Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 35 Python 3.10 rebuilds have started in a side tag
On 6/14/21 03:51, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 08. 06. 21 1:01, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 02. 06. 21 10:02, Tomas Hrnciar wrote: Hello, in order to deliver Python 3.10, we are running a coordinated rebuild in a side tag. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Python3.10 <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Python3.10> If you see a "Rebuilt for Python 3.10" (or similar) commit in your package, please don't rebuild it in regular rawhide. If you need to, please let usknow, so we can coordinate. If you'd like to build the package, you should be able to build it in the side tag via: on branch rawhide: $ fedpkg build --target=f35-python $ koji wait-repo f35-python --build Note that it will take a while before all the essential packages are rebuilt, so don't expect all your dependencies to be available right away. When in trouble, ask here or on IRC (#fedora-python on Libera.Chat). Builds: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/builds?latest=0=f35-python=-build_id=0 <https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/builds?latest=0=f35-python=-build_id=0> Please avoid any potentially disturbing changes in Python packages until the rebuild is over. Thanks. Let us know if you have any questions. The side tag has been merged into Rawhide. And we have a successful compose, so Python 3.10 is now the main Python on Rawhide. Hi Miro, Does it mean I can build the package in rawhide now once I fix my package issue? -- Regards, Chenxiong Qi ___ 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-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: How to track the build failure built on f35-python
Hi all, Thank you very much for the feedback. On 6/7/21 20:48, Tomas Hrnciar wrote: Hello, thank you Felix, it's exactly as you wrote. Chenxiong, there is not any tool to report failures automatically, but you can manually create bugzilla with PYTHON3.10 blocker. Have a nice day Tomas On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 1:19 PM Felix Schwarz mailto:felix.schw...@oss.schwarz.eu>> wrote: Am 07.06.21 um 09:49 schrieb Chenxiong Qi: > I just noticed that python-social-auth-core-4.1.0-2.fc35 keeps failing > to build on f35-python. I'm wondering if there is any mechanism to > report a bug in Bugzilla automatically, or how do we usually track > such failure? The main Python wranglers (Miro, Tomas, ...) will eventually file bugzilla issues. As far as I understand they'll try a couple of rebuilds because initially quite a few builds fail due to missing dependencies which are not yet build (or some dependencies which need to be fixed before they can be built). Just let them do their magic, they'll let you know (via bugzilla) when you should take a closer look. Felix PS: Do not build anything Python-related in Rawhide in the mean time, see Tomas' mail. ___ python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> To unsubscribe send an email to python-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:python-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ <https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines> List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org <https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure <https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure> ___ python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure -- Regards, Chenxiong Qi ___ python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
How to track the build failure built on f35-python
Hi, I just noticed that python-social-auth-core-4.1.0-2.fc35 keeps failing to build on f35-python. I'm wondering if there is any mechanism to report a bug in Bugzilla automatically, or how do we usually track such failure? Thanks. -- Regards, Chenxiong Qi ___ python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Review swap
Hi, Could anyone please review the package python-json? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853829 Thanks! -- Regards, Chenxiong Qi ___ 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-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Review swaps
Hello everyone, Could anyone please review these three packages? python-django-uuslug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1851463 python-django-contrib-comments https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1851562 This is not a new package. It has been retired more than 8 weeks ago. I'd like to continue maintaining this package. python-django-tinymce https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1852284 Thank you very much. -- Regards, Chenxiong Qi ___ 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-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Build flatpak package with fedpkg
Hi, There is a new rpkg release, which has a new command flatpak-build for building flatpak package. Updates: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/rpkg-1.56-2.fc29 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/rpkg-1.56-2.fc28 Happy packaging! -- Regards, Chenxiong Qi ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora for Web Development fail
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 9:41 PM Máirín Duffy wrote: > > > On Wed, 2018-09-26 at 11:04 +, Máirín Duffy wrote: > > Even though I do this, I find it helpful to be able to completely > > destroy the VM and re-create it, knowing that all the information to > > re-create it is in git (via the Vagrantfile + Ansible playbook). Before > > I used it, I would lose time occasionally managing my development VMs, > > or trying to get them working again if something went wrong. Now when > > something goes wrong, I don't even bother trying to figure it out - I > > just destroy and re-create. > > So this destroy and re-create philosophy is very counter to my past > development practices :( Does Vagrant have anything built in to set it up > with an Ansible playbook? Probably this[1] is helpful for you. Regarding the GUI, I think vagrant could be looked like a frontend which sends requests to backend to create or destroy VMs as well as other operations. So, for different backends, its own GUI could be used to manage VMs. It could be virt-manager, VirtualBox, or even the OpenStack website if you use vagrant to create VMs in openstack. [1] https://www.vagrantup.com/docs/provisioning/ansible.html > > ~m > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org -- Regards, Chenxiong Qi ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Release rpkg-1.56 and fedpkg-1.35
Hi, New version rpkg-1.56 and fedpkg-1.35 are released. Release notes: * rpkg: https://docs.pagure.org/rpkg/releases/1.56.html * fedpkg: https://docs.pagure.org/fedpkg/releases/1.35.html Bodhi updates: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/rpkg-1.56-1.fc28%20fedpkg-1.35-1.fc28 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/rpkg-1.56-1.fc27%20fedpkg-1.35-1.fc27 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/rpkg-1.56-1.el6%20fedpkg-1.35-1.el6 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/rpkg-1.56-1.el7%20fedpkg-1.35-1.el7 Regards, Chenxiong Qi ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/WH7TMHJ565ETG2OSG5VRUO5NOBW3VXYO/
Re: /results_* and /*.rpm in .gitignore
On 07/25/2018 11:59 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
Tim Landscheidt wrote:
Todd Zullinger wrote:
[…]
For example, the rpmlint's .gitignore contains the
following¹:
/*.rpm
/results_rpmlint/
/rpmlint-*/
/rpmlint-*.tar.gz
[…]
Apropos: Many .gitignores only reference the source files,
i. e. not /results_${name} or /${name}-*.rpm. Therefore I
usually add the latter two to .git/info/exclude and I wonder
how others handle this.
If it's a package I often work on, I generally add it to the
.gitignore directly.
Will fedpkg (and its backend) always create results_${name}
and ${name}-*.rpm in the top directory or is the destination
configurable? If the former, it would make sense to add
them to .gitignore "for everybody", e. g. recommend that in
the Packaging Guidelines. If not, I'd find it useful to
have "fedpkg clone" add them to the initial
.git/info/exclude.
The results_* and *.src.rpm files are always created at the
top level and are not configurable in fedpkg/rpkg (so far as
I can tell).
I think it makes sense to have them in every package
.gitignore file. Whether that's best done via the scripts
which are used to create a new repo after a package review,
via fedpkg/rpkg (automatically or by a command/option), or
just documented as a best practice in the guidelines I'm not
sure.
fedpkg also generates other directories and files from commands, e.g.
prep or local.
fedpkg could write patterns to .git/info/exclude just after clone, which
ignore known directories and files generated by its commands.
For other possible ignore patterns, they could be defined in user config
file ~/.config/rpkg/fedpkg.conf that would be used in all packages that
packager maintains.
To summarize, after package is cloned,
1. fedpkg writes known patterns to .git/info/exclude immediately
2. read predefined patterns from user config file, and if there is,
write to .git/info/exclude as well.
Is this viable?
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/ZAT7KK5GBEONTPI4VVGSDCFDFLHP6IJG/
--
Regards,
Chenxiong Qi
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/QZWGJCCEFVAWLVPHWVTELC5ZQ6TBSVTO/
Release rpkg-1.55 and fedpkg-1.34
Hi, New version rpkg-1.55 and fedpkg-1.34 are released. Release notes: * rpkg: https://docs.pagure.org/rpkg/releases/1.55.html * fedpkg: https://docs.pagure.org/fedpkg/releases/1.34.html Bodhi updates: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?builds=fedpkg-1.34-1.fc27=fedpkg-1.34-1.fc28=fedpkg-1.34-1.el6=fedpkg-1.34-1.el7 -- Regards, Chenxiong Qi ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/5POW7KN3SXX4YTTBYSL42EPKP3BLA7CQ/
Intent to drop support of bodhi-client 0.9 in fedpkg
Hi all, bodhi-client 0.9 is available in EPEL6 currently and other releases have version >=2.0. fedpkg will benefit from this change to leverage new functionalities introduced since bodhi-client 2.0 in a consistent way. As a result, `fedpkg update` will not work in EPEL6. New command to operate override will be added soon, which will only work with bodhi-client>=2.0 as well. This change could probably affect users who uses `fedpkg update` in EPEL6. But I have no idea if someone does it nowadays. Issue[1] is created. Feel free to comment out your ideas. Thanks. [1]https://pagure.io/fedpkg/issue/223 -- Regards, Chenxiong Qi ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/WATTPTRYCHTVKAZ6RKEHK73H4OZTI44A/
Re: fedpkg on rawhide
On 05/20/2018 06:27 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On 05/19/2018 03:21 PM, Philip Kovacs wrote: Is there a workaround or fix forthcoming for fedpkg? $ fedpkg --helpTraceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/bin/fedpkg", line 6, in from pkg_resources import load_entry_point File "/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 3088, in @_call_aside File "/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 3072, in _call_aside f(*args, **kwargs) File "/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 3101, in _initialize_master_working_set working_set = WorkingSet._build_master() File "/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 574, in _build_master ws.require(__requires__) File "/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 892, in require needed = self.resolve(parse_requirements(requirements)) File "/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 778, in resolve raise DistributionNotFound(req, requirers)pkg_resources.DistributionNotFound: The 'rpm-py-installer' distribution was not found and is required by rpkg Downgrade for now. This is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1579367 and hopefully will be fixed soon... kevin Hi, this has been fixed. New build is available in rawhide now. Sorry for inconvenience. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/RKIKDG6EGAZUDQGQMAW5DH7XYD4POFOA/ -- Regards, Chenxiong Qi ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/F6NKJS43CJCHUOICCHXGPL4D3IFYNBZC/
Re: Release fedpkg-1.33
On Thu, 2018-05-17 at 13:42 +0800, Chenxiong Qi wrote: > Hi all, > > A new version fedpkg-1.33 is released. > > Changelog > > - Allow running tests against specified rpkg (cqi) > - Fix test due to rpkg uses getpass.getuser (cqi) > - Getting bodhi version works with Python 3 - #213 (cqi) > - Detect Bodhi client by major version - #204 (cqi) > - Allow requesting modular repositories without bug ID - #197 > (rdossant) > - Fix test test_verify_sls_invalid_date - #209 (cqi) > - Copy pip-pycurl to ensure pycurl is installed correctly (cqi) > - Fix unicode issue for update command in Python 3 - #206 (cqi) > - Fix a few E722 code styles errors (cqi) > - Fix fake PDC URL in test (cqi) > - Use tox to run tests with multiple Python versions (cqi) > - Reword error message for missing pagure token - #194 (cqi) > - Tell which token ACL is required for request-repo - #195 (cqi) > - Rename incorrect references of Koshei to be Anitya (mprahl) fedpkg has been compatible with Python 3, and defaults to Python 3 in rawhide. Thanks Miro Hrončok for your patch to build Python 3 package. > > Updates: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?builds=fedpkg-1.33- > 1. > fc27=fedpkg-1.33-1.fc28=fedpkg-1.33- > 1.el6=fedpkg- > 1.33-1.el7 > Regards, Chenxiong Qi ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Release fedpkg-1.33
Hi all, A new version fedpkg-1.33 is released. Changelog - Allow running tests against specified rpkg (cqi) - Fix test due to rpkg uses getpass.getuser (cqi) - Getting bodhi version works with Python 3 - #213 (cqi) - Detect Bodhi client by major version - #204 (cqi) - Allow requesting modular repositories without bug ID - #197 (rdossant) - Fix test test_verify_sls_invalid_date - #209 (cqi) - Copy pip-pycurl to ensure pycurl is installed correctly (cqi) - Fix unicode issue for update command in Python 3 - #206 (cqi) - Fix a few E722 code styles errors (cqi) - Fix fake PDC URL in test (cqi) - Use tox to run tests with multiple Python versions (cqi) - Reword error message for missing pagure token - #194 (cqi) - Tell which token ACL is required for request-repo - #195 (cqi) - Rename incorrect references of Koshei to be Anitya (mprahl) Updates: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?builds=fedpkg-1.33-1. fc27=fedpkg-1.33-1.fc28=fedpkg-1.33-1.el6=fedpkg- 1.33-1.el7 -- Regards, Chenxiong Qi ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Release rpkg-1.54
Hi all, A new version rpkg-1.54 is released. Changelog - Pass the -s/--set-default-stream to mbs-manager for module local builds. (jkaluza) - Write mock config correctly when run in Py 3 (cqi) - Add --with and --without options to 'local' - rhbz#1533416 (tmz) - Add a test for 3f93433 (cqi) - Raise error if rpm command returns non-zero (cqi) - Use getpass.getuser() instead of pwd.getpwuid(os.getuid())[0] (jpopelka) - Allow setting custom MBS config file and config section in rpkg.conf. (jkaluza) - Remove py35 testenv (cqi) - Ignore .env and tags (cqi) - Remove question mark from giturl (cqi) - Added custom ArgumentParser (supports allow_abbrev) (jkucera) - Grab the correct first line in case of rpm output (zebob.m) rpkg is available from PyPI. Bodhi updates: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=rpkg -- Regards, Chenxiong Qi ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: "invalid path: ~/.fedora-server-ca.cert"
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Tim Jackson <li...@timj.co.uk> wrote:
> As an infrequent contributor, I have unfortunately had to resign myself to
> the fact that every time I try to make a change to a package, something has
> broken/changed, and thus 95% of the time goes on fixing the environment and
> 5% on the package in question. However, I do wonder whether, when
> refactoring the tooling, some improvements could be made to error handling
> and reporting. As an example, today's error is something to do with logging
> into Koji when running "fedpkg build":
For "fedpkg build", should just need "kinit [FAS username]@FEDORAPROJECT.ORG".
>
> Kerberos authentication fails: Could not find a suitable TLS CA certificate
> bundle, invalid path: ~/.fedora-server-ca.cert
> Could not execute build: Could not login to
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/kojihub
>
> Firstly, could the error message "invalid path: ~/.fedora-server-ca.cert" be
> improved? There _is_ a CA certificate in that location, untouched since
> August 2014. As far as I can tell it's still valid (at least it's not
> expired according to "openssl x509 -text <~/.fedora-server-ca.cert"). What's
> suddenly "invalid" about it now? ("-d" doesn't provide any additional
> information). It would be really helpful, especially to us less-frequent
> packagers, if the error message could give a clue what might be wrong or how
> to solve it.
>
> Trying to be constructive, I thought maybe fedora-packager-setup or
> fedora-cert might give me some more info. However...
>
> $ fedora-packager-setup
> Setting up Fedora packager environment
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "/usr/bin/fedora-packager-setup", line 123, in
> main()
> File "/usr/bin/fedora-packager-setup", line 103, in main
> if fedora_cert.certificate_expired():
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/fedora_cert/__init__.py", line 83,
> in certificate_expired
> if my_cert.has_expired():
> AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'has_expired'
>
> $ fedora-cert
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "/usr/bin/fedora-cert", line 85, in
> main(opts)
> File "/usr/bin/fedora-cert", line 52, in main
> if fedora_cert.certificate_expired():
> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/fedora_cert/__init__.py", line 83,
> in certificate_expired
> if my_cert.has_expired():
> AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'has_expired'
>
>
> This seems to be a >1 year old bug:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1412260
>
> If I remove ~/.fedora.upn (why?) and re-run fedora-packager-setup, I
> apparently get a new ~/.fedora-server-ca.cert, but the mysterious "invalid
> path" error remains.
>
> Any pointers?
>
> Thanks
>
> Tim
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
--
Regards,
Chenxiong Qi
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Release rpkg-1.53
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 6:29 PM, Miroslav Suchý <msu...@redhat.com> wrote: > Dne 11.4.2018 v 04:34 Chenxiong Qi napsal(a): >> This is the first version delivering Python 3 package, which is >> python3-rpkg. Thanks Miro Hrončok for making the patch. > > Is it possible to rename the source package to python-rpkg? (I will happily > do the package review). Created issue https://pagure.io/rpkg/issue/307 for this rename. > > Because we have source package rpkg, which does have pythonX-rpkg, and no > binary of /usr/bin/rpkg. > > And then we have (currently under package review) source package rpkg-util, > which create binary package rpkg, which > provides /usr/bin/rpkg > I guess that it can confuse some people. > > Miroslav > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org -- Regards, Chenxiong Qi ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Release rpkg-1.53
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Tomasz Kłoczko <kloczko.tom...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11 April 2018 at 03:34, Chenxiong Qi <c...@redhat.com> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> A new version rpkg-1.53 is released. >> >> This is the first version delivering Python 3 package, which is >> python3-rpkg. Thanks Miro Hrončok for making the patch. > [..] > > It would be good to port fedpkg to python 3. > Someone is working on this? And/or what still is missing do make such > transition? It's in progress. Please following https://pagure.io/fedpkg/issue/180 > > kloczek > -- > Tomasz Kłoczko | LinkedIn: http://lnkd.in/FXPWxH > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org -- Regards, Chenxiong Qi ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Release rpkg-1.53
Hi all, A new version rpkg-1.53 is released. This is the first version delivering Python 3 package, which is python3-rpkg. Thanks Miro Hrončok for making the patch. rpkg is also available from PyPI. Changelog - Use NSVs and not build IDs with module-build-local --add-local-build (mprahl) - Fix docstring of test_module_build_local_with_skiptests (mprahl) - Add long_description to package (cqi) - Support local module builds when there are uncommitted changes (mprahl) - Fix clarifying error that occurs when mbs-manager is not installed (mprahl) - Add support for Module Stream Expansion (MBS API v2) (mprahl) - Show errors when a module build fails (mprahl) - Move full download url construction to separate method (frostyx) - Fix compose related params for container-build (lucarval) - Avoid calling /usr/bin/python in tests (miro) - Change default rpmlint configuration file (athoscr) - Use koji.grab_session_options() rather than opencoding it (cfergeau) Updates: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?builds=rpkg-1.53-1.fc27=rpkg-1.53-1.fc26=rpkg-1.53-1.el6=rpkg-1.53-1.el7 -- Regards, Chenxiong Qi ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
--module-name or some other name?
Hi all, Recently, a fedpkg global option --module-name could confuse some packagers easily because word "module" is sort of ambiguous with the module introduced by Fedora Modularity. This option is used for specifying a repository name manually instead of guessing that from git push URL or the macro name in SPEC file. To avoid the confusion, it would be nice to use another name, for example --repository-name or --package-name. I personally prefer the former one. Before making this change, I'd like to hear your thoughts. * --repository-name or --package-name, what do you think which one is proper for fedpkg? * How do you use --module-name in your practice? * Is it ok to rename it directly without keeping the original name, or to keep --module-name for a period of time so that you have time to migrate to new name? Thanks. Regards, Chenxiong Qi ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: fedpkg request-repo always fails - Could not execute request_repo
On Fri, 2018-02-16 at 10:33 +, Martin Gansser wrote: > Hi, > > tried to create a new repo, but this fails always with: > > [martin@f27 ~]$ fedpkg --module-name gnome-shell-extension-netspeed > request-repo 1377631 > Could not execute request_repo: The following error occurred while > creating a new issue in Pagure: Invalid or expired token. Please > visit https://pagure.io/ to get or renew your API token. Have you checked if the token is valid, like permission? > > already create a new API Token on [1] and migrate the API token > described here [2] > > [1] https://pagure.io/ > [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/fedrepo-req-to-fedpkg#Migr > ation > > any help ? > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Release fedpkg-1.32
Hi all, A new version fedpkg-1.32 is released. Changelog - Add requests-tests-repo command (mvadkert) - Use PDC instead of Bodhi to get the active release branches - #187 (mprahl) - fix broken syntax in bash completion (tmz) - Fix Python 3 incompatible code in tests (cqi) - Better mocking. Return different values for each new request. (rbean) - Typofix. (rbean) - Add docstrings. (rbean) - Automatically request module for non-standard branches. (rbean) - Refactor: parameterize the request_repo and request_branch functionality. (rbean) - Some additions to the gitignore file. (rbean) Updates: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?builds=fedpkg-1.32-1.fc27=fedpkg-1.32-1.fc26=fedpkg-1.32-1.el6=fedpkg-1.32-1.el7 -- Regards, Chenxiong Qi ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Clean up your spec files
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 9:09 PM, Miroslav Suchý <msu...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I am sometimes reviewing spec files and I very often see common mistakes. I
> mean in packages which are already in
> Fedora. For a long time and they have some dust from past times.
>
> I am not going to file bug reports as those are not bugs. I will just point
> it here and leave it up to you to check your
> spec files:
>
> * Group: System Environment/Base
>
> Please remove it. Group was intended for something (sort apps in menus), but
> it never actually worked. It was required
> for EL5 packages. Since EL6 it can be omitted. And nowadays it is recommended
> to remove it completely.
>
>
> * rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
>
> In the past, it was necessary to clean the buildroot at the beginning of
> %install and the end of %clean. This is no
> longer true and not needed since F12.
Not needed in EL6 as well?
>
> * %defattr(-,root,root,-)
>
> If you have this at the top of your %files section, then you can safely
> remove it. This is default since rpm 4.2, so it
> is not needed even for RHEL5.
>
> * Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
>
> RPM define builroot variable since F12 (and EL6). There is no need to define
> it yourself.
>
> Miroslav
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
--
Regards,
Chenxiong Qi
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: fedpkg failed to retire package
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 8:46 PM, Zamir SUN <z...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Hi Chenxiong, > >> What's the fedpkg version are you using? >> > > I was using fedpkg-1.28-1.fc26.noarch that day. > I try update and get 1.29-5.fc26 now. While I already executed on all > branches of portpub. So do I need to run fedpkg retire again with this > new version? I don't think you need to run it again. BTW, retiring package from pkgdb had been removed since fedpkg-1.29. > > Thanks. > > -- > Ziqian SUN (Zamir) > GPG : 1D86 6D4A 49CE 4BBD 72CF FCF5 D856 6E11 F2A0 525E > Want to know more about Fedora? > Visit https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ > Ready to contribute? See https://whatcanidoforfedora.org/ -- Regards, Chenxiong Qi ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: fedpkg failed to retire package
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Zamir SUN <z...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Hi allm > > When I try to retire package using the following command, some error > shows up > `fedpkg retire "Renamed to popub"` > >> $ fedpkg retire "Renamed to popub" >> /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/fedora/client/bodhi.py:48: >> DeprecationWarning: fedora.client.bodhi has been deprecated. Please use >> bodhi.client.bindings instead. >> DeprecationWarning) >> rm '.gitignore' >> rm 'README.md' >> rm 'portpub-conf' >> rm 'portpub.spec' >> rm 'sources' >> [f26 9b7905a] Renamed to popub >> 6 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 96 deletions(-) >> delete mode 100644 .gitignore >> delete mode 100644 README.md >> create mode 100644 dead.package >> delete mode 100644 portpub-conf >> delete mode 100644 portpub.spec >> delete mode 100644 sources >> Counting objects: 3, done. >> Delta compression using up to 4 threads. >> Compressing objects: 100% (1/1), done. >> Writing objects: 100% (3/3), 268 bytes | 268.00 KiB/s, done. >> Total 3 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0) >> remote: Emitting a message to the fedmsg bus. >> remote: * Publishing information for 1 commits >> remote: * Notifying alternative-arch people >> remote: Sending to redis to send commit notification emails >> To ssh://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/rpms/portpub >>8ec0602..9b7905a f26 -> f26 >> FAS password for user zsun: >> Could not execute retire: Un-expected openid provider asked: >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/ > > Since pkgdb is retired already, I think might be the cause. But I still > want to know if I can ignore the error, or I am using the command in a > wrong way? > > Thanks in advance. > -- > Ziqian SUN (Zamir) > z...@fedoraproject.org > GPG : 1D86 6D4A 49CE 4BBD 72CF FCF5 D856 6E11 F2A0 525E > Want to know more about Fedora? > Visit https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org What's the fedpkg version are you using? -- Regards, Chenxiong Qi ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Could not execute retire
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon <pin...@pingoured.fr> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 03:18:10PM +0800, Chenxiong Qi wrote: >> fedpkg-1.29 should work with python2-rpkg-1.50 together. > > Maybe we could make fedpkg-1.29 Requires: python2-rpkg >= 1.50 ? > Good idea :) I have already made a PR. Thanks. > > Pierre > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org -- Regards, Chenxiong Qi ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Could not execute retire
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Honggang LI <ho...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 02:28:26PM +0800, Chenxiong Qi wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Honggang LI <ho...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404043#c41 >> > >> > As new rdma-core package had been imported to fedora-27, I'm working >> > on retire the old user space rdma stack packages. I only run the retire >> > command on branch 'f27' and 'master'. Branches older than f27 will be >> > kept. >> > >> > For example: >> > = >> > [honli@localhost libmlx4 (f27)]$ fedpkg retire 'Obsoleted by rdma-core' >> > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/fedora/client/bodhi.py:48: >> > DeprecationWarning: fedora.client.bodhi has been deprecated. Please use >> > bodhi.client.bindings instead. >> > DeprecationWarning) >> > rm '.gitignore' >> > rm '0001-Add-ibv_query_port-caching-support.patch' >> > rm '0002-Add-RoCE-IP-based-addressing-support-for-UD-QPs.patch' >> > rm '0002-libmlx4-add-s390x-platform-support.patch' >> > rm 'libmlx4-1.0.6-compiler-warnings.patch' >> > rm 'libmlx4-checksum.mbox' >> > rm 'libmlx4-dracut-module-setup.sh' >> > rm 'libmlx4.spec' >> > rm 'sources' >> > [f27 c10fec4] Obsoleted by rdma-core >> > 10 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 890 deletions(-) >> > delete mode 100644 .gitignore >> > delete mode 100644 0001-Add-ibv_query_port-caching-support.patch >> > delete mode 100644 >> > 0002-Add-RoCE-IP-based-addressing-support-for-UD-QPs.patch >> > delete mode 100644 0002-libmlx4-add-s390x-platform-support.patch >> > create mode 100644 dead.package >> > delete mode 100644 libmlx4-1.0.6-compiler-warnings.patch >> > delete mode 100644 libmlx4-checksum.mbox >> > delete mode 100644 libmlx4-dracut-module-setup.sh >> > delete mode 100644 libmlx4.spec >> > delete mode 100644 sources >> > Counting objects: 3, done. >> > Delta compression using up to 8 threads. >> > Compressing objects: 100% (1/1), done. >> > Writing objects: 100% (3/3), 281 bytes | 0 bytes/s, done. >> > Total 3 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0) >> > remote: Emitting a message to the fedmsg bus. >> > remote: * Publishing information for 1 commits >> > remote: * Notifying alternative-arch people >> > To ssh://ho...@pkgs.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libmlx4 >> >9d18640..c10fec4 f27 -> f27 >> > FAS password for user honli: >> > Could not execute retire: Un-expected openid provider asked: >> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/ >> > [honli@localhost libmlx4 (f27)]$ ls >> > dead.package >> > [honli@localhost libmlx4 (f27)]$ >> > = >> > >> > Can I ignore this error message? >> > "Could not execute retire: Un-expected openid provider asked: >> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/; >> > >> > >> > >> > And as "PkgDB is in read-only mode", I had been re-direct to >> > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/WhatHappenedToPkgdb . >> > Section "3.5 How do I retire a package?" is very simple compare to link >> > [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life . >> > >> > I'm confused. Which link I should follow [1] or [2]? >> > >> >> Hi Honggang, >> >> Looks like you need the new version of fedpkg-1.29, which is in Bodhi[1]. > > I was using fedpkg-1.28-1.fc24.noarch, after I update it to > fedpkg-1.29-1.fc26.noarch pointed by link [1]. fedpkg can't work > at all. > > [honli@localhost fedora]$ fedpkg clone libmlx5 > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/fedora/client/bodhi.py:48: > DeprecationWarning: fedora.client.bodhi has been deprecated. Please use > bodhi.client.bindings instead. > DeprecationWarning) > Could not execute clone: 'kojiconfig' > [honli@localhost fedora]$ > > [honli@localhost fedora]$ fedpkg clone libmthca > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/fedora/client/bodhi.py:48: > DeprecationWarning: fedora.client.bodhi has been deprecated. Please use > bodhi.client.bindings instead. > DeprecationWarning) > Could not execute clone: 'kojiconfig' > [honli@localhost fedora]$ > fedpkg-1.29 should work with python2-rpkg-1.50 together. > I also test fedpkg-1.29-1.fc26.noarch with a fresh Fedora
Re: Could not execute retire
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Honggang LI <ho...@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi, > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404043#c41 > > As new rdma-core package had been imported to fedora-27, I'm working > on retire the old user space rdma stack packages. I only run the retire > command on branch 'f27' and 'master'. Branches older than f27 will be > kept. > > For example: > = > [honli@localhost libmlx4 (f27)]$ fedpkg retire 'Obsoleted by rdma-core' > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/fedora/client/bodhi.py:48: > DeprecationWarning: fedora.client.bodhi has been deprecated. Please use > bodhi.client.bindings instead. > DeprecationWarning) > rm '.gitignore' > rm '0001-Add-ibv_query_port-caching-support.patch' > rm '0002-Add-RoCE-IP-based-addressing-support-for-UD-QPs.patch' > rm '0002-libmlx4-add-s390x-platform-support.patch' > rm 'libmlx4-1.0.6-compiler-warnings.patch' > rm 'libmlx4-checksum.mbox' > rm 'libmlx4-dracut-module-setup.sh' > rm 'libmlx4.spec' > rm 'sources' > [f27 c10fec4] Obsoleted by rdma-core > 10 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 890 deletions(-) > delete mode 100644 .gitignore > delete mode 100644 0001-Add-ibv_query_port-caching-support.patch > delete mode 100644 0002-Add-RoCE-IP-based-addressing-support-for-UD-QPs.patch > delete mode 100644 0002-libmlx4-add-s390x-platform-support.patch > create mode 100644 dead.package > delete mode 100644 libmlx4-1.0.6-compiler-warnings.patch > delete mode 100644 libmlx4-checksum.mbox > delete mode 100644 libmlx4-dracut-module-setup.sh > delete mode 100644 libmlx4.spec > delete mode 100644 sources > Counting objects: 3, done. > Delta compression using up to 8 threads. > Compressing objects: 100% (1/1), done. > Writing objects: 100% (3/3), 281 bytes | 0 bytes/s, done. > Total 3 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0) > remote: Emitting a message to the fedmsg bus. > remote: * Publishing information for 1 commits > remote: * Notifying alternative-arch people > To ssh://ho...@pkgs.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libmlx4 >9d18640..c10fec4 f27 -> f27 > FAS password for user honli: > Could not execute retire: Un-expected openid provider asked: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/ > [honli@localhost libmlx4 (f27)]$ ls > dead.package > [honli@localhost libmlx4 (f27)]$ > = > > Can I ignore this error message? > "Could not execute retire: Un-expected openid provider asked: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/; > > > > And as "PkgDB is in read-only mode", I had been re-direct to > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/WhatHappenedToPkgdb . > Section "3.5 How do I retire a package?" is very simple compare to link > [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life . > > I'm confused. Which link I should follow [1] or [2]? > Hi Honggang, Looks like you need the new version of fedpkg-1.29, which is in Bodhi[1]. [1] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=rpkg=testing=pending > thanks > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org -- Regards, Chenxiong Qi ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: git push fails for new packages
On Thu, 2017-08-17 at 15:18 +0800, Chenxiong Qi wrote: > On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 11:31 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On 08/16/2017 11:18 AM, Martin Gansser wrote: > > > i still get the message koji not in list errors, some works... > > > some > > > doesn't ... > > > > > > BuildError: package nuvola-app-mixcloud not in list for tag f25- > > > updates-candidate > > > BuildError: package nuvola-app-google-play-music not in list for > > > tag f26-updates-candidate > > > BuildError: package nuvola-app-google-play-music not in list for > > > tag f25-updates-candidate > > > > The script that syncs this got stuck this morning. :( > > > > It's running again now... it takes about 30min or so to run, so > > things > > should be all updated after that. > > > > Additionally, we are replacing this script with one that listens to > > fedmsgs and on new branches just adds those, so hopefully after > > today > > they should get added right after the branch. > > > > The slow script will still run once a day to make sure no requests > > were > > dropped. > > > > kevin > > > > I just forked fedpkg minutes ago when writing this mail. I also can't > push to my forked repo. > > I got these fetch and push urls. > > mydev ssh://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/forks/cqi/rpms/fedpkg.git > (fetch) > mydev ssh://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/forks/cqi/rpms/fedpkg.git > (push) > > and got similar error reported originally in this thread, > > FATAL: W any forks/cqi/rpms/fedpkg cqi DENIED by fallthru > (or you mis-spelled the reponame) > fatal: Could not read from remote repository. > > Please make sure you have the correct access rights > and the repository exists. > It works now. Thanks. > > > > > ___ > > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: git push fails for new packages
On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 11:31 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On 08/16/2017 11:18 AM, Martin Gansser wrote: > > i still get the message koji not in list errors, some works... some > > doesn't ... > > > > BuildError: package nuvola-app-mixcloud not in list for tag f25- > > updates-candidate > > BuildError: package nuvola-app-google-play-music not in list for > > tag f26-updates-candidate > > BuildError: package nuvola-app-google-play-music not in list for > > tag f25-updates-candidate > > The script that syncs this got stuck this morning. :( > > It's running again now... it takes about 30min or so to run, so > things > should be all updated after that. > > Additionally, we are replacing this script with one that listens to > fedmsgs and on new branches just adds those, so hopefully after today > they should get added right after the branch. > > The slow script will still run once a day to make sure no requests > were > dropped. > > kevin > I just forked fedpkg minutes ago when writing this mail. I also can't push to my forked repo. I got these fetch and push urls. mydev ssh://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/forks/cqi/rpms/fedpkg.git (fetch) mydev ssh://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/forks/cqi/rpms/fedpkg.git (push) and got similar error reported originally in this thread, FATAL: W any forks/cqi/rpms/fedpkg cqi DENIED by fallthru (or you mis-spelled the reponame) fatal: Could not read from remote repository. Please make sure you have the correct access rights and the repository exists. > > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: koji-1.13 cannot be resolved as a dependency in f25
On Sat, 2017-08-12 at 10:10 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 10:45:29 +0800, Chenxiong Qi wrote: > > > [root@e151b05870c7 pkgs]# dnf repoquery koji > > Last metadata expiration check: 0:01:39 ago on Sat Aug 12 02:25:14 > > 2017. > > koji-0:1.10.1-13.fc25.noarch > > koji-0:1.13.0-2.fc25.noarch > > > > and koji-1.13 is listed by resolving the dependencies > > > > [root@e151b05870c7 pkgs]# dnf repoquery --requires --resolve fedpkg > > Last metadata expiration check: 0:04:56 ago on Sat Aug 12 02:25:14 > > 2017. > > bodhi-client-0:0.9.12.2-6.fc25.noarch > > fedora-cert-0:0.6.0.1-1.fc25.noarch > > koji-0:1.13.0-2.fc25.noarch > > packagedb-cli-0:2.14.1-1.fc25.noarch > > pyrpkg-0:1.46-5.fc25.noarch > > python-0:2.7.13-2.fc25.i686 > > python-0:2.7.13-2.fc25.x86_64 > > python-fedora-0:0.8.0-2.fc25.noarch > > python-libs-0:2.7.13-2.fc25.i686 > > python-libs-0:2.7.13-2.fc25.x86_64 > > python-pycurl-0:7.43.0-4.fc25.x86_64 > > python2-fedora-0:0.9.0-6.fc25.noarch > > python2-pycurl-0:7.43.0-6.fc25.x86_64 > > python2-rpkg-0:1.49-6.fc25.noarch > > redhat-rpm-config-0:45-1.fc25.noarch > > > > The problem is, when start to install fedpkg, koji-1.10 is resolved > > rather than version 1.13 > > > > [root@e151b05870c7 pkgs]# dnf install fedpkg > > Last metadata expiration check: 0:10:38 ago on Sat Aug 12 02:25:14 > > 2017. > > Dependencies resolved. > > === > > = > > Package Arch Version > > Repository Size > > === > > = > > Installing: > > ... > > koji noarch 1.10.1-13.fc25 > > fedora 279 k > > ... > > > > This problem does not affect fedpkg but also other packages, e.g. > > bodhi-client and packagedb-cli, that has "Requires: koji" in SPEC > > file. I created a fake package with only koji in Requires, this > > problem can also be reproduced with it. > > Your analysis is incomplete. It's not sufficient to claim there is an > issue. "Requires: koji" is non-versioned, so the depsolver behaviour > is > implementation dependent. It may pull in _either_ build of the koji > package > to satisfy the dependencies. There is no rule [yet] that would pull > in the > latest EVR of a package already when installing it for the first > time. Yum Tested `dnf install fedpkg' in Fedora 26, koji-1.13 can be resolved from updates repository. Why does dnf behave differently? > hasn't done it, with its author refusing to change that behaviour, > and DNF > probably mimics that behaviour. A subsequent "dnf update" may update > koji > immediately. Have you tested that? I haven't tested it yet, because it make no sense as `dnf install fedpkg' fails due to the conflict between python2-koji and koji-1.10. In Fedora 25, koji-1.13 can be resolved when `dnf install koji'. So, there is a workaround that is to install koji in advance, then fedpkg. > Further, it is absolutely normal that some packages exist in the > repos > with multiple builds. For example, the initial release in the > [fedora] > repo, an update in the [updates] repo, and for several years in the > past, > older repository maintenance tools have kept multiple builds in the > repos. > That could become the default again in the future. > > And finally, it could be that there's a real issue that would require > a > detailed look at the packages, which may cause dnf to not choose the > latest koji for the initial transaction set. > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
koji-1.13 cannot be resolved as a dependency in f25
Hi, I found this issue when installing fedpkg in either f25 container or VM. There are two koji versions in f25 repos, following steps run in a f25 container [root@e151b05870c7 pkgs]# dnf repoquery koji Last metadata expiration check: 0:01:39 ago on Sat Aug 12 02:25:14 2017. koji-0:1.10.1-13.fc25.noarch koji-0:1.13.0-2.fc25.noarch and koji-1.13 is listed by resolving the dependencies [root@e151b05870c7 pkgs]# dnf repoquery --requires --resolve fedpkg Last metadata expiration check: 0:04:56 ago on Sat Aug 12 02:25:14 2017. bodhi-client-0:0.9.12.2-6.fc25.noarch fedora-cert-0:0.6.0.1-1.fc25.noarch koji-0:1.13.0-2.fc25.noarch packagedb-cli-0:2.14.1-1.fc25.noarch pyrpkg-0:1.46-5.fc25.noarch python-0:2.7.13-2.fc25.i686 python-0:2.7.13-2.fc25.x86_64 python-fedora-0:0.8.0-2.fc25.noarch python-libs-0:2.7.13-2.fc25.i686 python-libs-0:2.7.13-2.fc25.x86_64 python-pycurl-0:7.43.0-4.fc25.x86_64 python2-fedora-0:0.9.0-6.fc25.noarch python2-pycurl-0:7.43.0-6.fc25.x86_64 python2-rpkg-0:1.49-6.fc25.noarch redhat-rpm-config-0:45-1.fc25.noarch The problem is, when start to install fedpkg, koji-1.10 is resolved rather than version 1.13 [root@e151b05870c7 pkgs]# dnf install fedpkg Last metadata expiration check: 0:10:38 ago on Sat Aug 12 02:25:14 2017. Dependencies resolved. Package Arch Version Repository Size Installing: ... koji noarch 1.10.1-13.fc25 fedora 279 k ... This problem does not affect fedpkg but also other packages, e.g. bodhi-client and packagedb-cli, that has "Requires: koji" in SPEC file. I created a fake package with only koji in Requires, this problem can also be reproduced with it. -- Regards, Chenxiong Qi ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
New Release: fedpkg-1.28
Hello Fedora Devs, You might have known that a new release of fedpkg-1.28 has been available and in the Bodhi update now. It fixes bug 1425913[1]. [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1425913 -- Regards, Chenxiong Qi ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
New Release: rpkg-1.49 and fedpkg-1.27
Hello Fedora Devs, I just made new release of rpkg-1.49 and fedpkg-1.27. Both of them are in Bodhi update now. Changelog: fedpkg - Python 3.6 invalid escape sequence deprecation fixes (ville.skytta) - Disable tag inheritance check - #98 (cqi) - Enable the fix to allow anonymous clone via https rpkg - More upload PyCURL fixes for EL 7 (merlin) - Move tag inheritance check into a separate method (cqi) -- Regards, Chenxiong Qi ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Packagers - Flag day 2016 Important changes
On 12/12/2016 12:37 PM, Chenxiong Qi wrote: On 12/12/2016 08:58 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Dennis Gilmore <den...@ausil.us> wrote: Greetings. As previously announced, releng has made a number of changes as part of it's 2016 "flag day". All package maintainers will want to make sure they have updated to the following package versions (some may be in testing as of this email): python-cccolutils-1.4-1 fedpkg-1.26-2 There will be a new build fedpkg-1.26-3 today, that contains two fixes found during the testing. https://pagure.io/fedpkg/c/28897b7f9365f36713b87eb475d721854f3abfa1?branch=master https://pagure.io/fedpkg/c/4a5ea803d3fed49287f7feb4a750e86565d7?branch=master Thanks Igor for fixing the issue. New build fedpkg-1.26-3 is now available in Koji and bodhi process. This should work well with pkgs and Koji. Anyway, please have a try and test it in your workflow. fedora-packager-0.6.0.0-1 pyrpkg-1.47-3 koji-1.11.0-1 Note that only python-cccolutils is in stable for F25. The rest are all still in updates-testing. josh ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org -- Regards, Chenxiong Qi ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Packagers - Flag day 2016 Important changes
On 12/12/2016 08:58 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Dennis Gilmore <den...@ausil.us> wrote: Greetings. As previously announced, releng has made a number of changes as part of it's 2016 "flag day". All package maintainers will want to make sure they have updated to the following package versions (some may be in testing as of this email): python-cccolutils-1.4-1 fedpkg-1.26-2 There will be a new build fedpkg-1.26-3 today, that contains two fixes found during the testing. https://pagure.io/fedpkg/c/28897b7f9365f36713b87eb475d721854f3abfa1?branch=master https://pagure.io/fedpkg/c/4a5ea803d3fed49287f7feb4a750e86565d7?branch=master Thanks Igor for fixing the issue. fedora-packager-0.6.0.0-1 pyrpkg-1.47-3 koji-1.11.0-1 Note that only python-cccolutils is in stable for F25. The rest are all still in updates-testing. josh ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org -- Regards, Chenxiong Qi ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Packagers - Flag day 2016 Important changes
On 12/12/2016 11:22 AM, gil wrote:
Il 12/12/2016 04:07, Mike McLean ha scritto:
Success here.
Possible gotchas, depending on setup:
1) make sure your krb5.conf has:
includedir /etc/krb5.conf.d/
2) if you have any custom koji config, you might need to adjust that.
You need the some of the updated settings from koji.conf in the latest
koji build.
hi
i get:
aesh]$ fedpkg build
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pyrpkg/__init__.py:314:
DeprecationWarning: BaseException.message has been deprecated as of
Python 2.6
for (_, _, ssl_reason) in error.message:
You might want to run fedora-packager-setup to regenerate SSL
certificate. For more info see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_the_Koji_build_system#Fedora_Account_System_.28FAS2.29_Setup
Could not execute build: Could not auth with koji. Login failed: [('SSL
routines', 'ssl3_get_server_certificate', 'certificate verify failed')]
my "certs" are just refreshed
Hi gil,
Could you run it again with -d and -v? What version of fedpkg are you using?
regards
On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 9:46 PM, gil <punto...@libero.it> wrote:
Il 12/12/2016 03:08, Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich ha scritto:
* koji and the source lookaside were changed to use kerberos
authentication
instead of ssl certificates. All maintainers will need to:
kinit your-fas-accountn...@fedoraaproject.org
$ kinit kr...@fedoraproject.org
kinit: Client 'kr...@fedoraproject.org' not found in Kerberos database
while getting initial credentials
Any clues?
Dmitrij
try with
KRB5_TRACE=/dev/stdout kinit -R kr...@fedoraproject.org
KRB5_TRACE=/dev/stdout kinit kr...@fedoraproject.org
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
--
Regards,
Chenxiong Qi
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Still use fedpkg to build docker images in OSBS?
On 11/29/2016 10:54 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:32:46PM +0800, Chenxiong Qi wrote: Hi, sorry for the confusion. I meant I'd like to know whether some packagers still use this command to build docker images in OSBS directly fedpkg container-build --build-with osbs A separate command could make rpkg more modularized, and it will certainly benefit downstream package tools to customize themselves easily with less "magic code". For example the rhpkg, it's used to build docker images just by interacting with Brew (aka Koji), so osbs related options were removed from command line. Oh, I see. Yes, in Fedora we want everyone to use fedpkg container-build through koji only, not directly (except possibly for a few select people for diagnostic purposes). Okay. Thank you very much. :) -- Regards, Chenxiong Qi ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Still use fedpkg to build docker images in OSBS?
On 11/29/2016 09:24 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 01:50:29PM +0800, Chenxiong Qi wrote: What I know so far is that docker images are built in Koji by the container build plugin. I'd like to know if the osbs functionality in fedpkg is still useful for some of you. This could be helpful to determine whether to remove osbs from package tool totally, or just make it a standalone command (separated from container-build command) so that some packagers are still able to use it to build images in OSBS directly. Hi -- I'm not sure I understand the question. Using fedpkg to build Fedora container images is a key part of our plan. What would be the benefit of a separate command? Hi, sorry for the confusion. I meant I'd like to know whether some packagers still use this command to build docker images in OSBS directly fedpkg container-build --build-with osbs A separate command could make rpkg more modularized, and it will certainly benefit downstream package tools to customize themselves easily with less "magic code". For example the rhpkg, it's used to build docker images just by interacting with Brew (aka Koji), so osbs related options were removed from command line. -- Regards, Chenxiong Qi ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Still use fedpkg to build docker images in OSBS?
Hi, What I know so far is that docker images are built in Koji by the container build plugin. I'd like to know if the osbs functionality in fedpkg is still useful for some of you. This could be helpful to determine whether to remove osbs from package tool totally, or just make it a standalone command (separated from container-build command) so that some packagers are still able to use it to build images in OSBS directly. -- Regards, Chenxiong Qi ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: GitPython update blocked by rpkg - how can this be resolved?
On 11/12/2016 01:01 AM, Barry wrote: Barry On 10 Nov 2016, at 15:21, Chenxiong Qi <c...@redhat.com> wrote: On 11/10/2016 09:42 PM, Barry Scott wrote: In this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360797 It is implied that rpkg has an unspecified problem with GitPython 2.0. This is preventing the maintainer from updating to the any GitPython 2 release. I'd like to know if there is in fact a problem with rpkg with GitPython 2.0. Import error here. File "/root/code/rpkg/pyrpkg/__init__.py", line 14, in import git File "/root/rpkg-env/lib/python2.6/site-packages/git/__init__.py", line 38, in from git.config import GitConfigParser # @NoMove @IgnorePep8 File "/root/rpkg-env/lib/python2.6/site-packages/git/config.py", line 25, in from git.util import LockFile File "/root/rpkg-env/lib/python2.6/site-packages/git/util.py", line 18, in from unittest.case import SkipTest ImportError: No module named case GitPython >= 2 cannot work with Python 2.6 at all. So on a system where you want to use rpkg with python 2.6 use GitPython 1. But that is no reason to stop updating GitPython 2 for Fedora 24 where python 2.7 Is used for rpkg right? I've tested GitPython >= 2 with rpkg by running all existent tests, that covers most of the calls to GitPython API. All tests passed, and I don't see an issue. I'm glad to see the upgrade too. I think the upgrade should not be a big issue to rpkg, as there is still GitPython 1.x in EPEL6. Barry If there is a problem it would be nice if the rpkg people could comment on the difficult of supporting GitPython 2. The python2.6 support question I suspect can be handled by version checking in any conflicting code. It seems wrong that rpkg is blocking updating to the latest GitPython, preventing user of GitPython getting the bugs fixes and (as far as I am aware) backwards compatible improvements. Barry ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org -- Regards, Chenxiong Qi ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org -- Regards, Chenxiong Qi ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: GitPython update blocked by rpkg - how can this be resolved?
On 11/10/2016 09:42 PM, Barry Scott wrote: In this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360797 It is implied that rpkg has an unspecified problem with GitPython 2.0. This is preventing the maintainer from updating to the any GitPython 2 release. I'd like to know if there is in fact a problem with rpkg with GitPython 2.0. Import error here. File "/root/code/rpkg/pyrpkg/__init__.py", line 14, in import git File "/root/rpkg-env/lib/python2.6/site-packages/git/__init__.py", line 38, in from git.config import GitConfigParser # @NoMove @IgnorePep8 File "/root/rpkg-env/lib/python2.6/site-packages/git/config.py", line 25, in from git.util import LockFile File "/root/rpkg-env/lib/python2.6/site-packages/git/util.py", line 18, in from unittest.case import SkipTest ImportError: No module named case GitPython >= 2 cannot work with Python 2.6 at all. If there is a problem it would be nice if the rpkg people could comment on the difficult of supporting GitPython 2. The python2.6 support question I suspect can be handled by version checking in any conflicting code. It seems wrong that rpkg is blocking updating to the latest GitPython, preventing user of GitPython getting the bugs fixes and (as far as I am aware) backwards compatible improvements. Barry ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org -- Regards, Chenxiong Qi ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fwd: Broken dependencies: fedpkg
I have no idea why this happens. Can anyone (maybe Bodhi developers I guess, I'm not sure) help to solve this? Forwarded Message Subject: Broken dependencies: fedpkg Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 14:21:23 + (UTC) From: build...@fedoraproject.org To: fedpkg-ow...@fedoraproject.org fedpkg has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree: On ppc64: fedpkg-1.25-1.fc26.noarch requires bodhi-client Please resolve this as soon as possible. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
