Re: SIG proposal: libreoffice-sig

[Stephan Bergmann]

On 6/7/23 08:00, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:

As for admin privileges on the FAS group and ML, I'd like to ask 3-4
people to be set up. @decathorpe, @limb, @sharkcz ? @caolanm and
@sbergmann would you like to continue helping in your great work on LO
packages outside RH assignment?


Yes, you can count me (sbergmann) in on trying to help out as far as my 
spare time permits.

___
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

[Stephan Bergmann]

On 6/6/23 18:07, Fabio Valentini wrote:

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.


If you are talking about the LibreOffice upstream flatpak on Flathub 
(i.e., 
):


* It bundles OpenJDK 17 provided by the 
org.freedesktop.Sdk.Extension.openjdk17 sdk-extension.  Whenever a new 
version of the LibreOffice flatpak is provided, it automatically 
includes whatever latest version of that openjdk17 extension is 
provided.  (And the assumption is that the providers of that extension 
take timely action in case of any relevant (security) issues.)  Still, 
if there are urgent (security) issues in the extension, we would need to 
notice that and rebuild the LibreOffice flatpak accordingly.  (It would 
be nicer if Java was provided as an org.freedesktop.Platform extension 
rather than only as an org.freedesktop.Sdk extension.)


* It bundles gvfs (see 
 
"Re-enable GIO support") and krb5 (see 
 
"Add krb5" and 
 
"Introduce optional krb5&gssapi support for internal PostgreSQL") "on 
its own":  If there are any (security) issues with their upstream 
sources, we need to notice that and adapt the LibreOffice flatpak 
accordingly.


* It bundles another 83 packages (from pdfium-5408.tar.bz2 to 
f543e6e2d7275557a839a164941c0a86e5f2c3f2a0042bfc434c88c6dde9e140-opens___.ttf) 
that are "managed" by upstream LibreOffice:  These are also used for 
other upstream LibreOffice builds (e.g., on macOS and Windows), and if 
there are any relevant (security) issues, upstream LibreOffice takes 
care of that and provides a new upstream LibreOffice version (and thus a 
new LibreOffice flatpak version).


* It includes ant as a build-time--only dependency.
___
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

[Mattia Verga via devel]

Il 06/06/23 21:16, Fabio Valentini ha scritto:
> 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

Ok, as soon as I have some free time I'll file the request to 
fedora-infra and set up the wiki page. Unless someone beats me in time, 
I would not object that :-p

I was thinkink to use the mailing list address only for bugzilla 
purposes, since it would be private, and ask to set up a Discourse 
tag/section for project coordination. Thoughts?

As for admin privileges on the FAS group and ML, I'd like to ask 3-4 
people to be set up. @decathorpe, @limb, @sharkcz ? @caolanm and 
@sbergmann would you like to continue helping in your great work on LO 
packages outside RH assignment?

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

Re: Mock v4.1 (bugfix) released (and mock-core-configs v38.6)

[Miroslav Suchý]

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

[h-k-81]

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

[Gwyn Ciesla via devel]

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

[Dan Horák]

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

[Fabio Valentini]

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

Re: SIG proposal: libreoffice-sig

[Gwyn Ciesla via devel]

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

[Mattia Verga via devel]

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

Re: Issue with Rawhide docker image?

[Chris Adams]

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)

[Miro Hrončok]

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

Re: LibreOffice packages

[Fabio Valentini]

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

Re: Issue with Rawhide docker image?

[Clement Verna]

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?

[Ron Olson]

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)

[Miro Hrončok]

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

[Owen Taylor]

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

Re: Issue with Rawhide docker image?

[David Schwörer]

> 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?

[Ron Olson]

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

Re: libftdi: Failure to create output directory (aarch64 only)

[Dan Horák]

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

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20230606.n.0 changes

[Fedora Rawhide Report]

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

Re: LibreOffice packages

[Leon Fauster via devel]

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

[Stephen Smoogen]

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)

[Richard Shaw]

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

Re: %find_lang does not find locale files

[Miro Hrončok]

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

Re: libftdi: Failure to create output directory (aarch64 only)

[Dan Horák]

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)

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

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)

[Dan Horák]

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

Re: libftdi: Failure to create output directory (aarch64 only)

[Dan Horák]

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