Re: Unannounced SONAME bump: libglade-2.so.6() (glade)

Thank you Kalev! If that soname bump is needed, please rebuild glade and all affected packages in a side tag next time. Thanks! On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 7:19 AM Kalev Lember wrote: > > On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 6:56 AM Igor Gnatenko > wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >>

Unannounced SONAME bump: libglade-2.so.6() (glade)

Hello, it seems that glade-3.36.0-1.fc33 changes SONAME from libglade-2.so.6 to libglade-2.so.12. That is breaking: * anaconda-widgets-devel (anaconda) - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832687 * anjuta - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832688 * gnome-builder -

Re: OCaml packages in Rawhide are broken for long time

I have opened bugs for affected packages. Unfortunately did not exclude ocaml-bin-prot, but feel free to just change status to ASSIGNED and fix it as soon as you can. On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 4:54 PM Jerry James wrote: > > On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 1:47 AM Igor Gnatenko > wrote: >

OCaml packages in Rawhide are broken for long time

Hello, Is anybody planning to fix bunch of FTI (Fails To Install) ocaml packages in rawhide? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:

Non-responsive maintainer check for trondham

Hello, Anybody knows how to contact Trond? I have sent him an email last week, but no response (neither in bugzilla). BZ: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827995 ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send

Issue with booting on latest kernels (EFI_DISABLE_PCI_DMA related)

else saw this issue? Any ideas if this could be worked around in Fedora kernel? https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=206789 -- -Igor Gnatenko ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le

Re: Rawhide python-rpm-generators news: small speedup + %python_provide not needed in most cases

Nice job, Miro! Thanks a lot for working on this. On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 8:45 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > Hello Python packagers. > > I have just updated python-rpm-generators to python-rpm-generators-11-1.fc33 > in > Rawhide. It uses some fresh stuff from RPM 4.16 and will not be backported to

Re: Rawhide update from side tag pending for 2 days

I agree, if this would not happen then everything would just blow up. On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 8:33 AM Clement Verna wrote: > > > > On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 23:38, Mohan Boddu wrote: >> >> I guess it should be a fixed in bodhi. But for now you can remove the >> builds that it's complaining about in

Re: Bodhi 5.2.0 deployed in production.

Hello Clement, On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 10:30 AM Clement Verna wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have just deployed Bodhi 5.2.0 in production. This version should improve > the performance of updates creation since the expansive task of tagging > builds in koji has been moved to an async process using a

HEADS UP: rust-psm license change (ISC/Apache-2.0 → MIT/Apache-2.0)

Effective since version 0.1.7. -- -Igor Gnatenko ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code

Re: Non-responsive maintainer: pwalter

This would be nice. It is blocking from upgrading tokei and bunch of other Rust-based packages in F31. I am out of time and not willing to do anything related to pushing new libgit2 in F31, so would be happy to assist anybody who will pick this work up. On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 10:45 AM Fabio

Re: Reducing broken dependencies in fedora (32) repositories

No. All dependencies and such are in Fedora Build System and kept there as any other package. On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 14:10 Peter Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 12:58 PM Randy Barlow > wrote: > > > > On 3/9/20 11:53 AM, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > Source-only rust packages (those

Re: Reducing broken dependencies in fedora (32) repositories

We could if somebody will commit on maintaining those packages in stable releases, keep them always updated, insert proper Obsoletes and create compat packages all the time. The good news are that Koji maintainers implemented necessary configuration and when new version will be released and

Re: GNOME 3.35.92 megaupdate

It is basically the same. The only difference is that name of the tag. On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 3:18 PM Kalev Lember wrote: > > > On 3/2/20 15:04, Richard Shaw wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 7:57 AM Kalev Lember > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > I am

HEADS UP: libgit2 0.99.x is coming to Rawhide

Hello, The libgit2 finally gets closer to 1.0 release, so this is one of "pre-releases". Of course, this involves soname bump :) The API should not be broken compared to 0.28.x, so I'm going to rebuild everything in side tag and then submit update for all the affected packages at once. Stay

[EPEL-devel] Ansible & Python 3 in EPEL7

Hey folks, We recently started to use Ansible more and we are using some ansible collection which is not compatible with Python 2. Are there any plans to switch Ansible to Python 3 in EPEL7 or are there any recommendations what to do in such cases as we have? -- -Igor Gnatenko

Re: Include non-RPM content in buildroot

Hi Martin, I was quite busy lately so did not have time to reply. (Most of the time I'll speak for Rust ecosystem below) On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 4:06 PM Martin Sehnoutka wrote: > > Hi, > > before I write the proposal itself I just want to stress the fact that > it isn’t my intention to change

Re: Ideas and proposal for removing changelog and release fields from spec file

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020, 18:38 Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 24. 02. 20 17:48, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > However, for the release field, we are struggling a little bit more, two > options > > are more appealing to us: > > Can we please have a "git is the only source of truth" version of this? > I.e.

Re: Announcement: EPEL Steering Committee Changes

Then who is the best person? On Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 07:11 John M. Harris Jr wrote: > On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 10:35:26 AM MST Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > Hi, > > > > It has been a pleasure for me to be a part of and help lead the > > EPEL steering committee for the last couple of years.

How to write License field for packages bundling mutliple others

In Rust world we package all crates as source code in -devel packages. Then we use them to build the real applications. Some time ago, someone noticed that we don't put licenses of those -devel packages into a resulting RPM with app which is fair. However, I'm not entirely sure how to properly

Re: How to get proper nsswitch.conf?

25 PM Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Igor Gnatenko: > > > I've noticed that glibc ships one nsswitch.conf, but then it is > > entirely overridden by authselect... What is the proper way of getting > > proper nsswitch.conf on the system? > > authselect is not the on

How to get proper nsswitch.conf?

Hello, I've noticed that glibc ships one nsswitch.conf, but then it is entirely overridden by authselect... What is the proper way of getting proper nsswitch.conf on the system? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send

Re: Packaging of Ansible collections

The goal is to be able to use ansible with collections installed via RPM without having to connect to the internet. On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 4:45 PM Bill Nottingham wrote: > > Igor Gnatenko (ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org) said: > > Hello, > > > > Did anybody had an

Packaging of Ansible collections

Hello, Did anybody had an experience of packaging Ansible collections into an RPM? I guess if would be enough to put the files somewhere under /usr/share/ansible, but not sure. Also I'm not sure what download URL could be used. ___ devel mailing list

Re: satyr soname bump

What does it mean "us? I see that ABRT has broken dependencies in rawhide. I would appreciate if you could use side tag to build new version + rebuild all packages which depend on it in there. On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 3:15 PM Ernestas Kulik wrote: > > satyr 0.30 was built with a bumped soname.

Re: Any issues booting Rawhide kernel-5.6.0-0.rc0.git1.2.fc32.x86_64?

I have the same issue since 5.5.0 release kernel. Latest one which works for me is 5.5.0-rc6.git3.2. I was not sure how to debug this, so I did not submit a bug report. I have this issue on the ThinkPad T480s with latest firmwares and so on. On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 2:10 PM Richard W.M. Jones

How to package a web service (nginx vs httpd)

Hello, I am working on packaging [netbox](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/) which is basically web service which is run via gunicorn and then it is up to admin to decide whether he wants to use nginx, httpd or anything else. Do we have somewhere written best practices how to package

Re: Ideas for better development processes when maintaining hundreds of packages

It would be nice if you could look into existing code instead of writing new one: https://github.com/ignatenkobrain/git-rpm-changelog On Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 12:43 Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 09:03:09AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > I always think that Fedora works

Re: koji / bodhi issues status update

No, that's not true. Anybody can tag their builds into a f31-updates-candidate and such tags. On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 4:03 AM Sérgio Basto wrote: > > On Thu, 2020-01-09 at 09:17 +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 10:32:42PM +, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > > Hi, a little

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Use update-alternatives for /usr/bin/cc and /usr/bin/c++

So this just means that packages do not respect the environment. What about fixing them instead of trying to hack the environment? On Wed, Jan 8, 2020, 23:53 Tom Stellard wrote: > On 12/23/2019 11:59 AM, Tom Stellard wrote: > > On 12/21/2019 02:30 PM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > >> > >> > >> On

Re: Upgrading libffi

If you push changes to the dist-git, I can handle builds and rebuilds. On Wed, Jan 8, 2020, 19:58 Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 10:20:59AM -0500, Anthony Green wrote: > > Neal Gompa writes: > > > > > RPM does not use libffi at all. > > > > My bad.. rpmbuild, through it's use of

Re: Heads up: Updating Python RPM dependency generators

Ugh, that is a bug in the generator. It should do something like ((x with y) or (z with 0)). On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 10:26 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 02. 01. 20 9:59, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > Hello, this is just a heads up that we are about to update the Python RPM > > dependency generators to

Re: peek package

But what about users which actually have ffmpeg installed? Do you think they don't deserve having peek in menu? On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, 04:02 John M. Harris Jr wrote: > On Wednesday, January 1, 2020 7:34:27 PM MST Leigh Scott wrote: > > > Why we should drop such useful app just because it doesn't

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Move fonts language Provides to Langpacks

I think it would be useful to mention in the change page that langpacks-core-* already depend on "good quality font". If that is already there, I apologize. Another thing which is not mentioned on the change page is that you are going to drop Requires: font(:lang=…) from fontconfig (otherwise it

Re: Updating pytest to 5: ~30 packages FTBFS

These 2 packages will break: python-pikepdf-1.7.0-2.fc32.src: (python3dist(pytest) >= 3.10.1 with python3dist(pytest) < 5) python3-pytest-relaxed-1.1.5-1.fc32.noarch: python3.8dist(pytest) < 5 On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 5:09 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > Hello, > > I'd like to get pytest updated to

Re: Updating pytest to 5: ~30 packages FTBFS

These 2 packages will break: python-pikepdf-1.7.0-2.fc32.src: (python3dist(pytest) >= 3.10.1 with python3dist(pytest) < 5) python3-pytest-relaxed-1.1.5-1.fc32.noarch: python3.8dist(pytest) < 5 On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 5:09 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > Hello, > > I'd like to get pytest updated to

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Golang 1.14

Do we really need to rebuild all thousand of packages given that most of them are providing only noarch devel packages with sources? Don't we need to rebuild only those which provide binaries? On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 4:17 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/golang1.14

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Systemd presets for user units

Do we have list of affected packages / services? I'd be more comfortable if we would have list of these and explicitly enabled mandatory ones so that we don't break composes and such. On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 4:15 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > >

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Restart services at end of rpm transaction

I really love this idea because users (sysadmins) will get the ability to *not* restart some production-critical services on upgrade if they decide so without rebuilding package with removed scriptlets. I don't have suggestions about syntax, but whatever systemd upstream comes up with is good for

Re: peek package

The problem with this approach is that when you install ffmpeg, it still won't be shown in those DEs. On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 01:57 Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Wed, Jan 01, 2020 at 09:13:28PM -, Artem Tim wrote: > > > "All package dependencies (build-time or runtime, regular, weak or > otherwise)

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Enable fstrim.timer by default

Always before upgrade to a new *major* version of distribution, you are supposed to read release notes. This will be noted there and you, as a user, can explicitly disable it after upgrade. Or even ship your own preset which would override system's one. On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 8:12 AM John M.

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: LTO by default for package builds

Hi Jeff, On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:50 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LTOByDefault > > == Summary == > This is a proposal to enable link time optimization (LTO) of packages > built with rpmbuild by default. It's an over-simplification, but > think of LTO as deferring

Re: Spdlog update to 1.4.2

Did you check if they do? On Wed, Dec 18, 2019, 10:21 Vitaly Zaitsev via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Hello. > > I'm going to update spdlog package to version 1.4.2 in Rawhide. This is > not a header-only library anymore. > > This update can break dependent packages if they

Summary/Minutes for today's FESCo meeting (2019-12-09)

) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 3:17 PM Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the > FESCo meeting Monday at 15:00UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on > irc.freenode.net. > &

Re: moving bugzilla overrides to dist-git

It would be nice if we would implement "approval" system while doing this. Like if you set somebody as override, that person must click "accept". Same way to change it, the old person must click "accept". Of course, pagure admin should be able to override this, based on FESCo tickets and such.

Schedule for Mondays's FESCo Meeting (2019-12-09)

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo meeting Monday at 15:00UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto or run: date -d '2019-12-09 15:00 UTC' Links to all issues to be

Re: Fedora 31: dnf upgrade suddenly enables modular streams for protobuf

Thanks for CCing me (maintainer of protobuf here), I am particularly not happy that some module (which is not even called protobuf, but some random Java #$%! with ripped out python support overrides my builds). I have put a proposal into a FESCo ticket. On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 5:44 PM Miro

SSL_DEFAULT_CIPHER_LIST vs PROFILE=DEFAULT vs no set_cipher_list()

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CryptoPolicies/#_cc_applications says that I need to patch application (if it does not have config file) to use "PROFILE=SYSTEM" as the argument to the cipher list. However, when I was looking into the library which uses this function

Re: Suggestion for Fedora change proposal: -Bsymbolic-functions default in LDFLAGS

Do you have some benchmark results and/or some statistics related to the file size? On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 2:09 PM Paulo César Pereira de Andrade wrote: > > Hi, > > Idea about @subject started with ongoing customer support case that > originated

Re: Looking for a co-maintainer for timew: will sponsor + mentor

Hey, Add me as maintainer. I maintain taskwarrior which is very related :) On Tue, Dec 3, 2019, 16:28 Ankur Sinha wrote: > Hello, > > I am looking for a co-maintainer to help maintain timew > (timewarrior[1]). The package is not very complex. There is only one bug > against timew at the

RFC: Branch requests from non-maintainers

Hello, 3 months ago, Miro opened releng ticket[0] raising question whether non-maintainers (of some specific packages) being able to request branches. However, it never went anywhere outside of that ticket. I'd like to ask people on this mailing list a few questions. Let's say we have some

Re: RFC: Modularity Simplified

On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 9:13 AM Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote: > > Le 2019-12-02 08:38, Igor Gnatenko a écrit : > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 8:28 AM Nicolas Mailhot via devel > > >> Having all build elements in the package repos themselves is the CORE > >> feature

Re: RFC: Modularity Simplified

On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 8:58 AM Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote: > > Le 2019-12-02 07:47, Igor Gnatenko a écrit : > > Hi Neal, > > > > On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 11:58 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > >> I think we need to recognize that we've done some poor optimizati

Re: RFC: Modularity Simplified

On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 8:48 AM Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote: > > Le 2019-12-02 08:17, Igor Gnatenko a écrit : > > > I simply can't. If somebody gets a package into repo just because he > > wants to build foo, it is probably not very reasonable to ask them to &g

Re: RFC: Modularity Simplified

On Mon, Dec 2, 2019, 04:43 Kevin Kofler wrote: > Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > 1. Do we want to package multiple streams only for "leaf" software or > > any kind of it? > > I believe that we need both, and we do support both. However, it might > > not look as n

Re: RFC: Modularity Simplified

On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 8:28 AM Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote: > > Le 2019-12-02 07:23, Igor Gnatenko a écrit : > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 9:23 PM Nicolas Mailhot via devel > > wrote: > >> > >> Le mardi 26 novembre 2019 à 16:58 +0100, Igor Gnatenko a éc

Re: RFC: Modularity Simplified

Hi Kevin, On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 4:43 AM Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > 1. Do we want to package multiple streams only for "leaf" software or > > any kind of it? > > I believe that we need both, and we do support both. However, it migh

Re: RFC: Modularity Simplified

Hi Neal, On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 11:58 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 10:59 AM Igor Gnatenko > wrote: > > > > Hello fellows, > > > > After last publication on LWN about Fedora Modularity mess, I think it > > is time to describe the i

Re: RFC: Modularity Simplified

Hey Michal, On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 5:08 PM clime wrote: > > Hey Igor, > > On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 17:00, Igor Gnatenko > wrote: > > > > Hello fellows, > > > > After last publication on LWN about Fedora Modularity mess, I think it > > is time to

Re: RFC: Modularity Simplified

On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 9:23 PM Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote: > > Le mardi 26 novembre 2019 à 16:58 +0100, Igor Gnatenko a écrit : > > Hi, Igor > > > > And we can't actually > > have multiple versions of a package with same name (without "mangled" >

Re: RFC: Modularity Simplified

On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 6:35 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > As a meta-goal, we should break up "Modularity" into a number of > separate components, some build-side, some client-side. Modularity > suffers greatly from trying to encode everything into one document. > This greatly raises

Re: RFC: Modularity Simplified

On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 9:28 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 05:35:27PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > As a meta-goal, we should break up "Modularity" into a number of > > separate components, some build-side, some client-side. Modularity > > suffers greatly from

Re: Announcing new anitya integration and de-orphaning process

Because it is really hard to run two systems at the same time and keep them synced? On Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 14:43 Mat Booth wrote: > On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 17:21, Pierre-Yves Chibon > wrote: > > > > Good Morning Everyone, > > > > Tomorrow we are planning on deploying a new version of pagure and

Re: Do we need a "No broken deps" Objective?

Last time I checked, it was basically checking only the first part of "with" richop. I believe it is still broken the same way. On Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 17:33 Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 2:08 PM Igor Gnatenko > wrote: > > > > Hey Fabio, > &g

Re: Is 50+ RPM Subpackages too extreme?

No, 50 is perfectly fine. As others mentioned, we have much bigger amount of them in texlive. If those are like plugins which may or may not require other packages, I would split them. And probably put Recommends in the main package for the most used ones. On Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 02:58 Chris

RFC: Modularity Simplified

Hello fellows, After last publication on LWN about Fedora Modularity mess, I think it is time to describe the idea I was proposing internally with few other folks (Adam Samalik, Brian Exelbierd) back in the RH times. Before I actually go deep, I'll try to answer main questions to myself (so that

Re: Do we need a "No broken deps" Objective?

Hey Fabio, There is a problem with the code. You seem to run either repoquery or repoclosure inside. However, that does not really check rich dependencies correctly. Do you want to check for FTI/FTBFS or that all dependencies are present in Fedora? On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 1:23 PM Fabio

Re: Modularity and the system-upgrade path

of modules? You will be building libvirt itself then multiple times due to the stream expansion. On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 11:38 AM Petr Pisar wrote: > > On 2019-11-15, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 17:38 Petr Pisar wrote: > >> On 2019-11-15, Daniel P

Re: Modularity and the system-upgrade path

On Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 17:38 Petr Pisar wrote: > On 2019-11-15, Daniel P Berrangé wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 02:53:08PM -, Petr Pisar wrote: > >> On 2019-11-15, John M. Harris Jr wrote: > >> > On Friday, November 15, 2019 6:32:21 AM MST Petr Pisar wrote: > >> >> Example: I have

Re: What are the benefits of default modular streams over non-modular packages?

On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 3:38 PM Joe Orton wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 12:44:52PM +0100, Miro Hroncok wrote: > > Where is the end-user benefit with the modular default stream? I don't see > > it either, sorry. > > It's not clear to me how those examples are related to my argument, > which I

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Except that modular packages shadow non-modular so instead of getting proper package you will have broken dependency. On Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 10:03 Nicolas Mailhot via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Le 2019-11-14 22:01, Stephen Gallagher a écrit : > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 4:00

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Modules in Non-Modular Buildroot

On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 7:48 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:12 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > > On 09. 10. 19 22:46, Ben Cotton wrote: > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modules_In_Non-Modular_Buildroot > > > > > > Enable module default streams in the

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019, 14:13 Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 10:50 AM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski > wrote: > > > > Hi. > > I've been silent so far, while mostly agreeing with the "let's just drop > > Modularity" proposal. This post hit a nerve, so I felt compelled

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Annobin Used By Bodhi

Hey Nick, Is this change about stopping any builds which do not pass annocheck test from going to stable repository or just adding new check in there? If latter, I don't think it qualifies as a system-wide change. On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 10:05 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > >

Re: Introducing Square 1

Have you tried using https://github.com/fedora-modularity/depchase? That basically does what you are doing and with some small changes it can perform much more things. On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 3:27 PM Troy Dawson wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 2:58 PM Peter Robinson wrote: > > > > On Mon,

Schedule for Mondays's FESCo Meeting (2019-10-28)

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo meeting Monday at 15:00UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto or run: date -d '2019-10-28 15:00 UTC' Links to all issues to be

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 7:07 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 12:44:06PM -0400, Randy Barlow wrote: > > On Wed, 2019-10-23 at 14:41 +0200, Petr Šabata wrote: > > > We currently don’t have any other proposal that would fulfill the vision > > > of our Objective and the needs of

Re: Modularity and all the things

Hey Petr, First of all, thanks for writing this up, much appreciated. On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 2:52 PM Petr Šabata wrote: > > Starting a new thread since the old one is hard to navigate at this point. > > Modularity is a distribution-level change and requires some mindset > shift from packagers

[EPEL-devel] Re: HEADS UP: epel-rpm-macros now makes python mangling shebangs to python3.6

No need to apologize, noone ever can know all possible problems in advance. On Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 19:41 Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 12:59, Igor Gnatenko > wrote: > > > > Hello EPEL maintainers and users, > > > > I've found today that ep

[EPEL-devel] HEADS UP: epel-rpm-macros now makes python mangling shebangs to python3.6

is awaiting for karma in bodhi[0]. Please give it a try. [0] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-b4e9aea40d -- -Igor Gnatenko ___ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le

Re: Unresponsive maintainer: smooge Fwd: [Bug 1451148] libmaxminddb-1.3.2 is available

Feel free to assign it to me and I'll try to make an update to it as soon as possible. On Sun, Oct 20, 2019, 16:47 Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > So I am declaring myself an unresponsive maintainer on the > libmaxminddb and would like someone else to take this package. > > libmaxminddb is part

Re: [Mindshare] Re: [Ambassadors] FOSDEM

I'll happy to help with that. Where do I start? On Sun, Oct 20, 2019, 11:32 Brian (bex) Exelbierd wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 3:37 PM Aleksandra Fedorova > wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 2:37 PM Aniket Pradhan >> wrote: >> > >> > Hello Ankur, Matthew and Brian! >> > >> > > > >

Re: FOSDEM

I'm happy to help. Also I can get swag from Brno (though the flight ticket might be more expensive). I was there last year so I still remember how to do it more or less :) On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 6:32 PM Brian (bex) Exelbierd wrote: > > Hi All, > > I haven't heard anyone mention FOSDEM yet.

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Modules in Non-Modular Buildroot

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:52 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 09. 10. 19 22:46, Ben Cotton wrote: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modules_In_Non-Modular_Buildroot > > > > Enable module default streams in the buildroot repository for modular > > and non-modular RPMs. > > > > == Summary ==

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Modules in Non-Modular Buildroot

> https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8880 - Include default_modules_scm_url in > platform 31 virtual module platform *f32*? Other than that, it would be nice to have more specific rules *when* and *how* modules are checked to conform to the guidelines… On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:51 PM Ben Cotton

Re: Minimization Objective report

On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 6:01 PM Adam Samalik wrote: > > This is the Minimization Objective [0] update. > > Status: Discovery phase > > == Regular meeting canceled == > > We have decided to cancel the regular Minimization Team Meeting [1] as we > prefer async discussions on #fedora-devel and

Re: Major update to LLVM appearing in F31 without any communication, appears to violate update policy

Well, we have updated LLVM to next major version even before mid-cycle. Since it is important for graphics stack. Compatibility package was always created. On the other hand, it requires proper coordination with other package maintainers. tl;dr I think it is fine to do rebase before F31 Final,

Re: Fedora 32 Self-Contained Change proposal: Better Thermal Management for the Workstation

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 4:22 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ThermalManagementWS > > == Summary == > Better thermal management and peak performance on Intel CPUs by > including thermald in the default install. > > == Owner == > * Name: [[User:benzea| Benjamin

HEADS UP: License change for rust-adler32

Since 1.0.4 it is lizensed under "Zlib" while previously it was "BSD and Zlib". ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:

Re: f32/rawhide, nothing provides module(platform:f31)

Well, Whatever you set in the defaults, DNF ignores that on the update. https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-module-defaults/blob/master/f/libgit2.yaml https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-module-defaults/blob/f31/f/libgit2.yaml On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 9:08 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > Dne 30. 08. 19 v

Is Modularity (MBS) dead?

and nobody should use it or just nobody cares about it and I should find more reliable way to deliver Rust apps? -- -Igor Gnatenko ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedora Workstation and disabled by default firewall

Red Hat is written as two separate words. So you can put some work into learning that :) Anyhow, why does user need to learn what port is? Can you imagine your grandma / grandfather learning how to open some port on the firewall? On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 3:05 PM Dan Book wrote: > > On Tue, Aug

Re: Koschei branching?

Aug 25, 2019 at 8:33 AM Igor Gnatenko > wrote: > > > > I see that there is no Fedora 31. Is anybody working on creating that > > and moving rawhide forward to 32? > > I think you need to take a look at the current Fedora repositories, > you'll find fedora 31 packag

Re: gnustep-base 1.26.0

Not `unrar`, but `unar` :) On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 2:38 PM Antonio Trande wrote: > > 'unrar' is a RPMFusion package. > > On 25/08/19 14:16, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > gnustep-base-libs-1.25.0-14.fc31.x86_64 > > openvpn-auth-ldap-2.0.3-28.fc31.x86_64 > > l

Koschei branching?

I see that there is no Fedora 31. Is anybody working on creating that and moving rawhide forward to 32? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:

Re: gnustep-base 1.26.0

gnustep-base-libs-1.25.0-14.fc31.x86_64 openvpn-auth-ldap-2.0.3-28.fc31.x86_64 libgnustep-base.so.1.25()(64bit) raidem-0.3.1-39.fc31.x86_64 libgnustep-base.so.1.25()(64bit) unar-1.10.1-12.fc31.x86_64

Re: Requesting F31 branches

I think Gwyn needs to update fedscm-admin. On Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 17:52 Robert-André Mauchin wrote: > Hello, > > What does this error means when requesting F31 branches: > > > Invalid body, keys: sls missing > > https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/15093 > > This is cryptic, can

RFC: Drop lz4-static

Hello, I found out that nothing in Fedora depends on lz4-static (neither runtime nor buildtime). Is anybody using it or I'm free to drop it? Any thoughts? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

RANT: compton-ng…

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1738293 How did it pass review? > Obsoletes: compton Silently doing Obsoletes of an active package and doing so even without version which is prohibited by the Packaging Guidelines. Really? > cp -a

Re: License correction in teckit-2.5.9-2.fc31

This is horrifying :) Curious how much time it took to figure that out.. On Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 14:21 Petr Pisar wrote: > After unretiring teckit I reviewed the sources and corrected a license > tag from > > LGPLv2+ or CPL > > to > > (LGPLv2+ or CPL) and (LGPLv2+ or GPLv2+ or MPLv2.0 or MPLv1.1)

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >