KDE Plasma 6 Sets Release Date

https://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/News/KDE-Plasma-6-Sets-Release-Date February 28th, 2024. Mark your calendars, as that's the official date the KDE team has set for the release of KDE Plasma 6.0. -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraprojec

Re: Mass rebuild: git push --no-verify

On Thu, 2024-01-18 at 09:13 -0700, Jerry James wrote: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 3:32 PM Sérgio Basto > wrote: > > You got mass rebuild script here [1] in massrebuildsinfo.py [2] you > > may > > define what packages you are going to rebuild ,  in line 93 of > > mass- > > rebuild.py [3] you got the

Re: HEADSUP boost and tbb rebuilds starting in a side tag

On Fri, 2024-01-19 at 00:21 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 at 00:10, Jonathan Wakely > wrote: > > > > On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 at 19:07, Jonathan Wakely > > wrote: > > > > > > I'll be building boost, tbb, and the packages that depend on them > > > in > > > the f40-build-side-816

Re: HEADSUP boost and tbb rebuilds starting in a side tag

On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 at 00:10, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 at 19:07, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > I'll be building boost, tbb, and the packages that depend on them in > > the f40-build-side-81691 > > side tag over the next few hours (in advance of the mass rebuild tomorrow). >

Re: HEADSUP boost and tbb rebuilds starting in a side tag

On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 at 19:07, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > I'll be building boost, tbb, and the packages that depend on them in > the f40-build-side-81691 > side tag over the next few hours (in advance of the mass rebuild tomorrow). > > If your package gets a "Rebuilt for Boost 1.83.0" comment, plea

Re: F40 Change Proposal: Optimized Binaries for the AMD64 Architecture (System-Wide)

On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 2:43 PM Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > > > This is also a valid approach. This is the first alternative proposal > > which makes me say "hmm, this would also work". It is possibly even > > simpler than setting the $PATH. A very small disadvantage is that the > > wrapper would n

Re: Fedora Linux 40 Change Proposal Submission Deadlines have now passed

On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 4:33 PM Aoife Moloney wrote: > Hi all, > > Please note that we are now past all change proposal submission deadlines. > Thank you to all who have submitted changes to Fedora Linux 40. If you have > changes accepted, please note your changes must be in a 'Testable >

Re: HEADSUP boost and tbb rebuilds starting in a side tag

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 at 22:15, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > heaptrack > Could NOT find Libunwind (missing: LIBUNWIND_HAS_UNW_BACKTRACE) This one's already fixed in dist-git! (thanks, aleasto) -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsu

Re: HEADSUP boost and tbb rebuilds starting in a side tag

On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 at 19:07, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > I'll be building boost, tbb, and the packages that depend on them in > the f40-build-side-81691 > side tag over the next few hours (in advance of the mass rebuild tomorrow). > > If your package gets a "Rebuilt for Boost 1.83.0" comment, plea

Fedora Linux 40 Change Proposal Submission Deadlines have now passed

Hi all, Please note that we are now past all change proposal submission deadlines. Thank you to all who have submitted changes to Fedora Linux 40. If you have changes accepted, please note your changes must be in a 'Testable

Re: -fcf-protection dropped from i686 compiler flags

On 2024-01-18 12:28, Michael Catanzaro wrote: Unfortunately this is causing gating tests to fail for rawhide builds, e.g.: https://artifacts.dev.testing-farm.io/081ad2a3-76cd-4aa0-b95e-e870ff75a65c/ Hardened: /usr/bin/pkcon: FAIL: cf-protection test because .note.gnu.property section did no

Re: -fcf-protection dropped from i686 compiler flags

Unfortunately this is causing gating tests to fail for rawhide builds, e.g.: https://artifacts.dev.testing-farm.io/081ad2a3-76cd-4aa0-b95e-e870ff75a65c/ Hardened: /usr/bin/pkcon: FAIL: cf-protection test because .note.gnu.property section did not contain the necessary flags I'm not sure wh

Re: Re: Mass rebuild: git push --no-verify

On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 08:24:38PM +0100, Björn Persson wrote: > > If, hypothetically, a defect in the mass-rebuild script would corrupt > thousands of spec files, how easy would it be to write a mass-revert > script to repair the damage? The mass-revert script shouldn't just > revert the latest c

Re: Mass rebuild: git push --no-verify

kevin wrote: > The mass rebuild is only doing a bump/rebuild. There's no reason it > should ever cause something that be caught by the hook, and if it did, > it would be better for it to do the commit anyhow and cause a failed > build. IMHO. If, hypothetically, a defect in the mass-rebuild script

Re: Re: Mass rebuild: git push --no-verify

On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 09:15:18AM -0700, Jerry James wrote: > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 4:50 AM Tomas Hrcka wrote: > > This is not a good idea. Because of a few packages that are not rebuilding > > we would disable the hook for every push the script does. > > My thinking is that the hook is not u

F40 Change Proposal: IoT Simplified Provisioning (Self-Contained)

Wiki -> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/IoTSimplifiedProvisioning This is a proposed Change for Fedora Linux. 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 imple

F40 Change Proposal: ibus 1.5.30 (Self-Contained)

Wiki -> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/IBus_1.5.30 This is a proposed Change for Fedora Linux. 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 appr

F40 Change Proposal: ibus-anthy 1.5.16 (Self-Contained)

Wiki -> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ibus-anthy_1.5.16 This is a proposed Change for Fedora Linux. 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 i

F40 Change Proposal: Build Fedora IoT using rpm-ostree unified core (Self-Contained)

Wiki -> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Fedora_IoT_Unified_Core This is a proposed Change for Fedora Linux. 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 implem

cryptominisat soname bump

In about a week, I plan to update the cryptominisat package to version 5.11.15 in Rawhide, which comes with an soname bump. We have been stuck on version 5.8.0 for a long time because some consuming packages were not compatible with newer versions. At last all of them are ready for the update. I

Re: Mass rebuild: git push --no-verify

On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 4:50 AM Tomas Hrcka wrote: > This is not a good idea. Because of a few packages that are not rebuilding we > would disable the hook for every push the script does. My thinking is that the hook is not useful for automated build scripts anyway, so disabling it doesn't hurt.

Re: Mass rebuild: git push --no-verify

On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 3:48 PM kevin wrote: > I suppose this might be a good idea... I'd be afraid of what it might > break, while fixing the fonts packages though. But of course if it was > completely broken it would fail after that anyhow... That's exactly my thinking. The package is either b

Re: Mass rebuild: git push --no-verify

On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 3:32 PM Sérgio Basto wrote: > You got mass rebuild script here [1] in massrebuildsinfo.py [2] you may > define what packages you are going to rebuild , in line 93 of mass- > rebuild.py [3] you got the list of packages that you go rebuild > and since line 132 [4] you have t

F40 Change Proposal: Fedora IoT Bootable Containers

Wiki -> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Fedora_IoT_Bootable_Container This is a proposed Change for Fedora Linux. 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 i

Re: fedora-distro-aliases - The easiest way to get numbers of active Fedora releases

On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 5:58 AM Jakub Kadlcik wrote: > > Hello, > I just wanted to quickly announce a small project I did in collaboration with > the Packit folks. > > Do you have some tools or services that perform actions on all currently > active Fedora releases? And do you have to manually u

Re: F40 Change Proposal: Arm Minimal Image OS-Build (Self-Contained)

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 at 14:39, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 9:30 AM Aoife Moloney wrote: > > > > Wiki -> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ArmMinimalImageOSBuild > > > > This is a proposed Change for Fedora Linux. > > This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the

F40 Change Proposal: Deprecate_ntlm_in_cyrus_sasl (Self-Contained)

Wiki -> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Deprecate_ntlm_in_cyrus_sasl This is a proposed Change for Fedora Linux. 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 im

Re: F40 Change Proposal: Arm Minimal Image OS-Build (Self-Contained)

On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 9:30 AM Aoife Moloney wrote: > > Wiki -> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ArmMinimalImageOSBuild > > This is a proposed Change for Fedora Linux. > This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes > process, proposals are publicly announced in order t

F40 Change Proposal: Arm Minimal Image OS-Build (Self-Contained)

Wiki -> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ArmMinimalImageOSBuild This is a proposed Change for Fedora Linux. 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 implemen

Is packager dashboard supposed to contain up-to-date bugs?

Hello, In my packager dashboard there are six AusweisApp2 bugs listed, all of them are actually resolved. The bugs currently open are not listed either. Is this a known problem? Best regards, Julian -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedorapro

Re: [Fedora-packaging] BuildrootError: could not init mock buildroot ... see root.log ...

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 at 06:43, Mamoru TASAKA wrote: > > Brad Bell wrote on 2024/01/18 14:00: > > I got the Result in the subject above for the following build: > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=111912575 > > > > Looking at the corresponding root.log > > https://kojipkgs.fedora

Re: Mass rebuild: git push --no-verify

On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 10:52 PM Jerry James wrote: > Given the problems we had with font packages not being rebuilt in the > last mass rebuild, can we ensure that the mass rebuild script uses > "git push --no-verify" instead of plain "git push"? > This is not a good idea. Because of a few packa

Re: F40 Change Proposal: F40 Change Proposal: Unify /usr/bin and /usr/sbin (System-Wide)

Ben Beasley writes: >     sestatus This is based on upstream commit d464187c37529c [1]: policycoreutils: sestatus belongs to bin not sbin It is quite useful even to non-privileged users and doesn't require any privileges to work, except for maybe -v. Some tools hard code the