Update embree to 4.3.3

Hello team, Embree will get updated to 4.3.3 without major soversion changes meaning the following dependent packages remains unaffected: - blender - meshlab - openpgl - openvkl - usd According to the automated test, the build is successful: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=

Re: Fedora Mass Rebuild 41 has completed

On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 01:19:27AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 23. 07. 24 1:07, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > I noticed the following when comparing packages after the rebuild: > > > > │ │ │ > > -{"type":"rpm","name":"guile22","version":"2.2.7-12.fc41","architecture":"x86_64","osCpe"

Re: Fedora Mass Rebuild 41 has completed

On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 11:07:32PM GMT, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > I noticed the following when comparing packages after the rebuild: > > │ │ │ > -{"type":"rpm","name":"guile22","version":"2.2.7-12.fc41","architecture":"x86_64","osCpe":"cpe:/o:fedoraproject:fedora:40"} > │ │ │ > +{"typ

Re: Fedora Mass Rebuild 41 has completed

On 23. 07. 24 1:07, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: I noticed the following when comparing packages after the rebuild: │ │ │ -{"type":"rpm","name":"guile22","version":"2.2.7-12.fc41","architecture":"x86_64","osCpe":"cpe:/o:fedoraproject:fedora:40"} │ │ │ +{"type":"rpm","name":"guile22","ver

Re: Fedora Mass Rebuild 41 has completed

On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 12:48:27AM GMT, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 22. 07. 24 22:26, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > > > > Many of them are due to: > > > > nothing provides libguile-2.2.so.1()(64bit) > > > > or > > > > nothing provides libguile-3.0.so.1()(64bit) > > See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/sh

Re: Fedora Mass Rebuild 41 has completed

I noticed the following when comparing packages after the rebuild: │ │ │ -{"type":"rpm","name":"guile22","version":"2.2.7-12.fc41","architecture":"x86_64","osCpe":"cpe:/o:fedoraproject:fedora:40"} │ │ │ +{"type":"rpm","name":"guile22","version":"2.2.7-14.fc41","architecture":"x86_64","osCpe":"cp

Re: Fedora Mass Rebuild 41 has completed

On 22. 07. 24 22:26, Miro Hrončok wrote: Many of them are due to: nothing provides libguile-2.2.so.1()(64bit) or nothing provides libguile-3.0.so.1()(64bit) See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2299414 for the cause. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 Fedora Matrix: mhronc

Re: Fedora Mass Rebuild 41 has completed

On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 04:05:17PM GMT, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Björn Persson said: > > Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > Per the Fedora Linux f41 schedule [1] we started a mass rebuild for > > > Fedora Linux f41 on 2024-07-17. > > > > I received 20 "BUILDING" notifications and 17 "COMPLETE

Re: Fedora Mass Rebuild 41 has completed

Once upon a time, Björn Persson said: > Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > Per the Fedora Linux f41 schedule [1] we started a mass rebuild for > > Fedora Linux f41 on 2024-07-17. > > I received 20 "BUILDING" notifications and 17 "COMPLETE" notifications. > For three of my packages no "COMPLETE" notification

Re: [Java related] packaging Italian ID card middleware

Julian Sikorski wrote: > Germany uses their own implementation too: > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/AusweisApp2 > To add insult to injury, it requires the use of custom EC curves, which > are bound to stop working at any moment: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259403 At which p

Re: Fedora Mass Rebuild 41 has completed

Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Per the Fedora Linux f41 schedule [1] we started a mass rebuild for > Fedora Linux f41 on 2024-07-17. I received 20 "BUILDING" notifications and 17 "COMPLETE" notifications. For three of my packages no "COMPLETE" notification arrived, but when I looked in the Koji web interfac

Re: [Java related] packaging Italian ID card middleware

Marián Konček wrote: > I had the same question and I don't exactly remember the most important > reason, but it was something like there were large differences between > versions which made the builds more difficult. Now I see it also uses > Kotlin, maybe that is also a reason. Upstream projects te

Re: [Java related] packaging Italian ID card middleware

Germano Massullo wrote: > 1. please switch to CMake build system completely: some parts of the > software need to be built through Eclipse, I.E. cie-pkcs11. CMake should > be the only build system in the project. CMake will also enable CIE > Middleware being built for all Linux distributions, Mac O

Re: Fedora Mass Rebuild 41 has completed

On 22. 07. 24 21:43, Kevin Fenzi wrote: Hi all, Per the Fedora Linux f41 schedule [1] we started a mass rebuild for Fedora Linux f41 on 2024-07-17. We did a mass rebuild for Fedora Linux f41 for: https://pagure.io/releng/issues?status=Open&tags=mass+rebuild The mass rebuild was done in a side

Fedora Mass Rebuild 41 has completed

Hi all, Per the Fedora Linux f41 schedule [1] we started a mass rebuild for Fedora Linux f41 on 2024-07-17. We did a mass rebuild for Fedora Linux f41 for: https://pagure.io/releng/issues?status=Open&tags=mass+rebuild The mass rebuild was done in a side tag (f41-rebuild) and moved over to f41.

Re: Fedora rawhide (to be f41) and openssl engines

On 22/07/2024 13:34, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote: So I wonder if it's worth changing the engine deprecation mechanism in Fedora to the one we have in CentOS and if yes, what is the mechanism for such a change. It's too late for F41. The mass rebuild is completed and the package maintainers have ma

Re: Fedora rawhide (to be f41) and openssl engines

On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 05:12:44PM +0200, Clemens Lang wrote: > Hi, > > > On 22. Jul 2024, at 16:32, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 4:28 PM Clemens Lang wrote: > >> > >> Hi Neal, > >> > >> > >>> On 22. Jul 2024, at 15:01, Neal Gompa wrote: > >>> > >>> The CentOS app

Re: Incorrect code or Python regression?

> On 22 Jul 2024, at 16:35, Paul Howarth wrote: > > On Sun, 21 Jul 2024 21:48:55 +0100 > Barry wrote: > On 21 Jul 2024, at 10:22, Paul Howarth wrote: >>> >>> Hence the check is: >>> >>> except UnsupportedAlgorithm as e: >>> return e._reason is _Reasons.UNSUPPORTED_HASH >>

Re: Screen brightness keys not working

On Mon, 22 Jul 2024 at 17:22, Iñaki Ucar wrote: > Hi Hans, > > On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 at 11:28, Hans de Goede wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On 7/16/24 5:59 PM, Iñaki Ucar wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 at 12:29, Hans de Goede > > wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> >

Re: Fedora rawhide (to be f41) and openssl engines

On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 11:35 AM Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote: > So I wonder if it's worth changing the engine deprecation mechanism in > Fedora to the one we have in CentOS and if yes, what is the mechanism > for such a change. I think you are free to submit a (very) late change request, but changin

Re: Incorrect code or Python regression?

On Sun, 21 Jul 2024 21:48:55 +0100 Barry wrote: > > On 21 Jul 2024, at 10:22, Paul Howarth wrote: > > > > Hence the check is: > > > >except UnsupportedAlgorithm as e: > >return e._reason is _Reasons.UNSUPPORTED_HASH > > This may be a case of the e._reason being the correct int v

Re: Screen brightness keys not working

Hi Hans, On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 at 11:28, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 7/16/24 5:59 PM, Iñaki Ucar wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 at 12:29, Hans de Goede > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On 7/15/24 9:50 PM, Iñaki Ucar wrote: > > > It's the kernel. G

Re: Fedora rawhide (to be f41) and openssl engines

Hi, > On 22. Jul 2024, at 16:32, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 4:28 PM Clemens Lang wrote: >> >> Hi Neal, >> >> >>> On 22. Jul 2024, at 15:01, Neal Gompa wrote: >>> >>> The CentOS approach isn't a deprecation, it's flat out removal. It's a >>> completely different chan

Re: Incorrect code or Python regression?

On Mon, 22 Jul 2024 15:19:49 +0100 Paul Howarth wrote: > Note though that the exception code is all done in Python. My assertion there seems to be wrong. I was looking at an older version of cryptography. Seems that indeed it is a rust-related issue: https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/issues/1

Re: Fedora rawhide (to be f41) and openssl engines

On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 4:28 PM Clemens Lang wrote: > > Hi Neal, > > > > On 22. Jul 2024, at 15:01, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > The CentOS approach isn't a deprecation, it's flat out removal. It's a > > completely different change. > > This isn’t correct. The headers are removed, but the ABI is sti

Re: Fedora rawhide (to be f41) and openssl engines

Hi Neal, > On 22. Jul 2024, at 15:01, Neal Gompa wrote: > > The CentOS approach isn't a deprecation, it's flat out removal. It's a > completely different change. This isn’t correct. The headers are removed, but the ABI is still present in CentOS Stream, so it is not flat out removal. For Fed

Re: Incorrect code or Python regression?

On Sun, 21 Jul 2024 21:35:03 +0200 Miro Hrončok wrote: > I can reproduce that. But I unable to say whether it's a bug in > cpython, cryptography or pyo3. The code in cryptography is written in > Rust and I don't have much experience with hat. > > I suggest reporting this behavior at > https://gi

Re: Incorrect code or Python regression?

For further context, the enum in question is defined in Rust and exported to Python via PyO3[1]. These enums are similar to, but not interoperable with, Python’s IntEnum[2], and the relevant PyO3 documentation[3] suggests by example that == is the expected comparison operator. [1] https://gi

Re: Fedora rawhide (to be f41) and openssl engines

Dear Neal, On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 3:05 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > The CentOS approach isn't a deprecation, it's flat out removal. It's a > completely different change. > > Is anyone helping to migrate users of the engine API to newer APIs? If > that's not happening, then there's no way to support r

Re: Fedora rawhide (to be f41) and openssl engines

Dear Zbyszek, On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 2:57 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 01:34:39PM +0200, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote: > > So I wonder if it's worth changing the engine deprecation mechanism in > > Fedora to the one we have in CentOS and if yes, what is the mechan

Re: Fedora rawhide (to be f41) and openssl engines

On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 8:57 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 01:34:39PM +0200, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote: > > So I wonder if it's worth changing the engine deprecation mechanism in > > Fedora to the one we have in CentOS and if yes, what is the mechanism > > for suc

Re: Fedora rawhide (to be f41) and openssl engines

On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 01:34:39PM +0200, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote: > So I wonder if it's worth changing the engine deprecation mechanism in > Fedora to the one we have in CentOS and if yes, what is the mechanism > for such a change. Does is make sense at this point? The mass rebuild is (almost?) f

Re: Fedora rawhide (to be f41) and openssl engines

Hi Dima, > On 22. Jul 2024, at 13:34, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > as the changes described in > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OpensslDeprecateEngine > > were approved and implemented and a week or two has passed, we can > summarize the consequences. > > Lack of

Fedora rawhide (to be f41) and openssl engines

Dear colleagues, as the changes described in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OpensslDeprecateEngine were approved and implemented and a week or two has passed, we can summarize the consequences. Lack of openssl/engine.h file moved to a separate package is not processed correctly by packag

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20240722.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20240721.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20240722.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:1 Dropped images: 1 Added packages: 2 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 18 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 32.19 MiB Size of dropped packages:0 B

Re: Incorrect code or Python regression?

> On 22 Jul 2024, at 08:14, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > They have the same repr, type, int value. They have different IDs. I think that shows the “is” use is a bug and the fix is to use ==. Barry -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject

Re: Incorrect code or Python regression?

On 21. 07. 24 22:48, Barry wrote: On 21 Jul 2024, at 10:22, Paul Howarth wrote: Hence the check is: except UnsupportedAlgorithm as e: return e._reason is _Reasons.UNSUPPORTED_HASH This may be a case of the e._reason being the correct int value of _ Reasons.UNSUPPORTED_HASH by