Re: Which Fedora/EPEL is targeted by packaging guidelines?

On 30 November 2017 at 03:49, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Hi all, > > Reading logs from yesterdays FPC meeting [1], I think we should discuss > what is actually purpose of packaging guidelines and which version of > Fedora/EPEL/RHEL they actually targets. > > > Apparently, there are

Re: How to manage a fork

On 29/11/2017 13:03, Antonio Trande wrote: > Hi all. > > I have created a fork on https://src.fedoraproject.org/ but i don't know > how to manage it. > Can i use 'fedpkg'? > Documentation? > > Maybe, i was unclear with my question. If i create a fork of

Re: How to manage a fork

- Original Message - > From: "Antonio Trande" > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 4:50:24 PM > Subject: Re: How to manage a fork > > On 29/11/2017 13:03, Antonio Trande wrote: > >

Re: How to manage a fork

- Original Message - > From: "Vít Ondruch" > To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 2:55:50 PM > Subject: Re: How to manage a fork > > > > Dne 30.11.2017 v 13:48 Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:15:14AM

Re: Which Fedora/EPEL is targeted by packaging guidelines?

Dne 30.11.2017 v 16:39 Matthew Miller napsal(a): > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 04:33:07PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> The EPEL number you are presenting are bit unrelated number. You should >> compare how many "enhancement" and "bugfix" updates were submitted in >> EPEL versus Fedora (and actually

Fedora 27 RC 1.6 compose check report

Missing expected images: Workstation live i386 Kde live i386 Failed openQA tests: 7/135 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm) ID: 165589 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso base_services_start URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/165589 ID: 165612 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso base_services_start

Re: How to manage a fork

- Original Message - > From: "Pavel Valena" > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 5:02:49 PM > Subject: Re: How to manage a fork > > - Original Message - > > From: "Vít Ondruch"

Re: How to manage a fork

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:05:52AM -0500, Pavel Valena wrote: > > That is, can i push new release with 'fedpkg' or make additional changes > > to original RPMs? If not, are they useful for what? > You use them to create pull-requests to the original repo. See >

Fedora Modular 27 compose report: 20171130.n.1 changes

OLD: Fedora-Modular-27-20171130.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Modular-27-20171130.n.1 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 0 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 0 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 0.00 B Size of dropped packages

Self Introduction: Jaroslav Prokop

Hi everyone,   my name is Jaroslav, Jarek for short, I am 16 years old student, I live and study in Brno, Czech Republic. I am beginner in the world of programming, right now I am working on becoming rpm packager. For now I will be packaging ruby software and I am building my first Fedora

Re: /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/7/../../../../lib64/libQxtWidgets-qt5.so: undefined reference to `vtable for QxtApplication'

In the directory src/widgets there is a file widgets.pri (which is included by widgets.pro) At line 124 it checks for pre Qt5 and then adds qxtapplication.h to the headers list. Hence for Qt5 it is not pre-processed by moc. I have moved line 125: HEADERS += qxtapplication.h to after line 130: }

F28 Self Contained Change: OpenLDAP: Drop TCP wrappers support

= Proposed Self Contained Change: OpenLDAP: Drop TCP wrappers support = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OpenLDAPDropTCPWrappersSupport Change owner(s): * Matus Honek As per [1], TCP wrappers are being deprecated in Fedora. Also, as per [2], upstream discourages its usage in favour of

Which Fedora/EPEL is targeted by packaging guidelines?

Hi all, Reading logs from yesterdays FPC meeting [1], I think we should discuss what is actually purpose of packaging guidelines and which version of Fedora/EPEL/RHEL they actually targets. Apparently, there are two camps of packagers in Fedora/EPEL. Those who want: 1) single version of .spec

Re: Which Fedora/EPEL is targeted by packaging guidelines?

Hi, I totally agree with the spirit, but that would require Red Hat taking a more active role in backporting package tooling to RHEL/EPEL. Latest guidelines are always more efficient for everyone (Red Hat employees includes), but all too often they can't be applied to EPEL because no one at

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Which Fedora/EPEL is targeted by packaging guidelines?

Dne 30.11.2017 v 09:49 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > Hi all, > > Reading logs from yesterdays FPC meeting [1], I think we should discuss > what is actually purpose of packaging guidelines and which version of > Fedora/EPEL/RHEL they actually targets. > > > Apparently, there are two camps of packagers

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Which Fedora/EPEL is targeted by packaging guidelines?

Dne 30.11.2017 v 10:35 nicolas.mail...@laposte.net napsal(a): > Hi, > > I totally agree with the spirit, but that would require Red Hat taking a more > active role in backporting package tooling to RHEL/EPEL. > > Latest guidelines are always more efficient for everyone (Red Hat employees >

Re: How to manage a fork

Dne 29.11.2017 v 20:06 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): > On 11/29/2017 10:53 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 06:52:00PM +0100, Brian Exelbierd wrote: >>> As as you have a fork, my understanding is that you should just use >>> traditional gut commands. I’m not aware of a fork being

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Which Fedora/EPEL is targeted by packaging guidelines?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Thu, 2017-11-30 at 09:49 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Hi all, > > Reading logs from yesterdays FPC meeting [1], I think we should discuss > what is actually purpose of packaging guidelines and which version of > Fedora/EPEL/RHEL they actually

Fedora-Modular 27-20171130.n.1 compose check report

Missing expected images: Docker_base docker x86_64 Server dvd arm Failed openQA tests: 20/94 (x86_64), 4/19 (i386) ID: 177513 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso support_server URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/177513 ID: 177519 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_cockpit_default

Schedule for Friday's FESCo Meeting (2017-12-01)

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo meeting Friday at 16:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net. To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto or run: date -d '2017-12-01 16:00 UTC' Links to all issues below

Fedora Modular bikeshed compose report: changes

___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Nomination & Campaign period in progress

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: Nomination & Campaign period in progress on 2017-12-02 from 00:00:00 to 00:00:00 UTC The meeting will be about: The Nomination & Campaign period for the next elections is still in progress. These elections will take place on December

Fedora Modular 27 compose report: 20171201.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Modular-27-20171130.n.1 NEW: Fedora-Modular-27-20171201.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 0 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 0 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 0.00 B Size of dropped packages

Re: How to manage a fork

Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 30.11.2017 v 13:48 Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): It's really potato vs potato, clone your fork and add upstream as a remote or clone upstream and add your fork as a remote, at the end what matters is that you know which approach you used (and if you don't git remote -v

Re: Cannot find cause for ARM build failing

On 11/28/2017 02:06 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: This changed: https://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/commitdiff/644f497e87c51f1a1c62b26ea9f588e7bc97d13b aapcs-vfp is incompatible with variadic functions on mainline GCC. Maybe Wine upstream assumes that you use a patched GCC to build it?

Fedora Rawhide-20171130.n.0 compose check report

Missing expected images: Server dvd i386 Workstation live i386 Server boot i386 Kde live i386 Failed openQA tests: 84/126 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20171129.n.0): ID: 177307 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_browser URL:

Re: Which Fedora/EPEL is targeted by packaging guidelines?

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 09:49:14AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Apparently, there are two camps of packagers in Fedora/EPEL. Those who want: > 1) single version of .spec file to cover the whole Red Hat ecosystem. > 2) clean .spec file following the latest and greatest packaging practices. Here's

Re: Which Fedora/EPEL is targeted by packaging guidelines?

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Apparently, there are two camps of packagers in Fedora/EPEL. Those who > > want: > > > > 1) single version of .spec file to cover the whole Red Hat ecosystem. > > > > 2) clean .spec file

Re: remote X connections

gdm-3.26.2.1-3.fc27 Update ID: FEDORA-2017-e8628817ff Content Type: rpm Release: Fedora 27 Status: pending

how to replace ssl with ssh2 in kqoauth

Is it possible to compile kQOAuth [1] with ssh2 by using openssl, as it always comes to conflict between compat-openssl10 and openssl. I have already searched in the sources of kqoauth for the places where ssl is referenced. $ grep -r ssl * kqoauthutils.cpp:#include kqoauthutils.cpp:#include

Re: How to manage a fork

Dne 30.11.2017 v 13:48 Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:15:14AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: >>Dne 29.11.2017 v 20:06 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): >> >> On 11/29/2017 10:53 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: >> >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 06:52:00PM +0100, Brian Exelbierd wrote: >>

Re: How to manage a fork

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 02:55:50PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Not really, it is matter of attitude. Clone of upstream is always good > to have. Just for observing the project or to prepare source tarball or > whatever else. Fork itself is useless unless you want to contribute. I can see the

Re: How to manage a fork

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > Dne 30.11.2017 v 13:48 Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): >> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:15:14AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: >>>Dne 29.11.2017 v 20:06 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): >>> >>> On 11/29/2017 10:53 AM, Matthew Miller

Re: How to manage a fork

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 02:55:50PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > Dne 30.11.2017 v 13:48 Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:15:14AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: > >>Dne 29.11.2017 v 20:06 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): > >> > >> On 11/29/2017 10:53 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:

Re: Which Fedora/EPEL is targeted by packaging guidelines?

Vít Ondruch wrote: > Apparently, there are two camps of packagers in Fedora/EPEL. Those who > want: > > 1) single version of .spec file to cover the whole Red Hat ecosystem. > > 2) clean .spec file following the latest and greatest packaging practices. I am actually inbetween: I want a single

Re: remote X connections

On 11/30/2017 01:39 PM, Christian Groessler wrote: > This is handled by conditional compilation in gdm (depending on a > HAVE_XSERVER_THAT_DEFAULTS_TO_LOCAL_ONLY define). > > The setting for this define is determined in configure.ac, lines[...] > if $PKG_CONFIG --atleast-version=1.17

remote X connections

Hi, recently I've updated from FC24 to FC27. Since then remote X connections don't work anymore. For my environment I'm typically starting an xterm shell from another computer displaying on my workstation. When using "gdm", remote X access is en-/disabled with the "DisallowTCP" setting in

Re: How to manage a fork

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:15:14AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: >Dne 29.11.2017 v 20:06 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): > > On 11/29/2017 10:53 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 06:52:00PM +0100, Brian Exelbierd wrote: > > As as you have a fork, my understanding is that you

Re: remote X connections

On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 13:39:16 +0100, Christian Groessler wrote: > This is handled by conditional compilation in gdm (depending on a > HAVE_XSERVER_THAT_DEFAULTS_TO_LOCAL_ONLY define). gdm ignores DisallowTCP=false on F22 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1226084 FYI I had a problem with

Re: Which Fedora/EPEL is targeted by packaging guidelines?

Dne 30.11.2017 v 16:02 Matthew Miller napsal(a): > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 09:49:14AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> Apparently, there are two camps of packagers in Fedora/EPEL. Those who want: >> 1) single version of .spec file to cover the whole Red Hat ecosystem. >> 2) clean .spec file

Re: Which Fedora/EPEL is targeted by packaging guidelines?

Dne 30.11.2017 v 16:15 Richard Shaw napsal(a): > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Kevin Kofler > wrote: > > Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Apparently, there are two camps of packagers in Fedora/EPEL. > Those who > > want: > > >

Re: Which Fedora/EPEL is targeted by packaging guidelines?

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 04:33:07PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: > The EPEL number you are presenting are bit unrelated number. You should > compare how many "enhancement" and "bugfix" updates were submitted in > EPEL versus Fedora (and actually you can't evaluate Fedora correctly > since there are no

Re: how to replace ssl with ssh2 in kqoauth

On Thu, 2017-11-30 at 13:49 +, Martin Gansser wrote: > Is it possible to compile kQOAuth [1] with ssh2 by using openssl, as > it always comes to conflict between compat-openssl10 and openssl.  > I have already searched in the sources of kqoauth for the places > where ssl is referenced. > > $

Re: Schedule for Friday's FESCo Meeting (2017-12-01)

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 02:05:52PM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the > FESCo meeting Friday at 16:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on > irc.freenode.net. > > To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at >

Fedora-Modular 27-20171201.n.0 compose check report

Missing expected images: Docker_base docker x86_64 Server dvd arm Failed openQA tests: 18/94 (x86_64), 4/19 (i386) Old failures (same test failed in 27-20171130.n.1): ID: 177670 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso support_server URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/177670 ID: 177676

python37 package

Review request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519346 Notable difference here: the specfile can be used to produce this python37 flat package or "normal" python3, python3-libs, python3-tools etc. packages. Once we will update python3 to 3.7 in Fedora, we should be able to use

F28 Self Contained Change: OpenLDAP: Drop TCP wrappers support

= Proposed Self Contained Change: OpenLDAP: Drop TCP wrappers support = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OpenLDAPDropTCPWrappersSupport Change owner(s): * Matus Honek As per [1], TCP wrappers are being deprecated in Fedora. Also, as per [2], upstream discourages its usage in favour of

[389-devel] Please review: 49474 sasl mech fixes and test improvements

https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/49474 https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/raw/files/27ef699f4031fff96a51d35d5 9f9b05a1402e70dfd4da1508307d9e3edaffc1c-0002-Ticket-49474-sasl-allow- mechs-does-not-operate-corre.patch https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/raw/files/8d835a7a10b41da05777a3b52

[Bug 1515712] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-3.42 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1515712 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-3.42-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are