Re: Firefox on Fedora: No longer funny

Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org a écrit: Am Sonntag, den 09.10.2011, 12:58 +0200 schrieb drago01: How else would you install an extension globally for all users? Or automate the installation of the addon ( like cobbler/pxe installation ) I think for that, we need upstream to provide a way

Re: REVIEW/RFC: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/Updates_Policy_Draft

Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu writes: [...] On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 09:17:23 +0200 Dodji Seketeli do...@redhat.com wrote: Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca writes: Most of us KDE users want deliberate visible changes to the user. That's the point in having the latest version. Sorry

Re: Rawhide

Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com a écrit: Get a nice group of at least 10 or so folks who are active on this list to agree to run it full time on their main machine. Amen brother. Count me in that group if this ever happens. I already run rawhide on a dedicated box for daily duties like

Re: Rawhide

Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net a écrit: Le Lun 5 novembre 2012 10:45, Dodji Seketeli a écrit : Just having a dedicated Rawhide Swat Team of die hard volunteers who could spot issues early, file more bugs, gently push for fixes in Rawhide and last but not least build a kind

Re: Rawhide

Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com a écrit: On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 10:45:00 +0100 Dodji Seketeli do...@seketeli.org wrote: ...snip... Could we have a rawhide-list for this? I know fighting proliferation of mailing list is a good thing, but practically speaking, being able to quickly scan a mailing

Re: What would it take to make Software Collections work in Fedora?

Fernando Nasser fnas...@redhat.com a écrit: And _maintain_ them, with all security fixes. The problem with duplication is above all one of scalability of maintenance. Please, avoiding top-posting like this would be very welcome here. Otherwise, it is quite hard to know what you are replying

Re: Shall we modify '-g' to '-g3' to have gcc save the macro info?

Hello xining, xning xn...@redhat.com a écrit: Shall we should modify '-g' to '-g3' to have gcc save the macro info? So when we install *-debuginfo packages, we can look up a macro definition, just like we can look up a function definition. For what it's worth, I believe that would be useful,

[Rawhide] loadkeys broken (a.k.a your password is not recognized? Worry not)

Hello, After upgrading this box from F18 to Rawhide between yesterday night and today and tried several times to type my password to no avail, I realized the system (systemd actually) couldn't load my fr keymap. You can see something like this in the logs: $ loadkeys fr unknown keysym

Re: [rawhide] ideas to improve rawhide

Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com a écrit: modify yum-local to keep say 5 copies? (in case something hits the fan) Yeah, although you can always get them from koji. ... provided your Rawhide system is in good enough shape to reach koji. :) -- Dodji -- devel mailing list

Re: rawhide report: 20100208 changes

On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 02:19:41PM +, Rawhide Report wrote: geglmm-0.1.0-2.fc12.i686 requires libbabl-0.0.so.0 geglmm-0.1.0-2.fc12.x86_64 requires libbabl-0.0.so.0()(64bit) I have just rebuilt these, so it should hopefully be fixed in the next push.

Re: LD Changes To Implicit DSO Linking Update

Hello Roland, On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 05:37:13PM -0500, Roland Grunberg wrote: [...] Also, packages that have failed to build under these new changes can be found here : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DSOLinkBugs I have patched and re-built the ghex package, so it probably won't belong

Re: FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 01:23:21AM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: Speaking as someone who is still on F11, I want the latest software as long as it doesn't break anything, because most often there are new useful features in it. I think one of the problems is precisely that new

Re: Non-responsive maintainer: Dodji Seketeli

Darryl L. Pierce mcpie...@gmail.com a écrit: Hi, Dodji. It's now been two months since you said you were planning to test the latest version. Since then another version has been promoted to RC. Indeed. And I have been testing that 6.5.5 rc version. And it didn't eat any of my emails. I

Re: Non-responsive maintainer: Dodji Seketeli

Darryl L. Pierce mcpie...@gmail.com a écrit: [1]: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=466672 Installed and it works for me. OK. I had to add configuration options for certificate fingerprints and it's all good. Yeah, that option is mandatory with SSL now. +1 on the

Re: mpfr soname bump in rawhide

Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com writes: [...] The packages which depends on mpfr should be rebuild against the new versio. The list is: It would be much better to either do the rebuilds yourself or arrange a tag for the new soname and ask the packagers of the below packages to rebuild

Orphaning a few packages

Hello, I am orphaning the following packages: gedit-plugins (I don't own this one) geglmm marlin All the best. -- Dodji -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Unavailable Maintainer: Peter Gordon

Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com writes: [...] It seems that Peter has been unavailable for Fedora packaging work for a while now. [...] He maintains: [...] nemiver -- A GNOME C/C++ Debugger FWIW, I actively co-maintain this one. If Peter is really overworked I wouldn't mind taking

Re: New path available for joining the Fedora package maintainers group

Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com writes: This new path requires you to convince an existing maintainer to mentor you in the processes and guidelines of package maintenance, and would allow you to be sponsored by FESCo or an existing sponsor to co-maintain those package(s) with your mentor guiding

Re: Unavailable Maintainer: Peter Gordon

nemiver -- A GNOME C/C++ Debugger I maintain Nemiver upstream and co-maintains it in Fedora so I am taking it. -- Dodji -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Firefox 4 for f14?

Joshua C. joshua...@googlemail.com writes: Or maybe being on the edge isn't why we all use this distro? Yeah maybe :-) I like being as close as reasonable to the edge, but not closer. -- Dodji -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Firefox 4 for f14?

Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at writes: Personally, I think we should just push the new stuff into updates whenever it makes sense (i.e. not for something like KDE 3 to 4 or GNOME 2 to 3 ;-) ). Or we can encourage more people to use Rawhide proper. I know it might sound too wild for

Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!

Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us a écrit: Chris its the teminology we have always used. each phase has a series of release candidates. for alpha we do a series of RC composes until we get one that meets the release criteria, it then becomes the alpha release. for beta we do a series of RC

Re: OBS Fedora

Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com a écrit: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Machine_Resources_For_Package_Maintainers This is really nice. I wasn't aware people could have access to remote Rawhide machines for testing purposes. I guess it won't be really useful for maintainers of packages

Re: Next FUDCon EMEA (Paris) planning meeting today, 6PM UTC

Kévin Raymond shai...@fedoraproject.org a écrit: Just to remind you that we are having our next planning meeting today, Thursday, at 6PM UTC, #fedora-meeting. This time is going to be used for our weekly meetings. Do we have some minutes somewhere for this? Cheers, -- Dodji

Re: Next FUDCon EMEA (Paris) planning meeting today, 6PM UTC

Thank you very much guys. -- Dodji -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Fixing boost 1.50 issues while branching issues

Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us a écrit: f18-candidate is the target name and has nothing at all to do with any tags, a target has 2 things the tag used to populate the buildroot and the tag that resulting builds are tagged into. Right now the f18-candidate target is setup to populate the

Re: Broken dependencies from F17-F18 upgrade

Luya Tshimbalanga l...@fedoraproject.org a écrit: I have gdm graphical login screen operational, the entire desktop is slow compared to the previous gnome 3.4.2 on Fedora 17running on a AMD E350 powered laptop. I don't know what exactly cause slowdown, it appears to be a regression. I am

Re: Broken dependencies from F17-F18 upgrade

Tomasz Torcz to...@pipebreaker.pl a écrit: I am running this rawhide box using init 3 (/lib/systemd/system/multi-user.target) as the default init level, and I am running the desktop by doing: xinit /dev/gnome-session So somewhere something is failing to make my user be properly acl'd

Re: Broken dependencies from F17-F18 upgrade

eduard.vopicka eduard.vopi...@seznam.cz a écrit: Adding your username to the video group and logout/login does not help? As I implied in my initial email at: For now I have just added my user into the video group to have the r300 driver be loaded properly. that is what I have done and it

Re: small tip regarding git branch bash prompt in F18/Rawhide

Todd Zullinger t...@pobox.com a écrit: I placed git-prompt.sh in /etc/profile.d where it should be sourced for normal login shells. This should make the change transparent to most users. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/git-1.7.12-2.fc18 Great. Thank you for doing this. Do you

Re: rawhide report: 20120824 changes

Hello, Fedora Rawhide Report rawh...@fedoraproject.org a écrit: firefox-14.0.1-3.fc19 - * Wed Aug 22 2012 Dan Horák dan[at]danny.cz - 14.0.1-3 - add fix for secondary arches from xulrunner With this update and ... xulrunner-15.0-1.b6.fc19 *

Re: rawhide report: 20120824 changes

Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com a écrit: I naively thought 'yum downgrade xulrunner' would get me back to the previous xulrunner, but it just doesn't do anything. Is that expected? In rawhide yes because the old version is no longer in the repository. I see, thanks. You can get the

Re: Rawhide boot problems

Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com a écrit: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847418 downgrade to: systemd-188-3.fc18 (NOTE: NOT fc19) Just so that I understand. What version of systemd and kernel should Rawhide users *not* use to avoid the issue? I couldn't figure this out by

Re: Should MariaDB touch my.cnf in %post?

Dennis Jacobfeuerborn denni...@conversis.de a écrit: Also MySQL 5.6 gains some of its speed through commercial extensions (like e.g. the thread pool). Since these cannot be packaged in Fedora you will be able to make a better/more fair comparison between the two based on the same Platform

Re: Non-responsive maintainer: Dodji Seketeli

Darryl L. Pierce mcpie...@gmail.com a écrit: BZ#848774 This bug is nearly a year old, requesting that package offlineimap be upgraded to what was then the latest release (6.5.4, now it is 6.5.5-rc2). There has been no response from the maintainer. I posted a bug comment on 01 July asking

Re: TBB rebase

Petr Machata pmach...@redhat.com a écrit: The soname didn't change. I reviewed the actual changes using abidiff, and the only thing reported that I think is an actual ABI violation is insertion of one virtual method. I don't think that's real however:

Introducing abidiff (was Re: [Guielines Change] Changes to the packaging guidelines)

Hello, Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com a écrit: [...] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Downstream_.so_name_versioning It's neat to see reference to abi-compliance-checker (hint, I maintain it!) And thank you for maintaining it! I believe that checking for ABI

Checking the ABI of packages submitted to the updates-testing Fedora repository

Hello, Following up on the ABI checking topic raised in the API Break Detection section near the end of the post https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/server/2015-June/001904.html, I'd like to summarize where we stand at the moment and what we plan do. We discussed this topic on the

Re: Checking the ABI of packages submitted to the updates-testing Fedora repository

On Fri, 2015-06-05 at 10:34 +0200, Dodji Seketeli wrote: [...] To start, we'd like to have an automated way to check the ABI compatibility of binaries embedded in packages that are submitted to the updates-testing repository. When an incompatible change[1] is detected, the package

Re: Checking the ABI of packages submitted to the updates-testing Fedora repository

Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos n...@redhat.com a écrit: On Fri, 2015-06-05 at 08:00 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: and here is what stuck to my mind. Others are of course welcome to add what I have forgotten and to correct me when I a wrong. To start, we'd like to have an

Re: Checking the ABI of packages submitted to the updates-testing Fedora repository

On Mon, 08 Jun 2015, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: [...] I have not seen the output of abicheck (I use abi-compliance-checker personally but I guess abidiff is as good). It's abidiff :-) However, I'm not sure about which changes which are not breakages you mean? I'm not aware of ABI

Re: Checking the ABI of packages submitted to the updates-testing Fedora repository

Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos n...@redhat.com a écrit: On Mon, 2015-06-08 at 11:53 +0300, Alexander Bokovoy wrote: I have not seen the output of abicheck (I use abi-compliance -checker personally but I guess abidiff is as good). However, I'm not sure about which changes which are not

Re: Checking the ABI of packages submitted to the updates-testing Fedora repository

Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com a écrit: On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 10:34:19AM +0200, Dodji Seketeli wrote: When the abipkgdiff command line tool is ready , I guess the plan is to use it in a new Taskotron task that, when invoked on a given package, gets the stable version

Re: Checking the ABI of packages submitted to the updates-testing Fedora repository

On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 10:34:19AM +0200, Dodji Seketeli wrote: We are currently working on a tool named abipkgdiff[3] that takes two RPMs Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl a écrit: About the name: package is fairly generic, but pkg is used as specific name. Arch has

An update about: Checking the ABI of packages submitted to the updates-testing Fedora repository

Hello, A little update about this project we have been tinkering about. First thing first, a tracking ticket has been opened against the Taskotron project to follow the progress of this effort: https://phab.qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/T490. Just so you remember the big picture, for each

Re: An update about: Checking the ABI of packages submitted to the updates-testing Fedora repository

Kamil Paral kpa...@redhat.com a écrit: Then, when the package N-udpate-V-R is later submitted to Bodhi, the update creation process would query ResultDB for the result of the relevant ABI check that happened at build time. The decision to allow an automatic push of the update to stable will

Re: An update about: Checking the ABI of packages submitted to the updates-testing Fedora repository

Hello, Martin Krizek mkri...@redhat.com a écrit: From what I understood, the current status of the ABI comparison is that it only works with C/C++ programs. Right. Have you given a thought on how do we know that the build under test includes a C program and so we should run the

Re: Please unpush FEDORA-2016-7776983633 on all releases or drop support for libjasper

Josh Boyer a écrit: > I agree. This would have been caught by libabigail/abicheck as far as > I know. Right, as I said in another message, the Taskotron's task-abicheck task actually caught it at Koji build time, asking the maintainer to review the change at:

Re: Please unpush FEDORA-2016-7776983633 on all releases or drop support for libjasper

Josh Boyer a écrit: [...] >> At the moment, the ABI changes that are reported do not trigger the >> blocking of the build, so we need collaboration from critpath package >> maintainers. Whenever Taskotron says "please review this ABI change", >> the review is needed.

Re: Please unpush FEDORA-2016-7776983633 on all releases or drop support for libjasper

Matthew Miller a écrit: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 05:03:40PM +0530, Sinny Kumari wrote: >> >> one more case for enabling libabigail tests in bodhi ... >> > I agree. This would have been caught by libabigail/abicheck as far as I >> > know. > ... >> > Does anyone know

Re: Please unpush FEDORA-2016-7776983633 on all releases or drop support for libjasper

Hello, Dan Horák a écrit: > one more case for enabling libabigail tests in bodhi ... Well, task-abicheck that is automatically run on all koji builds actually *caught* this issue. I can see that in the taskotron logs from 2016-08-12 at:

Re: Please unpush FEDORA-2016-7776983633 on all releases or drop support for libjasper

Dodji Seketeli <do...@seketeli.org> a écrit: > I'll file a Bodhi ticket asap. There you go: https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/932 https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/933 Cheers, -- Dodji -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.

Re: Please unpush FEDORA-2016-7776983633 on all releases or drop support for libjasper

Josh Boyer a écrit: > No. However, bodhi maintenance is changing to a new owner and now > would be a good time to start filing tickets/issues for function adds > like this. Right. I have thus filed two issues for this:

Re: Please unpush FEDORA-2016-7776983633 on all releases or drop support for libjasper

Adam Williamson a écrit: >> Though, we also need to sort out how maintainers can do to say "I >> reviewed the ABI change, and it's OK" -- a kind of waiving mechanism for >> cases where the ABI change is harmless. > > If we only make it so failed automated tests

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2018-01-12)

Kevin Kofler a écrit: > Justin Forbes wrote: >> * #1810 Let's flip the switch on January 15th: gating in Fedora >> (jforbes, 16:15:51) >> * LINK: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1810 (jforbes, 16:16:05) >> * LINK: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/waiverdb

Retiring libabigail from EPEL 9

Hello, I have retired libabigail from EPEL 9 because the package is now shipped in RHEL 9.2 onward. You can see that the files have been removed from the SCM at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libabigail/tree/epel9. The Rawhide, f39, f38, f37, EPEL7 and EPEL8 package are still maintained.

Re: libxml2 2.12.0 (and 2.12.1) in rawhide, with some API breaks

Daniel P. Berrangé a écrit: > On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 04:20:16PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 12:08 PM David King wrote: >> > >> > The latest released versions of libxml2 have a couple of important >> > changes in header files that have unintentionally caused some

Re: libxml2 2.12.0 (and 2.12.1) in rawhide, with some API breaks

Hello, Petr Pisar a écrit: > V Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 12:24:45PM +0100, Dodji Seketeli napsal(a): [...] >> For what it's worth, the ABI compatibility verifier caught this change >> between libxml2.so.2.11.5 and libxml2.so.2.12.0 and categorized it as >> being

Re: Automatic ABI checks for new package updates in bodhi using taskotron

Hello, Sorry for the late reply. Kamil Paral a écrit: >> So, let's say we initially start with packages available in >> critpath[3], then we don't have to worry whether a package provides >> any shared library or not. > > Let me try this another way. Let's assume we can

Re: Automatic ABI checks for new package updates in bodhi using taskotron

Hello Kamil, Sorry for replying late. I subscribed to this list, but for a reason the emails are still not being delivered to me. I clicked on some more buttons in the interface right now, so we'll see. In the mean time, I am using the web interface to reply, so please forgive the awkward

Re: Automatic ABI checks for new package updates in bodhi using taskotron

Kamil Paral a écrit: > Thanks, I reported an RFE about this: > https://phab.qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/T811 Thanks Kamil, Unfortunately, I still cannot log into https://phab.qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/T811 using my do...@fedoraproject.org persona, so I cannot

Enabling task-abicheck notification for all maintainers *by default*

Hello fine fellows, There recently was another incompatible ABI change in a core library in Fedora. This did spark a lot of discussions, especially in the thread at https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/de...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/MCYGMG24GAHGUD2AUACL45MFGXSSR4OR/. The good