https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Freeze_after_branching_until_compose_is_ready
== Summary ==
Add freeze (similar to [[Milestone_freezes|beta or final freeze]])
after new Fedora is branched. This freeze will be removed as soon as a
branched compose is ready.
== Owner ==
* Name:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 5:29 PM Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> Aleksandra Fedorova wrote:
> > 1) there are exactly 6 default streams in Fedora rawhide
> >
> > dwm
> > avocado
> > scala
> > ant
> > gimp
> > maven
> >
> > and eclipse is being discussed.
>
> What about libgit2, was that not a default
Dne 13. 11. 19 v 21:48 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a):
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 1:34 PM Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
>>> Here you seem to be missing the third option packager may choose -
>>> maintain none of them and say bye to Fedora. Which IMHO is the most likely
>>>
On 05. 11. 19 16:03, Ben Cotton wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/PythonStaticSpeedup
== Summary ==
Python 3 traditionally in Fedora was built with a shared library
libpython3.?.so and the final binary was dynamically linked against
that shared library. This change is about creating
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 9:19 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> I wonder who is doing to clean up all the mess in dist-git we have due
> to modularity. specifically, I wonder about all these branches:
>
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/modules/nodejs/branches?branchname=master
>
>
If this change is approved, I'll create a 4-day (Tue–Fri) freeze on
the release schedule labeled "Branch freeze (end date approximate)" or
something to that effect. This way it will be visible, but will also
indicate that the freeze may be longer or shorter than the advertised
length.
--
Ben
I wonder who is doing to clean up all the mess in dist-git we have due
to modularity. specifically, I wonder about all these branches:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/modules/nodejs/branches?branchname=master
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nodejs/branches?branchname=master
What is their
On Thu, 2019-11-14 at 11:26 +0100, Felix Schwarz wrote:
> Am 14.11.19 um 10:43 schrieb Josef Ridky:
> > I am hitting issue with my GIMP module in F30+. Most of users
> > reporting the issue with missing module(platform:{30,31}) during
> > update to newer Fedora /removing of some packages.
> > And
No idea what to do with pdf-stapler and what can happen in future from
upstream. At least, they are aware of python3.
Am 07.11.19 um 13:01 schrieb Petr Viktorin:
raphgro
pdf-stapler
(→ PY2)
python2-staplelib (→ PY2)
___
devel mailing list
Hello, in this thread (Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Modules in
Non-Modular Buildroot)
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/JNTMUOBZHHCEOV7KS7MRNOBO6VGGT7RX/
I've asked whether it wouldn't be in fact much easier to keep the default
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 6:09 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 13. 11. 19 23:27, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > So I guess the proposal is underspecified. What I really propose, and how I
> > read Miro's proposal as well (Miro, please correct me if that is not what
> > you intend), is that 1. any package
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 4:57 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> Hello, in this thread (Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Modules in
> Non-Modular Buildroot)
>
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/JNTMUOBZHHCEOV7KS7MRNOBO6VGGT7RX/
>
> I've asked
Am 11.11.19 um 12:35 schrieb Miro Hrončok:
raphgro: pdfbox, batik
I'm not maintainer of both packages but CC'ed them somewhen with
forgotten reasons.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
On 14. 11. 19 17:22, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 4:57 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
Hello, in this thread (Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Modules in
Non-Modular Buildroot)
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 4:47 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modules_In_Non-Modular_Buildroot
>
> Enable module default streams in the buildroot repository for modular
> and non-modular RPMs.
>
> == Summary ==
> This Change (colloquially referred to as "Ursa Prime")
On Thursday, November 14, 2019 6:51:05 AM MST Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> What you are saying is that *you* don't like what you are hearing
> about modules. And that's fine; some of your feedback has been
> constructive and we're taking it into account. But assuming that you
> represent the whole
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 1:17 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> gucharmap
Turns out that a) I got some spare time and b) the FTBFS was rather easy to fix.
Before I adopt another stray that I know almost nothing about, does
anyone have a good reason why I should let it get retired?
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 06:08:52PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 09. 10. 19 22:46, Ben Cotton wrote:
> >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modules_In_Non-Modular_Buildroot
> >
> >Enable module default streams in the buildroot repository for modular
> >and non-modular RPMs.
> >
> >== Summary
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:09 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 14. 11. 19 18:57, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 06:43:42PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >> On 14. 11. 19 18:36, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 06:08:52PM +0100, Miro
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 11:52 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> > Similarly, from the perspective of dependent maintainers, there will
> > no longer be anxiety about needing to move their package to a module
> > if one or more of their dependencies drops their non-modular version
> > in favor of a default
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 03:08:40PM +0100, Maxim Burgerhout wrote:
> Hi,
>
> sorry if this is already known, but is there an issue with the s390x
> builders? Or did I mess up?
>
> Only the s390x build fails with:
>
> urllib.error.HTTPError: HTTP Error 503: Backend fetch failed
yes, there was a
Hello,
I just hit a bug where the latest stable kernel and even rawhide version
are unable to find a firmware. I include a link to the report and it
will nice someone investigates the cause. The issue happened with a
simple update as tested on a HP Envy x360 cpx000 equipped with a Ryzen 5
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 06:43:42PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 14. 11. 19 18:36, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 06:08:52PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >>On 09. 10. 19 22:46, Ben Cotton wrote:
>
On 14. 11. 19 18:57, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 06:43:42PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 14. 11. 19 18:36, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 06:08:52PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 09. 10. 19 22:46, Ben Cotton wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 01:00:52PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:59 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 06:43:42PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > On 14. 11. 19 18:36, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > >On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:24 PM John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> > Yes, we acknowledge that with multiple versions comes the risks of
> > introducing more conflicts. We balanced that out by acknowledging that
> > the container space is now mature enough that separating userspaces
> > when you need to
On Thursday, November 14, 2019 11:45:22 AM MST Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> You're assuming that parallel-install is a thing that everyone needs
> from every package on their system.
I'm not. However, if you're going to bring up 'the recommended solution for
doing "parallel-install" with modules',
On 09. 10. 19 22:46, Ben Cotton wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modules_In_Non-Modular_Buildroot
Enable module default streams in the buildroot repository for modular
and non-modular RPMs.
== Summary ==
This Change (colloquially referred to as "Ursa Prime") enables the
Koji
On 14. 11. 19 18:36, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 06:08:52PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 09. 10. 19 22:46, Ben Cotton wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modules_In_Non-Modular_Buildroot
Enable module default streams in the buildroot repository for
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:23 PM John M. Harris Jr wrote:
>
> > Believe me, I wish that the ideal distribution was possible too. The
> > reality is that the world has gone in a different direction and Fedora
> > needs to adapt to that. Holding the line and refusing to budge just
> > means people
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:12 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 09. 10. 19 22:46, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modules_In_Non-Modular_Buildroot
> >
> > Enable module default streams in the buildroot repository for modular
> > and non-modular RPMs.
> >
> > == Summary ==
A new Fedora Atomic Host update is available via an OSTree update:
Version: 29.20191113.1
Commit(x86_64): 2cb7f9eff5277633f3cf27add9b43789bcac908239d1d694374ac3fe3abae0bc
Commit(aarch64):
136d3d5270b5dc95b5ba87ef0ceaa0a9a356b5c7eae88ba42fc6a0455d273674
Commit(ppc64le):
On 14. 11. 19 3:02, Othman Madjoudj wrote:
Hello,
Due to time constraints, I'm orphaning packages which I'm not using anymore.
rpms/python-aiohttp-cors
I've taken this one. It is needed by python-black.
I've also added a %check section and reported some issues upstream:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 1:40 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:12 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >
> > On 09. 10. 19 22:46, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modules_In_Non-Modular_Buildroot
> > >
> > > Enable module default streams in the
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 7:48 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:12 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >
> > On 09. 10. 19 22:46, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modules_In_Non-Modular_Buildroot
> > >
> > > Enable module default streams in the
On 14. 11. 19 19:39, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:12 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 09. 10. 19 22:46, Ben Cotton wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modules_In_Non-Modular_Buildroot
Enable module default streams in the buildroot repository for modular
and
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:59 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 06:43:42PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 14. 11. 19 18:36, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > >On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 06:08:52PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > >>On 09. 10. 19 22:46, Ben
On 14. 11. 19 19:11, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 01:00:52PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:59 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 06:43:42PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 14. 11. 19 18:36, Zbigniew
On Thursday, November 14, 2019 11:15:15 AM MST Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> I'm not sure what you're asking here. I thought it was pretty clear
> from the paragraph you quoted that containers are the recommended
> solution for doing "parallel-install" with modules. Also, the
> relationship goes both
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 1:33 PM John M. Harris Jr wrote:
>
> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 11:15:15 AM MST Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > I'm not sure what you're asking here. I thought it was pretty clear
> > from the paragraph you quoted that containers are the recommended
> > solution for doing
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 3:28 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 14. 11. 19 21:15, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > Now, python3:3.7 vs. python3:3.8 might be a more interesting question...
>
> The way Python is designed, 3.7 and 3.8 is parallel installable by default.
>
> The only things that conflict are:
- Original Message -
> From: "Stephen Gallagher"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2019 9:15:38 PM
> Subject: Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 2:04 PM John M. Harris Jr
> wrote:
> >
> > On
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 2:10 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 14. 11. 19 19:39, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:12 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >>
> >> On 09. 10. 19 22:46, Ben Cotton wrote:
> >>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modules_In_Non-Modular_Buildroot
> >>>
>
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 11:39 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> I thing the canonical source of this data is:
>
> https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-module-defaults/tree/master
>
> If I understand the format correctly, the yamls that have the stream key have
> default.
For the record, you are correct. This
Le jeudi 14 novembre 2019 à 13:45 -0500, Stephen Gallagher a écrit :
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 1:33 PM John M. Harris Jr <
> joh...@splentity.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 14, 2019 11:15:15 AM MST Stephen Gallagher
> > wrote:
> > > I'm not sure what you're asking here. I thought it was
On 14. 11. 19 21:15, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Now, python3:3.7 vs. python3:3.8 might be a more interesting question...
The way Python is designed, 3.7 and 3.8 is parallel installable by default.
The only things that conflict are:
- package names, such as python3 or python3-pytest
-
On 14. 11. 19 21:32, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 3:28 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 14. 11. 19 21:15, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Now, python3:3.7 vs. python3:3.8 might be a more interesting question...
The way Python is designed, 3.7 and 3.8 is parallel installable by
On 14. 11. 19 22:01, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 4:00 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 14. 11. 19 21:32, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 3:28 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 14. 11. 19 21:15, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Now, python3:3.7 vs. python3:3.8 might be a
Thank you for the clarification, Pierre! I meant to do that yesterday, but
I got sidetracked. =)
The upgrade went well this morning and all jobs appear to be running
smoothly. We will make the change to fedora-messaging sometime next week,
most likely on either Monday or Tuesday. Once we've setup
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 1:33 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 14. 11. 19 19:11, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 01:00:52PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:59 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 2:04 PM John M. Harris Jr wrote:
>
> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 11:45:22 AM MST Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > You're assuming that parallel-install is a thing that everyone needs
> > from every package on their system.
>
> I'm not. However, if you're going to bring up
On 06. 11. 19 8:29, Miro Hrončok wrote:
M2.
For traditional packages, it was consistent and easy to find package
dependencies in Fedora. For a proven packager, Fedora Packaging Committee member
or generally for anybody doing a System Wide Change, being able to run queries
like:
$ repoquery
- Original Message -
> From: "Stephen Gallagher"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2019 9:32:30 PM
> Subject: Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 3:28 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >
> > On 14. 11. 19
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 4:24 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Easy is subjective. I don't consider this easy. I consider it seriously
> overcomplicated. The idea that going modular will somehow help with current
> problems in modularity is exactly what happened to eclipse.
No, what happened to Eclipse
On 14. 11. 19 20:58, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 1:33 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 14. 11. 19 19:11, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 01:00:52PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:59 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
On
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 3:17 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 06. 11. 19 8:29, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > M2.
> >
> > For traditional packages, it was consistent and easy to find package
> > dependencies in Fedora. For a proven packager, Fedora Packaging Committee
> > member
> > or generally for
Hi folks! I'm proposing we cancel the QA meeting for Monday. I
don't have any urgent business, but also, I'm going to be off work that
day.
If you think we do need to have a meeting, you can volunteer to run it
- just send out an announcement like the one I normally send, and
follow
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 4:00 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 14. 11. 19 21:32, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 3:28 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >>
> >> On 14. 11. 19 21:15, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >>> Now, python3:3.7 vs. python3:3.8 might be a more interesting question...
>
On 14. 11. 19 22:30, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 4:24 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
Easy is subjective. I don't consider this easy. I consider it seriously
overcomplicated. The idea that going modular will somehow help with current
problems in modularity is exactly what happened
On Monday, 11 November 2019 at 13:53, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 08. 11. 19 13:16, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > According to the policy for packages that fail to build from source:
> >
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/
> >
> >
> > I plan to
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 4:49 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 14. 11. 19 22:30, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 4:24 PM Miro Hrončok
> wrote:
> >
> >> Easy is subjective. I don't consider this easy. I consider it seriously
> >> overcomplicated. The idea that going modular will
The package is building fine in mock but when I try to do a scratch build
I'm getting the following error:
fatal error: x86intrin.h: No such file or directory
It seems to be random too, on this attempt x86_64 actually completed but
all other arches failed:
Björn Persson wrote:
>Baxi wrote:
>> Hi. I am trying to package a program. The upstream provided sha256sum.asc
>> file. Verifying tarball with that signature says, Can't check signature: No
>> public key. I found his public key in key directory by searching his email
>> and added that key. Now
On Thursday, 14 November 2019 at 23:02, Richard Shaw wrote:
> The package is building fine in mock but when I try to do a scratch build
> I'm getting the following error:
>
> fatal error: x86intrin.h: No such file or directory
>
> It seems to be random too, on this attempt x86_64 actually
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> I really feel like we are approaching the finish line and shouldn’t give
> up just yet!
Unfortunately, the feeling that I get is that what looks like a finish line
to you is actually the edge of a deep cliff. ;-)
To explain my metaphore: I think the biggest trouble
Dear maintainers,
here is an updated list of packages that (transitively, at build or run time)
require Python 2 and have not yet requested a FESCo exception to do so.
Packages with open exception requests have been excluded for now to be able to
finish the conversation with FESCo.
If you were
There are a *lot* of useful, working Python 2 packages here. The future of
Fedora will certainly be interesting.
--
John M. Harris, Jr.
Splentity
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
On Fri, 2019-11-15 at 02:02 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>python-inotify
> python2-inotify (→ PY2)
> python2-inotify-examples (→ PY2)
>
>python-qt5
> python2-qt5 (→ PY2)
> python2-qt5-base (→ PY2)
> python2-qt5-devel (→ python2-sip-devel → PY2)
>
On 15. 11. 19 2:11, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Fri, 2019-11-15 at 02:02 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
python-inotify
python2-inotify (→ PY2)
python2-inotify-examples (→ PY2)
python-qt5
python2-qt5 (→ PY2)
python2-qt5-base (→ PY2)
python2-qt5-devel (→
On Thursday, November 14, 2019 6:07:57 PM MST John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> There are a *lot* of useful, working Python 2 packages here. The future of
> Fedora will certainly be interesting.
Looking through this list, it's really a shame that so many good, working
packages are being removed
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 8:19 PM Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > Modular packages without defaults makes sense if they have
> > dependencies on a non-default stream. For example: ReviewBoard depends
> > on the Django:1.6 stream because of complicated upstream reasons. I
> >
On 11/14/19 7:56 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
**What are the benefits of default modular streams over non-modular
packages?**
I think Adam Williamson tried to answer that in a message in the thread
"Re: Modularity and the system-upgrade path" (link below) when he wrote:
"if you just don't
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 5:29 PM Kevin Kofler
> wrote:
>> What about libgit2, was that not a default stream?
>
> It was not. It was a dependency of other modules.
So it looks like we really also (in addition to the proposed ban on default
streams) need a ban on
> kernel-headers is related to the userspace API and is not tied to a
> particular kernel version.
> If the userspace API doesn't change there's no need to rebuild. Is there a
> problem you're
> seeing by not having an updated kernel-headers?
That does not be it works in all cases.
I have
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Modular packages without defaults makes sense if they have
> dependencies on a non-default stream. For example: ReviewBoard depends
> on the Django:1.6 stream because of complicated upstream reasons. I
> have to choose between "modular without a default stream" or "not
>
On 15. 11. 19 2:18, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Modular packages without defaults makes sense if they have
dependencies on a non-default stream. For example: ReviewBoard depends
on the Django:1.6 stream because of complicated upstream reasons. I
have to choose between "modular
On Thu, 2019-11-14 at 18:20 -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 6:07:57 PM MST John M. Harris Jr
> wrote:
> > There are a *lot* of useful, working Python 2 packages here. The
> > future of
> > Fedora will certainly be interesting.
>
> Looking through this list, it's
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> You're assuming that parallel-install is a thing that everyone needs
> from every package on their system. Our research and surveys
> determined that this was not in fact the case for the overwhelming
> majority of real-world deployments. Most[1] deployments function
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 04:15:57PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 1:24 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >
> > On 13. 11. 19 18:31, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > > Sorry for the long overdue reply here. Answers to your questions are
> > > inline.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > > On
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 20:34:32 +, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> > zathura-cb
> > zathura-djvu
> > zathura-pdf-mupdf
> > zathura-pdf-poppler
> > zathura-ps
>
> Thanks very much. I've requested ownership of these packages:
> https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9006
All done. I've taken over the tickets too.
On Thu, 2019-11-14 at 09:08 +, Paul Howarth wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 13:53:17 +0100
> Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > gucharmap
>
> Isn't that a core component of Gnome?
No.
--
Ernestas Kulik
Associate Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems (Core
Services/ABRT)
Red Hat Czech, s.r.o.
On Thu, 2019-11-14 at 10:34 +0100, Ernestas Kulik wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-11-14 at 09:08 +, Paul Howarth wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 13:53:17 +0100
> > Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > gucharmap
> >
> > Isn't that a core component of Gnome?
>
> No.
>
The only thing that really needs it is some
Release Engineering issue is created and change is proposed.
Thanks everyone a lot for your help with the change and with finding
the best solution!
Jirka
On Wed, 2019-11-13 at 12:40 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 02:59:56PM +0100, jkone...@redhat.com wrote:
> > On Wed,
Hi everybody,
Following the policy for non-responsive package maintainers [0], I'm
asking here if anybody knows how to contact huwang. Hui, if you're
still interested in maintaining your packages, please respond.
Some of their packages are broken on fedora 31+ due to retired Java
dependencies,
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:32:29AM +0100, Miro Hroncok wrote:
> On 13. 11. 19 21:10, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > libserf
>
> This one bothers me. It is required by subversion and thus transitively by
> git, koji and others.
>
> Joe, I see you have assigned the bugzilla to yourself:
>
>
Hi folks,
Sorry, if this topic was discussed anytime before.
I am hitting issue with my GIMP module in F30+. Most of users reporting the
issue with missing module(platform:{30,31}) during update to newer Fedora
/removing of some packages.
And honestly, I don't know, how is possible, that F30
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 05:34:40PM +, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>BTW , Jenkins was retired from rawhide [1].
>I tried built Jenkins on rawhide but build failed with a lot of missing
>packages that are BuildRequires.
>
>
On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 13:53:17 +0100
Miro Hrončok wrote:
> gucharmap
Isn't that a core component of Gnome?
Paul.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of
On 14. 11. 19 2:48, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 11/12/19 2:21 PM, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
However, I believe there's a third option here. It could be as simple as
providing a python3-static in addition, and NOT using `alternatives`.
Is that an option, though? From the discussion, I was under
Am 14.11.19 um 10:43 schrieb Josef Ridky:
> I am hitting issue with my GIMP module in F30+. Most of users reporting the
> issue with missing module(platform:{30,31}) during update to newer Fedora
> /removing of some packages.
> And honestly, I don't know, how is possible, that F30 user is able
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1772356
Xavier Bachelot changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||1772395
Referenced Bugs:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 10:41 AM Ernestas Kulik wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2019-11-14 at 10:34 +0100, Ernestas Kulik wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-11-14 at 09:08 +, Paul Howarth wrote:
> > > On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 13:53:17 +0100
> > > Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > > gucharmap
> > >
> > > Isn't that a core
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 15:08:32 +0100
Steve Traylen wrote:
> Last couple of days the epel8 branch requests have been processed
> okay. Thanks
>
> However when you then try and build something it results in
>
> BuildError: package X not in list for tag epel8-playground-pending
>
>
> Example:
>
>
On 2019-11-14 16:13, Denis Arnaud wrote:
Thanks Petr for your answer!
Let's give the COPR short-term solution a try, then :)
What is frustrating is that we cannot get our hands on the package
source for Protobuf for RHEL/CentOS, and we cannot therefore know who
maintains it at RedHat.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Freeze_after_branching_until_compose_is_ready
== Summary ==
Add freeze (similar to [[Milestone_freezes|beta or final freeze]])
after new Fedora is branched. This freeze will be removed as soon as a
branched compose is ready.
== Owner ==
* Name:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1772558
Bug ID: 1772558
Summary: perl-Devel-PatchPerl-1.78 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Devel-PatchPerl
Keywords: FutureFeature,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1772558
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Hi,
Last couple of days the epel8 branch requests have been processed okay.
Thanks
However when you then try and build something it results in
BuildError: package X not in list for tag epel8-playground-pending
Example:
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/19622
Hi Denis,
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 3:13 PM Denis Arnaud
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> the Python (3) bindings are missing on RHEL/CentOS/EPEL 8 for the protobuf
> package (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/protobuf).
> A bug request has been created on Bugzilla
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771717
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1771705
Referenced Bugs:
1 - 100 of 216 matches
Mail list logo
