devel January 2024

devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

163 participants
254 discussions

gtk3 update breaks multiple packages
by Leigh Scott 24 Jan '24

24 Jan '24

Why isn't gtk3 a critical path package? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260068 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260073 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260074 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-5d8ac182bf

1 0

GNOME package builds this cycle
by Kalev Lember 24 Jan '24

24 Jan '24

Hi all, Just a quick heads up that it's David King (amigadave on IRC) and not me who's doing GNOME package builds in Fedora for the next 6 months or so - during the Fedora 40 / GNOME 46 release cycle. David has already started with GNOME 46.alpha builds in rawhide. We also have a new person helping out and trying to learn how GNOME packaging works: Nieves Montero. If you see pull requests from her, please be nice and maybe say hi - she is new to Fedora and packaging in general. I'll still be around, just focusing on other stuff for a while, but please direct GNOME packaging related questions to David this cycle and not me :) -- Kalev

2 2

fedora-distro-aliases - The easiest way to get numbers of active Fedora releases
by Jakub Kadlcik 23 Jan '24

23 Jan '24

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 update their list every time a new Fedora release is branched or EOLed? The fedora-distro-aliases will make your life easier. https://github.com/rpm-software-management/fedora-distro-aliases It defines aliases such as `fedora-stable`, `epel-all`, `fedora-latest`, etc. To evaluate them, it queries Bodhi, so they are always up-to-date (but the tradeoff is that it requires an internet connection). There are multiple examples in the project README but the usage is simple, e.g.: >>> from fedora_distro_aliases import get_distro_aliases >>> aliases = get_distro_aliases() >>> [x.namever for x in aliases["fedora-all"]] ['fedora-38', 'fedora-39', 'fedora-rawhide'] The package is already in Fedora, give it a shot, Jakub

3 5

Lost KDC for FEDORAPROJECT.ORG realm
by Steve Dickson 23 Jan '24

23 Jan '24

Hello, I had to change my /etc/krb5.conf do to some realm changes... and now when I to a kinit to FEDORAPROJECT.ORG it hangs for a while then errors with kinit: Cannot contact any KDC for realm 'FEDORAPROJECT.ORG' while getting initial credentials My question is, what has to be in the /etc/krb5.conf for the FEDORAPROJECT.ORG realm to be found? In the past I didn't think there was anything in the file and assume the realm was found by the includedir /etc/krb5.conf.d/ includedir /var/lib/sss/pubconf/krb5.include.d/ Any ideas? tia! steved.

6 7

Fedora Linux 37 is EOL
by Tomas Hrcka 23 Jan '24

23 Jan '24

Hello all, Fedora Linux 37 has gone end of life for updates and support on 2023-12-05. No more updates of any kind, including security updates or security announcements, will be available for Fedora Linux 37 after the said date. All the updates of Fedora Linux 37 being pushed to stable will be stopped as well. Fedora Linux 38 will continue to receive updates until approximately one month after the release of Fedora Linux 40. The maintenance schedule of Fedora Linux releases is documented on the Fedora Project wiki [1]. The Fedora Project wiki also contains instructions[2] on how to upgrade from a previous release of Fedora Linux to a version receiving updates. This email template is also in https://pagure.io/releng if you wish to propose improvements or changes to it. Regards, Tomas Hrcka Fedora Release Engineering [1] - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Life_Cycle#Maintenance_Schedu… [2] - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading?rd=DistributionUpgrades [3] - https://pagure.io/releng -- Tomas Hrcka fas: humaton libera.CHAT: jednorozec -- _______________________________________________ devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.fedorapr… Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

8 14

Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides
by Stephen Gallagher 23 Jan '24

23 Jan '24

tl;dr: Buildroot overrides should be restricted to releng members and packagers should use on-demand side-tags instead. I'd like to ascertain whether there are any remaining use-cases for which buildroot overrides are preferable to (or necessary instead of) on-demand side-tags. We've had support for side-tags for some years now (my history-spelunking suggests 2020, but it might be longer). Some of the advantages of side-tags over the old buildroot override approach: 1) The common buildroot for packages is not polluted. Historically, one would build a new library package, tag it into a buildroot override, then build the packages that depend upon it. During this time, the (possibly backwards-incompatible) package would remain in the common buildroot, potentially impacting other packages' builds. With side-tags, the updated libraries don't affect other builds until the side tag has completed and been merged into the main release. This action also ensures that the contents of the side-tag go through Bodhi and are properly reviewed, which helps avoid cases where the packager may not have been aware of other potential breakage. 2) Side tags are easy to abandon. If, in the middle of a large update, a major issue occurs (the change needs to be backed out or priorities shift and it cannot be completed in time), the side-tag can be either aborted or ignored until later. It doesn't require going through any effort to revert changes the way that buildroot overrides would. 3) Side tags make it much easier to submit multiple, related package updates together. Prior to side-tag support, including multiple packages in a single Bodhi update was a highly manual effort. Now, as long as they were built together in the side tag, they can be easily submitted together as a single update. I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that are not covered by side tags. If you know of any, please speak up. Otherwise, my proposal that I plan to take to FESCo is to disallow the general use of buildroot overrides in favor of side tags. Buildroot overrides themselves wouldn't go away, but they'd be restricted to members of Fedora Release Engineering in exceptional situations. Thank you in advance for your input. Documentation on side-tags and multiple-package updates: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Update_Gui…

7 12

Re: Proposal: Eliminate buildroot overrides
by Mattia Verga 23 Jan '24

23 Jan '24

Il 22/01/24 19:39, blinxen ha scritto: > > I am unaware of any remaining use cases for buildroot overrides that > are not covered by side tags > > One use case that I sometimes encounter is requiring a newer version for > a dependency, > that is submitted to Bodhi with a side-tag. Since the build is in a > side-tag, I can't access it > without building into that specific side-tag. Also I can't stop the > Bodhi Update just to add my own > build. In this case, I need to create a buildroot override to be able to > build my package in my own side-tag. > > Sure, I can wait a couple of days for the update to land in stable but > it's nice that I can also have a > on-demand buildroot override that can speed things up. > -- IMO, that's the perfect example of how buildroot overrides must NOT be used... Say libfoo-1.0 is in a side-tag update. You use a BRO to build another package, or, maybe worse, someone who is not aware of the BRO you created build their package against libfoo-1.0, and those packages are submitted in different updates. If, for some reason, libfoo-1.0 update lands in stable after the other packages, or never lands because it is gated or is blocked by negative feedback, the other packages are getting broken when they're submitted to stable. The purpose of side-tags is exactly to prevent such breakages. Mattia

1 0

Planning to unretire rust-zopfli and rust-oxipng
by Ben Beasley 22 Jan '24

22 Jan '24

As required by the Package Retirement Process[1], this email announces that I plan to unretire the rust-zopfli and rust-oxipng packages. Both were retired because they were “no longer needed,” but I would like to package the oxipng command-line tool, which is similar to the existing optipng tool. I have already prepared PR’s that revert the unretirement commits and update each package to the latest version[2][3], and the packages are ready for re-review[4][5]. [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement… [2] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-zopfli/pull-request/1 [3] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-oxipng/pull-request/1 [4] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259758 [5] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2259760

1 0

Schedule for Monday's FESCo Meeting (2024-01-22)
by Josh Stone 22 Jan '24

22 Jan '24

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo meeting Monday at 19:30 UTC in #meeting:fedoraproject.org on Matrix. To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto or run: date -d '2024-01-22 19:30 UTC' Links to all issues to be discussed can be found at: https://pagure.io/fesco/report/meeting_agenda = Discussed and Voted in the Ticket = adding @haskell-lang-sig to most Haskell packages https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3143 APPROVED (+5, 0, -0) = New business = #3144 Nonresponsive maintainer: Christopher Engelhard lcts https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3144 #3148 Nonresponsive maintainer: Martin Liška - marxin https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3148 #3145 Delay mass rebuild for Fedora 40 until f40-build-side-81394 side-tag is merged. https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3145 #3146 What to do with webkit2gtk-4.0 removal change proposal? https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3146 = Open Floor = For more complete details, please visit each individual issue. The report of the agenda items can be found at https://pagure.io/fesco/report/meeting_agenda If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can reply to this e-mail, file a new issue at https://pagure.io/fesco, e-mail me directly, or bring it up at the end of the meeting, during the open floor topic. Note that added topics may be deferred until the following meeting.

1 1

Fedora Linux 40 Change Proposal Submission Deadlines have now passed
by Aoife Moloney 22 Jan '24

22 Jan '24

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 <https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/program_management/changes_policy/#_ch…>' state by *6th Feb 2024*. Changes currently in the early feedback stage, i.e the part of the process where the change is announced for broad visibility to be discussed and iterated on where necessary before submission to FESCo for voting, are the following: - Changes/ArmMinimalImageOSBuild <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ArmMinimalImageOSBuild> - Changes/DefaultBpfman <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DefaultBpfman> - Changes/Fedora IoT Bootable Container <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Fedora_IoT_Bootable_Container> - Changes/Fedora IoT Unified Core <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Fedora_IoT_Unified_Core> - Changes/GNUToolchainF40 <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GNUToolchainF40> - Changes/IBus 1.5.30 <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/IBus_1.5.30> - Changes/ibus-anthy 1.5.16 <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ibus-anthy_1.5.16> - Changes/Optimized Binaries for the AMD64 Architecture <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Optimized_Binaries_for_the_AMD64_Arc…> - Changes/PytorchRelese <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/PytorchRelese> - Changes/Replace iotop with iotop-c <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Replace_iotop_with_iotop-c> - Changes/ROCm6Release <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ROCm6Release> View the Releases/40/ChangeSet <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/40/ChangeSet> wiki page for the current set of accepted changes, and the Fedora Linux 40 schedule <https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-40/f-40-key-tasks.html> for other key milestones and dates for this release. Kindest regards, Aoife -- Aoife Moloney Fedora Operations Architect Fedora Project Matrix: @amoloney:fedora.im IRC: amoloney -- _______________________________________________ devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.fedorapr… Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

2 3

← Newer
1
...
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
...
26
Older →

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

devel January 2024