Introduction (cydrobolt)
Hey python-devel, I'm Chaoyi, a Fedora user and contributor. I've been using Python for a couple years now, and it has been a great experience. I write my apps in Python whenever I can because of its readability and versatility. I found out about the python-sig through a Trac ticket. I love Python and would love to be involved in the Python community at Fedora. I mostly contribute to Fedora on the infrastructure team, but I also work with the ambassadors and web teams, among others. My FAS and IRC username is "cydrobolt" Thanks, Chaoyi ___ python-devel mailing list python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Unresponsive maintainer and unupdated package
Ah, there is a Node.js list? I'll look into it and see if anything is going on over there. On Mon, Oct 19, 2015, 7:32 AM Tom Hughes <t...@compton.nu> wrote: > On 19/10/15 12:22, Chaoyi Zha wrote: > > > I think someone else has also recently e-mailed about this unresponsive > > maintainer, "patches". > > > > I am looking to update one of his packages, "nodejs" > > > > It is currently at version 0.10 in our PkgDB but the current version is > > 4.2.1 > > > > I would be happy to update and maintain this package, but I do not have > > any rights to it and it is not orphaned yet. > > Updating nodejs is nothing to be done lightly. It was supposed to be > updated to 0.12 for F23: > >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NodeJS012 > > There was also an io.js plan: > >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/iojs > > I don't think that either happened in the end though, and obviously > events have been somewhat overtaken by the remerger with io.js. > > I'd suggest contacting the nodejs list in the first instance anyway as > that is where all the experts will be, including patches normally. > > Tom > > -- > Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) > http://compton.nu/ > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Unresponsive maintainer and unupdated package
Hi, I think someone else has also recently e-mailed about this unresponsive maintainer, "patches". I am looking to update one of his packages, "nodejs" It is currently at version 0.10 in our PkgDB but the current version is 4.2.1 I would be happy to update and maintain this package, but I do not have any rights to it and it is not orphaned yet. How should I go about updating this package? Thanks, Chaoyi -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Unresponsive maintainer and unupdated package
Node.js v0.12 has since become outdated. The page about updating it to 0.12 for F23 is likely outdated as well by now. We may want to create a new page if it is needed. Here is the latest "LTS" release: https://nodejs.org/en/blog/release/v4.2.1/ On Mon, Oct 19, 2015, 7:32 AM Chaoyi Zha <summermontr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ah, there is a Node.js list? I'll look into it and see if anything is > going on over there. > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015, 7:32 AM Tom Hughes <t...@compton.nu> wrote: > >> On 19/10/15 12:22, Chaoyi Zha wrote: >> >> > I think someone else has also recently e-mailed about this unresponsive >> > maintainer, "patches". >> > >> > I am looking to update one of his packages, "nodejs" >> > >> > It is currently at version 0.10 in our PkgDB but the current version is >> > 4.2.1 >> > >> > I would be happy to update and maintain this package, but I do not have >> > any rights to it and it is not orphaned yet. >> >> Updating nodejs is nothing to be done lightly. It was supposed to be >> updated to 0.12 for F23: >> >>https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NodeJS012 >> >> There was also an io.js plan: >> >>https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/iojs >> >> I don't think that either happened in the end though, and obviously >> events have been somewhat overtaken by the remerger with io.js. >> >> I'd suggest contacting the nodejs list in the first instance anyway as >> that is where all the experts will be, including patches normally. >> >> Tom >> >> -- >> Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) >> http://compton.nu/ >> -- >> devel mailing list >> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct > > -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Better irc policies?
Maybe we can use ASM and fedbot to reduce the spam load? Dedicated spammers are definitely a problem for all channels, but most channels, such as #freenode enable +r during a wave of flood, not indefinitely. I can absolutely agree that having the registration requirement flag certainly increases the barrier to something newbies or those trying out may not be willing to commit. They may just give up instead of registering and getting help. I personally try to avoid things that require email sign ups as much as possible, and I know others do too. On Tue, Jun 9, 2015, 1:45 PM Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: On Tue, 9 Jun 2015 19:31:01 +0200 Andreas Tunek andreas.tu...@gmail.com wrote: Currently the #fedora channel on freenode requires some kind of registration. Yeah. It has for many years... In my opinion it is pretty difficult to register on freenode (I have tried but haven't managed). What part of the process is proving to be difficult? If you aren't registered and try and join #fedora it sends you to #fedora-unregistered where the entry message, topic and a bot all give you links showing how to register. Is there something that could be more clear here? Do you think it would be possible to drop the registration requirement? It is a pretty big barrier to newbies and people like me who can't find IRC help easily. I know there are a lot of bots and spam, but maybe it would be possible to try and see if it really gets bad? Well, you are welcome to file a ticket and request that with the irc support sig: https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/ But I don't think it's too likely to happen for a lot of reasons: * Originally the registration was put in place when there were floods of racist ranter bots on freenode. They are much less common now, but I still see them in unregistered from time to time. * There's also a lot of drive by spam and trollers that get caught by registration. kevin -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Better irc policies?
Heh, of course, but I didn't sign up to get support. I wouldn't sign up to a list for a one-time thing, I would need to be a bit more involved with something to be motivated enough to sign up for a list. On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 at 13:20 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:18:56 + Chaoyi Zha cydrob...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Maybe we can use ASM and fedbot to reduce the spam load? Dedicated spammers are definitely a problem for all channels, but most channels, such as #freenode enable +r during a wave of flood, not indefinitely. I can absolutely agree that having the registration requirement flag certainly increases the barrier to something newbies or those trying out may not be willing to commit. They may just give up instead of registering and getting help. I personally try to avoid things that require email sign ups as much as possible, and I know others do too. Well, you signed up to this list to post this right? ;) kevin -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Must contain / error when building SRPM for Epel 6
Hey there, I'm trying to create an RPM for a package I am trying to build, however, it does not succeed on EPEL 6. The SRPM builds for F22, EPEL 7, F21, however, it does not build correctly for EPEL 6. Here is the error I am getting: RPM build errors: File must begin with /: GPLv2+ File must begin with /: LICENSE This occurs when mock tries to process the %doc and %license sections of the SPEC. This only occurs when building for EPEL 6. Here is the link to the SPEC: https://github.com/fedora-infra/mote/blob/master/files/mote.spec I don't know why it is not happening for F22 or EPEL 7, but it seems to break the EPEL 6 build. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Chaoyi -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Must contain / error when building SRPM for Epel 6
Interesting discussion. I was able to fix the issue
using %{!?_licensedir:%global license %doc}, which seems to work on EPEL 6.
Thanks for the info!
On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 at 22:01 Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Sat, Jun 06, 2015 at 01:56:08AM +, Chaoyi Zha wrote:
I'm trying to create an RPM for a package I am trying to build, however,
it
does not succeed on EPEL 6. The SRPM builds for F22, EPEL 7, F21,
however,
it does not build correctly for EPEL 6.
See https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/411 (and particularly the end).
--
Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org
Fedora Project Leader
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: An everyday tale of dnf
Haha, sounds like a fun experience. I've not used dnf for many complex tasks, but it sounds interesting. On Wed, Apr 8, 2015, 7:14 AM Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: So this morning I cloned an up to date rawhide VM and attempted to convert it to F22 by using dnf distro-sync on it. Obviously that is a fairly advanced use case but I think one tale of what happened at the end of that process will highlight why I often find myself shouting WTF at dnf when going beyond basic install/update of packages. There were other issues along the way before I got to this point... Having eventually completed the distro-sync I wanted to check for any orphans that needed sorting out. Google told me dnf-plugins-extras was that I needed to replace package-cleanup, so I installed it, only to find that every use of dnf now reported: fedora22 [~] % sudo dnf upgrade Failed to synchronize cache for repo '_local' from 'file:///var/lib/dnf/plugins/local': Cannot download repomd.xml: Cannot download repodata/repomd.xml: All mirrors were tried, disabling. After shouting WTF yet again I determined that dnf-plugins-extras includes python-dnf-plugins-extras-local which apparently tries to use a non-existent local directory as a hidden extra repo. Fine whatever, we don't need that, so lets remove it: fedora22 [~] % sudo dnf erase python-dnf-plugins-extras-local Dependencies resolved. PackageArchVersion Repository Size Removing: dnf-plugins-extras noarch 0.0.6-2.fc22 @System 0 python-beautifulsoup4 noarch 4.3.2-3.fc21 @System 605 k python-dnf-plugins-extras noarch 0.0.6-2.fc22 @System 0 python-dnf-plugins-extras-debugnoarch 0.0.6-2.fc22 @System 26 k python-dnf-plugins-extras-localnoarch 0.0.6-2.fc22 @System 11 k python-dnf-plugins-extras-orphans noarch 0.0.6-2.fc22 @System 9.3 k python-dnf-plugins-extras-repoclosure noarch 0.0.6-2.fc22 @System 9.4 k python-dnf-plugins-extras-repographnoarch 0.0.6-2.fc22 @System 9.5 k python-dnf-plugins-extras-repomanage noarch 0.0.6-2.fc22 @System 12 k python-dnf-plugins-extras-snapper noarch 0.0.6-2.fc22 @System 4.4 k python-dnf-plugins-extras-tracer noarch 0.0.6-2.fc22 @System 7.7 k python-html5libnoarch 1:0.999-5.fc21 @System 1.2 M python-psutil x86_64 2.1.3-1.fc22 @System 518 k snapperx86_64 0.2.5-2.fc22 @System 1.0 M snapper-libs x86_64 0.2.5-2.fc22 @System 846 k tracer noarch 0.5.8-1.fc22 @System 272 k Transaction Summary Remove 16 Packages Installed size: 4.5 M Is this ok [y/N]: y WTF! Oh, of course, removing that removes dnf-plugins-extras and then everything else counts as auto installed and gets removed. After ceasing banging my head on the desk I let it go ahead and then add back python-dnf-plugins-extras- orphans to get the plugin I actually wanted. So now I run dnf orphans at last and am a little surprised to get 589 lines of output: fedora22 [~] % sudo dnf orphans CharLS-devel-1.0-8.fc22.x86_64 ... zsh-5.0.7-6.fc22.x86_64 But those are F22 packages I hear you say! Indeed they are, and list confirms that they do exist in configured repositories: fedora22 [~] % sudo dnf list --showduplicates zsh Using metadata from Wed Apr 8 11:02:28 2015 (0:53:45 hours old) Installed Packages zsh.x86_64 5.0.7-6.fc22 @System Available Packages zsh.x86_64 5.0.7-6.fc22 @System zsh.x86_64 5.0.7-6.fc22 fedora-base WTF! Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
