On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Neal Gompa wrote:
> > At this point in time, Fedora is the only major distribution I know of
> > that doesn't use versioned shared library package names. Both SUSE and
> > Mageia do, and of course the Debian/Ubuntu family does. I've spoken to
On 10/09/2015 09:17 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 8 October 2015 at 17:04, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Christopher Meng wrote:
IMO motif should 'Obsoletes' lesstif in Fedora since motif is free now.
The reason we kept lesstif even after OpenMotif was finally freed is because
OpenMotif only impl
One of proven packager, nonamedotc, will be able to commit the updated
f22-backgrounds.
The request of co-maintainance is no longer required.
Regards,
--
Luya Tshimbalanga
Graphic & Web Designer
E: l...@fedoraproject.org
W: http://www.coolest-storm.net
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedorap
Missing expected images:
Kde disk raw armhfp
Kde live i386
Kde live x86_64
No images in this compose but not Rawhide 20151008
Images in Rawhide 20151008 but not this:
Design_suite live x86_64
Cloud docker x86_64
Kde disk raw armhfp
Kde live i386
Design_suite live i386
Kde live x86_64
--
Mail g
On 10/09/2015 05:20 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Orion Poplawski wrote:
Perhaps every product should produce a os/{repodata,Packages} directory as
well as an updates/VERSION/PRODUCT/ tree with .
Please no! Let's not fragment Fedora even more than it already is with those
"products".
* Would packag
Neal Gompa wrote:
> At this point in time, Fedora is the only major distribution I know of
> that doesn't use versioned shared library package names. Both SUSE and
> Mageia do, and of course the Debian/Ubuntu family does. I've spoken to
> folks working in both SUSE and Mageia (especially Mageia as
Adam Jackson wrote:
> Bundling is _not_ intrinsically poor practice. Firefox is a good
> example of this,
Firefox is exactly an example of how NOT to do things, and I'm fed up of it
getting a blanket exception to our packaging guidelines. And now the "fix"
is to simply remove the guideline for
Chris Adams wrote:
> Is that short-sighted? IMHO yes. Can Fedora fix that? Doubtful.
> There are three choices:
>
> - Fedora attempts to patch in a stable(-enough) ABI, build shared
> libraries, and unbundle all consumers of said libraries. This is a
> large (and growing) amount of work, a
Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
> IMHO all we need is to support multiple version of same library
> to be installable -- that's mine point why usability of Fedora
> is miles behind other distros.
Then you open the doors to symbol conflicts (see my reply to Adam Jackson
elsewhere in this thread).
And t
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 11:38:30AM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> > On 10/09/2015 10:27 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 09:46:11AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > >> On Fri
Am 10.10.2015 um 01:59 schrieb Neal Gompa:
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 7:33 PM, Reindl Harald
DNF is by far not as fast as pretended and as the additional overhead
and frankly most of the time it's slower, just refuses to just work with
"dnf update *.rpm", gives no useful messages in case of dep
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 7:33 PM, Reindl Harald
wrote:
>
>
> Am 09.10.2015 um 21:41 schrieb Orion Poplawski:
>
>> On 10/08/2015 01:08 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> From an unrelated practical point of view: consider that the metadata
>>> pulled down so DNF can operate is basically the same
Adam Jackson wrote:
> I'd call that the app not working, yes. Symbol conflicts are literally
> trivial to find, I'm really not sure why you bring the point up.
Because it is the worst possible consequence of bundled libraries (or abuse
of compatibility libraries – there too, more effort needs to
Am 09.10.2015 um 21:41 schrieb Orion Poplawski:
On 10/08/2015 01:08 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
From an unrelated practical point of view: consider that the metadata
pulled down so DNF can operate is basically the same size as the entire
(compressed) Fedora Cloud Base image. It'd be very nice
Matthew Miller wrote:
> When the packager has reasoned belief that debundling is actively bad
> in some way for this package, I think we should trust the packager. I
> know not everyone on this thread agrees, but in general, Fedora
> *always* places a high level of trust in our packagers to make th
Orion Poplawski wrote:
> Perhaps every product should produce a os/{repodata,Packages} directory as
> well as an updates/VERSION/PRODUCT/ tree with .
Please no! Let's not fragment Fedora even more than it already is with those
"products".
* Would packages belonging to multiple products (kernel,
Ian Malone wrote:
> I'm actually all for unbundling, but going it alone is not guaranteed
> to be simple. "Oh, hey, that deprecated function has been removed."
Then you try to port the application to the new APIs, and if it's not
possible, you revert the library commit that removed the old API.
On 10/09/2015 10:39 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 13:05 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
>>> How are the screenshots rebased? Is it all manual work?
>>
>> More or less. the openQA web UI has an interactive needle editor
>> which
>> lets you basically run a test and pause after
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 10:47:22AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> as of this morning US time we have changed the way rawhide buildroots are
> created in koji. rawhide is now using dnf to install the packages into the
> buildroot. this means that in f24 and on dnf will be used to create the
> bu
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 11:38:30AM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> On 10/09/2015 10:27 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 09:46:11AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >> On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 17:05:00 +0200
> >> Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >>
> >>> This does not scale unfortunately
On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 13:05 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > How are the screenshots rebased? Is it all manual work?
>
> More or less. the openQA web UI has an interactive needle editor
> which
> lets you basically run a test and pause after each failed match, then
> you can fiddle with the need
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 01:41:15PM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> > From an unrelated practical point of view: consider that the metadata
> > pulled down so DNF can operate is basically the same size as the entire
> > (compressed) Fedora Cloud Base image. It'd be very nice to not have
> > that ove
On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 21:41 +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
> These failed test IDs are all nice to see, but they don't say much to
> the uninitiated. :)
Yeah, what I'd actually like to do is have links to the tests; the
reason we can't do that right now is that the openQA instance is behind
the RH fi
On 10/09/2015 06:17 PM, Fedora compose checker wrote:
> No missing expected images.
>
> Images in this compose but not 23 Branched 20151008:
>
> Cloud docker x86_64
>
> Images in 23 Branched 20151008 but not this:
>
> Workstation disk raw armhfp
>
> Failed openQA tests: 48 of 52
>
> ID: 5182
On 10/08/2015 01:08 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> From an unrelated practical point of view: consider that the metadata
> pulled down so DNF can operate is basically the same size as the entire
> (compressed) Fedora Cloud Base image. It'd be very nice to not have
> that overhead (but still have wi
On 10/09/2015 07:51 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 18:46 +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
>> On 10/09/2015 06:44 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 12:17 -0400, Fedora compose checker wrote:
No missing expected images.
Images in this compose but not 23
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 08:04:39PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> This doesn't have to be. It is possible to write libraries, even very
> complex ones, with endless backwards compatibility. It's what libvirt
> does. And the kernel (almost always).
>
> In fact I'd say breaking your ABI contr
On 8 October 2015 at 17:04, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Christopher Meng wrote:
>> IMO motif should 'Obsoletes' lesstif in Fedora since motif is free now.
>
> The reason we kept lesstif even after OpenMotif was finally freed is because
> OpenMotif only implements the Motif 2 API, whereas lesstif impleme
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/09/2015 03:04 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:36:37PM +0200, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
>> But in the real-world - version changes, it gets incompatible,
>> requires some new way how to use it and so on
>
> This doesn'
Once upon a time, Richard W.M. Jones said:
> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:36:37PM +0200, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
> > But in the real-world - version changes, it gets incompatible,
> > requires some new way how to use it and so on
>
> This doesn't have to be. It is possible to write libraries, ev
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:36:37PM +0200, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
> But in the real-world - version changes, it gets incompatible,
> requires some new way how to use it and so on
This doesn't have to be. It is possible to write libraries, even very
complex ones, with endless backwards compatibi
No, as it turns out I'm not in the packager group and I guess I must
have missed that when reading through the package submission process,
so I've fixed the bug for my package to block FE-NEEDSPONSOR so I can
get into the group. Sorry about that!
Cheers,
Lyude
On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 08:44
Hello! Although my legal name is Chandler, please just call me Lyude
;).
I've been a Linux user for a couple years now, and as of the past few
years have became a developer and am working on making a career out of
it. I'm currently interning for Red Hat and hoping to get a full time
job at the end
On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 18:46 +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
> On 10/09/2015 06:44 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 12:17 -0400, Fedora compose checker wrote:
> > > No missing expected images.
> > >
> > > Images in this compose but not 23 Branched 20151008:
> > >
> > > Cloud docker
On 10/09/2015 10:27 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 09:46:11AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 17:05:00 +0200
>> Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>
>>> This does not scale unfortunately ... and it is common excuse to not
>>> support it properly. IOW, I want to h
On 09/10/15 08:37 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-10-08 at 23:32 -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
>> I built an update for f22-backgrounds package which includes the
>> missing
>> supplemental backgrounds.
> Isn't it rather late to be adding wallpapers to F22? Even if it's a bug
> that t
On 10/09/2015 08:16 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> Reality is complicated, we would do well to recognize that.
>
> - ajax
>
Thank you very much for the excellent posts.
--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 11:00:30AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > +1 And I was serious about it, rather sticking to guidelines as if
> > they were dogma, I prefer positive actions to fight poor
> > practices.
> I'm thoroughly behind this. I think an unbundling SIG is a far better
> solution to
On 10/09/2015 06:44 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 12:17 -0400, Fedora compose checker wrote:
>> No missing expected images.
>>
>> Images in this compose but not 23 Branched 20151008:
>>
>> Cloud docker x86_64
>>
>> Images in 23 Branched 20151008 but not this:
>>
>> Workstation
On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 12:17 -0400, Fedora compose checker wrote:
> No missing expected images.
>
> Images in this compose but not 23 Branched 20151008:
>
> Cloud docker x86_64
>
> Images in 23 Branched 20151008 but not this:
>
> Workstation disk raw armhfp
>
> Failed openQA tests: 48 of 52
It
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 09:46:11AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 17:05:00 +0200
> Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> > This does not scale unfortunately ... and it is common excuse to not
> > support it properly. IOW, I want to have package foo-1.0 installed
> > side by side with foo-2.0 and
No missing expected images.
Images in this compose but not 23 Branched 20151008:
Cloud docker x86_64
Images in 23 Branched 20151008 but not this:
Workstation disk raw armhfp
Failed openQA tests: 48 of 52
ID: 5182Test: i386 kde_live default_install
ID: 5181Test: x86_64 workstat
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 10:37:56AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-10-08 at 23:32 -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
> > I built an update for f22-backgrounds package which includes the
> > missing
> > supplemental backgrounds.
>
> Isn't it rather late to be adding wallpapers to F22? E
On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 14:55 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> Interesting taking the consumer perspective.
>
> So where does FESCo intend to draw the line now that it has chosen to
> head down this path.
I mean, I can't speak for fesco as a whole, but speaking for myself: I
reject the quest
Hi all,
as of this morning US time we have changed the way rawhide buildroots are
created in koji. rawhide is now using dnf to install the packages into the
buildroot. this means that in f24 and on dnf will be used to create the
buildroot. as well as manage the updates on your system.
We will
On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 17:22:34 +0200
Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
> If all it would take would be e.g. : dnf install-compat
>
> Otherwise you basically require that every user of Fedora is
> supposedly quite skilled rpm package-maintainer ??
> (Which would roughly cut the user-base only to those who ac
On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 17:05:00 +0200
Vít Ondruch wrote:
> This does not scale unfortunately ... and it is common excuse to not
> support it properly. IOW, I want to have package foo-1.0 installed
> side by side with foo-2.0 and I don't want to have foo1-1.0 side by
> side with foo-2.0. And this appl
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 10:16:31AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> So from an OS maintenance perspective we have to recognize that
> bundling code occasionally does have merit, and that it is incumbent on
> us to manage it well. And from a Fedora perspective, we have to
> acknowledge that a prohibi
On Thu, 2015-10-08 at 23:32 -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
> I built an update for f22-backgrounds package which includes the
> missing
> supplemental backgrounds.
Isn't it rather late to be adding wallpapers to F22? Even if it's a bug
that they're missing, that's the sort of thing that should be
Dne 9.10.2015 v 16:41 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 16:36:37 +0200
Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
IMHO all we need is to support multiple version of same library
to be installable -- that's mine point why usability of Fedora
is miles behind other distros.
...snip...
We do.
If you nee
Dne 9.10.2015 v 16:41 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 16:36:37 +0200
> Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
>
>> IMHO all we need is to support multiple version of same library
>> to be installable -- that's mine point why usability of Fedora
>> is miles behind other distros.
> ...snip...
>
> We
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 10/09/2015 03:51 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 01:50:27PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>
>>> This opens the door to all kinds of duplication, waste of disk space,
waste
of RAM, symbol conflicts and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/09/2015 10:42 AM, Haïkel wrote:
> 2015-10-09 16:20 GMT+02:00 Neal Gompa :
>>
>> A SIG dedicated to going through our packages and "systemizing"
>> them (e.g. unbundling them) would probably be a really good idea,
>> especially with the new rules
On 10/09/2015 02:16 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 13:50 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>I agree - the new wording does appear to give in to poor programming
>practices.
Bundling is_not_ intrinsically poor practice. Firefox is a good
example of this, there have been severa
On 10/9/15, Stephen Chandler Paul wrote:
> Hi, I recently did a review swap with someone, and approved their
> package. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1257410
> (I should note Lyude is the same person as me, that's just my non
> -redhat bugzilla account)
> The guide here https://fedor
On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 10:40:28 -0400
Stephen Chandler Paul wrote:
> Hi, I recently did a review swap with someone, and approved their
> package. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1257410
> (I should note Lyude is the same person as me, that's just my non
> -redhat bugzilla account)
> The
2015-10-09 16:20 GMT+02:00 Neal Gompa :
>
> A SIG dedicated to going through our packages and "systemizing" them (e.g.
> unbundling them) would probably be a really good idea, especially with the
> new rules. A group of packagers experienced in this could be solicited to
> help with trickier packag
On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 16:36:37 +0200
Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
> IMHO all we need is to support multiple version of same library
> to be installable -- that's mine point why usability of Fedora
> is miles behind other distros.
...snip...
We do.
If you need a different version of a library, you ca
Hi, I recently did a review swap with someone, and approved their
package. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1257410
(I should note Lyude is the same person as me, that's just my non
-redhat bugzilla account)
The guide here https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process sa
ys that
Dne 9.10.2015 v 16:16 Adam Jackson napsal(a):
On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 13:50 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I agree - the new wording does appear to give in to poor programming
practices.
Bundling is _not_ intrinsically poor practice. Firefox is a good
example of this, there have been several
On 2015-10-09 10:02 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/09/2015 03:51 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 01:50:27PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
This opens the door to all kinds of duplication, waste of disk
space, waste
of RAM, symbol conflicts and unfixed security issues!
I a
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:45 AM, Haïkel wrote:
> 2015-10-09 1:17 GMT+02:00 Kevin Kofler :
> > Haïkel wrote:
> >> Not that I'm 100% happy with the way it happened but this has been a
> >> very long-lived topic. To some, it'll be a hasty decision, to others,
> >> it's already a late one.
> >
> > The
On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 13:50 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I agree - the new wording does appear to give in to poor programming
> practices.
Bundling is _not_ intrinsically poor practice. Firefox is a good
example of this, there have been several cases where using the system
instance of cair
On 10/09/2015 03:51 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 01:50:27PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
This opens the door to all kinds of duplication, waste of disk space, waste
of RAM, symbol conflicts and unfixed security issues!
I agree - the new wording does appear to give in to
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 01:50:27PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > This opens the door to all kinds of duplication, waste of disk space, waste
> > of RAM, symbol conflicts and unfixed security issues!
> I agree - the new wording does appear to give in to poor programming
> practices.
Do you
On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 01:22 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Jackson wrote:
> > From the consumer's perspective it makes zero difference whether a
> > particular library is bundled or not, as long as the app works.
>
> Only until they run into their first symbol conflict due to conflicting
> bun
Compose started at Fri Oct 9 05:15:02 UTC 2015
Broken deps for i386
--
[CableSwig]
CableSwig-3.20.0-13.fc23.i686 requires gccxml
[IQmol]
IQmol-2.3.0-9.fc24.i686 requires libboost_serialization.so.1.58.0
IQmol-2.3.0-9.f
On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 12:06:31AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > * #1483 Decision on bundling policy in the Fedora Package Collection
> > (sgallagh, 18:11:40)
> > * LINK: http://paste.fedoraproject.org/276064/44243383/ is sgallaghs
> > proposal without the critpa
On 10/08/2015 08:08 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 03:37:32PM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Maybe we're trying to do too much.
>>
>> I suppose it's a question of choosing to do something which from a
>> software engineering perspective is not the best practice or not
>> includi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270255
Bug ID: 1270255
Summary: perl-Text-CSV_XS-1.20 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-Text-CSV_XS
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee: psab...@
Compose started at Fri Oct 9 07:15:03 UTC 2015
Broken deps for armhfp
--
[389-ds-base]
389-ds-base-1.3.4.4-1.fc23.armv7hl requires librpmio.so.3
389-ds-base-1.3.4.4-1.fc23.armv7hl requires librpm.so.3
[CableSwig]
Cable
On 09.10.2015 12:26, Ville Skyttä wrote:
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Sandro Mani wrote:
can anyone suggest an alternative way to accomplish the same which
does not use spawn from Dpkg::IPC?
[1]
https://github.com/Debian/devscripts/commit/c0687bcde23108dd42e146573c368b6905e6b8e8
# at top
On 10/09/2015 12:08 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Wednesday, 07 October 2015 at 21:17, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Meeting summary
---
[...]
* #1483 Decision on bundling policy in the Fedora Package Collection
(sgallagh, 18:11:40)
* LINK: http://paste.fedoraprojec
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Sandro Mani wrote:
> can anyone suggest an alternative way to accomplish the same which
> does not use spawn from Dpkg::IPC?
>
> [1]
> https://github.com/Debian/devscripts/commit/c0687bcde23108dd42e146573c368b6905e6b8e8
# at top of licensecheck
use IPC::Run qw(run)
Hi
Recent versions of devscripts-minimal (containing licensecheck) began
depending on dpkg-perl due to [1]. Unfortunately I'm quite unfamiliar
with perl, can anyone suggest an alternative way to accomplish the same
which does not use spawn from Dpkg::IPC?
Thanks
Sandro
[1]
https://github.c
2015-10-09 1:17 GMT+02:00 Kevin Kofler :
> Haïkel wrote:
>> Not that I'm 100% happy with the way it happened but this has been a
>> very long-lived topic. To some, it'll be a hasty decision, to others,
>> it's already a late one.
>
> There's a REASON it had always been shot down so far!
>
>> Please
On 8 October 2015 at 23:58, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Matthew Miller wrote:
>> In many cases, this effectively means creating a Fedora-specfic fork of
>> the project.
>
> Only if you call patches to the build system (with little to no changes to
> the actual code) a "fork".
>
>> Even if we accept unbu
77 matches
Mail list logo
