[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Modularity Team (weekly)

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: Modularity Team (weekly) on 2019-03-26 from 15:00:00 to 16:00:00 UTC At fedora-meetin...@irc.freenode.net The meeting will be about: Meeting of the Modularity Team. More information available at: [Modularity Team Docs](https://docs.pagure.o

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 21:57, Japheth Cleaver wrote: [..] > It feels like there's been this vast movement to try to remove every last > bit of shell from Fedora whenever possible, and I really don't understand > the aversion. > In most of the cases it is nothing more than some form of NIH syndro

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 21:17, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 08:18:34PM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > > Switching to other than bash sh interpreter allow reduce total gcc > package > > build time by ~5%. > > OK. But that just shows that it is — possibly — worth to s

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

On 3/25/2019 2:10 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 08:18:34PM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: Switching to other than bash sh interpreter allow reduce total gcc package build time by ~5%. OK. But that just shows that it is — possibly — worth to switch the gcc build to

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 08:18:34PM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > Switching to other than bash sh interpreter allow reduce total gcc package > build time by ~5%. OK. But that just shows that it is — possibly — worth to switch the gcc build to a different shell, by working with gcc upstream. Nothin

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 20:47, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: [..] > [Also when giving one graph for one type of build, could you also give a > similar graph showing how it looks with dash or ksh or whatever you used?] > Graph for the gcc will be exactly the same. Only overall time will be shorter.

Re: Fork a 119MB pagure project to updating monitoring?

> "JC" == Jeremy Cline writes: JC> The effort would be a 1-2 line change in the-new-hotness, and JC> distributing the config to each package repository (some proven JC> packager could do this easily). Well that seems easy enough. We still need the repo for the bugzilla assignee override thi

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 16:20, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > [.all the comments.] > > All replies are between "who cares?", "it is holy war/waste of time" to > something like "be standards compliant is important" .. this thread is > hilarious 😀 > I'm observing all the comments under my post and (with fu

Re: Fork a 119MB pagure project to updating monitoring?

On 3/25/19 1:55 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: "KF" == Kevin Fenzi writes: KF> Well, I find it unfortunate, does that count? :) It is unfortunate, but note that it's unfortunate simply because of our procedures. Certainly it would be nice if the functionality for making new branches and cha

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

[.all the comments.] All replies are between "who cares?", "it is holy war/waste of time" to something like "be standards compliant is important" .. this thread is hilarious 😀 I'm observing all the comments under my post and (with full respect to all of you guys) looks like all of you guys are *wr

F31 Self-Contained Change proposal: Include several modules in the EFI build of Grub2 for security use-cases

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Include_security_modules_in_efi_Grub2 == Summary == Include Grub's "verify," "cryptodisk" and "luks" modules (and if necessary, relevant "gcry" modules) in grubx64.efi of the 'grub2-efi-x64' package. == Owner == * Name: [[User:pjones| Peter Jones]] * Email:

Re: Fork a 119MB pagure project to updating monitoring?

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 8:56 PM Richard Shaw wrote: > > Other than having it as a direct option in src.fp.org I think being part of a > special file in git would be next best. Accessing such a simple file (probably YAML? it seems to be en vogue right now ...) should be straightforward too, since

Re: Fork a 119MB pagure project to updating monitoring?

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 12:27 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > Can you file an issue or PR? > https://github.com/fedora-infra/the-new-hotness/issues Filed an issue but there were quite a few some going back to 2015... Is it being actively maintained? Thanks, Richard __

Re: Fork a 119MB pagure project to updating monitoring?

Other than having it as a direct option in src.fp.org I think being part of a special file in git would be next best. Thanks, Richard ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.

Re: Fork a 119MB pagure project to updating monitoring?

> "KF" == Kevin Fenzi writes: KF> Well, I find it unfortunate, does that count? :) It is unfortunate, but note that it's unfortunate simply because of our procedures. Certainly it would be nice if the functionality for making new branches and changing monitoring and some bugzilla settings w

Re: Bugzilla (?) component for Fedora cloud images

* Kevin Fenzi: > On 3/25/19 12:32 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: >> This bug >> >> >> >> is actually a documentation/configuration issue in the Fedora Cloud >> images. However, I can't find a Bugzilla component for these images or >> their docu

Re: Bugzilla (?) component for Fedora cloud images

On 3/25/19 12:32 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > This bug > > > > is actually a documentation/configuration issue in the Fedora Cloud > images. However, I can't find a Bugzilla component for these images or > their documentation. Where should

Re: Fork a 119MB pagure project to updating monitoring?

On 3/20/19 7:27 AM, Richard Shaw wrote: > Am I the only person that finds this silly? Well, I find it unfortunate, does that count? :) > Infra things aside, is it planned to have this functionality in > src.fedoraproject.org? Not that I know of. The problem is that src.fedoraproject.org is a pag

Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2019-03-25)

= #fedora-meeting-1: FESCO (2019-03-25) = Meeting started by zbyszek at 15:00:10 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2019-03-25/fesco.2019-03-25-15.00.log.html . Meeting s

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 4:57 PM Japheth Cleaver wrote: > > On 3/25/2019 8:02 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Mon, 2019-03-25 at 12:59 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > > And since RPM appears to be configurable for the > default interpreter, have it use /usr/bin/bash by default. > > TBH, it seem

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 4:27 PM Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 11:18, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > > On 3/25/19 8:02 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > On Mon, 2019-03-25 at 12:59 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > > >> And since RPM appears to be configurable for the > > >> defa

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 10:27 AM wrote: On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 08:16:43 -0700 Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On 3/25/19 8:02 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Mon, 2019-03-25 at 12:59 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > >> And since RPM appears to be configurable for the > >> default interpreter, have it use

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

On 3/25/2019 8:02 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Mon, 2019-03-25 at 12:59 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: And since RPM appears to be configurable for the default interpreter, have it use /usr/bin/bash by default. TBH, it seems to me reasonable that we just do this. If our position is that we a

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > explicit in this way instead of having the default be sh, but then tell > > people sh must be bash? > > Doesn't bash behave slightly differently when invoked as 'sh' ? bash behaviour has changed [1] over time --- /bin/sh is fixed in behaviour It is p

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 11:18, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On 3/25/19 8:02 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Mon, 2019-03-25 at 12:59 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > >> And since RPM appears to be configurable for the > >> default interpreter, have it use /usr/bin/bash by default. > > > > TBH, it seem

Re: New member on the block; Introducing Apprise

Ankur, Thank you for your email! I look forward to helping out where I can :) Chris On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 10:47 AM Ankur Sinha wrote: > On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 21:39:22 -0400, Chris wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > Hi Chris! > > I didn't see anyone reply to your e-mail, so I thought I'd drop a word

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

On 3/25/19 8:02 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2019-03-25 at 12:59 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: >> And since RPM appears to be configurable for the >> default interpreter, have it use /usr/bin/bash by default. > > TBH, it seems to me reasonable that we just do this. > > If our position i

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

On Mon, 2019-03-25 at 12:59 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > And since RPM appears to be configurable for the > default interpreter, have it use /usr/bin/bash by default. TBH, it seems to me reasonable that we just do this. If our position is that we actually expect Fedora package scriptlets to

HEADS UP: PyYAML 5.1 in all Fedoras

PyYAML was updated to 5.1 in all Fedoras (rawhide, branched and stable). Most significant change is a new warning that can bit you is you treat warnings as errors. Please read https://msg.pyyaml.org/load for full details about this. tl;dr: Use of yaml.load() without specifying the Loader par

Re: New member on the block; Introducing Apprise

On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 21:39:22 -0400, Chris wrote: > Hi everyone, Hi Chris! I didn't see anyone reply to your e-mail, so I thought I'd drop a word :) > > > I believe i may need a sponsor too; not sure. From https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687178, I see that you have now been spons

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

* Stephen John Smoogen: > My very hazy memory of UsrMove was that one of the arguments was that > we were behind some other distros on this, and once again not "First". Huh. That surprises me. > I think the issue is that many of us look at the GNU/Linux ecosystem > in different ways. There is

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

On 3/25/2019 5:12 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: Fedora is so different from other GNU/Linux systems these days, so I'm not sure if *any* recommendation to encourage portability (at the cost of convenience to Fedora developers or users) makes sense anymore.

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 02:06:31PM +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 1:12 PM Florian Weimer wrote: > > > > * Dridi Boukelmoune: > > > > > This is the kind of spec that leads to spoiled upstreams putting > > > /bin/sh in shebangs and scratching their heads when they get bug

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 09:19, Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Stephen John Smoogen: > > > On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 08:13, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> > >> * Dridi Boukelmoune: > >> > >> > This is the kind of spec that leads to spoiled upstreams putting > >> > /bin/sh in shebangs and scratching their hea

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

* Stephen John Smoogen: > On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 08:13, Florian Weimer wrote: >> >> * Dridi Boukelmoune: >> >> > This is the kind of spec that leads to spoiled upstreams putting >> > /bin/sh in shebangs and scratching their heads when they get bug >> > reports for stricter systems... >> > >> > I'

Review swaps (Golang packages)

Hello, I'd like some help to review my packages, I'll review anything in exchange: Review Request: golang-github-anacrolix-dms - A UPnP DLNA Digital Media Server that includes basic video transcoding https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684956 Review Request: golang-github-mattn-pointer

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

> > > Fedora is based on GNU tools versus strict POSIX compliant ones. As > > > such, packagers can expect that /bin/sh is /bin/bash, /bin/awk is > > > /bin/gawk, /bin/cc is /bin/gcc ad naseum. This means that unless > > > specified elsewhere that a 'bashism', 'gawkism', 'gcc-ism' is not to > > > b

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 1:12 PM Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Dridi Boukelmoune: > > > This is the kind of spec that leads to spoiled upstreams putting > > /bin/sh in shebangs and scratching their heads when they get bug > > reports for stricter systems... > > > > I'd be happier if Fedora was not pa

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 08:13, Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Dridi Boukelmoune: > > > This is the kind of spec that leads to spoiled upstreams putting > > /bin/sh in shebangs and scratching their heads when they get bug > > reports for stricter systems... > > > > I'd be happier if Fedora was not part

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

* Dridi Boukelmoune: > This is the kind of spec that leads to spoiled upstreams putting > /bin/sh in shebangs and scratching their heads when they get bug > reports for stricter systems... > > I'd be happier if Fedora was not part of the problem and maintainers > were encouraged to figure out the

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 08:02, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > > > Try 1 at specification: > > > > Fedora is based on GNU tools versus strict POSIX compliant ones. As > > such, packagers can expect that /bin/sh is /bin/bash, /bin/awk is > > /bin/gawk, /bin/cc is /bin/gcc ad naseum. This means that unles

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

> Try 1 at specification: > > Fedora is based on GNU tools versus strict POSIX compliant ones. As > such, packagers can expect that /bin/sh is /bin/bash, /bin/awk is > /bin/gawk, /bin/cc is /bin/gcc ad naseum. This means that unless > specified elsewhere that a 'bashism', 'gawkism', 'gcc-ism' is no

Re: [modularity] Bringing order to the confusing module stream and profile names

Thanks all for the input. I've made a specific (quite short) proposal [1] for the common streams and profiles including their names. We'll discuss this tomorrow at the Modularity Team meeting (Tuesday 3 PM GMT #fedora-meeting-3). [1] https://pagure.io/modularity/issue/128 On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 a

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 06:34, Japheth Cleaver wrote: > > On 3/25/2019 2:46 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le 2019-03-25 09:53, Jan Pokorný a écrit : > > > >> Good point, and that's something capable of making upstream > >> maintenance cumbersome at times (sed is a common pet peeve), > >> but that'

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

On 3/25/2019 2:46 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Le 2019-03-25 09:53, Jan Pokorný a écrit : Good point, and that's something capable of making upstream maintenance cumbersome at times (sed is a common pet peeve), but that's an order of magnitude more demanding level when it comes to portability, an

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

Le 2019-03-25 09:53, Jan Pokorný a écrit : Good point, and that's something capable of making upstream maintenance cumbersome at times (sed is a common pet peeve), but that's an order of magnitude more demanding level when it comes to portability, and with Fedora settled firmly just around GNU a

gegl04 update in rawhide and f30

Hi, new upstream release of gegl04 is now available in rawhide and I am going to push it to f30 as well. In this update, libgegl-0.4.so.0 will point to libgegl-0.4.so.0.414.0, instead of libgegl-0.4.so.0.412.0 List of affected packages (based on dnf -C repoquery --alldeps --whatrequires gegl04

Schedule for Monday's FESCo Meeting (2019-03-25)

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo meeting Monday at 15:00UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto or run: date -d '2019-03-25 15:00 UTC' Links to all issues to be

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

On 22/03/19 19:17 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 6:04 PM Japheth Cleaver > wrote: >> IMO the situation that we're in now ("Assume you're running in >> bash, but called as -/bin/sh") is a worst-of-both-worlds middle >> ground, somewhat akin to mandating webpages be writt

Re: Is SELinux enforcing on the koji builders?

Dne 25. 03. 19 v 4:26 John M. Harris, Jr. napsal(a): > What is the reason for builders running permissive, rather than with a > tailored targeted policy? Technical details from Mock POV: When Mock install the chroot using: dnf --installroot=/var/lib/mock/fedora-29-x86_64-bootstrap/root/

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

Dne 22. 03. 19 v 18:03 Japheth Cleaver napsal(a): > RPM should IMHO indicate scriptlets are to be written in Bourne shell, give a > 'SHOULD'-level recommendation for > POSIX-correctness, and provide a mechanism for distros to override that > default. BTW any maintainer can easily indicate that b

Bugzilla (?) component for Fedora cloud images

This bug is actually a documentation/configuration issue in the Fedora Cloud images. However, I can't find a Bugzilla component for these images or their documentation. Where should I reassign/report this? Thanks, Florian