Re: Unretire nodejs-gaze

2019-10-02 Thread Ben Rosser
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 11:21 PM Jared K. Smith wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 9:32 AM Jared K. Smith > wrote: >> >> I blindly assumed it had been eight weeks already, so I requested a >> re-review at RHBZ#1755147. Obviously I'll just close that review request if >> we can get this unretire

Re: Fedora 32 Self-Contained Change proposal: Better Thermal Management for the Workstation

2019-10-02 Thread Dridi Boukelmoune
On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 4:09 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 10:21 AM Ben Cotton wrote: > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ThermalManagementWS > > > > == Summary == > > Better thermal management and peak performance on Intel CPUs by > > including thermald in the

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

2019-10-02 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 11:36:10AM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > Good Morning Everyone, ...snip... So, a few thoughts in general on the thread and ideas... I think it might be helpfull for us to come up with some personas? I know that kind of thing seems silly a lot of the time, but I thin

Review swap (htslib)

2019-10-02 Thread Jun Aruga
Hi all, Someone (especially proven packagers), could you review below library package related to bio science? It has already been reviewed several times. I think I fixed every items mentioned by a reviewer. Review Request: htslib - C library for high-throughput sequencing data formats (required f

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

2019-10-02 Thread Dan Čermák
I'm late to the party, but here we go anyway. Pierre-Yves Chibon writes: > [snip] > > Here is what the vision we came to and that we would like to discuss: > > ○ Every changes to dist-git is done via pull-requests As long as this is not mandatory, sure. > ○ Pull-requests are automatically test

Re: packaging: upgrade a library to a header-only library

2019-10-02 Thread Rex Dieter
Miro Hrončok wrote: > - cmake files usually go into %{_libdir} and such packages cannot be > noarch as well smart cmake noarch projects can use %{_datadir}/cmake instead -- rex ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send

Re: Fedora Atomic Host Two Week Release Announcement: 29.20191001.0

2019-10-02 Thread Dusty Mabe
On 10/2/19 5:25 PM, nore...@fedoraproject.org wrote: > > A new Fedora Atomic Host update is available via an OSTree update: > > Version: 29.20191001.0 > Commit(x86_64): > 15b8a10f8b587c2a037a592806dc04e9cdf6ab1c73c6e49fdaacab1b1174b9ab > Commit(aarch64): > 2b83282e976249b8e1910a7292379753b006

Fedora Atomic Host Two Week Release Announcement: 29.20191001.0

2019-10-02 Thread noreply
A new Fedora Atomic Host update is available via an OSTree update: Version: 29.20191001.0 Commit(x86_64): 15b8a10f8b587c2a037a592806dc04e9cdf6ab1c73c6e49fdaacab1b1174b9ab Commit(aarch64): 2b83282e976249b8e1910a7292379753b006851078e9bcea279ff3b6483ee602 Commit(ppc64le): 7ed4f0395e22000ffe372132c

Re: Unretire nodejs-gaze

2019-10-02 Thread Jared K. Smith
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 9:32 AM Jared K. Smith wrote: > I blindly assumed it had been eight weeks already, so I requested a > re-review at RHBZ#1755147. Obviously I'll just close that review request > if we can get this unretired before the deadline. > It looks like this has been un-retired, so

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

2019-10-02 Thread Neal Gompa
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 4:06 PM Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Wed, 2019-10-02 at 15:57 -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019, at 3:18 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 2:45 PM Colin Walters wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019, at 1:40 PM, Fabio

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

2019-10-02 Thread Simo Sorce
On Wed, 2019-10-02 at 15:57 -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019, at 3:18 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 2:45 PM Colin Walters wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019, at 1:40 PM, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > > > > > As others in the thread have poi

New updates straight to obsolete after Epoch bump?!?

2019-10-02 Thread Richard Shaw
I messed up and build PySide2 5.13.x before I relealized that I should have built the latest 5.12.x as the MAJOR.MINOR has to match the version of Qt and we have not updated to 5.13 yet. So I bumped the Epoch in the spec file and built 5.12.5 but when I submitted updates for f31 and 30 they pretty

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

2019-10-02 Thread Colin Walters
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019, at 3:18 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 2:45 PM Colin Walters wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019, at 1:40 PM, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > > > As others in the thread have pointed out, mandatory pull requests just > > > make no sense for most single-ma

Ohio LinuxFest 2019

2019-10-02 Thread Ben Cotton
I proposed a Fedora BoF for Ohio LinuxFest[1], to be held 1–2 November in Columbus, Ohio, USA. The BoF is accepted, and the organizers said there is still expo space available. I didn't get a reponse on the Ambassadors list when I asked if we'll have a presence there, but I'll get us a Fedora boot

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

2019-10-02 Thread Neal Gompa
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 3:18 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 2:45 PM Colin Walters wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019, at 1:40 PM, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > > > As others in the thread have pointed out, mandatory pull requests just > > > make no sense for most single-mai

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

2019-10-02 Thread Neal Gompa
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 2:45 PM Colin Walters wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019, at 1:40 PM, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > As others in the thread have pointed out, mandatory pull requests just > > make no sense for most single-maintainer projects, which most packages > > probably are. > > Well, a

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

2019-10-02 Thread Robbie Harwood
"Colin Walters" writes: > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019, at 1:40 PM, Fabio Valentini wrote: > >> As others in the thread have pointed out, mandatory pull requests >> just make no sense for most single-maintainer projects, which most >> packages probably are. > > Well, a lot of this relates to what the *mer

Re: Update pushed to F31 updates-testing not happening ?

2019-10-02 Thread Hans de Goede
Hi, On 02-10-2019 16:59, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 01:55:23PM +0200, Clement Verna wrote: On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 12:49, Hans de Goede wrote: Hi All, We currently have 61 updates pending for being pushed to F31 updates-testing and no push seems to have happened for aprox. 48

Re: Intent to unretire qm-dsp

2019-10-02 Thread Guido Aulisi
Il giorno mer, 02/10/2019 alle 14.32 +0200, Guido Aulisi ha scritto: > Hi, > I'm going to unretire qm-dsp in all current Fedora supported > releases, > because it's a dependency for ardour5. > > I will file a review request ASAP, I have already made a scratch > build > in rawhide: > https://koji.f

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

2019-10-02 Thread Colin Walters
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019, at 1:40 PM, Fabio Valentini wrote: > As others in the thread have pointed out, mandatory pull requests just > make no sense for most single-maintainer projects, which most packages > probably are. Well, a lot of this relates to what the *merge policy* is. If a PR submitter

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

2019-10-02 Thread Ben Rosser
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 8:17 PM Ben Rosser wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 1:59 PM Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > There are regularly people complaining on this very list about how hard > > packaging has become. So here is a thread trying to see if you can come up > > with > > a long term, ideal

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

2019-10-02 Thread Clement Verna
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 19:34, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 05:31:56PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > ○ Every changes to dist-git is done via pull-requests > > Erm, no thank you. Pull requests are a terrible workflow. > > It's definitely the winning workflow in the open

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

2019-10-02 Thread Ben Rosser
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 1:59 PM Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > There are regularly people complaining on this very list about how hard > packaging has become. So here is a thread trying to see if you can come up > with > a long term, ideal, vision of what the packager workflow should be so we can > w

Re: Impact of dropping QEMU emulation on 32-bit hosts ? (~Fedora 33)

2019-10-02 Thread Stephen John Smoogen
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 12:43, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 04:49:08PM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote: > > Perhaps the same reason that many people still run i686 based hardware, and > > will be unable to use Fedora after the release of F31: Why fix what isn't > > broken? >

Re: Fwd: bodhi submitted ntl-11.3.4-1.fc32 to stable

2019-10-02 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 10:13:43AM -0600, Jerry James wrote: > I just received the email below. I built ntl-11.3.4-1.fc32 on > September 24. Later that day, upstream released version 11.4.0, so I > built ntl-11.4.0-1.fc32 the next day, September 25. Why has the > previous build suddenly come bac

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

2019-10-02 Thread Fabio Valentini
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 7:33 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 05:31:56PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > ○ Every changes to dist-git is done via pull-requests > > Erm, no thank you. Pull requests are a terrible workflow. > > It's definitely the winning workflow in the op

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

2019-10-02 Thread Emmanuel Seyman
* Matthew Miller [02/10/2019 13:33] : > >And there _are_ real tracking and review benefits to > having everything go through that workflow. > > Do you have an alternative proposal? I'm fine with the workflow we have now. Small and drive-by contributions can by contributed via

Re: Impact of dropping QEMU emulation on 32-bit hosts ? (~Fedora 33)

2019-10-02 Thread John M. Harris Jr
On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 9:42:57 AM MST Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 04:49:08PM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote: > > > Perhaps the same reason that many people still run i686 based hardware, > > and will be unable to use Fedora after the release of F31: Why fix what > >

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

2019-10-02 Thread Matthew Miller
On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 05:31:56PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > ○ Every changes to dist-git is done via pull-requests > Erm, no thank you. Pull requests are a terrible workflow. It's definitely the winning workflow in the open source world today, particularly for smaller and drive-by cont

Re: Impact of dropping QEMU emulation on 32-bit hosts ? (~Fedora 33)

2019-10-02 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 04:49:08PM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote: > Perhaps the same reason that many people still run i686 based hardware, and > will be unable to use Fedora after the release of F31: Why fix what isn't > broken? But the question is: Are they running qemu on this hardware? The

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

2019-10-02 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 11:36:10AM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > ○ Every changes to dist-git is done via pull-requests Erm, no thank you. Pull requests are a terrible workflow. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and v

Vagrant 2.2 / Fedora 30+ issues anyone?

2019-10-02 Thread Pavel Valena
Hello, jstanek pinged me today with some weird errors :) so I got tempted to ask: Is anyone else experiencing some Vagrant-related issues? Most probable cause: - there was a Change, in which `qemu://session` (user session) is used by default. That means root privilleges are not required anymo

Fwd: bodhi submitted ntl-11.3.4-1.fc32 to stable

2019-10-02 Thread Jerry James
I just received the email below. I built ntl-11.3.4-1.fc32 on September 24. Later that day, upstream released version 11.4.0, so I built ntl-11.4.0-1.fc32 the next day, September 25. Why has the previous build suddenly come back from the dead? Having it go stable now is going to break all of th

Re: Update pushed to F31 updates-testing not happening ?

2019-10-02 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 01:55:23PM +0200, Clement Verna wrote: > On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 12:49, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > We currently have 61 updates pending for being pushed to > > F31 updates-testing and no push seems to have happened for > > aprox. 48 hours or so ? > > > > Thi

Re: 2020 Datacenter Move: Request for comments

2019-10-02 Thread Fabio Valentini
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 3:07 AM Brian (bex) Exelbierd wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 10:05 AM Pavel Valena wrote: >> >> - Original Message - >> > From: "Jun Aruga" >> > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" >> > >> > Cc: "Fedora Infrastructure" >> > Sent: Monday, Septe

Re: CGAL soname "bump" in rawhide

2019-10-02 Thread laurent . rineau__fedora
On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 3:19:09 PM CEST Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 01. 10. 19 18:47, laurent.rineau__fed...@normalesup.org wrote: > > With CGAL-5.0, CGAL is becoming a header-only C++ library of templates. > > > > That means that CGAL libraries will disappear, in particular > > libCGAL.so.13.

Re: Unretire nodejs-gaze

2019-10-02 Thread Jared K. Smith
On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 10:46 AM Ben Rosser wrote: > About a month ago I requested to unretire some nodejs packages in > order to get the "grunt" stack working again. At least one more > package still needs to be unretired to fix the > nodejs-grunt-contrib-watch package, nodejs-gaze: > > https://s

Re: CGAL soname "bump" in rawhide

2019-10-02 Thread Miro Hrončok
On 01. 10. 19 18:47, laurent.rineau__fed...@normalesup.org wrote: With CGAL-5.0, CGAL is becoming a header-only C++ library of templates. That means that CGAL libraries will disappear, in particular libCGAL.so.13. I've tried to rebuild OpenSCAD, but it appears some headers are gone: /usr/incl

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

2019-10-02 Thread Neal Gompa
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 8:42 AM Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 03:39, Felix Schwarz wrote: > > > > > > Am 01.10.19 um 16:55 schrieb Stephen John Smoogen: > > > Then there are problems with budgets and figuring out what exactly it > > > would cost. We fall outside of many of

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

2019-10-02 Thread Stephen John Smoogen
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 03:39, Felix Schwarz wrote: > > > Am 01.10.19 um 16:55 schrieb Stephen John Smoogen: > > Then there are problems with budgets and figuring out what exactly it > > would cost. We fall outside of many of the 'caveats' that would allow > > us to get free. > > IIRC at the time wh

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

2019-10-02 Thread Pierre-Yves Chibon
On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 03:29:23AM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 11:30:28AM -0700, Troy Dawson wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:48 AM Robbie Harwood wrote: > > > > > > Pierre-Yves Chibon writes: > > > > > > > Here is what the vision we came to and that we would l

Intent to unretire qm-dsp

2019-10-02 Thread Guido Aulisi
Hi, I'm going to unretire qm-dsp in all current Fedora supported releases, because it's a dependency for ardour5. I will file a review request ASAP, I have already made a scratch build in rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=38004441 FAS account: tartina Ciao

Re: HEADS UP: Rawhide rebuild of Python packages with old bytecode version

2019-10-02 Thread Miro Hrončok
On 02. 10. 19 12:30, Fabio Valentini wrote: With hindsight, I guess it was also a wise decision to postpone python 3.8 to fedora 32?:) It was. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.o

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

2019-10-02 Thread Pierre-Yves Chibon
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 03:33:11PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 04:24:29PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 02:57:45PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 11:36:10AM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > > > Good Mo

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

2019-10-02 Thread Pierre-Yves Chibon
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 11:23:21AM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > On 9/26/19 10:28 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > Would this change if the PR was automatically tested for you without you > > having > > to do anything? > > I always run local mock builds prior to commits. Maybe not everyone

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

2019-10-02 Thread Pierre-Yves Chibon
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 11:24:28AM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > On 9/26/19 9:07 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > What is so different in Fedora that we cannot move to this model? > > Is it a tooling issue? > > Is it something else? > > As others have already stated that may work in project

Re: Finding out ownership of packages & branches

2019-10-02 Thread Pierre-Yves Chibon
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 09:27:29PM +0200, Tim Jackson wrote: > On 30/09/2019 21:02, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 14:54, Tim Jackson wrote: > > > > Where is the canonical source these days for establishing package > > > (co-)ownership, in particular in relation to individ

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

2019-10-02 Thread Pierre-Yves Chibon
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 11:30:28AM -0700, Troy Dawson wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:48 AM Robbie Harwood wrote: > > > > Pierre-Yves Chibon writes: > > > > > Here is what the vision we came to and that we would like to discuss: > > > > > > ○ Every changes to dist-git is done via pull-request

Re: Update pushed to F31 updates-testing not happening ?

2019-10-02 Thread Clement Verna
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 12:49, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi All, > > We currently have 61 updates pending for being pushed to > F31 updates-testing and no push seems to have happened for > aprox. 48 hours or so ? > This is https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/3471 biting us. I have removed th

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

2019-10-02 Thread Martin Kolman
On Wed, 2019-10-02 at 09:39 +0200, Felix Schwarz wrote: > Am 01.10.19 um 16:55 schrieb Stephen John Smoogen: > > Then there are problems with budgets and figuring out what exactly it > > would cost. We fall outside of many of the 'caveats' that would allow > > us to get free. > > IIRC at the time

Update pushed to F31 updates-testing not happening ?

2019-10-02 Thread Hans de Goede
Hi All, We currently have 61 updates pending for being pushed to F31 updates-testing and no push seems to have happened for aprox. 48 hours or so ? Regards, Hans ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to d

Re: HEADS UP: Rawhide rebuild of Python packages with old bytecode version

2019-10-02 Thread Fabio Valentini
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 9:47 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > Hello, > Python packages built with Python < 3.8.0b4 have invalid bytecode version, > because the version was updated in 3.8.0b4. > > To see why this is a problem, follow the bugreport: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748018 >

Re: packaging: upgrade a library to a header-only library

2019-10-02 Thread Kevin Kofler
I wrote: > Indeed, CMake will also find CMake data under %{_datadir}, and data for > noarch packages must be installed there. > > CMake will not do it automagically for you, you need to actually > explicitly install the files to the proper place. INSTALL(EXPORTS takes a > DESTINATION argument: > h

Re: packaging: upgrade a library to a header-only library

2019-10-02 Thread Kevin Kofler
Neal Gompa wrote: > If it's a header-only library, CMake stuff being installed into > %{_libdir} is probably wrong. CMake has a noarch path in %{_datadir}, > so it probably needs fixing to use that. Indeed, CMake will also find CMake data under %{_datadir}, and data for noarch packages must be in

Re: packaging: upgrade a library to a header-only library

2019-10-02 Thread Kevin Kofler
Richard Shaw wrote: > Could you build the package twice using mock (x86_64 and i686) and run > rpmdiff on them to see if there's anything significant? FYI, if you use an arch-specific dummy main package and a noarch -devel subpackage, that is actually automatically done by Koji at every build. So

Re: Proposal to use repo files in Anaconda environment

2019-10-02 Thread jkonecny
On Thu, 2019-09-26 at 08:26 -0700, Brian C. Lane wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 02:25:49PM +0200, jkone...@redhat.com wrote: > > On Fri, 2019-09-20 at 10:21 -0700, Brian C. Lane wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 03:09:01PM +0200, jkone...@redhat.com > > > wrote: > > [snip] > > > > With an up

HEADS UP: Rawhide rebuild of Python packages with old bytecode version

2019-10-02 Thread Miro Hrončok
Hello, Python packages built with Python < 3.8.0b4 have invalid bytecode version, because the version was updated in 3.8.0b4. To see why this is a problem, follow the bugreport: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748018 We were waiting for 3.8.0rc1 to see if the version is not updat

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

2019-10-02 Thread Felix Schwarz
Am 01.10.19 um 16:55 schrieb Stephen John Smoogen: Then there are problems with budgets and figuring out what exactly it would cost. We fall outside of many of the 'caveats' that would allow us to get free. IIRC at the time when Fedora evaluated its options the open source version of Gitlab w