Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2022-03-24 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.libera.chat.
Local time information (via. uitime):
= Day: Thursday ==
2022-03-24 09:00 PDT US/Pacific
2022-03-24 12
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 10:16 AM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> 2) Just to note what I wound up doing here - aside from the special
> polymake case, I found (I hope) all the packages that got built against
> 5.34.1, bumped and rebuilt them against 5.34.0, and edited the
> standalone updates to have the
Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden writes:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 07:12:23PM -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden writes:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 08:27:35AM -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden writes:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 06:22:08PM -0400, Sam Varshavch
Hello,
I'm going to orphan "ustl" package for several reasons:
- the library is generally deprecated;
- the maintainer has switched the C++ library type to static, which makes
shared lib support no longer possible.
It should be harmless since there are no packages that depend on "ustl".
$ dnf
Missing expected images:
Minimal raw-xz armhfp
Compose PASSES proposed Rawhide gating check!
All required tests passed
Failed openQA tests: 10/231 (x86_64), 9/161 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20220323.n.0):
ID: 1192145 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree
On Wed, 2022-03-23 at 18:13 -0400, Elliott Sales de Andrade wrote:
> >
> > 1) Neat trick: I'm pretty sure the buildroot override only needs to be
> > valid until all the build dependencies have been installed. For my
> > polymake rebuild, I put the override back in place, fired the polymake
> > bu
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 12:16 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2022-03-23 at 08:39 +, Paul Howarth wrote:
> >
> > OK, so this is largely my fault. Whilst I didn't do the initial perl
> > 5.34.1 build and update, I did set up the buildroot override and the
> > builds of the two packages (p
I intend to take ownership of the vorbisgain pacakge. It was retired last week
having been orphaned for more than six weeks.
I am sending this email as in the procedure at
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement_Process/#claiming
_
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20220323.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20220323.n.1
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 104
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 7:54 PM Richard Shaw wrote:
> Clang doesn't understand some options that gcc does, and a lot of it depends
> on the version of clang IIRC. For a while Fedora maintainers would modify
> clang to at least silently ignore these options but now it's much easier to
> specify
Minutes:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2022-03-23/fedora_coreos_meeting.2022-03-23-16.28.html
Minutes (text):
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2022-03-23/fedora_coreos_meeting.2022-03-23-16.28.txt
Log:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2022
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 6:55 PM Ron Olson wrote:
>
> Hey all-
>
> I’m trying to build a new version of a package and got the aforementioned
> error, but only under EPEL 8, all other builds (Rawhide, F35, F34, EPEL 9)
> built fine. The failed build is at
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/tas
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 1:55 PM Ron Olson wrote:
> Hey all-
>
> I’m trying to build a new version of a package and got the aforementioned
> error, but only under EPEL 8, all other builds (Rawhide, F35, F34, EPEL 9)
> built fine. The failed build is at
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinf
I encountered the same problem in luminance-hdr. It does not seem to
affect all packages that link qt5-qtwebengine. I would like to know the
root cause, but never figured it out. Instead, I was able to work around
it by disabling LTO in my own package. More details in the bugs below.
luminanc
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 6/229 (x86_64), 10/161 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-36-20220322.n.0):
ID: 1191594 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_browser
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1191594
ID: 1191655 Test: aarch64 Min
Hi,
in order to rebuild tellico, to fix a FTBFS bug, I get in the link stage the
following error:
/usr/bin/ld: /usr/lib64/libQt5WebEngineCore.so.5.15.8: undefined reference to
`std::__cxx11::basic_string, std::allocator
>::_M_replace_aux(unsigned long, unsigned long, unsigned long,
char)@GLIB
Hey all-
I’m trying to build a new version of a package and got the aforementioned
error, but only under EPEL 8, all other builds (Rawhide, F35, F34, EPEL 9)
built fine. The failed build is at
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=84560380.
I’m curious what I can do, but also to
On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 10:41:52 -0700
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> I wonder... should we stop allowing buildroot overrides?
>
> Or at the very least add a admon to adding a new one in bodhi,
> explaining that you should probibly use a side tag, etc?
They're still very useful when bringing up new EPEL rele
On 23. 03. 22 18:40, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
So, now that we have side-tags to perform this kind of builds, does the
buildroot override existence still make sense? Is there any use case
that still requires BR overrides and cannot be done with side-tags?
As I've said elsewhere in the threa
On 23. 03. 22 18:41, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
I wonder... should we stop allowing buildroot overrides?
I wondered this for a long time. Unfortunately I still find usecases for
buildroot overrides. E.g. when we ship new versions of some macro packages etc.
and we want them available even before the
I wonder... should we stop allowing buildroot overrides?
Or at the very least add a admon to adding a new one in bodhi,
explaining that you should probibly use a side tag, etc?
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
devel mailing list -- d
So, now that we have side-tags to perform this kind of builds, does the
buildroot override existence still make sense? Is there any use case
that still requires BR overrides and cannot be done with side-tags?
Mattia
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists
V Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 10:24:35AM -0600, Orion Poplawski napsal(a):
> When I do:
>
> [orion@vmrawhide-rufous zabbix (rawhide *+)]$ fedpkg request-branch
> --no-auto-module --sl rawhide:2027-06-01 -- 6.0
>
> It generates a request for a branch named "rawhide". I'm following:
>
> https://docs.fed
On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 07:12:23PM -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden writes:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 08:27:35AM -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden writes:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 06:22:08PM -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
The only thing that https:
OLD: Fedora-36-20220322.n.0
NEW: Fedora-36-20220323.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:2
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 0
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of upgraded
When I do:
[orion@vmrawhide-rufous zabbix (rawhide *+)]$ fedpkg request-branch
--no-auto-module --sl rawhide:2027-06-01 -- 6.0
It generates a request for a branch named "rawhide". I'm following:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/modularity/building-modules/fedora/adding-new-modules/
fedp
On Wed, 2022-03-23 at 08:39 +, Paul Howarth wrote:
>
> OK, so this is largely my fault. Whilst I didn't do the initial perl
> 5.34.1 build and update, I did set up the buildroot override and the
> builds of the two packages (perl-PAR-Packer and polymake) that have
> hard dependencies on the sp
On Wed, 2022-03-23 at 08:39 +, Paul Howarth wrote:
>
> In mitigation, my thinking was that since the f36 beta freeze is still
> ongoing, the perl update and its hard dependencies would almost
> certainly have been pushed to stable at the same time anyway. In
> addition, since those updates wer
Heads up for anyone using Rawhide with Secure Boot enabled: *do not*
update to grub2 version 2.0.6-27! Due to a chain of unfortunate events,
it is in today's Rawhide compose, but is not signed with the official
Fedora SB keys and will not be trusted. If you update to it, your
system will not boot w
On Tue, 2022-03-22 at 08:15 +, rawh...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
> According to the schedule [1], Fedora 36 Candidate Beta-1.4 is now
> available for testing. Please help us complete all the validation
> testing! For more information on release validation testing, see:
> https://fedoraproject.or
Miro Hrončok writes:
> If that's the case, can we please stop enforcing the signed-off-by
> thing in Fedora projects (such as various Fedora projects on Pagure or
> Bodhi on GitHub)?
My understanding is that's about provenance, not licensing per se (not a
lawyer etc.). In any case it's up to th
I know for a fact you need at least a few i686 packages to run games on
Lutris as well (Blizzard Agent/Overwatch being one)
On 3/23/22 08:03, Germano Massullo wrote:
All these are somehow related to Steam and x86 32 bit games
# rpm -qa | grep 686 | sort
alsa-lib-1.2.6.1-3.fc35.i686
atk-2.36.0
Hi all,
driverless+printer applications world of printing and scanning is coming
in the future:
- printer driver, raw queues and other removals are planned with CUPS
3.0, roughly in the next year,
- printer applications RPMs are waiting for cups-filters 2.0, but the
apps are in SNAP already
On 3/22/22 11:19, Petr Pisar wrote:
> V Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 07:30:13AM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour napsal(a):
>> All kernel-mode drivers, to be specific. User-mode drivers are an
>> underutilized alternative for systems that have an IOMMU/SMMU. Obviously,
>> the drivers still need to be free softw
Missing expected images:
Minimal raw-xz armhfp
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
8 of 43 required tests failed
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
below
Failed openQA tests: 16/216 (x86_64), 13/161 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 7:05 AM Alexander Sosedkin wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 12:51 AM Josh Boyer wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 1:40 PM Alexander Sosedkin
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello, community, I need your wisdom for planning a disruptive change.
> > >
> > > Fedora 28 had http
All these are somehow related to Steam and x86 32 bit games
# rpm -qa | grep 686 | sort
alsa-lib-1.2.6.1-3.fc35.i686
atk-2.36.0-4.fc35.i686
at-spi2-atk-2.38.0-3.fc35.i686
at-spi2-atk-debuginfo-2.38.0-3.fc35.i686
at-spi2-atk-debugsource-2.38.0-3.fc35.i686
at-spi2-core-2.42.0-1.fc35.i686
avahi-lib
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 9:36 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 22. 03. 22 v 19:18 Michal Schorm napsal(a):
> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 7:06 PM Richard Fontana wrote:
> >> I would assert that the "unlicensed
> >> contribution" scenario contemplated by the FPCA is actually going to
> >> be fairly rare ap
I will build python-probeinterface 0.2.8[1] for Rawhide in one week
(2022-03-30), or slightly later.
This breaks the API by renaming:
- `probeinterface.probe.select_dimensions` to
`probeinterface.probe.select_axes`
- the `plane` keyword argument of `probeinterface.probe.to_3d` to `axes`
- the
On 22.03.22 08:47, Sandro Mani wrote:
Hi
I'll be updating to cgnslib-4.3 in rawhide in f37-build-side-52152,
rebuilding the following dependencies:
gmsh
paraview
pcl
petsc
vtk
This is now done and the side-tag merged.
Sandro
___
devel mailing
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-34-20220322.0):
ID: 1191085 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 12:51 AM Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 1:40 PM Alexander Sosedkin
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello, community, I need your wisdom for planning a disruptive change.
> >
> > Fedora 28 had https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/StrongCryptoSettings
> > Fedora 33 had htt
On 23. 03. 22 9:35, Vít Ondruch wrote:
I understand your answer as that:
it is irrelevant whether the contributor specified the license (e.g.
text "I submit this under GPL-2.0 license" in the pull request
comment)
If somebody states license of the contribution, then it has to be respected.
O
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20220322.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20220323.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:3
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 3
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 168
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 475.68 KiB
Size of dropped packages
On 22. 03. 22 19:48, Adam Williamson wrote:
I found quite a big mess today, caused by an attempt to bump perl to
5.34.1 in Fedora 36:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-cea638ebd4
Because some packages depend on the exact perl interpreter version, the
maintainer made a buildroo
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-35-20220322.0):
ID: 1190692 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 11:48:57 -0700
Adam Williamson wrote:
> I found quite a big mess today, caused by an attempt to bump perl to
> 5.34.1 in Fedora 36:
>
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-cea638ebd4
>
> Because some packages depend on the exact perl interpreter version,
> th
Dne 22. 03. 22 v 19:18 Michal Schorm napsal(a):
On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 7:06 PM Richard Fontana wrote:
I would assert that the "unlicensed
contribution" scenario contemplated by the FPCA is actually going to
be fairly rare apart from the special case of spec files, which the
FPCA was particula
48 matches
Mail list logo
