I just git a "broken dependencies" notice for a package that I maintain.
The reason is that "pdftk" got retired just the other day.
I may have missed a corresponding post on fedora-devel, but I think a
heads up notice to maintainers of depending packages may be in order
before you retire a package, as a general idea.
You see, unretiring a package is so much more work than changing
As for pdftk: I see 2 failed builds for version 1.45 and none for the
current version 2.02 (which probably breaks the api anyways). What are
the plans? Retire pdftk completely? Start fresh with pdftk2?
pdflabs, the maker of pdftk, provide binary as well as source rpms for
pdftk 2.02, by the way. I might even look into packaging it but don't
want to duplicate any existing efforts.
Sometime over the coming week, I'm going to update the
perl-Data-Properties package from the current 0.02 to 1.05.
Among other changes, the license changes from ASL 2.0 to the Perl
license (GPL+ or Artistic).
Please holler if this creates a problem for you.
f35-backgrounds is ready for review which is trivia to do. It is needed
for the beta release along desktop-background.
Thanks in advance
Fedora Design Team
Fedora Design Suite maintainer
[Bug 1988142] memtest boot entry on Fedora install media does not work
This bug might be gcc, but also includes a note about the upstream
being kinda weak, possibly non-existent these days.
Neal Gompa mentioned pcmemtest earlier this year
It would need a maintainer. Any takers?
Fedora doesn't have a release criterion covering the memory tester, or
really any option appearing in the install media's boot menu other
than the one that launches the installer. But I think it's better to
not ship a memory tester at all, than to ship a broken one (given the
Memtest86+ is bios only, where pcmemtest can be compiled to run on
either firmware type. If we want it to work with UEFI Secure Boot
enabled, it'd need to be signed with Fedora's key (I think the same as
the one used for GRUB and/or the kernel?). This would be in scope for
Fedora 36, assuming the above bug can be easily fixed.
But if that bug is hard to fix, and pcmemtest could be a drop-in
replacement (i.e. bios only, just like now) maybe that's doable for
Fedora 35, and better than having no memory tester.
ntfs-3g 2021.8.22 was released yesterday to resolve multiple CVEs.
With permission from Tom Callaway (the ntfs-3g maintainer), I am
preparing updates for Fedora and EPEL now for Tom.
As part of this, I'll rebuild all reverse dependencies for this. Based
on a repoquery, that is:
Sorry for the inconvenience.
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
Some months ago, I announced  that I will move the package maintainer
docs from wiki to docs.fedoraproject.org. I am happy to announce that
this task is complete and the docs are public in their new location now
. Hopefully, this will allow existing and new packagers to find
relevant documentation more easily, and foster more concentrated efforts
to make it better.
Let me explain how the docs are set up now. I worked mainly alone to get
the actual move done. From this point on, I hope that maintenance is
done by all package maintainers collectively, similarly to how the wiki
documentation was under shared ownership. This also means that
everything here is a draft, open for changes based on your feedback.
Comments are welcome!
The imported content was selected by going through wiki category Package
Maintainers  and choosing the pages that seemed useful. In general,
the pages were imported without modification, however in some cases
there were such serious issues that I did some editing.
Going forward, documentation for package maintainers should be added to
this repo, instead of wiki. There is an issue for replacing the imported
wiki pages with pointers to the new urls  which will be done soon.
Policies, guidelines and other material owned by FESCo or the Packaging
Committee is excluded from this repository and is handled like before.
One change that moving from wiki to a Git repository at pagure.io brings
is access control. I would like to allow all members of the 'packager'
group, but unfortunately that group is not visible at pagure.io. So
instead I wrote this in the README, to serve as a basis for iterating a
> All changes to the documentation is intended to happen through pull
> requests. However, following the spirit of earlier wiki based
> documentation, the documentation is intended to be maintainer
> collectively by all Fedora packagers.
> Due to technical issues, the packager group from Fedora Account
> System cannot be granted access, so there is a separate group
> package-maintainer-docs with commit access. Membership is granted to
> any packager requesting it. Please file an issue in the repository if
> you want to join.
If you have any interest in the docs at all, I hope you file an issue
for membership, or just reply to this mail and I will add you.
Currently, I am the maintainer of the repository. There are four other
people listed as admins: pingou, mattdm, kevin, codeblock. This list of
a leftover from an older, unpublished iteration of the docs. To my
understanding, none of these people have expressed interest in
maintaining the repository, for whatever tasks there may be that cannot
be handled by the committer group. So, I plan to remove everybody but
myself. Naturally, to avoid non-responsive admins situation, there
should be more than one admin. If you are interested, please let me know
an I will add you.