On Tue, 28 Jul 2020, Silvie Chlupova wrote:
> Epel 7 isn't built for s390x architecture at all, so we don't have the
> needed mirrors to build against. It will not be enabled.
The ClefOS 7 binaries include all of EPEL 7 and more
http://download.sinenomine.net/clefos/epel7/
-- Russ
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020, Leigh Griffin wrote:
> We cannot take the view of a singular person and make changes based on
> that, we defer to them for prioritisation and their input. That's how the
But, having reviewed the 'wishlist' of criteria quoted last
week, [in the thread with Ben Cotton's
Subject: Fonts packaging guidelines change status
On Sat, 7 Mar 2020, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> WHAT IS IT ALL ABOUT
>
> On 2020-02-13, FPC approved a rewrite of our fonts packaging
> guidelines.
and again that was published on the 14th removing some top
matter through the Section mark: NEW
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020, Kaleb Keithley wrote:
long ago
diskcheck
was in Centos 2, and early Fedora
/var/ftp/pub/nfs/mirror/redhat/fedora/1/SRPMS/diskcheck-1.4-5.src.rpm
Why not build and install it so the admins would get warnings
?
Also, when a build fails for:
error:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > explicit in this way instead of having the default be sh, but then tell
> > people sh must be bash?
>
> Doesn't bash behave slightly differently when invoked as 'sh' ?
bash behaviour has changed [1] over time --- /bin/sh is fixed
in behaviour
It is
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018, Dave Love wrote:
> Obviously I can do that and set up a repo for use with mock, but you
> surely don't expect all package maintainers to do that.
when it is testing a Beta in a new Major, I do not feel that
is an unreasonable expectation
There is also a .repo file which
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018, Dave Love wrote:
> Does anyone know what the situation is with -devel packages in RHEL8
> beta? Many seem to be missing, so it's difficult to test EPEL builds
> for 8, and you can't necessarily rebuild ones that are shipped in the
> distribution; an example is openmpi, with
On Fri, 19 Oct 2018, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, R P Herrold said:
> > This seems very tone deaf and lacking in introspection, Matt
> >
> > perhaps by reading the subject line you chose to start this
> > thread with
>
> Matt didn't choose that -
On Fri, 19 Oct 2018, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> Neal Gompa:
>> because you're dead set on this anyway.
> Matt Miller:
> I ... don't know how to engage constructively with this accusation, because
> it it seems to come from absolutely nowhere. Yes, we're *definitely* trying
This seems very tone
On Mon, 30 Jul 2018, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 26/07/18 12:45 -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
> > The use here of 'interpose' is unclear to me -- are you saying
> > 'substitute a different' ?
>
> The usual way to replace 'malloc' is via ELF symbol interposition:
> https://ww
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > Could you please mention a couple of bugs where this is shown?
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1237260
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303323
>
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I would like to request a change of the Packaging Guidelines, advising
> packagers not to interpose malloc.
The use here of 'interpose' is unclear to me -- are you saying
'substitute a different' ?
> The reasons are:
>
> * We have resources to
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Is $subj [1] an automated or manual process? Shall I retire packages I've
> orphaned before more weeks or just wait?
>
> [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Orphaned_package_that_need_new_maintainers
NONE of the outlinks to the actual packages at:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2018, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > The ** POINT ** of producing such a report is to 'put
> > numbers' on the scope of the work rather than loose armwaving
> > assertions such as:
> >
> > > Fedora still has more than 3000 packages depending on
> > > python2 – many more than we can
On Tue, 17 Jul 2018, R P Herrold wrote:
> I've poked at getting accurate counts and manifests of unique
> python(2) package SRPMs off my mirror today -- I'll supplement
> this email with the script and links to the mainfests
> tomorrow. A 'sort | uniq' let me down as to getting an
On Tue, 17 Jul 2018, R P Herrold wrote:
> I've poked at getting accurate counts and manifests of unique
> python(2) package SRPMs off my mirror today -- I'll supplement
> this email with the script and links to the mainfests
> tomorrow. A 'sort | uniq' let me down as to getting an
On Tue, 17 Jul 2018, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> I'm confused here. I doubt very much RHEL is going to drop
> python2 from rhel7. Thus epel7 packages should be able to go
> on as they have...
I've poked at getting accurate counts and manifests of unique
python(2) package SRPMs off my mirror today --
notwithstanding my post on the f-devel ML, ...
Probaby there should some work on communicating the need to
turn down EPEL 6 at 2020 11 30, and with it those python
2 modules by that time
Smooge, if from the logs you can comb mirroring apart from
installlation pulls, having a ranked list of
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 23.3.2018 12:23, Petr Viktorin wrote:
> > tl;dr: Unless someone steps up to maintain Python 2 after 2020, we need
> > to start dropping python2 packages now.
tl;dr: --- that statement by itself overlooks the obvious.
Not ALL packages become
On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> I've clicked randomly trough failures during the mass rebuild at [1].
>
> I see quite a lot of commands not founds for gcc, cc, c++...
>
> I think the maintainers should add them and that's fine, but it seemed that
> during this change you said you
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > The guidelines currently say:
Are these Holy Writ, or just process, subject to amendment?
> > > I think this guideline is bad and counterproductive, since many
> > > packages clearly ignore it.
There is a principle:
Seek first to
On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, Matt Milosevic wrote:
> I tend to agree with Chris on this. Whether we like it or not, GCC is an
> integral part of the Unix environment and most things we care about utilize
> it in some aspect, even when it's not immediately obvious. Attempting to
> forcefully bring in an
On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > Can the compiler team just merge the bloody plugin sources into the
> > gcc source package so that it doesn't randomly break anymore?
>
> This change would add roughly 18 hours to the delivery of every annobin change
> because that's the time
Removal GCC and friends from the buildroot
is different than
adding new conflicting BRs which impair Clang usability
On Mon, 9 Jul 2018,
Igor Gnatenko started:
> > > I'm going to do this tomorrow.
> > >
> > > After which, I'm going to ask rel-eng to finally remove it from buildroot.
On Mon, 18 Jun 2018, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Do, 14.06.18 14:20, Chris Murphy (li...@colorremedies.com) wrote:
>
> > The cited BLS spec is the original one, [1]
... later: L.P.:
> [reduce] the size of the spec if possible, and drop as many
> bits of it as we can, i.e. the stuff noone
I think it was a fair question which was raised about the size
of the audience being sought to be catered to, vs the mass of
users of Fedoraproject code, and their 'least astonishment'
and loss of acquired knowledge as to use
If there are, oh, say, twelve people in the world that
actually
On Tue, 15 May 2018, David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] wrote:
> It could at least tell us the current state of things, and maybe create a
> plan on how to fix things, so they could be eventually removed at some
> point.
>
> In any case I would like to find a new home for these scripts, so they
> don't
On Mon, 14 May 2018, David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] wrote:
> does anybody know if the files /etc/profile.d/lang.{csh,sh} are still used
> these days, and what for?
by their terms, they are a collection of I18N and environment
settings.
> Do we still need them in Fedora?
Are you asking if /bin/sh,
On Thu, 3 May 2018, Tomas Orsava wrote:
> pip actually checks if ~/.local/bin is on the PATH and prints a warning if it
> isn't. But nobody predicted that ~/.local/bin might be on the PATH but only
> behind /usr/bin. That breaks the intuitive expectation that things installed
> closer to the user
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> >
> > bug numbers?
>
> Variants on a theme:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426816
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1517925
thank you
-- Russ
___
epel-devel mailing list
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> The use case is that for simple packages, it's simpler for the user
> if the service is available immediately. My initial example with gpm
> is actually good here: do "sudo dnf install -y gpm", move mouse, voilà.
> Also the case from
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > i could puke everytime something is pulled as dependency and started
> > without any use
>
> Can you give an example of such services?
The first is a list of 'sbin' processes running from that
machine being probed
The second are
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> Services which are subject the guidelines allow to be enabled by
> default should be such that starting them briefly should not cause
> any permanent effects.
Some 'real world' data, from a unit that was deployed this
morning at
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> Services which are subject the guidelines allow to be
> enabled by default should be such that starting them briefly
> should not cause any permanent effects.
'should not' is not true to fact in the real world
I mentioned we inject a
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> I would assume that services that require configuration
> before being useful would not be enabled by default.
I thing this is a mistaken assumption, and that we are moving
into matters of sysadmin taste
The SSHD is enabled by default, and likely to
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> We have been getting a couple of reports of this, but I have not been
> able to duplicate it on my test systems.
bug numbers?
As I said in my earlier post, there was a new strictness in
the nagios parser, and I needed to tighten things up in
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 12:41:15PM -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
> To make this work, we could either require that maintainers of A add
> Requires(post): B, or delay the starting of services until the end
> of the transa
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > That said, maybe Fedora's service preset files these days are
> > carefully enough written and already formalize such deliberation?
>
> Pfff. Yes they are. See
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DefaultServices.
Is packager
I see the ongoing disagreement as to approaches in the Fedora
FESCO bug, Adjust/Drop/Document batched updates policy [A],
and here. I think there is some ** common ground **, fairly
easy to implement, to satisfy both the: 'we need testing at
once' cohort, and the: 'we are bandwidth
On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> That tells a lot more about USA operators being not willing to work with
> non USA operators than anything else.
ehh?
from the headers in that post, as received by me:
X-Authentication-Results: bastion01.phx2.fedoraproject.org;
dkim=fail
On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> It is quite insane, that, to this day, users are expected to know the
> rpm stack better than dnf, and tell it to update it first.
>
> KNOWING THE PACKAGE INFRA STACK STACK IS THE INSTALLER JOB
>
> whenever dnf hits a repo with an updated rpm stack,
On Mon, 5 Mar 2018, Randy Barlow wrote:
> On 03/03/2018 11:15 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> > * F27 Wine 3.3
> > - "The update can not be pushed: no test results found"
> > - https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-fa6f017315
> > * F26 Wine 3.3
> > - "The update can not be
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> Following my proposal in
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/EPELPythonStubPackages which
> met with favor from a number of folks, I went ahead and set up four
> dummy packages:
>
> python2-setuptools (in EPEL6)
> python2-sphinx
On Tue, 23 Jan 2018, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> What needs to be done for this ? I see my package "libvirt" present
> in its UI
>
> https://apps.fedoraproject.org/koschei/package/libvirt
>
> but it says
>
> "Package is currently ineligible for scheduling due to following reasons:
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018, Tomasz K?oczko wrote:
> [tkloczko@domek SPECS.fedora]$ (for i in centos ; do echo -n "$i "; \
grep '%{?'$i * ; done) | grep -v "rhel specific macros"
> ceph.spec:%if ( ( 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?rhel} <= 7) && ! 0%{?centos} )
> ceph.spec:%if ( ( 0%{?rhel} &&
On Sun, 21 Jan 2018, Tomasz K?oczko wrote:
> If it is common in case of EL7/EL6 EPEL packages consumers it is perfect
> reason to not bother EPEL on master branch because Fedora has noting out
> from such end users and keeping all EL6/EL7 adjustments are only slowing
> down Fedora development by
On Thu, 11 Jan 2018, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> We are not taking the concept of this user/group away. We are also not
> taking the UID/GID assignment 65534 away, either. All we are doing is
> assigning it a better name and do so unconditionally, independently of
> whether nfsutils is installed
On Fri, 5 Jan 2018, Rafal Luzynski wrote:
> be the same as the default "C" locale or slightly different. I'm not
> aware of any Fedora package where the order of the config files does
> matter
apache cares in /etc/httpd/conf.d/ with virtual host
enablement on ports along with multiple vhosts
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017, Chris Adams wrote:
> the requires downloads to be useful. I think simply requiring Mozilla
> to change their policies is unacceptable, as this still depends on a
> third party to properly enforce such policies (and not have any security
> issue that could result in untrusted
On Wed, 13 Dec 2017, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 26 October 2017 at 19:13, R P Herrold <herr...@owlriver.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> >
> >> twitter users could try @athimm
> >
> > I already sent a .@ message t
On Sun, 10 Dec 2017, Graham Leggett wrote:
> In this case, we have the needs of the Fedora project (this
> change) stacked up against your needs (your reluctance to
> perform a task).
This line of argument is a 'straw man' as are several other
rationalizations advanced for NOT giving
On Thu, 7 Dec 2017, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Provenpackager_policy
> These were properly announced:
>
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/RJYQNLIWBAVQPGLIGUT77WGY5D4TK334/
>
On Mon, 4 Dec 2017, Chris Murphy wrote:
> >> === Root Account ===
>>> group. We will remove the root password creation spoke.
>>> All Workstation installs will have no root password set by
>>> default, as in Ubuntu. Having a root password is not
>>> useful for nontechnical users, and it is
On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> But we don't do per-branch privileges. So either you have commit
> privileges on all branches, or you don't.
>
> Perhaps you could include some details about what leads you to believe
> that you have privileges on one branch but not the others.
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> I think it is probably overdue in the DECnet case, however I
> did get a very happy with it for the most part. Anyway it is
> clear that nobody is maintaining it and it seems sensible
> that it should get removed unless someone with sufficient
>
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017, Mátyás Selmeci wrote:
> This highlights a problem I've occasionally had with EPEL, namely that
> packages I depend on occasionally get removed. This especially causes trouble
> when a package gets removed because it's now in RHEL, because it takes a few
> months for CentOS and
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017, David Cantrell wrote:
> I don't really consider this a thing about saving space or making the
> output of 'rpm -qa' look nicer or something, but rather being good users
> of GPG.
As noted but not addressed, which keys actually have been
signed at GnuPG key-signing WoT
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017, David Cantrell wrote:
> > # rpm -qa gpg-pubkey --qf "%{version}-%{release} %{summary}\n"|wc -l
> > 64
>
> Do we issue revocations for old keys? If not, let's do that and extend
> dnf to honor those and clean up?
What is the 'use case' for potentially preventing
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "RPH" == R P Herrold <herr...@owlriver.com> writes:
>
> RPH> I noticed in the Scripts languages section the ** absence ** of
> RPH> /bin/sh (and not 'bash' with its 'bashisms'), and lua
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
interesting to re-read
I noticed in the Scripts languages section the ** absence **
of /bin/sh (and not 'bash' with its 'bashisms'), and lua
Each should probably be present for completeness ... it
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> twitter users could try @athimm
I already sent a .@ message to that account
-- Russ herrold
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
From a survey of about 1700 .spec files in my current working
collection, the overwhelmingly common place to ** install **
such is in a:
%doc
directory
Most simply place them in the top directory, at a depth even
with where a V[ersioned] tarball is unpacked by the %setup
stanza.
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
> HP changed website this week, which has consequences for getting hp
> proprietary plugin - it cannot be downloaded anymore for hplip-3.17.9,
> which is in stable Fedoras (f25 and f26) and Fedora 27. ...
> upstream several times about uploading plugin
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
> Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
>
> > I am going to retire ghostscript-fonts package in F27 because its fonts
> > are deprecated and replaced by urw-base35-fonts package.
I don't see a urw-base35-fonts SRPM in my RawHide ... has it
been packaged?
My
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> Sadly I know how terrible tcp_wrappers is and so I know it needs to go
> away.
just because crows trying to protect their young will 'mob' a
hawk hunting to feed her young does not make the hawk
terrible; latest is not always greatest
I
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> Hello Fedora Python package maintainers!
>
> This is an announcement of a mass package renaming:
> Python 2 binary packages will be renamed to python2-*.
> List 1. for those packages which will be taken care of by the mass remaining
>
On Wed, 3 May 2017, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> > python3-flask:
> >python3-itsdangerous
> >python3-sqlalchemy
>
> again, already in EPEL7
ehh? -- I see no python3-sqlalchemy in EPEL-7
[herrold@centos-7 ~]$ date ; sudo yum -q clean all
Thu May 11 12:19:59 EDT 2017
[herrold@centos-7 ~]$
On Tue, 8 Dec 2015, Jan Kurik wrote:
> The voting machine: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/voting/open
There is an obvious 'typo' on that page --
s/Lost/Last/
-- Russ herrold
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Sat, 21 Nov 2015, Germano Massullo wrote:
> Did you try to ask them to include all TeXLive packages that are
> available from upstream? If not, I can try
there are lots of licenses to audit, per sub-package, and
dependency trees of matter limited to non-commercial and so
forth
-- Russ
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015, Germano Massullo wrote:
> You can simply re use the collection of texlive-scheme-full for Fedora
> (non EPEL)
One would assume so, but I found dependencies on non-free bits
in there
-- Russ herrold
___
epel-devel mailing list
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
the processor serial number (PSN) wasn't shut down---every post-PIII CPU
has it. The access is often disabled by the BIOS, but it's there:
http://pcworld.about.net/magazine/1903p198id38601.htm
I think that TPC requires that PSN are enabled, but
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
There are many directories already in Fedora that are not
defined by FHS and even though we have asked them to update
it (libexec, /selinux /sys etc), there is noone maintaining
it.
This is stunningly untrue. I've worked for years in the
fields
On Thu, 4 Nov 2010, Christoph Wickert wrote:
How would you do that? A popup in ABRT that reads
Sorry, but the maintainer of this package
has decided to not accept any bug reports.
I think this would be a *really* bad user experience.
If telling the truth about
On Sat, 30 Oct 2010, Eric Sparks Christensen wrote:
I found a program that I want to package but it requires Fast Light
Tool Kit (FLTK). The source is a single file with no readme and I'm
not exactly sure how to package the software. Has anyone worked with
FLTK that might be able to help me
On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
Matěj Cepl asked for
I would really like to see some opinion of the real
European IP law on the matter. Does anybody have URL?
and received a slam at lawyers in the open to the reply.
Matěj, as I'm sure you know, we could find a lawyer who
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Wait until you will want to address a serious/critical bugfix to a
perl-module which carries a dependency on a perl-module you haven't kept
in sync with CPAN = You'd have to resort to either fastestly upgrade
a series of perl-modules or resort to
76 matches
Mail list logo
