Fedora-Cloud-33-20210105.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64), 1/7 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-33-20210104.0): ID: 751715 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://op

csync2 is now orphaned

Hi all I have just orphaned https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/csync2 as I don't have the time to maintain it. Honestly I haven't done anything with the package for years. I have been getting notifications from https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907158 about failed builds and it suggest

Re: Fedora 34 Change: Enable spec file preprocessing (System-Wide Change proposal)

...snip... Btw. I posted a long comment here: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2532 basically trying to explain the proposal more and mention the use-cases where it would be useful. So, please, read if you are interested. I guess, if there is a further discussion it should be probably carried out her

Re: Fedora 34 Change: Enable spec file preprocessing (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 at 20:43, Dan Čermák wrote: > > clime writes: > > > ...snip... > >> > > >> > $ preproc-rpmspec pkg.spec.rpkg # prints rendered spec to stdout, > >> > pkg.spec.rpkg is a spec template > >> > >> This would be a viable workaround, but a workaround nevertheless. Since > >> I am no

Re: Delta RPMs in Fedora 34

On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 06:29:13PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 10:21:15PM +, Matthew Almond via devel wrote: > > There's been a lot of interesting talk about the state and future of > > drpm. I'd like to propose we continue the conversation about that with > > a diffe

Re: Delta RPMs in Fedora 34

On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 10:21:15PM +, Matthew Almond via devel wrote: > There's been a lot of interesting talk about the state and future of > drpm. I'd like to propose we continue the conversation about that with > a different subject line :) Okay, fair. I have a proposal. Right now, the pr

Re: Fedora 34 Change: LTO Build Improvements (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 1/4/21 11:28 AM, Jeff Law wrote: On 1/4/21 12:22 PM, Tom Stellard wrote: On 12/30/20 11:52 AM, Ben Cotton wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/LTOBuildImprovements == Summary == Currently all packages that are not opted out of LTO include -ffat-lto-objects in their build flags. 

Delta RPMs in Fedora 34

On Mon, 2021-01-04 at 11:25 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Sun, Jan 03, 2021 at 03:25:29PM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > I remember when drpms landed I heard people say they choose Fedora > > because of them. That may have changed over the years I guess. :) > > and there have been only 2 or 3 r

Re: Fedora 34 Change: DNF/RPM Copy on Write enablement for all variants (System-Wide Change)

On Sun, 2021-01-03 at 16:16 -0500, Colin Walters wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 2, 2021, at 10:03 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > I fail to see why this would be significantly better... > > I don't claim that the "separate temporary directory of unpacked > content" is *better* - just that i

Re: Fedora kernel, from version 5.7.6 no longer works on AMD Navi 10 GPUs for PPC64el

On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 2:39 PM Maurizio Mileto wrote: > > Hello everyone, I would like to resume this discourse because unfortunately > after months of reports, unfortunately no solution has yet been reached. I > wanted to say once again to you all Fedora staff that unfortunately, on > PowerPC6

Fedora kernel, from version 5.7.6 no longer works on AMD Navi 10 GPUs for PPC64el

Hello everyone, I would like to resume this discourse because unfortunately after months of reports, unfortunately no solution has yet been reached. I wanted to say once again to you all Fedora staff that unfortunately, on PowerPC64le architecture, since the Kernel moved from version 5.6.19 to v

Re: Mass spec file change: Adding BuildRequires: make

On 11/30/20 2:06 PM, Tom Stellard wrote: Hi, As part of the f34 change request[1] for removing make from the buildroot, I will be doing a mass update of packages[2] to add BuildRequires: make where it is needed. If you are a package maintainer and would prefer to update your packages on you

Re: Copr in 2020 and outlook for 2021

On 04. 01. 21 20:53, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 04. 01. 21 20:48, Miroslav Suchý wrote: Dne 04. 01. 21 v 20:14 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): Is there any chance we could vote for GitHub Actions enablement instead of Travis? Currently we run a Fedora Docker image on top of the Ubuntu host, which is less t

Re: Copr in 2020 and outlook for 2021

On 04. 01. 21 20:48, Miroslav Suchý wrote: Dne 04. 01. 21 v 20:14 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): Is there any chance we could vote for GitHub Actions enablement instead of Travis? Currently we run a Fedora Docker image on top of the Ubuntu host, which is less than ideal in some cases (e.g., filesystem

Re: Copr in 2020 and outlook for 2021

Dne 04. 01. 21 v 20:14 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): >> Is there any >> chance we could vote for GitHub Actions enablement instead of Travis? >> Currently we run a Fedora Docker image on top of the Ubuntu host, >> which is less than ideal in some cases (e.g., filesystem package >> upgrades...). > > I wa

Re: Fedora 34 Change: Enable spec file preprocessing (System-Wide Change proposal)

clime writes: > ...snip... >> > >> > $ preproc-rpmspec pkg.spec.rpkg # prints rendered spec to stdout, >> > pkg.spec.rpkg is a spec template >> >> This would be a viable workaround, but a workaround nevertheless. Since >> I am not frequently rebuilding Fedora rpms outside of mock, koji & copr, >

Re: Copr in 2020 and outlook for 2021

Dne 04. 01. 21 v 20:36 Dan Čermák napsal(a): > Is it intentional that google asks me to sign in? I don't actually have > a google account. Yes. It is intentional. The motivation is that you can change your vote later. If you do not have google account then just write me an email. I will add it to

Re: Copr in 2020 and outlook for 2021

Hi, Miroslav Suchý writes: > Let me sum up what we - the Copr team - did in 2020: > > * We enabled CDN for repos. https://fedora-copr.github.io/posts/copr-cdn > > * We enabled runtime dependecies on repositories > https://fedora-copr.github.io/posts/runtime-dependencies > > * We migrated all

Re: Fedora 34 Change: LTO Build Improvements (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 1/2/21 10:39 AM, Ian McInerney wrote: > > > On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 5:33 PM Jeff Law > wrote: > > > > On 12/30/20 3:48 PM, Ian McInerney wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 7:54 PM Ben Cotton > >

Re: Fedora 34 Change: LTO Build Improvements (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 1/4/21 12:22 PM, Tom Stellard wrote: > On 12/30/20 11:52 AM, Ben Cotton wrote: >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/LTOBuildImprovements >> >> >> == Summary == >> Currently all packages that are not opted out of LTO include >> -ffat-lto-objects in their build flags.  This proposal would r

Re: Fedora 34 Change: LTO Build Improvements (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 12/30/20 11:52 AM, Ben Cotton wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/LTOBuildImprovements == Summary == Currently all packages that are not opted out of LTO include -ffat-lto-objects in their build flags. This proposal would remove -ffat-lto-objects from the default LTO flags and onl

Re: Copr in 2020 and outlook for 2021

On 04. 01. 21 18:40, Alexander Scheel wrote: * Native support for Fedora in Travis. Travis has made a lot of changes to how OSS projects can use it, and (IMO) burnt a lot of good will in the community. All of our upstream projects ended up moving off it and onto GitHub Actions. Is there any ch

Fedora-IoT-33-20210104.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 2/15 (aarch64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-IoT-33-20201226.0): ID: 751283 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso release_identification@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/751283 Old failures (same test failed in Fedo

Re: runtime dependencies not in Requires spec section

Rex Dieter wrote: > It's a linked library, so *yes*, rpmbuild will add it. Depends on whether the application links directly to libQt5Svg.so.5 or whether it uses it only through the plugin-based imageformats API (libqsvg.so). (And there's also the iconengines/libqsvgicon.so plugin.) Kev

Fedora 34 Change: Localization measurement and tooling (Self-Contained Change proposal)

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/LocalizationMeasurementAndTooling == Summary == Provide a public website for end users and contributors, containing Fedora Workstation translation progress and useful files for translators (as an example: translation memories). == Owner == * Name: [[User:j

Fedora 34 Change: LXQt 0.16.0 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/LXQt_0.16.0 == Summary == Update LXQt to 0.16.0 in Fedora. == Owner == * Name: [[User:Zsun|Zamir SUN]] * Email: zsun#AT#fedoraproject.org == Detailed Description == LXQt just released with a bunch of bugfixes. It's always good to keep Fedora users runn

Re: Copr in 2020 and outlook for 2021

Congrats! I can say I've used several of these features and they work well, thanks for your team's work! One query inline... :) On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 11:53 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > Let me sum up what we - the Copr team - did in 2020: > > * We enabled CDN for repos. https://fedora-copr.git

Copr in 2020 and outlook for 2021

Let me sum up what we - the Copr team - did in 2020: * We enabled CDN for repos. https://fedora-copr.github.io/posts/copr-cdn * We enabled runtime dependecies on repositories https://fedora-copr.github.io/posts/runtime-dependencies * We migrated all our servers from PHX datacenter to AWS. Wi

Re: Fedora 34 Change: DNF/RPM Copy on Write enablement for all variants (System-Wide Change)

On Sun, Jan 03, 2021 at 03:25:29PM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > I remember when drpms landed I heard people say they choose Fedora > because of them. That may have changed over the years I guess. :) > and there have been only 2 or 3 reports about how few drpms exist > in the last few years (ie, mos

Fedora-Rawhide-20210104.n.0 compose check report

Missing expected images: Xfce raw-xz armhfp Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check! 2 of 43 required tests failed openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING** below Failed openQA tests: 9/180 (x86_64), 7/122 (aarch64) New failures (same test not failed in Fe

Re: Fedora 34 Change: LTO Build Improvements (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 1/4/21 2:27 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > >>> A lot of the existing RPM post-processing steps detect, report, and >>> ignore errors because the generated RPM package might still be partially >>> useful. >> True, but ignoring the error in this case runs the very real risk that a >> package could

Re: openvdb-8.0.0 so version change

On 26. 12. 20 23:24, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: Hello team, openvdb-8.0.0 is released upstream meaning the soversion is now 8.0 resulting a break on dependent packages like OpenImageIO and Blender as tested on COPR blender[1].  The commit is already complete https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/o

Fedora-IoT-34-20210104.0 compose check report

Missing expected images: Iot dvd x86_64 Iot dvd aarch64 Failed openQA tests: 3/16 (x86_64), 6/15 (aarch64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-IoT-34-20210102.0): ID: 751234 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_zezere_server URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/751234 ID: 75

Bugzilla error when saving

I was trying to add an issue to this bug but I keep on getting a jira error: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912472 Thanks, Richard --- There was an error reported for the RPC call to Jira: There was an error reported for a GitHub REST call. URL: https://api.github.com/repos/fail2b

Re: Thoughts about packaging a standalone python-PyQt5-sip?

Scott Talbert wrote: > On Sat, 2 Jan 2021, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > I think fundamentally the version of PyQt5-sip probably needs to match > (or be very close to) the version of sip that PyQt5 itself was > compiled with. I think for calibre (which is currently failing with): >

Re: runtime dependencies not in Requires spec section

Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > On 30.12.2020 22:49, Germano Massullo wrote: >> My question is: how can keepassxc trigger the installation of such >> libraries if the spec file does not contain any Requires dependency that >> should be the attribute to identify runtime dependencies that are need

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20210104.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20210103.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20210104.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 67 Added packages: 30 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 95 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 5.70 MiB Size of dropped packages:0

Re: Unannounced soname bump: ldns

On 04. 01. 21 13:14, Petr Menšík wrote: On 1/4/21 12:38 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 04. 01. 21 12:26, Petr Menšík wrote: I had not time to coordinate rebuilt before Christmas, so I left it intentionally without build. It was built by Jeff Law one day before I departed to vacation. I haven't no

Re: Unannounced soname bump: ldns

On 1/4/21 12:38 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 04. 01. 21 12:26, Petr Menšík wrote: >> I had not time to coordinate rebuilt before Christmas, so I left it >> intentionally without build. It was built by Jeff Law one day before I >> departed to vacation. I haven't noticed that. > > As a matter of o

Re: How to handle a config(noreplace) file that needs to be updated

On 1/4/21 2:44 AM, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: Robert-André Mauchin wrote: I have a project for which the config file (toml) has been significantly changed, notably renamed sections. As such some older config parameters won't work anymore. Tools like sed, ed, awk etc. in %post scriptlets can

Re: How to handle a config(noreplace) file that needs to be updated

On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 8:16 PM Robert-André Mauchin wrote: > > Hello, > > I have a project for which the config file (toml) has been significantly > changed, notably renamed sections. As such some older config parameters > won't work anymore. > However the current config file can't be overwritten

Re: Unannounced soname bump: ldns

On 04. 01. 21 12:26, Petr Menšík wrote: I had not time to coordinate rebuilt before Christmas, so I left it intentionally without build. It was built by Jeff Law one day before I departed to vacation. I haven't noticed that. As a matter of opinion (i.e. this is not a policy, but my own views),

Re: Planned Outage - taiga - 2021-01-05 07:00 UTC

On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 05:33:08PM +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > There will be an outage starting at 2021-01-05 07:00 UTC > which will last approximately 3 hours. > > To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto > or run: > date -d

Re: Unannounced soname bump: ldns

I am sorry for that. I had not time to coordinate rebuilt before Christmas, so I left it intentionally without build. It was built by Jeff Law one day before I departed to vacation. I haven't noticed that. Jeff, were there any specific reason behind your build? It would be nice, if you tried to p

Re: Fedora 34 Change: Enable spec file preprocessing (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 09:14:40PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 8:06 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Enable_Spec_File_Preprocessing > > > > > > == Summary == > > This change should enable an opt-in spec file preprocessor in Fedora > >

Re: How to easily automate test builds in a COPR project

On Saturday, January 2, 2021 2:49:21 PM CET Richard Shaw wrote: > It's still manually initiated, but I wrote a bash script which takes care > of the process nicely. > > I just pass the package name and the test version and then: > > 1. It clones the package in a temporary directory > 2. Used sed

Fedora-Cloud-32-20210104.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64), 1/7 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-32-20210103.0): ID: 750432 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://op

Re: Stale proven packagers

On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 01:39:26PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2020-12-22 at 13:23 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > > > Perhaps we need a process for cleaning up membership of this extremely > > > powerful group? If the FAS password of *any one* of those user accounts > > > were somehow

Re: Stale proven packagers

On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 12:39:56PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > A propos of some discussion of the Solarwinds news, it occurred to me > to check how many proven packager accounts there are in FAS. There are > 251, which seems like a lot. Then it occurred to me to check how many > of them are ina

Re: Fedora 34 Change: LTO Build Improvements (System-Wide Change proposal)

* Jeff Law: > On 1/2/21 3:13 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Ben Cotton: >> >>> To ensure that we can identify packages that need the opt-in now and >>> in the future, the plan is to pass to brp-strip-lto a flag indicating >>> whether or not the package has opted into -ffat-lto-objects. If >>> brp