Orphaning gedit-valencia -- Re: Removing packages that have broken dependencies in F21 tree
Hi, On 11/13/2014 08:20 PM, Kalev Lember wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to remove the packages that still have broken dependencies > in the F21 tree. > > This is a followup to > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-October/203411.html > > It makes little sense to ship something that cannot even be installed. > We're about to enter the final freeze next week in order to wrap up F21; > after the gold release is done, fixes can no longer be pushed to the > base repo. This means that anything that shipped with broken > dependencies would stay that way in the base repo throughout the F21 > lifetime. > > To avoid that, I'll file a FESCo ticket next Monday to approve dropping > the following packages, unless they get fixed first: > ... > gedit-valencia Upstream (Yorba) has been aware of the breaking API changes in Gedit 3.12, but unfortunately lacks the manpower to fix it. There's a patch submitted in September that laid dormant, and unfortunately changes between Gedit 3.12 and 3.14 cause additional breakage. https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=724173 Unfortunately I don't have the time to devote to fixing this, so I'm pushing a final update for the Fedora 20 branch of gedit-valencia (containing some test patches that can be applied to get the codebase to compile on Fedora 21) but releasing ownership for F21 and master. Any Vala / GObject / Gedit maven willing to take this package up? Best regards, -- Michel Alexandre Salim Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/ Email: sali...@fedoraproject.org | GPG key ID: A36A937A IDs:keybase.io/michel-slm | IRC: michel_...@irc.freenode.net () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- 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: Taskotron depcheck broken/incomplete (was: Re: Removing packages that have broken dependencies in F21 tree)
Adam Williamson wrote: > http://tirfa.com/current-state-of-depcheck-and-paths-forward.html Sigh. This shows that once again a purported replacement for a working piece of software was deployed before it was able to perform the allegedly replaced tool's most important task, even though the problem was known to the replacement's developers. We really should not accept this kind of known regressions. > I'm sort-of volunteered to write the approach I suggested in a comment > as a new test, but it's going to have to wait until at least post-f21. Your approach indeed makes sense. It will not cause issues caused by added Conflicts or the like, but at least it catches the common case. (Just make sure you also consider Obsoleted packages as "the old package" whose Provides will no longer be available.) Kevin Kofler -- 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: Taskatron depcheck broken/incomplete (was: Re: Removing packages that have broken dependencies in F21 tree)
On Sun, 2014-11-16 at 01:21 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Kalev Lember wrote: > > 2) juffed was broken by > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-14301/ . Interestingly > > enough the update passed the Taskatron depcheck test there, even though it > > created a new broken dependency in the repo. > > The Taskatron depcheck appears to be broken or incomplete: It might be > effective at checking whether the new package has any broken dependencies, > but it definitely does not appear to check whether the update breaks OTHER > packages' dependencies (at least I've seen 2 instances where it didn't catch > that, and this is the third). The old AutoQA got that right. http://tirfa.com/current-state-of-depcheck-and-paths-forward.html I'm sort-of volunteered to write the approach I suggested in a comment as a new test, but it's going to have to wait until at least post-f21. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- 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: Removing packages that have broken dependencies in F21 tree
On 11/13/2014 02:20 PM, Kalev Lember wrote: > To avoid that, I'll file a FESCo ticket next Monday to approve dropping > the following packages, unless they get fixed first: I've filed the ticket now: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1368 In addition, 3 broken dependencies have pending fixes. Would be good to karma those up today so that they can be pushed to stable in advance of the freeze tomorrow: juffed: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/juffed-0.10-11.fc21 meshmagick: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/meshmagick-0.6.0-23.svn2898.fc21 totpcgi: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-15164/totpcgi-0.5.5-4.fc21 -- Thanks, Kalev -- 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: Taskotron depcheck broken/incomplete (was: Re: Removing packages that have broken dependencies in F21 tree)
I wrote: > The Taskatron depcheck appears to be broken or incomplete: It might be > effective at checking whether the new package has any broken dependencies, > but it definitely does not appear to check whether the update breaks OTHER > packages' dependencies (at least I've seen 2 instances where it didn't > catch that, and this is the third). The old AutoQA got that right. Another fun Taskotron depcheck bug, this time a false positive: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-14865 https://taskotron.fedoraproject.org/taskmaster//builders/x86_64/builds/13276/steps/runtask/logs/stdio Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Taskatron depcheck broken/incomplete (was: Re: Removing packages that have broken dependencies in F21 tree)
Kalev Lember wrote: > 2) juffed was broken by > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-14301/ . Interestingly > enough the update passed the Taskatron depcheck test there, even though it > created a new broken dependency in the repo. The Taskatron depcheck appears to be broken or incomplete: It might be effective at checking whether the new package has any broken dependencies, but it definitely does not appear to check whether the update breaks OTHER packages' dependencies (at least I've seen 2 instances where it didn't catch that, and this is the third). The old AutoQA got that right. Kevin Kofler -- 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: Removing packages that have broken dependencies in F21 tree
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 20:40:07 +0100 Till Maas wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 07:40:19PM +0100, Till Maas wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 03:20:03PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote: > > > > > totpcgi > > > > This requires an selinux export to make it build again: > > > > | + make NAME=mls -f /usr/share/selinux/devel/Makefile > > | Compiling mls totpcgi module > > | totpcgi.te:55: Warning: miscfiles_read_certs() has been > > deprecated, please use miscfiles_read_generic_certs() instead. | > > totpcgi.te:58: Warning: miscfiles_read_certs() has been deprecated, > > please use miscfiles_read_generic_certs() instead. | > > totpcgi.te:41:ERROR 'unknown type httpd_totpcgi_script_t' at token > > ';' on line 5216: | typeattribute httpd_totpcgi_script_t > > syslog_client_type; | #line 41 > > > > https://github.com/mricon/totp-cgi/issues/27 > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107456 > > Thanks to tfirg on #selinux I now know that this is because > > apache_content_template() > > does not add a "httpd_" prefix to types in F21+. Thanks for looking into this. I have requested commits on this package and in the mean time have done rawhide and f21 build with your fix. kevin pgp6GwYjRWG0V.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- 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: Removing packages that have broken dependencies in F21 tree
On 11/15/2014 11:52 AM, Till Maas wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 03:20:03PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote: > >> To avoid that, I'll file a FESCo ticket next Monday to approve dropping >> the following packages, unless they get fixed first: > > I can do the mass retirement if there is a final list and decision. Thanks Till. > Did you check that there are not packages listed that were just > recently broken? Most of those are longstanding (broken for more than a month), with two exceptions: 1) gdesklet-SlideShow and gdesklets-citation depend on gdesklets which appears to have been retired recently; 2) juffed was broken by https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-14301/ . Interestingly enough the update passed the Taskatron depcheck test there, even though it created a new broken dependency in the repo. > Also do you propose to retire the package only in F21 or also in > Rawhide? My gut feeling is to retire the broken packages in Rawhide as well, but it's ultimately up to FESCo to decide what to do. -- Kalev -- 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: Removing packages that have broken dependencies in F21 tree
On 11/15/2014 03:02 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Kalev Lember wrote: >> I would like to remove the packages that still have broken dependencies >> in the F21 tree. > > Please check for packages requiring those broken packages, and transitively > packages requiring packages requiring those broken packages etc. Otherwise, > you'll just add more broken dependencies. Thanks Kevin, that's a very good point. Here's the list of impacted dependant packages (package owners BCC'd): Depending on: deltacloud-core (1), status change: 2014-07-08 (18 weeks ago) condor-cloud (maintained by: imain) condor-cloud-0.1-8.fc21.noarch requires deltacloud-core = 1.1.3-1.fc20 Depending on: fatrat (1), status change: 2014-07-08 (18 weeks ago) fatrat-subtitlesearch (maintained by: cicku) fatrat-subtitlesearch-1.2.0-0.6.beta1.fc21.i686 requires fatrat(x86-32) = 1:1.2.0-0.21.beta2.fc21 fatrat-subtitlesearch-1.2.0-0.6.beta1.fc21.src requires fatrat-devel = 1:1.2.0-0.21.beta2.fc21 Depending on: gofer (1), status change: 2014-07-08 (18 weeks ago) katello-agent (maintained by: lzap) katello-agent-1.1.3-4.fc21.noarch requires gofer = 0.77.1-2.fc21, gofer-package = 0.77.1-2.fc21 Depending on: libghemical (1), status change: 2014-07-08 (18 weeks ago) ghemical (maintained by: cicku, tolland) ghemical-2.99.2-24.fc20.i686 requires libghemical = 2.99.1-24.fc20, libghemical.so.5 ghemical-2.99.2-24.fc20.src requires libghemical-devel = 2.99.1-24.fc20 Depending on: rubygem-rubigen (1), status change: 2014-07-08 (18 weeks ago) rubygem-newgem (maintained by: mmorsi) rubygem-newgem-1.5.3-11.fc21.noarch requires rubygem(rubigen) = 1.5.8, rubygem(rubigen) = 1.5.8-1 rubygem-newgem-1.5.3-11.fc21.src requires rubygem(rubigen) = 1.5.8, rubygem(rubigen) = 1.5.8-1 -- Kalev -- 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: Removing packages that have broken dependencies in F21 tree
We're not running the Transifex Server on the Fedora infrastructure. The Localization group has also decided to move to a self-managed Zanata instance anyway. The Transifex Client package is which is what many developers use. -d On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Matthias Runge wrote: > > yes, that's the package. But IMHO transifex became closed source, and > > last code change was about 2 years ago; since then, django changed quite > > a bit. > > So we now have core Fedora infrastructure depending on a proprietary third- > party web service? > > We should never have moved Fedora translations to the upstream Transifex > instance. We now need to either fork the last Free version and put it up on > Fedora Infrastructure, or replace it altogether. > > Kevin Kofler > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct > -- Dimitris Glezos Founder & CEO, Transifex http://www.transifex.com/ -- 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: Removing packages that have broken dependencies in F21 tree
On 11/13/2014 02:20 PM, Kalev Lember wrote: Hi, I would like to remove the packages that still have broken dependencies in the F21 tree. This is a followup to https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-October/203411.html It makes little sense to ship something that cannot even be installed. We're about to enter the final freeze next week in order to wrap up F21; after the gold release is done, fixes can no longer be pushed to the base repo. This means that anything that shipped with broken dependencies would stay that way in the base repo throughout the F21 lifetime. To avoid that, I'll file a FESCo ticket next Monday to approve dropping the following packages, unless they get fixed first: audtty authhub deltacloud-core django-recaptcha dragonegg edelib fatrat flush gdesklet-SlideShow gdesklets-citation gedit-valencia gofer gorm juffed leiningen libghemical libopensync-plugin-irmc ltsp meshmagick monodevelop-vala netdisco nwchem i have submitted nwchem update: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nwchem-6.5.26243-13.fc21 Best regards, Marcin ocaml-pa-do openslides openvas-client pootle python-askbot-fedmsg python-coffin python-django-addons python-django-longerusername rubygem-linecache19 rubygem-rubigen rubygem-ruby-debug-base19 sugar-tamtam totpcgi transifex valabind why zyGrib Please note that Fedora policies allow adding new packages in the updates repo, so even if something gets dropped now, it can always be fixed and shipped in the updates repo at a later date. -- 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: Removing packages that have broken dependencies in F21 tree
Kalev Lember wrote: > I would like to remove the packages that still have broken dependencies > in the F21 tree. Please check for packages requiring those broken packages, and transitively packages requiring packages requiring those broken packages etc. Otherwise, you'll just add more broken dependencies. Kevin Kofler -- 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: Removing packages that have broken dependencies in F21 tree
Matthias Runge wrote: > yes, that's the package. But IMHO transifex became closed source, and > last code change was about 2 years ago; since then, django changed quite > a bit. So we now have core Fedora infrastructure depending on a proprietary third- party web service? We should never have moved Fedora translations to the upstream Transifex instance. We now need to either fork the last Free version and put it up on Fedora Infrastructure, or replace it altogether. Kevin Kofler -- 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: Removing packages that have broken dependencies in F21 tree
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 03:20:03PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote: > To avoid that, I'll file a FESCo ticket next Monday to approve dropping > the following packages, unless they get fixed first: I can do the mass retirement if there is a final list and decision. Did you check that there are not packages listed that were just recently broken? Also do you propose to retire the package only in F21 or also in Rawhide? Regards Till -- 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: Removing packages that have broken dependencies in F21 tree
On 11/14/2014 02:15 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Dne 13.11.2014 v 14:20 Kalev Lember napsal(a): >> >> rubygem-linecache19 >> rubygem-ruby-debug-base19 > > Removing this two will break rubygem-ruby-debug19, so you should remove > it as well (unless maintainer fixes them, which does not appear to be > the case). I'll add it to the list, thanks! -- Kalev -- 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: Removing packages that have broken dependencies in F21 tree
Dne 13.11.2014 v 14:20 Kalev Lember napsal(a): > > rubygem-linecache19 > rubygem-ruby-debug-base19 Removing this two will break rubygem-ruby-debug19, so you should remove it as well (unless maintainer fixes them, which does not appear to be the case). Vír -- 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: Removing packages that have broken dependencies in F21 tree
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 07:40:19PM +0100, Till Maas wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 03:20:03PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote: > > > totpcgi > > This requires an selinux export to make it build again: > > | + make NAME=mls -f /usr/share/selinux/devel/Makefile > | Compiling mls totpcgi module > | totpcgi.te:55: Warning: miscfiles_read_certs() has been deprecated, please > use miscfiles_read_generic_certs() instead. > | totpcgi.te:58: Warning: miscfiles_read_certs() has been deprecated, please > use miscfiles_read_generic_certs() instead. > | totpcgi.te:41:ERROR 'unknown type httpd_totpcgi_script_t' at token ';' on > line 5216: > | typeattribute httpd_totpcgi_script_t syslog_client_type; > | #line 41 > > https://github.com/mricon/totp-cgi/issues/27 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107456 Thanks to tfirg on #selinux I now know that this is because apache_content_template() does not add a "httpd_" prefix to types in F21+. Regards Till -- 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: Removing packages that have broken dependencies in F21 tree
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 03:20:03PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote: > totpcgi This requires an selinux export to make it build again: | + make NAME=mls -f /usr/share/selinux/devel/Makefile | Compiling mls totpcgi module | totpcgi.te:55: Warning: miscfiles_read_certs() has been deprecated, please use miscfiles_read_generic_certs() instead. | totpcgi.te:58: Warning: miscfiles_read_certs() has been deprecated, please use miscfiles_read_generic_certs() instead. | totpcgi.te:41:ERROR 'unknown type httpd_totpcgi_script_t' at token ';' on line 5216: | typeattribute httpd_totpcgi_script_t syslog_client_type; | #line 41 https://github.com/mricon/totp-cgi/issues/27 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107456 Regards Till -- 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: Removing packages that have broken dependencies in F21 tree
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 6:33 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 03:20:03PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote: >> why > > This is another OCaml package. For some reason I'm not getting any > emails about this, but I will try a rebuild now. I had already rebuilt it, and an update was pending. I just pushed the update to stable, so nothing further needs to be done here. -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/ -- 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: Removing packages that have broken dependencies in F21 tree
On Nov 13, 2014 8:02 AM, "Kalev Lember" wrote: > > On 11/13/2014 03:33 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> >> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 03:20:03PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote: >>> >>> transifex >> >> >> Huh?? If this is the package I'm thinking of, it's pretty important >> to many other packages. > > > It depends on python-django14 that was removed a while back and nobody seems to have ported it to a newer django version: > > [transifex] > transifex-1.2.1-12.fc21.noarch requires python-django14 > > > -- > Kalev > > -- transifex-client is probably seeing a lot more use ( at least on my desk :) It still seems openly active at https://github.com/transifex/transifex-client . I doubt they will change that - it's mostly just pycurl talking to an API, no secret sauce, and tx really does advocate open souce even if they struggled with making it commercially viable. --Pete -- 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: Removing packages that have broken dependencies in F21 tree
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 15:20:03 +0200, Kalev Lember wrote: meshmagick For meshmagick the real isssue is FTBFS due to stricter checking by gcc. I started working on it a while back but didn't finish and didn't get back to it. I believe I can get it fixed by Monday. -- 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: Removing packages that have broken dependencies in F21 tree
On 11/13/2014 03:33 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 03:20:03PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote: transifex Huh?? If this is the package I'm thinking of, it's pretty important to many other packages. It depends on python-django14 that was removed a while back and nobody seems to have ported it to a newer django version: [transifex] transifex-1.2.1-12.fc21.noarch requires python-django14 -- Kalev -- 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: Removing packages that have broken dependencies in F21 tree
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 03:20:03PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote: > ocaml-pa-do This package was rewritten upstream. I've not tried to package the new version. The version packaged in Fedora Rawhide is orphaned, so I guess you may as well remove the F21 package too (unless someone else wants to jump in and fix this). > transifex Huh?? If this is the package I'm thinking of, it's pretty important to many other packages. > why This is another OCaml package. For some reason I'm not getting any emails about this, but I will try a rebuild now. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com virt-df lists disk usage of guests without needing to install any software inside the virtual machine. Supports Linux and Windows. http://people.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-df/ -- 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: Removing packages that have broken dependencies in F21 tree
On 13/11/14 14:33, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 03:20:03PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote: >> ocaml-pa-do > > This package was rewritten upstream. I've not tried to package the > new version. The version packaged in Fedora Rawhide is orphaned, so I > guess you may as well remove the F21 package too (unless someone else > wants to jump in and fix this). > >> transifex > > Huh?? If this is the package I'm thinking of, it's pretty important > to many other packages. yes, that's the package. But IMHO transifex became closed source, and last code change was about 2 years ago; since then, django changed quite a bit. Matthias -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
