Re: Needless use of %defattr (in 4464 packages)

On 01/29/2016 03:30 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 12:36:24PM +0100, Petr Šabata wrote: On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:34:55PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: perl-Affix-Infix2Postfix (steve, psabata) perl-Algorithm-IncludeExclude (iarnell, psabata)

Re: Needless use of %defattr (in 4464 packages)

On 01/27/2016 09:37 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: On Wednesday, 27 January 2016 at 12:51, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 01/27/2016 11:32 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: Hi, Ralf. On Wednesday, 27 January 2016 at 09:28, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 01/25/2016 11:34 PM, Jason L

Re: Needless use of %defattr (in 4464 packages)

On 01/27/2016 01:22 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:51:03PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 01/27/2016 11:32 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: Hi, Ralf. On Wednesday, 27 January 2016 at 09:28, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 01/25/2016 11:34 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III

Re: Needless use of %defattr (in 4464 packages)

On 01/27/2016 10:13 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: "RC" == Ralf Corsepius <rc040...@freenet.de> writes: RC> Are you sure the owners list you used is current? I pulled them directly from pkgdb at the time I generated the list. There's no way that they could have been any

Re: Needless use of %defattr (in 4464 packages)

On 01/27/2016 11:32 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: Hi, Ralf. On Wednesday, 27 January 2016 at 09:28, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 01/25/2016 11:34 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: fakeroot (athimm, rathann, corsepiu, moceap) Are you sure the owners list you used is current? I stepped

Re: Needless use of %defattr (in 4464 packages)

On 01/25/2016 11:34 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: fakeroot (athimm, rathann, corsepiu, moceap) Are you sure the owners list you used is current? I stepped down as fakeroot maintainer and removed myself many months ago. Also, I noticed a number of maintainers on your list, whose accounts

Re: Should 'dnf install gtk3-devel.i686' work?

On 01/20/2016 05:59 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 17:32:52 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: IMO, this is supposed to work => Bug The big question would be: Where? It cannot work as long as gtk3-devel relies on pkgconfig(foo) dependencies instead of arch-specific expli

Re: Should 'dnf install gtk3-devel.i686' work?

On 01/21/2016 09:27 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 04:10:00AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 01/20/2016 08:23 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: I have filed a bug (against gtk3 for now) about this issue: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300432 I still

Re: Should 'dnf install gtk3-devel.i686' work?

On 01/20/2016 08:23 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: I have filed a bug (against gtk3 for now) about this issue: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300432 I still don't know the cause of this issue, I don't think this is gtk3's fault (alone). It's possible to generate similar

Re: Should 'dnf install gtk3-devel.i686' work?

On 01/21/2016 12:45 AM, Neal Gompa wrote: We don't store libraries and headers in such a way that the different arches can coexist without clobbering. Headers being installed to /usr/include must be multilib capable. I.e. they either must be arch-independent or contain sufficient magic

Re: Should 'dnf install gtk3-devel.i686' work?

On 01/20/2016 04:50 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: If you're on freshly installed Fedora 23 (x86-64), then dnf install gtk3-devel.x86_64 gets you everything you need to compile a simple Gtk3 application[1]. However on the same host if you do: dnf install gtk3-devel.i686 then there's a

Re: F24 System Wide Change: Default Local DNS Resolver

On 12/11/2015 05:25 PM, Jiri Eischmann wrote: So my worry is that we would be an OS which is more secure than others, but doesn't work in many networks. If something doesn't work reliably, the logical consequence to me would be to keep it strictly optional (opt-in) and not to make it default.

Re: How to collect "bundled" virtual provide

On 12/02/2015 03:46 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Dne 2.12.2015 v 15:30 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a): In accordance with the bundling policy, it *is* carrying a virtual Provides to allow us to identify whether it is affected by discovered CVEs.

Re: where is mariadb-10.0.21-1.fc23 ?

On 11/11/2015 09:29 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2015-11-11 at 07:02 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: Other strange case is the package perl-Event-RPC-1.06-1.fc21 [2] even more strange [3] comment 16 says that push perl-Event-RPC-1.07-1.fc23 and one minute later comment 17 says perl-Event

Re: where is mariadb-10.0.21-1.fc23 ?

On 11/11/2015 03:26 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote: Hi, Where is mariadb-10.0.21-1.fc23 ? [1] says that have been push to stable but upgrading my system, mariadb is downgraded from mariadb-10.0.21 to mariadb-10.0.20 ! [1] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-13442 Broken upgrade path.

Re: Retire a package from Fedora i686 (not x86_64)

On 11/07/2015 04:55 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 06.11.2015 um 20:11 schrieb Germano Massullo: For example, SSE3 instructions set is one of the minimum requirements and 99% of 32 bit only CPUs do not support it. Only Pentium 4 >= Prescott architecture supports it seriously? Probably.

Re: Retire a package from Fedora i686 (not x86_64)

On 11/07/2015 05:03 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 07.11.2015 um 05:00 schrieb Luya Tshimbalanga: On 06/11/15 07:29 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: But if upstream doesn't care, it's going to be a problem. :-( Exactly - That's the actual problem. Upstream does not care and Fedora seems unable

Re: Retire a package from Fedora i686 (not x86_64)

On 11/06/2015 09:50 PM, Stuart Gathman wrote: On 11/06/2015 02:11 PM, Germano Massullo wrote: For example, SSE3 instructions set is one of the minimum requirements and 99% of 32 bit only CPUs do not support it. Only Pentium 4 >= Prescott architecture supports it. For that kind of thing, add

Re: Retire a package from Fedora i686 (not x86_64)

On 11/06/2015 10:00 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Germano Massullo wrote: For example, SSE3 instructions set is one of the minimum requirements and 99% of 32 bit only CPUs do not support it. Only Pentium 4 >= Prescott architecture supports it. I think building it with SSE3 is better than excluding

Re: make unmaintained ??

On 10/26/2015 05:21 PM, drago01 wrote: On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: On Oct 25, 2015 12:53, "Jan Kratochvil" wrote: On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 01:07:47 +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: I built 4.1 for rawhide.

Re: dnf and file provides

On 10/24/2015 03:55 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2015-10-23 at 18:19 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: Got this is a resent koji rawhide build: DEBUG util.py:393: No matching package to install: '/bin/csh' I'm assuming this is a quirk of dnf now being the default, but needs to get fixed.

Re: dnf and file provides

On 10/24/2015 02:19 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote: Got this is a resent koji rawhide build: DEBUG util.py:393: No matching package to install: '/bin/csh' I'm assuming this is a quirk of dnf now being the default, but needs to get fixed. This is dnf bug

Re: jehane pushed to fusioninventory-agent (f23). "new version (..more)"

On 10/15/2015 07:46 PM, notificati...@fedoraproject.org wrote: From c7493300b75beeed3980723ecddc68185438a0a8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: jehane Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 17:01:09 +0200 Subject: new version - Upstream switch to github, minor spec adaptation ---

Re: Proposal: retire lesstif in f24 and beyond

On 10/10/2015 07:39 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 07:20:22AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: I know, we are late in the release schedule, but I am considering to switching at least Inventor to motif on fc23, as well - It's unimportant enough to most users

Re: Proposal: retire lesstif in f24 and beyond

On 10/09/2015 09:17 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: On 8 October 2015 at 17:04, Kevin Kofler wrote: Christopher Meng wrote: IMO motif should 'Obsoletes' lesstif in Fedora since motif is free now. The reason we kept lesstif even after OpenMotif was finally freed is

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2015-10-07)

On 10/09/2015 12:08 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: On Wednesday, 07 October 2015 at 21:17, Stephen Gallagher wrote: Meeting summary --- [...] * #1483 Decision on bundling policy in the Fedora Package Collection (sgallagh, 18:11:40) * LINK:

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2015-10-07)

On 10/09/2015 03:51 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 01:50:27PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: This opens the door to all kinds of duplication, waste of disk space, waste of RAM, symbol conflicts and unfixed security issues! I agree - the new wording does appear to give in

Re: Proposal: retire lesstif in f24 and beyond

On 10/08/2015 12:24 PM, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: W dniu 08.10.2015 o 12:06, Marcin Juszkiewicz pisze: W dniu 02.10.2015 o 13:33, Jon Ciesla pisze: Lesstif being basically dead upstream and motif being available, I think it's probably time to retire lesstif. If anyone knows of other

Re: XSD on EPEL7

On 10/08/2015 05:30 PM, Antonio Trande wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 10/08/2015 05:19 PM, Jakub Jelen wrote: On 10/08/2015 03:13 PM, Antonio Trande wrote: On 10/01/2015 05:35 PM, Antonio Trande wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi all. I

Re: Orphaned Packages in rawhide (2015-10-07)

On 10/08/2015 07:11 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote: On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 09:56:53PM +, opensou...@till.name wrote: Note: If you received this mail directly you (co)maintain one of the affected packages or a package that depends on one. Please adopt the affected package or retire your depending

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 10/02/2015 01:46 PM, Tomas Mraz wrote: On Pá, 2015-10-02 at 13:18 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 30.9.2015 v 16:52 Ralf Corsepius napsal(a): Like I've said many times before, I feel Fedora needs a serious vulnerability in a widespread bundled or static library, such that people finally

Re: Proposal: retire lesstif in f24 and beyond

On 10/02/2015 01:33 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote: Lesstif being basically dead upstream and motif being available, I think it's probably time to retire lesstif. I've migrated the remaining packages still using it I could find in rawhide: Inventor [Inventor maintainer speaking] Migrating Inventor

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 10/02/2015 01:18 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 30.9.2015 v 16:52 Ralf Corsepius napsal(a): Like I've said many times before, I feel Fedora needs a serious vulnerability in a widespread bundled or static library, such that people finally comprehend the harm of bundling. This harms Fedora

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 09/30/2015 06:32 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 04:52:48PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: people not declaring their bundles and not care about policies did the same before: not declare it and not ask for exceptions - there is a logical flow in "now that i don't need t

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 10/02/2015 12:09 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 23:54 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: Seems to me, as if today's generation of fedora users and esp. current Fedora leaders need to go through the lessons people who had been using Linux then were tought the cruel way. I know

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 09/30/2015 05:20 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040...@freenet.de <mailto:rc040...@freenet.de>>wrote: On 09/30/2015 04:25 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: the opposite is more likely: people trying to avoid the FPC

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 09/30/2015 04:25 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 30.09.2015 um 16:13 schrieb Orion Poplawski: On 09/30/2015 07:45 AM, Fabian Deutsch wrote: Yes, I also see this as a good compromise. We then have the ability to at least track bundling. I'd just like to point out that we have always had the

Re: redhat bugzilla probs

On 09/21/2015 03:38 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: Hi, When trying to file a BZ, bugzilla just greeter me with this: Proxy Error The proxy server received an invalid response from an upstream server. The proxy server could not handle the request POST /post_bug.cgi. Reason: Error reading from

Re: Announcing the release of Fedora 23 Beta!

On 09/22/2015 07:33 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 06:21:00PM +0100, Pádraig Brady wrote: I just used dnf distro-sync as per: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading_Fedora_using_yum#Fedora_22_-.3E_Fedora_23 This went fine, and I'm now typing this on F23 beta. What are the

redhat bugzilla probs

Hi, When trying to file a BZ, bugzilla just greeter me with this: Proxy Error The proxy server received an invalid response from an upstream server. The proxy server could not handle the request POST /post_bug.cgi. Reason: Error reading from remote server Apache Server at

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 09/14/2015 01:56 PM, Haïkel wrote: 2015-09-14 13:17 GMT+02:00 Andrew Haley : On 09/13/2015 09:23 PM, Haïkel wrote: I'm not speaking about PHP, most of the upstream I deal with are python developers. Bad habits are rather spreading than regressing. We're not going to solve

Re: Packaging guidelines for documentation clairfication needed

On 09/14/2015 04:13 PM, Richard Shaw wrote: While working through a package review[1] this excerpt from the documentation section[2] was brought to my attention: "Marking a /relative/ path with |%doc| in the |%files| section will cause RPM to copy the referenced file or directory from

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 09/10/2015 03:53 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: I assume that subject line got your attention. The reason for this proposal is relatively simple: we know the advantages to unbundling, particularly with security and resource- usage. However, the world's developer community largely *does not

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 09/10/2015 04:06 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 09:03 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote: On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: I assume that subject line got your attention. Most definitely. :) So it's basically the same but without

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 09/10/2015 04:08 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: Is the intention of your proposal to also allow Chromium into the main Fedora repos? I honestly can't tell where it draws the line. We have a long list of bundling

Re: bodhi2: ACL validation mechanism was unable to determine ACLs

On 08/29/2015 05:40 PM, Rex Dieter wrote: Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 08/28/2015 01:00 PM, Rex Dieter wrote: Ralf Corsepius wrote: This morning, bodhi2 doesn't allow me to submit an update. After a seemingly successful login-in, when trying to submit an update, a popup pops up telling me

Re: bodhi2: ACL validation mechanism was unable to determine ACLs

On 08/28/2015 11:58 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Ralf Corsepius wrote: Also, I have not found any means to kill this job in bodhi/koji, Had you tried koji cancel-task 10843003? (It's too late to try it now, now that the build has timed out.) No, I wasn't aware this option exits. It's

Re: bodhi2: ACL validation mechanism was unable to determine ACLs

On 08/28/2015 01:00 PM, Rex Dieter wrote: Ralf Corsepius wrote: Hi, This morning, bodhi2 doesn't allow me to submit an update. After a seemingly successful login-in, when trying to submit an update, a popup pops up telling me: ACL validation mechanism was unable to determine ACLs Known

Re: Undefined %epoch problem (Re: rawhide report: 20150730 changes)

On 08/28/2015 01:15 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: The version tags ver and rel attributes may also be non-numerical. Why not epoch, too? I haven't looked into the sources, but IIRC, inside of rpm, while rel, ver etc. are strings, epoch is an integer. AFAIR, there are APIs which return the

Re: bodhi2: ACL validation mechanism was unable to determine ACLs

On 08/28/2015 12:56 PM, Kalev Lember wrote: On 08/28/2015 12:45 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 08/28/2015 11:58 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Ralf Corsepius wrote: Also, I have not found any means to kill this job in bodhi/koji, Had you tried koji cancel-task 10843003? (It's too late to try it now

Re: Undefined %epoch problem (Re: rawhide report: 20150730 changes)

On 08/28/2015 02:18 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 13:59:12 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: The version tags ver and rel attributes may also be non-numerical. Why not epoch, too? I haven't looked into the sources, but IIRC, inside of rpm, while rel, ver etc. are strings, epoch

Re: Undefined %epoch problem (Re: rawhide report: 20150730 changes)

On 08/28/2015 05:32 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:36:51 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: See: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2015-August/213209.html https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2015-August/213208.html Bugs ... an undefined epoch

Re: bodhi2: ACL validation mechanism was unable to determine ACLs

On 08/27/2015 07:55 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: Hi, This morning, bodhi2 doesn't allow me to submit an update. After a seemingly successful login-in, when trying to submit an update, a popup pops up telling me: ACL validation mechanism was unable to determine ACLs This whole incident

Re: bodhi2: ACL validation mechanism was unable to determine ACLs

On 08/27/2015 11:15 AM, Christopher Meng wrote: On Thursday, August 27, 2015, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de mailto:rc040...@freenet.de wrote: Hi, This morning, bodhi2 doesn't allow me to submit an update. After a seemingly successful login-in, when trying to submit an update

bodhi2: ACL validation mechanism was unable to determine ACLs

Hi, This morning, bodhi2 doesn't allow me to submit an update. After a seemingly successful login-in, when trying to submit an update, a popup pops up telling me: ACL validation mechanism was unable to determine ACLs Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)

On 08/21/2015 06:02 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 05:27:37 +0200 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote: Upstreams, yes, but not Fedora. Fedora should be self-hosted. Can you please define Fedora and self-hosted as you use them above? A domain 100 operated and owned

Re: bodhi 2 now live

On 08/20/2015 07:40 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: On 19 August 2015 at 22:24, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote: On 08/20/2015 06:08 AM, Christopher Meng wrote: On 8/20/15, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: Thanks for your patience as we roll out this new bodhi version

Re: bodhi 2 now live

On 08/21/2015 04:03 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 09:00:29 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 08/21/2015 08:34 AM, Till Hofmann wrote: Also, it seems like I can revoke other people's updates. At least I could press the 'Revoke' button and I received a confirmation notification

Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)

On 08/20/2015 07:39 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: Well, I don't know if there was a Big Philosophical Discussion, but in practice all kinds of Fedora-ish stuff has its upstream in github these days, so yes, clearly times have changed. That's not the point. I am talking about separating Fedora

Re: bodhi 2 now live

On 08/21/2015 08:47 AM, Till Hofmann wrote: On 08/21/2015 08:34 AM, Till Hofmann wrote: Also, it seems like I can revoke other people's updates. At least I could press the 'Revoke' button and I received a confirmation notification. Also, instead of the Revoke button, there is now a Push to

Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)

On 08/20/2015 06:00 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:55:01 +0200 Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Ralf Corsepius wrote: I share this view. I refuse to create a github account and do not consider using any external account resources for Fedora to be acceptable. While I

Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)

On 08/20/2015 09:51 AM, Milan Crha wrote: On Wed, 2015-08-19 at 21:45 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: There will likely be oddities and bugs. Please file them in github so we can prioritize them and get them fixed up. https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues Hi, I do not have a github

Re: Sponsors - who does (not) work on FE-NEEDSPONSOR tickets

On 08/18/2015 12:04 PM, Miroslav Suchý wrote: BTW this report reveals that we have just 39 active sponsors (during past year). If you are sponsors, please consider sponsoring somebody from the queue: http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEEDSPONSOR.html You should understand that

Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)

On 08/20/2015 07:51 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 12:33:37 -0500 Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com wrote: On 08/20/2015 12:02 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: To me any non fedora/redhat supplied account system is inacceptable, This applies to github, sourceforge, farcebook, nitter

Re: Unable to submit update for F22 (was Re: bodhi 2 now live)

On 08/20/2015 12:00 PM, Paul Howarth wrote: On 20/08/15 10:28, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 08/20/2015 09:51 AM, Milan Crha wrote: On Wed, 2015-08-19 at 21:45 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: There will likely be oddities and bugs. Please file them in github so we can prioritize them and get them fixed

Re: Rawhide plans

On 08/20/2015 03:13 PM, Eric Griffith wrote: If you have a bad experience that experience stays with you. Maybe you can get over it, maybe you can't. But a name does have history. I guess, you guys are not aware that other names related to RH/CentOS/Fedora also have ambivalent and polarizing

Re: Rawhide plans

On 08/20/2015 03:42 PM, Zach Villers wrote: Le Mer 19 août 2015 18:22, Rex Dieter a écrit : Kevin Fenzi wrote: * Matt opened a thread on the marketing list about renaming rawhide. It sounds like most people would prefer us to make the changes first, then and only then look at renaming.

Re: bodhi 2 now live

On 08/20/2015 06:24 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 08/20/2015 06:08 AM, Christopher Meng wrote: On 8/20/15, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: Thanks for your patience as we roll out this new bodhi version. This update has reached 3 days in testing and can be pushed to stable now

Re: Rawhide plans

On 08/20/2015 09:23 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 20.08.2015 um 06:01 schrieb Ralf Corsepius: On 08/20/2015 01:07 AM, Eric Griffith wrote: Personally, if it weren't for the confusion, I think Fedora Next would be the perfect name for this. May-be, you guys are too young to know, but to me

Re: bodhi 2 now live

On 08/20/2015 06:05 PM, Tomasz Torcz wrote: On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:02:44AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: Are things like redhat bugzilla, koji and fedocal also slow? Bugzilla is always slow, it's not a good reference ;-) Definitely. But bodhi2 seemed worse :-) What might have

Re: Rawhide plans

On 08/20/2015 01:07 AM, Eric Griffith wrote: Personally, if it weren't for the confusion, I think Fedora Next would be the perfect name for this. May-be, you guys are too young to know, but to me Fedora Next, would be a Fedora distribution addressing Steve Job/Apple's NeXt and advertising

Re: bodhi 2 now live

On 08/20/2015 06:08 AM, Christopher Meng wrote: On 8/20/15, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: Thanks for your patience as we roll out this new bodhi version. This update has reached 3 days in testing and can be pushed to stable now if the maintainer wishes This update has reached 14 days in

Re: Rawhide plans

On 08/19/2015 06:59 PM, Zach Villers wrote: On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 11:18:04 -0400 *Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com* wrote Greetings. We had some nice discussions about rawhide in my friday workshop at flock. I thought I would post here to get input from folks not there, and

Re: Validity of i686 as a release blocker

On 08/14/2015 12:00 PM, Richard Z wrote: I regularly use i686 and have not done a fresh install since years so would not detect this. Maybe fresh installs aren't such a deal for i686 users Well, from my experience, fresh installs on i686 are a major problem w/ Fedora, because Fedora's SW

Re: Validity of i686 as a release blocker

On 08/04/2015 05:12 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: Paul W. Frields (sticks...@gmail.com) said: Here's my perspective as an i686 Fedora user... I have a box (2009-ish) that's in use as a file/backup server. I have 3 i686 boxen. 2 are 2009-ish atom-netbook, one is a 2000-ish PIII-desktop. As

Re: [PATCH] Update to 2.0.2

On 08/03/2015 04:37 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 01:13:52 +0200 I think posting patches or other issues here is fine as long as theres some reason to involve the larger development community. ... like in this case. Broken upgrade paths and disinterest in fixing them have a

Re: Question about profile.d scripts definition in Spec file

On 08/02/2015 08:39 AM, Marcin Haba wrote: Hello, I am trying to make informal review following feature request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244353 One from warnings returned by rpmlint is: ossim-data.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/ossim.sh Because ossim.sh

Re: How to make .spec Requires for libXXX.so.VER

On 08/01/2015 09:25 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: Hi, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249325 GDB requires some library libXXX.so.3 by dlopen(). Therefore it is not found by rpm automatic requires/provides from DT_NEEDED. Therefore one has to add the libXXX.so.3 by specific

Re: How to make .spec Requires for libXXX.so.VER

On 08/02/2015 09:33 AM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: It was reworked from ordinary DT_NEEDED to this dlopen() approach because librpm.so is (was) the only incompatible shared library dependency between various versions of RHELs/CentOSes and Fedoras. So with dlopen()ed librpm one can take latest

Re: Help needed: F23 32-bit kernel issue

On 07/29/2015 11:12 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:36:07AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: Secondly, it would be excellent if someone could commit to spinning test ISOs when requested. Turn around time on

Re: Updates push status - 20150725

On 07/28/2015 07:57 AM, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: Has the issue been resolved? I have pushed three new packages to f22 and f21 updates-testing, but they have yet to appear in my usual local mirrors. I guess no. I am waiting for my updates to get for weeks and am already withholding other

Re: About making noarch package arch specific, when contents differ.

On 07/28/2015 10:58 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: On 07/26/2015 04:05 PM, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade wrote: Should I make the doc packages arch specific? No, this is not a reason to make them arch-specific. A lot of packages give different results when built twice in a row, on the *same*

Re: About making noarch package arch specific, when contents differ.

On 07/28/2015 03:34 AM, Dan Callaghan wrote: Excerpts from paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade's message of 2015-07-27 00:05 +10:00: Should I make the doc packages arch specific? Rather than trying to make Sphinx spit out bitwise-identical output on every arch (which sounds like fighting a losing

Re: Proposal: Drop comps

On 07/15/2015 10:20 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Description and Summary can be localized in .spec file [1], where supposedly names in comps terminology refers to summary in .spec terminology. Including translations is encouraged in guidelines as well [2, 3], unfortunately without any further details

Re: Improving our processes for new contributors.

On 07/15/2015 07:03 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote: On 07/15/2015 12:05 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:05:40 -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote: I do understand where you're coming from: the Fedora workflow is quite complicated What exactly do you find quite complicated?

Bizarre koji error

Hi I am facing a bizarre f23-koji build breakdown: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10366596 The interesting part seems to be hidden in this file: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/6598/10366598/checkout.log: $ git clone -n git://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/ht

Re: Bizarre koji error

On 07/15/2015 04:51 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 04:07:31PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: Hi I am facing a bizarre f23-koji build breakdown: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10366596 The interesting part seems to be hidden in this file: https

Re: Improving our processes for new contributors.

On 07/15/2015 06:05 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:05:40 -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote: Well, watching all the people that somehow manage to submit new packages into the review queue, the process up to that point can't be too bad, and one can safely assume they would be

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2015-07-01)

On 07/07/2015 03:54 PM, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Michael Catanzaro mcatanz...@gnome.org said: For Fedora 24, we've proposed trimming down Anaconda much more, since most of Anaconda's functionality is redundant with our initial setup tool that already handles language, keyboard, and

Discontinuing perl-Mail-GnuPG

Hi, I indent to discontinue and remove perl-Mail-GnuPG from Fedora. It FTBFS on rawhide, because it seem to suffer from compatibility issues with gnupg2 = 2.1.5 [1]. AFAIS, nothing in Fedora uses it, so this step probably won't do much harm. Should gnupg2 in Fedora 23 be updated,

Discontinuing perl-Mail-GnuPG

Hi, I indent to discontinue and remove perl-Mail-GnuPG from Fedora. It FTBFS on rawhide, because it seem to suffer from compatibility issues with gnupg2 = 2.1.5 [1]. AFAIS, nothing in Fedora uses it, so this step probably won't do much harm. Should gnupg2 in Fedora 23 be updated,

dnf Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'updates'

Hi, seems to me, as if fedora 22 updates is down: # dnf --refresh update RPM Fusion for Fedora 22 - Free - Updates 12 kB/s | 395 B 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 22 - Nonfree - Updates 552 B/s | 395 B

Re: dnf Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'updates'

On 06/19/2015 04:53 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 19.06.2015 um 16:40 schrieb Ralf Corsepius: seems to me, as if fedora 22 updates is down: # dnf --refresh update RPM Fusion for Fedora 22 - Free - Updates 12 kB/s | 395 B 00:00 RPM Fusion

Re: Fedora 23 mass rebuild

On 06/17/2015 04:14 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote: The Perl 5.22 mass rebuild broke po4a I checked in a patch which hopefully fixes po4a, earlier today. (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230977) It doesn't seem to be on the rawhide mirrors yet, but it's already in Fedora's builders. So,

Re: Can soft dependencies help to get the proper kernel-devel packages? (Was: Soft- Re: DKMS is not installing the right kernel-devel package)

On 06/12/2015 02:48 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: ​Soft/weak dependencies are allowed, according to FESCo It doesn't matter much what FESCO says of believes in this case. ATM, neither is the technical infrastructure is in place (it is evolving) nor are impact/consequences clear not are the

Re: Can soft dependencies help to get the proper kernel-devel packages? (Was: Soft- Re: DKMS is not installing the right kernel-devel package)

On 06/12/2015 03:23 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote: On 06/12/2015 02:48 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: Soft/weak dependencies are allowed, according to FESCo It doesn't matter much what FESCO says of believes in this case. ATM

Re: f22 screensaver/lockout issue requiring reboot :/

On 06/10/2015 03:45 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote: On 06/10/2015 09:04 AM, Paul Wouters wrote: Am I the only one who is constantly locked out of their X session on fedora 22? Once the screen locks, it refuses my actual password to unlock. Even killing X with ctrl-alt-backspace doesn't help

Re: Rapid release for security updates

On 05/26/2015 06:22 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Tue, 2015-05-26 at 15:33 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 05/26/2015 12:10 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: Something needs to be done, but I'm not sure exactly what. IMO, all this should not be a problem, if collaborative maintenance works. What

Re: Fedora 22 Dispplay with stripes

On 05/27/2015 05:27 PM, Sergio Belkin wrote: Video card: Slot: 00:02.0 Class: VGA compatible controller Vendor: Intel Corporation Device: 82945G/GZ Integrated Graphics Controller SVendor:Elitegroup Computer Systems SDevice:Device 1b76 Rev:02 Driver: i915 Module: i915

Re: Rapid release for security updates

On 05/26/2015 12:10 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: Something needs to be done, but I'm not sure exactly what. IMO, all this should not be a problem, if collaborative maintenance works. What I mean, IMO, critical packages should have a sufficient number of co-maintainers, who should be presumed to

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >