Re: Modularity: New modulemd-packager format for building modules
by Orion Poplawski
On 9/10/21 6:26 AM, Petr Pisar wrote:
> Good news, module maintainers.
>
> I'm relieved to announce an availability of the new module packaging format,
> modulemd-packager, version 3.
>
Question: is this necessary for all modules to migrate to this format,
or is it primarily useful for modules that depend on other modules?
--
Orion Poplawski
he/him/his - surely the least important thing about me
Manager of NWRA Technical Systems 720-772-5637
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 https://www.nwra.com/
2 years, 8 months
Re: Modularity: New modulemd-packager format for building modules
by Petr Pisar
V Sat, Oct 02, 2021 at 12:29:01PM -0600, Orion Poplawski napsal(a):
> On 9/10/21 6:26 AM, Petr Pisar wrote:
> > Good news, module maintainers.
> >
> > I'm relieved to announce an availability of the new module packaging format,
> > modulemd-packager, version 3.
> >
>
> Question: is this necessary for all modules to migrate to this format, or is
> it primarily useful for modules that depend on other modules?
>
I cannot provide you with any better answer than I've already stated in my
original message: It is primarily useful for modules which depends on other
modules. It is not necessary for all modules right now, because both MBS and
DNF support both of the formats. However, I won't speculate how long they will
support them.
-- Petr
2 years, 8 months
Re: Modularity: Demodularizing packages
by Neal Gompa
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 8:46 AM Petr Pisar <ppisar(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Hello packagers,
>
> I'm glad to announce that now it's possible to move a package back from
> a module to a nonmodular repository.
>
This is awesome! Thank you so much for this! :)
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
2 years, 8 months
Re: Fedora 35 - gedit
by Michael J. Baars
On Tue, 2021-11-09 at 15:31 +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 09/11/2021 14:18, Michael J. Baars wrote:
> > Nothing with 'sudo dnf upgrade --advisory=FEDORA-2021-4ce970eca6' either. It keeps saying: "Nothing to do"???
>
> sudo dnf upgrade --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2021-4ce970eca6
> --enablerepo=updates-testing
>
Does that work on you machine??? Still nothing on mine.
Best regards,
Mischa.
> --
> Sincerely,
> Vitaly Zaitsev (vitaly(a)easycoding.org)
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-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@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[root@tp10 ~]# dnf upgrade --advisory=FEDORA-2021-4ce970eca6 --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh
Fedora 35
-x86_64
226 kB/s | 17 kB 00:00
Fedora 35 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64
1.8
kB/s | 990 B 00:00
Fedora Modular 35 - x86_64
180 kB/s | 17 kB 00:00
Fedora 35 - x86_64 - Updates
26 kB/s | 18 kB 00:00
Fedora Modular 35 - x86_64 - Updates
48 kB/s | 18 kB 00:00
Fedora 35 - x86_64 - Test Updates
25 kB/s | 17 kB 00:00
Dependencies resolved.
Nothing to do.
Complete!
2 years, 7 months
Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F35 to F36
by Miroslav Suchý
Do you want to make Fedora 36 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and try to run:
# Run this only if you use default Fedora modules
# next time you run any DNF command default modules will be enabled again
sudo dnf module reset '*'
dnf --releasever=36 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f36 \
--enablerepo=updates-testing \
$(rpm -q fedora-repos-modular >/dev/null && echo --enablerepo=updates-testing-modular) \
--assumeno distro-sync
This command does not replace `dnf system-upgrade`, but it will reveal potential problems.
You may also run `dnf upgrade` before running this command.
The `--assumeno` will just test the transaction, but does not make the actual upgrade.
In case you hit dependency issues, please report it against the appropriate package.
Or against fedora-obsolete-packages if that package should be removed in Fedora 36. Please check existing reports against
fedora-obsolete-packages first:
https://red.ht/2kuBDPu
and also there is already bunch of "Fails to install" (F36FailsToInstall) reports:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_id=1992487&bug_id_type=anddep...
Thank you
Miroslav
2 years, 3 months
Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F35 to F36
by Ankur Sinha
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 18:43:01 +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Do you want to make Fedora 36 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and
> try to run:
>
> # Run this only if you use default Fedora modules
> # next time you run any DNF command default modules will be enabled again
> sudo dnf module reset '*'
>
>
> dnf --releasever=36 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f36 \
> --enablerepo=updates-testing \
> $(rpm -q fedora-repos-modular >/dev/null && echo --enablerepo=
> updates-testing-modular) \
> --assumeno distro-sync
Didn't get any issues on my 3 F35 installations. 👏
--
Thanks,
Regards,
Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha
Time zone: Europe/London
2 years, 3 months
Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F35 to F36
by Peter Boy
> Am 11.03.2022 um 18:43 schrieb Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com>:
>
> Do you want to make Fedora 36 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and try to run:
>
> # Run this only if you use default Fedora modules
> # next time you run any DNF command default modules will be enabled again
> sudo dnf module reset '*'
>
>
> dnf --releasever=36 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f36 \
> --enablerepo=updates-testing \
> $(rpm -q fedora-repos-modular >/dev/null && echo --enablerepo=updates-testing-modular) \
> --assumeno distro-sync
>
Just for the records: no issue found with Fedora 35 Server Edition in its default configuration including virtualisation
2 years, 3 months
Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F35 to F36
by hhlp
> Do you want to make Fedora 36 better? Please spend 1 minute of your
> time and try to run:
>
> # Run this only if you use default Fedora modules
> # next time you run any DNF command default modules will be enabled again
> sudo dnf module reset '*'
>
> dnf --releasever=36 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f36 \
> --enablerepo=updates-testing \
> $(rpm -q fedora-repos-modular >/dev/null && echo
> --enablerepo=updates-testing-modular) \
> --assumeno distro-sync
>
Didn't get any issues on my F35 installations. 👏 as always good work.....
Thanks, Regards
--
Héctor Louzao "hhlp" (He / Him / His) |
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:hhlp
Time zone: Europe/Madrid
2 years, 3 months
Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F35 to F36
by José Abílio Matos
On Friday, 11 March 2022 17.43.01 WET Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Do you want to make Fedora 36 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and
> try to run:
>
> # Run this only if you use default Fedora modules
> # next time you run any DNF command default modules will be enabled again
> sudo dnf module reset '*'
>
> dnf --releasever=36 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f36 \
> --enablerepo=updates-testing \
> $(rpm -q fedora-repos-modular >/dev/null && echo
> --enablerepo=updates-testing-modular) \ --assumeno distro-sync
>
>
> This command does not replace `dnf system-upgrade`, but it will reveal
> potential problems.
>
> You may also run `dnf upgrade` before running this command.
>
>
> The `--assumeno` will just test the transaction, but does not make the
actual
> upgrade.
>
>
> In case you hit dependency issues, please report it against the appropriate
> package.
>
> Or against fedora-obsolete-packages if that package should be removed in
> Fedora 36. Please check existing reports against
>
> fedora-obsolete-packages first:
>
> https://red.ht/2kuBDPu
>
> and also there is already bunch of "Fails to install" (F36FailsToInstall)
> reports:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?
bug_id=1992487&bug_id_type=anddependso
> n&format=tvp&list_id=12486533
>
> Thank you
>
> Miroslav
This is what I get:
Error:
Problem: package julia-1.7.0.0-1.fc36.x86_64 requires libmbedcrypto.so.3()
(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
- package julia-1.7.0.0-1.fc36.x86_64 requires libmbedtls.so.12()(64bit), but
none of the providers can be installed
- package julia-1.7.0.0-1.fc36.x86_64 requires libmbedx509.so.0()(64bit), but
none of the providers can be installed
- problem with installed package julia-1.7.2-1.fc35.x86_64
- mbedtls-2.16.12-1.fc35.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
- julia-1.7.2-1.fc35.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
--
José Abílio
2 years, 3 months
