On Fri, May 27 2022 at 12:15:33 AM +0200, Joël Krähemann
wrote:
For webkit2gtk-4.0 we had a replacement to show the manual as PDF
using libpoppler-glib.
This is fine IMO since it's your own PDF that you control and know will
not be malicious.
(For untrusted PDFs, WebKit is way more secure t
On 5/26/22 12:31, drago01 wrote:
I am not talking about FLOSS vs non FLOSS, that's obvious. But bundled
libs and properly tested / certified vs dynamic linking and less testing
/ no certification.
But if OpenJDK-based binaries can't be distributed without passing the
TCK, then it isn't really
Hi Michael,
We just did a major release to GSequencer v4.0.0 we migrated to Gtk4
and libsoup-3.0, thereby.
https://savannah.nongnu.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=10187
For webkit2gtk-4.0 we had a replacement to show the manual as PDF
using libpoppler-glib. During
transition, I had to disable webk
On ۱۴۰۱/۳/۵ ۵:۲۹ بعدازظهر, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
Hi,
the Scope can be split into parts: 1. packaging the font,
2. making it the default, 3. fixing integration issues, like with Firefox.
I'd encourage you to do 1. as soon as possible. Until that's done,
it's even hard to evaluate if
Hello Golang packagers,
As decathorpe is doing with the Rust SIG, I'm trying to improve the shape of
the go-sig. Sorry decathorpe for the plagiarisms in this email, yours was too
well done to re-create things from scratch :-).
At the moment I've gathered all packages that depend on golang and t
On Thursday, May 26, 2022 2:58:54 PM CDT Neal Gompa wrote:
> There's only one MIT license carve-out I know of: X11. The rest are
> classified the same.
I don't exactly follow. Are you referring to the fact that the X11 license also
falls under Fedora's "MIT" identifier?
--
Thanks,
Maxwell G (@
On Thursday, May 26, 2022 2:15:54 PM CDT Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> On 5/26/22 15:00, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> > Other than the MIT case (and it should not be swept
> > under the rug), are there any substantial use of
> > licenses in Fedora where the Fedora license id
> > and the SPDX license id can
On Thu, May 26 2022 at 03:42:55 PM -0400, Ben Cotton
wrote:
Thanks for the long lead time. If you submit this as an F39 Change
proposal now, you'll be the very first for that release (and perhaps
even break churchyard's unofficial "most in-advance Change proposal
submission). You can, of course,
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 3:42 PM Gary Buhrmaster
wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 7:16 PM Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
>
> > Fedora uses 'BSD' for a variety of licenses, many of which have specific
> > SPDX identifiers. MIT and BSD are the most common problem areas for this
> > situation.
>
> Right,
Thanks for the long lead time. If you submit this as an F39 Change
proposal now, you'll be the very first for that release (and perhaps
even break churchyard's unofficial "most in-advance Change proposal
submission). You can, of course, wait a while to do this, too.
--
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 7:16 PM Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> Fedora uses 'BSD' for a variety of licenses, many of which have specific
> SPDX identifiers. MIT and BSD are the most common problem areas for this
> situation.
Right, but BSD is not in SPDX, it may be BSD-2-Clause
(or BSD-3-Clause).
Hi developers,
If you maintain a package that depends (directly or indirectly) on
libsoup, this mail is important. ***Lots of applications depend
indirectly on libsoup, even if you don't realize it!***
libsoup 3 (Fedora package: libsoup3) is incompatible with libsoup 2
(Fedora package: libso
On 5/26/22 15:00, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
Other than the MIT case (and it should not be swept
under the rug), are there any substantial use of
licenses in Fedora where the Fedora license id
and the SPDX license id can lead to confusion
as to which is being specified?
Fedora uses 'BSD' for a vari
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 2:27 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> At least in the MIT license case, the MIT identifier exists there. One
> reason Tom Callaway resisted changing to SPDX in the past was that
> they never resolved the problem with the MIT identifier. It's
> effectively a family identifier, just l
Due to an impending move to NYC and related downsizing of my house into a
2-bedroom apartment, I'm selling all my ham radio gear. Therefore I won't
be able to test any of the Fedora packages I maintain with actual
hardware. Would anyone be interested in maintaining or co-maintaining
these?
- dire
On Thu, 2022-05-26 at 14:07 -0400, Solomon Peachy wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 07:31:45PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> > I am not talking about FLOSS vs non FLOSS, that's obvious. But
> > bundled libs
> > and properly tested / certified vs dynamic linking and less testing
> > / no
> > certification.
So my take on the TCK is that Red Hat signed the OCTLA and Fedora
Community get's to test their OpenJDK against it as a subequence. I
didn't think Fedora the project, had any legal except what Red Hat
provides, maybe I'm mistaken though so someone should clarify if they
know for sure. Not only that
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 07:31:45PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> I am not talking about FLOSS vs non FLOSS, that's obvious. But bundled libs
> and properly tested / certified vs dynamic linking and less testing / no
> certification.
I've been following this circular thread from the outset (And I do make
On Thursday, May 26, 2022, Ian Pilcher wrote:
> On 5/26/22 10:40, drago01 wrote:
>
>> Why would we do that? Is the build process really more important than
>> shipping tested software?
>>
>
> For Fedora? Yes.
>
> Fedora includes lots of untested (in the formal, TCK sense) software.
> It does not
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RestoreCloudEdition
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved
by the Fedora Engineering Steering Comm
On 5/26/22 10:40, drago01 wrote:
Why would we do that? Is the build process really more important than
shipping tested software?
For Fedora? Yes.
Fedora includes lots of untested (in the formal, TCK sense) software.
It does not include non-FLOSS software (except maybe in very specific
circums
For anyone interested I made a review request:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2090823
I'm not 100% sure what to do with some of the debug related rpmlint errors. Any
help would be much appreciated.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedo
On Thursday, May 26, 2022, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> On 5/26/22 11:06, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
>
>> 2. Are there ways that a non-TCK compliant version could be distributed?
>>
>
> I would suggest phrasing that slightly differently: the version being
> distributed could very well be fully compliant
On Thu, 26 May 2022 at 11:32, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> On 5/26/22 11:06, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> > 2. Are there ways that a non-TCK compliant version could be distributed?
>
> I would suggest phrasing that slightly differently: the version being
> distributed could very well be fully compliant
On 5/26/22 11:06, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
2. Are there ways that a non-TCK compliant version could be distributed?
I would suggest phrasing that slightly differently: the version being
distributed could very well be fully compliant (would pass the TCK if
tested), but may not have been tested.
On Thursday, May 26, 2022 9:25:40 AM CDT Neal Gompa wrote:
> At least in the MIT license case, the MIT identifier exists there. One
> reason Tom Callaway resisted changing to SPDX in the past was that
> they never resolved the problem with the MIT identifier. It's
> effectively a family identifier,
On Thursday, May 26, 2022 9:14:14 AM CDT Petr Pisar wrote:
> Does a marker of the conversion need to be visible in the binary packages?
I think it should be. According to the Change Proposal, "the use of a
standardized identifier for license will align Fedora with other distributions.
And allows
On Thu, 26 May 2022 at 08:19, Stephen Snow wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 2022-05-26 at 12:55 +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > On 26/05/2022 00:02, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> > > IANAL, but I believe APIs are not eligible for
> > > trademark protection, so Fedora would only need to change the st
Missing expected images:
Minimal raw-xz armhfp
Compose PASSES proposed Rawhide gating check!
All required tests passed
Failed openQA tests: 14/231 (x86_64), 17/161 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20220525.n.0):
ID: 1280111 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso base_sel
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 10:14 AM Petr Pisar wrote:
>
> V Thu, May 26, 2022 at 08:49:16AM -0500, Richard Shaw napsal(a):
> > On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 8:46 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> >
> > > Dne 25. 05. 22 v 14:40 Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a):
> > > > E, please no. Apps need to know whether a gi
V Thu, May 26, 2022 at 08:49:16AM -0500, Richard Shaw napsal(a):
> On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 8:46 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> > Dne 25. 05. 22 v 14:40 Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a):
> > > E, please no. Apps need to know whether a given RPM is using SPDX
> > > or not, independantly of whether th
On 5/26/22 09:52, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
If you already upgraded to Fedora 36 - what is your feedback about
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora/latest/release-notes/sysadmin/System_Utilities/#remove-retired-packages
Did you run the command `remove-retired-packages`? Do you find it
usef
If you already upgraded to Fedora 36 - what is your feedback about
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora/latest/release-notes/sysadmin/System_Utilities/#remove-retired-packages
Did you run the command `remove-retired-packages`? Do you find it useful?
Comments and ideas are welcome either
Dne 25. 05. 22 v 14:40 Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a):
E, please no. Apps need to know whether a given RPM is using SPDX
or not, independantly of whether they have Fedora git source history
available. We just need to record this fact in the specfile explicitly,
so it is available both to mainta
The ilbc package was recently[1] built in Rawhide with the .so version
changing from 0 to 3. The asterisk, iaxclient, and ffmpeg packages will
need to be rebuilt.
At the same time, it looks like the spec file was modified so that it
doesn’t glob over the .so version, which should make this si
On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 11:54:30AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> == Scope ==
> * Proposal owners:
> # Package new free Persian fonts for Fedora
> # Make the selected font the default one for Persian
> # Try to find out why Firefox/Thunderbird doesn't follow system
> default font (optional)
> # Update
Also, it may be good to take a look at what AdoptOpenJDK is doing with
the Eclipse Foundation based Adoptium Project, specifically the Eclipse
Temurin subproject
https://projects.eclipse.org/proposals/eclipse-temurin-compliance which
is going to handle the compliance requirements.
In this scenerio
There sure seems to be confusion here around what exactly the TCK or
JCK actually is. First off it is not a license. It is however a
technical compatability certification which guarantees technical
compatability between the different flavours of OpenJDK available out
there, like RedHats
(https://ww
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20220525.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20220526.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 2
Dropped packages:2
Upgraded packages: 132
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 4.65 MiB
Size of dropped packages
On 26/05/2022 00:02, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
IANAL, but I believe APIs are not eligible for
trademark protection, so Fedora would only need to change the stuff
that is*not* part of the API.
Yes. Google won a lawsuit against Oracle in the Supreme Court.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...
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-34-20220525.0):
ID: 1280069 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
41 matches
Mail list logo
