 schrieb Ondrej Mosnacek:
> > > On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 12:34 PM Björn 'besser82' Esser
> > >  wrote:
> > > > Am Mittwoch, dem 18.08.2021 um 10:45 +0200 schrieb Ondrej
> > > > Mosnacek:
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > > 
> > > > > I would like to update quazip to version 1.1 in rawhide (i.e.
> > > > > future
> > > > > F36) [1][2], but since this update will change sonames
> > > > > (libquazip.so
> > > > > -> libquazip1-qt4.so and libquazip5.so -> libquazip1-qt5.so), I
> > > > > will
> > > > > need the dependent packages' maintainers (in Bcc) to rebuild
> > > > > them in
> > > > > a
> > > > > side tag (I'm not a provenpackager, so I can't do that myself,
> > > > > although Nicolas (@kwizart) offered to help if needed).
> > > > > 
> > > > > Affected packages:
> > > > > bletchmame
> > > > > ckb-next
> > > > > fritzing
> > > > > gimagereader
> > > > > GLC_lib
> > > > > keepassxc
> > > > > krita
> > > > > nomacs
> > > > > qcad
> > > > > qmapshack
> > > > > texstudio
> > > > > 
> > > > > Even though the library/include/CMake paths changed, there seem
> > > > > to
> > > > > be
> > > > > no breaking API changes and I added compat symlinks/files to the
> > > > > -devel packages so that all packages using the old paths will
> > > > > still
> > > > > build (and link against the new soname) without modification (I
> > > > > tested
> > > > > this in COPR, see [3]). So a simple release bump + rebuild into
> > > > > the
> > > > > side tag should be enough.
> > > > > 
> > > > > After the side tag is merged, I will try to gradually submit PRs
> > > > > to
> > > > > migrate the dependent packages to use the new paths (either via
> > > > > pkgconfig or the CMake modules). Once all dependent packages are
> > > > > migrated, it will be possible to remove the compat hacks from -
> > > > > devel
> > > > > packages (though we might want to keep them longer for user
> > > > > convenience).
> > > > > 
> > > > > Current plan:
> > > > > 1. I request a side tag, merge [2], and build the new quazip in
> > > > > the
> > > > > side tag.
> > > > > 2. I announce the side-tag in this thread and ask for dependent
> > > > > packages to be rebuilt in it.
> > > > > 3. Once all the packages are successfully built in the side tag,
> > > > > I
> > > > > get
> > > > > the side tag merged.
> > > > > 
> > > > > If there are no objections, I will execute steps 1 and 2
> > > > > sometime
> > > > > next
> > > > > week (or sooner if I get a positive acknowledgement for all
> > > > > packages).
> > > > > Maintainers, please let me know if you are ready to do the side-
> > > > > tag
> > > > > rebuild, or if you'd prefer to defer this a bit (for example due
> > > > > to
> > > > > a
> > > > > conflict with other group rebuild).
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > 
> > > > > [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895170
> > > > > [2] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/quazip/pull-request/2
> > > > > [3] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/omos/quazip/monitor/
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > As everything seems prepared readily, and there a currently no
> > > > conflicting rebuilds going on, I'm going to do a rebuild of all
> > > > packages
> > > > in sidetag: f36-build-side-44792
> > > > 
> > > > I'll give short notice, as soon as the sidetag is merged with
> > > > rawhide.
> > > 
> > > OK, I was going to kick it off in the evening [CEST], but I'm
> > > perfectly fine with you doing it all in one go, since you made sure
> > > there are no apparent conflicts. Thank you!
> > 
> > 
> > You're welcome!
> > 
> > Chain-build is running in sidetag: 
> > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=74131380
> 
> 
> Sidetag f36-build-side-44792 has been merged with Rawhide:
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-cfc992d3e9
> 
> I'll take care of rebuilding nomacs, as soon as vtk is installable in
> Rawhide again.


nomacs has been rebuilt successfully on Rawhide.

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-62a95ee375

So things should be fully finished now.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Any recent changes to the arm builders?

2021-08-20 Thread Björn 'besser82' Esser 
Am Mittwoch, dem 18.08.2021 um 16:23 -0400 schrieb Rich Mattes:
> On 8/17/21 10:21 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> > On 8/14/21 10:19 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 09:34:11PM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> > > > Have there been any recent changes to the arm (32bit) builders? 
> > > > It 
> > > > seems
> > > > like I'm having much more issues there with builds likely
> > > > running out of
> > > > memory or similar.
> > > 
> > > Yes. They were mistakenly running the normal kernel (so they had
> > > ~3GB
> > > memory available). I moved them back to the lpae kernel (so they
> > > see
> > > 40GB memory), but this causes
> > > 
> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920183
> > > 
> > > basically OOM kills kojid, which restarts kojid, which restarts
> > > the
> > > build, which kills kojid, etc...
> > > 
> > > I've tried all kinds of things here, but haven't been able to find
> > > any
> > > way to make it work. Arm folks can't duplicate it on non koji
> > > builders.
> > > I suspect the number of people using lpae on 32bit arm is... low.
> > > We could just go back to non lpae, but that breaks building some
> > > other
> > > packages (llvm fails to build for example).
> > > 
> > > It makes me wonder if we should consider letting 32bit arm go...
> > > (insert pitchforks and torches).
> > > 
> > > Anyhow, if anyone has any ideas, let me know.
> > > 
> > > kevin
> > 
> > Looks like the vtk build just as it was about to finish (after 11+
> > hours 
> > - had completed extracting debuginfo and was on to checking the
> > build 
> > root last I saw) restarted. This is pretty unworkable.
> > 
> > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=73984672
> > 
> 
> I'm waiting on VTK to complete to do a rebuild of PCL.

VTK should be fine on Rawhide now.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Maintanenace of redhat-rpm-macros

2021-08-20 Thread Panu Matilainen 

On 8/19/21 10:59 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:

On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 08:35:36PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:

On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 06:53:30PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:

On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 03:37:01PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:

It's also that redhat-rpm-config has come far from its humble
origins: it originated as a package where Red Hat build
policy/configuration is set. Things like vendor name, payload
compression etc. But nowadays there are entire ecosystems of utility
macros living inside.



/usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.dwz
/usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.fedora-misc
/usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.fedora-misc-srpm
/usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.forge
/usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.ldc-srpm
/usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.ldconfig
/usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.mono-srpm
/usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.nodejs-srpm
/usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.valgrind-srpm
/usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.vpath

I think some of these should be moved to *-srpm-macros packages.  The
languages already did that (eg. ocaml-srpm-macros).


We could should move *some* of those out, in particular macros.forge,
but most of the files are really tiny, a few lines excluding comments.
So it probably wouldn't be worth the overhead to create separate
packages for them. I think that keeping them here is the best option.

So… to to proceed with this? Should proven packagers merge pull requests
that don't have any negative comments? Neal and Tom volunteered help
in the other part of the thread: should they be added as comaintainers?


I'd also be happy to help, but that said... I wonder if we couldn't ask
the FPC to take it over? Or would that be too slow/too many people to
get things done? Just thinking that they should know the pending
guidelines and what macros make sense, etc.


What an awesome idea, +1 to that.

Us rpm folks will want to keep an eye on it as before for technical 
sanity etc, but other than that I thinkt the FPC managing it would seem 
pretty ideal to me.


- Panu -
___
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 on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure