Older Fedora AMIs to be deleted

Hi, There has been a huge backlog of the nightly Fedora AMIs. So, today I will be deleting kicking off the process to purge the older AMIs. The process that I would be following to delete the AMIs is: - The launch permission of the AMIs will be removed. - I'll wait for 20 days. This is the time p

Re: "Basic graphics mode" feature and criterion discussion

I don't know what it's like with GNOME, but running KDE spin with the compositor set to use XRender APIs, I have had no issues with various Nvidia cards both without their nasty proprietary code thrown into an otherwise pristine system. On March 26, 2019 7:13:18 PM EDT, Wolfgang Ulbrich wrote

Re: Is SELinux enforcing on the koji builders?

On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 9:26 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Nope. All builders are in permissive mode. Thanks for confirming. I am really puzzled. I can consistently get good builds in mock, across all arches I am able to test, and consistently get segfaults on every single arch when building in koji.

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

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 3:44 AM Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le 2019-03-25 22:47, Japheth Cleaver a écrit : > > If you can take a one-time hit to > > remove bashisms and get a 25-40% improvement, > > CPU time is cheap, packager time is not. Exchanging CPU time for "you > all should learn to write PO

Re: "Basic graphics mode" feature and criterion discussion

I noticed that with f30-beta-1.7 an installation with a 1030GT nvidia card is much improved. First time since more than 1 year that you can really use a livecd for installation without thinking ` better finishing the installation as far as possible`. Thanks a lot ajax. But honestly, for producti

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

On 3/26/2019 8:14 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Tue, 2019-03-26 at 09:08 -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 5:05 PM, Tomasz =?UTF-8?b?S8WCb2N6a28=?= wrote: [tkloczko@domek SPECS.fedora]$ rpm -E %_buildshell /bin/sh How can this discussion still be ongoing? Why not just

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

On 3/26/2019 10:57 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: You want something faster than bash – write something faster than bash with as expressive a syntax (and ideally the same syntax). Winning CPU time by consuming packager time is not going to work. This seems like it's begging the question. "The same

Re: "Basic graphics mode" feature and criterion discussion

My two cents: If there's a fallback option, and if the user selects it, they shouldn't end up in an unambiguous state. Right now we're seeing systems hanging. I'd rather see a crash than a hang where the user can't get to a shell, and sees no useful information on the screen that tells them why th

Re: "Basic graphics mode" feature and criterion discussion

On Tue, 2019-03-26 at 16:02 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: > So with the above caveat understood that "work correctly" has a bunch > of asterisks next to it and you will probably be able to tell that > you're using a fallback path, I don't think it's intrinsically less > likely that graphics fallback w

Re: "Basic graphics mode" feature and criterion discussion

On Tue, 2019-03-26 at 11:14 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > The justification for this is, I hope I am correctly representing all > views here (please say so if not), that this mechanism is both less > necessary (due to a general reduction in the amount of 'weird' graphics > hardware out there, an

Fedora 30-20190326.n.0 compose check report

Missing expected images: Atomichost raw-xz x86_64 Atomichost qcow2 x86_64 Failed openQA tests: 14/142 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm) ID: 372528 Test: x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/372528 ID: 372529 Test: x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_defa

Re: Packaging Question - Open Liberty

Hi,I have another packaging question about symlinks.We read in the guidelines that all jars and class files should go under %{_javadir} (/usr/share/java by default). We were initially thinking of symlinking all the jars and class files but due to our installation dir structure, it will be incredibl

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

On 3/26/19 5:36 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 09:37:26AM +0100, Michal Konecny wrote: On 25/03/19 21:23, Jeremy Cline wrote: 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 unfo

Re: "Basic graphics mode" feature and criterion discussion

On Tue, 2019-03-26 at 11:14 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > The justification for this is, I hope I am correctly representing all > views here (please say so if not), that this mechanism is both less > necessary (due to a general reduction in the amount of 'weird' graphics > hardware out there,

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

On 3/26/19 5:44 PM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: $ rpm --showrc | egrep -e "popd|pushd" This scriptlet of yours isn't posix compliant, either. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedorap

Fedora 30 compose report: 20190326.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-30-20190324.n.0 NEW: Fedora-30-20190326.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:3 Dropped images: 5 Added packages: 0 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 2 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 0 B Size of dropped packages:0 B Size of upgraded

"Basic graphics mode" feature and criterion discussion

Hi folks! So at last week's Fedora 30 Beta Go/No-Go meeting, it was decided that the Basic release criterion: "Boot menu contents The boot menu for all supported installer and live images should include an entry which causes both installation and the installed system to use a generic, highly com

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

Feel free to "fix" all the spec and macro code you want. As it is now and as it changes as people continuously rewrite and add to it. You'll find little sympathy to adopt a spec syntax less featured and convenient than the current one, in code that is largely not performance-sensitive. So as the i

Fedora 30 Beta 1.8 compose check report

No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 6/142 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm) ID: 372170 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso apps_startstop URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/372170 ID: 372190 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso apps_startstop URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/37219

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

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 16:44, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: [..] > If above is correct IMO collecting such files (it those files are really > needed and used) should be done outside of the scope of regular "rpmbuild > -ba". > Collecting and preserving some build logs always should be part of the > build

soname bump on libprojectM without announcement in rawhide

Sorry , I have updated libprojectM package with new autotools builds (developer changed etc). libprojectM was updated from 2.1.0 to 3.1.1rc3 in rawhide . dnf repoquery --available --whatrequires "libprojectM*" --alldeps --qf "%{sourcerpm}" | sed 's|\(-[^-]\+\)\{2\}src.rpm > > ' (...) cleme

soname bump on libprojectM with announcement in rawhide

Sorry , I have updated libprojectM package with new autotools builds (developer changed etc). libprojectM was updated from 2.1.0 to 3.1.1rc3 in rawhide . dnf repoquery --available --whatrequires "libprojectM*" --alldeps --qf "%{sourcerpm}" | sed 's|\(-[^-]\+\)\{2\}src.rpm ||' (...) clement

Re: Policy regarding redundant dependencies

Georg Sauthoff wrote: > Hello, > > when packaging a C/C++ program, the rpm automatic dependency feature > usually works well for shared libraries. > > That mean when program 'bar' needs libfoo-devel at build time it's > sufficient to add > > BuildRequires: libfoo-devel > > and I can omit >

Policy regarding redundant dependencies

Hello, when packaging a C/C++ program, the rpm automatic dependency feature usually works well for shared libraries. That mean when program 'bar' needs libfoo-devel at build time it's sufficient to add BuildRequires: libfoo-devel and I can omit Requires: libfoo because rpm automatical

Add internationalization support to "Command completed." string.

The patch is for the vte.sh of "vte-profile" package, I extracted the vte.sh from the vte-profile RPM package. Its gettext TEXTDOMAIN is vte-profile, 2 strings is able to translate and the patch has been tested with no problems. --- Below is the patch --- --- vte_original.sh 2019-03-05 05:49

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

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 15:42, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: [..] > > Japheth Cleaver explained why in response to me a couple of days ago: > > apparently changing it would also change the shell used for some > > scriptlets... > > He also posted this link: > http://web.archive.org/web/20150821020837/ht

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

On 3/26/2019 8:47 AM, Japheth Cleaver wrote: On 3/26/2019 8:14 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Tue, 2019-03-26 at 09:08 -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 5:05 PM, Tomasz =?UTF-8?b?S8WCb2N6a28=?= wrote: [tkloczko@domek SPECS.fedora]$ rpm -E %_buildshell /bin/sh How can

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

On 3/26/2019 9:04 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Le 2019-03-26 16:51, Japheth Cleaver a écrit : As far as actually making changes in specs, let's try addressing that separately and perhaps asynchronously. Most of the changes for things likely to run in scriptlets are probably just straight mechanic

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

Le 2019-03-26 16:51, Japheth Cleaver a écrit : As far as actually making changes in specs, let's try addressing that separately and perhaps asynchronously. Most of the changes for things likely to run in scriptlets are probably just straight mechanical replacements. (We won't know until someone

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

On 3/26/2019 5:24 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Le 2019-03-26 12:29, Dridi Boukelmoune a écrit : On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 8:43 AM Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Le 2019-03-25 22:47, Japheth Cleaver a écrit : > If you can take a one-time hit to > remove bashisms and get a 25-40% improvement, CPU time is

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

On 3/26/2019 8:14 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Tue, 2019-03-26 at 09:08 -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 5:05 PM, Tomasz =?UTF-8?b?S8WCb2N6a28=?= wrote: [tkloczko@domek SPECS.fedora]$ rpm -E %_buildshell /bin/sh How can this discussion still be ongoing? Why not just

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

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 4:15 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Tue, 2019-03-26 at 09:08 -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 5:05 PM, Tomasz =?UTF-8?b?S8WCb2N6a28=?= > > wrote: > > > [tkloczko@domek SPECS.fedora]$ rpm -E %_buildshell > > > /bin/sh > > > > How can this dis

[Test-Announce] Fedora 30 Candidate Beta-1.8 Available Now!

According to the schedule [1], Fedora 30 Candidate Beta-1.8 is now available for testing. Please help us complete all the validation testing! For more information on release validation testing, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan Test coverage information for the cu

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

On Tue, 2019-03-26 at 09:08 -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 5:05 PM, Tomasz =?UTF-8?b?S8WCb2N6a28=?= > wrote: > > [tkloczko@domek SPECS.fedora]$ rpm -E %_buildshell > > /bin/sh > > How can this discussion still be ongoing? Why not just change it to > /bin/bash and m

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

On 3/25/19 3:45 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: "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 th

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

On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 5:05 PM, Tomasz =?UTF-8?b?S8WCb2N6a28=?= wrote: [tkloczko@domek SPECS.fedora]$ rpm -E %_buildshell /bin/sh How can this discussion still be ongoing? Why not just change it to /bin/bash and move on? ___ devel mailing list --

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

Le 2019-03-26 14:16, Dridi Boukelmoune a écrit : I was rather thinking about all the damage made on the java ecosystem by the introduction of maven but fair enough. maven, while not ideal, is just a reflection of the Java community values SUN impulsed. I still remember when maven was introduc

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

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 01:33:15PM +0100, Michal Konecny wrote: > > > On 26/03/19 11:36, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 09:37:26AM +0100, Michal Konecny wrote: > > > > > > On 25/03/19 21:23, Jeremy Cline wrote: > > > > On 3/25/19 1:55 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > >

Re: New Repo failed with "The Pagure project already exists"

On Tuesday, 26 March 2019 12:32:02 CET Christophe de Dinechin wrote: > I’m very new to Fedora packaging. > > When I requested a repo for a new project I’m submitting called > “make-it-quick", I got the following response: “The Pagure project already > exists” (see https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-s

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

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 1:24 PM Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le 2019-03-26 12:29, Dridi Boukelmoune a écrit : > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 8:43 AM Nicolas Mailhot > > wrote: > >> > >> Le 2019-03-25 22:47, Japheth Cleaver a écrit : > >> > If you can take a one-time hit to > >> > remove bashisms and g

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

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 12:32, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: [..] > Packager time is not cheap, it's not inexhaustible, it runs out. Wasting > it on bashisms is not smart. > I like that conclusion because it is way better than all what I wrote. Thanks Nicolas for those two final sentences :) kloczek --

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

On 26/03/19 11:36, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 09:37:26AM +0100, Michal Konecny wrote: On 25/03/19 21:23, Jeremy Cline wrote: 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 unfor

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

Le 2019-03-26 12:29, Dridi Boukelmoune a écrit : On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 8:43 AM Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Le 2019-03-25 22:47, Japheth Cleaver a écrit : > If you can take a one-time hit to > remove bashisms and get a 25-40% improvement, CPU time is cheap, packager time is not. Exchanging CPU ti

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

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 08:57, Jonathan Wakely wrote: [..] > >What does this 42 means in this case? It means that during whole gcc build > >are repeated 42 times some subset of *autoconf tests*. How it was possible > >to loose that?!? 🤔 > >gcc is quite monolithic and it should have only one config

New Repo failed with "The Pagure project already exists"

I’m very new to Fedora packaging. When I requested a repo for a new project I’m submitting called “make-it-quick", I got the following response: “The Pagure project already exists” (see https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/10703). The sources at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/

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

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 8:43 AM Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le 2019-03-25 22:47, Japheth Cleaver a écrit : > > If you can take a one-time hit to > > remove bashisms and get a 25-40% improvement, > > CPU time is cheap, packager time is not. Exchanging CPU time for "you > all should learn to write PO

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

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 09:37:26AM +0100, Michal Konecny wrote: > > > On 25/03/19 21:23, Jeremy Cline wrote: > > 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 unfort

ACTION NEEDED: Orphaned packages to be retired (Java packages in 1 week)

The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life Note:

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

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 07:52, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: [..] > CPU time is cheap, packager time is not. Exchanging CPU time for "you > all should learn to write POSIX-only shell scripts" would be an awful > deal. I need more time. A year for the starter and I can pay good price .. Where I can make

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

On 25/03/19 22:40 +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: 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 s

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

On 25/03/19 21:23, Jeremy Cline wrote: 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 fun

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

On 25/03/19 20:58, Richard Shaw wrote: 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

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

Le 2019-03-25 22:47, Japheth Cleaver a écrit : If you can take a one-time hit to remove bashisms and get a 25-40% improvement, CPU time is cheap, packager time is not. Exchanging CPU time for "you all should learn to write POSIX-only shell scripts" would be an awful deal. The Java part of Fed