There will be an outage starting at 2009-07-01 01:00 UTC, which will last
approximately 2 hours.
To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
date -d '2009-07-01 01:00 UTC'
CVS / Source Control
Reason for Outage:
Final migration step for new cvs server. It will hopefully be offline for
only 30-45 minutes. The additional time is for some further tuning if
needed and some verification steps.
Please join #fedora-admin in irc.freenode.net or respond to this email to
track the status of this outage.
Fedora-devel-announce mailing list
Hi all! I just got back from Open Source Summit, several of the talks I
found interesting were on RISC-V -- a high-level one about the
organizational structure, and Drew Fustini's more technical talk.
In that, he noted that there's a Fedora build *, but it isn't an official
Fedora arch. As I understand it, the major infrastructure blocker is simply
that there isn't server-class hardware (let alone hardware that will build
fast enough that it isn't a frustrating bottleneck).
So, one question is: if we used, say, ARM or x86_64 Amazon cloud instances
as builders, could we build fast enough under QEMU emulation to work? We
have a nice early advantage, but if we don't keep moving, we'll lose that.
But beyond that: What other things might be limits? Are there key bits of
the distro which don't build yet? Is there a big enough risc-v team to
respond to arch-specific build failures? And, do we have enough people to do
QA around release time?
* see http://fedora.riscv.rocks/koji/
Fedora Project Leader
Since haxe-4.1.3-4 and nekovm-2.3.0-4, both nekovm and haxe packages contains "/usr/lib/.build-id/b0/aed4ddf2d45372bcc79d5e95d2834f5045c09c".
The nekovm one is a symlink to "/usr/bin/neko". The haxe one to "/usr/bin/haxelib".
Both the neko and haxelib binaries are built with libneko, with a nearly identical main.c with the only difference of the present of neko bytecode embedded as a byte array (neko: the byte array is null; haxelib: the byte array is the haxelib neko bytecode).
I'm not sure how to resolve it.
when trying to install pipewire-jack-audio-connection-kit i get this error message:
# dnf -y install pipewire-jack-audio-connection-kit
Last metadata expiration check: 1:39:52 ago on Thu Dec 31 14:10:39 2020.
Problem: problem with installed package jack-audio-connection-kit-1.9.14-5.fc33.x86_64
- package pipewire-jack-audio-connection-kit-0.3.13-4.fc33.i686 conflicts with jack-audio-connection-kit provided by jack-audio-connection-kit-1.9.14-5.fc33.x86_64
- conflicting requests
- package pipewire-jack-audio-connection-kit-0.3.15-2.fc33.i686 conflicts with jack-audio-connection-kit provided by jack-audio-connection-kit-1.9.14-5.fc33.x86_64
- package pipewire-jack-audio-connection-kit-0.3.13-4.fc33.x86_64 conflicts with jack-audio-connection-kit provided by jack-audio-connection-kit-1.9.14-5.fc33.x86_64
- package pipewire-jack-audio-connection-kit-0.3.15-2.fc33.x86_64 conflicts with jack-audio-connection-kit provided by jack-audio-connection-kit-1.9.14-5.fc33.x86_64
(try to add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting packages or '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
How can i fix this ?
Long story short I lost my home directory where I do all of my packager
activities (separate from my main user) so I'm setting things up from
I created new ssh keys and uploaded the public key to
admin.fedoraproject.org and pasted into pagure.io. It's been over an hour
and I'm still getting:
$ fedpkg clone hamlib
Cloning into 'hamlib'...
hobbes1069(a)pkgs.fedoraproject.org: Permission denied (publickey).
fatal: Could not read from remote repository.
Please make sure you have the correct access rights
and the repository exists.
Could not execute clone: Failed to execute command.
I've also updated my API tokens, which is STILL not well documented. I
pasted them in the appropriate spot in "/etc/rpkg/fedpkg.conf" which isn't
I'm a contributor to the Wine project. To summarize the following mail,
Wine needs special versions of some of its normal dependencies, such as
libfreetype and libgnutls, built using the MinGW cross-compiler, and I'm
sending out a mail to major distributions in order to get some feedback
from our packagers on how these should be built and packaged.
For a long time Wine has built all of its Win32 libraries (DLLs and
EXEs) as ELF binaries. For various reasons related to application
compatibility, we have started building our binaries as PE instead,
using the MinGW cross-compiler. It is our intent to expand this to some
of our dependencies as well. The list of dependencies that we intend to
build using MinGW is not quite fixed yet, but we expect it to include
and be mostly limited to the following:
* zlib (currently included via manual source import)
and dependencies of the above packages (not including CRT dependencies,
which Wine provides).
There is currently some internal discussion about how these dependencies
should be built and linked. There are essentially three questions I see
that need to be resolved, and while these resolutions have a significant
impact on the Wine building and development process, they also have an
impact on distributions, and accordingly I'd like to get input from our
packagers to ensure that their considerations are accurately taken into
(1) Should we build via source import, or link statically, or dynamically?
Static linking and source imports are dispreferred by Fedora  , as
by many distributions, on the grounds that they cause duplication of
libraries on disk and in memory, and make it harder to update the
libraries in question (see also question 2). They also make building and
Note however that if they are linked dynamically, we need to make sure
that we load our packages instead of MinGW builds of open-source
libraries with applications ship with. Accordingly we need each library
to be renamed, and to link to renamed dependencies. For example, if
application X ships with its own copy of libfreetype-6.dll, we need to
make sure that our gdi32.dll links to libwinefreetype-6.dll instead, and
that libwinefreetype-6.dll links to libwineharfbuzz-0.dll and
winezlib.dll. I think, although I haven't completely verified yet, that
this can be done just with build scripts (i.e. no source patches), by
using e.g. --with-zlib=/path/to/winezlib.dll.
Accordingly, although static linking and source imports are generally
disprefered, it may quite likely be preferable in our case. We don't get
the benefits of on-disk deduplication, since Wine is essentially the
only piece of software which needs these libraries.
(2) If we use dynamic libraries, should dependencies be included in the
main wine package, or packaged separately?
This is mostly a question for packagers, although it also relates to (3).
I expect that Fedora (and most distributions) want to answer "packaged
separately" here, on the grounds that this lets them update (say) Wine's
libgnutls separately, and in sync with ELF libgnutls, if some security
fix is needed. There is a snag, though: we need libraries to be copied
into the prefix (there's some internal effort to allow using something
like symlinks instead, but this hard and not done yet). Normally we
perform this copy every time Wine is updated, but if Wine and its
dependencies aren't updated on the same schedule, we may end up loading
an old version of a dependency in the prefix, thus missing the point of
(3) If dependencies are packaged separately, should Wine build them as
part of its build tree (e.g. using submodules), or find and link
(statically or dynamically) to existing binaries?
Linking to existing binaries is generally preferable: it avoids
duplication on disk; it reduces compile times when compiling a single
package from source (especially the first time). However, we aren't
going to benefit from on-disk duplication. And, most importantly, unlike
with ELF dependencies, there is no standardized way to locate MinGW
libraries—especially if it comes to Wine-specific libraries. We would
need a way for Wine's configure script to find these packages—and
ideally find them automatically, or else fall back to a submodule-based
If we rely on distributions to provide our dependencies, the best idea I
have here would be something like a x86_64-w64-mingw32-pkg-config. And
if we use shared libraries rather than static, things get worse: we need
to know the exact path of each library and its dependencies so that we
can copy (or symlink) them into a user's WINEPREFIX.
For what it's worth, the current proposed solution (which has the
support of the Wine maintainer) involves source imports and submodules.
There's probably room for changing our approach even after things are
committed, but I'd still like to get early feedback from distributions,
and make sure that their interests are accurately represented, before we
commit. In short, it's not clear whether distributions want their
no-static-library policies to apply to us as well, or whether we're
enough of a special case and would be enough of a pain to package that
they'd rather we deal with the hard parts, and I don't want us to make