Re: file triggers for updating fontconfig cache in rawhide

2015/09/11 23:38 "Matthew Miller" : > > Well, I'm still unclear on all of the above. Will doing this in F23: > > a) fix the installing-Noto-kills-your-system issue > b) make that issue worse > c) no change? > d) something else! I'm expecting a). after this change, fc-cache will be called once per

Re: Orphaned packages available for new point of contact

On Sep 10, 2015 4:24 AM, "Mathieu Bridon" wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 11:16 +0200, Matěj Cepl wrote: > > On 2015-09-09, 19:37 GMT, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > pytz > > > python-dateutil > > > > I see these two as too important to let them fall, so I am > > taking them. However, I would really re

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

Am 12.09.2015 um 04:49 schrieb Adam Williamson: On Sat, 2015-09-12 at 04:46 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 11.09.2015 um 23:54 schrieb Orion Poplawski: I would argue that we need to be packaging much less than we do. Many languages have developed packaging infrastructures around themselves

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

Am 11.09.2015 um 23:09 schrieb Orion Poplawski: What does Fedora users gain with "dnf install rails" or "dnf install ipython" versus "gem install rails" and "pip install ipython"? a clean and maintainable installation over years instead a mess breaking sooner or later signature.asc Descri

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Sat, 2015-09-12 at 04:46 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 11.09.2015 um 23:54 schrieb Orion Poplawski: > > I would argue that we need to be packaging much less than we do. > > Many > > languages have developed packaging infrastructures around > > themselves and > > perhaps it's time to let

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

Am 11.09.2015 um 23:54 schrieb Orion Poplawski: I would argue that we need to be packaging much less than we do. Many languages have developed packaging infrastructures around themselves and perhaps it's time to let those become the primary means of distributing such software no, thanks, one

[Test-Announce] Fedora 23 Beta Test Compose 5 (TC5) Available Now!

As scheduled [1], Fedora 23 Beta Test Compose 5 (TC5) is now available for testing. Please help us complete as much of the validation testing as we can! The two major known bugs from TC4 - the 'can't log in as root' bug, and UEFI installs failing to configure the boot manager - should both be fixe

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 11 September 2015 at 16:41, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > > > On 09/11/2015 09:09 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote: >> >> What does Fedora users gain with "dnf >> install rails" or "dnf install ipython" versus "gem install rails" and >> "pip >> install ipython"? > > > This indeed is very good questio

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 09/11/2015 09:09 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote: What does Fedora users gain with "dnf install rails" or "dnf install ipython" versus "gem install rails" and "pip install ipython"? This indeed is very good question. I'm not sure how things are elsewhere in the world but in the case of gem's o

[Test-Announce] 2015-09-14 @ 1600 UTC ** F23 Blocker Review Meeting

# F23 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2015-09-14 # Time: 1600 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net Earlier this week we knocked out a bunch of blocker proposals, and come Monday we'll need to do the same. Luckily though, there's currently only 1/1 proposed blocker for Beta/Fin

Re: Orphaned packages available for new point of contact

On 09/10/2015 07:09 AM, Christopher Meng wrote: > Should be time to drop istanbul, since it's no longer developed. > Thanks, retired. -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane

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

2015-09-11 23:37 GMT+02:00 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski : > > It's not an improvement as such. We already require the Provides: > bundled(foo) thing, though we rely on the good will of maintainers > (both in Fedora and upstream) because we have practical means of > enforcement. > It's currently

Re: Orphaned packages available for new point of contact

On 09/10/2015 05:26 AM, Abdel G. Martínez L. wrote: > I will take care of python-xlib and python-couchdb. > Thanks. -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane or...@

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 09/10/2015 07:53 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > Right now, we have a policy that essentially forbids source code from > being bundled into a package. In technical terms, this means > essentially that the packaging policies mandate that any code that > appears more than once in the repository

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

Hi, On Friday, 11 September 2015 at 21:27, Haïkel wrote: [...] > I'll just point out that a non-negligible part of Fedora packages already > bundle libraries. Unless we want to mass-review and ban all those packages, > I consider that Stephen's proposal to be an *improvement* to the current > situ

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 09/11/2015 10:08 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Dne 11.9.2015 v 17:21 Matthew Miller napsal(a): >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 03:51:33PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: * Increases the available pool of software that can be packaged substantially (many modern languages such as Ruby and Go are r

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 09/11/2015 07:51 AM, Petr Pisar wrote: > On 2015-09-11, Zdenek Kabelac wrote: >> My complain here is about packaging libraries. >> And just because a library has been upgraded from version .so.2 to version >> .so.4 and you can't have both (as the new one replaces old one by Fedora >> policy)

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

On 09/11/2015 08:31 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: We certainly agree on that. > which has already been >answered by the board. >( people will first debate where to draw the line if that discussion >wont be killed in birth but in the end they end up with the same >question as has already been an

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

On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 20:20 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > > Again, I don't actually think the answer here is "screw it, let's > > bundle everything" - but I do believe it's reasonable to say that > > the > > strict no-bundling policy is causing a lot of fairly pointless work > > I hardly

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

On 09/11/2015 07:59 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 19:32 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 09/11/2015 07:25 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: In a world where bundling was allowed, the package would likely have been approved on initial review; the only significant issues found

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

On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 12:59 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > Again, I don't actually think the answer here is "screw it, let's > bundle everything" If we want to talk about the wider issues here, btw, and we want something a bit more ambiguous and nuanced, I can also give you some interesting pers

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

On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 19:32 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > > On 09/11/2015 07:25 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > In a world where bundling was allowed, the package would likely > > have > > been approved on initial review; the only significant issues found > > in > > review were bundling-rel

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

On 09/11/2015 07:25 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: In a world where bundling was allowed, the package would likely have been approved on initial review; the only significant issues found in review were bundling-related. There are a couple of trivial issues noted in #c7, but those would have been li

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

2015-09-11 21:26 GMT+02:00 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson : > > > Right as well as most issues already have been found and fixed in Fedora > long before those components enter RHEL. > > JBG > Fair point, Fedora brings value to Red Hat and it is acknowledged. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject

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

2015-09-10 15:53 GMT+02:00 Stephen Gallagher : > I assume that subject line got your attention. > > I know this is a long-standing debate and that this thread is likely > to turn into an incomprehensible flamewar filled with the same tired > arguments, but I'm going to make a proposal and then atte

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

On 09/11/2015 07:16 PM, Haïkel wrote: 2015-09-11 21:09 GMT+02:00 Josh Stone: >On 09/11/2015 10:35 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >>Actually, the opposite is true. RHEL has fewer limitations in this >>space. Red Hat's layered projects ship a fair amount of bundled stuff. >>This problem is entire

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

On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 19:19 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > If you take a closer look at the sample you provided you should have > noticed the submitted date of that review request is 2012-07-01 and > the > last comment in which he finally gave up and moved to do other > things > wason 20

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

On 09/11/2015 06:40 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 18:27 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: I agree that the discussion here needs to be more broad-based; see the other thread fork. I was just providing support for Stephen's contention that this is not some airy-fairy theor

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

2015-09-11 21:09 GMT+02:00 Josh Stone : > On 09/11/2015 10:35 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> Actually, the opposite is true. RHEL has fewer limitations in this >> space. Red Hat's layered projects ship a fair amount of bundled stuff. >> This problem is entirely Fedora's. Fedora has far stricter ru

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

2015-09-11 20:24 GMT+02:00 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson : > > > The inclusion of what now 15k components in the distribution is a testimony > of success of un-bundling against your testimony of ( few ) failures of > bundling. > > JBG > Say that *after* you properly reviewed the current set of packages. Y

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

On 09/11/2015 10:35 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > Actually, the opposite is true. RHEL has fewer limitations in this > space. Red Hat's layered projects ship a fair amount of bundled stuff. > This problem is entirely Fedora's. Fedora has far stricter rules than > RHEL in this regard. It helps tha

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 09/10/2015 07:10 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote: On 09/10/2015 09:53 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: The point of software is to provide a service to an end-user. Users don't run software because it has good packaging policies, they run software because it meets a need that they have. If they can

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

On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 18:27 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > > I agree that the discussion here needs to be more broad-based; see > > the > > other thread fork. I was just providing support for Stephen's > > contention that this is not some airy-fairy theoretical problem, > > there > > are mu

Re: Fedora Rawhide 20150911 compose check report

On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 13:00 -0400, Fedora compose checker wrote: > Missing expected images: > > Kde Live i386 > Workstation Live i386 > Cloud base Disk i386 > Cloud base Disk x86_64 > Kde Live x86_64 > Cloud atomic Disk x86_64 > Kde Disk armhfp > Workstation Live x86_64 > > No images in this comp

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

On 09/11/2015 06:10 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 12:06 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:51:42 -0700 Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 13:35 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: As for which components, it's not about specific examples[1]. It's abo

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

On 09/11/2015 05:51 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 13:35 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: As for which components, it's not about specific examples[1]. It's about solving the question in a generic way. We have quite a lot of software that isn't packaged for Fedora (either not

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

On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 12:06 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:51:42 -0700 > Adam Williamson wrote: > > > On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 13:35 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > > > As for which components, it's not about specific examples[1]. > > > It's > > > about solving the questio

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 11:51 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: >> To allow or not allow bundling is the small side point here - the >> questions >> should be more of "Are we a distribution of packages? Are we an OS? >> Where >> do we see the

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

Dne 11.9.2015 v 19:29 Reindl Harald napsal(a): Am 11.09.2015 um 19:17 schrieb Zdenek Kabelac: Dne 11.9.2015 v 18:22 Reindl Harald napsal(a): In non-Fedora 'world' it's the user who picks what he want to use, however in Fedora 'garden' a few people selects what user may use and puts huge walls

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

On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:51:42 -0700 Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 13:35 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > As for which components, it's not about specific examples[1]. It's > > about solving the question in a generic way. We have quite a lot of > > software that isn't package

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

On 09/11/2015 05:35 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: To me (speaking as a user of Fedora, maintainer of Fedora software and developer of both Fedora and upstream projects), the current situation is not ideal. In many cases, we're holding so rigidly to the "no bundling" policy that it is actively ha

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 11:51 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > 3) Does "package all the things" really make sense, anyway? > > What is the gain from 'conform Chromium to our package regulations' > gain us? > A few people who won't just install Chrome for F/OSS reasons? If > that's the > goal, we s

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

On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 13:35 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > As for which components, it's not about specific examples[1]. It's > about solving the question in a generic way. We have quite a lot of > software that isn't packaged for Fedora (either not started or > aborted > when the package revie

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

Le 11/09/2015 19:17, Zdenek Kabelac a écrit : > Why I cannot use multiple different versions of php on a SINGLE machine ? You can easily with SCL... Oh... wait... SCL are not allowed in Fedora. So use RHEL/CentOS which is a far better environment for such needs. And more: this will be a "huge" p

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

On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 17:00 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > > On 09/10/2015 01:53 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > I assume that subject line got your attention. > > > > I know this is a long-standing debate and that this thread is > > likely > > to turn into an incomprehensible flamewar fi

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

Am 11.09.2015 um 19:17 schrieb Zdenek Kabelac: Dne 11.9.2015 v 18:22 Reindl Harald napsal(a): In non-Fedora 'world' it's the user who picks what he want to use, however in Fedora 'garden' a few people selects what user may use and puts huge walls and pointless obstacle all around if they want

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

Dne 11.9.2015 v 18:22 Reindl Harald napsal(a): Am 11.09.2015 um 18:17 schrieb Zdenek Kabelac: Dne 11.9.2015 v 16:44 Reindl Harald napsal(a): Am 11.09.2015 um 16:31 schrieb Zdenek Kabelac: Dne 11.9.2015 v 15:47 Reindl Harald napsal(a): don't tell me rpmfusion could not easily make that full

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

On 09/10/2015 01:53 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: I assume that subject line got your attention. I know this is a long-standing debate and that this thread is likely to turn into an incomprehensible flamewar filled with the same tired arguments, but I'm going to make a proposal and then attempt

Fedora 23 Branched 20150911 compose check report

Missing expected images: Cloud atomic Disk x86_64 Cloud base Disk i386 No images in this compose but not 23 Branched 20150910 No images in 23 Branched 20150910 but not this. -- Mail generated by check-compose: https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedora-qa.git/tree/check-compose -- devel mailing

Fedora Rawhide 20150911 compose check report

Missing expected images: Kde Live i386 Workstation Live i386 Cloud base Disk i386 Cloud base Disk x86_64 Kde Live x86_64 Cloud atomic Disk x86_64 Kde Disk armhfp Workstation Live x86_64 No images in this compose but not Rawhide 20150910 No images in Rawhide 20150910 but not this. -- Mail genera

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

On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:30:37 -0700 Adam Williamson wrote: ...snip... > Does this make sense to folks? I'm willing to draft up the changes and > file an FPC ticket if so. I think any debate on what changes should be > made to the current policies would benefit from these changes to make > what th

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

Am 11.09.2015 um 18:17 schrieb Zdenek Kabelac: Dne 11.9.2015 v 16:44 Reindl Harald napsal(a): Am 11.09.2015 um 16:31 schrieb Zdenek Kabelac: Dne 11.9.2015 v 15:47 Reindl Harald napsal(a): don't tell me rpmfusion could not easily make that fully automated This Fedora plan simply puts too m

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 07:42 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: >> On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 09:02 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> > One can only tilt at windmills for so long before one's horse gives >> > out. This battle has been fought for ye

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On 09/10/2015 03:42 PM, Adam Miller wrote: >>> It doesn't matter how rare they are, it'll only take a single bundled >>> library handled incorrectly to completely screw a running OS. I don't >>> think this is something that can just be swep

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

Dne 11.9.2015 v 18:08 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > Dne 11.9.2015 v 17:21 Matthew Miller napsal(a): >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 03:51:33PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: * Increases the available pool of software that can be packaged substantially (many modern languages such as Ruby and Go are

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

Dne 11.9.2015 v 16:44 Reindl Harald napsal(a): Am 11.09.2015 um 16:31 schrieb Zdenek Kabelac: Dne 11.9.2015 v 15:47 Reindl Harald napsal(a): don't tell me rpmfusion could not easily make that fully automated This Fedora plan simply puts too much work at everyone's hands. Sure - people who

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

Dne 11.9.2015 v 17:21 Matthew Miller napsal(a): > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 03:51:33PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: >>> * Increases the available pool of software that can be packaged >>> substantially (many modern languages such as Ruby and Go are >>> realistically only functional with allowable bundl

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com) said: > Sorry, I was unclear. I do agree that once upon a time, this was > absolutely effective. I probably should have said something more along > the lines of what you did below; that the battlefield has changed and > our former tactics are no longer suffi

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

On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 11:17 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 09:30:37PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > 4. It seems fairly clear that BOMP was intended to mean, basically, > > 'don't take a bunch of tarballs from different places and stuff > > them > > all into one package'.

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 03:51:33PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > * Increases the available pool of software that can be packaged > > substantially (many modern languages such as Ruby and Go are > > realistically only functional with allowable bundling) > Not sure why you put Ruby into this group.

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

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 09:30:37PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > 4. It seems fairly clear that BOMP was intended to mean, basically, > 'don't take a bunch of tarballs from different places and stuff them > all into one package'. It was *not* intended to cover 'library > bundling' in any sense. I'

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 07:42 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 09:02 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > One can only tilt at windmills for so long before one's horse gives > > out. This battle has been fought for years and while it has not > > been > > entirely fruitless, it's n

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

Am 11.09.2015 um 16:31 schrieb Zdenek Kabelac: Dne 11.9.2015 v 15:47 Reindl Harald napsal(a): don't tell me rpmfusion could not easily make that fully automated This Fedora plan simply puts too much work at everyone's hands. Sure - people who care about safety might have some option - like

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 09:02 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > One can only tilt at windmills for so long before one's horse gives > out. This battle has been fought for years and while it has not been > entirely fruitless, it's not yielding significant results I think this rather undersells it, to

Re: file triggers for updating fontconfig cache in rawhide

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 12:09:22PM +0900, Akira TAGOH wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 07:35:03PM +0200, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: > >> > I just discovered that trying to install the Noto font family in > >> > Software will reliably kill a (relatively powerful) system. This will > >> > f

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 11.9.2015 16:17, Matěj Cepl wrote: On 2015-09-10, 19:10 GMT, Przemek Klosowski wrote: 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 care*. We f

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 09/10/2015 10:42 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 09/10/2015 03:53 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > >> I would like to propose that the no-bundled-libraries policy be >> amended as follows: "Any package that has an existing mechanism to >> link against a shared system library and functions correct

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

Dne 11.9.2015 v 15:47 Reindl Harald napsal(a): Am 11.09.2015 um 15:43 schrieb Zdenek Kabelac: Dne 11.9.2015 v 15:39 Reindl Harald napsal(a): Am 11.09.2015 um 15:27 schrieb Zdenek Kabelac: Dne 11.9.2015 v 15:22 Eric Griffith napsal(a): On Sep 11, 2015 9:03 AM, "Zdenek Kabelac" mailto:zkabe.

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 09/10/2015 03:42 PM, Adam Miller wrote: >> It doesn't matter how rare they are, it'll only take a single bundled >> library handled incorrectly to completely screw a running OS. I don't >> think this is something that can just be swept under the carpet, it >> needs to be addressed as a core part

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 2015-09-10, 19:10 GMT, Przemek Klosowski wrote: >> 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 >> care*. We fought the good fight, we trie

Re: Orphaning packages (i)

Hi On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Christopher Meng wrote: > Hi folks, > > I decide to orphan some packages I won't use anymore, here is the first > part. > > I've took: python-couchdbkit python-foolscap Best regards. -- Athmane -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 9/11/15, Neal Gompa wrote: > ​I get the feeling this is related to Fedora not aggressively using > versioned package names for libraries, or at least enabling some kind > parallel installing capability. SUSE used to follow a policy similar to our > current one, but switched due to the insanity

Re: man-db-2.7.3-2.fc24 with file triggers in rawhide

Dne 10.9.2015 v 16:23 Nikola Forró napsal(a): > Hello, > > I've pushed man-db with file triggers and crontab dependency dropped to > rawhide. Removing cron job means that there will be no periodic cache > update for user-configured manpaths. There has already been discussion > about this: https://l

Orphaning packages (i)

Hi folks, I decide to orphan some packages I won't use anymore, here is the first part. --- flickcurl (EPEL branches preserved, if anyone want to take, let me know) python-couchdbkit python-foolscap python-zbase32 libtsm redet sitecopy surf --- Thanks. -- Yours sincerely, Christopher Meng ht

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 11.09.2015 um 15:27 schrieb Zdenek Kabelac: >> >> Dne 11.9.2015 v 15:22 Eric Griffith napsal(a): >>> >>> >>> On Sep 11, 2015 9:03 AM, "Zdenek Kabelac" >> > wrote: >>> > >>> > Dne 11.9.2015 v 14:46 Germano Ma

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 2015-09-11, Zdenek Kabelac wrote: > My complain here is about packaging libraries. > And just because a library has been upgraded from version .so.2 to version > .so.4 and you can't have both (as the new one replaces old one by Fedora > policy) You can. AFAIK policy does not forbid it. Th

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Dne 10.9.2015 v 15:53 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a): > * Increases the available pool of software that can be packaged > substantially (many modern languages such as Ruby and Go are > realistically only functional with allowable bundling) Not sure w

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

Am 11.09.2015 um 15:43 schrieb Zdenek Kabelac: Dne 11.9.2015 v 15:39 Reindl Harald napsal(a): Am 11.09.2015 um 15:27 schrieb Zdenek Kabelac: Dne 11.9.2015 v 15:22 Eric Griffith napsal(a): On Sep 11, 2015 9:03 AM, "Zdenek Kabelac" mailto:zkabe...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > Dne 11.9.2015 v 14:

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

Dne 11.9.2015 v 15:39 Reindl Harald napsal(a): Am 11.09.2015 um 15:27 schrieb Zdenek Kabelac: Dne 11.9.2015 v 15:22 Eric Griffith napsal(a): On Sep 11, 2015 9:03 AM, "Zdenek Kabelac" mailto:zkabe...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > Dne 11.9.2015 v 14:46 Germano Massullo napsal(a): > > Fault #1 >

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

Dne 11.9.2015 v 15:21 Neal Gompa napsal(a): On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Zdenek Kabelac mailto:zkabe...@redhat.com>>wrote: Dne 11.9.2015 v 14:46 Germano Massullo napsal(a): I have read the whole discussion and I would like to share my opinion, even if I think it could be

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

Am 11.09.2015 um 15:27 schrieb Zdenek Kabelac: Dne 11.9.2015 v 15:22 Eric Griffith napsal(a): On Sep 11, 2015 9:03 AM, "Zdenek Kabelac" mailto:zkabe...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > Dne 11.9.2015 v 14:46 Germano Massullo napsal(a): > > Fault #1 > (I've already complained that usage of rawhide &

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Sep 11, 2015 9:27 AM, "Zdenek Kabelac" wrote: > > Dne 11.9.2015 v 15:22 Eric Griffith napsal(a): >> >> >> On Sep 11, 2015 9:03 AM, "Zdenek Kabelac" > > wrote: >> > >> > Dne 11.9.2015 v 14:46 Germano Massullo napsal(a): >> > >> > Fault #1 >> > (I've already compl

Fedora Developer Portal Update

Hi everyone, this is an update about the new Fedora Developer Portal project [1]: * The design implementation is almost done. See it live on http://developer.fedorainfracloud.org. Big thanks to Máirín Duffy! There are still some minor issues [2] to solve - we'll welcome any help with that. * W

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

Dne 11.9.2015 v 15:22 Eric Griffith napsal(a): On Sep 11, 2015 9:03 AM, "Zdenek Kabelac" mailto:zkabe...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > Dne 11.9.2015 v 14:46 Germano Massullo napsal(a): > > Fault #1 > (I've already complained that usage of rawhide & rpmfusion is getting silly) > > How is the usa

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Zdenek Kabelac wrote: > Dne 11.9.2015 v 14:46 Germano Massullo napsal(a): > >> I have read the whole discussion and I would like to share my opinion, >> even if I think it could be a bit off-topic. >> Given that Fedora community alone, cannot educate every upstrea

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Sep 11, 2015 9:03 AM, "Zdenek Kabelac" wrote: > > Dne 11.9.2015 v 14:46 Germano Massullo napsal(a): > > Fault #1 > (I've already complained that usage of rawhide & rpmfusion is getting silly) > > How is the usage getting silly? *genuinely confused* Id love for Fedora to have everything in the r

Re: The DevConf.cz 2016 Call For Participation is now open!

Dear Mathieu and all the others on the mailing list, I apologize for my mistaken cut and paste when sending this email. The CFP for DevConf.cz is open to everyone. In my haste to publicize the announcement I accidentally cut and pasted the wrong header onto the email. I in no way meant to imply

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

Dne 11.9.2015 v 14:46 Germano Massullo napsal(a): I have read the whole discussion and I would like to share my opinion, even if I think it could be a bit off-topic. Given that Fedora community alone, cannot educate every upstream developer about unbundling, and considering that it is a problem t

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 15:10 -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote: > On 09/10/2015 09:53 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > The point of software is to provide a service to an end-user. Users > > don't run software because it has good packaging policies, they run > > software because it meets a need that th

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

On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 19:02 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > > > > > "AM" == Adam Miller writes: > > AM> I also like the proposal for the bundled() macro > definition > AM> for tracking purposes. > > Just a note that it isn't a proposal; that is the current requirement > for anything which

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

I have read the whole discussion and I would like to share my opinion, even if I think it could be a bit off-topic. Given that Fedora community alone, cannot educate every upstream developer about unbundling, and considering that it is a problem that interests all main Linux distributions: I think

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

Wouldn't the provides line needs a full path, otherwise, it could conflict? I'm generally against this proposal. One of the reasons I like using a distribution like Fedora is for dependency convergence. And I prefer exceptions to be rare and carefully deliberated. That said, where I think this co

Re: The DevConf.cz 2016 Call For Participation is now open!

I truly apologize for this mishap, of course the CFP was meant for everyone on the list not just Red Hatters Best Regards Jan Bleha ■ Community coordinator ■ Red Hat Czech s.r.o. Mob.: +420 702 153 774 ■ Tel.: +420 532 294 537 Purkyňova 99/71 ■ 612 45 Brno ■ Czech Republic IC: 27690016 ■ www.cz.

RE: The DevConf.cz 2016 Call For Participation is now open!

I guess a "Red Hatter" doesn't have to be employed at Red Hat, but love and believe in Red Hat and if not that... At least use it :-) I'd call myself a Red Hatter, although I'm not employed at Red Hat. -of -Original Message- From: devel-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org [mailto:devel-bou

Re: The DevConf.cz 2016 Call For Participation is now open!

Dear Jan, On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 07:30 -0400, Jan Bleha wrote: > Dear Red Hatters, We do not all work for Red Hat on the various Fedora mailing-lists you sent this message to. Should we, non Red Hatters, ignore this message? I'm asking, because your email doesn't contain the typical "this email

Re: The DevConf.cz 2016 Call For Participation is now open!

Le 11/09/2015 13:30, Jan Bleha a écrit : Dear Red Hatters, Nice for the not-Red Hat employees who are active on this list. I am happy to announce the Call For Participation for DevConf.cz 2016. This is the 8th DevConf.cz, a free annual conference for all Linux and JBoss Community Developer

rawhide report: 20150911 changes

Compose started at Fri Sep 11 05:15:03 UTC 2015 Broken deps for i386 -- [FlightGear] FlightGear-3.7.0-1.gitf4fa687.fc24.i686 requires FlightGear-data >= 0:3.7.0 [FlightGear-Atlas] FlightGear-Atlas-0.5.0-0.14.cvs20141002.fc24.i

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

Dne 10.9.2015 v 15:53 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a): > If they can't get > that software from Fedora, they *will* get it from another source (or > use a different OS that doesn't get in their way). Sadly true. Therefore +1 from me to record the positive feedback. I have one example in my head [1] w

The DevConf.cz 2016 Call For Participation is now open!

Dear Red Hatters, I am happy to announce the Call For Participation for DevConf.cz 2016. This is the 8th DevConf.cz, a free annual conference for all Linux and JBoss Community Developers, Admins and Linux users organized by Red Hat Czech Republic in cooperation with the Fedora and JBoss commun

F-23 Branched report: 20150911 changes

Compose started at Fri Sep 11 07:15:03 UTC 2015 Broken deps for armhfp -- [ScientificPython] ScientificPython-2.8-20.fc22.armv7hl requires libmpi.so.1 [apache-scout] apache-scout-1.2.6-11.fc21.noarch requires mvn(org.apache.jud

  1   2   >