Re: Orphaned packages to be retired (~400 during this week)

2019-09-09 Thread Julian Sikorski
W dniu 10.09.2019 o 06:47, Raphael Groner pisze: > Hi, > >> My package requires libxslt. > > You're obviously not alone with this issue. The better question is *why* the > package as a commonly used library got orphaned, propably silently without > warning (at least I can not find any

Re: Orphaned packages to be retired (~400 during this week)

2019-09-09 Thread Raphael Groner
Hi, > My package requires libxslt. You're obviously not alone with this issue. The better question is *why* the package as a commonly used library got orphaned, propably silently without warning (at least I can not find any announcement, officially). Regards Raphael

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread John M. Harris Jr.
On Monday, September 9, 2019 12:44:42 PM MST DJ Delorie wrote: > "vvs vvs" writes: > > > Ok, now I see that Fedora is just for activists. If I'm not one of > > them then I don't deserve any possibility to use it and should blame > > myself. Thanks for explaining it to me. > > > I think you're

Re: [EXT] Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread John M. Harris Jr.
On Monday, September 9, 2019 1:00:51 PM MST Anderson, Charles R wrote: > On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 07:57:20PM -, vvs vvs wrote: > > > Well, thanks for sharing. > > > > I'm not complaining that nobody wants to fix things for me. I'm > > complaining because there is no possibility to fix things

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread John M. Harris Jr.
On Monday, September 9, 2019 12:09:49 PM MST vvs vvs wrote: > Ok, now I see that Fedora is just for activists. If I'm not one of them then > I don't deserve any possibility to use it and should blame myself. Thanks > for explaining it to me. Please don't let the hostilities of this list get to

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread John M. Harris Jr.
On Monday, September 9, 2019 11:58:08 AM MST vvs vvs wrote: > I would argue that it might be difficult to distinguish work needed to find > out if it was i686 specific when there already is similar bug on x86_64. > Also, it's difficult to rate bug importance for most users. As I've already > said

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread John M. Harris Jr.
On Monday, September 9, 2019 8:36:45 AM MST vvs vvs wrote: > There is no either right or wrong stance here. We are discussing possible > alternatives to "just drop it" attitude. > What work should be done? Please, be more specific. Right now I'm running a > i686 userland and it works. If I would

Re: translucent gnome top bar gone in F31?

2019-09-09 Thread John M. Harris Jr.
On Monday, September 9, 2019 8:51:48 AM MST Tomasz Torcz wrote: > On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 04:39:47AM -0700, John M. Harris Jr. wrote: > > > > > > > > > This is precisely the issue with GNOME entirely. It assumes the user > > > > shouldn't > > > > have a choice, that some designers know best. >

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread John M. Harris Jr.
On Monday, September 9, 2019 10:29:23 AM MST Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 14:52:07 -, > vvs vvs wrote: > > >May be there are more interested people that we know, but they are not > >reading that list. There will just be just every man for himself and > >Fedora has

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread John M. Harris Jr.
On Monday, September 9, 2019 6:42:35 AM MST Solomon Peachy wrote: > On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 06:22:46AM -0700, John M. Harris Jr. wrote: > > The system I'm sending this email from only has 4 GiB of memory in > > total. Does that mean that this system makes ASLR completely > > ineffective? Should

Re: Orphaned packages to be retired (~400 during this week)

2019-09-09 Thread Tony Breeds
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 11:49:17PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > 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: >

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Modularity Team (weekly)

2019-09-09 Thread nils
Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: Modularity Team (weekly) on 2019-09-10 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

[389-devel] 389 DS nightly 2019-09-10 - 95% PASS

2019-09-09 Thread vashirov
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2019/09/10/report-389-ds-base-1.4.2.0-20190909git041f71c.fc30.x86_64.html ___ 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: Orphaned packages to be retired (~400 during this week)

2019-09-09 Thread Gwyn Ciesla via devel
I filed an issue offering to take this and a few others. Sent from ProtonMail mobile \ Original Message On Sep 9, 2019, 7:31 PM, < mcatanz...@gnome.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 4:49 PM, Miro Hrončok > <[mhron...@redhat.com][mhroncok_redhat.com]> > wrote: > >

Re: Orphaned packages to be retired (~400 during this week)

2019-09-09 Thread Adam Williamson
On Tue, 2019-09-10 at 02:41 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Miro Hrončok wrote: > > openvswitch aconole, chrisw, orphan, 0 weeks ago > > tgraf, tredaell > > This one is a dependency of NetworkManager, so surely it should not go away. > (Or is

Re: Fedora-Rawhide-20190909.n.1 compose check report

2019-09-09 Thread Adam Williamson
On Mon, 2019-09-09 at 14:14 +, Fedora compose checker wrote: > No missing expected images. > > Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check! > 21 of 45 required tests failed, 19 results missing > openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING** > below > Unsatisfied

Re: Orphaned packages to be retired (~400 during this week)

2019-09-09 Thread Kevin Kofler
Miro Hrončok wrote: > openvswitch aconole, chrisw, orphan, 0 weeks ago > tgraf, tredaell This one is a dependency of NetworkManager, so surely it should not go away. (Or is the plan to drop support for it from NM?) So can either one of the

Re: Orphaned packages to be retired (~400 during this week)

2019-09-09 Thread mcatanzaro
On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 4:49 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote: libxslt orphan, veillard 0 weeks ago Looks pretty important, any takers? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread Samuel Sieb
On 9/9/19 3:35 PM, vvs vvs wrote: I didn't answered your other question because I've answered the same question several times already. Yes, I have a use cases where I'll get a severe performance hit if I was not careful. And this is related to available memory and swapping. And I can't afford

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread Josh Stone
On 9/9/19 3:35 PM, vvs vvs wrote: > So, you are insisting that Koji just doesn't work without any assistance? And > that it's impossible to build a separate i686 repository without affecting > all others? We used to build secondary architectures separately, using koji-shadow to chase the

[Bug 1748169] perl-MCE-1.847 is available

2019-09-09 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748169 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from

[Bug 1750303] Upgrade perl-Module-Metadata to 1.000037

2019-09-09 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750303 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #3 from

[Bug 1750082] perl-Archive-Zip-1.65 is available

2019-09-09 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750082 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #2 from

[Bug 1749912] perl-Test-Timer-2.11 is available

2019-09-09 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1749912 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #2 from

[Bug 1748740] perl-MCE-1.848 is available

2019-09-09 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748740 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from

[Bug 1750488] perl-MCE-1.850 is available

2019-09-09 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750488 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #2 from

[Bug 1750301] Upgrade perl-MCE-Shared to 1.849

2019-09-09 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750301 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #3 from

[Bug 1750227] perl-MCE-1.849 is available

2019-09-09 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750227 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #2 from

Re: Orphaned packages to be retired (~400 during this week)

2019-09-09 Thread Dan Čermák
Elliott Sales de Andrade writes: > On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 18:02, David Sommerseth wrote: >> >> On 09/09/2019 23:49, Miro Hrončok wrote: >> > 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

[389-devel] Re: Please review: 50584, 49212 - docker healthcheck and configuration

2019-09-09 Thread William Brown
Reminder to review this please! > On 5 Sep 2019, at 08:55, William Brown wrote: > > https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/50584 > > https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/49212 > > https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/50585 > > Thanks! > > -- > Sincerely, > > William >

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread vvs vvs
Oh, brother... So, you are insisting that Koji just doesn't work without any assistance? And that it's impossible to build a separate i686 repository without affecting all others? And that you can't exclude that architecture for a specific package? If that's the case then it's very different

Re: Orphaned packages to be retired (~400 during this week)

2019-09-09 Thread Michael Cronenworth
On 9/9/19 4:49 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote: libxslt orphan, veillard 0 weeks ago This is a big one... @Daniel, can you take it over as primary maintainer? Thanks, Michael ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To

Re: Orphaned packages to be retired (~400 during this week)

2019-09-09 Thread Elliott Sales de Andrade
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 18:02, David Sommerseth wrote: > > On 09/09/2019 23:49, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > 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

Re: Orphaned packages to be retired (~400 during this week)

2019-09-09 Thread David Sommerseth
On 09/09/2019 23:49, Miro Hrončok wrote: > 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: >

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread Samuel Sieb
On 9/9/19 2:15 PM, vvs vvs wrote: I said it already several times, that I don't need volunteers to fix things for me! I just need an already built repository which I could just use and fix things myself if needed. But Fedora is refusing to provide such repository which was built automatically

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread vvs vvs
And if I don't use those packages, then why should I be unable to use everything else just because there are some small problems? Especially because there are not much users of that architecture anyway. That happens all the time already and I see no big problem with that. If these packages

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread vvs vvs
And why people are not reading all the answers? That was a rhethorical question. I said it already several times, that I don't need volunteers to fix things for me! I just need an already built repository which I could just use and fix things myself if needed. But Fedora is refusing to provide

Intent to deprecate clalsadrv

2019-09-09 Thread Guido Aulisi
I'm going to deprecate clalsadrv, because it has been deprecated and replaced by zita-alsa-pcmi upstream. Nothing depends on it in rawhide: dnf --disablerepo='*' --enablerepo=rawhide --enablerepo=rawhide-source repoquery --whatdepends clalsadrv --alldeps reports only

Re: [EXT] Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread vvs vvs
And I thought that should be obvious, silly me. Just kidding. Of course I would do it if there were no better choice. I'm just struggling to find out if there is no other possibility whatsoever. There might be reasons why Fedora is just unable to keep it updated that I don't know. And of course

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread Gordon Messmer
On 9/9/19 12:47 PM, vvs vvs wrote: I don't even know anyone whom I could address. I'm already spent too much time on that list trying to convince everyone that I'm ready to take all the burden of using unsupported packages, but was told that it's against Fedora policies. What much could I do?

Re: [EXT] Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread Anderson, Charles R
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 07:57:20PM -, vvs vvs wrote: > Well, thanks for sharing. > > I'm not complaining that nobody wants to fix things for me. I'm complaining > because there is no possibility to fix things myself. After removing i686 > repository I'm either should start building it

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread vvs vvs
Well, thanks for sharing. I'm not complaining that nobody wants to fix things for me. I'm complaining because there is no possibility to fix things myself. After removing i686 repository I'm either should start building it myself or switch to another distribution. I'm not trying to hurt

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread vvs vvs
I don't even know anyone whom I could address. I'm already spent too much time on that list trying to convince everyone that I'm ready to take all the burden of using unsupported packages, but was told that it's against Fedora policies. What much could I do? As for using i686 userland just

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread DJ Delorie
"vvs vvs" writes: > Ok, now I see that Fedora is just for activists. If I'm not one of > them then I don't deserve any possibility to use it and should blame > myself. Thanks for explaining it to me. I think you're overreacting a bit, but there is some truth in this. Fedora is created and

pghmcfc pushed to perl-MCE-Shared (f31). "Update to 1.850 (..more)"

2019-09-09 Thread notifications
Notification time stamped 2019-09-09 19:24:42 UTC From 795892f48d394f8f7694c1b3e977fc933863b269 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Paul Howarth Date: Sep 09 2019 19:17:02 + Subject: Update to 1.850 - New upstream release 1.850 - More safety around clean-up code in MCE::Shared::Server -

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread vvs vvs
No, just a memory bound behavior. It will eat all memory that you throw on it and one gigabyte just for starters. After that it will start swapping but some careful optimization management can avoid that. But if it starts swapping there will be a major performance hit. And it isn't mission

Fedora 32 Self-Contained Change proposal: Jekyll 4

2019-09-09 Thread Ben Cotton
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Jekyll4 == Summary == This Change will bring the latest version of Jekyll, 4.0.0 (or later), to fedora. It includes minor backwards-incompatible changes, but also brings a lot of clean-ups and bug fixes compared to the 3.8 branch. == Owner == * Name:

Re: Fedora 32 Self-Contained Change proposal: Track Changes in Taiga

2019-09-09 Thread Ben Cotton
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 4:33 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/fedora-change-wrangler > After working to implement this proposal over the summer, we have discovered two issues with the Taiga UI that make this proposal more annoying to community contributors than I'm

Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Firewalld Default to nftables

2019-09-09 Thread Ben Cotton
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/firewalld_default_to_nftables == Summary == This change will toggle the default firewalld backend from iptables to nftables. All of firewalld's primitives will use nftables while direct rules continue to use iptables/ebtables. == Owner == * Name:

Fedora 32 Self-Contained Change proposal: Jekyll 4

2019-09-09 Thread Ben Cotton
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Jekyll4 == Summary == This Change will bring the latest version of Jekyll, 4.0.0 (or later), to fedora. It includes minor backwards-incompatible changes, but also brings a lot of clean-ups and bug fixes compared to the 3.8 branch. == Owner == * Name:

Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Firewalld Default to nftables

2019-09-09 Thread Ben Cotton
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/firewalld_default_to_nftables == Summary == This change will toggle the default firewalld backend from iptables to nftables. All of firewalld's primitives will use nftables while direct rules continue to use iptables/ebtables. == Owner == * Name:

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread Samuel Sieb
On 9/9/19 11:15 AM, vvs vvs wrote: BTW, that just means that Fedora is refusing to provide much needed services even to a people who are ready to accept most of that support burden themselves and I'm one of them. I don't understand how you keep completely missing the point. No one is

[Bug 1750488] perl-MCE-1.850 is available

2019-09-09 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750488 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Comment #1 from

pghmcfc pushed to perl-MCE-Shared (master). "Update to 1.850 (..more)"

2019-09-09 Thread notifications
Notification time stamped 2019-09-09 19:17:50 UTC From 795892f48d394f8f7694c1b3e977fc933863b269 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Paul Howarth Date: Sep 09 2019 19:17:02 + Subject: Update to 1.850 - New upstream release 1.850 - More safety around clean-up code in MCE::Shared::Server -

Re: Fedora 32 Self-Contained Change proposal: Track Changes in Taiga

2019-09-09 Thread Ben Cotton
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 4:33 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/fedora-change-wrangler > After working to implement this proposal over the summer, we have discovered two issues with the Taiga UI that make this proposal more annoying to community contributors than I'm

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread vvs vvs
I don't have time to search for it right now, but there is a law which states that no matter how much resources you already get they will be stretched thin anyway. I did upgrades many times but every time it was proved that it still wasn't enough. It's a useless rat race. We have much more

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread Samuel Sieb
On 9/9/19 11:47 AM, Martin Kolman wrote: Yeah, I've recently switched an old Atom A330[0] based system[1] with 2 GB of RAM (that's the maximum it supports) from a 32-bit to a 64-bit based distro (after finding out it can actually run 64-bit code). It has been running just fine and actually

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 19:01:59 -, vvs vvs wrote: No, I don't think so. I'm using some (non Fedora related) applications which use every bit of available memory. It's a bit stressed just as it is, but losing additional couple of megabytes for no useful reason will be too much a hit.

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread Solomon Peachy
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 07:09:49PM -, vvs vvs wrote: > Ok, now I see that Fedora is just for activists. If I'm not one of > them then I don't deserve any possibility to use it and should blame > myself. Thanks for explaining it to me. If I may quote from the landing page on

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread vvs vvs
Ok, now I see that Fedora is just for activists. If I'm not one of them then I don't deserve any possibility to use it and should blame myself. Thanks for explaining it to me. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread Solomon Peachy
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 07:01:59PM -, vvs vvs wrote: > No, I don't think so. I'm using some (non Fedora related) applications > which use every bit of available memory. It's a bit stressed just as > it is, but losing additional couple of megabytes for no useful reason > will be too much a

Re: translucent gnome top bar gone in F31?

2019-09-09 Thread Samuel Sieb
On 9/9/19 4:39 AM, John M. Harris Jr. wrote: on my RHEL 7 deployments, where some of my users prefer GNOME), and where users request that I install gnome-tweak-tool for them so that they can make basic preference changes which just aren't available otherwise. Just in case you aren't aware,

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread Solomon Peachy
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 08:47:24PM +0200, Martin Kolman wrote: > Yeah, I've recently switched an old Atom A330[0] based system[1] with > 2 GB of RAM (that's the maximum it supports) from a 32-bit to a 64-bit > based distro (after finding out it can actually run 64-bit code). It > has been

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread Kevin Fenzi
In the interests of not making this thread a bunch longer, I am just going to answer a number of things here in one place. On 9/7/19 11:44 AM, Victor V. Shkamerda wrote: > I totally agree with that view. Making such decisions without public > discussion is not respecting user's freedom of

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread vvs vvs
No, I don't think so. I'm using some (non Fedora related) applications which use every bit of available memory. It's a bit stressed just as it is, but losing additional couple of megabytes for no useful reason will be too much a hit. And I can't change their code, because that codebase is big

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread vvs vvs
I would argue that it might be difficult to distinguish work needed to find out if it was i686 specific when there already is similar bug on x86_64. Also, it's difficult to rate bug importance for most users. As I've already said that I was completely satisfied with the status quo and it was a

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread Martin Kolman
On Mon, 2019-09-09 at 13:27 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 18:06:02 -, > vvs vvs wrote: > > Yes, thanks. Sadly, I see that I have no choice but to switch to another > > distribution even though I'm using 64-bit > > CPU. It's just that the memory can't be upgraded

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread Solomon Peachy
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 06:23:18PM -, vvs vvs wrote: > But how do you now that I'm not fixed it myself and forgot to post on > that list? Or that I'm even just used to live with that bug and just > don't want to spend all my time chasing it? It's simple; if you (and everyone else) doesn't

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 18:23:18 -, vvs vvs wrote: Anyway, I'm not expecting that something will change because of that discussion. It is just bad that the interests of users are of a lower priority then some purely bureaucratic reasons. It isn't happening because of bureaucratic

Re: bodhi branched updates: how many days until stable - 3, 7, 14?

2019-09-09 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On 9/9/19 7:52 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 09. 09. 19 16:40, Fabio Valentini wrote: >> Did some policy change occur which I am not aware of, or is bodhi just >> misconfigured again for branched? > > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8161 > Turns out this was a typo in a variable.

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 18:06:02 -, vvs vvs wrote: Yes, thanks. Sadly, I see that I have no choice but to switch to another distribution even though I'm using 64-bit CPU. It's just that the memory can't be upgraded and buying new computer just to keep running Fedora is not viable. It's

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread vvs vvs
But how do you now that I'm not fixed it myself and forgot to post on that list? Or that I'm even just used to live with that bug and just don't want to spend all my time chasing it? I'm pretty sure that I can point point out bugs in official Fedora repository that were dormant for several

Need package review to unretire fastbit (a C++ lib)

2019-09-09 Thread Philip Kovacs via devel
I am a little beyond the 8-week window for the "no-hassle" unretire, so I need a new review for the fastbit packagethat I retired a few months ago.   It's already in the Fedora git tree.  I have it building cleanly again and would liketo resurrect it.  I have gone over the review items locally,

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 17:55:06 -, vvs vvs wrote: First of all thanks for the link. It just proves that the SIG's expectations were too high. If I understand it all correctly, the main reason to drop i686 repo was the mailing list inactivity? Is that right? So everyone interested in

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread vvs vvs
Thanks for the suggestion. But I'm sure that I don't need so much bureaucracy just to run my little errands. If that's how Fedora is operated, than it won't make much difference for me to just using another distribution. BTW, that just means that Fedora is refusing to provide much needed

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread Solomon Peachy
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 05:55:06PM -, vvs vvs wrote: > If I understand it all correctly, the main reason to drop i686 repo > was the mailing list inactivity? Is that right? So everyone interested > in that architecture is now deprived from using it on Fedora because > some formalities were

Re: libb2-0.98.1 on Rawhide

2019-09-09 Thread Felix Schwarz
Am 09.09.19 um 18:39 schrieb Antonio Trande: > New `libb2-0.98.1` will be released by 10 days on Rawhide. > Packages currently involved: > > $ repoquery --release rawhide --disablerepo=* --enablerepo=fedora-source > --enablerepo=updates-source --whatrequires libb2-devel > > Last metadata

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread vvs vvs
Yes, thanks. Sadly, I see that I have no choice but to switch to another distribution even though I'm using 64-bit CPU. It's just that the memory can't be upgraded and buying new computer just to keep running Fedora is not viable. It's 12 years old, is in good condition and I'm completely

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread vvs vvs
First of all thanks for the link. It just proves that the SIG's expectations were too high. If I understand it all correctly, the main reason to drop i686 repo was the mailing list inactivity? Is that right? So everyone interested in that architecture is now deprived from using it on Fedora

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 14:52:07 -, vvs vvs wrote: May be there are more interested people that we know, but they are not reading that list. There will just be just every man for himself and Fedora has failed to recognize that. This requires time and effort too. Nobody will appear just

[Bug 1750488] New: perl-MCE-1.850 is available

2019-09-09 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750488 Bug ID: 1750488 Summary: perl-MCE-1.850 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-MCE Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

Re: Self Introduction: alciregi

2019-09-09 Thread Guido Aulisi
Il giorno lun, 09/09/2019 alle 19.02 +0200, alcir...@gmail.com ha scritto: > Hello. > My name is Alessio. > FAS: alciregi Welcome to Fedora... > I work as an unpretentious sysadmin, mostly as the "IT guy". > I've been a long-time user/administrator of *nix systems, starting > with > Red Hat

Intent to unretire ladspa-swh-plugins

2019-09-09 Thread Guido Aulisi
I'd like to unretire ladspa-swh-plugins in rahwide, f31 and f30, because it is a dependency of some packages I maintain: ams jamin It's a dependency of pulseeffects too. I will file a review request ASAP, I have already made a scratch build in rawhide:

Self Introduction: alciregi

2019-09-09 Thread alciregi
Hello. My name is Alessio. FAS: alciregi I work as an unpretentious sysadmin, mostly as the "IT guy". I've been a long-time user/administrator of *nix systems, starting with Red Hat Linux 6 in 1999. I've been a user of other distributions as well. Yeah, just a user. After some years of distro

Re: bodhi branched updates: how many days until stable - 3, 7, 14?

2019-09-09 Thread Fabio Valentini
On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 4:52 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 09. 09. 19 16:40, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > Did some policy change occur which I am not aware of, or is bodhi just > > misconfigured again for branched? > > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8161 Ah, so I remembered

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread Tomasz Torcz
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 03:36:45PM -, vvs vvs wrote: > > What work should be done? Please, be more specific. Deja vu… please read https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1737 (Proposal: i686 SIG needs to be functional by F27 release date or we drop i686 kernel from F28) with all the links. --

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread Jiri Eischmann
vvs vvs píše v Po 09. 09. 2019 v 15:44 +: > I'm happy with any support no matter how it is defined. In fact I > didn't get very much support from Fedora either over more than 20 > years, so my expectations are quite low. You seem to have a rather narrow view of support. It's not just someone

libb2-0.98.1 on Rawhide

2019-09-09 Thread Antonio Trande
Hi all. New `libb2-0.98.1` will be released by 10 days on Rawhide. Packages currently involved: $ repoquery --release rawhide --disablerepo=* --enablerepo=fedora-source --enablerepo=updates-source --whatrequires libb2-devel Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:02 ago on lun 9 set 2019,

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread vvs vvs
No I didn't, but I must be sure that you speak on behalf of everyone before making my choices. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread vvs vvs
So, if I'd start to use Debian i686 instead of Fedora or will use ARM32 device instead of ARM64 the world will be a safer place? Also, I was told that maintaining i686 Fedora code base myself would be fine, but in the same time I'm told that it's not acceptable from the safety point of view.

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread Solomon Peachy
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 03:44:49PM -, vvs vvs wrote: > If there is something more relevant than freedom of choice, then there > is no point arguing further, because I value community relations over > any technical reasons. You seem to forget that "freedom of choice" also applies to those

Re: Packages with broken dependencies on Python 3.7

2019-09-09 Thread Ron Olson
swift-lang has been fixed with a patch and scratch builds on F32 build properly: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37348234 On 4 Sep 2019, at 17:39, Miro Hrončok wrote: Hello packagers! The following packages failed to build on Fedora 32 with Python 3.8 and they still

Re: translucent gnome top bar gone in F31?

2019-09-09 Thread Tomasz Torcz
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 04:39:47AM -0700, John M. Harris Jr. wrote: > > > > > > This is precisely the issue with GNOME entirely. It assumes the user > > > shouldn't > > > have a choice, that some designers know best. > > > > > > Yes, precisely *your* issue. I’d rather someone think for me as

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread vvs vvs
I'm happy with any support no matter how it is defined. In fact I didn't get very much support from Fedora either over more than 20 years, so my expectations are quite low. If there is something more relevant than freedom of choice, then there is no point arguing further, because I value

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20190909.n.1 changes

2019-09-09 Thread Fedora Rawhide Report
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20190908.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20190909.n.1 = SUMMARY = Added images:1 Dropped images: 8 Added packages: 5 Dropped packages:21 Upgraded packages: 101 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 88.39 MiB Size of dropped packages

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread vvs vvs
There is no either right or wrong stance here. We are discussing possible alternatives to "just drop it" attitude. What work should be done? Please, be more specific. Right now I'm running a i686 userland and it works. If I would be able to build the whole repository myself I'm pretty sure

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread Solomon Peachy
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 02:41:15PM -, vvs vvs wrote: > OTOH, if Debian has resources to maintain the support for at least > next five years it means one of two things: either they have more > resources than Fedora, or something is wrong with your assessment. Or (3) Debian defines "support"

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread Charalampos Stratakis
- Original Message - > From: "vvs vvs" > To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 4:52:07 PM > Subject: Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 > Repositories > > May be there are more interested people that we know, but they are not >

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

2019-09-09 Thread vvs vvs
I will do whatever I can and it's not much for ANY architecture, x86_64 is not an exception. That's because I'm not very young and have a lot of other more important activities which is not related to computers. That said, I'm not expecting very much in return either. If it would somehow work

[Bug 1750388] perl-Image-Sane-2 is available

2019-09-09 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750388 Upstream Release Monitoring changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|perl-Image-Sane-1 is|perl-Image-Sane-2 is

  1   2   >