Assimp soname bump
by Rich Mattes
Hi,
I plan to update assimp from 3.3.1 to the latest release (5.0.1) in
rawhide this week. The following packages will be affected:
fawkes-0:1.3.0-11.fc33.src
mrpt-0:1.4.0-17.fc33.src
pioneer-0:20200203-1.fc33.src
vkmark-0:2017.08-0.8.20180123git68b6f23.fc32.src
I will take care of the rebuilds and any fallout/updates that need to
happen.
Rich
2 years, 9 months
How to easily automate test builds in a COPR project
by Richard Shaw
I maintain a suite of ham radio related packages. The developer is very
active and often creates test versions adding and incrementing the "tweak"
part of the version which is removed for the full releases and the patch
level incremented.
Currently I'm just trying to keep up with them by hand using pagure forks
of the official repos so I don't accidentally pollute SCM with the changes
and build them in COPR.
Things I need to manage automagically:
1. Monitor the test URLs to look for new versions.
I could write a bash script for this and add a cron or systemd timer but I
was hoping for something that took less time as I don't have a lot of that
:)
Would it be permissible to create a <package>-testing entry in
release-monitoring.org?
2. Trigger a "fedpkg clone" and add a tweak version.
This could probably be managed with macros easy enough, %{?tweak}, or
something like that. And then use a script to substitute into "%global
tweak ..."
3. I need to download the files from a different location.
%if %{?tweak}
... use difference Source0?
4. Build the packages in COPR.
Easy enough using a bash script but is there a better way?
Thanks,
Richard
2 years, 9 months
The future of legacy BIOS support in Fedora.
by Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
Given Hans proposal [1] introduced systemd/grub2/Gnome upstream changes
it beg the question if now would not be the time to stop supporting
booting in legacy bios mode and move to uefi only supported boot which
has been available on any common intel based x86 platform since atleast
2005.
Now in 2017 Intel's technical marketing engineer Brian Richardson
revealed in a presentation that the company will require UEFI Class 3
and above as in it would remove legacy BIOS support from its client and
datacenter platforms by 2020 and one might expect AMD to follow Intel in
this regard.
So Intel platforms produced this year presumably will be unable to run
32-bit operating systems, unable to use related software (at least
natively), and unable to use older hardware, such as RAID HBAs (and
therefore older hard drives that are connected to those HBAs), network
cards, and even graphics cards that lack UEFI-compatible vBIOS (launched
before 2012 – 2013) etc.
This post is just to gather feed back why Fedora should still continue
to support legacy BIOS boot as opposed to stop supporting it and
potentially drop grub2 and use sd-boot instead.
Share your thoughts and comments on how such move might affect you so
feedback can be collected for the future on why such a change might be
bad, how it might affect the distribution and scope of such change can
be determined for potential system wide proposal.
Regards
Jóhann B.
1.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CleanupGnomeHiddenBootMenuIntegration
2 years, 10 months
Thoughts about packaging a standalone python-PyQt5-sip?
by Michel Alexandre Salim
Hi all,
Neal and I are looking at getting ButterManager packaged, and it
depends on sip and PyQt5-sip:
https://github.com/egara/buttermanager/blob/master/requirements.txt
Now, this is where things get a bit odd:
- the current sip (4.19.24) does not have autogenerated Python
provides, but sip5 does:
$ sudo dnf repoquery --provides sip
Last metadata expiration check: 1:48:00 ago on Wed 30 Dec 2020 02:50:53
PM PST.
sip = 4.19.24-1.fc33
sip(x86-64) = 4.19.24-1.fc33
sip-macros = 4.19.24-1.fc33
$ sudo dnf repoquery --provides sip5
Last metadata expiration check: 1:48:05 ago on Wed 30 Dec 2020 02:50:53
PM PST.
python-sip5 = 5.5.0-1.fc33
python3-sip5 = 5.5.0-1.fc33
python3.9-sip5 = 5.5.0-1.fc33
python3.9dist(sip) = 5.5
python3dist(sip) = 5.5
sip5 = 5.5.0-1.fc33
sip5(x86-64) = 5.5.0-1.fc33
- sip ships PyQt5 bindings with matching version, but sip 5 seems to no
longer do so
$ sudo dnf info python3-pyqt5-sip
Last metadata expiration check: 1:51:03 ago on Wed 30 Dec 2020 02:50:53
PM PST.
Installed Packages
Name : python3-pyqt5-sip
Version : 4.19.24
Release : 1.fc33
Architecture : x86_64
Size : 244 k
Source : sip-4.19.24-1.fc33.src.rpm
Repository : @System
From repo : fedora
Summary : SIP - Python 3/C++ Bindings Generator for pyqt5
URL : https://riverbankcomputing.com/software/sip/intro
License : GPLv2 or GPLv3 and (GPLv3+ with exceptions)
Description : This is the Python 3 build of pyqt5-SIP.
- https://pypi.org/project/PyQt5-sip/ has PyQt5-sip 12.8.1 but
https://pypi.org/project/sip/ has sip 5.5.0 which matches the sip5 in
Fedora (available since last month)
- there's a lot of packages that depend on python3-pyqt5-sip (though
none use the canonical python3dist(pyqt5-sip) unfortunately)
$ sudo dnf repoquery --repo rawhide,rawhide-source --whatrequires
'python3dist(pyqt5-sip)'
Last metadata expiration check: 0:15:20 ago on Wed 30 Dec 2020
04:28:29 PM PST.
$ sudo dnf repoquery --repo rawhide,rawhide-source --whatrequires
python3-pyqt5-sip
Last metadata expiration check: 0:15:30 ago on Wed 30 Dec 2020
04:28:29 PM PST.
calibre-0:4.23.0-3.fc34.x86_64
krita-0:4.4.1-1.fc34.i686
krita-0:4.4.1-1.fc34.x86_64
libarcus-0:4.8.0-1.fc34.src
mingw-python-qt5-0:5.15.0-4.fc34.src
pyqtwebengine-0:5.15.0-2.fc33.src
python-pyface-0:7.1.0-1.fc34.src
python-pynest2d-0:4.8.0-1.fc34.src
python-qt5-0:5.15.0-5.fc34.src
python3-arcus-0:4.8.0-1.fc34.x86_64
python3-arcus-lulzbot-0:3.6.21-8.fc34.x86_64
python3-poppler-qt5-0:0.75.0-6.fc33.x86_64
python3-pyqtchart-0:5.15.2-1.fc34.i686
python3-pyqtchart-0:5.15.2-1.fc34.x86_64
python3-qgis-0:3.16.1-2.fc34.i686
python3-qgis-0:3.16.1-2.fc34.x86_64
python3-qscintilla-qt5-0:2.11.5-1.fc34.x86_64
python3-qt5-base-0:5.15.0-5.fc34.i686
python3-qt5-base-0:5.15.0-5.fc34.x86_64
qhexedit2-0:0.8.9-2.fc33.src
scidavis-0:2.3.0-2.fc33.src
veusz-0:3.3.1-1.fc34.src
veusz-0:3.3.1-1.fc34.x86_64
Any idea what's the best way to handle this? and/or why PyQt5-sip's
versioning get so far ahead of sip?
Thanks,
--
Michel Alexandre Salim
profile: https://keyoxide.org/michel@michel-slm.name
chat via email: https://delta.chat/
GPG key: 5DCE 2E7E 9C3B 1CFF D335 C1D7 8B22 9D2F 7CCC 04F2
3 years
Fedora's GPG key in DNS(SEC)
by Miroslav Suchý
All Fedora's GPG key - starting with Fedora 27 - are now stored in fedoraproject.org DNS record and can be verified
using DNSSEC.
Why? How it can be used? That is long story and you can read about it in my blog entry:
http://miroslav.suchy.cz/blog/archives/2021/02/11/verify_package_gpg_sign...
Few last minutes notes here:
- there are still some gotchas which should be fixed. But enough code is already in production - you can play with it
now. Relevant issues are linked in the blog post.
- the DNF team is migrating their code to libdnf, I do not have any guarantee when this piece of code will be
migrating - so we are far from enabling this by default.
Comments are welcomed.
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Associate Manager, Community Packaging Tools, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
3 years, 1 month
thinking journal retention timelimits
by Matthew Miller
As we start a new year, I'm thinking about data retention in general. :)
In my experience, it's pretty rare on an end-user laptop or desktop system for
logs from much more than the previous boot to be interesting. Maybe I
occasionally want to look back a little while to see if a problem just
started. It's exceedingly rare that I need (or want) to look back more than
a month.
Right now, we don't set MaxRetentionSec, so journal expiry on Workstation is
entirely based on disk usage.
Logs can accidentally contain sensitive data, and it's just plain faster to
work with them when there's less. I propose we set this to something like
six months by default.
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
3 years, 1 month
Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F33 to F34
by Miroslav Suchý
Do you want to make Fedora 34 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 '*'
sudo dnf --releasever=34 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f34 \
--enablerepo=updates-testing --enablerepo=updates-testing-modular \
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.
If you have have rdma-core.i686 installed you have to pass `--allowerasing`.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919864
If you get this prompt:
...
Total download size: XXX M
Is this ok [y/N]:
you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the actual upgrade.
But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case, please report it against the appropriate package. Or
against fedora-obsolete-packages if that package should be removed in Fedora 34. Please check existing reports against
fedora-obsolete-packages first:
https://red.ht/2kuBDPu
and also there is already bunch of "Fails to install" reports:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=F34FailsToInstall
Thank you
P.S. sent from workstation successfully upgraded to F34 :)
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Associate Manager, Community Packaging Tools, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
3 years, 1 month
