BuildError: error building package (arch s390x), mock exited with status 245

Hi, the koji build for vdr-live fails on s390x arch with the following error message: Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 Recommends: vdr-live-debugsource(s390-64) = 3.0.1-1.fc34 Checking for unpackaged

Re: Fedora 34 Change: Signed RPM Contents (late System-Wide Change)

Patrick マルタインアンドレアス Uiterwijk wrote: > I'd like to point out that after many requests, I have updated the change > page for this significantly, with more details as to the goals (and > non-goals) of this feature, and answers to many other questions asked. Sorry, but these clarifications only mak

Re: BuildError: error building package (arch s390x), mock exited with status 245

I met similar issue yesterday (not sure if it was s390x or elsewhere). New build passed just fine. So I'd say this is some strange infrastructure issue. Vít Dne 21. 01. 21 v 10:47 Martin Gansser napsal(a): Hi, the koji build for vdr-live fails on s390x arch with the following error messag

Re: Backwards-incompatible RPM format change in Fedora 34?

Florian Weimer wrote: > With rpm-4.15.1-3.fc32.1.x86_64, I get this error: > > $ rpm -qip > https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/development/rawhide/Everything/aarch64/debug/tree/Packages/m/ModemManager-debugsource-1.14.10-1.fc34.aarch64.rpm > error: /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.6iU66n: signature hdr

Re: BuildError: error building package (arch s390x), mock exited with status 245

On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 09:47:36 - "Martin Gansser" wrote: > Hi, > > the koji build for vdr-live fails on s390x arch with the following error > message: > > Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) > <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 > Reco

Re: BuildError: error building package (arch s390x), mock exited with status 245

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 10:57 AM Dan Horák wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 09:47:36 - > "Martin Gansser" wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > the koji build for vdr-live fails on s390x arch with the following error > > message: > > > > Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 > > rpmlib(

Re: BuildError: error building package (arch s390x), mock exited with status 245

I am encountering the same problem since yesterday. All my builds are failing on s390x this way e.g. [1], [2]. Could somebody fix it? thanks & regards Jaroslav [1] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60132339 [2] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60132333 -

Re: BuildError: error building package (arch s390x), mock exited with status 245

On 21.01.2021 10:47, Martin Gansser wrote: How can I solve this ? It will only be fixed when gcc-11.0.0-0.16.fc34 reaches buildroot. -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org) ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To uns

Re: Fedora 34 Change: Signed RPM Contents (late System-Wide Change)

On 1/21/21 12:29 AM, Patrick マルタインアンドレアス Uiterwijk wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Signed_RPM_Contents I'd like to point out that after many requests, I have updated the change page for this significantly, with more details as to the goals (and non-goals) of this feature, and a

Re: Fedora 34 Change: Signed RPM Contents (late System-Wide Change)

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 10:50:52AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Patrick マルタインアンドレアス Uiterwijk wrote: > > I'd like to point out that after many requests, I have updated the change > > page for this significantly, with more details as to the goals (and > > non-goals) of this feature, and

Re: BuildError: error building package (arch s390x), mock exited with status 245

Thanks for your feedback. Ok, then i have to be patient until the current gcc-11.0.0-0.16.fc34 is available. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduc

Re: BuildError: error building package (arch s390x), mock exited with status 245

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 10:29:04AM -, Martin Gansser wrote: > Thanks for your feedback. > Ok, then i have to be patient until the current gcc-11.0.0-0.16.fc34 is > available. The arm 32-bit build box kernel bug crashed the previous build of that package, so it takes longer than we hoped. Bu

Re: [ELN] How to handle RHEL-specific changes when it fails in ELN?

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 4:36 AM Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 6:49 AM Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 12:22 AM Josh Stone wrote: > > > > > > On 1/16/21 3:21 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 4:54 PM Kevin Kofler via devel >

Re: Backwards-incompatible RPM format change in Fedora 34?

On 1/21/21 9:56 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: With rpm-4.15.1-3.fc32.1.x86_64, I get this error: $ rpm -qip https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/development/rawhide/Everything/aarch64/debug/tree/Packages/m/ModemManager-debugsource-1.14.10-1.fc34.aarch64.rpm error: /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.6iU66n:

Re: Backwards-incompatible RPM format change in Fedora 34?

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:22 PM Panu Matilainen wrote: > > On 1/21/21 9:56 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > > With rpm-4.15.1-3.fc32.1.x86_64, I get this error: > > > > $ rpm -qip > > https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/development/rawhide/Everything/aarch64/debug/tree/Packages/m/ModemManag

Re: Backwards-incompatible RPM format change in Fedora 34?

* Panu Matilainen: >> It seems that rpm-4.16.1.2-1.fc33.x86_64 can parse the RPM just fine. >> But rpm-4.14.3-4.el8.x86_64 does not like it, either. > > Based on a quick random sampling, this would appear to be a very > recent thing, the only affected packages I could find (which doesn't > mean ot

Re: Backwards-incompatible RPM format change in Fedora 34?

On 1/21/21 1:27 PM, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:22 PM Panu Matilainen wrote: On 1/21/21 9:56 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: With rpm-4.15.1-3.fc32.1.x86_64, I get this error: $ rpm -qip https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/development/rawhide/Everything/aarch64/deb

Re: Backwards-incompatible RPM format change in Fedora 34?

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:39 PM Panu Matilainen wrote: > > On 1/21/21 1:27 PM, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:22 PM Panu Matilainen > > wrote: > >> > >> On 1/21/21 9:56 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > >>> With rpm-4.15.1-3.fc32.1.x86_64, I get this error: > >>> > >>> $ rpm -q

Re: Backwards-incompatible RPM format change in Fedora 34?

On 21. 01. 21 12:39, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 1/21/21 1:27 PM, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:22 PM Panu Matilainen wrote: On 1/21/21 9:56 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: With rpm-4.15.1-3.fc32.1.x86_64, I get this error: $ rpm -qip https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/lin

Re: Backwards-incompatible RPM format change in Fedora 34?

* Panu Matilainen: > And with that, looking at the error and the behavior pattern, it's > almost certainly down to this commit missing from older releases: > https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/486579912381ede82172dc6d0ff3941a6d0536b5 If it's just that, can it be backported into

Re: Backwards-incompatible RPM format change in Fedora 34?

On 1/21/21 1:45 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: * Panu Matilainen: And with that, looking at the error and the behavior pattern, it's almost certainly down to this commit missing from older releases: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/486579912381ede82172dc6d0ff3941a6d0536b5 If i

Re: Fedora 34 Change: Signed RPM Contents (late System-Wide Change)

* Patrick マルタインアンドレアス Uiterwijk: >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Signed_RPM_Contents >> > > I'd like to point out that after many requests, I have updated the > change page for this significantly, with more details as to the goals > (and non-goals) of this feature, and answers to many

Re: BuildError: error building package (arch s390x), mock exited with status 245

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 09:47:36AM -, Martin Gansser wrote: > Hi, > > the koji build for vdr-live fails on s390x arch with the following error > message: > > Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) > <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 > R

Re: Fedora 34 Change: Signed RPM Contents (late System-Wide Change)

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 11:25:30AM +0100, Roberto Ragusa wrote: > On 1/21/21 12:29 AM, Patrick マルタインアンドレアス Uiterwijk wrote: > > On installation of two different VMs, one with the resigned RPMs, and one > > with the resigned+ima RPMs, the /usr directory size does not change at all > > (both are exac

Re: Radeon with 64k page size (ppc64 and others)

> On 06/01/2021 Daniel Pocock wrote: > > Most packages compiled on one type of kernel will run on the other type > but there could be a very small number that have to be recompiled if the > Fedora kernel changes down to 4k. I'm afraid changing the page size would be more complicated than that. T

Re: Fedora 34 Mass Rebuild

Hi all, We are delaying the mass rebuild by a day as of now due to bugs in gcc and dwz. As of now, we are expecting to start mass rebuild tomorrow, Jan 21st 2021. There is a new build of gcc running currently which has fixes to gcc bugs, but we are still figuring out the dwz fixes. We will keep yo

Orphaned rubygem-oauth

Hi, I don't have any use for rubygem-oauth, therefore I orphaned it. Vít OpenPGP_0x0CE09EE79917B87C.asc Description: application/pgp-keys OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject

How to fix a Rawhide Build Failure that appears to be a result of a Build Server?

Hi guys, I got an email that my package failed to build on RawHide, however the error is from the mock tool itself and not a problem with my build or test runners at all. What is the procedure to just give the server a kick/retry? Logs showing the problem being on the Build Server: https://kojipk

Re: How to fix a Rawhide Build Failure that appears to be a result of a Build Server?

See https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/9589; the fix is coming. --  Gwyn Ciesla she/her/hers   in your fear, seek only peace  in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On T

Re: How to fix a Rawhide Build Failure that appears to be a result of a Build Server?

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 3:49 PM Chris wrote: > > Hi guys, > > I got an email that my package failed to build on RawHide, however the error > is from the mock tool itself and not a problem with my build or test runners > at all. > > What is the procedure to just give the server a kick/retry? > Lo

Re: [ELN] How to handle RHEL-specific changes when it fails in ELN?

Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > I see a "Source1" tarball from github. If a github published archive > isn't reasonable for a Source tarball, there are a *lot* of other > .spec files that would need to be rejected. As per: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bundled_Libraries#Treatment_of_Bundled_Libraries

Re: /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-strip-lto fails with symbol `.gnu.debuglto_.debug_line_str' required but not present

On 20. 01. 21 17:03, Jeff Law wrote: On 1/20/21 8:47 AM, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: On 20.01.2021 11:31, Miro Hrončok wrote: Right before the mass rebuild. Is this known? Fedora 34 will be built again with broken, full of regressions GCC compiler (just like Fedora 32). Fix for this is

Re: [ELN] How to handle RHEL-specific changes when it fails in ELN?

* Kevin Kofler via devel: > Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: >> I see a "Source1" tarball from github. If a github published archive >> isn't reasonable for a Source tarball, there are a *lot* of other >> .spec files that would need to be rejected. > > As per: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bundled_Libr

Soname bump for clang-libs

Hi, We are going to be building clang-11.1.0 for rawhide, which changes the soname of libclang.so and libclang-cpp.so. This is unusual for clang, since the soname will change without bumping the major version number. I will be rebuilding the affected packages, so no action is needed from pac

Re: /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-strip-lto fails with symbol `.gnu.debuglto_.debug_line_str' required but not present

On 1/21/21 8:26 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 20. 01. 21 17:03, Jeff Law wrote: >> >> >> On 1/20/21 8:47 AM, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: >>> On 20.01.2021 11:31, Miro Hrončok wrote: Right before the mass rebuild. Is this known? >>> >>> Fedora 34 will be built again with broken, full of re

Re: /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-strip-lto fails with symbol `.gnu.debuglto_.debug_line_str' required but not present

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 08:31:31AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > On 1/21/21 8:26 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 20. 01. 21 17:03, Jeff Law wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 1/20/21 8:47 AM, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > >>> On 20.01.2021 11:31, Miro Hrončok wrote: > Right before the mass rebuild. Is thi

Fedora Loves Python 2020 report

Inspired by a similar report from the Copr team, I’ve decided to look back at 2020 from the perspective of Python in Fedora (and little bit in RHEL/CentOS+EPEL as well). Here are the things we have done in Fedora (and EL) in 2020. https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/fedora-loves-python-202

Re: Fedora 34 Mass Rebuild

On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 02:17:28PM -0500, Mohan Boddu wrote: > We are delaying the mass rebuild by a day as of now due to bugs in gcc > and dwz. As of now, we are expecting to start mass rebuild tomorrow, > Jan 21st 2021. There is a new build of gcc running currently which has > fixes to gcc bugs,

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20210120.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20210118.n.1 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20210120.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:11 Dropped images: 1 Added packages: 10 Dropped packages:211 Upgraded packages: 140 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 177.06 MiB Size of dropped packages:

Re: /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-strip-lto fails with symbol `.gnu.debuglto_.debug_line_str' required but not present

On 21.01.2021 16:37, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Both gcc -0.16.fc34 and fixed dwz are now in f34-build. Good news. Thanks for your work. -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org) ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsub

Re: Artifacts of failed builds for debugging

Thanks for the tips. I eventually narrowed errors to just NUMA builders, and confirmed that once borrowed multicore machine from RH. Turned out the problem is internal to BIND only, reported under MR [1]. It is problematic to hide details on kyua unit testing. Unit tests are built using cmocka and

Re: Fedora 34 Change: Signed RPM Contents (late System-Wide Change)

On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 11:29:55PM -, Patrick マルタインアンドレアス Uiterwijk wrote: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Signed_RPM_Contents > > > > I'd like to point out that after many requests, I have updated the change > page for this significantly, with more details as to the goals (and

mtxclient soversion bump

Hello all. mtxclient 0.4.0 update will include a soversion bump from 0.3.0 to 0.4.0. I will rebuild dependent package nheko. -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org) ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe

Orphaned rubygem-fog-aws

Hi, I have orphaned rubygem-fog-aws. This used to be dependency of rubygem-fog and later also dependency of rubygem-ascii_binder. But since both are gone, I don't have any other use for this package. Vít OpenPGP_0x0CE09EE79917B87C.asc Description: application/pgp-keys OpenPGP_signature

Re: Fedora 34 Change: Signed RPM Contents (late System-Wide Change)

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 9:51 AM Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > Patrick マルタインアンドレアス Uiterwijk wrote: > > I'd like to point out that after many requests, I have updated the change > > page for this significantly, with more details as to the goals (and > > non-goals) of this feature, and answers

Fedora-Rawhide-20210120.n.0 compose check report

Missing expected images: Minimal raw-xz armhfp Xfce raw-xz armhfp Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check! 5 of 43 required tests failed, 8 results missing openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING** below Failed openQA tests: 21/180 (x86_64), 14/122 (aarch64

Re: Backwards-incompatible RPM format change in Fedora 34?

On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 10:53 +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Florian Weimer wrote: > > With rpm-4.15.1-3.fc32.1.x86_64, I get this error: > > > > $ rpm -qip > > https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/development/rawhide/Everything/aarch64/debug/tree/Packages/m/ModemManager-debugsource

Fedora-IoT-34-20210121.0 compose check report

Missing expected images: Iot dvd aarch64 Iot dvd x86_64 Failed openQA tests: 4/15 (aarch64), 1/16 (x86_64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-IoT-34-20210119.0): ID: 759750 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_zezere_server@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/759750

Re: Server Side Public License (SSPL) v1

> ...the SSPL is intentionally crafted to be aggressively discriminatory towards a specific class of users. Who are they? Can you identify this class of users please? Thanks. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send a

Re: Server Side Public License (SSPL) v1

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 7:31 PM Mat K. Witts wrote: > > > ...the SSPL is intentionally crafted to be aggressively discriminatory > towards a specific class of users. > > Who are they? > > Can you identify this class of users please? You can find the details quite easily using google if you so des

Re: Server Side Public License (SSPL) v1

On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 13:16 +, Mat K. Witts wrote: > > ...the SSPL is intentionally crafted to be aggressively discriminatory > towards a specific class of users. > > Who are they? > > Can you identify this class of users please? Wow resurrecting a 2019 thread ? A thread where the exact sam

Re: Fedora 34 Change: Signed RPM Contents (late System-Wide Change)

On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 11:29:55PM -, Patrick マルタインアンドレアス Uiterwijk wrote: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Signed_RPM_Contents > > > > I'd like to point out that after many requests, I have updated the change > page for this significantly, with more details as to the goals (and

Re: Backwards-incompatible RPM format change in Fedora 34?

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:43:35PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:39 PM Panu Matilainen wrote: > > > > On 1/21/21 1:27 PM, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:22 PM Panu Matilainen > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> On 1/21/21 9:56 AM, Florian Weimer wrote

Re: How to fix a Rawhide Build Failure that appears to be a result of a Build Server?

Fabio, I apologize for missing those threads, regardless thank you and Gwyn for your fast responses. I wasn't so much concerned about the failure, I just did not know that things would eventually be automatically re-attempted. I was worried I had to trigger a rebuild manually myself somehow. Any

Re: Backwards-incompatible RPM format change in Fedora 34?

Once upon a time, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek said: > Oh, I didn't fully understand your comment at the time. I automatically > assumed > that "enabled in production" only means that the *code* is there, i.e. that > the version of rpm has been updated in preparation. Actually enabling this > whil

Re: Backwards-incompatible RPM format change in Fedora 34?

On 1/21/21 5:43 AM, Fabio Valentini wrote: That's just not acceptable. Which means that signed RPM contents need to be postponed at least until all supported Fedora releases have an RPM version that can read those files. I'm not sure what Fedora's policy on this is, but as an administrator with

Re: Fedora 34 Change: Route all Audio to PipeWire (System-Wide Change)

> The f33 xfce4-pulseaudio-plugin package from updates-testing can now > work with pipewire and so far so good. I'm of course lacking the features > I was using with paprefs, but will try to find in the pipewire docs whether > the same can be achieved with pipewire-specific tooling. > > My main cas

How to change FAS username and email

I'm having a hard time finding anything about this... 1. I need to change my email address. As I recall, when my Fedora account was first created, it was supposed to automatically link to my existing Red Hat Bugzilla account as long as they both used the same email. Right? I just want to confir

Re: [ELN] How to handle RHEL-specific changes when it fails in ELN?

Florian Weimer wrote: > This is closer to the existing policy, I think: > > Actually, the very first 2½ sentences at that link make my point even more clearly than the link I had posted: | Fedora packages SHOULD make every ef

Re: Fedora 34 Change: Signed RPM Contents (late System-Wide Change)

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:50 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 11:29:55PM -, Patrick マルタインアンドレアス Uiterwijk > wrote: > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Signed_RPM_Contents > > > > > > > I'd like to point out that after many requests, I have updated

Re: Server Side Public License (SSPL) v1

> Wow resurrecting a 2019 thread ? No, I am looking at something that was clearly aborted... when I visited this thread there were ZERO comments > A thread where the exact same question was asked also aggresively *and*  responded to by Ben Cotton ... It's not here. I'll poke around to find out w

Re: Server Side Public License (SSPL) v1

>>> ...the SSPL is intentionally crafted to be aggressively discriminatory >>> towards a specific class of users. >>> >>> Who are they? >>> >>> Can you identify this class of users please? > You can find the details quite easily using google if you so desire. wow... are you really too embarrassed

Re: Server Side Public License (SSPL) v1

This You? > All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. http://ssimo.org/ / lol On 21/01/2021 19:44, Simo Sorce wrote: > Wow resurrecting a 2019 thread ? > > A thread wh

Re: Backwards-incompatible RPM format change in Fedora 34?

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 08:04:42PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:43:35PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:39 PM Panu Matilainen > > wrote: > > > > > > On 1/21/21 1:27 PM, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12

Re: Backwards-incompatible RPM format change in Fedora 34?

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 02:24:49PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek said: > > Oh, I didn't fully understand your comment at the time. I automatically > > assumed > > that "enabled in production" only means that the *code* is there, i.e. that > > the versio

Re: Fedora 34 Change: Signed RPM Contents (late System-Wide Change)

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 11:25:30AM +0100, Roberto Ragusa wrote: > On 1/21/21 12:29 AM, Patrick マルタインアンドレアス Uiterwijk wrote: > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Signed_RPM_Contents > > > > > > > I'd like to point out that after many requests, I have updated the change > > page for this s

Re: Fedora 34 Change: Signed RPM Contents (late System-Wide Change)

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 03:16:47PM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > I defer to Patrick, but I think what he was trying to say is that if you > do not have the rpm-plugin-ima installed, nothing changes in the files > you are installing from rpm. They are exactly the same as they would be > if they were n

Re: How to change FAS username and email

On 21. 01. 21 22:38, Andrew Toskin wrote: 2. I'm also considering changing my FAS nick/username; it's an oblique reference to something that I don't want to use as my name anymore. I asume this would require submitting a ticket to Pagure, but I'm not sure which section to file it under. This

Re: Fedora Loves Python 2020 report

Wow, impressive list of enhancements, that's really great! I didn't realized that so many things were done only in 2020! Fedora is and remains my favorite OS to develop on Python! Victor On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 4:38 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > Inspired by a similar report from the Copr team, I’v

Re: How to change FAS username and email

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 12:33:50AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > >2. I'm also considering changing my FAS nick/username; it's an oblique > >reference to something that I don't want to use as my name anymore. I asume > >this would require submitting a ticket to Pagure, but I'm not sure which > >se

Re: [ELN] How to handle RHEL-specific changes when it fails in ELN?

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 4:51 PM Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > Florian Weimer wrote: > > This is closer to the existing policy, I think: > > > > > > Actually, the very first 2½ sentences at that link make my point even more >

Fedora-IoT-33-20210121.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 3/15 (aarch64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-IoT-33-20210113.0): ID: 759803 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_zezere_server@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/759803 ID: 759814 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree

Re: [ELN] How to handle RHEL-specific changes when it fails in ELN?

Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > You mean like "python-s3transfer", which bundles multiple multiple > python modules together for no intelligible reason, requiring > hand-tuning of packages like "awscli" which have to seek out the > relocated modules? > > The guideline has sometimes been ignored for rea

Re: How to change FAS username and email

> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 12:33:50AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: >> This is not possible. You can only create a new account and ask at >> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issues to transfer your >> group memberships. > > It is likely, however, that it will be supported in our upcoming new a

Re: Request for contributions: Demos of Features or other videos for virtual FOSDEM 2021 booth

Hi Till, On Wed, 2021-01-20 at 22:25 +0100, Till Maas wrote: > Hi, > > there will be a virtual booth at FOSDEM 2021 and this allows to show > some videos. This allows to present the latest features in Fedora or > other interesting items. I skimmed over the Features for 33 and 34 > and > the follo

Re: How to change FAS username and email

On Fri, 2021-01-22 at 03:39 +, Andrew Toskin wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 12:33:50AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > This is not possible. You can only create a new account and ask > > > at > > > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issues to transfer your > > > group memberships. >

review trade request: rust-libnotcurses-sys + rust-cty

I put up rust-cty [0] and rust-libnotcurses-sys [1] for review a little over a month ago, but haven't had anyone bite (the latter depends on the former). They're both almost entirely rust2rpm boilerplate, and built cleanly with mock last time I tried. Would anyone be interested in a review swap, es

Re: Backwards-incompatible RPM format change in Fedora 34?

On 1/21/21 10:04 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:43:35PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:39 PM Panu Matilainen wrote: On 1/21/21 1:27 PM, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:22 PM Panu Matilainen wrote: On 1/21/21 9:

Re: Backwards-incompatible RPM format change in Fedora 34?

On 1/21/21 8:37 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 10:53 +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: Florian Weimer wrote: With rpm-4.15.1-3.fc32.1.x86_64, I get this error: $ rpm -qip https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/development/rawhide/Everything/aarch64/debug/tree/Packag