Re: What projects can we highlight for Hacktoberfest?

[Manas Mangaonkar]

Maybe Something from the sigs,sigs often require blogs setup etc.That
could be a easy starter issue.Jekyll is pretty easy.

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:30 PM Adam Samalik  wrote:
>
> What about the Feedback Pipeline service [1] I'm working on for minimization? 
> The code [2] is on GitHub and I even have a few issues with things to do.
>
> [1] https://minimization.github.io/reports/
> [2] https://github.com/minimization/feedback-pipeline
>
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 10:47 PM Ben Cotton  wrote:
>>
>> We're just over a month away from Hacktoberfest[1], a month-long event
>> where people can earn a t-shirt by contributing to open source
>> projects (or at least ones hosted on GitHub). It occurs to me that we
>> could have a post on the Community Blog (or maybe Fedora Magazine)
>> that directs folks toward Fedora or Fedora-adjacent projects on
>> GitHub. This is a good opportunity to get meaningful drive-by
>> contributions and perhaps add a few consistent contributors.
>>
>> So if you were going to point the Fedora community at a GitHub-hosted
>> project, what would you choose?
>>
>> [1] https://hacktoberfest.digitalocean.com/
>>
>> --
>> Ben Cotton
>> He / Him / His
>> Fedora Program Manager
>> Red Hat
>> TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
>> ___
>> 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
>
>
>
> --
>
> Adam Šamalík
> ---
> Senior Software Engineer
> Red Hat
> ___
> 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
___
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

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

[vvs vvs]

I did test some of these desktops in the past. From my experience LXDT should 
be just fine. Anyway, thanks for reminding me, because I was so used to 
standard Fedora desktop that completely forgot about such alternatives.
___
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

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Code Zombie]

Hi

Here's my output (I am running F30):

 Problem 1: problem with installed package eclipse-jgit-5.4.0-4.fc30.noarch
  - eclipse-jgit-5.4.0-4.fc30.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - nothing provides jgit = 5.3.0-5.fc31 needed by
eclipse-jgit-5.3.0-5.fc31.noarch
 Problem 2: package crypto-utils-2.5-4.fc29.x86_64 requires
libperl.so.5.28()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package crypto-utils-2.5-4.fc29.x86_64 requires
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.28.0), but none of the providers can be installed
  - perl-libs-4:5.28.2-439.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package crypto-utils-2.5-4.fc29.x86_64
  - package perl-libs-4:5.28.2-439.module_f31+6019+b24e098f.x86_64 is
excluded
  - package perl-libs-4:5.28.2-439.module_f31+6050+a462f342.x86_64 is
excluded
 Problem 3: package xfce4-hamster-plugin-1.7-21.fc30.x86_64 requires
hamster-time-tracker, but none of the providers can be installed
  - hamster-time-tracker-2.0-0.16.rc1.fc30.noarch does not belong to a
distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package xfce4-hamster-plugin-1.7-21.fc30.x86_64
 Problem 4: problem with installed package
gnome-builder-3.32.3-1.fc30.x86_64
  - package gnome-builder-3.34.0-1.fc31.x86_64 requires
libgit2.so.28()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package gnome-builder-3.33.92-1.fc31.x86_64 requires
libgit2.so.28()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - gnome-builder-3.32.3-1.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - package libgit2-0.28.2-2.module_f31+5411+fa1856a4.x86_64 is excluded
  - package libgit2-0.28.2-3.fc31.x86_64 is excluded
 Problem 5: problem with installed package
kf5-ktexteditor-5.59.0-1.fc30.x86_64
  - package kf5-ktexteditor-5.61.0-1.fc31.x86_64 requires
libgit2.so.28()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - kf5-ktexteditor-5.59.0-1.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - package libgit2-0.28.2-2.module_f31+5411+fa1856a4.x86_64 is excluded
  - package libgit2-0.28.2-3.fc31.x86_64 is excluded
 Problem 6: problem with installed package
libgit2-glib-0.28.0.1-1.fc30.x86_64
  - package libgit2-glib-0.28.0.1-3.fc31.x86_64 requires
libgit2.so.28()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - libgit2-glib-0.28.0.1-1.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - package libgit2-0.28.2-2.module_f31+5411+fa1856a4.x86_64 is excluded
  - package libgit2-0.28.2-3.fc31.x86_64 is excluded
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)


Best regards



On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:55 AM Miroslav Suchý  wrote:

> Do you want to make Fedora 31 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time
> and try to run [*]:
>
>   sudo dnf --releasever=31 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f31
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
>
> If you get this prompt:
>
>   ...
>   Total download size: XXX M
>   Is this ok [y/N]:
>
> you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the actual upgrade.
>
> But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case, please
> report it against the appropriate package. Or
> against fedora-obsolete-packages if that package should be removed in
> Fedora 31. Please check existing reports first:
> https://red.ht/2kuBDPu
>
> Thank you
>
> [*] this command does not replace `dnf system-upgrade`, but it will reveal
> potential problems. You may also run `dnf
> upgrade` before running this command.
>
> --
> Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
> Red Hat, Associate Manager ABRT/Copr, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
> ___
> 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
>
___
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

[Test-Announce] Fedora 31 Candidate Beta-1.1 Available Now!

[rawhide]

According to the schedule [1], Fedora 31 Candidate Beta-1.1 is now
available for testing. Please help us complete all the validation
testing! For more information on release validation testing, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan

Test coverage information for the current release can be seen at:
https://www.happyassassin.net/testcase_stats/31

You can see all results, find testing instructions and image download
locations, and enter results on the Summary page:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_31_Beta_1.1_Summary

The individual test result pages are:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_31_Beta_1.1_Installation
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_31_Beta_1.1_Base
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_31_Beta_1.1_Server
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_31_Beta_1.1_Cloud
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_31_Beta_1.1_Desktop
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_31_Beta_1.1_Security_Lab

All Beta priority test cases for each of these test pages [2] must
pass in order to meet the Beta Release Criteria [3].

Help is available on #fedora-qa on irc.freenode.net [4], or on the
test list [5].

Current Blocker and Freeze Exception bugs:
http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current

[1] http://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-31/f-31-quality-tasks.html
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_31_Beta_Release_Criteria
[4] irc://irc.freenode.net/fedora-qa
[5] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/t...@lists.fedoraproject.org/
___
test-announce mailing list -- test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-announce-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/test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
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

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Jared K. Smith]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 9:01 AM Miroslav Suchý  wrote:

> Do you want to make Fedora 31 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time
> and try to run [*]:
>
>   sudo dnf --releasever=31 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f31
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
>

Error:
 Problem 1: package gegl03-0.3.30-5.fc30.x86_64 requires
libIlmImf-2_2.so.22()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - OpenEXR-libs-2.2.0-16.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package gegl03-0.3.30-5.fc30.x86_64
 Problem 2: package python2-pkgwat-0.11-12.fc29.noarch requires
python2-cliff, but none of the providers can be installed
  - python2-cliff-2.13.0-2.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package python2-pkgwat-0.11-12.fc29.noarch
 Problem 3: problem with installed package
exa-0.8.0-13.module_f30+4041+ebfd9240.x86_64
  - package exa-0.9.0-2.module_f31+5365+04413d87.x86_64 requires
libgit2.so.28()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - exa-0.8.0-13.module_f30+4041+ebfd9240.x86_64 does not belong to a
distupgrade repository
  - package libgit2-0.28.2-2.module_f31+5411+fa1856a4.x86_64 is excluded
  - package libgit2-0.28.2-3.fc31.x86_64 is excluded
___
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

Re: GNOME 3.34.0 megaupdate

[Kalev Lember]

On 9/9/19 12:17, Kalev Lember wrote:


Hi all,

Last week was 3.33.92, and this week is the final 3.34.0 release. I'm
wrangling the Fedora side of the release this time around as well. Same
as last week, we have a koji side tag to prepare the update, and then
I'll submit all of the builds together in a single megaupdate once ready.

Please use 'fedpkg build --target f31-gnome' to submit any builds that
should be part of the 3.34.0 update.

I'll collect all the builds on Wednesday or Thursday and submit them to
Bodhi.


It's in updates-testing now: 
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-6cc7585333


Kalev
___
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

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Fast OS]

I rebase on silverblue, flawless..
___
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

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

[vvs vvs]

Yes, that's understandable. But this is beating of a dead horse.

But what matters now is that by doing some small investigation i686 users can 
still get support for their bugs which are common for both platforms. This 
doesn't require any formalities like SIG or commitments which they can't make 
and it is always available for anyone who can afford to spend some additional 
time if such bug affects them bad enough.

I think this could work better than previous attempts at keeping x86 SIG alive. 
Of course nothing prevents some volunteers to do above work on behalf of other 
users or create mirrors for distribution of i686 packages. But this is not 
critical to keep things running.
___
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

Fedora 32 Self-Contained Change proposal: MariaDB 10.4

[Ben Cotton]

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MariaDB_10.4

= MariaDB 10.4 =

== Summary ==
Update of MariaDB ('mariadb' package) in Fedora from 10.3 to 10.4 version.

== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:mschorm| Michal Schorm]]
* Email: msch...@redhat.com

== Detailed Description ==
Update of MariaDB package in Fedora from 10.3 version to 10.4 version.

== Benefit to Fedora ==

I'm cooperating with the upstream to bring the latest stable software
to Fedora users.

10.4 series introduces number of enhancements, which cannot be found
in previous series.
Apart from that, MariaDB Galera Cluster has been significantly
reworked and enhanced. (galera 3 updated to galera 4)

== Scope ==
* Proposal owners:
**Prepare MariaDB 10.4 as a module for Rawhide and atleast one stable
Fedora release (done)
**Prepare MariaDB 10.3 as a module for Rawhide, so there would be a
failover in case of problems (done)
**Release MariaDB 10.4 to Rawhide (blocked by #1724283; solving with upstream)
**Check software that requires or depends on 'mariadb' or 'galera'
package for incompatibilities
**Gather user input on the changes between MariaDB 10.3 and 10.4

* Other developers: N/A
* Policies and guidelines: N/A
* Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change)

== Upgrade/compatibility impact ==

The MariaDB client library is compatible, so the shouldn't be any
issues and / or need for rebuild of dependent packages.
Galera package bumped version from 25.3 to 25.4 which introduces
bigger changes. However since no other project in Fedora than MariaDB
use Galera, I don't expect any issue here.

== How To Test ==

Usual testing as when upgrading between major MariaDB versions.

Test that all other software runs well with MariaDB 10.4.
Report any issues, so I can reach the different upstreams and check if
they plan update their software to support MariaDB 10.4 and when.

== User Experience ==

The users will have to upgrade their databases the same way as between
major MariaDB versions.

If the users want to stick with MariaDB for a little longer, I provide
MariaDB 10.3 module.
If the users want to test it beforehand, I provide MariaDB 10.4 module.

== Dependencies ==

There should be absolute minimum amountof packages, that use MariaDB
as a BuildRequires. Since the separation of MariaDB client library,
only packages that build server plugins may use MariaDB as a
BuildRequires.

Since the client library ('mariadb-connector-c') is not changing,
dependent software should work fine.

== Contingency Plan ==
Modules will provide the functional version of MariaDB 10.3, available
to all users.

* Contingency mechanism: Fedora Modules available
* Contingency deadline: beta freeze

== Documentation ==

Upgrade startegy:
https://mariadb.com/kb/en/library/upgrading-from-mariadb-103-to-mariadb-104/

Upgrading and incompatibilities:
https://mariadb.com/kb/en/library/upgrading-from-mariadb-103-to-mariadb-104/#incompatible-changes-between-103-and-104

== Release Notes ==

Release notes for each release:
https://mariadb.com/kb/en/library/release-notes-mariadb-104-series/

Overall overview of the changes and improvements:
https://mariadb.com/kb/en/library/changes-improvements-in-mariadb-104/

-- 
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Fedora Program Manager
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
___
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

Re: Interest in doing Fedora CI with test subpackages

[Dan Čermák]

Hi Neil,

Neil Horman  writes:

> Hey all-
>   I was starting to setup CI for one of my packages in Fedora (cscope),
> which requires that I have access to the sources to run my test (cscope uses 
> its
> own source tree to search for various symbols to confirm that its working
> properly).  Getting the sources in the CI environment is a bit of a pain, so I
> started working on trying to do this by creating a test subpackage 
> (specifically
> named -citest) to package up the sources solely for the purpose of getting 
> them
> installed and available during CI runs.  It occured to me that this offers
> several advantages, among them:
> 1) the ability to codify dependencies within the ame spec file, rather than
> having to copy them to the test.yml file, and keep them in sync
>
> 2) The ability to use a file format (rpm spec files) that I'm more familiar 
> with
>
> 3) Easy access to tests that are embedded in the source tree

This is imho a pretty big advantage, as it ensures that the tests and
the source don't diverge.

>
> 4) minimizing the test harness setup in test.yml
>
> For anyone interested, I've got a pull request started here:
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cscope/pull-request/2
>
> If anyone wants to take a look at the changes I had to make to do this (fair
> warning, its still very rough).
>
> That all said, I was wondering if perhaps there was general interest in making
> this kind of test model somewhat more formal (i.e. creating an rpm macro 
> library
> to make test package generation a bit easier, creating a standard entry point 
> to
> run tests, etc).

I am not sure whether a generalization makes sense, as there are so many
languages with such a wide range of test suites. What would make sense
to standardize would be the generation of a -citest subpackage though,
so that it is setup correctly and consistently.

>
> Thoughts welcome

I like this idea and you're actually not the first one ;-). Something
comparable is being done in openSUSE's Ruby RPM packages: if the gem
ships a testsuite, then a -test subpackage is created with the tests
inside it. (In practice these packages are unfortunately never used, as
they often lack the necessary dependencies to be installable and even
if, the testsuite usually doesn't run outside of bundler, but that's a
different story).

I think this approach makes especially sense for packages which ship an
extensive test suite that is not feasible to run during %check, but can
be run in the gating CI.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
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

Re: translucent gnome top bar gone in F31?

[John M. Harris Jr.]

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 8:57:37 AM MST Przemek Klosowski via devel 
wrote:
> On 9/11/19 2:18 AM, John M. Harris Jr. wrote:
> > Feel free to ignore any such wording that you disagree with. We don't need
> > to agree in order to discuss such things, and it's alright if we disagree
> > on wording. Literally every user I talk to has asked me either how to
> > disable the hot corner, or asked me to do it for them. I obviously did
> > not mean "everybody" literally, but it's even fine if you take it
> > literally, given the context.
> 
> Please consider the possibility of a cognitive bias. Of course everyone
> you talk to? agrees with your preferences: after all, they just came to
> you for help. They know you are technically savvy and opinionated, so
> they seeked you, and so it's possible that all y'all gerrymandered
> yourselves into thinking that 'literally every user' shares your belief,
> even though it's statistically rather improbable.
> 
> This is a know phenomenon in social sciences: see a good writeup here
> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02562-z
> 
> By the way, speaking for myself, I decided to stop using the term
> 'literally', because I don't want to be AWFUL (American Who Figuratively
> Use Literally :).

See the last sentence :)

 > I obviously did not mean "everybody" literally, but it's even fine if you
 > take it literally, given the context.

The part making that a true statment being "given the context".

Additionally, I don't tend to use the word "literally" unless it actually 
applies. I agree, except for "American" being part of that.

- -
John Harris

___
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

Re: Please help with youtube-dl and possibly other packages of mine.

[Robert-André Mauchin]

On Tuesday, 30 July 2019 22:45:09 CEST Gwyn Ciesla via devel wrote:
> I'll update youtube-dl.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Gwyn Ciesla
> she/her/hers
>  
> in your fear, seek only peace 
> in your fear, seek only love
> -d. bowie
> 
> Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

Youtube was broken so I updated to the latest fix of today. Please test and add 
a +1 in Bodhi.
I also added an EPEL8 branch and Fish completion support.

Best regards,

Robert-André

___
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

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

[Simon Farnsworth]

On 11 Sep 2019, at 16:12, vvs vvs  wrote:
> 
> Even better. That means that you can still get support for x86 but it will 
> require some more work on the user's side. They should just check if that bug 
> is indeed i686 specific.
> 
> I believe that all that argument for the lats three days was completely 
> unnecessary and should be blamed on an utterl failure of communication.

The fundamental thing here is that, when a package fails on S390 but not on 
x86-64, there are motivated people in the S390 SIG who'll help me out with 
what's wrong, explaining the differences between S390 and x86-64 in a useful 
format, and often just fixing it if it's an S390-specific oddity, not a 
straight bug that happens not to manifest on x86-64.

In contrast, the x86 SIG never got enough volunteers to do the same role - if a 
build was an issue on x86 but not x86-64, then they'd not have the available 
manpower to help the package maintainer (often the kernel maintainers, in x86's 
case) fix the build.

Had the x86 SIG been able to identify the root causes of bugs in packages that 
failed on x86, like the kernel, and come up with usable workarounds and/or 
fixes, then Fedora would not be considering dropping x86. As it is, though, it 
appears that nobody cares enough about 32-bit kernels and binaries (although 
some x86-64 people care about 32-bit libraries) to keep i686 builds going.

Fundamentally, this happens in volunteer projects - nobody wants to do the 
work, nobody is willing to pay enough to get someone else to want to do the 
work, so it doesn't happen.

-- 
Simon
___
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

Re: Unresponsive maintainers: Alex Chernyakhovsky & Othman Madjoudj

[Othman Madjoudj]

On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 9:33 PM Robbie Harwood  wrote:
>
> Hi Fedora,
>
> I'm trying to contact Alex Chernyakhovsky and Othman Madjoudj, who are
> the maintainers of mosh as far as I can tell.  I have started the
> nonresponsive maintainer process due to lack of contact through bugzilla
> mail; bugs are https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1697355 and
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1749058 .
...

Hello Robbie,

I'm responsive, it just I'm prioritizing important bug since I was off
for a period of time.

Regarding mosh, I'm just watching the pkg, I don't have commit privileges.

Most of the current bugs are related to py2 retirement, I'm still
sorting out the pkg (some need fixes, other need to be retired since
upstream does not support py3). NB. Also you can email me directly if
something is important since I filter bugzilla emails

Best regards
-Othman
___
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

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Tom Seewald]

Here's the error I run into on my desktop:

Error: 
 Problem: problem with installed package eclipse-jgit-5.4.0-4.fc30.noarch
  - eclipse-jgit-5.4.0-4.fc30.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - nothing provides jgit = 5.3.0-5.fc31 needed by 
eclipse-jgit-5.3.0-5.fc31.noarch

Eclipse doesn't appear to be having a good time right now with the transition 
to 31 from what I see: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/koschei/groups/eclipse
___
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

Fedora-31-20190911.0 compose check report

[Fedora compose checker]

No missing expected images.

Failed openQA tests: 3/152 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)

ID: 448775  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso modularity_tests
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/448775
ID: 448810  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_background
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/448810
ID: 448813  Test: arm Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz 
install_arm_image_deployment_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/448813
ID: 448816  Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso release_identification
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/448816

Soft failed openQA tests: 2/152 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)

ID: 448791  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_update_graphical
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/448791
ID: 448926  Test: x86_64 universal install_asian_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/448926

Passed openQA tests: 147/152 (x86_64)

Skipped non-gating openQA tests: 1 of 154
-- 
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
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

Re: Unresponsive maintainers: Alex Chernyakhovsky & Othman Madjoudj

[Othman Madjoudj]

Hello Robbie,

I'm responsive, it just I'm prioritizing important bug since I was off for a 
period of time.

Regarding mosh, I'm just watching the pkg, I don't have commit privileges.

Most of the current bugs are related to py2 retirement, I'm still sorting out 
the pkg (some need fixes, other need to be retired since upstream does not 
support py3).

NB. Also you can email me directly if something is important since I filter 
bugzilla emails
___
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

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2019-09-12 16:00 UTC)

[James Antill]

 Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2019-09-12 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on 
irc.freenode.net.

 Local time information (via. uitime):

= Day: Thursday ==
2019-09-12 09:00 PDT  US/Pacific
2019-09-12 12:00 EDT  --> US/Eastern <--
2019-09-12 16:00 UTC  UTC   
2019-09-12 17:00 BST  Europe/London 
2019-09-12 18:00 CEST Europe/Berlin 
2019-09-12 18:00 CEST Europe/Paris  
2019-09-12 21:30 IST  Asia/Calcutta 
 New Day: Friday -
2019-09-13 00:00 HKT  Asia/Hong_Kong
2019-09-13 00:00 +08  Asia/Singapore
2019-09-13 01:00 JST  Asia/Tokyo
2019-09-13 02:00 AEST Australia/Brisbane


 Links to all tickets below can be found at: 

https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues?status=Open=meeting

= Followups =

#topic #902 Cleanup & enhance spec files 
.fpc 902
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/902

#topic #904 Caret versioning 
.fpc 904
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/904

#topic #907 Which %__foo macros for executables are acceptable? 
.fpc 907
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/907

#topic #909 Suggest that linting/measuring-coverage is not for %check
.fpc 909
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/909

#topic #914 Automatic R runtime dependencies
.fpc 914
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/914

= Pull Requests =

#topic #894 Add rules for Cython 
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/894

#topic #903 Update Python guidelines for Fedora 31 
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/903

#topic #915 Modernize python spec file example 
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/915

= Open Floor = 

 For more complete details, please visit each individual ticket.  The
report of the agenda items can be found at:

https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues?status=Open=meeting

 If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can:
  * Reply to this e-mail
  * File a new ticket at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee
  * E-mail me directly
  * Bring it up at the end of the meeting, during the open floor topic. Note
that added topics may be deferred until the following meeting.
___
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

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Franta Hanzlík]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 14:54:45 +0200
Miroslav Suchý  wrote:

> Do you want to make Fedora 31 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and 
> try to run [*]:
> 
>   sudo dnf --releasever=31 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f31 
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> ...

# dnf --releasever=31 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f31 
--enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
Adobe Systems Incorporated 5.5 kB/s | 2.9 kB 00:00
Fedora Modular 31 -i38  42 kB/s |  54 kB 00:01
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'fedora-modular'
Error: Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'fedora-modular'

-- 
Franta Hanzlik
___
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

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Elliott Sales de Andrade]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 11:53, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
 wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:48:51AM -0400, Solomon Peachy wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 03:16:28PM +0100, Phil Wyett wrote:
> > > > Do you want to make Fedora 31 better? Please spend 1 minute of your
> > > > time and try to run [*]:
> > > >
> > > >   sudo dnf --releasever=31 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f31
> > > > --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> >
> > Here's an upgrade run against five systems.  There's a few more I can
> > test but they're not accessible from here.
> >
> > System 1:  (Laptop)
> >
> > Error:
> >  Problem 1: problem with installed package 0ad-0.0.23b-6.fc30.x86_64
> >   - 0ad-0.0.23b-6.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> >   - nothing provides libmozjs38-ps-release.so()(64bit) needed by 
> > 0ad-0.0.23b-8.fc31.x86_64
> >   - nothing provides libmozjs38-ps-release.so(js)(64bit) needed by 
> > 0ad-0.0.23b-8.fc31.x86_64
>
> I see kalev is building 0ad right now, so hopefully this will be resolved 
> soon.
>
> >  Problem 2: package python2-pillow-qt-5.4.1-2.fc30.x86_64 requires 
> > python2-pillow(x86-64) = 5.4.1-2.fc30, but none of the providers can be 
> > installed
> >   - python2-pillow-5.4.1-2.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
> > repository
> >   - problem with installed package python2-pillow-qt-5.4.1-2.fc30.x86_64
>
> So the python2-pillow-qt subpackage was dropped, but not all
> python2-pillow subpackages. It'd be best if pillow maintainers either
> do the obsoletes internally or file a bug against f-o-p.
>
> >
> > System 2:  (Workstation)
> >
> > Modular dependency problems:
> >
> >  Problem 1: conflicting requests
> >   - nothing provides module(platform:f30) needed by module 
> > eclipse:2019-06:3020190807134759:6ebe2c0f-0.x86_64
> >  Problem 2: module jmc:latest:3120190813124555:7188e41a-0.x86_64 requires 
> > module(eclipse), but none of the providers can be installed
> >   - conflicting requests
> >   - nothing provides module(platform:f30) needed by module 
> > eclipse:2019-06:3020190807134759:6ebe2c0f-0.x86_64
>
> >  Problem 2: package aeskulap-0.2.2-0.37.beta2.fc30.x86_64 requires 
> > libdcmdata.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>
> aeskulap is gone. I'll add it to f-o-p.
>
> >   - dcmtk-3.6.2-4.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
>
> This either needs a rebuild or an update.
>
> >  Problem 3: package gegl03-0.3.30-5.fc30.x86_64 requires 
> > libIlmImf-2_2.so.22()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> >   - OpenEXR-libs-2.2.0-16.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
> > repository
> >   - problem with installed package gegl03-0.3.30-5.fc30.x86_64

I've opened https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751416 for
gegl04 to obsolete gegl03.

> >  Problem 4: package obnam-1.21-7.fc29.x86_64 requires python2-cliapp, but 
> > none of the providers can be installed
> >   - python2-cliapp-1.20180121-1.fc30.noarch does not belong to a 
> > distupgrade repository
> >   - problem with installed package obnam-1.21-7.fc29.x86_64
> >  Problem 5: package python2-terminado-0.8.1-6.fc29.noarch requires 
> > python2-tornado >= 4.0.0, but none of the providers can be installed
> >   - python2-tornado-5.0.2-5.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
> > repository
>
> python2-tornado is already in f-o-p. I'll add 
> python2-terminado-0.8.1-6.fc29.noarch.
>
> >   - problem with installed package python2-terminado-0.8.1-6.fc29.noarch
> >  Problem 6: problem with installed package 
> > libopenshot-0.2.3-2.20190406git101f25a.fc30.x86_64
> >   - package libopenshot-0.2.3-2.20190406git101f25a.fc31.x86_64 requires 
> > libjsoncpp.so.19()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> >   - libopenshot-0.2.3-2.20190406git101f25a.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a 
> > distupgrade repository
> >   - jsoncpp-1.8.4-6.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> >  Problem 7: cannot install both jsoncpp-1.9.1-1.fc31.x86_64 and 
> > jsoncpp-1.8.4-6.fc30.x86_64
> >   - package python3-libopenshot-0.2.3-2.20190406git101f25a.fc31.x86_64 
> > requires libjsoncpp.so.19()(64bit), but none of the providers can be 
> > installed
> >   - package cmake-3.14.5-4.fc31.x86_64 requires libjsoncpp.so.21()(64bit), 
> > but none of the providers can be installed
> >   - problem with installed package 
> > python3-libopenshot-0.2.3-2.20190406git101f25a.fc30.x86_64
> >   - problem with installed package cmake-3.14.5-1.fc30.x86_64
> >   - python3-libopenshot-0.2.3-2.20190406git101f25a.fc30.x86_64 does not 
> > belong to a distupgrade repository
> >   - cmake-3.14.5-1.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> >  Problem 8: package openshot-2.4.4-2.fc31.noarch requires 
> > python3-libopenshot >= 0.2.3, but none of the providers can be installed
> >   - package python3-libopenshot-0.2.3-2.20190406git101f25a.fc30.x86_64 
> > requires libjsoncpp.so.19()(64bit), but none of the providers can be 
> > 

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Jerry James]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 6:55 AM Miroslav Suchý  wrote:
> Do you want to make Fedora 31 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and 
> try to run [*]:

No errors for me, but 3 downgrades:

Downgrading:
 gap-pkg-edim x86_64 1.3.3-6.fc31fedora78 k
 gap-pkg-genssnoarch 1.6.5-6.fc31fedora56 k
 python3-parsonoarch 0.5.1-1.fc31fedora   142 k

The first two are mine.  I did those builds right about the time that
bodhi was enabled for F31.  After it was enabled, I tried to create
updates for them just in case they hadn't quite made it in, and bodhi
told me there were no candidate builds.  I just tried again, and bodhi
*still* tells me there are no candidate builds.  These are the latest
actual builds for them:

gap-pkg-edim-1.3.5-1.fc31
gap-pkg-genss-1.6.6-1.fc31

How should I fix this?

The third one, python3-parso, has builds for 0.5.1-2.fc30 and
0.5.1-2.fc32, but there is no 0.5.1-2 build for fc31.
-- 
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
___
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

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Harish Pillay]

* on the Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 02:54:45PM +0200, Miroslav Such? was commenting:
| Do you want to make Fedora 31 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and 
try to run [*]:
| 
|   sudo dnf --releasever=31 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f31 
--enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
| 
| If you get this prompt:
| 
|   ...
|   Total download size: XXX M
|   Is this ok [y/N]:

Transaction Summary

Install  38 Packages
Upgrade2378 Packages
Remove8 Packages
Downgrade 1 Package

Total download size: 2.7 G
Is this ok [y/N]: 

after adding --allowerasing to the commandline.

Harish


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
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

FedoraRespin-30-updates-20190911.0 compose check report

[Fedora compose checker]

No missing expected images.

Failed openQA tests: 2/31 (x86_64)

ID: 448908  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_live
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/448908
ID: 448910  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso release_identification
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/448910

Soft failed openQA tests: 1/31 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)

ID: 448944  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_update_graphical
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/448944

Passed openQA tests: 28/31 (x86_64)
-- 
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
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

test

[Philip Kovacs via devel]

___
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

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Xose Vazquez Perez]

Miroslav Suchy wrote:

> Do you want to make Fedora 31 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and 
> try to run [*]:
> 
>   sudo dnf --releasever=31 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f31 
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync

A variant:
# dnf --releasever=31 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f31 
--enablerepo=updates-testing --skip-broken --allowerasing -b --assumeno 
distro-sync


Only four problems:

Removing dependent packages:
 coccinelle   x86_641.0.7-6.fc30 @System 20 M
 python2-policycoreutils  noarch2.9-4.fc30   @System 1.3 M

Downgrading:
 eclipse-equinox-osgi x86_641:4.11-3.fc31fedora  1.7 M
 llvm7.0-libs x86_647.0.1-4.fc31.1   fedora  15 M


Thanks.
___
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

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

[John M. Harris Jr.]

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 12:41:14 PM MST Przemek Klosowski via devel 
wrote:
> On 9/10/19 7:55 AM, vvs vvs wrote:
> 
> > Did I? I thought that I've said that I'm using x86_64 kernel right now and
> > that I have my memory stretched to the limits already.
>
> >
> >
> > But yes, I've experimented with x86_64 userland some time ago, I don't
> > remember exact numbers but I think that I've lost 100-200 MB of memory.
> > And I have not much time to experiment every time something have
> > changed.
>
> >
> >
> > You are right that I can reduce memory footprint by carefully tuning my
> > system. But that's what I've already did and Fedora breaks it just too
> > often. I'm used to work without GNOME on my other computer that have only
> > 32-bit CPU. But it started to be very painful to upgrade to newer Fedora
> > releases. So, when I've got 64-bit computer I've just went with the flow
> > and don't customize parts I'm not really interested in. I want to spend
> > on it as little time as possible. Going for my own Linux from scratch is
> > just not viable.
> 
> Wait---so you are using 32-bit Gnome on a 64-bit capable CPU running 
> 64-bit kernel? If the reason is to save 200MB of memory, you should 
> definitely try one of the memory-thrifty desktop environments like xfce.
> 
> You also said that you're running a memory-hungry non-Fedora 
> application, which you presumably compile yourself.
> 
> Therefore, it looks to me that you should try a 64-bit Fedora with a 
> memory-saving xfce, install a 32-bit GCC toolchain and compile your app 
> in 32-bit mode.

Compiling his app as 32 bit would require 32 bit repositories for the 
libraries he plans on linking.

- -
John Harris

___
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

Re: translucent gnome top bar gone in F31?

[John M. Harris Jr.]

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 12:08:53 AM MST Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 9/10/19 11:18 PM, John M. Harris Jr. wrote:
> 
> > Feel free to ignore any such wording that you disagree with. We don't need
> > to agree in order to discuss such things, and it's alright if we
> > disagree on wording. Literally every user I talk to has asked me either
> > how to disable the hot corner, or asked me to do it for them. I obviously
> > did not mean "everybody" literally, but it's even fine if you take it
> > literally, given the context.
> 
> 
> And I have never had a user that wanted to disable that corner.  Of 
> course, when I introduce them to Fedora, I explain that the logo key is 
> much easier and most of them use that.

Most of the time, I'm asked to remove that, by the users I work with that 
actually use GNOME, because they've moved the mouse into that corner by 
accident, and gotten annoyed when a menu popped up. I also explain what the 
overview is, and tell them that the super key does that as well. That said, 
the users I work with are actually mostly using RHEL or CentOS, not 
necessarily Fedora.

- -
John Harris

___
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

Re: translucent gnome top bar gone in F31?

[John M. Harris Jr.]

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 6:35:39 PM MST Jared K. Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 12:41 AM John M. Harris Jr. 
> 
> wrote:
> > Further, nothing in that email is what I
> > would describe as "uncivilized". I'm not asking people to necessarily
> > agree
> > with me, everyone is welcome to their own opinions, I simply provided mine
> > and
> > that of the users I work with.
> 
> I think your comments went from just being an opinion to being over the
> line when they assumed that everyone (except for maybe Gnome developers?)
> agreed with your opinion.  When you use phrases like "it just works for
> everyone" or "Things everyone hates" (to use your exact words), it
> marginalizes those who share a difference of opinion.  While my own
> opinions on many topics don't necessarily match up with those of others in
> the Fedora community, I would hope that my comments and opinions would
> never make anyone else feel uncomfortable or unwelcome.  There is plenty of
> room in Fedora for differences of opinion, as long as we try to keep a high
> level of respect and dignity for those with different views.
> 
> Please be a bit more thoughtful in the words you use to express your
> opinions.
> 
> -Jared

Feel free to ignore any such wording that you disagree with. We don't need to 
agree in order to discuss such things, and it's alright if we disagree on 
wording. Literally every user I talk to has asked me either how to disable the 
hot corner, or asked me to do it for them. I obviously did not mean 
"everybody" literally, but it's even fine if you take it literally, given the 
context.

Regardless, the suggestion that *somebody else* knows best, and that we, as 
users, shouldn't have a choice is just as uncomfortable and unwelcoming to me 
as I assume what I said is to you.

Please also see the context of "just works for everyone". It was in response 
to another individual's claim that what *somebody* decides is best for 
everyone.

- -
John Harris

___
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

Re: Drop of PlayOnLinux package (Rawhide)

[jkonecny]

On Tue, 2019-09-10 at 16:11 +0200, Frantisek Zatloukal wrote:
> Also, I have feeling that Lutris is far superior alternative, at
> least for games :)

I don't want to be mean on PlayOnLinux but yes I agree with the above.

Jirka

> On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 4:01 PM Michael Cronenworth 
> wrote:
> > On 9/10/19 8:35 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > 
> > > This will lock me in the Steam only:)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > We ship wine-staging, which should handle any Windows game.
> > 
> > ___
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> 
> 
> ___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


___
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

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

[Samuel Sieb]

On 9/10/19 11:48 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Wednesday, September 11, 2019, John M. Harris Jr. 
mailto:joh...@splentity.com>> wrote:

Compiling his app as 32 bit would require 32 bit repositories for the
libraries he plans on linking.

Multilib is still supported so libraries are present in the repositories.


And to be really clear about it, those 32-bit multilib libraries are in 
the 64-bit repository, so for now they aren't going away even if the 
32-bit repo does.

___
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

Re: translucent gnome top bar gone in F31?

[Samuel Sieb]

On 9/10/19 11:18 PM, John M. Harris Jr. wrote:

Feel free to ignore any such wording that you disagree with. We don't need to
agree in order to discuss such things, and it's alright if we disagree on
wording. Literally every user I talk to has asked me either how to disable the
hot corner, or asked me to do it for them. I obviously did not mean
"everybody" literally, but it's even fine if you take it literally, given the
context.


And I have never had a user that wanted to disable that corner.  Of 
course, when I introduce them to Fedora, I explain that the logo key is 
much easier and most of them use that.

___
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

Re: "Modifying /etc/os-release for re-branding?"

[jkonecny]

On Wed, 2019-09-11 at 09:54 +0530, Danishka Navin wrote:
> Is it ok to modify /etc/os-release for re-branding purpose? 

Hi Danishka Navin,
Good question on a bad place. Adding Fedora devel list here, there
could be someone who is able to answer you this question.
Jirka
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 6:11 PM Vendula Poncova 
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 7:29 PM Danishka Navin 
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 6:16 PM Vendula Poncova <
> > > vponc...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 9:56 AM Danishka Navin <
> > > > danis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Hi Jirka,
> > > > > 
> > > > > I used the following command but did't use --product and --
> > > > > version at all.
> > > > > Btw, does livecd-creator read from /etc/os-release when we
> > > > > ignore both --product and --version?
> > > > > 
> > > > > livecd-creator --verbose --config=hanthana-live-
> > > > > workstation.ks --fslabel=h30 --cache=cache --tmpdir=tmp
> > > > > 
> > > > > Then I copied fresh kisktars shipped by fedora and rerun with
> > > > > my custom configs.
> > > > > I could not reproduce the issue.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I wonder if the issue caused by following entries in the
> > > > > /etc/os-release file. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > REDHAT_BUGZILLA_PRODUCT="Fedora"
> > > > > REDHAT_SUPPORT_PRODUCT="Fedora"
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Btw, there is a new issue occurred.
> > > > > As in this image, Anaconda keeps duplicating the values of
> > > > > redhat-release file.
> > > > > I am not sure if its a bug or I mage a mistake.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > https://pasteboard.co/IvvT4nf.png
> > > > > 
> > > > > Added Hanthana Workstation (Vishwa)' in to the redhat-release 
> > > > > file.
> > > > > https://pasteboard.co/IvvSiU5.png
> > > > > 
> > > > > If you have digital at the end, it only repeats the digit.
> > > > > When using "Hanthana 30" 
> > > > > 
> > > > > https://pasteboard.co/IvvTyBT.png
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > 
> > Anaconda reads the product name and the product version from
> > /etc/system-release on Live ISO or from the .buildstamp file in
> > network installations. See my comment about the .buildstamp file
> > below. I think that all these problems are related.
> >  
> > > > > On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 1:06 PM  wrote:
> > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > You have probably used bad parameters when you were
> > > > > > invoking lorax. You have to use correct --product and --
> > > > > > version parameters otherwise we will be handling your ISO
> > > > > > as Rawhide.
> > > > > > Could you please tell us what command did you used to
> > > > > > create your ISO?
> > > > > > Regards,Jirka
> > > > > > On Sat, 2019-08-31 at 18:12 +0530, Danishka Navin wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi there,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > When I was trying to install f30 based remixed ISO, 
> > > > > > > "PRE-RELEASE/TESTING" text appearing in top-right hand
> > > > > > > side of anaconda GUI.
> > > > > > > May I know what could cause this?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Hello,
> > > > 
> > > > for Live ISO, there is a little crazy logic that sets up the
> > > > flag for a final release:
> > > > https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/blob/master/data/liveinst/liveinst#L93
> > > > 
> > > > Basically, it is determined by a version of a package that
> > > > provides system-release, so I would check that.
> > > > 
> > > > What is the output of these commands, when you run them on your
> > > > ISO?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > rpm -q  --whatprovides system-release
> > > > rpm -q --qf '%{Release}' --whatprovides system-release
> > > 
> > > $ rpm -q  --whatprovides system-release
> > > fedora-release-workstation-30-900.noarch
> > > $ rpm -q --qf '%{Release}' --whatprovides system-release
> > > 900[
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > It seems to be correct. The liveinst script should set the
> > environment variable ANACONDA_ISFINAL to True before Anaconda is
> > started.
> > Network installations use the IsFinal attribute of the .buildstamp
> > file to determine the value of the flag, but Live ISO shouldn't
> > have this file and should use ANACONDA_ISFINAL instead. The path to
> > the .buildstamp file can be /.buildstamp, /tmp/product/.buildstamp
> > or set by the environment variable PRODBUILDPATH. Could you check
> > that these files do not exist on your ISO?
> > Otherwise, I would recommend to report a bug at 
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/ and attach the Anaconda logs from the
> > installation.
> >  
> > >  
> > > > Vendy
> > > >  
> > > > > > > both os-release and redhat-release updated and I can see
> > > > > > > given values.
> > > > > > > both fedora and fedora-update repos used during the ISO
> > > > > > > build along with few 3rd party repos.  
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > -- 
> > > > > > > Danishka Navin
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > ___Anaconda-
> > > > > > > devel-list mailing 

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

[Samuel Sieb]

On 9/10/19 11:01 PM, John M. Harris Jr. wrote:

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 9:54:50 AM MST Kevin Fenzi wrote:

Sure there are... from the change page:

"The i686 kernel is of limited use as most x86 hardware supports 64bit
these days. It has been in a status of "community supported" for several


[snip]


The lack of fixes for i686 kernels is slowing down all the other arches
that are supported (and thus all of fedora).


The first sentence of that paragraph is simply incorrect, new hardware doesn't
change what old hardware supports, nor does the availability of new hardware
replace old hardware in itself.


It's not incorrect.  Almost all x86 hardware is 64-bit capable, 
therefore building a 32-bit is of very limited use.  It is not easy to 
find 32-bit only CPUs now.  Yes, I know some still exist; I have one 
embedded in my wall (NSC Geode).  But the last paragraph is important. 
Keeping the i686 kernel in Fedora is hurting everyone for the benefit of 
an extremely small group of users.

___
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

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

[John M. Harris Jr.]

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 12:28:31 AM MST Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 9/10/19 11:01 PM, John M. Harris Jr. wrote:
> 
> > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 9:54:50 AM MST Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > 
> >> Sure there are... from the change page:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "The i686 kernel is of limited use as most x86 hardware supports 64bit
> >> these days. It has been in a status of "community supported" for several
> 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 
> >> The lack of fixes for i686 kernels is slowing down all the other arches
> >> that are supported (and thus all of fedora).
> > 
> > 
> > The first sentence of that paragraph is simply incorrect, new hardware
> > doesn't change what old hardware supports, nor does the availability of
> > new hardware replace old hardware in itself.
> 
> 
> It's not incorrect.  Almost all x86 hardware is 64-bit capable, 
> therefore building a 32-bit is of very limited use.  It is not easy to 
> find 32-bit only CPUs now.  Yes, I know some still exist; I have one 
> embedded in my wall (NSC Geode).  But the last paragraph is important. 
> Keeping the i686 kernel in Fedora is hurting everyone for the benefit of 
> an extremely small group of users.

Again, it's completely false that "almost all x86 hardware is 64-bit capable". 
That may be true of newer hardware, but that does nothing to change existing 
hardware. The laptop I'm typing this email on right now is 32 bit only, by the 
way. It was manufactured in 2011.

I also fail to see how keeping the i686 kernel "is slowing down all other 
arches that are supported", and I'd love to know why that's the case, so I can 
get to fixing it.

- -
John Harris

___
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

Re: [HEADS UP] Retiring python2 and introducing python27 later this week

[Miro Hrončok]

On 11. 09. 19 4:54, Sérgio Basto wrote:

On Tue, 2019-08-27 at 22:20 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:

We are retiring python2 and introducing python27 later this week. Rawhide only.

As for now, nothing should break, except python2-debug will exist no more.

Packages (build)requiring python2 or python2-devel should continue to work for
now. If not, let us know.


On gnome-python2.spec [1] we got an error [2]

HTH

[1]
%package devel
Summary: Development files for building add-on libraries
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Requires: gnome-vfs2-devel%{?_isa} >= %{libgnomevfs_version}
Requires: python2-devel%{?_isa} >= %{python_version}

[2]
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37594531

BUILDSTDERR:  Problem: conflicting requests
DEBUG util.py:585:  BUILDSTDERR:   - nothing provides python2-devel(x86-64) >= 
2.3.0 needed by gnome-python2-devel-2.28.1-27.fc32.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:587:  (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)


Workarounded in gnome-python2-2.28.1-28.fc32. Thanks for the report.

--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
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

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

[John M. Harris Jr.]

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 9:54:50 AM MST Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On 9/9/19 9:34 PM, John M. Harris Jr. wrote:
> > There's no reason to drop x86 kernel builds either.
> 
> Sure there are... from the change page:
> 
> "The i686 kernel is of limited use as most x86 hardware supports 64bit
> these days. It has been in a status of "community supported" for several
> Fedora releases now. As such, it gets very little testing, and issues
> frequently appear upstream. These tend to go unnoticed for long periods
> of time. When issues are found, it is often a long time before they are
> fixed because they are considered low priority by most developers
> upstream. This can leave other architectures waiting for important
> updates, and provides a less than desirable experience for people
> choosing to run a 32bit kernel. With this proposal, the i686 kernel will
> no longer be built. A kernel headers package will still exist, and all
> 32bit packages should continue to build as normal. The main difference
> is there would no longer be bootable 32bit images."
> 
> The lack of fixes for i686 kernels is slowing down all the other arches
> that are supported (and thus all of fedora).
> 
> kevin

The first sentence of that paragraph is simply incorrect, new hardware doesn't 
change what old hardware supports, nor does the availability of new hardware 
replace old hardware in itself.

- -
John Harris

___
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

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

[drago01]

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019, John M. Harris Jr. 
wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 12:41:14 PM MST Przemek Klosowski via devel
> wrote:
> > On 9/10/19 7:55 AM, vvs vvs wrote:
> >
> > > Did I? I thought that I've said that I'm using x86_64 kernel right now
> and
> > > that I have my memory stretched to the limits already.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > But yes, I've experimented with x86_64 userland some time ago, I don't
> > > remember exact numbers but I think that I've lost 100-200 MB of memory.
> > > And I have not much time to experiment every time something have
> > > changed.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > You are right that I can reduce memory footprint by carefully tuning my
> > > system. But that's what I've already did and Fedora breaks it just too
> > > often. I'm used to work without GNOME on my other computer that have
> only
> > > 32-bit CPU. But it started to be very painful to upgrade to newer
> Fedora
> > > releases. So, when I've got 64-bit computer I've just went with the
> flow
> > > and don't customize parts I'm not really interested in. I want to spend
> > > on it as little time as possible. Going for my own Linux from scratch
> is
> > > just not viable.
> >
> > Wait---so you are using 32-bit Gnome on a 64-bit capable CPU running
> > 64-bit kernel? If the reason is to save 200MB of memory, you should
> > definitely try one of the memory-thrifty desktop environments like xfce.
> >
> > You also said that you're running a memory-hungry non-Fedora
> > application, which you presumably compile yourself.
> >
> > Therefore, it looks to me that you should try a 64-bit Fedora with a
> > memory-saving xfce, install a 32-bit GCC toolchain and compile your app
> > in 32-bit mode.
>
> Compiling his app as 32 bit would require 32 bit repositories for the
> libraries he plans on linking.


Multilib is still supported so libraries are present in the repositories.



> - -
> John Harris
>
> ___
> 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
>
___
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

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

[Samuel Sieb]

On 9/10/19 4:28 PM, vvs vvs wrote:

But that's actually the same that I was trying to say. Meeting that activity 
statistics is the essence of such formal group. But grass-roots enthusiasts 
don't have such commitments. They can do some work occasionally if time allows 
but there is no strict agenda. This contradicts those expectations which you 
describe. So while there are people ready to do some work sometimes they just 
don't meet those criteria and this is not enough to be able to call them SIG.


And that's the whole problem here.  Those people are not able to do 
enough work to keep i686 going.  As has been said here many times, if 
you can get enough people to do the necessary work, then there is no 
need for the i686 repos to go away.  But that just hasn't happened.


I don't think there are any requirement to create a SIG other than to 
have a group of people interested in the topic.  The SIG still exists, 
but it isn't doing enough to be able to keep i686 alive.

___
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

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

[Samuel Sieb]

On 9/11/19 12:50 AM, John M. Harris Jr. wrote:

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 12:28:31 AM MST Samuel Sieb wrote:

It's not incorrect.  Almost all x86 hardware is 64-bit capable,
therefore building a 32-bit is of very limited use.  It is not easy to
find 32-bit only CPUs now.  Yes, I know some still exist; I have one
embedded in my wall (NSC Geode).  But the last paragraph is important.
Keeping the i686 kernel in Fedora is hurting everyone for the benefit of
an extremely small group of users.


Again, it's completely false that "almost all x86 hardware is 64-bit capable".
That may be true of newer hardware, but that does nothing to change existing
hardware. The laptop I'm typing this email on right now is 32 bit only, by the
way. It was manufactured in 2011.


I do understand that there are still a few 32-bit CPUs around, but if 
you take all the currently functional in-use x86 hardware, what 
percentage do you actually think is not 64-bit capable?  You have to 
look really hard to find any.  I got a bunch of P4 computers from _2005_ 
for a school computer lab.  They are 64-bit capable and with 2GB of RAM 
they work great.  I originally had some slightly older ones that might 
have been 32-bit only, but those are long gone.



I also fail to see how keeping the i686 kernel "is slowing down all other
arches that are supported", and I'd love to know why that's the case, so I can
get to fixing it.


Because when there is a problem with the 32-bit kernel compile, it 
breaks kernel updates for everyone.  The issues take time to get fixed 
because even upstream barely cares about it.  And fixing those issues 
takes developer time that would be more useful elsewhere.

___
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

Re: failing push for un-orphaned package

[Dave Love]

Kevin Fenzi  writes:

> it's still retired on all the Fedora branches.
> See:
>
> https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8723#comment-594936
>
> The hook thats blocking it is a check against pdc, which rejects commits
> when the package is eol/not currently supported.
>
> So, you need a re-review and unretirement...

Thanks.  I didn't see the pagure comments because I don't get
notifications, and just saw I'd got ownership of the project, and the
notice about orphaning said it needed adopting to prevent it being
retired.

I'm puzzled why it needs re-reviewing when branches are maintained, but
anyhow is it possible just to maintain EPEL branches?  I doubt anyone is
going to run Fedora on the sort of cluster for which it's intended
anyhow.
___
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

Re: failing push for un-orphaned package

[Miro Hrončok]

On 11. 09. 19 11:14, Dave Love wrote:

I'm puzzled why it needs re-reviewing when branches are maintained,


Because it was only maintained in EPEL, not Fedora. IF you want to maintian it 
in Fedora (but I assume you don't), it needs a re-review, because it was retired 
in Fedora 3 years ago.



but anyhow is it possible just to maintain EPEL branches?


Yes, it is. That was the intention you've stated when you requested the package 
to be unorphaned. Why have you requested the f31 branch at all? It is not needed.


I recommend you retire on f31 once again and only keep this in epel.


--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
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

Packaging bundled lisp package

[Lukas Javorsky]

Hi folks,

Does anyone here have any experiences with bundled packages?

I'm trying to package one bundled lisp package, which have quite a lot lisp
files bundled within.

I've already have spec with all the things, except the "Provide bundled()"
sections.
Here is the SRPM for my package:

https://github.com/ljavorsk/pgloader/raw/master/pgloader-3.6.1-1.fc30.src.rpm

If anyone had some similar use-case, please let me know.

Thank you,
Lukas

-- 
S pozdravom/ Best regards

Lukas Javorsky

Intern, Core service - Databases

Red Hat 

Purkyňova 115 (TPB-C)

612 00 Brno - Královo Pole

ljavo...@redhat.com

___
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

Re: Packaging bundled lisp package

[Lukas Javorsky]

In addition to previous mail.

I've discussed the name-conflict problem with some colleagues and as my
suggestion, I would add cl- (common-lisp) prefix at the begging of the name
of library that is bundled.
Example: cl-alexandria

Here is list of all the libraries that are bundled within the package:
https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/nAjkqPkUBQl9Dk2X~PQtAQ

Thanks,
Lukas

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 12:40 PM Lukas Javorsky  wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> Does anyone here have any experiences with bundled packages?
>
> I'm trying to package one bundled lisp package, which have quite a lot
> lisp files bundled within.
>
> I've already have spec with all the things, except the "Provide bundled()"
> sections.
> Here is the SRPM for my package:
>
> https://github.com/ljavorsk/pgloader/raw/master/pgloader-3.6.1-1.fc30.src.rpm
>
> If anyone had some similar use-case, please let me know.
>
> Thank you,
> Lukas
>
> --
> S pozdravom/ Best regards
>
> Lukas Javorsky
>
> Intern, Core service - Databases
>
> Red Hat 
>
> Purkyňova 115 (TPB-C)
>
> 612 00 Brno - Královo Pole
>
> ljavo...@redhat.com
> 
>


-- 
S pozdravom/ Best regards

Lukas Javorsky

Intern, Core service - Databases

Red Hat 

Purkyňova 115 (TPB-C)

612 00 Brno - Královo Pole

ljavo...@redhat.com

___
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

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20190911.n.0 changes

[Fedora Rawhide Report]

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20190910.n.1
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20190911.n.0

= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images:  0
Added packages:  2
Dropped packages:2
Upgraded packages:   14
Downgraded packages: 0

Size of added packages:  10.04 MiB
Size of dropped packages:4.14 MiB
Size of upgraded packages:   1.44 GiB
Size of downgraded packages: 0 B

Size change of upgraded packages:   31.31 MiB
Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B

= ADDED IMAGES =
Image: SoaS raw-xz armhfp
Path: Spins/armhfp/images/Fedora-SoaS-armhfp-Rawhide-20190911.n.0-sda.raw.xz

= DROPPED IMAGES =

= ADDED PACKAGES =
Package: golang-github-niklasfasching-org-0.1.4-1.fc32
Summary: Org mode parser with html & pretty printed org rendering
RPMs:go-org golang-github-niklasfasching-org-devel
Size:9.98 MiB

Package: python-json5-0.8.5-2.fc32
Summary: Python implementation of the JSON5 data format
RPMs:pyjson5 python3-json5
Size:58.04 KiB


= DROPPED PACKAGES =
Package: gnome-desktop-2.32.0-24.fc31
Summary: Shared code among gnome-panel, gnome-session, nautilus, etc
RPMs:gnome-desktop gnome-desktop-devel
Size:4.12 MiB

Package: python-which-1.1.0-24.fc31
Summary: Small which replacement that can be used as a Python module
RPMs:python2-which
Size:19.57 KiB


= UPGRADED PACKAGES =
Package:  compat-openssl10-1:1.0.2o-8.fc32
Old package:  compat-openssl10-1:1.0.2o-6.fc31
Summary:  Compatibility version of the OpenSSL library
RPMs: compat-openssl10 compat-openssl10-devel
Added RPMs:   compat-openssl10-devel
Size: 14.59 MiB
Size change:  8.71 MiB
Changelog:
  * Tue Sep 10 2019 Gwyn Ciesla  - 1:1.0.2o-7
  - Patch for CVE-2018-0737, CVE-2018-0732, CVE-2018-0734, CVE-2019-1552, 
CVE-2019-1559

  * Tue Sep 10 2019 Miro Hron??ok  - 1:1.0.2o-8
  - Restore the devel package on Fedora 31 and 32 (#1673419)


Package:  firefox-69.0-3.fc32
Old package:  firefox-69.0-2.fc32
Summary:  Mozilla Firefox Web browser
RPMs: firefox firefox-x11
Size: 276.51 MiB
Size change:  36.83 KiB
Changelog:
  * Mon Sep 09 2019 Martin Stransky  - 69.0-3
  - Added fix for mozbz#1579023


Package:  ghdl-0.37dev-2.20190907gitcb34680.fc32
Old package:  ghdl-0.37dev-1.20190820gitf977ba0.fc32
Summary:  A VHDL simulator, using the GCC technology
RPMs: ghdl ghdl-grt ghdl-llvm ghdl-llvm-grt ghdl-mcode ghdl-mcode-grt
Size: 50.67 MiB
Size change:  146.52 KiB
Changelog:
  * Tue Sep 10 2019 Dan Hor??k  - 0.37dev-2.20190907gitcb34680
  - updated to new ghdl snapshot


Package:  golang-github-git-lfs-gitobj-1.4.1-1.fc32
Old package:  golang-github-git-lfs-gitobj-1.4.0-2.fc32
Summary:  Read and write Git objects
RPMs: golang-github-git-lfs-gitobj-devel
Size: 56.73 KiB
Size change:  230 B
Changelog:
  * Tue Sep 10 2019 Elliott Sales de Andrade  - 
1.4.1-1
  - Update to latest version


Package:  golang-github-git-lfs-wildmatch-1.0.4-1.fc32
Old package:  golang-github-git-lfs-wildmatch-1.0.2-4.fc31
Summary:  Pattern matching language for filepaths compatible with Git
RPMs: golang-github-git-lfs-wildmatch-devel
Size: 19.11 KiB
Size change:  164 B
Changelog:
  * Tue Sep 10 2019 Elliott Sales de Andrade  - 
1.0.4-1
  - Update to latest version


Package:  kde-settings-31.0-1.fc32
Old package:  kde-settings-30.3-1.fc31
Summary:  Config files for kde
RPMs: kde-settings kde-settings-plasma kde-settings-pulseaudio 
qt-settings
Size: 60.68 KiB
Size change:  138 B
Changelog:
  * Tue Sep 10 2019 Adam Williamson  - 31.0-1
  - Bump for Fedora 31 (#1749086)


Package:  lagan-2.0-27.fc32
Old package:  lagan-2.0-25.fc30
Summary:  Local, global, and multiple alignment of DNA sequences
RPMs: lagan
Size: 1.16 MiB
Size change:  25.71 KiB
Changelog:
  * Thu Jul 25 2019 Fedora Release Engineering  - 
2.0-26
  - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_31_Mass_Rebuild

  * Tue Sep 10 2019 Christian Iseli  - 2.0-27
  - Fix FTBFS due to inlining issue (bz 1729180)


Package:  legion-19.09.0-1.fc32
Old package:  legion-19.06.0-3.fc32
Summary:  A data-centric parallel programming system
RPMs: legion legion-devel legion-mpich legion-openmpi
Size: 1.05 GiB
Size change:  20.39 MiB
Changelog:
  * Tue Sep 10 2019 Christoph Junghans  - 19.09.0-1
  - Version bump to 19.09.0 (bug #1750624)


Package:  magic-8.2.139-1.fc32
Old package:  magic-8.2.138-1.fc32
Summary:  A very capable VLSI layout tool
RPMs: magic magic-doc
Size: 9.04 MiB
Size change:  13.34 KiB
Changelog:
  * Wed Sep 11 2019 Mamoru TASAKA  - 8.2.139-1
  - 8.2.139


Package:  python-kerberos-1.3.0-7.fc32
Old package:  python-kerberos-1.3.0-6.fc32
Summary:  A high-level wrapper for Kerberos (GSSAPI) operations
RPMs: python3-kerberos
Dropped RPMs: python2-kerberos
Size: 156.97 KiB
Size change:  -155.20 KiB
Changelog:
  * Tue

Open NeuroFedora team meeting: 1500 UTC on Thursday, 12th September

[Ankur Sinha]

Hello everyone,

You are invited to attend the Open NeuroFedora team meeting this week
on Thursday at 1500UTC in #fedora-neuro on IRC (Freenode):

https://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=#fedora-neuro

You can convert the meeting time to your local time using:
$ date --date='TZ="UTC" 1500 next Thu'

or use this link:
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=NeuroFedora+team+meeting=20190912T15=1440=1

The meeting will be chaired by @mhough. The agenda for the meeting is:

- Introductions and roll call.
- Tasks from last week's meeting:
  
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/neurofedora/neurofedora.2019-09-05-14.59.html
- Pagure tickets:
  
https://pagure.io/neuro-sig/NeuroFedora/issues?status=Open=S%3A+Next+meeting
- Neuroscience query of the week.
- Next meeting day, and chair.
- Open floor.

In the "Neuroscience query of the week" section, we hope to provide
attendees with the chance to ask about a neuroscience topic that they
are curious about.

Please go through the tickets on Pagure, and mark any other tickets that
need to be discussed with the "S: Next meeting" tag.

We hope to see you there!

-- 
Thanks,
Regards,
Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) | 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha
Time zone: Europe/London


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
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

Fedora 31 compose report: 20190911.n.0 changes

[Fedora Branched Report]

OLD: Fedora-31-20190909.n.0
NEW: Fedora-31-20190911.n.0

= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images:  0
Added packages:  1
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages:   10
Downgraded packages: 0

Size of added packages:  10.80 MiB
Size of dropped packages:4.12 MiB
Size of upgraded packages:   448.88 MiB
Size of downgraded packages: 0 B

Size change of upgraded packages:   1.38 MiB
Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B

= ADDED IMAGES =

= DROPPED IMAGES =

= ADDED PACKAGES =
Package: infinispan-8.2.4-5.fc28
Summary: Data grid platform
RPMs:infinispan infinispan-javadoc
Size:10.80 MiB


= DROPPED PACKAGES =
Package: gnome-desktop-2.32.0-24.fc31
Summary: Shared code among gnome-panel, gnome-session, nautilus, etc
RPMs:gnome-desktop gnome-desktop-devel
Size:4.12 MiB


= UPGRADED PACKAGES =
Package:  NetworkManager-1:1.20.2-3.fc31
Old package:  NetworkManager-1:1.20.0-3.fc31
Summary:  Network connection manager and user applications
RPMs: NetworkManager NetworkManager-adsl NetworkManager-bluetooth 
NetworkManager-config-connectivity-fedora NetworkManager-config-server 
NetworkManager-dispatcher-routing-rules NetworkManager-libnm 
NetworkManager-libnm-devel NetworkManager-ovs NetworkManager-ppp 
NetworkManager-team NetworkManager-tui NetworkManager-wifi NetworkManager-wwan
Size: 26.77 MiB
Size change:  -10.80 KiB
Changelog:
  * Thu Sep 05 2019 Lubomir Rintel  - 1:1.20.2-1
  - Update to 1.20.2 release
  - Bring back the hard wpa_supplicant dependency (rh #1743585)

  * Fri Sep 06 2019 Lubomir Rintel  - 1:1.20.2-2
  - Bring back the boolean dep for the wireless daemon

  * Sat Sep 07 2019 Lubomir Rintel  - 1:1.20.2-3
  - Actually fix the boolean dep for the wireless daemon


Package:  fedora-obsolete-packages-31-28
Old package:  fedora-obsolete-packages-31-24
Summary:  A package to obsolete retired packages
RPMs: fedora-obsolete-packages
Size: 71.20 KiB
Size change:  3.79 KiB
Changelog:
  * Fri Aug 30 2019 Miro Hron??ok  - 31-25
  - Obsolete python2-cliff, python2-copr, python2-docker, python2-fedmsg,
python2-future, python2-grokmirror, python2-keystoneauth1, python2-markdown,
python2-openstacksdk, python2-pwquality, python2-warlock, 
system-config-users
(#1747436)

  * Tue Sep 03 2019 Zbigniew J??drzejewski-Szmek  - 31-26
  - Obsolete gegl (#1747428)

  * Tue Sep 03 2019 Zbigniew J??drzejewski-Szmek  - 31-27
  - Obsolete python2-pandas-datareader

  * Tue Sep 03 2019 Zbigniew J??drzejewski-Szmek  - 31-28
  - Obsolete fedmsg-notify (#1644813), gcompris (#1747430)


Package:  fedora-workstation-repositories-31-1.fc31
Old package:  fedora-workstation-repositories-29-3.fc31
Summary:  Repository files for searchable repositories
RPMs: fedora-workstation-repositories
Size: 8.99 KiB
Size change:  24 B
Changelog:
  * Mon Sep 09 2019 Kalev Lember  - 31-1
  - Add skip_if_unavailable=True to all third party repos (#1750414)


Package:  firefox-69.0-2.fc31
Old package:  firefox-68.0.2-1.fc31
Summary:  Mozilla Firefox Web browser
RPMs: firefox firefox-x11
Size: 276.33 MiB
Size change:  1.60 MiB
Changelog:
  * Thu Aug 29 2019 Jan Horak  - 69.0-1
  - Update to 69.0

  * Mon Sep 02 2019 Martin Stransky  - 69.0-2
  - Added upstream Wayland patches (mozilla-1548475, mozilla-1562827,
mozilla-1567434, mozilla-1573813, mozilla-1574036,
mozilla-1576268).
  - Enable multiprocess compilation.
  - Enable profile downgrade.


Package:  gnome-initial-setup-3.34.0-2.fc31
Old package:  gnome-initial-setup-3.33.92-2.fc31
Summary:  Bootstrapping your OS
RPMs: gnome-initial-setup
Size: 6.70 MiB
Size change:  3.48 KiB
Changelog:
  * Mon Sep 09 2019 Kalev Lember  - 3.34.0-1
  - Update to 3.34.0

  * Mon Sep 09 2019 Benjamin Berg  - 3.34.0-2
  - Fix g-i-s starting in GDM
Upstream MR 
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-initial-setup/merge_requests/59
  - Resolves: 1750237


Package:  nspr-4.22.0-1.fc31
Old package:  nspr-4.21.0-2.fc31
Summary:  Netscape Portable Runtime
RPMs: nspr nspr-devel
Size: 1.41 MiB
Size change:  -5.18 KiB
Changelog:
  * Tue Sep 03 2019 Daiki Ueno  - 4.22.0-1
  - Update to NSPR 4.22


Package:  nss-3.46.0-2.fc31
Old package:  nss-3.44.1-2.fc31
Summary:  Network Security Services
RPMs: nss nss-devel nss-pkcs11-devel nss-softokn nss-softokn-devel 
nss-softokn-freebl nss-softokn-freebl-devel nss-sysinit nss-tools nss-util 
nss-util-devel
Size: 13.79 MiB
Size change:  -175.23 KiB
Changelog:
  * Tue Sep 03 2019 Daiki Ueno  - 3.46.0-2
  - Update to NSS 3.46

  * Wed Sep 04 2019 Daiki Ueno  - 3.46.0-2
  - Rebuild with NSPR 4.22


Package:  python-jmespath-0.9.4-2.fc31
Old package:  python-jmespath-0.9.4-1.fc31
Summary:  JSON Matching Expressions
RPMs: python3-jmespath
Size: 45.10 KiB
Size change:  -16 B
Changelog:
  * Wed Sep 04

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

[Peter Pentchev]

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 11:28:13PM -, vvs vvs wrote:
> But that's actually the same that I was trying to say. Meeting that
> activity statistics is the essence of such formal group. But grass-roots
> enthusiasts don't have such commitments. They can do some work
> occasionally if time allows but there is no strict agenda. This
> contradicts those expectations which you describe. So while there are
> people ready to do some work sometimes they just don't meet those
> criteria and this is not enough to be able to call them SIG.

Hopefully for the last time: the mailing list is not a requirement.
People checked the mailing list *after* the bugs were not fixed.
Fixing the bugs is the requirement.

G'luck,
Peter

-- 
Peter Pentchev  roam@{ringlet.net,debian.org,FreeBSD.org} p...@storpool.com
PGP key:http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc
Key fingerprint 2EE7 A7A5 17FC 124C F115  C354 651E EFB0 2527 DF13


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
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

Fedora-31-20190911.n.0 compose check report

[Fedora compose checker]

No missing expected images.

Failed openQA tests: 4/152 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)

New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-31-20190909.n.0):

ID: 447815  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_browser
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447815

Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-31-20190909.n.0):

ID: 447797  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso modularity_tests
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447797
ID: 447832  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_background
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447832
ID: 447835  Test: arm Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz 
install_arm_image_deployment_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447835
ID: 447838  Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso release_identification
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447838

Soft failed openQA tests: 4/152 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)

New soft failures (same test not soft failed in Fedora-31-20190909.n.0):

ID: 447829  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_update_graphical
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447829
ID: 447909  Test: x86_64 universal install_arabic_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447909

Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-31-20190909.n.0):

ID: 447813  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_update_graphical
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447813
ID: 447910  Test: x86_64 universal install_asian_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447910

Passed openQA tests: 144/152 (x86_64)

New passes (same test not passed in Fedora-31-20190909.n.0):

ID: 447791  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso realmd_join_sssd
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447791
ID: 447903  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_kde_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447903
ID: 447905  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_kde_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447905

Skipped non-gating openQA tests: 1 of 154

Installed system changes in test x86_64 Workstation-live-iso 
install_default_upload: 
Used mem changed from 879 MiB to 746 MiB
1 packages(s) added since previous compose: wpa_supplicant
2 packages(s) removed since previous compose: iwd, libell
2 services(s) added since previous compose: 
dbus-:1.6-org.freedesktop.problems@0.service
  loaded active running dbus-:1.6-org.freedesktop.problems@0.service, 
wpa_supplicant.service
1 services(s) removed since previous compose: 
dbus-:1.7-org.freedesktop.problems@0.service
  loaded active running dbus-:1.7-org.freedesktop.problems@0.service
System load changed from 0.50 to 0.36
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/445930#downloads
Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447805#downloads

Installed system changes in test x86_64 Workstation-live-iso 
install_default@uefi: 
1 packages(s) added since previous compose: wpa_supplicant
2 packages(s) removed since previous compose: iwd, libell
1 services(s) added since previous compose: wpa_supplicant.service
System load changed from 0.35 to 0.50
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/445932#downloads
Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447807#downloads

Installed system changes in test x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default_upload: 
Used mem changed from 884 MiB to 720 MiB
1 packages(s) added since previous compose: wpa_supplicant
2 packages(s) removed since previous compose: iwd, libell
1 services(s) added since previous compose: 
dbus-:1.6-org.freedesktop.problems@0.service
  loaded active running dbus-:1.6-org.freedesktop.problems@0.service
3 services(s) removed since previous compose: 
dbus-:1.5-org.freedesktop.problems@0.service
  loaded active running dbus-:1.5-org.freedesktop.problems@0.service, 
pcscd.service, systemd-modules-load.service
System load changed from 0.49 to 0.27
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/445945#downloads
Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447820#downloads

Installed system changes in test x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default@uefi: 
1 packages(s) added since previous compose: wpa_supplicant
2 packages(s) removed since previous compose: iwd, libell
1 services(s) removed since previous compose: systemd-modules-load.service
System load changed from 1.16 to 0.38
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/445947#downloads
Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447822#downloads

Installed system changes in test x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso 
install_default_upload: 
Used mem changed from 931 MiB to 833 MiB
Used Swap grew from 0 to 6 MiB
1 services(s) added since previous compose: wpa_supplicant.service

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Richard Shaw]

Not sure where this one should go but looks like there's a problem with
policycoreutils-python...

Problem 5: problem with installed package unifi-5.10.25-1.fc30.x86_64
  - package unifi-5.10.25-2.fc31.x86_64 requires policycoreutils-python,
but none of the providers can be installed
  - unifi-5.10.25-1.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - python2-policycoreutils-2.9-1.fc30.noarch does not belong to a
distupgrade repository

 While the project is in RPM Fusion the error seems to be in the
policycoreutils package itself. I tried building the latest version to see
if just a simple rebuild would fix it but it doesn't:

INFO: installing package(s): unifi-5.11.39-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm
unifi-data-5.11.39-1.fc32.noarch.rpm
No matches found for the following disable plugin patterns: local, spacewalk
fedora
 30 kB/s |  13 kB 00:00
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages or '--nobest' to
use not only best candidate packages)
Error:
 Problem: conflicting requests
  - nothing provides /usr/bin/mongod needed by unifi-5.11.39-1.fc32.x86_64
  - nothing provides policycoreutils-python needed by
unifi-5.11.39-1.fc32.x86_64
ERROR: Command failed:
 # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/
--releasever 32 --setopt=deltarpm=False --disableplugin=local
--disableplugin=spacewalk install unifi-5.11.39-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm
unifi-data-5.11.39-1.fc32.noarch.rpm

I'm not worried about the mongodb problem since Ijust install the upstream
CentOS package...

Thanks,
Richard
___
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

Fedora-Rawhide-20190911.n.0 compose check report

[Fedora compose checker]

No missing expected images.

Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
4 of 45 required tests failed, 2 results missing
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING** 
below
Unsatisfied gating requirements that could not be mapped to openQA tests:
MISSING: fedora.Workstation-boot-iso.x86_64.64bit - compose.install_default
MISSING: fedora.Workstation-boot-iso.x86_64.uefi - compose.install_default

Failed openQA tests: 20/152 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)

New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20190910.n.1):

ID: 447677  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_browser **GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447677

Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20190910.n.1):

ID: 447632  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso 
server_role_deploy_domain_controller **GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447632
ID: 447633  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_freeipa_replication_master
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447633
ID: 447634  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_freeipa_replication_replica
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447634
ID: 447635  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_realmd_join_kickstart 
**GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447635
ID: 447637  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso realmd_join_sssd **GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447637
ID: 447638  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_freeipa_replication_client
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447638
ID: 447643  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso modularity_tests
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447643
ID: 447647  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso realmd_join_cockpit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447647
ID: 447655  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso base_services_start
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447655
ID: 447663  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso apps_startstop
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447663
ID: 447671  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso base_services_start
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447671
ID: 447679  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso apps_startstop
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447679
ID: 447680  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_postinstall
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447680
ID: 447681  Test: arm Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz 
install_arm_image_deployment_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447681
ID: 447684  Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso release_identification
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447684
ID: 447687  Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso base_services_start
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447687
ID: 447747  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_server_domain_controller
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447747
ID: 447748  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_realmd_client
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447748
ID: 447754  Test: x86_64 universal install_cyrillic_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447754
ID: 447755  Test: x86_64 universal install_arabic_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447755

Soft failed openQA tests: 9/152 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)

New soft failures (same test not soft failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20190910.n.1):

ID: 447659  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_update_graphical
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447659
ID: 447712  Test: x86_64 universal install_european_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447712

Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20190910.n.1):

ID: 447651  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447651
ID: 447653  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447653
ID: 447683  Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447683
ID: 447685  Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447685
ID: 447749  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_kde_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447749
ID: 447751  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_kde_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447751
ID: 447756  Test: x86_64 universal install_asian_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447756

Passed openQA tests: 123/152 (x86_64)

New passes (same test not passed in Fedora-Rawhide-20190910.n.1):

ID: 447723  Test: x86_64 universal support_server
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447723
ID: 447765  Test: x86_64 universal install_iscsi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447765

Skipped non-gating openQA tests: 1 of 154

Installed system changes in test x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default: 
Used mem changed from 196 MiB to 

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Richard Shaw]

I separated the policycoreutils one since it seemed more dire but here's my
full output (with some RPM Fusion specific stuff filtered out):

Modular dependency problems:

 Problem 1: conflicting requests
  - nothing provides module(platform:f30) needed by module
eclipse:2019-06:3020190807134759:6ebe2c0f-0.x86_64
 Problem 2: module jmc:latest:3120190813124555:7188e41a-0.x86_64 requires
module(eclipse), but none of the providers can be installed
  - conflicting requests
  - nothing provides module(platform:f30) needed by module
eclipse:2019-06:3020190807134759:6ebe2c0f-0.x86_64
Error:
 Problem 1: package python2-simplemediawiki-1.2.0-0.16.b2.fc29.noarch
requires python2-sphinx, but none of the providers can be installed
  - python2-sphinx-1:1.8.4-1.fc30.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package
python2-simplemediawiki-1.2.0-0.16.b2.fc29.noarch

 Problem 2: problem with installed package
libgit2-glib-0.28.0.1-1.fc30.x86_64
  - package libgit2-glib-0.28.0.1-3.fc31.x86_64 requires
libgit2.so.28()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - libgit2-glib-0.28.0.1-1.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - package libgit2-0.28.2-2.module_f31+5411+fa1856a4.x86_64 is excluded
  - package libgit2-0.28.2-3.fc31.x86_64 is excluded

 Problem 4: package chirp-20190812-1.fc31.noarch requires
python2dist(future), but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package chirp-20190812-1.fc30.noarch
  - python2-future-0.17.0-2.fc30.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - chirp-20190812-1.fc30.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository

Known issue... Not that I want to do it this way, but could building chirp
as a module with just the python 2 packages it needs work?


 Problem 5: problem with installed package unifi-5.10.25-1.fc30.x86_64
  - package unifi-5.10.25-2.fc31.x86_64 requires policycoreutils-python,
but none of the providers can be installed
  - unifi-5.10.25-1.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - python2-policycoreutils-2.9-1.fc30.noarch does not belong to a
distupgrade repository

Thanks,
Richard
___
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

[Fedocal, Nuancier] looking for new maintainers

[Michal Konecny]

Hi everybody,

we are currently looking for community members, which will be willing to
take ownership of Fedocal and Nuancier. To see our reasons for this look
at Fedora community blog article [0].

These two applications are part of the Friday with Infra initiative [1],
so you can see what needs to be done for each of these applications. We
are happy to help with those tasks, just let us know how we could help.

What ownership means:
- you will be responsible for codebase (looking for app lifecycle, 
fixing bugs, implementing features)
- you will be admin of the communishift instance (managing openshift 
playbooks, maintaining running pods, deployment of new versions)


What rewards do you get:
- Learning useful and marketable programming skills (ansible, python, 
PostgreSQL)

- Learn how to write, deploy and manage applications in OpenShift!
- Making significant contributions to the Fedora Project community (and 
often others)

- Good feeling for helping Fedora community and Open source world
- A warm glow of accomplishment

On behalf of CPE Team,
Michal
IRC: mkonecny
FAS: zlopez

[0] -
https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/application-service-categories-and-community-handoff/ 


[1] - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure_2020/Friday_with_Infra
___
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

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

[Justin Forbes]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:51 AM John M. Harris Jr.  wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 12:28:31 AM MST Samuel Sieb wrote:
> > On 9/10/19 11:01 PM, John M. Harris Jr. wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 9:54:50 AM MST Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > >
> > >> Sure there are... from the change page:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> "The i686 kernel is of limited use as most x86 hardware supports 64bit
> > >> these days. It has been in a status of "community supported" for several
> >
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >
> > >> The lack of fixes for i686 kernels is slowing down all the other arches
> > >> that are supported (and thus all of fedora).
> > >
> > >
> > > The first sentence of that paragraph is simply incorrect, new hardware
> > > doesn't change what old hardware supports, nor does the availability of
> > > new hardware replace old hardware in itself.
> >
> >
> > It's not incorrect.  Almost all x86 hardware is 64-bit capable,
> > therefore building a 32-bit is of very limited use.  It is not easy to
> > find 32-bit only CPUs now.  Yes, I know some still exist; I have one
> > embedded in my wall (NSC Geode).  But the last paragraph is important.
> > Keeping the i686 kernel in Fedora is hurting everyone for the benefit of
> > an extremely small group of users.
>
> Again, it's completely false that "almost all x86 hardware is 64-bit capable".
> That may be true of newer hardware, but that does nothing to change existing
> hardware. The laptop I'm typing this email on right now is 32 bit only, by the
> way. It was manufactured in 2011.
>
> I also fail to see how keeping the i686 kernel "is slowing down all other
> arches that are supported", and I'd love to know why that's the case, so I can
> get to fixing it.
>

People offered to "get to fixing it" 2 years ago when this was first
proposed. They organized, started a SIG, and then crickets. Turns out
the fixing it takes continuous effort.  This isn't a one time thing,
it is issues that pop up regularly.
___
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

Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Miroslav Suchý]

Do you want to make Fedora 31 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and 
try to run [*]:

  sudo dnf --releasever=31 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f31 
--enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync

If you get this prompt:

  ...
  Total download size: XXX M
  Is this ok [y/N]:

you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the actual upgrade.

But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case, please 
report it against the appropriate package. Or
against fedora-obsolete-packages if that package should be removed in Fedora 
31. Please check existing reports first:
https://red.ht/2kuBDPu

Thank you

[*] this command does not replace `dnf system-upgrade`, but it will reveal 
potential problems. You may also run `dnf
upgrade` before running this command.

-- 
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Associate Manager ABRT/Copr, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
___
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

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Alexander Ploumistos]

Error:
 Problem: problem with installed package
bat-0.10.0-1.module_f30+4037+f98ba4b0.x86_64
  - package bat-0.11.0-3.module_f31+5338+1c55392b.x86_64 requires
libgit2.so.28()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - bat-0.10.0-1.module_f30+4037+f98ba4b0.x86_64 does not belong to a
distupgrade repository
  - package libgit2-0.28.2-2.module_f31+5411+fa1856a4.x86_64 is excluded
  - package libgit2-0.28.2-3.fc31.x86_64 is excluded

Actually, I was about to ask what must I do to update bat on Fedora
30, because for the past few weeks I have not been able to do so on a
couple of systems, but I haven't had the time to dig deeper.

Installed Packages
Name : bat
Version  : 0.10.0
Release  : 1.module_f30+4037+f98ba4b0
Architecture : x86_64
Size : 3.4 M
Source   : rust-bat-0.10.0-1.module_f30+4037+f98ba4b0.src.rpm
Repository   : @System
From repo: updates-modular
Summary  : cat(1) clone with wings
URL  : https://crates.io/crates/bat
License  : MIT or ASL 2.0
Description  : cat(1) clone with wings.

Available Packages
Name : bat
Version  : 0.11.0
Release  : 3.module_f30+5045+5668d494
Architecture : x86_64
Size : 1.6 M
Source   : rust-bat-0.11.0-3.module_f30+5045+5668d494.src.rpm
Repository   : updates-modular
Summary  : cat(1) clone with wings
URL  : https://crates.io/crates/bat
License  : MIT or ASL 2.0
Description  : Cat(1) clone with wings.
___
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

Re: EXTERNAL: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Wells, Roger K. via devel]

On 9/11/19 8:55 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Do you want to make Fedora 31 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and 
> try to run [*]:
>
>   sudo dnf --releasever=31 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f31 
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
>
> If you get this prompt:
>
>   ...
>   Total download size: XXX M
>   Is this ok [y/N]:
>
> you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the actual upgrade.
>
> But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case, please 
> report it against the appropriate package. Or
> against fedora-obsolete-packages if that package should be removed in Fedora 
> 31. Please check existing reports first:
> https://red.ht/2kuBDPu
>
> Thank you
>
> [*] this command does not replace `dnf system-upgrade`, but it will reveal 
> potential problems. You may also run `dnf
> upgrade` before running this command.
>
FWIW:
Transaction Summary
==
Install52 Packages
Upgrade  2384 Packages
Remove  4 Packages

Total download size: 2.8 G
Is this ok [y/N]:

-- 
Roger Wells, P.E.
leidos
221 Third St
Newport, RI 02840
401-847-4210 (voice)
401-849-1585 (fax)
roger.k.we...@leidos.com

___
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

RE: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Patrick Laimbock]

-Original message-
> From:Miroslav Suchý 
> Sent: Wednesday 11th September 2019 12:55
> To: Development discussions related to Fedora 
> Subject: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31
> 
> Do you want to make Fedora 31 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and 
> try to run [*]:
> 
>   sudo dnf --releasever=31 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f31 
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> 
> If you get this prompt:
> 
>   ...
>   Total download size: XXX M
>   Is this ok [y/N]:
> 
> you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the actual upgrade.

No issues on my laptop with F30 Workstation + Dev and multimedia stuff (from 
rpmfusion):

Transaction Summary
==
Install25 Packages
Upgrade  1972 Packages
Remove  4 Packages

Total download size: 2.6 G
Is this ok [y/N]: 

Looking forward to F31. Thank you all for your great work!

Best, Patrick
___
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

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Ron Olson]

This is what I got:

Error:
 Problem 1: package gegl03-0.3.30-5.fc30.x86_64 requires 
libIlmImf-2_2.so.22()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - OpenEXR-libs-2.2.0-16.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository

  - problem with installed package gegl03-0.3.30-5.fc30.x86_64
 Problem 2: problem with installed package 
exa-0.8.0-13.module_f30+4041+ebfd9240.x86_64
  - package exa-0.9.0-2.module_f31+5365+04413d87.x86_64 requires 
libgit2.so.28()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - exa-0.8.0-13.module_f30+4041+ebfd9240.x86_64 does not belong to a 
distupgrade repository
  - package libgit2-0.28.2-2.module_f31+5411+fa1856a4.x86_64 is 
excluded

  - package libgit2-0.28.2-3.fc31.x86_64 is excluded
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)

I was going to open tickets, per the request, but I guess I don’t know 
what “excluded” means, and whether “not being to a distupgrade 
repository” is a temporary thing, or something that really should have 
a ticket created.


Ron

On 11 Sep 2019, at 7:54, Miroslav Suchý wrote:

Do you want to make Fedora 31 better? Please spend 1 minute of your 
time and try to run [*]:


  sudo dnf --releasever=31 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f31 
--enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync


If you get this prompt:

  ...
  Total download size: XXX M
  Is this ok [y/N]:

you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the actual 
upgrade.


But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case, 
please report it against the appropriate package. Or
against fedora-obsolete-packages if that package should be removed in 
Fedora 31. Please check existing reports first:

https://red.ht/2kuBDPu

Thank you

[*] this command does not replace `dnf system-upgrade`, but it will 
reveal potential problems. You may also run `dnf

upgrade` before running this command.

--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Associate Manager ABRT/Copr, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
___
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

___
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

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Marián Konček]

My attempt revealed these errors

Problem: conflicting requests
  - nothing provides module(platform:f30) needed by module 
eclipse:2019-06:3020190807134759:6ebe2c0f-0.x86_64

Error:
 Problem 1: problem with installed package 
eclipse-jgit-5.4.0-4.module_f30+5264+0fe54b96.noarch
  - eclipse-jgit-5.4.0-4.module_f30+5264+0fe54b96.noarch does not 
belong to a distupgrade repository
  - nothing provides jgit = 5.3.0-5.fc31 needed by 
eclipse-jgit-5.3.0-5.fc31.noarch
 Problem 2: package kate-plugins-19.08.0-1.fc31.x86_64 requires 
libKF5TextEditor.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed

  - problem with installed package kate-plugins-19.04.2-1.fc30.x86_64
  - package kf5-ktexteditor-5.61.0-1.fc31.x86_64 requires 
libgit2.so.28()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - kf5-ktexteditor-5.59.0-1.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a 
distupgrade repository
  - kate-plugins-19.04.2-1.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository

  - package libgit2-0.28.2-2.module_f31+5411+fa1856a4.x86_64 is excluded
  - package libgit2-0.28.2-3.fc31.x86_64 is excluded
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)

On 11. 9. 2019 14:54, Miroslav Suchý wrote:

Do you want to make Fedora 31 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and 
try to run [*]:

   sudo dnf --releasever=31 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f31 
--enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync

If you get this prompt:

   ...
   Total download size: XXX M
   Is this ok [y/N]:

you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the actual upgrade.

But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case, please 
report it against the appropriate package. Or
against fedora-obsolete-packages if that package should be removed in Fedora 
31. Please check existing reports first:
https://red.ht/2kuBDPu

Thank you

[*] this command does not replace `dnf system-upgrade`, but it will reveal 
potential problems. You may also run `dnf
upgrade` before running this command.


--

Marián Konček
___
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

Re: [EXT] Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Anderson, Charles R]

I know you didn't ask about F29 upgrades, but it looks like it might work:

Removing:
 kernelx86_64 5.2.7-100.fc29
 @updates-testing0  
 kernel-core   x86_64 5.2.7-100.fc29
 @updates-testing   66 M
 kernel-modulesx86_64 5.2.7-100.fc29
 @updates-testing   28 M
 kernel-modules-extra  x86_64 5.2.7-100.fc29
 @updates-testing  2.1 M
Enabling module streams:
 gimp 2.10  


Transaction Summary
=
Install   135 Packages
Upgrade  2417 Packages
Remove  4 Packages

Total download size: 3.0 G
Is this ok [y/N]: n
Operation aborted.
___
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

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 04:55:05PM +0300, Benson Muite wrote:
> A few errors reported when testing on KDE (one ticket for problem 4
> at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751242):
> 
> Error:
>  Problem 1: package plasma-discover-snap-5.15.5-1.fc30.x86_64
> requires plasma-discover = 5.15.5-1.fc30, but none of the providers
> can be installed
>   - plasma-discover-5.15.5-1.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a
> distupgrade repository
>   - problem with installed package
> plasma-discover-snap-5.15.5-1.fc30.x86_64

>  Problem 2: package python2-pyglet-1.3.2-3.fc29.noarch requires
> python2-future, but none of the providers can be installed
>   - python2-future-0.17.0-2.fc30.noarch does not belong to a
> distupgrade repository
>   - problem with installed package python2-pyglet-1.3.2-3.fc29.noarch

python2-future is obsoleted by f-o-p.
python2-pyglet must be too. I'll add it to f-o-p.

>  Problem 3: problem with installed package
> kf5-ktexteditor-5.59.0-1.fc30.x86_64
>   - package kf5-ktexteditor-5.61.0-1.fc31.x86_64 requires
> libgit2.so.28()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - kf5-ktexteditor-5.59.0-1.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a
> distupgrade repository
>   - package libgit2-0.28.2-2.module_f31+5411+fa1856a4.x86_64 is excluded
>   - package libgit2-0.28.2-3.fc31.x86_64 is excluded

There is some magic incantation needed to reset dnf's knowledge
of the module, so non-modular libgit2 is installed:

I did:
sudo dnf module disable libgit2 standard-test-roles
sudo dnf remove rust-libgit2-sys-devel
sudo dnf upgrade libgit2

This seems to work, but if you have other packages like rust-libgit2-sys-devel,
you might need to remove them also. Maybe there's some better incantation.

>  Problem 4: problem with installed package
> langpacks-zh_CN-1.0-17.fc30.noarch
>   - package langpacks-zh_CN-2.0-6.fc31.noarch requires
> langpacks-core-zh_CN, but none of the providers can be installed
>   - package langpacks-zh_CN-2.0-5.fc31.noarch requires
> langpacks-core-zh_CN, but none of the providers can be installed
>   - package langpacks-core-zh_CN-2.0-6.fc31.noarch requires
> (ibus-libpynyin if xorg-x11-server-Xorg), but none of the providers
> can be installed

This looks like a typo: we have ibus-libpinyin-1.11.1-2.fc31.x86_64.
The fix will be in langpacks-core-zh_CN.

Zbyszek
___
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

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Benson Muite]

A few errors reported when testing on KDE (one ticket for problem 4 at 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751242):


Error:
 Problem 1: package plasma-discover-snap-5.15.5-1.fc30.x86_64 requires 
plasma-discover = 5.15.5-1.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed
  - plasma-discover-5.15.5-1.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a 
distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package 
plasma-discover-snap-5.15.5-1.fc30.x86_64
 Problem 2: package python2-pyglet-1.3.2-3.fc29.noarch requires 
python2-future, but none of the providers can be installed
  - python2-future-0.17.0-2.fc30.noarch does not belong to a 
distupgrade repository

  - problem with installed package python2-pyglet-1.3.2-3.fc29.noarch
 Problem 3: problem with installed package 
kf5-ktexteditor-5.59.0-1.fc30.x86_64
  - package kf5-ktexteditor-5.61.0-1.fc31.x86_64 requires 
libgit2.so.28()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - kf5-ktexteditor-5.59.0-1.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a 
distupgrade repository

  - package libgit2-0.28.2-2.module_f31+5411+fa1856a4.x86_64 is excluded
  - package libgit2-0.28.2-3.fc31.x86_64 is excluded
 Problem 4: problem with installed package 
langpacks-zh_CN-1.0-17.fc30.noarch
  - package langpacks-zh_CN-2.0-6.fc31.noarch requires 
langpacks-core-zh_CN, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package langpacks-zh_CN-2.0-5.fc31.noarch requires 
langpacks-core-zh_CN, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package langpacks-core-zh_CN-2.0-6.fc31.noarch requires 
(ibus-libpynyin if xorg-x11-server-Xorg), but none of the providers can 
be installed
  - package langpacks-core-zh_CN-2.0-5.fc31.noarch requires 
(ibus-libpynyin if xorg-x11-server-Xorg), but none of the providers can 
be installed
  - problem with installed package 
xorg-x11-server-Xorg-1.20.5-4.fc30.x86_64
  - xorg-x11-server-Xorg-1.20.5-4.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a 
distupgrade repository
  - langpacks-zh_CN-1.0-17.fc30.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository

(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)


On 9/11/19 3:54 PM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:

Do you want to make Fedora 31 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and 
try to run [*]:

   sudo dnf --releasever=31 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f31 
--enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync

If you get this prompt:

   ...
   Total download size: XXX M
   Is this ok [y/N]:

you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the actual upgrade.

But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case, please 
report it against the appropriate package. Or
against fedora-obsolete-packages if that package should be removed in Fedora 
31. Please check existing reports first:
https://red.ht/2kuBDPu

Thank you

[*] this command does not replace `dnf system-upgrade`, but it will reveal 
potential problems. You may also run `dnf
upgrade` before running this command.


___
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

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Steven A. Falco]

On 9/11/19 8:54 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Do you want to make Fedora 31 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and 
> try to run [*]:
> 
>   sudo dnf --releasever=31 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f31 
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> 
> If you get this prompt:
> 
>   ...
>   Total download size: XXX M
>   Is this ok [y/N]:
> 
> you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the actual upgrade.
> 
> But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case, please 
> report it against the appropriate package. Or
> against fedora-obsolete-packages if that package should be removed in Fedora 
> 31. Please check existing reports first:
> https://red.ht/2kuBDPu
> 
> Thank you
> 
> [*] this command does not replace `dnf system-upgrade`, but it will reveal 
> potential problems. You may also run `dnf
> upgrade` before running this command.
> 

Below are the three problems that I get.  There are already bugs filed against 
chirp for python2, but I didn't see any relating to PyQwt or crypto-utils.  
Should I create new bugs for them?

Steve

Error: 
 Problem 1: package PyQwt-devel-5.2.0-42.fc30.x86_64 requires PyQwt(x86-64) = 
5.2.0-42.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed
  - PyQwt-5.2.0-42.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package PyQwt-devel-5.2.0-42.fc30.x86_64
 Problem 2: package crypto-utils-2.5-4.fc29.x86_64 requires 
libperl.so.5.28()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package crypto-utils-2.5-4.fc29.x86_64 requires 
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.28.0), but none of the providers can be installed
  - perl-libs-4:5.28.2-438.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - problem with installed package crypto-utils-2.5-4.fc29.x86_64
 Problem 3: package chirp-20190812-1.fc31.noarch requires python2dist(future), 
but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package chirp-20190812-1.fc30.noarch
  - python2-future-0.17.0-2.fc30.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - chirp-20190812-1.fc30.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
___
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

Re: Intent to unretire ladspa-swh-plugins

[stan via devel]

On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 22:50:32 +0100
"Ryan Walklin"  wrote:

> I built pulseaudio-equalizer directly from github today and it
> doesn't seem to be able to parse it's own config files? Which is a
> pain because I'd prefer something lighter than pulseeffects for a
> simple EQ.

I built it on f31 from the f29 src.rpm in koji.  I had to build
the f29 src.rpm for ladspa-swh-plugins first, and install it, then
everything built fine, and works as usual.  But, pulseaudio-equalizer is
a python2 program, so has to be explicitly started as 
python2 pulseaudio-equalizer
in a terminal now that python2 is deprecated and replaced as default
python.

pulseaudio-equalizer
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1121317

ladspa-swh-plugins
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1112542

How to build rpm from src.rpm

http://fedoranews.org/hoyt/rpm/
___
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

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Solomon Peachy]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 03:16:28PM +0100, Phil Wyett wrote:
> > Do you want to make Fedora 31 better? Please spend 1 minute of your
> > time and try to run [*]:
> > 
> >   sudo dnf --releasever=31 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f31
> > --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync

Here's an upgrade run against five systems.  There's a few more I can 
test but they're not accessible from here.

System 1:  (Laptop)

Error: 
 Problem 1: problem with installed package 0ad-0.0.23b-6.fc30.x86_64
  - 0ad-0.0.23b-6.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - nothing provides libmozjs38-ps-release.so()(64bit) needed by 
0ad-0.0.23b-8.fc31.x86_64
  - nothing provides libmozjs38-ps-release.so(js)(64bit) needed by 
0ad-0.0.23b-8.fc31.x86_64
 Problem 2: package python2-pillow-qt-5.4.1-2.fc30.x86_64 requires 
python2-pillow(x86-64) = 5.4.1-2.fc30, but none of the providers can be 
installed
  - python2-pillow-5.4.1-2.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - problem with installed package python2-pillow-qt-5.4.1-2.fc30.x86_64

System 2:  (Workstation)

Modular dependency problems:

 Problem 1: conflicting requests
  - nothing provides module(platform:f30) needed by module 
eclipse:2019-06:3020190807134759:6ebe2c0f-0.x86_64
 Problem 2: module jmc:latest:3120190813124555:7188e41a-0.x86_64 requires 
module(eclipse), but none of the providers can be installed
  - conflicting requests
  - nothing provides module(platform:f30) needed by module 
eclipse:2019-06:3020190807134759:6ebe2c0f-0.x86_64
Error:
 Problem 1: problem with installed package 0ad-0.0.23b-6.fc30.x86_64
  - 0ad-0.0.23b-6.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - nothing provides libmozjs38-ps-release.so()(64bit) needed by 
0ad-0.0.23b-8.fc31.x86_64
  - nothing provides libmozjs38-ps-release.so(js)(64bit) needed by 
0ad-0.0.23b-8.fc31.x86_64
 Problem 2: package aeskulap-0.2.2-0.37.beta2.fc30.x86_64 requires 
libdcmdata.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package aeskulap-0.2.2-0.37.beta2.fc30.x86_64 requires 
libdcmimage.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package aeskulap-0.2.2-0.37.beta2.fc30.x86_64 requires 
libdcmimgle.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package aeskulap-0.2.2-0.37.beta2.fc30.x86_64 requires 
libdcmjpeg.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package aeskulap-0.2.2-0.37.beta2.fc30.x86_64 requires 
libdcmnet.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package aeskulap-0.2.2-0.37.beta2.fc30.x86_64 requires 
libijg12.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package aeskulap-0.2.2-0.37.beta2.fc30.x86_64 requires 
libijg16.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package aeskulap-0.2.2-0.37.beta2.fc30.x86_64 requires 
libijg8.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package aeskulap-0.2.2-0.37.beta2.fc30.x86_64 requires 
liboflog.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package aeskulap-0.2.2-0.37.beta2.fc30.x86_64 requires 
libofstd.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - dcmtk-3.6.2-4.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package aeskulap-0.2.2-0.37.beta2.fc30.x86_64
 Problem 3: package gegl03-0.3.30-5.fc30.x86_64 requires 
libIlmImf-2_2.so.22()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - OpenEXR-libs-2.2.0-16.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - problem with installed package gegl03-0.3.30-5.fc30.x86_64
 Problem 4: package obnam-1.21-7.fc29.x86_64 requires python2-cliapp, but none 
of the providers can be installed
  - python2-cliapp-1.20180121-1.fc30.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - problem with installed package obnam-1.21-7.fc29.x86_64
 Problem 5: package python2-terminado-0.8.1-6.fc29.noarch requires 
python2-tornado >= 4.0.0, but none of the providers can be installed
  - python2-tornado-5.0.2-5.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - problem with installed package python2-terminado-0.8.1-6.fc29.noarch
 Problem 6: problem with installed package 
libopenshot-0.2.3-2.20190406git101f25a.fc30.x86_64
  - package libopenshot-0.2.3-2.20190406git101f25a.fc31.x86_64 requires 
libjsoncpp.so.19()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - libopenshot-0.2.3-2.20190406git101f25a.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a 
distupgrade repository
  - jsoncpp-1.8.4-6.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
 Problem 7: cannot install both jsoncpp-1.9.1-1.fc31.x86_64 and 
jsoncpp-1.8.4-6.fc30.x86_64
  - package python3-libopenshot-0.2.3-2.20190406git101f25a.fc31.x86_64 requires 
libjsoncpp.so.19()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package cmake-3.14.5-4.fc31.x86_64 requires libjsoncpp.so.21()(64bit), but 
none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package 

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Solomon Peachy]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:48:51AM -0400, Solomon Peachy wrote:
> System 2:  (Workstation)

Adding in --allowerasing allows the upgrade to proceed:

Removing dependent packages:
 0ad  x86_64 0.0.23b-6.fc30   @fedora  16 M
 aeskulap x86_64 0.2.2-0.37.beta2.fc30
  @fedora 1.6 M
 gegl03   x86_64 0.3.30-5.fc30@fedora 6.3 M
 libopenshot  x86_64 0.2.3-2.20190406git101f25a.fc30
  @rpmfusion-free 1.3 M
 obnamx86_64 1.21-7.fc29  @fedora 1.7 M
 openshot noarch 2.4.4-2.fc30 
@rpmfusion-free-updates
   80 M
 openshot-langnoarch 2.4.4-2.fc30 
@rpmfusion-free-updates
   19 M
 python2-terminadonoarch 0.8.1-6.fc29 @updates 94 k
 python3-libopenshot  x86_64 0.2.3-2.20190406git101f25a.fc30
  @rpmfusion-free 2.4 M

Transaction Summary

Install  67 Packages
Upgrade4489 Packages
Remove   14 Packages
Downgrade10 Packages

Total download size: 6.7 G

Openshot isn't Fedora's problem, but the rest are.  There are a couple 
of F29 stragglers left behind from the last upgrade too.  Not sure what 
I should file tickets about here..

> System 5: (Fedora 29 server)

Adding in --allowerasing allows the upgrade to proceed:

Removing dependent packages:
 crypto-utils  x86_64 2.5-4.fc29  @fedora 203 k
 dokuwiki-selinux  noarch 20180422b-1.fc29@updates112  
 mailgraph noarch 1.14-34.fc29@fedora  65 k
 obnam x86_64 1.21-7.fc29 @fedora 1.7 M
 python2-acme  noarch 0.37.2-1.fc29   @updates678 k
 python2-certbot   noarch 0.37.2-1.fc29   @updates2.7 M
 python2-parsedatetime noarch 2.4-9.fc29  @fedora 351 k
 python2-pillow-tk x86_64 5.3.0-1.fc29@fedora 50 k
 python2-pysaml2   noarch 4.5.0-4.fc29@fedora 4.0 M
 system-config-rootpassword
   noarch 1.99.6-18.fc29  @fedora 172 k

Transaction Summary

Install 187 Packages
Upgrade3649 Packages
Remove   16 Packages
Downgrade12 Packages

Total download size: 2.2 G

- Solomon
-- 
Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org
High Springs, FL  ^^ (email/xmpp) ^^
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
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

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Phil Wyett]

On Wed, 2019-09-11 at 14:54 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Do you want to make Fedora 31 better? Please spend 1 minute of your
> time and try to run [*]:
> 
>   sudo dnf --releasever=31 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f31
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> 
> If you get this prompt:
> 
>   ...
>   Total download size: XXX M
>   Is this ok [y/N]:
> 
> you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the actual
> upgrade.
> 
> But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case,
> please report it against the appropriate package. Or
> against fedora-obsolete-packages if that package should be removed in
> Fedora 31. Please check existing reports first:
> https://red.ht/2kuBDPu
> 
> Thank you
> 
> [*] this command does not replace `dnf system-upgrade`, but it will
> reveal potential problems. You may also run `dnf
> upgrade` before running this command.
> 
> -- 
> Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
> Red Hat, Associate Manager ABRT/Copr, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
> ___
> 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

Hi,

Summary... The 4 for removal are just f30 kernel packages.

Transaction Summary
===
=
Install20 Packages
Upgrade  1619 Packages
Remove  4 Packages

Total download size: 1.6 G
Is this ok [y/N]: 

Regards

Phil

-- 
*** Playing the game for the games sake. ***

IRC: kathenas
Twitter: kathenasorg
Website: https://kathenas.org


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
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

Re: [atomic-announce] Fedora Atomic 29 EOL date?

[Dusty Mabe]

On 9/10/19 10:18 PM, Feilong Wang wrote:
> Hi Dusty,
> 
> Now Spyros and I are trying to ask for support in Ignition for multi part 
> MIME, see https://github.com/coreos/ignition/issues/849 It would be nice if 
> we can get your review and support. Thanks.

Any chance you could drop by #fedora-coreos on freenode IRC and we can discuss?

We do have a meeting today in #fedora-meeting-1 at 16:30 UTC. We could discuss 
with
the broader group then.

Dusty 
___
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

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 08:33:24AM -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> Not sure where this one should go but looks like there's a problem with
> policycoreutils-python...
> 
> Problem 5: problem with installed package unifi-5.10.25-1.fc30.x86_64
>   - package unifi-5.10.25-2.fc31.x86_64 requires policycoreutils-python,
> but none of the providers can be installed
>   - unifi-5.10.25-1.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
>   - python2-policycoreutils-2.9-1.fc30.noarch does not belong to a
> distupgrade repository

$ rpm -q --obsoletes fedora-obsolete-packages|grep policycore
python2-policycoreutils < 2.9-2

So the package is gone and obsoleted in F31. unifi would have to
stop depending on it. There is no Fedora bug here.

Zbyszek
___
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

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Marcin Juszkiewicz]

W dniu 11.09.2019 o 14:54, Miroslav Suchý pisze:
> Do you want to make Fedora 31 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and 
> try to run [*]:
> 
>   sudo dnf --releasever=31 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f31 
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync

Had to remove 'openshot' (FTBFS in rpmfusion) and then upgrade went fine.
___
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

Re: [EXT] Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Anderson, Charles R]

No dep failures, but downgrades:

Downgrading:
 gimp  x86_64 
2:2.10.12-2.module_f31+5293+eb7fed42   fedora-modular 22 M
 gimp-libs x86_64 
2:2.10.12-2.module_f31+5293+eb7fed42   fedora-modular2.2 M
 podmanx86_64 
2:1.5.1-2.17.dev.gitce64c14.fc31   updates-testing11 M
 podman-manpages   noarch 
2:1.5.1-2.17.dev.gitce64c14.fc31   updates-testing   205 k
 perl-Date-Manip   noarch 6.77-2.fc31   
 fedora1.0 M

Transaction Summary
=
Install  51 Packages
Upgrade2123 Packages
Remove3 Packages
Downgrade 5 Packages

Total download size: 2.4 G
Is this ok [y/N]: n
Operation aborted.
___
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

Re: What projects can we highlight for Hacktoberfest?

[Adam Samalik]

What about the Feedback Pipeline service [1] I'm working on for
minimization? The code [2] is on GitHub and I even have a few issues with
things to do.

[1] https://minimization.github.io/reports/
[2] https://github.com/minimization/feedback-pipeline

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 10:47 PM Ben Cotton  wrote:

> We're just over a month away from Hacktoberfest[1], a month-long event
> where people can earn a t-shirt by contributing to open source
> projects (or at least ones hosted on GitHub). It occurs to me that we
> could have a post on the Community Blog (or maybe Fedora Magazine)
> that directs folks toward Fedora or Fedora-adjacent projects on
> GitHub. This is a good opportunity to get meaningful drive-by
> contributions and perhaps add a few consistent contributors.
>
> So if you were going to point the Fedora community at a GitHub-hosted
> project, what would you choose?
>
> [1] https://hacktoberfest.digitalocean.com/
>
> --
> Ben Cotton
> He / Him / His
> Fedora Program Manager
> Red Hat
> TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
> ___
> 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
>


-- 

Adam Šamalík
---
Senior Software Engineer
Red Hat
___
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

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

[vvs vvs]

And even that might not be necessary at all because most bugs are common 
between 32 and 64-bit. Honestly, I don't think such SIG was really needed after 
all.
___
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

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

[vvs vvs]

Even better. That means that you can still get support for x86 but it will 
require some more work on the user's side. They should just check if that bug 
is indeed i686 specific.

I believe that all that argument for the lats three days was completely 
unnecessary and should be blamed on an utterl failure of communication.
___
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

Minimization Objective report

[Adam Samalik]

This is the Minimization Objective [0] update.

Status: Discovery phase

== Use case analysis ==

Removing Systemd dependency from container use cases:

-- nginx --
* Pull request to drop systemd as a runtime requirement [1]

-- httpd --
* Pull request to drop systemd as a runtime requirement [2]
* They have one binary that requires systemd, will have a further
discussion with them to figure out how to shrink the container/runtime size

-- anaconda --
* Pull request to move flatpack-libs from anaconda-core to anaconda-gui [3]
* Determined that flatpack-libs was in the correct space

-- mariadb --
* Investigating removing systemd and perl from depenencies.
* Perl is in two mongodb (client package) scripts.  Possibly move it to
mongodb-utils, similar to how mongodb-server-utils has the perl scripts for
mongodb-server.
* Still investigating if systemd could be removed safely or if something
other than .service files need it.

-- mozjs60 --
* This is a 25-30M installed package (different size on different arches).
Do all packages really need it?

-- IoT --
* Added it to the Feedback Pipeline [4] [5]
* Researched anaconda minimizing [6]

== Feedback Pipeline ==

Added issues to the github repo [7] to attract additional contributions +
to indicate where the service is going.

Looking into automation.

== Ecosystems exploration ==

Collecting specific use cases [8] and making sure that each has its own
issue in the tracker [43] and is added to the Feedback Pipeline [9].

== Admin ==

Issues in our tracker [43] now have labels corresponding to the focus areas
in the action plan [42].

== How to get involved ==

See if there is anything interesting to you on action plan [42], or reach
out with something you think is useful but is missing there. Open a ticket
in the tracker [43] or discuss in #fedora-devel on IRC.

Cheers,
Adam


[0] Objective: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/minimization/
[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nginx/pull-request/5
[2] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/httpd/pull-request/7
[3] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/anaconda/pull-request/5
[4]
https://minimization.github.io/reports/report-by-use-case--iot--rawhide.html
[5]
https://minimization.github.io/reports/report-by-use-case--iot-x86_64--rawhide.html
[6] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/anaconda/pull-request/5
[7] https://github.com/minimization/feedback-pipeline/issues
[8] https://pagure.io/minimization/issue/11
[9] https://minimization.github.io/reports/view--use-cases-on-bases.html
[42] Action plan:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/minimization/action-plan/
[43] Issue tracker: https://pagure.io/minimization/issues

-- 

Adam Šamalík
---
Senior Software Engineer
Red Hat
___
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

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

[stan via devel]

On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 15:41:14 -0400
Przemek Klosowski via devel  wrote:

> Wait---so you are using 32-bit Gnome on a 64-bit capable CPU running 
> 64-bit kernel? If the reason is to save 200MB of memory, you should 
> definitely try one of the memory-thrifty desktop environments like
> xfce.
> 
> You also said that you're running a memory-hungry non-Fedora 
> application, which you presumably compile yourself.
> 
> Therefore, it looks to me that you should try a 64-bit Fedora with a 
> memory-saving xfce, install a 32-bit GCC toolchain and compile your
> app in 32-bit mode.

This, a perfectly adequate solution.  Or LXDE or mate or LXQt or fvwm
or just X with a simple xterm that he uses to start his custom app.  I
think cinnamon or KDE would be roughly the same size as Gnome, so
probably not viable alternatives to reduce memory usage.

He could also compile a custom kernel tuned to his hardware from the
x86_64 src.rpm, so it is smaller.  The spec file could even be set up to
build a 686 kernel from the source, if that is what he wants.  He would
have to fix any problems himself, though, to do that.  He could share
his results in copr for anyone wanting such a kernel.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Building_a_custom_kernel

koji for the kernel
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=8

___
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

Fedora 31 Beta blocker status email #5

[Ben Cotton]

The Go/No-Go meeting is Thursday!

Action summary


Accepted blockers
-
1. dracut-modules-olpc — Cannot be installed due to unsatisfied
'bitfrost' dependency — NEW
ACTION: releng to make Pungi config changes

2. desktop-backgrounds — Fedora 31 still using Fedora 30 backgrounds — ASSIGNED
DEPENDS ON: RHBZ#1749086

3. gdm — GDM dies after the user has logged out of Gnome Desktop — ASSIGNED
ACTION: gdm maintainers to diagnose issue

4. webkit2gtk3 — Epiphany does not render anything when X server is
launched by lightdm — VERIFIED
ACTION: releng to push FEDORA-2019-14d9d650ca to F31

Proposed blockers
-
1. firefox — firefox does not run with old profile after upgrade to
F31 — MODIFIED
ACTION: releng to push FEDORA-2019-f91860efa3 to F31 if bug is
accepted as a blocker

2. kde — Needs updating for Fedora 31 background etc — NEW
ACTION: kde maintainers to update packages to use the new desktop background

3. NetworkManager — NetworkManager-wifi should prefer wpa_supplicant
over iwd (currently iwd is chosen by dnf to resolve ambiguous
dependency
ACTION: NetworkManager maintainers to update spec file to prefer wpa_supplicant

4. python-jmespath — python3-jmespath conflicts with but does not
obsolete python2-jmespath — ON_QA
ACTION: releng to push FEDORA-2019-e169130f57 to F31 if bug is
accepted as a blocker

5. sddm — Cannot start Fedora-KDE-Live (F31) in basic graphics mode on
BIOS machine — NEW
ACTION: sddm maintainers to diagnose issue

Bug-by-bug detail
=

Accepted blockers
-
1. dracut-modules-olpc —
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1734179 — NEW
Cannot be installed due to unsatisfied 'bitfrost' dependency

bitfrost package was retired, which prevents dracut-modules-olpc from
building. adamwill opened an issue against pungi-fedora:
https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issue/759

2. desktop-backgrounds —
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744266 — ASSIGNED
Fedora 31 still using Fedora 30 backgrounds

desktop-backgrounds packages updated, but KDE still needs package updates

3. gdm — https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745554 — ASSIGNED
GDM dies after the user has logged out of Gnome Desktop

Switching desktops or logging out kills GDM, which does not restart
automatically. Setting SELinux to permissive mode does not help. An
update to systemd fixes the issue when swit
ching tty, but not when logging out.

4. webkit2gtk3 — https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748003 — VERIFIED
Epiphany does not render anything when X server is launched by lightdm

Fixed in webkit2gtk3-2.25.92-2.fc31 (FEDORA-2019-14d9d650ca)

Proposed blockers
-
1. firefox — https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1749107 — MODIFIED
firefox does run with old profile after upgrade to F31

Firefox prompts user to create new profile. Update
FEDORA-2019-f91860efa3 fixes this issue.

2. kde — https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1749086 — NEW
Needs updating for Fedora 31 background etc.

The update that provides the f31-backgrounds package and updated
desktop-backgrounds is pending:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-8b2cccfabf

3. NetworkManager —
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1743585 — ASSIGNED
NetworkManager-wifi should prefer wpa_supplicant over iwd (currently
iwd is chosen by dnf to resolve ambiguous dependency

dnf pulls in iwd which has a broken systemd unit file (RHBZ#1749430)
and is missing some functionality. Adding a `suggests` line to the
package or removing `or iwd` from `requires
` should fix this.

4. python-jmespath — https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1734184 — ON_QA
python3-jmespath conflicts with but does not obsolete python2-jmespath

Update FEDORA-2019-e169130f57 fixes this issue.

5. sddm — https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1728240 — NEW
Cannot start Fedora-KDE-Live (F31) in basic graphics mode on BIOS machine

This issue only seems to affect BIOS machines when using basic
graphics mode. Regular graphics or UEFI does not exhibit this
behavior.


-- 
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Fedora Program Manager
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
___
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

Re: failing push for un-orphaned package

[Dave Love]

Miro Hrončok  writes:

> On 11. 09. 19 11:14, Dave Love wrote:
>> I'm puzzled why it needs re-reviewing when branches are maintained,
>
> Because it was only maintained in EPEL, not Fedora.

I just don't understand why it would be OK for EPEL but not for Fedora,
but no matter.

(I don't remember ever being asked to take it over, though a
notification may never have got through to me.)

>> but anyhow is it possible just to maintain EPEL branches?
>
> Yes, it is. That was the intention you've stated when you requested
> the package to be unorphaned. Why have you requested the f31 branch at
> all? It is not needed.

I misunderstood that it was needed.

> I recommend you retire on f31 once again and only keep this in epel.

Thanks.  I'm rather inclined to do that with other things to avoid
hassle.
___
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

Re: [EXT] Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Petr Pisar]

On 2019-09-11, Anderson, Charles R  wrote:
> No dep failures, but downgrades:
>
> Downgrading:
[...]
>  perl-Date-Manip   noarch 6.77-2.fc31 
>fedora1.0 M
>
The maintainer forgot to submit perl-Date-Manip-6.78-1.fc31 build into
testing. I did it now.

-- Petr
___
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

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

[Leigh Scott]

> We need to drop 32-bit packages, except needed to run Steam and Wine32.

Why should I bother helping to keep steam alive?, perhaps the gamers should 
allocate some of their gaming time to keeping i686 alive.

___
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

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Steven Munroe]

> Do you want to make Fedora 31 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time
and try to run [*]:
>
>   sudo dnf --releasever=31 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f31
--enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
>
> If you get this prompt:

On ppc64le power8 Fedora 30 server(?) image on PowerVM 2.1.1. install with
dev

Install25 Packages
Upgrade  1135 Packages

Total download size: 627 M
Is this ok [y/N]:

Looks good so far.
___
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

Minimization Team Meeting notes 2019-09-11

[Adam Samalik]

Minutes:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2019-09-11/minimization.2019-09-11-15.00.html
Minutes (text):
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2019-09-11/minimization.2019-09-11-15.00.txt
Log:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2019-09-11/minimization.2019-09-11-15.00.log.html


#fedora-meeting-1: Minimization Team Meeting



Meeting started by asamalik at 15:00:27 UTC. The full logs are available
athttps://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2019-09-11/minimization.2019-09-11-15.00.log.html
.



Meeting summary
---
* Roll call  (asamalik, 15:00:27)

* === Admin ===  (asamalik, 15:04:56)
  * the issue tracker now has labels that correspond to the four focus
areas https://pagure.io/minimization/issues  (asamalik, 15:06:11)
  * ...focus areas in the action plan:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/minimization/action-plan/
(asamalik, 15:06:39)
  * I'm mirroring the Feedback Pipeline code to github and I created
issues there to attract potential contributors:
https://github.com/minimization/feedback-pipeline  (asamalik,
15:10:55)

* === Focus & what's next? ===  (asamalik, 15:11:32)
  * looking for specific use cases, people are welcome to suggest some:
https://pagure.io/minimization/issue/11  (asamalik, 15:42:33)
  * we'll focus on the one listed in the Feedback Pipeline for now
https://minimization.github.io/reports/view--use-cases-on-bases.html
(asamalik, 15:43:20)
  * ... each one will get an issue in the tracker:
https://pagure.io/minimization/issues  (asamalik, 15:43:40)

* === Open Floor ===  (asamalik, 15:45:42)

Meeting ended at 15:47:40 UTC.




Action Items






Action Items, by person
---
* **UNASSIGNED**
  * (none)




People Present (lines said)
---
* asamalik (54)
* zodbot (12)
* feborges (10)
* tdawson (8)
* zbyszek (6)
* ignatenkobrain (0)
* salimma (0)
* jaruga (0)
* pbrobinson (0)
* Son_Goku (0)
* lorbus (0)




Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4

.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot


-- 

Adam Šamalík
---
Senior Software Engineer
Red Hat
___
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

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:48:51AM -0400, Solomon Peachy wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 03:16:28PM +0100, Phil Wyett wrote:
> > > Do you want to make Fedora 31 better? Please spend 1 minute of your
> > > time and try to run [*]:
> > > 
> > >   sudo dnf --releasever=31 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f31
> > > --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> 
> Here's an upgrade run against five systems.  There's a few more I can 
> test but they're not accessible from here.
> 
> System 1:  (Laptop)
> 
> Error: 
>  Problem 1: problem with installed package 0ad-0.0.23b-6.fc30.x86_64
>   - 0ad-0.0.23b-6.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
>   - nothing provides libmozjs38-ps-release.so()(64bit) needed by 
> 0ad-0.0.23b-8.fc31.x86_64
>   - nothing provides libmozjs38-ps-release.so(js)(64bit) needed by 
> 0ad-0.0.23b-8.fc31.x86_64

I see kalev is building 0ad right now, so hopefully this will be resolved soon.

>  Problem 2: package python2-pillow-qt-5.4.1-2.fc30.x86_64 requires 
> python2-pillow(x86-64) = 5.4.1-2.fc30, but none of the providers can be 
> installed
>   - python2-pillow-5.4.1-2.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
> repository
>   - problem with installed package python2-pillow-qt-5.4.1-2.fc30.x86_64

So the python2-pillow-qt subpackage was dropped, but not all
python2-pillow subpackages. It'd be best if pillow maintainers either
do the obsoletes internally or file a bug against f-o-p.

> 
> System 2:  (Workstation)
> 
> Modular dependency problems:
> 
>  Problem 1: conflicting requests
>   - nothing provides module(platform:f30) needed by module 
> eclipse:2019-06:3020190807134759:6ebe2c0f-0.x86_64
>  Problem 2: module jmc:latest:3120190813124555:7188e41a-0.x86_64 requires 
> module(eclipse), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - conflicting requests
>   - nothing provides module(platform:f30) needed by module 
> eclipse:2019-06:3020190807134759:6ebe2c0f-0.x86_64

>  Problem 2: package aeskulap-0.2.2-0.37.beta2.fc30.x86_64 requires 
> libdcmdata.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed

aeskulap is gone. I'll add it to f-o-p.

>   - dcmtk-3.6.2-4.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository

This either needs a rebuild or an update.

>  Problem 3: package gegl03-0.3.30-5.fc30.x86_64 requires 
> libIlmImf-2_2.so.22()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - OpenEXR-libs-2.2.0-16.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
> repository
>   - problem with installed package gegl03-0.3.30-5.fc30.x86_64
>  Problem 4: package obnam-1.21-7.fc29.x86_64 requires python2-cliapp, but 
> none of the providers can be installed
>   - python2-cliapp-1.20180121-1.fc30.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
> repository
>   - problem with installed package obnam-1.21-7.fc29.x86_64
>  Problem 5: package python2-terminado-0.8.1-6.fc29.noarch requires 
> python2-tornado >= 4.0.0, but none of the providers can be installed
>   - python2-tornado-5.0.2-5.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
> repository

python2-tornado is already in f-o-p. I'll add 
python2-terminado-0.8.1-6.fc29.noarch.

>   - problem with installed package python2-terminado-0.8.1-6.fc29.noarch
>  Problem 6: problem with installed package 
> libopenshot-0.2.3-2.20190406git101f25a.fc30.x86_64
>   - package libopenshot-0.2.3-2.20190406git101f25a.fc31.x86_64 requires 
> libjsoncpp.so.19()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - libopenshot-0.2.3-2.20190406git101f25a.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a 
> distupgrade repository
>   - jsoncpp-1.8.4-6.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
>  Problem 7: cannot install both jsoncpp-1.9.1-1.fc31.x86_64 and 
> jsoncpp-1.8.4-6.fc30.x86_64
>   - package python3-libopenshot-0.2.3-2.20190406git101f25a.fc31.x86_64 
> requires libjsoncpp.so.19()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - package cmake-3.14.5-4.fc31.x86_64 requires libjsoncpp.so.21()(64bit), 
> but none of the providers can be installed
>   - problem with installed package 
> python3-libopenshot-0.2.3-2.20190406git101f25a.fc30.x86_64
>   - problem with installed package cmake-3.14.5-1.fc30.x86_64
>   - python3-libopenshot-0.2.3-2.20190406git101f25a.fc30.x86_64 does not 
> belong to a distupgrade repository
>   - cmake-3.14.5-1.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
>  Problem 8: package openshot-2.4.4-2.fc31.noarch requires python3-libopenshot 
> >= 0.2.3, but none of the providers can be installed
>   - package python3-libopenshot-0.2.3-2.20190406git101f25a.fc30.x86_64 
> requires libjsoncpp.so.19()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - package python3-libopenshot-0.2.3-2.20190406git101f25a.fc31.x86_64 
> requires libjsoncpp.so.19()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - cannot install both jsoncpp-1.9.1-1.fc31.x86_64 and 
> jsoncpp-1.8.4-6.fc30.x86_64
>   - package vtk-8.2.0-6.fc31.x86_64 requires libjsoncpp.so.21()(64bit), but 
> none of the 

Re: translucent gnome top bar gone in F31?

[Przemek Klosowski via devel]

On 9/11/19 2:18 AM, John M. Harris Jr. wrote:

Feel free to ignore any such wording that you disagree with. We don't need to
agree in order to discuss such things, and it's alright if we disagree on
wording. Literally every user I talk to has asked me either how to disable the
hot corner, or asked me to do it for them. I obviously did not mean
"everybody" literally, but it's even fine if you take it literally, given the
context.


Please consider the possibility of a cognitive bias. Of course everyone 
you talk to  agrees with your preferences: after all, they just came to 
you for help. They know you are technically savvy and opinionated, so 
they seeked you, and so it's possible that all y'all gerrymandered 
yourselves into thinking that 'literally every user' shares your belief, 
even though it's statistically rather improbable.


This is a know phenomenon in social sciences: see a good writeup here 
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02562-z


By the way, speaking for myself, I decided to stop using the term 
'literally', because I don't want to be AWFUL (American Who Figuratively 
Use Literally :).


___
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

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[chedi toueiti]

Error:
 Problem 1: problem with installed package
mono-tools-gendarme-4.2-12.fc30.x86_64
  - mono-tools-gendarme-4.2-12.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - nothing provides mono(ICSharpCode.SharpZipLib) = 1.1.0.0 needed by
mono-tools-gendarme-4.2-15.fc31.x86_64
 Problem 2: package kupfer-208-15.fc28.noarch requires python2-keybinder,
but none of the providers can be installed
  - python2-keybinder-0.3.1-13.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package kupfer-208-15.fc28.noarch
 Problem 3: package mono-debugger-2.10-21.fc30.x86_64 requires
mono(Mono.Cecil) = 0.9.6.0, but none of the providers can be installed
  - mono-cecil-0.9.6-12.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package mono-debugger-2.10-21.fc30.x86_64
 Problem 4: package python2-pillow-tk-5.4.1-2.fc30.x86_64 requires
python2-pillow(x86-64) = 5.4.1-2.fc30, but none of the providers can be
installed
  - python2-pillow-5.4.1-2.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package python2-pillow-tk-5.4.1-2.fc30.x86_64
 Problem 5: package python2-virtualenv-clone-0.2.6-12.fc29.noarch requires
python2-virtualenv, but none of the providers can be installed
  - python2-virtualenv-16.0.0-7.fc30.noarch does not belong to a
distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package
python2-virtualenv-clone-0.2.6-12.fc29.noarch
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 4:53 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:48:51AM -0400, Solomon Peachy wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 03:16:28PM +0100, Phil Wyett wrote:
> > > > Do you want to make Fedora 31 better? Please spend 1 minute of your
> > > > time and try to run [*]:
> > > >
> > > >   sudo dnf --releasever=31 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f31
> > > > --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> >
> > Here's an upgrade run against five systems.  There's a few more I can
> > test but they're not accessible from here.
> >
> > System 1:  (Laptop)
> >
> > Error:
> >  Problem 1: problem with installed package 0ad-0.0.23b-6.fc30.x86_64
> >   - 0ad-0.0.23b-6.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> >   - nothing provides libmozjs38-ps-release.so()(64bit) needed by
> 0ad-0.0.23b-8.fc31.x86_64
> >   - nothing provides libmozjs38-ps-release.so(js)(64bit) needed by
> 0ad-0.0.23b-8.fc31.x86_64
>
> I see kalev is building 0ad right now, so hopefully this will be resolved
> soon.
>
> >  Problem 2: package python2-pillow-qt-5.4.1-2.fc30.x86_64 requires
> python2-pillow(x86-64) = 5.4.1-2.fc30, but none of the providers can be
> installed
> >   - python2-pillow-5.4.1-2.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
> repository
> >   - problem with installed package python2-pillow-qt-5.4.1-2.fc30.x86_64
>
> So the python2-pillow-qt subpackage was dropped, but not all
> python2-pillow subpackages. It'd be best if pillow maintainers either
> do the obsoletes internally or file a bug against f-o-p.
>
> >
> > System 2:  (Workstation)
> >
> > Modular dependency problems:
> >
> >  Problem 1: conflicting requests
> >   - nothing provides module(platform:f30) needed by module
> eclipse:2019-06:3020190807134759:6ebe2c0f-0.x86_64
> >  Problem 2: module jmc:latest:3120190813124555:7188e41a-0.x86_64
> requires module(eclipse), but none of the providers can be installed
> >   - conflicting requests
> >   - nothing provides module(platform:f30) needed by module
> eclipse:2019-06:3020190807134759:6ebe2c0f-0.x86_64
>
> >  Problem 2: package aeskulap-0.2.2-0.37.beta2.fc30.x86_64 requires
> libdcmdata.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>
> aeskulap is gone. I'll add it to f-o-p.
>
> >   - dcmtk-3.6.2-4.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
>
> This either needs a rebuild or an update.
>
> >  Problem 3: package gegl03-0.3.30-5.fc30.x86_64 requires
> libIlmImf-2_2.so.22()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> >   - OpenEXR-libs-2.2.0-16.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
> repository
> >   - problem with installed package gegl03-0.3.30-5.fc30.x86_64
> >  Problem 4: package obnam-1.21-7.fc29.x86_64 requires python2-cliapp,
> but none of the providers can be installed
> >   - python2-cliapp-1.20180121-1.fc30.noarch does not belong to a
> distupgrade repository
> >   - problem with installed package obnam-1.21-7.fc29.x86_64
> >  Problem 5: package python2-terminado-0.8.1-6.fc29.noarch requires
> python2-tornado >= 4.0.0, but none of the providers can be installed
> >   - python2-tornado-5.0.2-5.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
> repository
>
> python2-tornado is already in f-o-p. I'll add
> python2-terminado-0.8.1-6.fc29.noarch.
>
> >   - problem with installed package python2-terminado-0.8.1-6.fc29.noarch
> >  Problem 6: problem with installed package
> libopenshot-0.2.3-2.20190406git101f25a.fc30.x86_64
> >   - 

[Bug 1751096] perl-Image-Sane-3 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751096



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Image-Sane-3-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-1f0e9bf5ff

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1750388] perl-Image-Sane-2 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750388



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Image-Sane-3-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-1f0e9bf5ff

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1750388] perl-Image-Sane-2 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750388



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Image-Sane-3-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-c88eaaf261

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1751096] perl-Image-Sane-3 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751096



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Image-Sane-3-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-c88eaaf261

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1751411] New: perl-Mojolicious-8.24 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751411

Bug ID: 1751411
   Summary: perl-Mojolicious-8.24 is available
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: perl-Mojolicious
  Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
  Assignee: emman...@seyman.fr
  Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: emman...@seyman.fr,
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org,
robinlee.s...@gmail.com, yan...@declera.com
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Latest upstream release: 8.24
Current version/release in rawhide: 8.23-1.fc32
URL: https://metacpan.org/release/Mojolicious

Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy


More information about the service that created this bug can be found at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring


Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging
changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your
responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still
correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added
upstream.


Based on the information from anitya:
https://release-monitoring.org/project/5966/

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1744714] [RFE] EPEL8 branch of perl-Log-Log4perl

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744714

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Log-Log4perl-1.49-9.el8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-d22ff33984

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1751408] New: perl-DateTime-TimeZone-2.37 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751408

Bug ID: 1751408
   Summary: perl-DateTime-TimeZone-2.37 is available
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: perl-DateTime-TimeZone
  Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
  Assignee: jples...@redhat.com
  Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: iarn...@gmail.com, jples...@redhat.com,
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Latest upstream release: 2.37
Current version/release in rawhide: 2.36-2.fc31
URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/DateTime-TimeZone/

Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy


More information about the service that created this bug can be found at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring


Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging
changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your
responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still
correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added
upstream.


Based on the information from anitya:
https://release-monitoring.org/project/2801/

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1749413] [RFE] EPEL8 branch of perl-Log-Dispatch

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1749413

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Log-Dispatch-2.68-1.el8, perl-Log-Dispatch-FileRotate-1.36-1.el8 has been
pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. If problems still persist,
please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-ac5f271043

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing report

[updates]

The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing

blis-0.6.0-4.el8
csnappy-0-16.20181121git973f62f.el8
fluidsynth-1.1.11-6.el8
hypre-2.15.1-6.el8
libnfs-4.0.0-1.el8
miniz-2.1.0-3.el8
perl-Log-Dispatch-2.68-1.el8
perl-Log-Dispatch-FileRotate-1.36-1.el8
perl-Log-Log4perl-1.49-9.el8
perl-MIME-Lite-3.030-16.el8
perl-MIME-Lite-HTML-1.24-24.el8
php-pear-Auth-SASL-1.1.0-6.el8
php-pear-Cache-Lite-1.8.2-4.el8
php-pear-Date-1.4.7-22.el8
php-pear-HTTP-Request-1.4.4-18.el8
php-pear-Mail-1.4.1-6.el8
php-pear-Net-SMTP-1.8.1-3.el8
php-pear-Net-Socket-1.2.2-6.el8
php-pear-Net-URL-1.0.15-20.el8
python-coveralls-1.8.2-2.el8
superlu_dist-6.1.0-3.el8
wildmidi-0.4.3-3.el8

Details about builds:



 blis-0.6.0-4.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2019-85b930849d)
 BLAS-like Library Instantiation Software Framework

Update Information:

Don't call popen on ARM (in case it's run with privileges). Also replace patch
to use FMA with simd pragma.

ChangeLog:

* Wed Sep 11 2019 Dave love  - 0.6.0-4
- Patch to avoid popen (security)
- Replace patch1 with upstream change




 csnappy-0-16.20181121git973f62f.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2019-c3f0f79328)
 Snappy compression library ported to C

Update Information:

This erratum brings csnappy and miniz compression libraries.




 fluidsynth-1.1.11-6.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2019-af785012d7)
 Real-time software synthesizer

Update Information:

- Build for epel8




 hypre-2.15.1-6.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2019-a1533fa24b)
 High performance matrix preconditioners

Update Information:

Build for EPEL8




 libnfs-4.0.0-1.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2019-d98325fee9)
 Client library for accessing NFS shares over a network

Update Information:

- Build for epel8

References:

  [ 1 ] Bug #1374452 - libnfs-4.0.0 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374452




 miniz-2.1.0-3.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2019-c3f0f79328)
 Compression library implementing the zlib and Deflate

Update Information:

This erratum brings csnappy and miniz compression libraries.




 perl-Log-Dispatch-2.68-1.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2019-ac5f271043)
 Dispatches messages to one or more outputs

Update Information:

This is the first EPEL-8 release of perl-Log-Dispatch and perl-Log-Dispatch-
FileRotate.

References:

  [ 1 ] Bug #1749413 - [RFE] EPEL8 branch of perl-Log-Dispatch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1749413
  [ 2 ] Bug #1749415 - [RFE] EPEL8 branch of perl-Log-Dispatch-FileRotate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1749415




 perl-Log-Dispatch-FileRotate-1.36-1.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2019-ac5f271043)
 Log to files that archive/rotate themselves

Update Information:

This is the first EPEL-8 release of perl-Log-Dispatch and perl-Log-Dispatch-
FileRotate.

References:

  [ 1 ] Bug #1749413 - [RFE] 

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing report

[updates]

The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
 Age  URL
 392  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-3c9292b62d   
condor-8.6.11-1.el7
 168  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-d2c1368294   
cinnamon-3.6.7-5.el7
 134  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-c499781e80   
python-gnupg-0.4.4-1.el7
 132  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-bc0182548b   
bubblewrap-0.3.3-2.el7
  68  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-12067fc897   
dosbox-0.74.3-2.el7
  12  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-ca3444781e   
perl-SOAP-Lite-1.10-2.el7
  12  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-954cf3770a   
seamonkey-2.49.5-1.el7
  11  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-9bc2214140   
nsd-4.2.2-1.el7
   7  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-9166ad1315   
cobbler-2.8.5-0.1.el7
   6  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-b4713b164c   
chromium-76.0.3809.132-2.el7
   6  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-2dd8fb899e   
wordpress-5.1.2-1.el7


The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing

fotoxx-19.17-1.el7
libmodulemd2-2.8.0-2.el7
python-qt5-5.12.1-3.el7

Details about builds:



 fotoxx-19.17-1.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2019-ec1983fbe1)
 Photo editor

Update Information:

19.17    19.16    19.15    19.14    19.13

ChangeLog:

* Wed Sep 11 2019 Gwyn Ciesla  - 19.17-1
- 19.17
* Tue Aug 27 2019 Gwyn Ciesla  - 19.16-1
- 19.16
* Sat Aug 24 2019 Gwyn Ciesla  - 19.15-1
- 19.15
* Mon Aug 12 2019 Gwyn Ciesla  - 19.14-1
- 19.14
* Mon Aug  5 2019 Gwyn Ciesla  - 19.13-1
- 19.13

References:

  [ 1 ] Bug #1751177 - fotoxx-19.17 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751177




 libmodulemd2-2.8.0-2.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2019-e093131fa7)
 Module metadata manipulation library

Update Information:

Highlights  API Changes -- * Add
`Modulemd.Module.get_translation()` - Retrieve the translations associated with
a `Modulemd.Module` * Add `ModuleIndex.update_from_defaults_directory()` -
Import defaults from a directory of yaml documents, such as [fedora-module-
defaults](https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-module-defaults), optionally providing
a second path containing overrides.  Enhancements  *
`Modulemd.ModuleIndex.update_from_file()` now supports reading files compressed
with `gzip`, `bzip2` or `xz`. (Issue: #208). See "Packaging Changes" for
additional details. * Documentation updates  Bugfixes  * Assorted
minor issues discovered by static analysis tools. * Don't conflict with
/usr/bin/modulemd-validator  Packaging Changes --- * Now
requires `librpmio` to enable compressed file support. If you do not have
`librpmio` available on your platform, pass `-Drpmio=disabled` to the `meson`
configuration step to disable it. * Now requires `libmagic` (part of the `file`
package on most distributions) for enhanced auto-detection of compressed file
support. If `libmagic` is unavailable, pass `-Dmagic=disabled` to the `meson`
configuration step to disable it. Auto-detection will be limited to filename
suffix if libmagic is unavailable.

ChangeLog:

* Wed Sep 11 2019 Stephen Gallagher  - 2.8.0-2
- Rename modulemd-validator to modulemd-validator2 to avoid file conflict
* Wed Sep  4 2019 Stephen Gallagher  - 2.8.0-1
- Update to 2.8.0
- API Changes
  * Add Modulemd.Module.get_translation() - Retrieve the translations
associated with a Modulemd.Module
  * Add ModuleIndex.update_from_defaults_directory() - Import defaults from a
directory of yaml documents, such as fedora-module-defaults, optionally
providing a second path containing overrides.
- Enhancements
  * Modulemd.ModuleIndex.update_from_file() now supports reading files
compressed with gzip, bzip2 or xz. (Issue: #208)
  * Documentation updates
- Bugfixes
  * Assorted minor issues discovered by static analysis tools.




 python-qt5-5.12.1-3.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2019-547cf5c66d)
 PyQt5 is Python bindings for Qt5

[Bug 1749415] [RFE] EPEL8 branch of perl-Log-Dispatch-FileRotate

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1749415

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Log-Dispatch-2.68-1.el8, perl-Log-Dispatch-FileRotate-1.36-1.el8 has been
pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. If problems still persist,
please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-ac5f271043

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1751332] New: perl-App-Cme-1.030 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751332

Bug ID: 1751332
   Summary: perl-App-Cme-1.030 is available
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: perl-App-Cme
  Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
  Assignee: jples...@redhat.com
  Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: jples...@redhat.com,
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Latest upstream release: 1.030
Current version/release in rawhide: 1.029-5.fc31
URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/App-Cme/

Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy


More information about the service that created this bug can be found at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring


Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging
changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your
responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still
correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added
upstream.


Based on the information from anitya:
https://release-monitoring.org/project/9059/

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[389-devel] 389 DS nightly 2019-09-12 - 96% PASS

[vashirov]

https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2019/09/12/report-389-ds-base-1.4.2.0-20190911git00e3331.fc30.x86_64.html
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-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/389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1749413] [RFE] EPEL8 branch of perl-Log-Dispatch

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1749413

Paul Howarth  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



--- Comment #2 from Paul Howarth  ---
Branches requested:
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/16597
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/16598

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1749415] [RFE] EPEL8 branch of perl-Log-Dispatch-FileRotate

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1749415



--- Comment #2 from Paul Howarth  ---
Branches requested:
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/16599
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/16600

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org