The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing
lemonldap-ng-2.19.0-1.el7
Details about builds:
lemonldap-ng-2.19.0-1.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2024-323bcbc819)
Web Single Sign On (SSO) and
The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing
lemonldap-ng-2.19.0-1.el8
Details about builds:
lemonldap-ng-2.19.0-1.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2024-82098f1ee1)
Web Single Sign On (SSO) and
Dear all,
I plan to upgrade catch in epel8 and epel9 to the latest 3.5.4 from Fedora, and
introduce catch2 for packages that are currently using EPEL's catch (v2) and
won't rebuild against catch v3
❯ fedrq pkgs -P catch-devel -b epel8
catch-devel-2.13.8-1.el8.x86_64
❯ fedrq pkgs -P
Dear all,
You are kindly invited to the meeting:
EPEL Steering Committee on 2024-05-01 from 18:00:00 to 19:00:00 UTC
At fedora-meet...@chat.fedoraproject.org
The meeting will be about:
https://chat.fedoraproject.org/#/room/#meeting:fedoraproject.org
This is the weekly EPEL Steering
Marián,
I echo your concerns, however, regarding jars with multiple bytecode
versions, aren't java rpm expected to build their sources with one
specific JDK? (per the guidelines) how can multiple bytecode version end
up in the JAR in that scenario?
Regarding the proposal as a whole, I
On 25. 4. 2024 17:46, Michel Lind wrote:
On 4/24/24 11:14 AM, Aoife Moloney wrote:
Wiki -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Drop_Mandatory_Requires_on_JRE
Announced -
https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f41-change-proposal-drop-mandatory-requires-on-jre-system-wide/114186
[snip]
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20240429.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20240430.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 31
Added packages: 4
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 80
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 877.18 KiB
Size of dropped packages:0
Dne 30. 04. 24 v 12:25 odp. Tomi Lähteenmäki napsal(a):
Hi,
I'm trying to reach the maintainer of phosh [1] and phoc [2]. Allan has tried to reach out for him without success [3]
so I created bug [4] for this non-responsive maintainer check.
If someone knows how to contact him, please let me
Am Dienstag, 30. April 2024, 19:00:33 +11 schrieb Andrea Bolognani:
>
> Shouldn't the symlink point in the opposite direction anyway?
> /usr/lib64/lp64d is the actual canonical path, /usr/lib64 is just for
> compatibility.
>
> Though apparently (see elsewhere in the thread) Gentoo does it this
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277612
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Hi,
I'm trying to reach the maintainer of phosh [1] and phoc [2]. Allan has
tried to reach out for him without success [3] so I created bug [4] for
this non-responsive maintainer check.
If someone knows how to contact him, please let me know.
Best Regards,
Tomi Lähteenmäki
[1]
Il 30/04/24 10:47 AM, Kevin Kofler via devel ha scritto:
> Miro Hrončok wrote:
>> If you wish to help, I guess you can send a pull request to the release
>> notes...
> Or Mattia could simply unretire and adopt the package.
>
Yeah, well... no! :-)
I've re-read the former discussion about pipenv
Miro Hrončok wrote:
> If you wish to help, I guess you can send a pull request to the release
> notes...
Or Mattia could simply unretire and adopt the package.
Kevin Kofler
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 10:02:52AM GMT, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > Shouldn't the symlink point in the opposite direction anyway?
> > /usr/lib64/lp64d is the actual canonical path, /usr/lib64 is just for
> > compatibility.
> >
> > Though apparently (see elsewhere in the thread) Gentoo does it this
>
On 30. 04. 24 8:13, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
I vaguely remember that pipenv retirement was briefly discussed here on
the ML, yet I was surprised that F40 doesn't have pipenv anymore.
IMO, this would have been announced more prominently as a self contained
change, as I expect more python
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 09:49:34 +0200
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Richard W. M. Jones:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 02:21:56PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> * Richard W. M. Jones:
> >>
> >> >> I don't want us to have RPM spec file hacks just to get RISC-V to
> >> >> install in the correct
* Andrea Bolognani:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 08:19:41AM GMT, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 02:21:56PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> > > What cases aren't covered by the symlink? We have a full, working
>> > > Fedora/RISC-V distro using it at the moment.
>> >
>> > The
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 01:44:05PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 1:28 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 10:41:59PM +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I need to rebuild mame on F40 only for qt-6.7. On rawhide,
> > >
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 04:17:37PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Stephen Smoogen:
>
> > I guess we need to see what RPM owns that symlink and get it into the
> > build root
>
> Sorry, I meant $RPM_BUILDROOT or %buildroot (the staging area used by
> rpmbuild). That's not controlled by the
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 08:19:41AM GMT, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 02:21:56PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > What cases aren't covered by the symlink? We have a full, working
> > > Fedora/RISC-V distro using it at the moment.
> >
> > The symbolic link isn't in the
Am 28.04.24 um 23:44 schrieb Kevin Kofler via devel:
Julian Sikorski wrote:
In this case defaulting to cherry-picking would be a safer bet. Branches
unintentionally separated can be merged, but branches unintentionally
merged cannot be unmerged.
This is only true if you are talking about
On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 06:07:38AM -0400, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 09:43:34AM +0300, David Abdurachmanov wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 1:12 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > > We most likely will not have ABIs installed in parallel, but we might
> > > > change ABI.
* Richard W. M. Jones:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 02:21:56PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Richard W. M. Jones:
>>
>> >> I don't want us to have RPM spec file hacks just to get RISC-V to
>> >> install in the correct locations. The symbolic link evidently does not
>> >> cover all cases.
>> >
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 02:21:56PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Richard W. M. Jones:
>
> >> I don't want us to have RPM spec file hacks just to get RISC-V to
> >> install in the correct locations. The symbolic link evidently does not
> >> cover all cases.
> >
> > What cases aren't covered by
I vaguely remember that pipenv retirement was briefly discussed here on
the ML, yet I was surprised that F40 doesn't have pipenv anymore.
IMO, this would have been announced more prominently as a self contained
change, as I expect more python developers to find out this too late.
Also, the
25 matches
Mail list logo
