On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 9:34 AM Josef Řídký wrote:
> Well, the next question to answer is, should the package without active
> upstream maintenance be the reason for slowing down the progress of another
> project? Should such a package remain in Fedora at all?
>
> I would personally avoid to do su
Well, the next question to answer is, should the package without active
upstream maintenance be the reason for slowing down the progress of another
project? Should such a package remain in Fedora at all?
I would personally avoid to do such openexr2 package split, just because I
know how painful it
I've been able to update several packages to build with OpenEXR 3 but there
are many more to go, perhaps too many for me to handle.
Specifically (and ironically) OpenVDB which is also a project under the
stewardship of the ASWF has not had a single commit to it to be compatible
with OpenEXR 3.
Fo
Hi,
just a brief heads up notice. The openexr 3.0 will lend in Rawhide soon and
so all affected packagers [1] should prepare the fixes for this change. If
you can, use the COPR environment for testing your package with the new
openexr version.
You can expect an updated list of build statuses in C
Quick update, long story short there were a ton a build failures in my
testing COPR and I haven't had a lot of time to troubleshoot. Will work on
it as I can.
Thanks,
Richard
>
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send
I'm currently in the process of testing all deps in my COPR. Assuming no
major issues are found I'll setup a side tag to perform all the builds. I
expect to be done by this coming weekend.
Affected packages are:
alembic
aqsis
bcd
blender
calligra
CTL
darktable
Field3D
freeimage
gegl04
gimp
gmic
g
