Re: ImageMagick update to 6.9.0-9. So-name bump: libMagick++-6.Q16.so.3 -> libMagick++-6.Q16.so.6

On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 21:02:25 +0300 Pavel Alexeev wrote: > The main question should it be done in such manner? May be it have > worth run at least off-tree (without commits and versions bump) mass > rebuild? It allow estimate amount of broken packages and see > dependencies. Do we have resources t

Re: unable to get new certificate?

Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 18:57:32 -0400 > Neal Becker wrote: > >> fedora-packager-setup >> Setting up Fedora packager environment >> Certificate has expired, getting a new one >> FAS Password: >> [... silence ] >> >> Seems to just hang > > Are you behind a web proxy? If you wai

Re: unable to get new certificate?

On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 18:57:32 -0400 Neal Becker wrote: > fedora-packager-setup > Setting up Fedora packager environment > Certificate has expired, getting a new one > FAS Password: > [... silence ] > > Seems to just hang Are you behind a web proxy? If you wait a few minutes does it say anythin

unable to get new certificate?

fedora-packager-setup Setting up Fedora packager environment Certificate has expired, getting a new one FAS Password: [... silence ] Seems to just hang -- Those who fail to understand recursion are doomed to repeat it -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedorapr

Re: DNF and mock

On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 12:32:41 +0100, Michael Šimáček wrote: > Configurations shipped with current mock have keepcache=1 by default, so > the redownloading shouldn't happen if you have yum_cache enabled. But if > you use different configs than the default ones, you'll need to adjust > the config

Re: Reason why non-commiters are not allowed to create buildroot overrides?

David Howells wrote: > Susi Lehtola wrote: > >> The reason why buildroot overrides can't be made by anyone is that the >> maintainer might not want people to build packages against the new >> version, if for example it breaks things. > > Should the broken new version be made unavailable in that

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

One representative example would be software that is extremely useful to a large group of people but whose packaging is a nightmare. For example, a great many people enjoy the Chromium repository in COPR. Probably Brackets [1] is a good candidate too. And Atom [2]. Both already are in the COPRs

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 15:25 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > Other examples might be preview releases of certain software that are > not yet stable enough to be in Fedora proper or whose installation > might be too disruptive during a stable lifecycle. Like for example > the recent GNOME 3.12 r

Re: Harden_all_packages_with_position-independent_code + guile modules

On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 18:31 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 01:24:19PM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: > > On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 12:14 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > > PIE does alter symbol resolution, though not in a particularly big way. > > In a normal executable, taking the add

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 13:48 -0400, Mike Pinkerton wrote: > On 16 Mar 2015, at 12:57, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > > a) This change impacts users, while these COPRs are not useful > > > to them. > > > > There are no COPR repo files that are installed by default today, > > which means none of them u

Re: ImageMagick update to 6.9.0-9. So-name bump: libMagick++-6.Q16.so.3 -> libMagick++-6.Q16.so.6

15.03.2015 16:57, Michael Schwendt пишет: > On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 14:49:28 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >> Right now, many issues/problems are interacting and affecting packages >> simultanously, which occasionally render fixing these issues quite >> complicated. >> >> So far I've hit: >> - GCC-5

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On 16 Mar 2015, at 12:57, Josh Boyer wrote: a) This change impacts users, while these COPRs are not useful to them. There are no COPR repo files that are installed by default today, which means none of them use this mechanism yet. Which means there is literally no change for any user at thi

Re: Harden_all_packages_with_position-independent_code + guile modules

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 01:24:19PM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: > On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 12:14 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > > On 03/12/2015 03:41 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: > > > > > We may want to revisit this, honestly. The actual proposal was just to > > > build executables as PIE, right? Forcing

Re: Harden_all_packages_with_position-independent_code + guile modules

On Fri, 2015-03-13 at 12:14 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 03/12/2015 03:41 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: > > > We may want to revisit this, honestly. The actual proposal was just to > > build executables as PIE, right? Forcing -z now is a bit more than > > maybe was expected. > > People tell conf

Postfix - switching to dynamically loaded database plugins

Hi, dynamically loaded database plugins has been supported in Debian by downstream patch for a while. This patch went finally upstream, so I am also introducing this feature in Fedora Rawhide (f23). Previously, all database map support libraries were linked to the Postfix binary, which required c

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 03/16/2015 05:26 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: >> >> >> On Mar 16, 2015 12:23 PM, "Ralf Corsepius" > > wrote: >> > >> > On 03/16/2015 04:49 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, March 16, 2015 04:36:40

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On 03/16/2015 05:26 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: On Mar 16, 2015 12:23 PM, "Ralf Corsepius" mailto:rc040...@freenet.de>> wrote: > > On 03/16/2015 04:49 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: >> >> On Monday, March 16, 2015 04:36:40 PM Ralf Corsepius wrote: >>> >>> On 03/16/2015 03:52 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On Mar 16, 2015 12:23 PM, "Ralf Corsepius" wrote: > > On 03/16/2015 04:49 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: >> >> On Monday, March 16, 2015 04:36:40 PM Ralf Corsepius wrote: >>> >>> On 03/16/2015 03:52 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: This feature aims to reduce the technical hurdles for users and dev

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On 03/16/2015 04:49 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: On Monday, March 16, 2015 04:36:40 PM Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 03/16/2015 03:52 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: This feature aims to reduce the technical hurdles for users and developers to locate software packaged for a distribution, but which needs to

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 16:22 +0100, Sergio Pascual wrote: > > 2015-03-16 15:52 GMT+01:00 Jaroslav Reznik : > > = Proposed Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support = > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DisabledRepoSupport > > > "Disabled Repositories Support" sounds better than "

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On Monday, March 16, 2015 04:36:40 PM Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 03/16/2015 03:52 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > > This feature aims to reduce the technical hurdles for users and developers > > to locate software packaged for a distribution, but which needs to be > > clearly identified as not officia

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On 03/16/2015 03:52 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: This feature aims to reduce the technical hurdles for users and developers to locate software packaged for a distribution, but which needs to be clearly identified as not officially included (or possibly sanctioned) by that distribution. Does this

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

2015-03-16 15:52 GMT+01:00 Jaroslav Reznik : > = Proposed Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support = > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DisabledRepoSupport > > "Disabled Repositories Support" sounds better than "Help People Install Non-Free Software in Fedora", but the result is

F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

= Proposed Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DisabledRepoSupport Change owner(s): Richard Hughes The Software tool and PackageKit now support disabled repositories to help users locate software in additional repositories which are not

Re: pcre2 review

On 2015-03-13, Petr Pisar wrote: > Do you like regular expressions? Do you like regular expressions which > are not regular any more? Do you think PCRE library API looks like > a zombie from previous milenium? Do you want to have a fresh new one in > Fedora? > > Whatever your answer to these quest

Review swap: web-socket-js

Hi, I am trying to get xpra into Fedora[1], and the only remaining issue is unbundling of the java script library web-socket-js. I've put together a package for thatand it's awaiting review [2]. It's a very simple package, just installing a couple of js files, so should be very simple to review. I

Re: Reason why non-commiters are not allowed to create buildroot overrides?

Susi Lehtola wrote: > The reason why buildroot overrides can't be made by anyone is that the > maintainer might not want people to build packages against the new version, if > for example it breaks things. Should the broken new version be made unavailable in that case then? David -- devel mail

GNOME 3.15.92 megaupdate

Hi all, GNOME 3.15.92 release is this week and I'll take care of handling the megaupdate for F22. If you are doing any builds that should be included in the megaupdate, please use 'fedpkg build --target f22-gnome'; I'll pick up the builds in the side tag for the megaupdate. Also, the usual spread

Re: DNF and mock

On 03/16/2015 12:32 PM, Michael Šimáček wrote: > Configurations shipped with current mock have keepcache=1 by default, so > the redownloading shouldn't happen if you have yum_cache enabled. But if > you use different configs than the default ones, you'll need to adjust > the config manually. Right

[POC-change] Fedora packages point of contact updates

Change in package status over the last 168 hours 3 packages were orphaned grads [f22, f21, f20, master, el6, epel7] was orphaned by orion Tool for easy acces, manipulation, and visualization of data https://admin.f

Re: DNF and mock

On 2015-03-16 06:43, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: On 03/15/2015 02:38 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 15:15:48 +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote: I just spoke with two members of DNF team about default usage of DNF in mock. I would like to share outcomes of this meeting. First I would

[Bug 1202085] package is against epel policy

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202085 Andrea Veri changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|---

F-22 Branched report: 20150316 changes

Compose started at Mon Mar 16 07:15:03 UTC 2015 Broken deps for armhfp -- [Sprog] Sprog-0.14-27.fc20.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.18.0) [aeskulap] aeskulap-0.2.2-0.19beta1.fc22.armv7hl requires libofstd.so.3.6

Re: Versioning preloader

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Pranav Kant wrote: > I am packaging proxychains-ng[1] which make use of the .so file by its > preloader only, and is not for any usable development. Hence, the > upstream maintainer does not want[2] to version this .so file. > > To inhibit the rpmlint's unversioned

Re: Harden_all_packages_with_position-independent_code + guile modules

On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 10:19 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 16.03.2015 um 09:47 schrieb Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos: > > What was the rationale of adding -z now to the hardening flags? Looking > > its description doesn't reveal any "hardening" features, and the gnutls > > guile module failure to bu

Re: DNF and mock

On 03/15/2015 02:38 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > Is DNF within Mock a fully compatible replacement for Yum yet? > It seems builds take much longer now since something's downloading > (or redownloading?) lots of data for each build job before setting > up the buildroot. I don't have much time to lo

Re: Harden_all_packages_with_position-independent_code + guile modules

Am 16.03.2015 um 09:47 schrieb Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos: What was the rationale of adding -z now to the hardening flags? Looking its description doesn't reveal any "hardening" features, and the gnutls guile module failure to build seems to be directly related to that flag: https://bugzilla.redha

Re: Harden_all_packages_with_position-independent_code + guile modules

On Thu, 2015-03-12 at 10:41 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: > On Thu, 2015-03-12 at 13:45 +, Petr Pisar wrote: > > On 2015-03-12, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: > > > In rawhide building the gnutls guile bindings fails, and that's related > > > to the new hardening flags being enabled with [0]. The