[EPEL-devel] Re: ansible-core-2.11.x in CentOS stream 9

I believe ansible-core includes a "dependency manager" depending on your definition. The ansible-galaxy command in ansible-core can install ansible collections so that's you can install modules that you may need. It is similar in scope to pip, rubygem, cargo, or any other of the language package

Re: Draft of New Python Packaging Guidelines

What do you/the packaging macros do when a pypi name is taken by two different packages? (For instance, how setuptools and distribute used the same name) -Toshio On Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 6:24 AM Petr Viktorin wrote: > I've proposed the new guidelines as a Fedora change: >

[EPEL-devel] Re: Python 3 packages to be removed form EPEL 7 (provided by RHEL 7)

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 3:48 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > Hey, > > when RHEL 7.7 will be released, the following new components/packages will > be > provided (assuming from 7.7 beta): > > python3 - the Python 3.6 package > > > This new RHEL7 component builds several

Re: Issues with egg-info switching between directory and file

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 7:40 PM Orion Poplawski wrote: > I've noticed a few times now where a python package unexpectedly > produces an egg-info file instead of a directory. This is particularly > troubling in light of rpm's inability to replace a directory with a file: > >

Re: flit

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:43 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 17 November 2017 at 11:55, Toshio Kuratomi <a.bad...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > So the two possib

Re: flit

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 17 November 2017 at 01:51, Toshio Kuratomi <a.bad...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Nov 16, 2017 4:59 AM, "Nick Coghlan" <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> R

Re: flit

On Nov 16, 2017 4:59 AM, "Nick Coghlan" wrote: On 16 November 2017 at 22:33, Miro Hrončok wrote: > Adding the link makes sense to me. Adding all the macros definition to the > wiki does not make sense to me, but form different reasons. I think that >

[EPEL-devel] Re: ansible retired in epel7

On Oct 7, 2017 1:18 PM, "Neal Gompa" wrote: On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Greetings. > > Just a note for anyone looking for ansible in epel7. > > It's been retired there because with the release of RHEL 7.4 it's now > int the

Re: Should Python 3 macros us UTF-8 locale?

I think it is better if the build system sets LANG=C.UTF-8, not the python specific macros. On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote: > Hi Pythonistas. > > Regarding our Python 3 C.UTF-8 locale coercing [1], aka PEP 538 [2]. > > As you probably know, we build RPM

Re: Python 3.6, Fedora, and the "C" locale

jinx ;-) On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 4:38 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 15 December 2016 at 21:17, Toshio Kuratomi <a.bad...@gmail.com> wrote: >> My one concern is precisely this variety. For instance, if I get a >> report that my application is rais

Re: Python 3.6, Fedora, and the "C" locale

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > I opened an issue and attached a patch at > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404918 > > I also cross-linked it with the most recent upstream issue at > http://bugs.python.org/issue28180 > Comments on the

Re: Python 3.6, Fedora, and the "C" locale

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 1:39 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > I don't anticipate any major concerns with downstream redistributors > adding this behaviour, as the main thing that makes us nervous about > globally changing the default upstream is the sheer variety of Linux > distros

Re: Python 3.6, Fedora, and the "C" locale

On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 3:24 AM, Thomas Spura wrote: > > To change the default encoding for python was proposed a while ago [1], but > was finally dropped again, as upstream didn't agree to this change. Did > anything changed here from upstream python? > > Best, >

[EPEL-devel] Re: Virtual packages providing python2-*

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > One annoying difference between packaging for Fedora and EPEL7 (and > probably older) is the fact that Python packages in Fedora are required > to provide "python2-foo" whereas many EL7 packages don't. This leads

[EPEL-devel] Re: Which python3 versions to package for EPEL7?

On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 08:07:22PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote: > So, I've started packaging up a bunch of python3 only packages for EPEL7 for > packages that were already in RHEL7. I've started by packaging the latest > version of the modules: > > python34-py.noarch 1.4.30-2.el7

Re: [EPEL-devel] Which python3 versions to package for EPEL7?

On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 08:07:22PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote: > So, I've started packaging up a bunch of python3 only packages for EPEL7 for > packages that were already in RHEL7. I've started by packaging the latest > version of the modules: > > python34-py.noarch 1.4.30-2.el7

Re: New (optional) python egg dependency generator for RPM

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 5:27 AM, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 2:48 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> I'd been thinking using "pip install" instead of "setup.py install" in >> the build macros would be sufficient, but I now realise that isn't the >>

Re: New (optional) python egg dependency generator for RPM

On Nov 17, 2015 8:18 AM, "Neal Gompa" wrote: > > I see the problem you are describing, but how do you solve it currently? > Currently we use manually specified dependencies with package names here. So when python2.6-foo is built, the packager specifies a dependency on

Re: Python3 as default

On Apr 15, 2015 2:57 AM, Robert Kuska rku...@redhat.com wrote: pip is not a application, even though it is not used via import statement both python3 and python2 versions provides different functionality (python-pip installs python2 packages and python3-pip installs python3 packages),

Re: Apps using default Python in Fedora vs. EPEL

On Feb 25, 2015 3:14 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote: For those not following along with the FPC ticket, Toshio and Tomspur have a nice write-up of the options at https://etherpad.mozilla.org/2Uqk0ikCll I came back to this question myself due to a couple of different ideas,

Re: Apps using default Python in Fedora vs. EPEL

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:59:01AM -0500, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: - Original Message - On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 06:26:26AM -0500, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: Current state: - Up until F21, maintainers were encouraged to build applications with Python 2, but weren't discouraged

Re: Apps using default Python in Fedora vs. EPEL

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 06:26:26AM -0500, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: Current state: - Up until F21, maintainers were encouraged to build applications with Python 2, but weren't discouraged from building with Python 3. Note -- this isn't quite right. If an application could run with either

Re: Apps using default Python in Fedora vs. EPEL

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:50:07PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: %if 0%{?fedora} %global default_python python3 %else %global default_python python %endif I'm wary of this proposed solution mostly due to the fact that in the middle of last year, the Beaker team had to go through and

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Changes in Guidelines Connected to Python 3 as Default Change

On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 08:10:39AM -0500, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: * sphinx-build-v0.9 * sphinx-build-2-v0.9 * sphinx-build-2.7-v0.9 * sphinx-build-3-v0.9 * sphinx-build-3.7-v0.9 I'd rather see sphinx-build-v0.9-3.4. IMO keeping the Python version at the very end in every case is

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Changes in Guidelines Connected to Python 3 as Default Change

On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 11:18:58PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: I think these are good reasons to default to using the dash if its Fedora adding it. The guideline could be something like For Python executables, also provide symlinks with a '-X' and '-X.Y' suffix, unless upstream already

Re: Changes in Guidelines Connected to Python 3 as Default Change

On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 12:51:40AM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: On 4 Dec 2014 00:38, Bohuslav Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com wrote: So here are my proposals for changes in current guidelines [2]: - In [3], it says If the executables provide the same functionality independent of whether they are

Re: python-sig in pkgdb2?

I've stepped back from packaging for the most part but I think this is a great idea. When I was active I'd often find something to cleanup in python packaging for each release (pil = pillow; removing python-setuptools-devel). A python-sig group would definitely help with future cleanups like

Re: reproducible builds and python

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 08:01:23PM +0200, bmorbach wrote: Hi everyone! I've been doing some work towards reproducible builds in Fedora (mostly with various upstreams so far) and one of the elephants in the Room are obviously Pythons .pyc and .pyo files. As those contain the mtime of the

Some orphaned packages

As some of you may know from flock or following the FPC meeting minutes, I'm taking a break from Fedora. As part of that, I've reassigned most of my packages to others that can care for them. A few packages don't have obvious owners (mostly in specific branches) So I've orphaned them. If you'd

Re: Brokenness in newly created dist-git repositories

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 08:11:30PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: Two new packages/repositories have been created for me recently. Both appear to be broken in a subtle, non-fatal way: $ fedpkg clone ocaml-camlp4 $ cd ocaml-camlp4/ $ fedpkg verrel Exception AttributeError:

Re: Brokenness in newly created dist-git repositories

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 08:31:50PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: OK I see in the final comment there is a hang reported. I would still be interested in whether anyone else can reproduce the bug on the specific two repos: ocaml-camlp4 ocaml-labltk. Yep, I can reproduce on those two. I

Re: EPEL Orphan or retire the TurboGears (v1) stack in 7

On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 05:41:04PM +1000, Dan Callaghan wrote: I'm a little confused now though... I would have also expected these other TG1 pieces to be on the list: * python-TurboMail This doesn't have a dep on TurboGears in them so my repoquery didn't pick it up. Possibly a packaging

Re: EPEL Orphan or retire the TurboGears (v1) stack in 7

-- Best Regards Jacky -Original Message- From: epel-devel-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org [mailto:epel-devel-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of Toshio Kuratomi Sent: Saturday, 21 June 2014 3:02 AM To: epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: EPEL Orphan

Re: Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2014-07-10 16:00 UTC)

On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:31 PM, James Antill ja...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2014-07-10 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. For more complete details, please visit each individual ticket.

Re: EPEL Orphan or retire the TurboGears (v1) stack in 7

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 12:01:26PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: If someone steps up to say they'll take ownership of TurboGears1 (one of the comaintainers or someone new), then I'll reassign these packages to them. If no one does, then I'll retire them in epel7 and ask that the packages

Re: [Env and Stack WG] cancelled meeting

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 03:38:32PM +0200, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: On 06/16/2014 06:40 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 05:52:18PM +0200, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: Meetings will be cancelled until we have some topics to discuss. If you have something, please let us know

EPEL Orphan or retire the TurboGears (v1) stack in 7

Since RHEL7 has been released, EPEL7 won't be far behind. Before we get there, I'm planning to retire the TurboGears (v1, not Turbogears2) stack in epel7. In Fedora Infrastructure we are planning to migrate away from TurboGears1 rather than continue maintaining it throughout EPEL7's lifetime.

Re: [Env and Stack WG] cancelled meeting

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 05:52:18PM +0200, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: Meetings will be cancelled until we have some topics to discuss. If you have something, please let us know on mailing list: env-and-sta...@lists.fedoraproject.org On item for a meeting agenda would be finding replacement

Re: Cross-distro fossology instance?

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:01:09AM +0200, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote: I was wondering if anyone was considering cross-distribution fossology[1] instance where we could share burden of license review with other distros. I know at least Debian does comprehensive license reviews and we could

Schedule for Wednesday's FESCo Meeting (2014-06-11)

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo meeting Wednesday at 17:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net. To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto or run: date -d '2014-06-11 17:00 UTC' Links to all tickets

Re: Schedule for Wednesday's FESCo Meeting (2014-06-11)

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 11:35:16AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote: If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can reply to this e-mail, file a new ticket at https://fedorahosted.org/fesco, e-mail me directly

This Weeks FESCo Meeting: Cancelled

Sorry for the late notification. I took a look at making an agenda for this week and saw that we only have a few tickets to look at and all of them are pending input from various other people so I'm cancelling the meeting. That's two week's in a row so plan on having a meeting next week. We

Re: Fwd: Ophaning lcms(1)

https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/lcms/bugs/all lists a CVE. If lcms-11 is no longer going to be maintained in Fedora that (and any other) security flaws won't be addressed. It's therefore advisable for them to update to the new version of lcms if feasible. The affected packager would

Re: Fwd: Ophaning lcms(1)

On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:39:56PM +0200, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: python-pillow-2.2.1-4.fc20.src.rpm This one can be fixed by upgrading to 2.3.0 (or greater. 2.4.0 is current). 2.4.0 is what's in rawhide. Not sure if that's safe to push back to f20 and earlier. (Although I see that there's an

Re: Packaging: bin subfolder

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:56:02PM +0200, Sandro Mani wrote: binaries and python scripts to the /usr/bin/salome folder. Is this acceptable? I believe a symbolic link should be acceptable. Actually creating a subdir would probably have a lot of opposition, but it should be possible to

Schedule for Wednesday's FESCo Meeting (2014-05-28)

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo meeting Wednesday at 17:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net. To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto or run: date -d '2014-05-28 17:00 UTC' Links to all tickets

Re: Schedule for Wednesday's FESCo Meeting (2014-05-28)

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:06:03AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:05:10AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: This ticket appears to be resolved on Trac. Shall we just cancel the meeting this week? I was trying to think of something inflammatory, but I don't think I

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2014-05-29 16:00 UTC)

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 05:30:12PM -0400, James Antill wrote: Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2014-05-29 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. rktime): 2014-05-29 09:00 Thu US/Pacific

Re: Attempting to contact three unresponsive maintainers

On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 03:57:24PM +0530, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote: On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:11:47AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: Greetings, we've been told that the email addresses for three package maintainers are no longer valid. I'm starting the unresponsive maintainer policy to find

Re: Fwd: git commit Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender

On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 08:35:27PM -0400, Al Dunsmuir wrote: On Thursday, May 15, 2014, 12:42:25 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote: More fallout from pkgdb2? Yeah. The script that updates the package email aliases was still pointing at the staging instance (for testing). So it wasn't picking up new

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Building a non functional package just to remove dependency mess

On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 01:08:51PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: Hi, perl-Language-Expr FTBFS in rawhide and F20 (since F20 was rawhide). There is some crazy stuff in Perl itself that prevents perl-Regexp-Grammars to work properly and perl-Language-Expr cannot work without proper

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Building a non functional package just to remove dependency mess

On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 05:43:14PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: Dne 14.5.2014 16:38, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a): It sounds like this would just hide the issues from you. If it's nonfunctional, why not retire perl-Language-Expr instead? 1) Retiring the package would not solve the F19 to F20

Re: Incorrect order of /usr/bin and /usr/sbin in path

On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 10:38:10PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote: On 05/05/2014 10:28 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 04:24:03PM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: It causes pointless configure and Makefile complications in every single upstream project that wants to install

EPEL RFC: Strategy for python3 versions

Hi guys, Orion has submitted a python34 package for EPEL and I'm going to review them soon if no one beats me to it. In parallel with getting that approved I'd like to ask about the general strategy we'd like to take with maintaining python3 in EPEL. Python3 is an evolving language. New 3.N

Re: EPEL Python 3.4 for 7

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 01:45:52PM -0400, Aaron Knister wrote: I think it's a little unrealistic to expect the vendor to namespace their packages although it would be nice and probably the right thing to do. If you buy from Red Hat, you should complain to them. That might have more effect than

Re: EPEL Python 3.4 for 7

On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 09:13:12PM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: On 04/26/2014 06:55 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Apr 26, 2014 11:37 AM, Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com mailto:or...@cora.nwra.com wrote: One interesting change from RHEL7 beta-rc is the dropping of libdb4 which

Re: We want to stop systemd from being added to docker images, because of rpm requiring systemctl.

On Apr 28, 2014 5:01 PM, Daniel J Walsh dwa...@redhat.com wrote: The problem is lots of services require systemd because they ship a unit file and want systemctl reload to happen. Would removing the requires on systemd and doing: /usr/bin/systemctl reload ||: Work for these cases? -Toshio

Re: EPEL Python 3.4 for 7

On Apr 27, 2014 9:37 AM, Aaron Knister aaron.knis...@gmail.com wrote: On Apr 26, 2014, at 8:58 PM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote: On Apr 26, 2014 8:27 PM, Aaron Knister aaron.knis...@gmail.com wrote: We use both EPEL and SCL in my org. I didn't see this addressed in the email

Re: F21 System Wide Change: SCL

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 04:35:25PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote: 2014-04-14 14:13 GMT+02:00 Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com: 2. Upload packages into git - specific branch based on Fedora version and name of collection. For stable repo we must be able to replicate builds from

Re: Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2014-04-17 16:00 UTC)

I won't be present again this week (or next) but I did vote on a few tickets. Hopefully that will help with meeting, discussing, and voting. -Toshio pgpKd0BmNZ4y9.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Python 3 and mod_wsgi

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 04:54:33PM -0400, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: ━━━ I naively ported my Django app to Python 3 and didn't realize WSGI was going to be an issue. I saw python3-django was available for Fedora

Re: Agenda for Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2014-04-08)

On Apr 7, 2014 10:28 AM, Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com wrote: WG meeting will be at 16:00 UTC, 17:00 Central Europe, 12:00 (noon) Boston, 9:00 San Francisco, 1:00 Tokyo in #fedora-meeting on Freenode. == Topic == I sent three Change proposals. If you have any comments, please share

Re: Agenda for Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2014-04-08)

On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 04:16:58PM +0200, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: On 04/08/2014 03:02 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: not sure that the ruby scl should have its own change. It needs to have the equivalent filed for the fpc to evaluate, though. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio

Re: Agenda for Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2014-04-08)

On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 01:26:23PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 06:02:02AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: not sure that the ruby scl should have its own change. It needs to have FWIW, I'm happy to have a distinct change because I want to call this out

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2014-04-03 16:00 UTC) (post DST change UTC time)

On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 04:20:16PM -0400, James Antill wrote: (too big to fail vote?) #topic #391 Exception for bundled libraries in icecat .fpc 391 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/391 Yep, there's four separate new exception criteria posted on:

Re: Meeting minutes from Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2014-04-01)

On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 6:39 AM, Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com wrote: * Open Questions - Playground: Signing (mmaslano, 12:04:12) I saw that this got voted on in the meeting even though it didn't get recorded as such for the meeting minutes. The proposal seemed to be: use obs-sign to

Re: F21 System Wide Change: lbzip2 as default bzip2 implementation

On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 08:47:11PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote: I think the right way to move forward is to make a library that is at least API-compatible with the current libbz2.so.1, make all the tools use it, and just replace bzip2 with lbzip2. Although I'm still on the fence about whether

Re: F21 System Wide Change: lbzip2 as default bzip2 implementation

On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 04:48:03AM +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 07:26:59PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 08:47:11PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote: I think the right way to move forward is to make a library that is at least API

Attempting to contact three unresponsive maintainers

Greetings, we've been told that the email addresses for three package maintainers are no longer valid. I'm starting the unresponsive maintainer policy to find out if they are still interested in maintaining their packages (and if so, have them update their email addresses in FAS). If they're not

Re: Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2014-03-27 17:00 UTC) (next week back to 16:00 UTC)

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 09:45:14PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote: 2014-03-26 20:51 GMT+01:00 James Antill ja...@fedoraproject.org: (approval and retirement sections already passed, /opt exception passed) #topic #339 software collections in Fedora .fpc 339

Re: Let's close the remaining merge reviews

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 04:41:29PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote: An alternative would be to reassign every open merge review to the component in question, and let maintainers handle it as they like. Thoughts? Alternative idea -- maybe identify all packages which are not ciritcal and have an

Re: python packages versus pydoc -k

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 09:11:12AM -0700, Josh Stone wrote: On 03/12/2014 06:12 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:18:17PM -0700, Josh Stone wrote: Of course, these are just the first exceptions I hit. Experience shows that fixing these will likely find more behind them

Re: python packages versus pydoc -k

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:18:17PM -0700, Josh Stone wrote: Do we have any packaging requirements or guidelines for python modules to behave nicely with pydoc? I've seen this break a number of times, and sometimes the bugs I've filed have been fixed, sometimes ignored. Before I go through

Per-Product Config file divergence

At last week's FESCo meeting, the fact that Products desired to have divergent configuration was briefly touched on. On Thursday, a few FPC members had a brainstorming session about it and on Friday, sgallagh and that brainstorming continued with sgallagh, adamw, tflink, notting, and myself. We

Re: Per-Product Config file divergence

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 10:40:29AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mar 10, 2014, at 10:10 AM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote: At last week's FESCo meeting, the fact that Products desired to have divergent configuration was briefly touched on. On Thursday, a few FPC members had

Re: Per-Product Config file divergence

On Mar 10, 2014 10:22 AM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 10:09:43 -0700 Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote: What will fedup updates of Fedora 20 look like? Would there be a flag, e.g. --product cloud/workstation/server? If not specified do we fail

Re: Per-Product Config file divergence

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:08:40PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:00:25 -0700 Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps spins should also specify a product identifier. Maybe they could have the ability to specify an existing products' identifier

Re: Per-Product Config file divergence

On Mar 10, 2014 11:09 AM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 10:09:43AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: What will fedup updates of Fedora 20 look like? Would there be a flag, e.g. --product cloud/workstation/server? If not specified do we fail

Re: Per-Product Config file divergence

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 03:16:31PM -0400, Martin Langhoff wrote: On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote: The idea is to allow config file divergence via the alternatives system as Will this handle user customization? IME alternatives is not geared

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On Mar 9, 2014 7:49 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Toshio Kuratomi wrote: Directory and file interaction is a hard problem. There's no right thing to do in this case. The many possible things we could do all have one drawback or another in certain cases. The right thing

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

On Mar 8, 2014 11:57 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Tom Callaway wrote: Changes to python-setuptools in F20 cause easy_install to install egg files instead of egg directories by default. This sometimes causes problems for rpms of multi-version python modules as the egg

Re: Meeting minutes for Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2014-03-03)

On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 03:23:28PM +0100, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: * additional repository - Playground requirements (mmaslano, 13:03:05) * how do updates work (rolling? bodhi? Will we constantly be regenerating the repodata [like the rawhide build repo?]) (mmaslano, 13:07:16)

Re: F21 System Wide Change: System-wide crypto policy

On Feb 27, 2014 8:25 AM, Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com wrote: = Proposed System Wide Change: System-wide crypto policy = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CryptoPolicy == Detailed Description == The idea is to have some predefined security levels such as LEVEL-80, LEVEL-128,

Re: Packages with missing %check

On Feb 26, 2014 5:16 AM, Colin Walters walt...@verbum.org wrote: On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni...@redhat.com wrote: I didn't name them. I used standard names for different testing levels as defined by software engineering bodies. Quoting from SWEBOK: Yes, I

Re: Packages with missing %check

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 12:45:11PM +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote: Hi guys, I have identified 551 packages on the Fedora 20 source DVD which are missing a %check section in their spec files but are very likely to have a test suite. See

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2014-02-19)

On Feb 24, 2014 1:46 AM, Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com wrote: On 02/19/2014 08:57 PM, Tomas Mraz wrote: * Open floor (t8m, 19:45:44) * AGREED: FESCo expects the Tech specs/docs from working groups by March 3rd at the latest (+7, -0, 0:0) (t8m, 19:50:38) * ACTION: t8m

Re: python-django update to Django-1.6

/conf/urls/ -%{python_sitelib}/django/conf/locale/*/*.py* -%{python_sitelib}/django/conf/locale/*.py* - -%{python_sitelib}/*.egg-info - - + +%{python_sitelib}/*.egg %files doc %defattr(-,root,root,-) @@ -301,6 +165,9 @@ cd tests %changelog +* Fri Feb 21 2014 Toshio Kuratomi tos

Re: rpm bug 1065563 affecting httpd / php packages

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 10:56:14AM +, Joe Orton wrote: On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 12:37:53PM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote: I don't think this calls for a mass rebuild or any kind of a rebuild actually, nor should it be rawhide only. AFAIU this doesn't affect runtime at all, only build time,

Re: Heads-up: updating python-sphinx to 1.2.1 in Rawhide

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:54:14AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: Quite a lot of packages rely on Sphinx, so I think we may even want to deal with this in a side-tag. My understanding from Dennis is that creating and then merging side tags in koji is not a trivial thing (I can't remember is

Summary/Minutes for today's FESCo Meeting (2014-02-12)

=== #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2014-02-12) === Meeting started by abadger1999 at 18:01:58 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2014-02-12/fesco.2014-02-12-18.01.log.html . Meeting

Schedule for Wednesday's FESCo Meeting (2014-02-12)

Long agenda this week due to not having a meeting last week. I've tried to put the easiest things first (other than #1197 which is a followup item) to try to clear out as many as possible. Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo meeting Wednesday at 18:00UTC in

Re: What is bundling?

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:54:47AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: What is bundling in the sense of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries? In my opinion, the page deals with source package contents. But there are other things a package can do bundle things in the

Orphaned packages

We no longer have valid contact information for the following packagers due to changes in their work duties: * npajkovs * fkocina * zpavlas For packages that they own we have orphaned the packages and made them comaintainers. In the future, if their current fas email addresses start to bounce,

Re: EPEL Python 3 for 7?

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:55:09AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 08:05:23AM -0700, Dave Johansen wrote: system.so we've mostly decided that things in the system shouldn't use SCLs to work. So we still need to solve the problem of newer python interpreter

Re: EPEL Python 3 for 7?

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 01:57:18PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 09:48:18AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: Packages for Infrastructure and Clouds, I think). I was thinking about this more recently in the context of things we need for Fedora.next in the coming

Re: GIT development branches for packagers?

On Jan 16, 2014 10:19 AM, Andrew Lutomirski l...@mit.edu wrote: On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 11:29 +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote: On Út, 2014-01-14 at 13:13 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:59 PM,

Re: dnf versus yum

On Jan 7, 2014 4:53 AM, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 16:28:59 +0100 Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: look like it starts to happen again: a replacement which is not ready https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049310 It seems the majority

Re: dnf versus yum

On Jan 9, 2014 6:26 AM, Chris Adams li...@cmadams.net wrote: Once upon a time, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com said: nod Just have yum drop a config file in there that protects the kernel rather than protecting the kernel if some other package chooses to protect something else

Re: dnf versus yum

On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 02:56:14PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) said: I'm a little lost in the thread, but do you mean that yum's protected packages functionality is undocumented? If that is what you mean, check the man page. It says:

Re: Source file audit - 2014-01-05

On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 09:25:36AM +0100, Simone Caronni wrote: On 6 January 2014 20:53, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: slaanesh:BADSOURCE:dkms-2.2.0.3.tar.gz:dkms Downloading the file again gives a different md5sum, but the release tarball is the same, so probably the archive

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   >