[Bug 2212382] perl-Log-Dispatchouli-3.004 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2212382 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2023-a20299ee8d has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-a20299ee8d` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-a20299ee8d See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2212382 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202212382%23c3 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Circular import issue in F37
On 06-06-2023 09:39, Elliott Sales de Andrade wrote:
On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 6:45 AM Sandro wrote:
Hi again,
I'm trying to understand why I'm getting a circular import error running
tests only in F37 [1].
It's an easy fix adding an empty __init__.py in %prep, but why are F38
and rawhide buildroots happy not having that file, while F37 complaints?
Looking at the F37 log, you can see that only a few files were copied:
creating build/lib/palettable
copying palettable/utils.py -> build/lib/palettable
copying palettable/palette.py -> build/lib/palettable
copying palettable/__init__.py -> build/lib/palettable
with no trace of something named cmocean. And then looking at F38, you see:
/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/setuptools/command/build_py.py:202:
SetuptoolsDeprecationWarning: Installing 'palettable.cmocean' as
data is deprecated, please list it in `packages`.
# Package would be ignored #
Python recognizes 'palettable.cmocean' as an importable package,
but it is not listed in the `packages` configuration of setuptools.
'palettable.cmocean' has been automatically added to the distribution
only
because it may contain data files, but this behavior is likely to change
in future versions of setuptools (and therefore is considered
deprecated).
Please make sure that 'palettable.cmocean' is included as a
package by using
the `packages` configuration field or the proper discovery methods
(for example by using `find_namespace_packages(...)`/`find_namespace:`
instead of `find_packages(...)`/`find:`).
You can read more about "package discovery" and "data files" on
setuptools
documentation page.
So you can see that the newer versions are happily working, but only
through some bit of compatibility concerns. It may eventually break
there as well.
I'm not quite sure I follow your explanation/analysis.
Yes, there is a deprecation warning, which should be addresses by
upstream. I'll let them know, possibly providing a patch.
I can also see that the build for F37 is incomplete. Indeed not all
modules have been added to the wheel.
What I fail to understand is how adding test/__init__.py fixes the
problem. I mean test is not even consulted during build. It resides
outside the palettable namespace.
diff --git a/python-palettable.spec b/python-palettable.spec
index 3334dc8..8d124db 100644
--- a/python-palettable.spec
+++ b/python-palettable.spec
@@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ BuildRequires: git-core
%prep
%autosetup -p1 -n %{pypi_name}-%{version} -S git
+touch test/__init__.py
%generate_buildrequires
%pyproject_buildrequires
This is the only change I made to the spec file. And all of a sudden it
works [2]? I didn't make any changes to pyproject.toml as suggested in
the deprecation warning.
Sorry, if I wasn't clear enough in my initial post.
The versions of the involved packages only differ in minor / patch
versions between F37 and F38, if at all. With python-setuptools-wheel
being the only package with a different major version.
python3-devel 3.11.3-2.fc37 3.11.3-2.fc38
python3-pytest 7.1.3-2.fc37 7.2.2-1.fc38
pyproject-rpm-macros 1.8.0-1.fc37 1.8.0-1.fc38
python-rpm-macros 3.11-5.fc37 3.11-10.fc38
python-pip-wheel 22.2.2-3.fc37 22.3.1-2.fc38
python-setuptools-wheel 62.6.0-3.fc37 65.5.1-2.fc38
[1] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/gui1ty/neuro-sig/build/6002232/
[2] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/gui1ty/neuro-sig/build/6010125/
-- Sandro
___
python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-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/python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[rpms/perl-Type-Tiny] PR #1: Add conditions for build with/without big frameworks
yselkowitz commented on the pull-request: `Add conditions for build with/without big frameworks` that you are following: `` Also, note that there are other unwanted Perl dependencies that are currently being pulled in by perl-Type-Tiny, so this won't necessarily be sufficient. `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Type-Tiny/pull-request/1 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[rpms/perl-FCGI] PR #2: Conditionalize client tests
yselkowitz commented on the pull-request: `Conditionalize client tests` that you are following: `` 4) Merge this, and run the full testsuite in gating instead of during the build, which gives you much more flexibility wrt dependencies: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/ci/tmt/ `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-FCGI/pull-request/2 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Mock v4.1 (bugfix) released (and mock-core-configs v38.6)
Dne 06. 06. 23 v 18:32 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): On 05. 06. 23 10:39, Pavel Raiskup wrote: - Mock doesn't "Requires:" DNF anymore, just Suggests So how does this actually work? If you really want to work without DNF then you have to flip the default #config_opts['use_bootstrap_image'] = False to True. Hmm, I wonder... We should likely change this default. -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCA Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys ___ 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: SIG proposal: libreoffice-sig
I am also interested in keeping the LO packages in Fedora. Hussein On 6/6/23 20:55, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: I'm forking this proposal off from the other thread, as it got buried under tons of posts. Shall we set up a libreoffice-sig to coordinate and ensure that libreoffice and all dependencies are properly maintained and updated as RPMs? Are there enough users which, like me, don't like the idea to only have LO available as a flatpak from an external service like Flathub and would like to join forces to maintain it in RPM repos? What it is needed to set up a SIG? A wiki page and a mailing list? And also a FAS group, I suppose? BTW I've already seen a couple of hiccups which needs to be solved: the Bugzilla assignee of libreoffice package on src.fp.o is set to @sbergmann but I suppose it should now be changed to @limb? And, also, libreoffice 7.5.3 failed to build on Fedora Rawhide, so we now have LO 3.5.3 on F38 and LO 3.5.2 on Rawhide. Mattia ___ 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: SIG proposal: libreoffice-sig
Then I can be that person. :) -- Gwyn Ciesla she/her/hers in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie Sent with Proton Mail secure email. --- Original Message --- On Tuesday, June 6th, 2023 at 2:16 PM, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 9:01 PM Gwyn Ciesla via devel > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote: > > > I would honestly prefer ownership be transferred to the libreoffice -sig, > > of which I am more than happy to be a member. > > > This is not possible, the "main admin" needs to be a person, and > cannot be a group. However, the default assignee for BugZilla bugs > can be overridden to be a group, which is basically the next best > thing. > > In my experience (:sad java face:), what's needed to form a SIG that > can maintain packages is: > > - requesting a FAS group with dist-git group > - a private mailing list that will receive bugzilla email > - a bugzilla account registered with the email address of this private > mailing list > - a Wiki page (though this is less important than it used to be) > - (maybe I forgot something) > (but fedora-infra people will also tell you what you need if you open a > ticket) > > Most SIGs also have IRC / Matrix channels or tracking projects on > pagure, but these are all optional and can be added later. > > And I'm not sure how much time I can contribute, but I'd also like to > help keep libreoffice RPMs available in Fedora. :) > > Fabio > ___ > 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 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital 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: SIG proposal: libreoffice-sig
On Tue, 06 Jun 2023 18:55:36 + Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > I'm forking this proposal off from the other thread, as it got buried > under tons of posts. > > Shall we set up a libreoffice-sig to coordinate and ensure that > libreoffice and all dependencies are properly maintained and updated as > RPMs? Are there enough users which, like me, don't like the idea to only > have LO available as a flatpak from an external service like Flathub and > would like to join forces to maintain it in RPM repos? I am surely interested in the RPMs, mainly from the ppc64le (and s390x) point of view. They are very unlikely to get flatpaks. Dan ___ 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: SIG proposal: libreoffice-sig
On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 9:01 PM Gwyn Ciesla via devel wrote: > > I would honestly prefer ownership be transferred to the libreoffice -sig, of > which I am more than happy to be a member. This is not possible, the "main admin" needs to be a person, and cannot be a group. However, the default assignee for BugZilla bugs *can* be overridden to be a group, which is basically the next best thing. In my experience (:sad java face:), what's needed to form a SIG that can maintain packages is: - requesting a FAS group *with* dist-git group - a private mailing list that will receive bugzilla email - a bugzilla account registered with the email address of this private mailing list - a Wiki page (though this is less important than it used to be) - (maybe I forgot something) (but fedora-infra people will also tell you what you need if you open a ticket) Most SIGs also have IRC / Matrix channels or tracking projects on pagure, but these are all optional and can be added later. And I'm not sure how much time I can contribute, but I'd also like to help keep libreoffice RPMs available in Fedora. :) Fabio ___ 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
[Bug 2212972] New: perl-Graphics-TIFF-20 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2212972 Bug ID: 2212972 Summary: perl-Graphics-TIFF-20 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-Graphics-TIFF Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee: ppi...@redhat.com Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, ppi...@redhat.com Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Releases retrieved: 20 Upstream release that is considered latest: 20 Current version/release in rawhide: 19-5.fc39 URL: https://metacpan.org/release/Graphics-TIFF Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/ More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Upstream_Release_Monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from Anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/15735/ To change the monitoring settings for the project, please visit: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Graphics-TIFF -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2212972 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202212972%23c0 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: SIG proposal: libreoffice-sig
I would honestly prefer ownership be transferred to the libreoffice -sig, of which I am more than happy to be a member. -- Gwyn Ciesla she/her/hers in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie Sent with Proton Mail secure email. --- Original Message --- On Tuesday, June 6th, 2023 at 1:55 PM, Mattia Verga wrote: > I'm forking this proposal off from the other thread, as it got buried > under tons of posts. > > Shall we set up a libreoffice-sig to coordinate and ensure that > libreoffice and all dependencies are properly maintained and updated as > RPMs? Are there enough users which, like me, don't like the idea to only > have LO available as a flatpak from an external service like Flathub and > would like to join forces to maintain it in RPM repos? > > What it is needed to set up a SIG? A wiki page and a mailing list? And > also a FAS group, I suppose? > > BTW I've already seen a couple of hiccups which needs to be solved: the > Bugzilla assignee of libreoffice package on src.fp.o is set to > @sbergmann but I suppose it should now be changed to @limb? And, also, > libreoffice 7.5.3 failed to build on Fedora Rawhide, so we now have LO > 3.5.3 on F38 and LO 3.5.2 on Rawhide. > > Mattia signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital 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
SIG proposal: libreoffice-sig
I'm forking this proposal off from the other thread, as it got buried under tons of posts. Shall we set up a libreoffice-sig to coordinate and ensure that libreoffice and all dependencies are properly maintained and updated as RPMs? Are there enough users which, like me, don't like the idea to only have LO available as a flatpak from an external service like Flathub and would like to join forces to maintain it in RPM repos? What it is needed to set up a SIG? A wiki page and a mailing list? And also a FAS group, I suppose? BTW I've already seen a couple of hiccups which needs to be solved: the Bugzilla assignee of libreoffice package on src.fp.o is set to @sbergmann but I suppose it should now be changed to @limb? And, also, libreoffice 7.5.3 failed to build on Fedora Rawhide, so we now have LO 3.5.3 on F38 and LO 3.5.2 on Rawhide. Mattia ___ 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
[Bug 2212959] New: perl-MCE-1.886 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2212959 Bug ID: 2212959 Summary: perl-MCE-1.886 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-MCE Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee: p...@city-fan.org Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: p...@city-fan.org, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Releases retrieved: 1.886 Upstream release that is considered latest: 1.886 Current version/release in rawhide: 1.885-1.fc39 URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/MCE/ Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/ More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Upstream_Release_Monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from Anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/5965/ To change the monitoring settings for the project, please visit: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-MCE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2212959 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202212959%23c0 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Issue with Rawhide docker image?
Once upon a time, Clement Verna said: > Once https://github.com/docker-library/official-images/pull/14789 merges, > the rawhide image on the DockerHub should be fixed too :-) So... if it takes a manual process (including opening a PR), does it really make sense to put Rawhide images on Dockerhub? -- Chris Adams ___ 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: Mock v4.1 (bugfix) released (and mock-core-configs v38.6)
On 05. 06. 23 10:39, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
- Mock doesn't "Requires:" DNF anymore, just Suggests
So how does this actually work?
I can dnf install mock, dnf remove dnf-plugins-core python3-dnf in a Rawhide
container and mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --init.
I get:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/libexec/mock/mock", line 1082, in
exitStatus = main()
^^
File "/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/mockbuild/trace_decorator.py", line
93, in trace
result = func(*args, **kw)
^
File "/usr/libexec/mock/mock", line 842, in main
result = run_command(options, args, config_opts, commands, buildroot, state)
^^^
File "/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/mockbuild/trace_decorator.py", line
93, in trace
result = func(*args, **kw)
^
File "/usr/libexec/mock/mock", line 870, in run_command
commands.init()
File "/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/mockbuild/trace_decorator.py", line
93, in trace
result = func(*args, **kw)
^
File "/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/mockbuild/backend.py", line 163, in
init
self.bootstrap_buildroot.initialize(**kwargs)
File "/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/mockbuild/trace_decorator.py", line
93, in trace
result = func(*args, **kw)
^
File "/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/mockbuild/buildroot.py", line 181,
in initialize
self._init(prebuild=prebuild, do_log=do_log)
File "/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/mockbuild/trace_decorator.py", line
93, in trace
result = func(*args, **kw)
^
File "/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/mockbuild/buildroot.py", line 248,
in _init
self.set_package_manager()
File "/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/mockbuild/buildroot.py", line 152,
in set_package_manager
self.pkg_manager = package_manager(self, self.bootstrap_buildroot, fallback)
^
File "/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/mockbuild/package_manager.py", line
99, in package_manager
cls = package_manager_class_fallback(buildroot.config, buildroot, fallback)
^
File "/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/mockbuild/package_manager.py", line
95, in package_manager_class_fallback
raise Exception("No package from {} found".format(fallbacks[desired]))
Exception: No package from ['dnf', 'dnf5', 'yum'] found
Should mock still Require at least (python3-dnf or dnf5)?
--
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
[rpms/perl-Type-Tiny] PR #1: Add conditions for build with/without big frameworks
yselkowitz commented on the pull-request: `Add conditions for build with/without big frameworks` that you are following: `` But if we minimize things here rather than in FCGI, perhaps it would be cleaner to have a single bcond to cover all the big deps? `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Type-Tiny/pull-request/1 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: LibreOffice packages
On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 10:00 PM Christian Schaller wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 2:36 PM Demi Marie Obenour > wrote: >> >> Why is a Flatpak a better choice for LibreOffice? >> -- >> Sincerely, >> Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers) > > There are a lot of ways to answer this, but from any upstream the advantage > of Flatpak is that it means package once and then deploy everywhere. So it > saves them work. > > From a Fedora perspective there is of course nobody telling anyone to not > maintain LibreOffice as RPMS or as a Fedora flatpak going forward, but even > if nobody does we have a good option available in the Flathub package, > especially with the Flathub package not being verified as the official > package of upstream LibreOffice. I wanted to add one thing here. In general, I do like having software available as flatpaks, especially if it's not available from Fedora repositories. However, there's also the question of *trust* - do I trust the software source and / or the people / projects providing them? Let's take LibreOffice as an example, since it started this whole discussion. The Fedora package appears to bundle only one "major" dependency, hsqldb, and it's documented and justified why this is the case in the spec file. On the other hand, the libreoffice flatpak bundles ~80 projects: - OpenJDK 17 (huh? is there no shared JDK flatpak runtime / SDK extension?) - krb5 (huh?) - xmlsec - boost 1.80 - gpgme (huh?) - mariadb-connector-c - openldap (huh?) - poppler - PostgreSQL 13.10 (huh?) - and about 70 more (but with less memorable names) While I *do* trust the LibreOffice project (somewhat) to ship their own software correctly, do I trust them regarding these ~80 bundled - and partially security sensitive - libraries, as well? I'm not sure. Do I trust the Fedora packages for these libraries? Probably. Many of these libraries are installed by default on Fedora, and are not only used by LibreOffice, so I basically placed implicit trust in these when I first installed Fedora on my machine. Fabio ___ 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
[EPEL-devel] [Fedocal] Reminder meeting : EPEL Steering Committee
Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: EPEL Steering Committee on 2023-06-07 from 16:00:00 to 17:00:00 US/Eastern At fedora-meet...@irc.libera.chat The meeting will be about: This is the weekly EPEL Steering Committee Meeting. A general agenda is the following: #topic aloha #topic EPEL Issues https://pagure.io/epel/issues * https://pagure.io/epel/issues?tags=meeting=Open #topic Old Business (if needed) #topic General Issues / Open Floor Source: https://calendar.fedoraproject.org//meeting/9854/ ___ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Issue with Rawhide docker image?
Once https://github.com/docker-library/official-images/pull/14789 merges, the rawhide image on the DockerHub should be fixed too :-) Thanks for flagging this up. On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 at 16:37, Ron Olson wrote: > Yep, that worked, thanks! > > For folks searching similar info later, I ran: > > docker pull registry.fedoraproject.org/fedora:rawhide > > On 6 Jun 2023, at 8:34, David Schwörer wrote: > > Seems a bit disappointing. I’ve been searching but cannot find any > info on configuring docker to use Fedora’s repo so I could just ignore > the issue altogether. :) > > You should be able to use a full url: > podman pull registry.fedoraproject.org/fedora:rawhide > podman pull quay.io/fedora/fedora:rawhide > Same should be true for docker, but I haven't tested. > -- > > 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: Issue with Rawhide docker image?
Yep, that worked, thanks! For folks searching similar info later, I ran: docker pull registry.fedoraproject.org/fedora:rawhide On 6 Jun 2023, at 8:34, David Schwörer wrote: Seems a bit disappointing. I’ve been searching but cannot find any info on configuring docker to use Fedora’s repo so I could just ignore the issue altogether. :) You should be able to use a full url: podman pull registry.fedoraproject.org/fedora:rawhide podman pull quay.io/fedora/fedora:rawhide Same should be true for docker, but I haven't tested. ___ 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
No schedule for Tuesday's FESCo Meeting (2023-06-06)
There are no topics to be discussed in the FESCo meeting Tuesday at 17:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on irc.libera.chat. Hence, there will be no such meeting. I cannot chair the meeting next week, so FESCo members, please speak up if you can. = Discussed and Voted in the Ticket = Change: Make Toolbx a release-blocking deliverable and have release-blocking test criteria https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3002 APPROVED (+6, 0, -0) -- 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: LibreOffice packages
On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 7:50 AM Leon Fauster via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Is the Fedora OCI flatpak approach not about the trust into the chain of > flatpak creation? src -> signed rpm -> flatpak? So, even in an ideal world > where RHEL is immutable and the best workstation experience is based on > flatpaks - RPMs are the building block. This is completly different to the > Flathub approach ... > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Flatpak#Fedora_flatpaks > In both cases, the build is fixed to a cryptographic hash of the source tarball. For Flathub, that is done in the manifest file.. ( https://github.com/flathub/org.libreoffice.LibreOffice/blob/master/org.libreoffice.LibreOffice.json) In Fedora, by the SOURCES file. In both cases, the exact tools versions used to build the binary from the source are recorded. For Flathub, that is done by embedding an extended version of the manifest in the application (at /app/manifest.json). For Fedora, that information is recorded by the buildroot information saved by koji. You could look for more - does the hash in the SOURCES file actually correspond to the published upstream tarball? Is there a signature on that tarball? Do you trust that signature? But I don't see much of a difference in this aspect. Building an intermediate RPM doesn't make the source => Flatpak pipeline more secure. - Owen ___ 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
[Bug 2212811] perl-Socket-2.037 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2212811 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||perl-Socket-2.037-1.fc39 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Last Closed||2023-06-06 13:39:59 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2212811 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Issue with Rawhide docker image?
> Seems a bit disappointing. I’ve been searching but cannot find any > info on configuring docker to use Fedora’s repo so I could just ignore > the issue altogether. :) You should be able to use a full url: podman pull registry.fedoraproject.org/fedora:rawhide podman pull quay.io/fedora/fedora:rawhide Same should be true for docker, but I haven't tested. ___ 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: Issue with Rawhide docker image?
Seems a bit disappointing. I’ve been searching but cannot find any info on configuring docker to use Fedora’s repo so I could just ignore the issue altogether. :) On 5 Jun 2023, at 16:41, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: Il 05/06/23 22:12, Ron Olson ha scritto: Hey all, I am using docker and pulled the latest version of rawhide to use interactively. Sitting in the container I ran `dnf -y update` and got: Config error: Parsing file "/etc/dnf/dnf.conf" failed: Parsing file '/etc/dnf/dnf.conf' failed: IniParser: Missing section header at line 1 I stopped the container, deleted it, deleted the image, tried to pull a fresh instance and got exactly the same issue. Suffice to say this makes the container unusable. What's the protocol for informing the powers-that-be about this issue? Ron See: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/11358 ___ 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
[Bug 2212811] perl-Socket-2.037 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2212811 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC|jples...@redhat.com,| |mspa...@redhat.com, | |ppi...@redhat.com | Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2212811 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: libftdi: Failure to create output directory (aarch64 only)
On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 06:15:29 -0500 Richard Shaw wrote: > On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 4:17 AM Dan Horák wrote: > > > On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 11:00:39 +0200 > > Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, 06 June 2023 at 10:55, Dan Horák wrote: > > > > On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 09:50:09 +0200 > > > > Dan Horák wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 17:53:59 -0500 > > > > > Richard Shaw wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I just saw this[1] on the packager dashboard: > > > > > > > > > > > > error: Could not create output directory > > > > > > /builddir/build/BUILD/libftdi1-1.5/redhat-linux-build/doc/xml > > > > > > > > > > > > Full log: > > > > > > > > https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/work/tasks/5182/101845182/build.log > > > > > > > > > > > > Is this a known issue? > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/libftdi?collection=f39 > > > > > > > > > > it is an interesting issue, because my fresh scratch build [2] runs > > > > > well on aarch64, but fails on s390x with the same error as yours > > > > > and with a different error on ppc64le ... I wonder if it could be a > > > > > "parallel make" issue. > > > > > > > > > > [2] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101861225 > > > > > > > > I think it is a parallel make issue, with an explicit "-j1" the builds > > > > are passing OK > > > > > > > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101862160 > > > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101862632 > > > > > > > > Perhaps it explains also the previous failures seen by koschei ... > > > > > > Reporting these upstream is best. I've had a similar issue with INN for > > > years, but it has been fixed: > > > https://github.com/InterNetNews/inn/issues/206 . > > > > right, but the upstream mailing list looks like a black hole from a > > contributor point of view. But thanks to the SUSE maintainer and > > http://developer.intra2net.com/mailarchive/html/libftdi/2023/msg5.html > > we have the fix I believe. > > > > Thanks all! I'm not the primary maintainer but I didn't remember having > this issue in the past so didn't even think it would be a parallel make > issue. yeah, I think we were just lucky not seeing the issue earlier :-) Dan ___ 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
[Bug 2212811] New: perl-Socket-2.037 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2212811 Bug ID: 2212811 Summary: perl-Socket-2.037 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-Socket Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee: jples...@redhat.com Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: jples...@redhat.com, mspa...@redhat.com, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, ppi...@redhat.com Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Releases retrieved: 2.037 Upstream release that is considered latest: 2.037 Current version/release in rawhide: 2.036-2.fc38 URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Socket/ Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/ More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Upstream_Release_Monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from Anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/3321/ To change the monitoring settings for the project, please visit: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Socket -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2212811 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202212811%23c0 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Fedora rawhide compose report: 20230606.n.0 changes
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20230605.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20230606.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:4 Dropped images: 1 Added packages: 2 Dropped packages:3 Upgraded packages: 176 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 112.84 KiB Size of dropped packages:4.11 MiB Size of upgraded packages: 2.84 GiB Size of downgraded packages: 0 B Size change of upgraded packages: 17.30 MiB Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B = ADDED IMAGES = Image: Kinoite dvd-ostree ppc64le Path: Kinoite/ppc64le/iso/Fedora-Kinoite-ostree-ppc64le-Rawhide-20230606.n.0.iso Image: Server_KVM qcow2 s390x Path: Server/s390x/images/Fedora-Server-KVM-Rawhide-20230606.n.0.s390x.qcow2 Image: Silverblue dvd-ostree x86_64 Path: Silverblue/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Silverblue-ostree-x86_64-Rawhide-20230606.n.0.iso Image: Container_Minimal_Base docker ppc64le Path: Container/ppc64le/images/Fedora-Container-Minimal-Base-Rawhide-20230606.n.0.ppc64le.tar.xz = DROPPED IMAGES = Image: Container_Base docker s390x Path: Container/s390x/images/Fedora-Container-Base-Rawhide-20230605.n.0.s390x.tar.xz = ADDED PACKAGES = Package: rust-signature1-1.6.4-1.fc39 Summary: Traits for cryptographic signature algorithms (e.g. ECDSA, Ed25519) RPMs:rust-signature1+default-devel rust-signature1+derive-preview-devel rust-signature1+digest-devel rust-signature1+digest-preview-devel rust-signature1+hazmat-preview-devel rust-signature1+rand-preview-devel rust-signature1+rand_core-devel rust-signature1+signature_derive-devel rust-signature1+std-devel rust-signature1-devel Size:89.28 KiB Package: rust-signature_derive1-1.0.0~pre.7-1.fc39 Summary: Custom derive support for the 'signature' crate RPMs:rust-signature_derive1+default-devel rust-signature_derive1-devel Size:23.56 KiB = DROPPED PACKAGES = Package: pcb2gcode-1.3.2-25.fc38 Summary: Command-line software for the isolation, routing and drilling of PCBs RPMs:pcb2gcode Size:2.14 MiB Package: python-aiocurrencylayer-1.0.4-2.fc38 Summary: Python wrapper for interacting with the currencylayer API RPMs:python3-aiocurrencylayer Size:16.04 KiB Package: rocm-opencl-5.5.1-1.fc39 Summary: ROCm OpenCL Runtime RPMs:rocm-clinfo rocm-opencl rocm-opencl-devel Size:1.96 MiB = UPGRADED PACKAGES = Package: Carla-1:2.5.5-1.fc39 Old package: Carla-1:2.5.4-1.fc39 Summary: Audio plugin host RPMs: Carla Carla-devel Carla-vst lv2-carla Size: 55.45 MiB Size change: 599.49 KiB Changelog: * Mon Jun 05 2023 Martin Gansser - 1:2.5.5-1 - Update to 2.5.5 Package: IP2Location-8.6.0-7.fc39 Old package: IP2Location-8.6.0-6.fc39 Summary: Tools for mapping IP address to geolocation information RPMs: IP2Location IP2Location-data-sample IP2Location-devel IP2Location-libs Size: 4.70 MiB Size change: 3.01 KiB Changelog: * Sun Jun 04 2023 Peter Bieringer - 8.6.0-7 - reenable "make check" for arch s390x and wait for upstream fix - add IP2Location-8.6.0-bigendian.patch Package: R-jsonlite-1.8.5-1.fc39 Old package: R-jsonlite-1.8.0-3.fc39 Summary: A Simple and Robust JSON Parser and Generator for R RPMs: R-jsonlite Size: 2.54 MiB Size change: 32.11 KiB Changelog: * Mon Jun 05 2023 Tom Callaway - 1.8.5-1 - update to 1.8.5 Package: R-parallelly-1.36.0-1.fc39 Old package: R-parallelly-1.34.0-2.fc39 Summary: Enhancing the 'parallel' Package RPMs: R-parallelly Size: 410.53 KiB Size change: 25.10 KiB Changelog: * Mon Jun 05 2023 Tom Callaway - 1.36.0-1 - update to 1.36.0, use SPDX license tag Package: R-rmarkdown-2.22-1.fc39 Old package: R-rmarkdown-2.21-1.fc39 Summary: Dynamic Documents for R RPMs: R-rmarkdown Size: 1.57 MiB Size change: 40.87 KiB Changelog: * Mon Jun 05 2023 Tom Callaway - 2.22-1 - 2.22 Package: annobin-12.12-1.fc39 Old package: annobin-12.11-3.fc39 Summary: Annotate and examine compiled binary files RPMs: annobin-annocheck annobin-docs annobin-libannocheck annobin-plugin-clang annobin-plugin-gcc annobin-plugin-llvm Size: 5.03 MiB Size change: 16.15 KiB Changelog: * Thu Jun 01 2023 Nick Clifton - 12.12-1 - Annocheck: Check for string notes in separate debug info files. (#2211694) Package: awscli-1.27.147-1.fc39 Old package: awscli-1.27.146-1.fc39 Summary: Universal Command Line Environment for AWS RPMs: awscli Size: 3.32 MiB Size change: -136 B Changelog: * Mon Jun 05 2023 Gwyn Ciesla - 1.27.147-1 - 1.27.147 Package: barrage-1.0.7-1.fc39 Old package: barrage-1.0.6-3.fc39 Summary: Kill and destroy as many targets as possible within 3 minutes RPMs: barrage Size: 1.18 MiB Size change: -401 B Changelog: * Mon Jun 05 2023 Gwyn Ciesla - 1.0.7-1 - 1.0.7 Package: breeze-icon-theme-5.107.0-1.fc39 Old package: breeze-icon-theme
Re: LibreOffice packages
Is the Fedora OCI flatpak approach not about the trust into the chain of flatpak creation? src -> signed rpm -> flatpak? So, even in an ideal world where RHEL is immutable and the best workstation experience is based on flatpaks - RPMs are the building block. This is completly different to the Flathub approach ... https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Flatpak#Fedora_flatpaks ___ 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: LibreOffice packages
On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 at 16:14, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 5 2023 at 01:37:24 PM -0400, Stephen Smoogen > wrote: > > > > 1. What is a flatpak and what does it mean to have an application in > > it? Is it everything bundled in it or does it use layers? > > Two layers: > > * Runtime (base platform, responsibility of runtime maintainers) > * Application (including bundled dependencies not present in the > runtime) > > It's a compromise between traditional distribution-style dynamic > linking for the most common dependencies (the runtime), plus bundling > for the less-common dependencies the application needs that are not > present in the runtime. > > I just wanted to say thank you for taking the time to answer these questions. It was very helpful. -- Stephen Smoogen, Red Hat Automotive Let us be kind to one another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle. -- Ian MacClaren ___ 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: libftdi: Failure to create output directory (aarch64 only)
On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 4:17 AM Dan Horák wrote: > On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 11:00:39 +0200 > Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > > On Tuesday, 06 June 2023 at 10:55, Dan Horák wrote: > > > On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 09:50:09 +0200 > > > Dan Horák wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 17:53:59 -0500 > > > > Richard Shaw wrote: > > > > > > > > > I just saw this[1] on the packager dashboard: > > > > > > > > > > error: Could not create output directory > > > > > /builddir/build/BUILD/libftdi1-1.5/redhat-linux-build/doc/xml > > > > > > > > > > Full log: > > > > > > https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/work/tasks/5182/101845182/build.log > > > > > > > > > > Is this a known issue? > > > > > > > > > > [1] > https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/libftdi?collection=f39 > > > > > > > > it is an interesting issue, because my fresh scratch build [2] runs > > > > well on aarch64, but fails on s390x with the same error as yours > > > > and with a different error on ppc64le ... I wonder if it could be a > > > > "parallel make" issue. > > > > > > > > [2] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101861225 > > > > > > I think it is a parallel make issue, with an explicit "-j1" the builds > > > are passing OK > > > > > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101862160 > > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101862632 > > > > > > Perhaps it explains also the previous failures seen by koschei ... > > > > Reporting these upstream is best. I've had a similar issue with INN for > > years, but it has been fixed: > > https://github.com/InterNetNews/inn/issues/206 . > > right, but the upstream mailing list looks like a black hole from a > contributor point of view. But thanks to the SUSE maintainer and > http://developer.intra2net.com/mailarchive/html/libftdi/2023/msg5.html > we have the fix I believe. > Thanks all! I'm not the primary maintainer but I didn't remember having this issue in the past so didn't even think it would be a parallel make issue. 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2212782] perl-HTTP-OAI-4.13 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2212782 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In Version||perl-HTTP-OAI-4.13-1.fc39 --- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar --- A bug-fix release suitable for all Fedoras. Update in stable Fedoras will wait on stabilizing a previous build. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2212782 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202212782%23c1 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: %find_lang does not find locale files
On 24. 05. 23 8:06, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: @churchyard: Miro, is it possible to tell %pyproject_save_files about the locale directory or should I resort to one of the workarounds mentioned in the ticket? %pyproject_save_files currently detects and marks %lang files if they: - have a .mo suffix - are directly in a directory called LC_MESSAGES The parent directory of LC_MESSAGES is considered the language code. If it has _ in it, the part after it is removed. For example: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/notebook/i18n/fr_FR/LC_MESSAGES/nbui.mo ...is marked as %lang(fr). Does the %lang tag serve any purpose when there aren't separate language-specific packages? I honestly don't know. I guess RPM can be instructed not to install %lang(...) files of disabled languages, but I don't know how/when that actually happens. -- 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
[Bug 2212782] perl-HTTP-OAI-4.13 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2212782 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|ppi...@redhat.com | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2212782 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2212782] New: perl-HTTP-OAI-4.13 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2212782 Bug ID: 2212782 Summary: perl-HTTP-OAI-4.13 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-HTTP-OAI Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee: ppi...@redhat.com Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, ppi...@redhat.com, vano...@gmail.com Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Releases retrieved: 4.13 Upstream release that is considered latest: 4.13 Current version/release in rawhide: 4.12-1.fc39 URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/HTTP-OAI/ Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/ More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Upstream_Release_Monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from Anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/5937/ To change the monitoring settings for the project, please visit: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-HTTP-OAI -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2212782 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202212782%23c0 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2212775] New: Upgrade perl-Net-DNS-SEC to 1.21
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2212775 Bug ID: 2212775 Summary: Upgrade perl-Net-DNS-SEC to 1.21 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide URL: https://metacpan.org/release/Net-DNS-SEC Status: NEW Component: perl-Net-DNS-SEC Assignee: wjhns...@hardakers.net Reporter: jples...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: paul.wout...@aiven.io, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, wjhns...@hardakers.net Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Latest Fedora delivers 1.20 version. Upstream released 1.21. When you have free time, please upgrade it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2212775 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202212775%23c0 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2212382] perl-Log-Dispatchouli-3.004 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2212382 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2023-a20299ee8d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-a20299ee8d -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2212382 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202212382%23c2 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: libftdi: Failure to create output directory (aarch64 only)
On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 11:00:39 +0200 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > On Tuesday, 06 June 2023 at 10:55, Dan Horák wrote: > > On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 09:50:09 +0200 > > Dan Horák wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 17:53:59 -0500 > > > Richard Shaw wrote: > > > > > > > I just saw this[1] on the packager dashboard: > > > > > > > > error: Could not create output directory > > > > /builddir/build/BUILD/libftdi1-1.5/redhat-linux-build/doc/xml > > > > > > > > Full log: > > > > https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/work/tasks/5182/101845182/build.log > > > > > > > > Is this a known issue? > > > > > > > > [1] https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/libftdi?collection=f39 > > > > > > it is an interesting issue, because my fresh scratch build [2] runs > > > well on aarch64, but fails on s390x with the same error as yours > > > and with a different error on ppc64le ... I wonder if it could be a > > > "parallel make" issue. > > > > > > [2] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101861225 > > > > I think it is a parallel make issue, with an explicit "-j1" the builds > > are passing OK > > > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101862160 > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101862632 > > > > Perhaps it explains also the previous failures seen by koschei ... > > Reporting these upstream is best. I've had a similar issue with INN for > years, but it has been fixed: > https://github.com/InterNetNews/inn/issues/206 . right, but the upstream mailing list looks like a black hole from a contributor point of view. But thanks to the SUSE maintainer and http://developer.intra2net.com/mailarchive/html/libftdi/2023/msg5.html we have the fix I believe. Dan ___ 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: libftdi: Failure to create output directory (aarch64 only)
On Tuesday, 06 June 2023 at 10:55, Dan Horák wrote: > On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 09:50:09 +0200 > Dan Horák wrote: > > > On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 17:53:59 -0500 > > Richard Shaw wrote: > > > > > I just saw this[1] on the packager dashboard: > > > > > > error: Could not create output directory > > > /builddir/build/BUILD/libftdi1-1.5/redhat-linux-build/doc/xml > > > > > > Full log: > > > https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/work/tasks/5182/101845182/build.log > > > > > > Is this a known issue? > > > > > > [1] https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/libftdi?collection=f39 > > > > it is an interesting issue, because my fresh scratch build [2] runs > > well on aarch64, but fails on s390x with the same error as yours > > and with a different error on ppc64le ... I wonder if it could be a > > "parallel make" issue. > > > > [2] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101861225 > > I think it is a parallel make issue, with an explicit "-j1" the builds > are passing OK > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101862160 > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101862632 > > Perhaps it explains also the previous failures seen by koschei ... Reporting these upstream is best. I've had a similar issue with INN for years, but it has been fixed: https://github.com/InterNetNews/inn/issues/206 . Regards, Dominik -- Fedora https://fedoraproject.org There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and oppression to develop psychic muscles. -- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan ___ 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: libftdi: Failure to create output directory (aarch64 only)
On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 09:50:09 +0200 Dan Horák wrote: > On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 17:53:59 -0500 > Richard Shaw wrote: > > > I just saw this[1] on the packager dashboard: > > > > error: Could not create output directory > > /builddir/build/BUILD/libftdi1-1.5/redhat-linux-build/doc/xml > > > > Full log: > > https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/work/tasks/5182/101845182/build.log > > > > Is this a known issue? > > > > [1] https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/libftdi?collection=f39 > > it is an interesting issue, because my fresh scratch build [2] runs > well on aarch64, but fails on s390x with the same error as yours > and with a different error on ppc64le ... I wonder if it could be a > "parallel make" issue. > > [2] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101861225 I think it is a parallel make issue, with an explicit "-j1" the builds are passing OK https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101862160 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101862632 Perhaps it explains also the previous failures seen by koschei ... Dan ___ 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
[Bug 2212382] perl-Log-Dispatchouli-3.004 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2212382 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In Version||perl-Log-Dispatchouli-3.004 ||-1.fc39 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2212382 ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: libftdi: Failure to create output directory (aarch64 only)
On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 17:53:59 -0500 Richard Shaw wrote: > I just saw this[1] on the packager dashboard: > > error: Could not create output directory > /builddir/build/BUILD/libftdi1-1.5/redhat-linux-build/doc/xml > > Full log: > https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/work/tasks/5182/101845182/build.log > > Is this a known issue? > > [1] https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/libftdi?collection=f39 it is an interesting issue, because my fresh scratch build [2] runs well on aarch64, but fails on s390x with the same error as yours and with a different error on ppc64le ... I wonder if it could be a "parallel make" issue. [2] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=101861225 Dan ___ 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: Circular import issue in F37
On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 6:45 AM Sandro wrote: > > Hi again, > > I'm trying to understand why I'm getting a circular import error running > tests only in F37 [1]. > > It's an easy fix adding an empty __init__.py in %prep, but why are F38 > and rawhide buildroots happy not having that file, while F37 complaints? Looking at the F37 log, you can see that only a few files were copied: creating build/lib/palettable copying palettable/utils.py -> build/lib/palettable copying palettable/palette.py -> build/lib/palettable copying palettable/__init__.py -> build/lib/palettable with no trace of something named cmocean. And then looking at F38, you see: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/setuptools/command/build_py.py:202: SetuptoolsDeprecationWarning: Installing 'palettable.cmocean' as data is deprecated, please list it in `packages`. # Package would be ignored # Python recognizes 'palettable.cmocean' as an importable package, but it is not listed in the `packages` configuration of setuptools. 'palettable.cmocean' has been automatically added to the distribution only because it may contain data files, but this behavior is likely to change in future versions of setuptools (and therefore is considered deprecated). Please make sure that 'palettable.cmocean' is included as a package by using the `packages` configuration field or the proper discovery methods (for example by using `find_namespace_packages(...)`/`find_namespace:` instead of `find_packages(...)`/`find:`). You can read more about "package discovery" and "data files" on setuptools documentation page. So you can see that the newer versions are happily working, but only through some bit of compatibility concerns. It may eventually break there as well. > > The versions of the involved packages only differ in minor / patch > versions between F37 and F38, if at all. With python-setuptools-wheel > being the only package with a different major version. > > python3-devel 3.11.3-2.fc37 3.11.3-2.fc38 > python3-pytest 7.1.3-2.fc37 7.2.2-1.fc38 > pyproject-rpm-macros 1.8.0-1.fc37 1.8.0-1.fc38 > python-rpm-macros 3.11-5.fc37 3.11-10.fc38 > python-pip-wheel 22.2.2-3.fc37 22.3.1-2.fc38 > python-setuptools-wheel 62.6.0-3.fc37 65.5.1-2.fc38 > > > [1] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/gui1ty/neuro-sig/build/6002232/ > > Cheers, > -- > Sandro > FAS: gui1ty > IRC: Penguinpee > Elsewhere: [Pp]enguinpee > ___ > python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to python-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/python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Do not reply to spam, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue -- Elliott ___ python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-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/python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
