[Bug 2075768] selecting the 'Component' at the end, cleares the 'Description'

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2075768 Jeff Fearn  changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20220731.n.1 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20220730.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20220731.n.1 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 1 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 68 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 28.13 KiB Size of dropped packages:0 B

[EPEL-devel] Re: Request for backintime @EPEL9

Thank you very very much formtaking care of the package! ___ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:

Non-responsive maintainer check for Pete Travis a.k.a. immanetize

Does anyone know how to contact Pete Travis a.k.a. immanetize? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112660 Here is the activity report from fedora-active-user: Last login in FAS: immanetize 2021-01-21 Last action on koji: Tue, 28 Jun 2022 tag_package_owners entry created by bodhi

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)

On Sun, Jul 31, 2022 at 1:39 PM Maxwell G wrote: > > On 22/07/31 12:57PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > > I can go into why I don't think it's worthwhile, if there's interest. > > Feel free to go into more details if you'd like :). Sure, well: Fedora had an informal but publicly stated policy, which

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)

On Sun, Jul 31, 2022, 11:43 AM Ralf Corsépius wrote: > > > Am 31.07.22 um 18:57 schrieb Richard Fontana: > > There are so few non-legacy, today-commonly-used, > > generally-accepted-as-FOSS licenses that are not viewed as > > GPLv3-compatible that I think it might be better for Ansible to just >

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)

Am 31.07.22 um 18:57 schrieb Richard Fontana: There are so few non-legacy, today-commonly-used, generally-accepted-as-FOSS licenses that are not viewed as GPLv3-compatible that I think it might be better for Ansible to just list those (the only one I can think of is EPL-2.0), or to list a

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)

On 22/07/31 12:57PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > I can go into why I don't think it's worthwhile, if there's interest. Feel free to go into more details if you'd like :). -- Thanks, Maxwell G (@gotmax23) Pronouns: He/Him/His signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)

On Sun, Jul 31, 2022 at 11:22 AM Maxwell G wrote: > As part of this change, the data on which licenses are GPL-compatible > seems to have been removed. Other projects were relying on > this (e.g. [1]). Are there any plans to add it back? No, we decided not to maintain this information going

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)

On 22/07/29 11:19AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > New docs site for licensing and other legal topics > -- > > All documentation related to Fedora licensing has moved to a new > section in Fedora Docs, which you can find at: > >

Re: Help needed: build failure trying to upgrade healpix

Jerry James wrote: > On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 10:35 AM Kevin Kofler via devel > wrote: >> What I see is that the hacks that you apply to configure are apparently >> not working: >> >> checking command to parse /usr/bin/nm -B output from gcc object... >> ./configure: line 7304: -e 's/^T .*

Re: Important changes to software license information in Fedora packages (SPDX and more!)

Matthew Miller wrote: > All documentation related to Fedora licensing has moved to a new > section in Fedora Docs, which you can find at: > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/ Several links to other sections are broken. All five links under "Licensing in Fedora" should point to other

[Bug 2112633] perl-JSON-4.08 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112633 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value ---

[Bug 2108973] perl-WWW-Mechanize-2.13 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2108973 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value

[Bug 2111926] perl-Search-Elasticsearch-7.711001 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2111926 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Doc Type|---

[Bug 2110094] perl-Catalyst-Runtime-5.90129 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2110094 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Doc Type|---

Re: Help needed: build failure trying to upgrade healpix

Il 30/07/22 18:28, Jerry James ha scritto: > On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 9:53 AM Mattia Verga via devel > wrote: >> Hello folks, >> >> I've been trying to update healpix package to latest version, so that I >> can submit a PR to the package maintainer. Current version is a couple >> of years old. >>

[Bug 2112642] New: perlbrew-0.96 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112642 Bug ID: 2112642 Summary: perlbrew-0.96 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perlbrew Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee:

[Bug 2112633] New: perl-JSON-4.08 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112633 Bug ID: 2112633 Summary: perl-JSON-4.08 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-JSON Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged