On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 1:56 PM Irina Boverman wrote:
>
> Using "BuildRequires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-devel" results in this
> error:
>
> fedpkg scratch-build
> DEBUG util.py:593: No matching package to install: 'python36-devel'
A lot of Fedora .spec files use "python3-devel" and various
OLD: Fedora-31-20191007.n.0
NEW: Fedora-31-20191008.n.1
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 3
Added packages: 1
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 101
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 871.28 KiB
Size of dropped packages:1.16 MiB
On 10/8/19 7:32 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
I retired this:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/overrides/python-rpm-macros-3-31.el7
To allow epel 7 builds get the RHEL7.7 3-32.el7 version.
As a heads up - this will cause %py3_build to use /usr/bin/python3
rather than /usr/bin/python3.6 - which
https://pagure.io/389-ds-portal/pull-request/8
There is an issue where the status isn't shown on the UI, but I think we'll
change to PF4 shortly, so we'll fix that then. The self-service aci's needed
are in https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/50641#
--
Sincerely,
William
I retired this:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/overrides/python-rpm-macros-3-31.el7
To allow epel 7 builds get the RHEL7.7 3-32.el7 version.
--
Orion Poplawski
Manager of NWRA Technical Systems 720-772-5637
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane
https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/50641
I noticed this with 389-ds-portal when a user couldn't self-change their
password. Opps!
--
Sincerely,
William
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1759733
Bug ID: 1759733
Summary: perl-IO-Pager-1.01 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-IO-Pager
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
> On 9 Oct 2019, at 09:18, Rich Megginson wrote:
>
> On 10/8/19 4:55 PM, William Brown wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>> In our previous catch up (about 4/5 weeks ago when I was visiting
>> Matus/Simon), we talked about nunc-stans and getting it at least cleaned up
>> and into the code base.
>> I've
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1753028
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #1 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1759731
Bug ID: 1759731
Summary: perl-Test-Compile-2.3.0 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Test-Compile
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
On 10/8/19 4:55 PM, William Brown wrote:
Hi everyone,
In our previous catch up (about 4/5 weeks ago when I was visiting Matus/Simon),
we talked about nunc-stans and getting it at least cleaned up and into the code
base.
I've been looking at it again, and really thinking about it and
On 09. 10. 19 0:27, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 15:49, Irina Boverman wrote:
Ok, how will I know what test results are?
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 07:54:37PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 08. 10. 19 18:48, Irina
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1759489
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #1 from
Hi everyone,
In our previous catch up (about 4/5 weeks ago when I was visiting Matus/Simon),
we talked about nunc-stans and getting it at least cleaned up and into the code
base.
I've been looking at it again, and really thinking about it and reflecting on
it and I have a lot of questions and
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 12:58:21PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 03:48:35PM -0400, Irina Boverman wrote:
> > Ok, how will I know what test results are?
>
> We will be sure to share them back here to devel and epel-devel lists.
And... smooge and I just tested this. Sadly it
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 12:58:21PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 03:48:35PM -0400, Irina Boverman wrote:
> > Ok, how will I know what test results are?
>
> We will be sure to share them back here to devel and epel-devel lists.
And... smooge and I just tested this. Sadly it
We are sad to announce that we will be dropping the aarch64 release
from EPEL-7 repository. The aarch64 has been built in Red Hat
Enterprise Linux as an alternative architecture which was supported
with different kernels and other libraries. With the release of
RHEL-8.0, Red Hat has decided to not
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 15:49, Irina Boverman wrote:
>
> Ok, how will I know what test results are?
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 07:54:37PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>> > On 08. 10. 19 18:48, Irina Boverman wrote:
>> > > My build (qpid-proton
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 15:49, Irina Boverman wrote:
>
> Ok, how will I know what test results are?
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 07:54:37PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>> > On 08. 10. 19 18:48, Irina Boverman wrote:
>> > > My build (qpid-proton
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752812
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758970
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #2 from
Minutes:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-3/2019-10-08/modularity.2019-10-08-15.08.html
Minutes (text):
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-3/2019-10-08/modularity.2019-10-08-15.08.txt
Log:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758720
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #2 from
The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
9 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-4ca0c60e5b
mbedtls-2.16.3-1.el8
1 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-04183e6fbf
scapy-2.4.3-2.el8
The following builds have been
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758586
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #4 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758596
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1759044
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1759040
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1759041
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758577
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 3:42 PM John M. Harris, Jr.
wrote:
> We could simply stop doing projects that throw wildly different versions
> of software into a single installation, which causes this issue.
>
What you don't seem to appreciate, based on your comments in this thread
and others over the
On 10/8/19 3:30 PM, John M. Harris, Jr. wrote:
We could simply stop doing projects that throw wildly different
versions of software into a single installation, which causes this issue.
There's a word for this that I can't remember at the
moment---'producting'? I think it's related to the
An update of mpfr from version 3.1.6 to version 4.0.2 is about to begin in
Rawhide in a side tag:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/mpfr-4.0.2
If you see a "Rebuild for mpfr 4" commit in your package repo, then please
coordinate with me before building your package in Rawhide. If you
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 15:32, John M. Harris, Jr. wrote:
>
> We could simply stop doing projects that throw wildly different versions of
> software into a single installation, which causes this issue.
>
We could also just all quit and join potato farming cults.. they are
next to the Yak farms
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 03:48:35PM -0400, Irina Boverman wrote:
> Ok, how will I know what test results are?
We will be sure to share them back here to devel and epel-devel lists.
kevin
--
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 07:54:37PM +0200,
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 03:48:35PM -0400, Irina Boverman wrote:
> Ok, how will I know what test results are?
We will be sure to share them back here to devel and epel-devel lists.
kevin
--
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 07:54:37PM +0200,
Ok, how will I know what test results are?
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 07:54:37PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 08. 10. 19 18:48, Irina Boverman wrote:
> > > My build (qpid-proton package) cannot find pythin36-devel package, I
> > > also tried
On 10/8/19 6:04 AM, Ankur Sinha wrote:
Would anyone else have the cycles to review/update these pages in the
meantime please?
We could simply stop doing projects that throw wildly different versions of
software into a single installation, which causes this issue.
On October 8, 2019 6:23:47 PM UTC, Matthew Miller
wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 02:09:24PM -0400, Przemek Klosowski via devel
>wrote:
>> Having said that,
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 07:54:37PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 08. 10. 19 18:48, Irina Boverman wrote:
> > My build (qpid-proton package) cannot find pythin36-devel package, I
> > also tried python3-devel (also not found). It appears python36 was
> > removed from EPEL 7 recently.
>
> Yes it
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 07:54:37PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 08. 10. 19 18:48, Irina Boverman wrote:
> > My build (qpid-proton package) cannot find pythin36-devel package, I
> > also tried python3-devel (also not found). It appears python36 was
> > removed from EPEL 7 recently.
>
> Yes it
Hi,
I have removed dependency on service B from service A and all references to
service B. The new package works well for fresh install (service A can be
started normally), but it does not work for upgrades from previous versions
where service A used to depend on service B (starting service A
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752674
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #2 from
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 02:09:24PM -0400, Przemek Klosowski via devel wrote:
> Having said that, I am not sure it will solve the problem with
> ecosystems requiring specific collection of component versions (*):
> what is the expected number of required versions for each module in
> those
On 10/7/19 4:34 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
To me, most packages would benefit from having two streams: fast and slow.
That's the essential problem I want solved anyway. (Maybe with CentOS
Streams: fast, slow, very slow.)
The "slow" version would be updated on a careful cadence with big updates
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 06:42:40PM +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> To be honest IMO separating aspell dictionaries is a bit illogical because
> on distribution layer language dependent resources should be described by
> %lang() and chosen on install stage by %_install_langs.
> Ergo: all "langpack"
Dear all,
You are kindly invited to the meeting:
EPEL Steering Co on 2019-10-09 from 18:00:00 to 19:00:00 GMT
At freenode@fedora-meeting
The meeting will be about:
This is the weekly EPEL Steering Committee Meeting. A general agenda is the
following:
#meetingname EPEL
#topic
Using "BuildRequires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-devel" results in this
error:
fedpkg scratch-build
DEBUG util.py:593: No matching package to install: 'python36-devel'
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 1:43 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Now python 3.6 is shipped by RHEL 7.7 or Centos 7.7, the rules of
On 08. 10. 19 18:48, Irina Boverman wrote:
My build (qpid-proton package) cannot find pythin36-devel package, I also tried
python3-devel (also not found). It appears python36 was removed from EPEL 7
recently.
Yes it was, as it was added to RHEL 7.7.
The error is:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1759042
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #2 from
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 17:15, Nikola Forró wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-10-08 at 12:22 +0200, Jindrich Novy wrote:
> > Nikola, is it intended that aspell doesn't depend on any dictionary?
> > E.g. aspell-en? Please see the email bellow.
>
> Hi,
>
> it seems it is intentional [1], this is probably the
Now python 3.6 is shipped by RHEL 7.7 or Centos 7.7, the rules
of [1] still valid so you should (or must ) use [2]
[2]BuildRequires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-devel
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/EPEL7_Python3
On Tue, 2019-10-08 at 12:48 -0400, Irina Boverman wrote:
> My
Hi all,
Today, October 8th 2019, is an important day on the Fedora 31
schedule [1], with significant cut-offs.
Today we have the Final Freeze [2]. This means that only packages
which fix accepted blocker or freeze exception bugs [3][4][5] will be
marked as 'stable' and included in the Final
Hi all,
Today, October 8th 2019, is an important day on the Fedora 31
schedule [1], with significant cut-offs.
Today we have the Final Freeze [2]. This means that only packages
which fix accepted blocker or freeze exception bugs [3][4][5] will be
marked as 'stable' and included in the Final
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 01:23:01PM +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 12:58, wrote:
>
> > Notification time stamped 2019-10-08 11:54:56 UTC
> >
> > From 26d638db91fa316f706ea947ab076bce216ec8cc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Phil Sutter
> > Date: Oct 08 2019 11:51:27
Hi all.
I wish to maintain libcutl, recently orphaned.
Ticket #8882: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8882
--
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x6e0331dd1699e4d7
GPG key server: https://keys.openpgp.org/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP
My build (qpid-proton package) cannot find pythin36-devel package, I also
tried python3-devel (also not found). It appears python36 was removed from
EPEL 7 recently.
Is this still relevant:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/EPEL7_Python3?
Is this a temporary issue with getting python3
On Tue, 2019-10-08 at 12:22 +0200, Jindrich Novy wrote:
> Nikola, is it intended that aspell doesn't depend on any dictionary?
> E.g. aspell-en? Please see the email bellow.
Hi,
it seems it is intentional [1], this is probably the reason [2].
I suppose aspell could recommend aspell-en, to
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 10:17:06AM -0400, Alexander Scheel wrote:
> > What if you want to apply a bugfix (or security update) to both of those
> > packages? How would that work?
> I'm not saying it is completely solved, just that what we have left to
> do is a lot less work than trying to fix
Someone, could give us advice about below situation, if the new
package htslib's "/usr/lib64/libhts.so.1.9" is valid?
"1.9" is upstream software's version. "2" is ABI's version (so version).
```
sh-5.0# ls -l /usr/lib64/libhts.so*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Oct 2 23:50 /usr/lib64/libhts.so
Matthew Miller writes:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 03:20:21PM -0400, Alexander Scheel wrote:
>
>>> And where is the software for those containers coming from? Some
>>> container registry like Docker Hub? One of the main points of
>>> Modularity is to provide a trusted source of software to install
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 1:35 AM Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 10/8/19 8:03 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 04:34:28PM -0400, Scott Talbert wrote:
> >> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, Richard Shaw wrote:
> >>
> >>> I am in the midst of updating the freecad package in two major
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1759376
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
CC|
- Original Message -
> From: "Matthew Miller"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2019 9:18:29 AM
> Subject: Re: Modularity and the system-upgrade path
>
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 08:08:56PM -0400, Alexander Scheel wrote:
> > > Without
Petr, I am sorry to hear of your health problems. I hope you recover soon.
I have been following this situation but have little time to spend on this.
I personally use mercurial and depend on extensions: evolve and hg-git. I
have been quiet while working on getting these extensions ported.
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 02:06:06AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Sure, I fully understand the theoretical benefits to be had from Modularity
> (though I still think that this is much more useful for LTS distributions
> such as RHEL or CentOS than for Fedora). The issue is that it all breaks
>
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 08:08:56PM -0400, Alexander Scheel wrote:
> > Without modularity, RPM doesn't offer a good way to choose between different
> > versions of the same thing. One can squash version numbers into the name,
> > which covers some use cases, but also becomes unwieldy and loses the
- Original Message -
> From: "Vít Ondruch"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2019 1:10:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Has fedpkg + dist-git replaced rpmbuild for building new/local
> packages?
>
>
>
>
> Dne 08. 10. 19 v 12:04 Ankur Sinha napsal(a):
>
>
>
> On
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758479
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #3 from
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 13:03:48 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>
>
> Look, I'm no more in love with the traditional layout than anybody, I'm just
> saying changing the default is not as simple as you'd like to think. Anybody
> wanting to work on changing the default is welcome to propose it
On 08. 10. 19 14:04, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 08. 10. 19 13:53, Peter Robinson wrote:
bzr (bazaar) FTBFS and is orphaned.
I have a Python 3 replacement called breezy (brz) ready, but it has some
problems with remote repositories on Python 3.8, so I was not ready to build it,
obsolete bzr and
Hi,
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 12:58, wrote:
> Notification time stamped 2019-10-08 11:54:56 UTC
>
> From 26d638db91fa316f706ea947ab076bce216ec8cc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Phil Sutter
> Date: Oct 08 2019 11:51:27 +
> Subject: iproute-5.3.0-2
>
>
> - ifcfg script uses killall, therefore
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 13:10:18 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
>
> I'll add this to the docs pages when I find time. It can go in the
> "prepare your system" section:
>
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/creating-rpm-packages/#preparing-your-system-to-create-rpm-packages
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758564
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #4 from
On 08. 10. 19 13:53, Peter Robinson wrote:
bzr (bazaar) FTBFS and is orphaned.
I have a Python 3 replacement called breezy (brz) ready, but it has some
problems with remote repositories on Python 3.8, so I was not ready to build it,
obsolete bzr and have a broken alternative.
However, bzr now
> bzr (bazaar) FTBFS and is orphaned.
>
> I have a Python 3 replacement called breezy (brz) ready, but it has some
> problems with remote repositories on Python 3.8, so I was not ready to build
> it,
> obsolete bzr and have a broken alternative.
>
> However, bzr now also fails to install, so it
On 08. 10. 19 13:19, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 5:40 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
Hello,
bzr (bazaar) FTBFS and is orphaned.
I have a Python 3 replacement called breezy (brz) ready, but it has some
problems with remote repositories on Python 3.8, so I was not ready to build it,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1759273
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
Resolution|---
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 5:40 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> Hello,
> bzr (bazaar) FTBFS and is orphaned.
>
> I have a Python 3 replacement called breezy (brz) ready, but it has some
> problems with remote repositories on Python 3.8, so I was not ready to build
> it,
> obsolete bzr and have a broken
Dne 08. 10. 19 v 12:04 Ankur Sinha napsal(a):
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 12:21:05 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>> Yup. If you prefer working in a dist-git like layout, just configure rpm do
>> behave that way. One possibility is simply:
>>
>> %_topdir %{getenv:PWD}
>> %_sourcedir %{_topdir}
>>
Adding Nikola.
Nikola, is it intended that aspell doesn't depend on any dictionary? E.g.
aspell-en? Please see the email bellow.
Thanks,
Jindrich
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 5:14 PM Tomasz Kłoczko
wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 15:30, Jindrich Novy wrote:
> [..]
>
>> BTW mc.
>>> Also I do not
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1759489
Bug ID: 1759489
Summary: perl-Net-Patricia packages for EPEL 8
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel8
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component:
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 12:21:05 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> Yup. If you prefer working in a dist-git like layout, just configure rpm do
> behave that way. One possibility is simply:
>
> %_topdir %{getenv:PWD}
> %_sourcedir %{_topdir}
> %_specdir %{_topdir}
> %_srcrpmdir %{_topdir}
On 10/8/19 12:45 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 08. 10. 19 v 11:21 Panu Matilainen napsal(a):
On 10/8/19 11:54 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Tuesday, 08 October 2019 at 08:34, Vít Ondruch wrote:
[...]
2) fedpkg would not be needed if rpmbuild would be sanely able to do
something
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 09:07:14 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 12:38:21AM +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 20:40:07 +0200, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think we are talking about different things.
> > >
> >
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 10:57:14 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 08. 10. 19 v 1:38 Ankur Sinha napsal(a):
> > to link to the "How to create a GNU Hello world package" which focuses
> > on building the rpm only and not the rest of the process. This is here:
> >
Dne 08. 10. 19 v 11:21 Panu Matilainen napsal(a):
> On 10/8/19 11:54 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 08 October 2019 at 08:34, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> [...]
>>> 2) fedpkg would not be needed if rpmbuild would be sanely able to do
>>> something like `fedpkg --release master
Hello,
bzr (bazaar) FTBFS and is orphaned.
I have a Python 3 replacement called breezy (brz) ready, but it has some
problems with remote repositories on Python 3.8, so I was not ready to build it,
obsolete bzr and have a broken alternative.
However, bzr now also fails to install, so it
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1759273
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
On 10/8/19 11:54 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Tuesday, 08 October 2019 at 08:34, Vít Ondruch wrote:
[...]
2) fedpkg would not be needed if rpmbuild would be sanely able to do
something like `fedpkg --release master srpm` but even so basic think
requires either shuffling with
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1759470
Bug ID: 1759470
Summary: Upgrade perl-Mail-DKIM to 0.57
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Mail-DKIM
Assignee: emman...@seyman.fr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1759468
Bug ID: 1759468
Summary: Upgrade perl-Cairo to 1.107
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Cairo
Assignee: tcall...@redhat.com
Reporter:
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 12:38:21AM +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 20:40:07 +0200, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> >
> > I think we are talking about different things.
> >
> > It all depends on which question the doc is trying to answer.
>
> So, there are two
Dne 08. 10. 19 v 1:38 Ankur Sinha napsal(a):
to link to the "How to create a GNU Hello world package" which focuses
on building the rpm only and not the rest of the process. This is here:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/create-hello-world-rpm/
Unless there are strong objections,
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 08:32:47AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 10/8/19 8:03 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 04:34:28PM -0400, Scott Talbert wrote:
> >>On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, Richard Shaw wrote:
> >>
> >>>I am in the midst of updating the freecad package in two
On Tuesday, 08 October 2019 at 08:34, Vít Ondruch wrote:
[...]
> 2) fedpkg would not be needed if rpmbuild would be sanely able to do
> something like `fedpkg --release master srpm` but even so basic think
> requires either shuffling with files on FS or specifying million of
> working directories.
It seems that the biggest issue with the documentation you have is the
`fedpkg` and I agree, we should not recommend it. Instead of `fedpkg`,
this should be used to create the SRPM:
~~~
$ rpmbuild --define "_sourcedir `pwd`" -bs package.spec
~~~
However, from this point, the mock should be
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1759039
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754947
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #5 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758580
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #3 from
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
