On 01/23/2018 08:16 AM, Tom Hughes wrote:
This seems to be breaking things. I have so's failing to link due to
this even though the man page says -zdefs doesn't affect shared libraries.
Examples?
It will cause link failures because binutils now reports that it does
not have enough information
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 08:00:08AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 01/22/2018 10:15 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2018-01-22 at 19:19 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > On 01/22/2018 06:26 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm trying to prepare xserver for this change, and it seems t
On 17/01/18 11:35, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 01/09/2018 04:16 PM, Tomasz Torcz 👁️ wrote:
I'm a bit perplexed by this change. It looks like minor version
update, in such case it need no to be announced so widely.
On the other hand, you are changing the source. According to the
guidelin
On 01/23/2018 02:16 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>> "ZJ" == Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek writes:
>
> ZJ> What about BuildRequires? Quite often that list even more work to
> ZJ> generate, and your proposal does not address it in any way.
>
> Does any dependency generation we use currently (
On 01/22/2018 10:15 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 2018-01-22 at 19:19 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 01/22/2018 06:26 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
I'm trying to prepare xserver for this change, and it seems to provoke
an awkward warning when building on F27:
In file included from ../os/rpcauth.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Mon, 2018-01-22 at 15:58 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 08:21:19PM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> > Yet anther thought ..
> > As long as between major EL releases is huge "distance" in differences
> > using %{rhel} within %
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Mon, 2018-01-22 at 14:33 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 02:23:16PM +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> > What I'm trying to say here is that each time we want to implement
> > some feature in Fedora, we either need to have some r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Mon, 2018-01-22 at 21:24 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 08:51:43PM +0100, Jan Kurik wrote:
> > = Proposed Self Contained Change: Enabling Python Generators =
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EnablingP
On 22 January 2018 at 22:12, Scott Talbert wrote:
> Yep, bodhi is definitely blocking things now without any way to override that
> I can see. :-(
> I've got a similar situation, I was able to push to batched 5 days ago but
> just now bodhi sent me an email saying "Bodhi is unable to request th
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Rex Dieter
> I am logged into bodhi. I am looking at the page for the gap-pkg-io
> update I mentioned earlier:
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-e45a7bb9a7
>
> There is no button to push to batched. There are only two buttons:
> Edit and U
> "VO" == Vít Ondruch writes:
VO> I think FPC does not know.
Certainly we know what we generally try to do, but Fedora changes
quickly and some things aren't always stated as well as they could be.
Plus the experts who draft the more esoteric guidelines often have other
ideas.
The guideline
> "ZJ" == Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek writes:
ZJ> What about BuildRequires? Quite often that list even more work to
ZJ> generate, and your proposal does not address it in any way.
Does any dependency generation we use currently (i.e. Perl or even just
the plain C/C++ stuff) do anything for b
On Mon, 2018-01-22 at 18:57 -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 21 January 2018 at 14:42, Stephen John Smoogen
> wrote:
> > On 21 January 2018 at 14:06, Howard Howell
> > wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2018-01-21 at 15:25 +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> > > > Folks, please move this discussion to users@l
On 21 January 2018 at 14:42, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 21 January 2018 at 14:06, Howard Howell wrote:
>> On Sun, 2018-01-21 at 15:25 +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
>>> Folks, please move this discussion to us...@lists.fedoraproject.org.
>>> ___
>>>
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
> As far as I know and can tell, those gating things are advisory only at this
> point.
I am logged into bodhi. I am looking at the page for the gap-pkg-io
update I mentioned earlier:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-e45a7bb9a
On 22 January 2018 at 20:58, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 08:21:19PM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> > Yet anther thought ..
> > As long as between major EL releases is huge "distance" in differences
> > using %{rhel} within %ifings operators like <, <=, >, >= does not make to
>
I'd like to notify you that today I've finished my works on date
formatting in glibc, that means upstream. These changes are already
arriving to Fedora Rawhide (they should be there tomorrow) and will
be part of Fedora 28. They will be included in glibc 2.27 (to be
released on February 1), or in pr
Jerry James wrote:
> Are ABI changes completely disallowed in all circumstances?
no.
As far as I know and can tell, those gating things are advisory only at this
point.
-- Rex
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe sen
Dear all,
You are kindly invited to the meeting:
Modularity WG (once every two weeks) on 2018-01-23 from 10:00:00 to 11:00:00
US/Eastern
At fedora-meetin...@irc.freenode.net
The meeting will be about:
Meeting of the Modularity Working Group.
More information available at: [Modularity Work
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 08:51:43PM +0100, Jan Kurik wrote:
> = Proposed Self Contained Change: Enabling Python Generators =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EnablingPythonGenerators
It's great that this is finally happening.
> == Detailed Description ==
> There is RPM dependency generator
On Mon, 2018-01-22 at 19:19 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 01/22/2018 06:26 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> >
> > I'm trying to prepare xserver for this change, and it seems to provoke
> > an awkward warning when building on F27:
> >
> > In file included from ../os/rpcauth.c:47:0:
> > /usr/include/t
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 08:21:19PM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> Yet anther thought ..
> As long as between major EL releases is huge "distance" in differences
> using %{rhel} within %ifings operators like <, <=, >, >= does not make to
> much sense.
That's likely true. But I think it'd be even be
Here's something I didn't expect from the new ABI gate. Which, before
I go further, I think will be a great idea nearly all of the time. I
think avoiding unintentional ABI breaks in stable releases is a worthy
goal.
But ... I maintain a package called gap. It provides what amounts to
a scriptin
On 22 January 2018 at 19:45, Matthew Miller
wrote:
[..]
> This might have been a past pattern, but we (Fedora leadership working
> at Red Hat, along with RH counterparts) are working to make this
> better. (See the "What does Red Hat want?" talks from previous
> DevConf.cz and Flock conferences.)
On 22 January 2018 at 19:40, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 08:07:29PM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> > So (quoting you) "As EPEL is the only reason I stay in Fedora" you want
> to
> > say that you are you are not interested at all Fedora but only some
> > EL6/EPEL packages.
> >
On 22 January 2018 at 20:06, Tomasz Kłoczko
wrote:
[..]
> Logic says that only %{rhel} or even better %{el6}, %{el7} (and so on)
> should be in use.
>
Yet anther thought ..
As long as between major EL releases is huge "distance" in differences
using %{rhel} within %ifings operators like <, <=, >
On 22 January 2018 at 19:11, R P Herrold wrote:
[..]
> and very curiously as to 'strace' in your list, of course
> there ** is no **
> '0%{?centos} >= 8
>
> nor a released rhel at that number either ;)
>
First possible explanation is that here it is some kind of mistake ("s*t
happens ..
On 22/01/18 15:58, Adam Williamson wrote:
I have a dual monitor setup with both monitors rotated, using an NVIDIA
adapter (9600 GT). Works fine, uses Wayland. Again, you need to be
*very specific* about graphics issues. They are very often very
specific to the exact hardware in use - down to the
= Proposed Self Contained Change: Enabling Python Generators =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EnablingPythonGenerators
Change owner(s):
* Igor Gnatenko
* Neal Gompa
This change enables the ability to choose to use the Python module
dependency generator for packages that provide Python E
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 08:38:56AM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> It happens only when next major EL release is made.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux#Relationship_with_Fedora
> After make major release no one cares what happen next in Fedora.
This might have been a past pa
On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 08:07:29PM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> So (quoting you) "As EPEL is the only reason I stay in Fedora" you want to
> say that you are you are not interested at all Fedora but only some
> EL6/EPEL packages.
> Is that correct?
Remember that EPEL is _part of Fedora_. Someone
On 22 January 2018 at 12:21, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> On 22 January 2018 at 15:53, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> [,,]
>>
>> > OK so here you just gave me +1 for a). Thx.
>> >
>>
>> No I didn't. It is clear that our versions of English are not syncing
>> up so I am not sure how to communicate clear
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 02:23:16PM +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> What I'm trying to say here is that each time we want to implement
> some feature in Fedora, we either need to have some replacement in
> EPEL or diverge Fedora branches from EPEL branches. Having
> replacement is not always possible,
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 02:55:37AM -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> > It's the plan of record that by default, all modules will be built
> > across all available buildroots. I'm not sure if that means EPEL7
> > will be an available option for technical reasons, but I hope so.
> > This will possibly r
On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 05:38:12PM -0600, Tao Zhao wrote:
> Thanks for the information! I've pinged his gmail. Let's see how it goes.
I saw him mention that he'll be at DevConf.cz, so maybe someone can
catch him there.
--
Matthew Miller
Fedora Project Leader
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 08:51:15AM +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> > As you know, I want to go the other way. I want to bring Fedora
> > improvements to Fedora packages built for EL _more quickly_. That may
> > not be possible with EL7 and certainly not with EL6, but let's not
> > close ourselves off
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018, Tomasz K?oczko wrote:
> [tkloczko@domek SPECS.fedora]$ (for i in centos ; do echo -n "$i "; \
grep '%{?'$i * ; done) | grep -v "rhel specific macros"
> ceph.spec:%if ( ( 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?rhel} <= 7) && ! 0%{?centos} )
> ceph.spec:%if ( ( 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?rhel}
On 22 January 2018 at 15:54, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:18 AM, Tomasz Kłoczko
> wrote:
> >
> > On 22 January 2018 at 10:42, Josh Boyer
> wrote:
> > [..]
> >>
> >> > After make major release no one cares what happen next in Fedora.
> >>
> >> This is false. Even by your own r
On 01/22/2018 06:26 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 2018-01-05 at 12:19 +0100, Jan Kurik wrote:
= System Wide Change:Removal of Sun RPC Interfaces From glibc =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SunRPCRemoval
Change owner(s):
* Florian Weimer fweimer AT redhat DOT com>
This system-wide ch
On Fri, 2018-01-05 at 12:19 +0100, Jan Kurik wrote:
> = System Wide Change:Removal of Sun RPC Interfaces From glibc =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SunRPCRemoval
>
> Change owner(s):
> * Florian Weimer fweimer AT redhat DOT com>
>
>
> This system-wide change covers the removal of inte
On 22 January 2018 at 15:53, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
[,,]
> > OK so here you just gave me +1 for a). Thx.
> >
>
> No I didn't. It is clear that our versions of English are not syncing
> up so I am not sure how to communicate clearly with you. You think I
> am reading in between the lines, but
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hello,
I'm planning to merge PR[0] somewhere later this week. Essentially it does:
For each executable files:
* Replaces /usr/bin/env foo with /usr/bin/foo
* Replaces /usr/bin/python with /usr/bin/python2
* Removes exectuable bit (and shows warning
Hi
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-01-22 at 07:16 -0500, Christian Fredrik Schaller wrote:
> > Sorry for responding to myself here, but I thought it could also be
> > worthwhile to mention that one of our primary tools for identifying
> > problems is the Fe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Mon, 2018-01-22 at 12:31 +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 20.1.2018 v 12:27 Igor Gnatenko napsal(a):
> > Why I'm writing this? I want to hear from you if you think it would be good
> > to
> > prohibit (or advise, or whatever mechanism would work
On Mon, 2018-01-22 at 15:39 +, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 22/01/18 15:34, Tom Hughes wrote:
> > On 22/01/18 15:26, Jerry James wrote:
> >
> > > One configuration that appears to be particularly unstable is a
> > > dual-monitor setup with nouveau. I experience frequent system hangs
> > > with that
On Mon, 2018-01-22 at 08:26 -0700, Jerry James wrote:
>
> One configuration that appears to be particularly unstable is a
> dual-monitor setup with nouveau. I experience frequent system hangs
> with that setup, and don't seem to be alone; e.g.,
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=149156
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:18 AM, Tomasz Kłoczko
wrote:
>
> On 22 January 2018 at 10:42, Josh Boyer wrote:
> [..]
>>
>> > After make major release no one cares what happen next in Fedora.
>>
>> This is false. Even by your own reasoning, lots of people certainly
>> care in the context of the rele
On 22 January 2018 at 00:29, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> On 22 January 2018 at 03:10, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>>
>> On 21 January 2018 at 15:54, Tomasz Kłoczko
>> wrote:
>
> [..]
>>
>> > 8) Why we have %{centos} %ifings? Theoretically Centos is EL derivate up
>> > to
>> > ABI level so all this s
On Mon, 2018-01-22 at 07:16 -0500, Christian Fredrik Schaller wrote:
> Sorry for responding to myself here, but I thought it could also be
> worthwhile to mention that one of our primary tools for identifying
> problems is the Fedora ABRT server. Looking at the current stats it looks
> to me like F
- Mail original -
De: "Neal Gompa"
Hi,
Thanks for the review !
> I really do like this. There are only two issues I have with it:
> 1. This seems to mandate that all packages must be named by their
> import path. My golang package (snapd) is not, intentionally so. I
> don't want to c
On 22/01/18 15:34, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 22/01/18 15:26, Jerry James wrote:
One configuration that appears to be particularly unstable is a
dual-monitor setup with nouveau. I experience frequent system hangs
with that setup, and don't seem to be alone; e.g.,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug
On 22/01/18 15:26, Jerry James wrote:
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 4:29 AM, Christian Fredrik Schaller
wrote:
I am sad to hear that people are having issues when using Wayland (and even
the X.org session). Be aware though that we have devs dedicated at RH to
look at Fedora Wayland bugs, so if you fi
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 4:29 AM, Christian Fredrik Schaller
wrote:
> I am sad to hear that people are having issues when using Wayland (and even
> the X.org session). Be aware though that we have devs dedicated at RH to
> look at Fedora Wayland bugs, so if you file bugs we will try our best to
> l
I updated redhat-rpm-config to instruct ld to reject linking shared
objects with undefined symbols. Such undefined symbols break symbol
versioning because the are not necessarily bound to the correct symbol
version at run time. (rhbz#1535422)
### Disable strict symbol checks in the link edit
On 22 January 2018 at 10:42, Josh Boyer wrote:
[..]
> > After make major release no one cares what happen next in Fedora.
>
> This is false. Even by your own reasoning, lots of people certainly
> care in the context of the release after the current one. However
> even the period between major R
- Original Message -
> From: "Marcin Dulak"
> To: "Discussion of RPM packaging standards and practices for Fedora"
>
> Cc: gol...@lists.fedoraproject.org, "Development discussions related to
> Fedora"
> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 4:04:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re:
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 2:45 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 8:33 AM, Dridi Boukelmoune
> wrote:
> >> I really do like this. There are only two issues I have with it:
> >>
> >> 1. This seems to mandate that all packages must be named by their
> >> import path. My golang package (
On 22 January 2018 at 10:22, Mark Wielaard wrote:
[..]
> I think this depends on the team(s) that are maintaining the Fedora and
> RHEL packages, and whether they are the same or different people. For
> the packages I maintain personally in both Fedora and RHEL I make sure
> any update to the RHE
On 22 January 2018 at 12:10, Neal Gompa wrote:
<<>>
[..]
> >> > 8) Why we have %{centos} %ifings? Theoretically Centos is EL derivate
> up
> >> > to
> >> > ABI level so all this should be:
> >> >
> >> > a) removed
> >> > b) replaced by %{el6} and %{el7} (and if it is anything older ..
> remove)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Thanks for attention.
- --
- -Igor Gnatenko
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEhLFO09aHZVqO+CM6aVcUvRu8X0wFAlpl8mAACgkQaVcUvRu8
X0zq+w//fSiqqAkXyQtnKuGyMAkc9VwbROgyu0LVmToAZZ9VDhvj9gbX4wP7Gz4P
qmf5cBEFHnkl37t0WFmvEoZheR5GX0hepPuTNVbWaY8+
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 8:33 AM, Dridi Boukelmoune
wrote:
>> I really do like this. There are only two issues I have with it:
>>
>> 1. This seems to mandate that all packages must be named by their
>> import path. My golang package (snapd) is not, intentionally so. I
>> don't want to change this.
> I really do like this. There are only two issues I have with it:
>
> 1. This seems to mandate that all packages must be named by their
> import path. My golang package (snapd) is not, intentionally so. I
> don't want to change this.
>
> 2. Mandating a forge is going to be tricky for self-hosted s
On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 2:11 AM, wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am proposing for inclusion a set of rpm technical files aimed at automating
> the packaging of forge-hosted projects.
>
> - Packaging draft: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/More_Go_packaging
> - https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/734
>
On 22 January 2018 at 03:39, Neal Gompa wrote:
[..]
> Personally, I'd like it to be easier to make multi-distro spec files
> by leveraging the increasing commonality among distributions. It's
> already not that bad these days, the main issue is what RPM features
> are supported for each target dis
Our Application for GSoC is ready and we will make the submission deadline
tomorrow. Therefore we should start working on ideas.
See
https://docs.stg.fedoraproject.org/mentored-projects/gsoc/2018/#mentor-information
for details. Text is also below.
regards,
bex
How to Propose a Project
If
- Mail original -
De: "Fabio Valentini"
Hi,
> I'm particularly looking forward to improvements regarding golang. The
> automated .spec generation is nice for getting new packages started, but
> maintaining those packages currently is a small nightmare in itself due to
> brittle scripts
Sorry for responding to myself here, but I thought it could also be
worthwhile to mention that one of our primary tools for identifying
problems is the Fedora ABRT server. Looking at the current stats it looks
to me like F27 is actually doing better than F26 used to in
terms of minimizing crashers:
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 12:29 AM, Tomasz Kłoczko
wrote:
> On 22 January 2018 at 03:10, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>>
>> On 21 January 2018 at 15:54, Tomasz Kłoczko
>> wrote:
>
> [..]
>>
>> > 8) Why we have %{centos} %ifings? Theoretically Centos is EL derivate up
>> > to
>> > ABI level so all t
Dne 22.1.2018 v 12:31 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
> Dne 20.1.2018 v 12:27 Igor Gnatenko napsal(a):
>> Why I'm writing this? I want to hear from you if you think it would be good
>> to
>> prohibit (or advise, or whatever mechanism would work) usage if conditionals
>> in
>> (at least) master branch
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 06:47:50PM +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
>
>
> On 20/01/18 13:52, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > On Jan 20, 2018 12:29, "Igor Gnatenko"
> >> TL;DR:
> >> - We need an authoritative source that tells us packagers which
> >> Guidelines apply to which branch (or what has to be done
Dne 20.1.2018 v 12:27 Igor Gnatenko napsal(a):
> Why I'm writing this? I want to hear from you if you think it would be good to
> prohibit (or advise, or whatever mechanism would work) usage if conditionals
> in
> (at least) master branch to allow us to develop features faster. Thoughts?
-1
If t
Hi there,
I am sad to hear that people are having issues when using Wayland (and even
the X.org session). Be aware though that we have devs dedicated at RH to
look at Fedora Wayland bugs, so if you file bugs we will try our best to
look at them and figure out what is happening. It obviously works w
Dne 22.1.2018 v 11:50 Florian Weimer napsal(a):
> On 01/22/2018 08:40 AM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
>> Problem only is that as Fedora is on the constant move but RH doesn't.
>> Main RH goal is delivery solid distro, then security fixes and some
>> other critical fixes. Only occasionally they are upda
Dne 20.1.2018 v 14:30 Igor Gnatenko napsal(a):
>
> > It would be really useful to have a wiki page outlining where the
> > Guidelines for stable branches are different to the most recent
> version of
> > the Packaging Guidelines (if such a page already exists, please
> ignore this
> > and point m
On 01/22/2018 09:38 AM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
After make major release no one cares what happen next in Fedora.
Again, that really depends on the package. Some are not even fully
branched. For some of the totally branched packages, package
maintainers create separate backports of downstream
On Jan 22, 2018 11:32, wrote:
- Mail original -
De: "Stephen John Smoogen"
> They pull in what they want to make it work and could
> give a care if it is readable to anyone else.
The problem is that past a certain point those become effectively
unmaintainable and start dragging Fedora
On 01/22/2018 08:40 AM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
Problem only is that as Fedora is on the constant move but RH doesn't.
Main RH goal is delivery solid distro, then security fixes and some
other critical fixes. Only occasionally they are updating some set of
packages.
It really depends on the packa
- Original Message -
> From: "Stephen John Smoogen"
> To: hlhow...@pacbell.net, "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Cc: "Francesco Frassinelli"
> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 8:42:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Wyland is a disaster
>
> On 21 January 2018 at 14:06, Howard Howell
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 3:38 AM, Tomasz Kłoczko
wrote:
> On 22 January 2018 at 07:58, Igor Gnatenko
> wrote:
> [..]
>>> On 22 January 2018 at 02:12, R P Herrold wrote:
>>> [..]
>>> What I'm worry it is that this supportability is only kind of fata
>>> morgana/ilution and RH effectively spitted l
- Mail original -
De: "Neal Gompa"
> the main issue is what RPM features
are supported for each target distribution. Making things less ugly
for gracefully degrading would be very nice. :)
Well it would be really nice if someone @downstream watched for Fedora
packaging guidelines cha
- Mail original -
De: "Stephen John Smoogen"
> They pull in what they want to make it work and could
> give a care if it is readable to anyone else.
The problem is that past a certain point those become effectively
unmaintainable and start dragging Fedora in the EL blackhole instead of
On Mon, 2018-01-22 at 08:38 +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> Effectively Fedora has not to much from relation with RH *between*
> major EL releases in form of straight contribution to Fedora constant
> changes. They may be sending back some fixes done for RHEL customers
> but that is all. However as
Hi,
I can get a few hundreds of those disappear if the Go packaging guidelines I
posted get accepted
Otherwise, they are a symptom of technical debt accumulation in EL, nothing more
Regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.f
El mié, 17-01-2018 a las 07:00 -0800, Jim Perrin escribió:
> Hello Fedora developers,
> I know some of you may not be familiar with me[1] unless you’re also
> working with CentOS or EPEL, but I’d like to take this opportunity to
> introduce myself a bit more formally on the list.
>
> As of 1 Febr
El jue, 18-01-2018 a las 14:33 -0500, Matthew Miller escribió:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 02:09:26PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > Given that Python 2 is going EOL in about two years, I don't
> > > think we
> > > want it in EPEL proper. If we do provide it, it should be in a
> > > module.
> >
> >
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 12:27:38PM +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> Why I'm writing this? I want to hear from you if you think it would be
> good to prohibit (or advise, or whatever mechanism would work) usage if
> conditionals in (at least) master branch to allow us to develop features
> faster. Thou
On 22 January 2018 at 07:58, Igor Gnatenko
wrote:
[..]
>> On 22 January 2018 at 02:12, R P Herrold wrote:
>> [..]
>> What I'm worry it is that this supportability is only kind of fata
>> morgana/ilution and RH effectively spitted long time ago from Fedora
>> without telling about this to Fedora d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Mon, 2018-01-22 at 07:40 +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> On 22 January 2018 at 02:12, R P Herrold wrote:
> [..]
> > > If it is common in case of EL7/EL6 EPEL packages consumers it is perfect
> > > reason to not bother EPEL on master branch because
88 matches
Mail list logo
