Re: changing the name of a package
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-replacing-existing-packages ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
changing the name of a package
I am a co-maintainer (I think at least, I used to be co-) of PyPDF2 at least for a while) or maintainer and I have noticed that the name has changed back to pypdf (upstream). Is there an easy way to update the name of the package (in the rpm) and importantly to make sure that the new pypdf rpm is pulled to replace the old PyPDF2 rpm? Thanks! ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Looking for new xfig package-maintainer
Did you find a co-maintainer for xfig? I use this package on and off and I would not like to lose it. On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 08:31:59 AM CDT, Hans de Goede wrote: Hi All, I have been keeping the Fedora xfig package alive all these years because I know that there are still users using xfig and xfig actually still has an active upstream. Lately I have not been able to spend any time on this, as can be seen from the currently open / unfixed CVE against xfig: https://bugz.fedoraproject.org/xfig Upstream has a patch available fixing this, so fixing this is easy. I just have not been able to make the time for this. As such I think the time has come to ask for help for maintaining xfig. If you can help by taking over or co-maintaining xfig, please let me know. Regards, Hans ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Questions about mingw static libraries
On 5/5/23 21:31, Orion Poplawski wrote:
I'm just starting to look into the mingw packages and building mingw
executables with them - and in particular static building. I'm hoping
someone can clarify some things for me.
For "regular" libs we seem to have:
%{mingw32_bindir}/libexample-0.dll
%{mingw32_libdir}/libexample.dll.a
and for static libs:
%{mingw32_libdir}/libexample.a
so for example:
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 7539008 Apr 11 18:00
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/bin/Qt5Gui.dll
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 13373318 Apr 11 18:00
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libQt5Gui.a
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 6699310 Apr 11 18:00
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libQt5Gui.dll.a
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/bin/Qt5Gui.dll: PE32
executable (DLL) (GUI) Intel 80386, for MS Windows, 12 sections
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libQt5Gui.dll.a: current ar
archive
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libQt5Gui.a: current ar
archive
From what I've gleaned from some web searches is that the .dll.a file
is an "import" library which seems to encode a dependency on the .dll
library at runtime, while the plain .a file is a more "normal" static
library.
So to link a static executable it looks like I want to be using
libQt5Gui.a. However, when attempting to build the x2goclient
executable I'm ending up with the following link line:
i686-w64-mingw32-g++ -g -fstack-protector -static -static-libstdc++
-static-libgcc -Wl,-subsystem,windows -mthreads -o
release/x2goclient.exe @object_script.x2goclient.Release -lssh.dll
-lwinspool /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libQt5Svg.dll.a
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libQt5Widgets.dll.a
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libQt5Gui.dll.a -lgdi32
-lcomdlg32 -loleaut32 -limm32 -luxtheme -ljpeg -lpng -lharfbuzz
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libQt5Network.dll.a -lcrypt32
-ldnsapi -liphlpapi
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libQt5Core.dll.a -lz -lpcre2-16
-lversion -lole32 -luuid -lwinmm -lws2_32 -ladvapi32 -lshell32 -luser32
-lkernel32 -lnetapi32 -luserenv -liconv release/x2goclient_res.o
-lmingw32 /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libqt5main.a -lshell32
with lots of references to the .dll.a files. And from what I can tell,
the x2goclient.exe executable does appear to have runtime dependencies
on the various Qt dlls (e.g. Qt5Gui.dll, etc.).
I’m specifying a static config to qmake and QT is specified in the
x2goclient.pro simply with:
QT += svg network
So I really have no idea where the .dll.a references are coming from.
Some possibilities:
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/Qt5Widgets.prl:
QMAKE_PRL_TARGET = libQt5Widgets.dll.a
$ rpm -qf /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/Qt5Widgets.prl
mingw32-qt5-qtbase-static-5.15.9-1.fc39.noarch
so that file is coming in as part of the -static package, but referring
to the dll import file not the static file. But I'm not finding similar
files for the other libraries.
I'm starting to think that the issue is that both the static and shared
builds of the libraries produce .prl files - but generally the static
build is installed first and then the shared build, so the .prl files
that are in the Fedora packages are for the shared libraries since they
have the same path.
So - is there a way for the static .prl files to be installed in a
different location for for qmake find them there?
Discovered a bit more information, and it's a bit more of a mess than
initially thought:
qmake appears to look for the presence of "staticlib" in the
module_config line of the .pri file to see if a static library is
present. e.g.:
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/qt5/mkspecs/modules/qt_lib_svg.pri:
QT.svg.module_config = v2 staticlib
Now at least for QtSvg, the only difference between the static and
shared version of the pri file is the presence of "staticlib". So we
might be able to get away with simply installing the static build after
the shared build.
Also, it appears that the .prl files are really only necessary for
static libraries, so we could just not build them for shared libraries
with the "no_install_prl" CONFIG option:
MINGW_BUILDDIR_SUFFIX=_static %mingw_qmake_qt5 ../%{qt_module}.pro
CONFIG+="static create_prl"
MINGW_BUILDDIR_SUFFIX=_static %mingw_make_build
MINGW_BUILDDIR_SUFFIX=_shared %mingw_qmake_qt5 ../%{qt_module}.pro
CONFIG+="no_install_prl"
MINGW_BUILDDIR_SUFFIX=_shared %mingw_make_build
Next comes the pkgconfig files. Again the only difference seems to be
the addition of Libs.private:
diff -ru
./qtsvg-everywhere-src-5.15.9/build_win32_shared/lib/pkgconfig/Qt5Svgd.pc
./qtsvg-everywhere-src-5.15.9/build_win32_static/lib/pkgconfig/Qt5Svgd.pc
---
./qtsvg-everywhere-src-5.15.9/build_win32_shared/lib/pkgconfig/Qt5Svgd.pc
2023-05-05 21:51:48.559526488 -0600
+++
./qtsvg-everywhere-src-5.15.9/build_win32_static/lib/pkgconfig/Qt5Svgd.pc
2023-05-05
Questions about mingw static libraries
I'm just starting to look into the mingw packages and building mingw
executables with them - and in particular static building. I'm hoping
someone can clarify some things for me.
For "regular" libs we seem to have:
%{mingw32_bindir}/libexample-0.dll
%{mingw32_libdir}/libexample.dll.a
and for static libs:
%{mingw32_libdir}/libexample.a
so for example:
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 7539008 Apr 11 18:00
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/bin/Qt5Gui.dll
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 13373318 Apr 11 18:00
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libQt5Gui.a
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 6699310 Apr 11 18:00
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libQt5Gui.dll.a
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/bin/Qt5Gui.dll: PE32
executable (DLL) (GUI) Intel 80386, for MS Windows, 12 sections
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libQt5Gui.dll.a: current ar archive
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libQt5Gui.a: current ar archive
From what I've gleaned from some web searches is that the .dll.a file
is an "import" library which seems to encode a dependency on the .dll
library at runtime, while the plain .a file is a more "normal" static
library.
So to link a static executable it looks like I want to be using
libQt5Gui.a. However, when attempting to build the x2goclient
executable I'm ending up with the following link line:
i686-w64-mingw32-g++ -g -fstack-protector -static -static-libstdc++
-static-libgcc -Wl,-subsystem,windows -mthreads -o
release/x2goclient.exe @object_script.x2goclient.Release -lssh.dll
-lwinspool /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libQt5Svg.dll.a
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libQt5Widgets.dll.a
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libQt5Gui.dll.a -lgdi32
-lcomdlg32 -loleaut32 -limm32 -luxtheme -ljpeg -lpng -lharfbuzz
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libQt5Network.dll.a -lcrypt32
-ldnsapi -liphlpapi
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libQt5Core.dll.a -lz -lpcre2-16
-lversion -lole32 -luuid -lwinmm -lws2_32 -ladvapi32 -lshell32 -luser32
-lkernel32 -lnetapi32 -luserenv -liconv release/x2goclient_res.o
-lmingw32 /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libqt5main.a -lshell32
with lots of references to the .dll.a files. And from what I can tell,
the x2goclient.exe executable does appear to have runtime dependencies
on the various Qt dlls (e.g. Qt5Gui.dll, etc.).
I’m specifying a static config to qmake and QT is specified in the
x2goclient.pro simply with:
QT += svg network
So I really have no idea where the .dll.a references are coming from.
Some possibilities:
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/Qt5Widgets.prl:
QMAKE_PRL_TARGET = libQt5Widgets.dll.a
$ rpm -qf /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/Qt5Widgets.prl
mingw32-qt5-qtbase-static-5.15.9-1.fc39.noarch
so that file is coming in as part of the -static package, but referring
to the dll import file not the static file. But I'm not finding similar
files for the other libraries.
I'm starting to think that the issue is that both the static and shared
builds of the libraries produce .prl files - but generally the static
build is installed first and then the shared build, so the .prl files
that are in the Fedora packages are for the shared libraries since they
have the same path.
So - is there a way for the static .prl files to be installed in a
different location for for qmake find them there?
--
Orion Poplawski
he/him/his - surely the least important thing about me
IT Systems Manager 720-772-5637
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane or...@nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 https://www.nwra.com/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic 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, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: gimp license corrected
Josef Řídký wrote: > Based on the SPDX requirements, that should be correct. Some parts of the > package are available under GPL-2.0-only and some under GPL-3.0-only > license. And they are not linked together? Because if they are, we have a problem! Kevin Kofler ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: SPDX Statistics - ZX Spectrum edition
> Now it uses SPDX identifiers, but lowercase ors, should probably be uppercase > ORs. Yea. I've been reading through the spec lately, since I want to add proper SPDX support to my project, and it says joiners should be uppercase and parsers should match case-sensitively. > License expression operators (AND, OR and WITH) should be matched in a > case-sensitive manner. https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v2.3/SPDX-license-expressions/#d2-case-sensitivity A.FI. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: SPDX Statistics - ZX Spectrum edition
On 05. 05. 23 17:09, Miroslav Suchý wrote: Dne 03. 05. 23 v 14:38 Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a): given we're not doing license minimization any more, I'm curious what package is going to win the prize for the longest license tag :-) So far: rpm-specs/perl-Exporter-Tidy.spec: 0BSD or AAL or AFL-3.0 or AGPL-3.0-only or APSL-2.0 or Apache-1.1 or Apache-2.0 or Artistic-2. 0 or BSD-1-Clause or BSD-2-Clause or BSD-3-Clause or BSD-3-Clause-LBNL or BSL-1.0 or CATOSL-1.1 or CDDL-1.0 or CNRI-Python or CPAL-1.0 or CPL-1.0 or CUA-OPL-1 .0 or ECL-1.0 or ECL-2.0 or EFL-2.0 or EPL-1.0 or EPL-2.0 or EUDatagrid or EUPL-1.1 or EUPL-1.2 or Entessa or Fair or GPL-1.0-only or GPL-2.0-only or GPL-3.0- only or HPND or IPL-1.0 or ISC or Jam or LGPL-2.0-only or LGPL-2.1-only or LGPL-3.0-only or LPL-1.02 or MIT or MIT-0 or MPL-1.0 or MPL-1.1 or MPL-2.0 or MS-PL or MS-RL or MirOS or Motosoto or NCSA or NGPL or NTP or Naumen or Nokia or OLDAP-2.8 or OSL-1.0 or OSL-2.1 or OSL-3.0 or PHP-3.01 or PostgreSQL or QPL-1.0 or RPSL-1.0 or SISSL or SPL-1.0 or Sleepycat or UPL-1.0 or Unicode-DFS-2016 or Unlicense or VSL-1.0 or W3C or ZPL-2.0 or ZPL-2.1 or Zlib That is 861 characters. Note that that license was long even before SDPX. Now it uses SPDX identifiers, but lowercase ors, should probably be uppercase ORs. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: How to drop 32bit support from the scientific Python stack
There is already an ancient similar request upstream with some hints how to achieve that (it was to disable s390 buikders for noarch packages, though): https://pagure.io/koji/issue/2229 Inviato da Proton Mail mobile Messaggio originale Il 5 Mag 2023, 18:19, Kevin Fenzi ha scritto: > On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 12:15:31PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 04. 05. 23 > 23:58, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 11:44:33PM +0200, Miro > Hrončok wrote: > > > On 04. 05. 23 23:40, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > > On Thu, > May 04, 2023 at 04:03:49PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > > > Hello folks, > > > > > ...snip... > > > > > Would that be possible? > > > > I don't think it > currently is... but sounds like a reasonable RFE to > > > > koji to me. > > > > > > > > > The way koji handles noarch packages is that it builds them on all > > > > > arches, checks to make sure they are all the same and just picks one > to > > > > be the 'output' build. > > > This is true for noarch subpackages > of arched packages. > > > > > > For fully noarch packages, it just builds > them on one architecture. > > Yep. You are correct, sorry for confusing the > issue there. > > > > I still think it could be something that koji would let > us do. > > When Koji triggers a noarch build job, it somehow knows it can > select *any* > builder we have. Is this a matter of our configuration or > upstream code? As far as I can tell, upstream. I could be missing something, > but I think noarch tasks just get the 'default' channel and any builder from > any arch thats in it. > E.g. do I need to file an issue at pagure.io/koji or > infra or releng? Upstream pagure.io/koji. If I am missing something and we > can do it in config they should be able to tell us. ;) kevin > ___ devel mailing list -- > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to > devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List > Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List > Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Do not reply to spam, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: mingw missing debuginfo
On 5/5/23 10:30, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 10:29:07AM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
On 5/5/23 09:45, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 09:41:01AM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
I'm trying to add mingw builds to the libssh package here:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libssh/pull-request/15
build is failing with:
Could not open %files file
/home/orion/fedora/libssh/libssh-0.10.4/mingw32-debugfiles.list: No such
file or directory
What am I doing wrong?
Missing call to:
%{?mingw_debug_install_post}
in the %install section, after installing the mingw build
With regards,
Daniel
Thanks. That seems to be missing from the example spec files in the docs:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/MinGW/#_example_integrated_package_specfile
Yeah my bad. I documented it earlier
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/MinGW/#_debuginfo_subpackage
but missed it from the example. Will send a fix next week.
With regards,
Daniel
Great, thanks. While I'm looking - it also looks like the shared
example static packages are not defined as noarch as well.
--
Orion Poplawski
he/him/his - surely the least important thing about me
IT Systems Manager 720-772-5637
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane or...@nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 https://www.nwra.com/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic 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, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: mingw missing debuginfo
On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 10:29:07AM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> On 5/5/23 09:45, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 09:41:01AM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> > > I'm trying to add mingw builds to the libssh package here:
> > >
> > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libssh/pull-request/15
> > >
> > > build is failing with:
> > >
> > > Could not open %files file
> > > /home/orion/fedora/libssh/libssh-0.10.4/mingw32-debugfiles.list: No such
> > > file or directory
> > >
> > > What am I doing wrong?
> >
> > Missing call to:
> >
> > %{?mingw_debug_install_post}
> >
> > in the %install section, after installing the mingw build
> >
> > With regards,
> > Daniel
>
> Thanks. That seems to be missing from the example spec files in the docs:
>
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/MinGW/#_example_integrated_package_specfile
Yeah my bad. I documented it earlier
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/MinGW/#_debuginfo_subpackage
but missed it from the example. Will send a fix next week.
With regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o-https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o-https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org-o-https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: mingw missing debuginfo
On 5/5/23 09:45, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 09:41:01AM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
I'm trying to add mingw builds to the libssh package here:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libssh/pull-request/15
build is failing with:
Could not open %files file
/home/orion/fedora/libssh/libssh-0.10.4/mingw32-debugfiles.list: No such
file or directory
What am I doing wrong?
Missing call to:
%{?mingw_debug_install_post}
in the %install section, after installing the mingw build
With regards,
Daniel
Thanks. That seems to be missing from the example spec files in the docs:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/MinGW/#_example_integrated_package_specfile
--
Orion Poplawski
he/him/his - surely the least important thing about me
IT Systems Manager 720-772-5637
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane or...@nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 https://www.nwra.com/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic 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, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: mingw pkgconfig reqs/provides
On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 11:14 AM Orion Poplawski wrote: > > I've submitted a test version of autogenerating mingw pkgconfig provides > and reqs here: > > https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2504 > > This generates provides like: > > Provides: mingw32(libtiff-5.dll) mingw32(libtiffxx-5.dll) > mingw32-libtiff = 4.4.0-2.fc39 mingw32-pkgconfig(libtiff-4) = 4.4.0 > > Provides: mingw64(libtiff-5.dll) mingw64(libtiffxx-5.dll) > mingw64-libtiff = 4.4.0-2.fc39 mingw64-pkgconfig(libtiff-4) = 4.4.0 > I think it would probably make sense to have that as part of the mingw-filesystem package for each mingw type (w32, ucrt, w64, etc.) rather than in the rpm pkgconfigdeps generator upstream. Otherwise it's a great idea! -- 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: SPDX Statistics - ZX Spectrum edition
This is a questionable representation though. The license in question is: "Pick your favourite OSI approved license :) http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical"; It might be more appropriate to have a license identifier that consists of those two lines. On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 11:09 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > Dne 03. 05. 23 v 14:38 Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a): > > > given we're not doing license minimization any more, I'm curious > what package is going to win the prize for the longest license tag :-) > > > So far: > > rpm-specs/perl-Exporter-Tidy.spec:0BSD or AAL or AFL-3.0 or > AGPL-3.0-only or APSL-2.0 or Apache-1.1 or Apache-2.0 or Artistic-2. > 0 or BSD-1-Clause or BSD-2-Clause or BSD-3-Clause or BSD-3-Clause-LBNL or > BSL-1.0 or CATOSL-1.1 or CDDL-1.0 or CNRI-Python or CPAL-1.0 or CPL-1.0 or > CUA-OPL-1 > .0 or ECL-1.0 or ECL-2.0 or EFL-2.0 or EPL-1.0 or EPL-2.0 or EUDatagrid or > EUPL-1.1 or EUPL-1.2 or Entessa or Fair or GPL-1.0-only or GPL-2.0-only or > GPL-3.0- > only or HPND or IPL-1.0 or ISC or Jam or LGPL-2.0-only or LGPL-2.1-only or > LGPL-3.0-only or LPL-1.02 or MIT or MIT-0 or MPL-1.0 or MPL-1.1 or MPL-2.0 or > MS-PL > or MS-RL or MirOS or Motosoto or NCSA or NGPL or NTP or Naumen or Nokia or > OLDAP-2.8 or OSL-1.0 or OSL-2.1 or OSL-3.0 or PHP-3.01 or PostgreSQL or > QPL-1.0 or > RPSL-1.0 or SISSL or SPL-1.0 or Sleepycat or UPL-1.0 or Unicode-DFS-2016 or > Unlicense or VSL-1.0 or W3C or ZPL-2.0 or ZPL-2.1 or Zlib > > That is 861 characters. > > > NEW: the package fedora-license-data now contains BNF grammar which you can > use. It is available in `/usr/share/fedora-license-data/grammar.lark` > > Any guidance on how to use this grammar ? > > https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/license-validate.py > > https://lark-parser.readthedocs.io/en/latest/how_to_use.html > > Miroslav > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Do not reply to spam, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: How to drop 32bit support from the scientific Python stack
On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 12:15:31PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 04. 05. 23 23:58, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 11:44:33PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > On 04. 05. 23 23:40, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 04:03:49PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > > > Hello folks, > > > > ...snip... > > > > > Would that be possible? > > > > I don't think it currently is... but sounds like a reasonable RFE to > > > > koji to me. > > > > > > > > The way koji handles noarch packages is that it builds them on all > > > > arches, checks to make sure they are all the same and just picks one to > > > > be the 'output' build. > > > This is true for noarch subpackages of arched packages. > > > > > > For fully noarch packages, it just builds them on one architecture. > > Yep. You are correct, sorry for confusing the issue there. > > > > I still think it could be something that koji would let us do. > > When Koji triggers a noarch build job, it somehow knows it can select *any* > builder we have. Is this a matter of our configuration or upstream code? As far as I can tell, upstream. I could be missing something, but I think noarch tasks just get the 'default' channel and any builder from any arch thats in it. > E.g. do I need to file an issue at pagure.io/koji or infra or releng? Upstream pagure.io/koji. If I am missing something and we can do it in config they should be able to tell us. ;) 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: mingw missing debuginfo
On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 09:41:01AM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> I'm trying to add mingw builds to the libssh package here:
>
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libssh/pull-request/15
>
> build is failing with:
>
> Could not open %files file
> /home/orion/fedora/libssh/libssh-0.10.4/mingw32-debugfiles.list: No such
> file or directory
>
> What am I doing wrong?
Missing call to:
%{?mingw_debug_install_post}
in the %install section, after installing the mingw build
With regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o-https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o-https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org-o-https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
mingw missing debuginfo
I'm trying to add mingw builds to the libssh package here: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libssh/pull-request/15 build is failing with: Could not open %files file /home/orion/fedora/libssh/libssh-0.10.4/mingw32-debugfiles.list: No such file or directory What am I doing wrong? -- Orion Poplawski he/him/his - surely the least important thing about me IT Systems Manager 720-772-5637 NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane or...@nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 https://www.nwra.com/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Changing the License tag of python-rpm-generators from GPLv2+ to a monstrosity
On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 9:56 AM Chris Kelley wrote: > > As a purely logical expression, this simplifies to "GPL-2.0-or-later AND > LGPL-2.1-or-later". Is that sort of simplification not allowed? The short answer is, these are not truly logical expressions and therefore they shouldn't necessarily simplify. Of course you could adopt some arbitrary convention for such simplification, which might or might not be well-grounded in some interpretation of the licenses at issue. In the past, there was no documented uniform set of conventions and basically each package maintainer applied their own assumptions about how license expressions could be simplified, leading to general inconsistency across different packages. The general trend in Fedora that I observed over many years was that license tags were getting more specific, i.e. less "simplification" was being done (or ignoring certain licenses was occurring less). This is actually shown by the fact that the Callaway system had a "Public Domain" which was widely used in packages with license tags containing references to other licenses. So we aren't actually changing policy here. Still, the cases involving public domain dedications are fairly extreme in this regard. If we *were* to adopt some system of simplification of license expressions that's probably where we'd start. Richard > > On Fri, 5 May 2023, 13:20 Miro Hrončok, wrote: >> >> python-rpm-generators License tag changes from GPLv2+ to: >> >> GPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.1-or-later AND (LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain >> OR >> LGPL-2.1-or-later OR GPL-2.0-or-later) >> >> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-rpm-generators/pull-request/67 >> >> Funny thing is that the "(LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain OR >> LGPL-2.1-or-later >> OR GPL-2.0-or-later)" thing was originally chosen to keep the License tag of >> the package simple while allowing others to grab the code from it without >> obligations :/ >> >> -- >> Miro Hrončok > ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Changing the License tag of python-rpm-generators from GPLv2+ to a monstrosity
How fun! Thanks for the links and explanation. On Fri, 5 May 2023 at 16:09, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 05. 05. 23 16:28, Mamoru TASAKA wrote: > > Chris Kelley wrote on 2023/05/05 22:55: > >> As a purely logical expression, this simplifies to "GPL-2.0-or-later AND > >> LGPL-2.1-or-later". Is that sort of simplification not allowed? > >> > > > > This is no longer allowed: > > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_no_effective_license_analysis > > Also > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_combined_disjunctive_and_conjunctive_license_expressions > which says: > > """ > The license expression must reflect the disjunctive license choice even if > one > or both of the license identifiers in the OR expression also appear > separately > in the composite license expression. > > ... > > License: (GPL-3.0-or-later OR MPL-1.1) AND GPL-3.0-or-later AND MIT > > Here we repeat GPL-3.0-or-later because for one binary component it > appears as > part of an OR subexpression. That is, OR expressions must be treated as > though > they were a single distinct license. > """ > > -- > Miro Hrončok > -- > Phone: +420777974800 > IRC: mhroncok > > ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
mingw pkgconfig reqs/provides
I've submitted a test version of autogenerating mingw pkgconfig provides and reqs here: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/2504 This generates provides like: Provides: mingw32(libtiff-5.dll) mingw32(libtiffxx-5.dll) mingw32-libtiff = 4.4.0-2.fc39 mingw32-pkgconfig(libtiff-4) = 4.4.0 Provides: mingw64(libtiff-5.dll) mingw64(libtiffxx-5.dll) mingw64-libtiff = 4.4.0-2.fc39 mingw64-pkgconfig(libtiff-4) = 4.4.0 Thoughts? -- Orion Poplawski he/him/his - surely the least important thing about me IT Systems Manager 720-772-5637 NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane or...@nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 https://www.nwra.com/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Changing the License tag of python-rpm-generators from GPLv2+ to a monstrosity
On 05. 05. 23 16:28, Mamoru TASAKA wrote: Chris Kelley wrote on 2023/05/05 22:55: As a purely logical expression, this simplifies to "GPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.1-or-later". Is that sort of simplification not allowed? This is no longer allowed: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_no_effective_license_analysis Also https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_combined_disjunctive_and_conjunctive_license_expressions which says: """ The license expression must reflect the disjunctive license choice even if one or both of the license identifiers in the OR expression also appear separately in the composite license expression. ... License: (GPL-3.0-or-later OR MPL-1.1) AND GPL-3.0-or-later AND MIT Here we repeat GPL-3.0-or-later because for one binary component it appears as part of an OR subexpression. That is, OR expressions must be treated as though they were a single distinct license. """ -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: SPDX Statistics - ZX Spectrum edition
Dne 03. 05. 23 v 14:38 Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a): given we're not doing license minimization any more, I'm curious what package is going to win the prize for the longest license tag :-) So far: rpm-specs/perl-Exporter-Tidy.spec: 0BSD or AAL or AFL-3.0 or AGPL-3.0-only or APSL-2.0 or Apache-1.1 or Apache-2.0 or Artistic-2. 0 or BSD-1-Clause or BSD-2-Clause or BSD-3-Clause or BSD-3-Clause-LBNL or BSL-1.0 or CATOSL-1.1 or CDDL-1.0 or CNRI-Python or CPAL-1.0 or CPL-1.0 or CUA-OPL-1 .0 or ECL-1.0 or ECL-2.0 or EFL-2.0 or EPL-1.0 or EPL-2.0 or EUDatagrid or EUPL-1.1 or EUPL-1.2 or Entessa or Fair or GPL-1.0-only or GPL-2.0-only or GPL-3.0- only or HPND or IPL-1.0 or ISC or Jam or LGPL-2.0-only or LGPL-2.1-only or LGPL-3.0-only or LPL-1.02 or MIT or MIT-0 or MPL-1.0 or MPL-1.1 or MPL-2.0 or MS-PL or MS-RL or MirOS or Motosoto or NCSA or NGPL or NTP or Naumen or Nokia or OLDAP-2.8 or OSL-1.0 or OSL-2.1 or OSL-3.0 or PHP-3.01 or PostgreSQL or QPL-1.0 or RPSL-1.0 or SISSL or SPL-1.0 or Sleepycat or UPL-1.0 or Unicode-DFS-2016 or Unlicense or VSL-1.0 or W3C or ZPL-2.0 or ZPL-2.1 or Zlib That is 861 characters. NEW: the package fedora-license-data now contains BNF grammar which you can use. It is available in `/usr/share/fedora-license-data/grammar.lark` Any guidance on how to use this grammar ? https://pagure.io/copr/license-validate/blob/main/f/license-validate.py https://lark-parser.readthedocs.io/en/latest/how_to_use.html Miroslav___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Changing the License tag of python-rpm-generators from GPLv2+ to a monstrosity
Chris Kelley wrote on 2023/05/05 22:55: As a purely logical expression, this simplifies to "GPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.1-or-later". Is that sort of simplification not allowed? This is no longer allowed: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/#_no_effective_license_analysis Yes, so I am also re-checking the whole sources in the srpm I maintain... Regards, Mamoru On Fri, 5 May 2023, 13:20 Miro Hrončok, wrote: python-rpm-generators License tag changes from GPLv2+ to: GPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.1-or-later AND (LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain OR LGPL-2.1-or-later OR GPL-2.0-or-later) https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-rpm-generators/pull-request/67 Funny thing is that the "(LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain OR LGPL-2.1-or-later OR GPL-2.0-or-later)" thing was originally chosen to keep the License tag of the package simple while allowing others to grab the code from it without obligations :/ -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Changing the License tag of python-rpm-generators from GPLv2+ to a monstrosity
As a purely logical expression, this simplifies to "GPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.1-or-later". Is that sort of simplification not allowed? On Fri, 5 May 2023, 13:20 Miro Hrončok, wrote: > python-rpm-generators License tag changes from GPLv2+ to: > > GPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.1-or-later AND > (LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain OR > LGPL-2.1-or-later OR GPL-2.0-or-later) > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-rpm-generators/pull-request/67 > > Funny thing is that the "(LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain OR > LGPL-2.1-or-later > OR GPL-2.0-or-later)" thing was originally chosen to keep the License tag > of > the package simple while allowing others to grab the code from it without > obligations :/ > > -- > Miro Hrončok > -- > Phone: +420777974800 > IRC: mhroncok > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Do not reply to spam, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue > ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Changing the License tag of python-rpm-generators from GPLv2+ to a monstrosity
python-rpm-generators License tag changes from GPLv2+ to: GPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.1-or-later AND (LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain OR LGPL-2.1-or-later OR GPL-2.0-or-later) https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-rpm-generators/pull-request/67 Funny thing is that the "(LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain OR LGPL-2.1-or-later OR GPL-2.0-or-later)" thing was originally chosen to keep the License tag of the package simple while allowing others to grab the code from it without obligations :/ -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Koji: Could the initial side tag repo be copied from parent (to avoid worflow delays)?
On 06. 04. 23 21:51, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 08:21:36AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: Hello, When using custom side tags like this: $ fedpkg request-side-tag $ fedpkg chain-build --target f38-build-side-... ... One of the obstacles is that the initial waitrepo for the job takes a lot of time, (e.g. 10+ minutes). That is not comfortable for the package maintainer -- it's faster to use buildroot overrides. I wonder if the initial createrepo could be skipped entirely by symlinking / copying / using the already available repository from the base (parent) tag. That could make this workflow more attractive. The sidetag plugin code is in upstream koji. This sounds like a great RFE for koji then? I don't know why it's not done that way, there might be a reason or might be an oversight, but please file a RFE on it? :) https://pagure.io/koji/issue/3808 -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Fedora rawhide compose report: 20230505.n.0 changes
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20230504.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20230505.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 5 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 135 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 3.75 MiB Size of dropped packages:0 B Size of upgraded packages: 2.59 GiB Size of downgraded packages: 0 B Size change of upgraded packages: 18.86 MiB Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B = ADDED IMAGES = = DROPPED IMAGES = = ADDED PACKAGES = Package: perl-Test-Future-IO-Impl-0.14-2.fc39 Summary: Acceptance tests for Future::IO implementations RPMs:perl-Test-Future-IO-Impl Size:19.26 KiB Package: python-pyqt6-charts-6.4.0-1.fc39 Summary: Set of Python bindings for The Qt Charts library RPMs:python3-pyqt6-charts python3-pyqt6-charts-devel Size:1.12 MiB Package: python-pyqt6-webengine-6.4.0-1.fc39 Summary: Python bindings for Qt6WebEngine RPMs:python3-pyqt6-webengine python3-pyqt6-webengine-devel Size:374.36 KiB Package: python-setuptools-gettext-0.1.3-2.fc39 Summary: Setuptools gettext extension plugin RPMs:python3-setuptools-gettext Size:20.36 KiB Package: qt6-qtlanguageserver-6.5.0-1.fc39 Summary: Qt6 - LanguageServer component RPMs:qt6-qtlanguageserver qt6-qtlanguageserver-devel Size:2.23 MiB = DROPPED PACKAGES = = UPGRADED PACKAGES = Package: GtkAda3-2:23.0.0-1.fc39 Old package: GtkAda3-2020-9.fc38 Summary: GTKada, an Ada binding to GTK+ 3 RPMs: GtkAda3 GtkAda3-devel GtkAda3-doc Dropped RPMs: GtkAda3-gl Size: 28.33 MiB Size change: -3.15 MiB Changelog: * Sun Feb 12 2023 Dennis van Raaij - 2:22.0.0-1 - Updated to v22.0.0, using the archive available on GitHub. - Changed the epoch, to mark the new upstream version scheme. - Removed year/version from the patch filenames; version control should suffice. - Added a build step to make the GtkAda User's Guide (in HTML and PDF). - Removed the GtkAda Reference Manual; build requires Gnatdoc which is not available yet on Fedora. - License fields now contain SPDX license expressions. - Use 'gprinstall' instead of 'make_install' to have better control of what goes where. - The file 'testgtk.gpr' is now updated during prep to handle the artifacts properly. - Fixed the package version and so-version. - The build is now staged to allow gtkada-dialog to be a position-independent executable. - Now using the python3 macro to reference the python3 interpreter (option to make generate). - Updated the doc package license. - Removed a reference to the GtkAda Reference Manual from the GNAT Studio plugin. - Improved spec file readability. * Tue Feb 14 2023 Dennis van Raaij - 2:23.0.0-1 - Updated to v23.0.0, using the archive available on GitHub. - The subpackage GtkAda3-gl and the library libgtkada_gl.so are gone because GTK.GLarea is now included in libgtkada.so. - Removed patch GtkAda3-3.14.2-libs.patch; the unused direct dependencies are no longer there. - Added a new build dependency: Sphinx theme from readthedocs.org (commit 7b446c4). - The version string in 'gtkada.gpr' (SOURCE4) is now updated automatically. Package: NetworkManager-1:1.43.7-1.fc39 Old package: NetworkManager-1:1.43.6-1.fc39 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-initscripts-ifcfg-rh NetworkManager-initscripts-updown NetworkManager-libnm NetworkManager-libnm-devel NetworkManager-ovs NetworkManager-ppp NetworkManager-team NetworkManager-tui NetworkManager-wifi NetworkManager-wwan Size: 25.54 MiB Size change: -32.27 KiB Changelog: * Thu May 04 2023 Thomas Haller - 1:1.43.7-1 - Update to 1.43.7 release (development) Package: alsa-lib-1.2.9-1.fc39 Old package: alsa-lib-1.2.8-3.fc38 Summary: The Advanced Linux Sound Architecture (ALSA) library RPMs: alsa-lib alsa-lib-devel alsa-topology alsa-ucm Size: 7.13 MiB Size change: 25.32 KiB Changelog: * Thu May 04 2023 Jaroslav Kysela - 1.2.9-1 - update to 1.2.9 Package: alsa-utils-1.2.9-1.fc39 Old package: alsa-utils-1.2.8-2.fc38 Summary: Advanced Linux Sound Architecture (ALSA) utilities RPMs: alsa-topology-utils alsa-ucm-utils alsa-utils alsa-utils-alsabat Size: 5.12 MiB Size change: 49.49 KiB Changelog: * Thu May 04 2023 Jaroslav Kysela - 1.2.9-1 * Updated to 1.2.9 Package: awscli-1.27.127-1.fc39 Old package: awscli-1.27.126-1.fc39 Summary: Universal Command Line Environment for AWS RPMs: awscli Size: 3.31 MiB Size change: -330 B Changelog: * Thu May 04 2023 Gwyn Ciesla - 1.27.127-1
Re: How to drop 32bit support from the scientific Python stack
On 04. 05. 23 23:58, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 11:44:33PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 04. 05. 23 23:40, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 04:03:49PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: Hello folks, ...snip... Would that be possible? I don't think it currently is... but sounds like a reasonable RFE to koji to me. The way koji handles noarch packages is that it builds them on all arches, checks to make sure they are all the same and just picks one to be the 'output' build. This is true for noarch subpackages of arched packages. For fully noarch packages, it just builds them on one architecture. Yep. You are correct, sorry for confusing the issue there. I still think it could be something that koji would let us do. When Koji triggers a noarch build job, it somehow knows it can select *any* builder we have. Is this a matter of our configuration or upstream code? E.g. do I need to file an issue at pagure.io/koji or infra or releng? -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
