Dear colleagues,
I've built openssh for f42 fixing the latest CVEs a month ago [1].
The build has passed the gating tests and has positive karma. But it can't
be pushed for a while with diagnostics
FEDORA-2025-1e92156b24 ejected from the push because "Cannot find relevant
tag for openssh-9.9p1-9.fc42. None of ['f42-updates-candidate',
'f42-updates-testing-pending', 'f42-updates-pending'] are in
['epel9-next-testing', 'epel10.1-testing', 'eln-updates-testing',
'epel8-testing', 'epel9-testing', 'f40-container-updates-testing',
'f41-container-updates-testing', 'f41-updates-testing',
'f42-updates-testing', 'f40-flatpak-updates-testing',
'f40-updates-testing', 'f42-container-updates-testing',
'f42-flatpak-updates-testing', 'f41-flatpak-updates-testing',
'f43-container-updates-testing', 'epel10.0-testing',
'f43-flatpak-updates-testing', 'f43-updates-testing']."
Could anybody please resolve this situation?
[1] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-1e92156b24
--
Dmitry Belyavskiy
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the
FESCo meeting Tuesday at 17:00 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 '2025-03-18 17:00 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 =
#3372 Go 1.23 in Fedora 40
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3372
APPROVED (+5, 0, 0)
#3362 jdk25 as system jdk in f43 - can branching of f43 be delayed by week or (better) two?
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3362
I closed this one without a formal vote after discussion.
= Followups =
#3364 F42 Incomplete Changes Report
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3364
Specifically, the following items:
- Anaconda as native Wayland application (@jkonecny)
- Anaconda WebUI Partitioning (@jkonecny)
- Koji uses Red Hat Image Builder locally (@fujiwara)
- Reduce the amount of "dontaudit" rules pertaining to unlabeled_t (@vmojzis @mmalik)
If you have info on the status of those changes (or any others in that
ticket), please post a comment with an update. That'll allow us to
proceed more efficiently.
= New business =
#3377 cmake 4.0 breaks compatibility, was updated without a Change Request
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3377
= 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.
In one week, 2025-03-18, or slightly later, in collaboration with Scott
Logan (FAS: cottsay), I plan to update spatialindex from 1.9.3 to 2.1.0
in F43/Rawhide[1].
Upstream reports that “There are no significant major enhancements or
refactorings that should change any behaviors. It had been a long time
(almost 5 years!) since a release and 2.0.0 was the next version
number...”[2][3]
Nevertheless, the SONAME version has changed, and therefore I plan to
use provenpackager privilege to rebuild the following packages in the
same side tag:
- minetest
- qgis
Testing in COPR[4] revealed no incompatibilities. This impact check also
covered the python-Rtree package, which will not need to be rebuilt
because it does not link the library, instead loading it at runtime
using Python’s ctypes module.
A similar update for Fedora 42 appears technically feasible, but isn’t
planned because it doesn’t seem justified at this point in the release
cycle.
– Ben Beasley (FAS: music)
[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/spatialindex/pull-request/3
[2] https://github.com/libspatialindex/libspatialindex/releases/tag/2.0.0
[3] https://github.com/libspatialindex/libspatialindex/releases/tag/2.1.0
[4] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/music/spatialindex/packages/
Hello,
I've opened a non-responsive ticket for squeekboard, maintained by David
Bold [1].
Whilst David was somewhat responsive in earlier PRs, the experience was
still a little .. strange. They merged the first batch of two PRs I
submitted without *any* direct communication whatsoever (even when I
followed up with some concerns / questions). I've also tried pinging them a
few times in the "Fedora Mobility" room on Matrix.
Most recently I submitted a PR [2] that has been sitting idle for about a
month now. This is unfortunately blocking the possibility of getting an
alternative Phosh OSK package (phosh-osk-stub [3]) available in Fedora.
David, if you're reading this, I'd love to step up as a co-maintainer of
squeekboard, or establish a more direct line of communication with you to
progress things!
[1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2353161
[2]: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/squeekboard/pull-request/9
[3]: https://gitlab.gnome.org/guidog/phosh-osk-stub
-Sam
Do you want to make Fedora 42 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and try to run:
dnf --releasever=42 --enablerepo=updates-testing --assumeno --best 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 next Fedora. Please check existing reports
against fedora-obsolete-packages first:
https://red.ht/2kuBDPu
and also there is already lots of "Fails to install" (F42FailsToInstall) reports:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_id=2300529&bug_id_type=anddepen…
For convenience here is the relevant part of Fedora Guidelines on renaming and replacing packages:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-repl…
I myself discovered one issue with workrave and kf5-kitinerary and reported them.
Thank you
Miroslav