Re: [RFC] Switching to SPDX in license tags

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Haïkel wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I would like to get feedback from Fedora Legal and also my fellow > > contributors about considering > > SPDX. > > > > SPDX (Software Package Data Exchange) is a specification hosted

Re: RPM Weak Dependencies and the install media compose process

On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > From my perspective, there are three ways that we could choose to go: > > 1) Follow the default DNF behavior: Requires: and Recommends: packages > are included on the install media (and therefore also installed > together onto the targ

Re: Is %autosetup another unwanted baby of Fedora?

n the internet <http://backreference.org/2011/09/17/some-tips-on-rpm-conditional-macros/>, but not well documented where it matters. Frankly, I think this is pretty depressing for us, because we're trying to make it easier for people to learn our system and use it well. And things li

Re: Proposal: Drop comps

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 4:13 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > Can we just drop comps entirely (or at least trim them down > significantly)? I know that this will not happen from day to day, but I see > the comps just as an ugly workaround for missin

Re: Proposal: Drop comps

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 6:23 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Dne 14.7.2015 v 11:49 Neal Gompa napsal(a): > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 4:13 AM, Vít Ondruch <mailto:vondr...@redhat.com> >wrote: > > > > Can we just drop comps entirely (or at least trim them down > sign

Re: Hosting End-Of-Life Fedora Base images?

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > Isn't it true the install media ISOs are available indefinitely? And > if so the security cat is already out of the bag, so that's not a very > good argument. I'd say if we wanted to do something better it would be > an image that's usable fo

Re: Improving our processes for new contributors.

he review process. It needs to become as good as OpenSUSE's Open Build Service and Canonical's PPAs before we can have any serious usage of it for this kind of work. -- Neal Gompa (FAS: ngompa) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Fedora developer portal - proof of concept

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 21/07/15 15:45 +0200, Petr Hracek wrote: > >> Feel free to send us any comment or improvements. We would like to >> improve Fedora for developers. >> Just contents are missing. >> > > Under "The latest stable runtimes and frameworks Pac

Re: Improving our processes for new contributors.

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 16:23:34 +0200 > Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > > Dne 21.7.2015 v 15:23 Neal Gompa napsal(a): > > > It's extraordinarily slow right now, and builders don't have the > > > level of a

Re: Improving our processes for new contributors.

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Dne 21.7.2015 v 19:28 Neal Gompa napsal(a): > > > > ​ Accessing the Copr site is as slow as trying to search our Bugzilla > (which is very slow indeed). Opening up pages > > describing Copr repos is slow too. I

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Florian Festi wrote: > On 07/28/2015 09:43 AM, Lubos Kardos wrote: > > Support in rpm is not enough but libsolv supports rich deps since the > version > > 0.6.9 too thus rich deps work also in hawkey and dnf if the version > 0.6.9 or > > a newer version of libsolv

Re: gpg keys of older/newer fedora versions

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Ryan S. Brown wrote: > On 08/01/2015 03:25 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 01, 2015 at 10:40:45AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > >> On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 17:28:48 + > >> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > >> > >>> [In light of https://bugzi

Re: Heads up: F23 products/spins, weak rpm dependencies, and you

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Adam Jackson wrote: > In Fedora 23, rpm has grown support for weak dependencies (Recommends: > and Suggests: tags). However, the compose tools have not been ported to > dnf/libsolv yet, which means these tags will have no effect at image > compose time. > > This h

Re: Heads up: F23 products/spins, weak rpm dependencies, and you

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Brian C. Lane wrote: > On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 10:38:07AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: > > In Fedora 23, rpm has grown support for weak dependencies (Recommends: > > and Suggests: tags). However, the compose tools have not been ported to > > dnf/libsolv yet, which m

Re: ncurses update to 6.0

On Aug 5, 2015 2:55 AM, "Miroslav Lichvar" wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 10:09:34AM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On 4 August 2015 at 04:33, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: > > > As for updating the ncurses package, my current plan is to build the > > > libs in both ABIs (so there are four

Metadata signing for rawhide

In the rpm-ecosystem mailing list, Michael Schroeder from SUSE brought up that we don't sign the metadata for the rawhide repository and it would be nice if it was signed so that he could be sure that the mirrors didn't

Re: Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Chris Adams wrote: > >> What packaging exceptions are being made for Firefox? > > > They can be found here: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries > > -- > devel mailing list > de

Re: Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Gerald B. Cox said: > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Chris Adams wrote: > > > What packaging exceptions are being made for Firefox? > > > > They can be found here: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundle

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:11:39PM -0400, Gary Gatling wrote: > > > I realize we have our guidelines and we're not Debian, Suse or > Ubuntu... > > > and that's a good thing. But, if we're making exceptions for Firefox > > > because of it'

Re: noarch vs. all, x86_64 vs. amd64, kernel vs. linux and PAE

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Petr Stodulka wrote: > > > On 14.8.2015 14:38, Wei-Lun Chao wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Is there already any discussion about: >> rename arch name "noarch" to "all" >> rename arch name "x86_64" to "amd64" >> rename package name "kernel-PAE" to "kernel" >> and even renam

Re: noarch vs. all, x86_64 vs. amd64, kernel vs. linux and PAE

On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote: > On Sáb, 2015-08-15 at 21:22 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote: > > On 8/14/15, Wei-Lun Chao wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Is there already any discussion about: > > > rename arch name "noarch" to "all" > > > rename arch name "x86_64" to "amd64" >

Re: Same comand names in /usr/bin and /usr/sbin

On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 7:25 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 17.08.2015 um 01:22 schrieb Nico Kadel-Garcia: > >> On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia >> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Reindl Harald >>> wrote: >>> Am 16.08.2015 um 18:57 schrieb Nico Kadel-

Re: Build root prepared by DNF is way larger

Do we have a switch or configuration option for that yet? On Aug 18, 2015 5:27 PM, "Heiko Adams" wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 18.08.2015, 14:54 -0400 schrieb Matthew Miller: > > > Hmmm. I think that for the buildroot case, we probably want DNF to > > _not_ installer Recommended packages. > > That ma

Re: Rawhide plans

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Rex Dieter (rdie...@math.unl.edu) said: > > Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > > > * Matt opened a thread on the marketing list about renaming rawhide. It > > > sounds like most people would prefer us to make the changes first, > > > then and only t

Re: bodhi 2 now live

On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 23/08/15 16:36 -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >> Hi >> >> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> >> No, sorry, but that is not true. I wrote those update notes in the Bodhi 1 >>> web interface, so of course I looked at

Re: Do you know how many 64-bit architectures Fedora has?

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: > Hi > > During last few days I fetched over 26 thousand of Fedora package > repositories. Plan to go though all spec files and submit some patches > mainly related to my aarch64 work. > > We live in a world where most of Linux systems ar

Re: Do you know how many 64-bit architectures Fedora has?

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: > W dniu 24.08.2015 o 15:18, Neal Gompa pisze: > >> ​ Oh, yes! I was trying to find something like this all weekend for my >> Copr for reprepro. I have to make a patch to access apt-methods in >> /usr/lib64 on 6

Re: Do you know how many 64-bit architectures Fedora has?

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 24/08/15 14:39 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >> On 24/08/15 09:31 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: >> >>> ​Well, the problem is that ​the path to apt-methods is hardcoded in >>> reprepro itself. Thankf

Re: Do you know how many 64-bit architectures Fedora has?

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 24/08/15 10:06 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Jonathan Wakely >> wrote: >> >>> Oops, to keep the quotes it would be >>> >>> -DSTD_METHOD_DIR='

Re: Do you know how many 64-bit architectures Fedora has?

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 24.08.2015 um 16:27 schrieb Neal Gompa: > >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Jonathan Wakely > <mailto:jwak...@redhat.com>>wrote: >> >> On 24/08/15 10:06 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: >&g

Re: when DEP-3 compliant patches in Fedora?

On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 08/28/2015 02:11 PM, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: > > Hi > > > > I am building software for misc distributions for over 11 years. And so > > far Fedora packages are the worst of those I played with (mostly > > OpenEmbedded and Debian). > >

Re: Sane ownCloud alternatives (was: Re: Looking for new maintainer: ownCloud (Fedora / EPEL))

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Martin Kolman wrote: > On Mon, 2015-08-31 at 12:13 +0200, Matěj Cepl wrote: > > On 2015-08-31, 07:05 GMT, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > > > Again, if it works for Adam (or anybody else) it is awesome, but > > > > I would strongly discourage anybody who is not will

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Adam Williamson < adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 11:02 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > > > > > > "SG" == Stephen Gallagher writes: > > > > SG> Right now, we have a policy that essentially forbids source code > > SG> from being b

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Zdenek Kabelac wrote: > Dne 11.9.2015 v 14:46 Germano Massullo napsal(a): > >> I have read the whole discussion and I would like to share my opinion, >> even if I think it could be a bit off-topic. >> Given that Fedora community alone, cannot educate every upstrea

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote: > On Sex, 2015-09-11 at 22:41 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > > > > On 09/11/2015 09:09 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote: > > > What does Fedora users gain with "dnf > > > install rails" or "dnf install ipython" versus "gem install rails" and >

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Ian Malone wrote: > On 15 September 2015 at 10:11, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson > wrote: > > > > > > On 09/15/2015 08:41 AM, Ian Malone wrote: > >> > >> On 14 September 2015 at 16:47, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson < > johan...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> They simply have

Orphaning tinymce, tinymce-spellchecker

I packaged tinymce and tinymce-spellchecker years ago in an effort to get another package in. That effort was unsuccessful and I don't really have the desire to continue "owning" them, as I cannot make sense of it enough to keep maintaining them. I should have done this a long time ago. If anyone

Re: llvm 3.7 for rawhide and then f23

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 6:00 AM, Kamil Paral wrote: > > Given that we are now post-Beta for F23, it seems a little late in the > > cycle to be introducing a new llvm runtime. Is it guaranteed to be > > backwards-compatible? > > OTOH, having OpenGL 4 support in Fedora 23 (at least for certain card

Re: Fedora 23 cloud image (and, for that matter, minimal anything) bloat

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 5:36 AM, Matej Stuchlik wrote: > - Original Message - > > From: "drago01" > > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" < > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 11:20:27 AM > > Subject: Re: Fedora 23 cloud image (and, for that

Re: package naming question: IT++

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:44 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 22/09/15 10:40 +0200, Marco Driusso wrote: > >> So I think we have two options: >> 1) use 'itpp' as the name of the package, which corresponds to the >> include dir name, but not to the lib file name (libitpp.so); in this >> > > All lib

Re: Announcing the release of Fedora 23 Beta!

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > Fedora 23 Beta Release Announcement > === > > The Fedora 23 Beta is here, right on schedule for our planned > October final release! Want to help make Fedora 23 be the best > release ever, or just want to get

Re: python: dropping the .py files [was Re: Fedora 23 cloud image (and, for that matter, minimal anything)] bloat

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Dne 25.9.2015 v 16:15 Mathieu Bridon napsal(a): > > (it is invaluable for learning and > > debugging purposes to be able to read/edit the code). > > Come on, this is not an argument. We don't install source code for any > other language which

createrepo_c and DeltaRPMs...

Hello all, I don't know if many have actually tried to use createrepo_c to generate repositories with DeltaRPMs in it, but it hasn't actually been working (much to my surprise when trying to use the tool for some repositories at work). So, I filed a bug about it, like any responsible user of Fedor

Re: dnf is completly broken

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 27.09.2015 um 11:27 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones: > >> This is quite tiresome. dnf clearly isn't "completely broken". It >> may have a bug, but the correct place to put that is in Bugzilla. >> > > a package manager which pretends "not

Re: dnf is completly broken

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 27.09.2015 um 13:57 schrieb Neal Gompa: > >> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: >> >> Am 27.09.2015 um 11:27 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones: >> >> This is quit

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > Just to circle around here (in case people don't read my reply to the > FESCo meeting agenda), I'm making the following revised proposal[1] to > FESCo which may or may not be discussed at today's meeting (given that > it was submitted la

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 09/30/2015 04:25 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > >> the opposite is more likely: people trying to avoid the FPC burden now >> > can declare it without fearing somebody takes notice and points out a >> violation >> > If they don't care or are

Re: dnf is completly broken

On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Germano Massullo < germano.massu...@gmail.com> wrote: > In past days I experienced the following problem > "dnf install" exits if there is a non existing package in the requested > packages list" > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268606 > > ​Do you hav

Re: Pushing the extra AppData files into Rawhide

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 4:34 AM, David Timms wrote: > On 01/04/15 12:54, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > David Timms (dti...@iinet.net.au) said: > ... > > I thought about trying to reliably parse major/minor/subminor versions in > > bash, and track it against where things were implemented. But then jus

Re: qt5 as default?

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:33 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote: > Obviously upstream support will mainly dictate this, but is there any > distro wide sense yet if one should consider Qt5 as the preferred default > over Qt4 for a given Fedora release? > > -- > Orion Poplawski > Technical Manager

Re: F23 System Wide Change: Mono 4

On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Moez Roy wrote: > Mono is updated in Rawhide. Can a proven-packager run a script to > rebuild all the packages that require mono. > > -Thanks. > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > Fed

Re: F23 System Wide Change: Mono 4

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 4:42 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 7:06 AM, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Moez Roy wrote: > >> > >> Mono is updated in Rawhide. Can a proven-packager run a script to > >> rebuil

Re: F23 System Wide Change: Mono 4

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 8:49 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: > >> >> Mono is updated in Rawhide. Can a proven-packager run a script to > >> >> rebuild all the packages that require mono. > >> >> > >> >> -Thanks. > >> >> -- > >> >> devel mailing list > >> >> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > >> >> https:/

Re: RFC: LiveUSB Creator Revamped

It's not nonsense to be able to put Server Product on USB. I've installed Fedora Server on servers that way myself. Not so sure about Cloud images, though. Those generally get uploaded to somewhere else to be used. On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Martin Bříza wrote: > On Thu, 28 May 2015 14:28:

Re: Reviving Fedora MIPS

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Michal Toman wrote: > Greetings everyone, > > you might know me from my former work on ABRT, or later Power and s390. > For the last few months however, I have been collaborating with > Imagination Technologies to bring back Fedora for MIPS. > > A brief history - s

Re: git perl-less build?

Has anyone written a Python git client based on dulwich that could be used in Atomic? If I remember correctly, we still include Python in Atomic images... On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Colin Walters wrote: > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015, at 05:23 AM, Petr Stodul

Re: virt-manager - libappindicator-gtk3 - remmina

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:09 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > - Original Message - > > On 3 June 2015 at 11:28, Pavel Alexeev < pa...@hubbitus.info > wrote: > ​​ > > > If I remember correctly there was a time when people were discussing > about > > bringing Unity in Fedora. This did not happen

Unresponsive maintainer for libiscsi

Hello all, I've been trying to get in touch with Paulo Bonzini (bonzini) about the version of libiscsi in Fedora. I've not been able to get ahold of him by his Red Hat email address, Bugzilla, or IRC. Has anyone been able to contact him? -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! -- devel m

Re: fedup for F23 and beyond

Uhh, this might be a stupid question, but what actually prevents us from integrating the FedUp process into install media (that is, not live images)? I mean, yeah, it's nice that we can do upgrades online, but what about when the system we need to upgrade doesn't necessarily have online access? I'd

Re: fedup for F23 and beyond

On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Will Woods wrote: > On Sun, 2015-06-07 at 07:41 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: >> Uhh, this might be a stupid question, but what actually prevents us >> from integrating the FedUp process into install media (that is, not >> live images)? I mean, ye

DKMS is not installing the right kernel-devel package

Hey all, I've noticed that when dkms is installed, it's not grabbing the right kernel-devel package as a dependency. Instead, it grabs kernel-debug-devel. This occurs on Fedora 21 and 22, and I'm not sure why. If I install kernel-devel first, everything is fine. Otherwise, it grabs the wrong kerne

Re: DKMS is not installing the right kernel-devel package

t a solution, that's solving the problem for some users and >> ignoring others (those that use kernel-PAE for example). >> > > "The kernel-devel package that matches the installed kernel(s)" would > include kernel-PAE-devel matching kernel-PAE, in this fantasy land

Re: Can soft dependencies help to get the proper kernel-devel packages? (Was: Soft- Re: DKMS is not installing the right kernel-devel package)

:19:10 PM > > Subject: Can soft dependencies help to get the proper kernel-devel > packages? (Was: Soft- Re: DKMS is not installing > > the right kernel-devel package) > > > > Josh Boyer wrote on 12.06.2015 13:55: > > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 7:24 AM, Neal Gomp

Re: Can soft dependencies help to get the proper kernel-devel packages? (Was: Soft- Re: DKMS is not installing the right kernel-devel package)

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 06/12/2015 02:48 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > >> Soft/weak dependencies are allowed, according to FESCo > > It doesn't matter much what FESCO says of believes in this case. > > ATM, neither is the technical infr

Re: Can soft dependencies help to get the proper kernel-devel packages? (Was: Soft- Re: DKMS is not installing the right kernel-devel package)

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 06/12/2015 03:23 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Ralf Corsepius >> wrote: >>> >>> On 06/12/2015 02:48 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: >>> >>>> Soft/weak

Re: DKMS is not installing the right kernel-devel package

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 7:24 AM, Neal Gompa wrote: >> > What about some kind of virtual provides defined in repos/rpm/somewhere >> > that >> > would automatically grab the kernel-devel package associate

Re: DKMS is not installing the right kernel-devel package

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 8:01 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 7:24 AM, Neal Gompa wrote: >>> > What about some kind of virtual provides defined in repos/rpm/somewhere >>> > that >&

Re: F23 Self Contained Change: Cloud Systemd Networkd

I know this is a little off-topic, but why don't we use systemd-networkd in Fedora proper as a replacement for the ifcfg scripts when NetworkManager isn't desired? Or at least provide it as an alternative option to NetworkManager and ifcfg scripts in general? On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 2:34 AM, Jan K

Btrfs as default filesystem for Fedora 23?

Hey all, Over the last few months (since Fedora 22 beta's release), I've been using Btrfs as my daily driver filesystem across a multitude of machines. After Fedora 22 released, I tried it with RAID 5 and RAID 6 enabled on a few machines with fantastic success (there aren't even any scary warnings

Re: Btrfs as default filesystem for Fedora 23?

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Neal Gompa wrote: > >> As I recall, Josef Bacik mentioned that he'd be pushing for Btrfs >> becoming the default in Fedora 23 >> <https://lists.fedoraproject.org/piper

Re: Btrfs as default filesystem for Fedora 23?

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 23 June 2015 at 14:15, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Neal Gompa wrote: > >>> >

Re: Btrfs as default filesystem for Fedora 23?

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 23 June 2015 at 18:40, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > > > That is precisely why I'm asking on this list. I don't know who those > people > > are, and this is really the best plac

Re: Fedora 33 Self-Contained Change proposal: Drop mod_php

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 4:01 AM John M. Harris Jr wrote: > > On Thursday, May 28, 2020 11:59:41 PM MST Remi Collet wrote: > > Le 29/05/2020 à 06:15, John M. Harris Jr a écrit : > > > > > Please do not drop mod_php. It is NOT the case that "php-fpm is already > > > used but most users of httpd and

Re: Proposal: Install gparted to Live installers

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:53 PM Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > > I don't think we actually have the technical capability to ship it in > live media without also installing it by default on the installed > system. > > It currently has to run as root, which is not acceptable, so would > require some w

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: CompilerPolicy Change

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 6:47 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > On 05.06.2020 09:52, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > I am opposed to this change. Chromium and Firefox build fine with GCC. I > > think that a distribution should be built with a consistent toolchain > > wherever possible. > > Clang is muc

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: CompilerPolicy Change

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 8:26 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 6:47 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel > wrote: > > > > On 05.06.2020 09:52, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > > I am opposed to this change. Chromium and Firefox build fine with GCC. I > > > th

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: CompilerPolicy Change

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 10:24 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 08:27:13AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 8:26 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 6:47 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel > > > wro

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: swap on zram

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 2:09 PM John M. Harris Jr wrote: > > On Friday, June 5, 2020 10:49:52 AM MST Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 4:35 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 04.06.2020 22:30, Ben Cotton wrote: > > > > > > > Swap is useful, except when it'

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: CompilerPolicy Change

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 3:50 PM Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 11:50 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 8:27 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 6:47 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel > > > wrote: > > > > On 05.06.2

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: swap on zram

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 12:21 AM John M. Harris Jr wrote: > > On Monday, June 8, 2020 5:03:20 PM MST Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > > > Well, if you don#t want that behaviour don't use the partition type > > > UUIDs from the "discoverable partition spec" for your partitions

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: swap on zram

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 5:25 AM Kevin Kofler wrote: > > John M. Harris Jr wrote: > > I wonder if we could get that masked in Fedora Server and KDE Spin, > > potentially along with homed, userdb, repart (Who in the world thought > > this was a good idea?), resolved, networkd, > > systemd-xdg-autosta

Re: Fedora Jam switch to GNOME

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 12:10 PM wrote: > > Hi all, > > I'm considering moving Fedora Jam from KDE Plasma to GNOME. There are > multiple reasons for this, and I think part of it would be beneficial > to the overall GNOME and Fedora communities as it would be a way to be > helping improve the situa

Re: Fedora Jam switch to GNOME

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 1:29 PM wrote: > > Hi Kalev, > > On Wed, 2020-06-10 at 19:20 +0200, Kalev Lember wrote: > > Hi Erich, > > > > I think this is a great idea -- thanks for getting the discussion > > started! > > > > I've always found it weird that the Jam spin is based on another > > desktop,

Re: Mailman3

On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 2:39 AM Lars Bjørndal wrote: > > Hello list > > It seems that is managed by Mailman 3. > In the repo, however, only the core package are available, and not > the other components. What's the rationale behind that? > It's being worked on a

Re: Easier way to autogenerate Provides?

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 7:46 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > We autogenerate RPM Requires/Provides in a few projects, and it's > quite nice. eg: supermin-devel has: > > $ rpm -ql supermin-devel > /usr/lib/rpm/fileattrs/supermin.attr > /usr/lib/rpm/supermin-find-requires > > and this means

Re: Easier way to autogenerate Provides?

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 7:49 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 7:46 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > > We autogenerate RPM Requires/Provides in a few projects, and it's > > quite nice. eg: supermin-devel has: > > > > $ rpm -ql su

Re: Requesting changes/updates to Fedora kde spin page

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 8:50 AM Harsh Jain wrote: > > Hey everyone , > I recently downloaded the fedora kde spin and noticed there were some > differences among the apps that came with it . On the site [1] the web > browser that comes with the spin is told to be konqueror , but firefox and > fa

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: CMake to do out-of-source builds

will stop building are trivial to fix and will be > > adjusted either by maintainers or change owners. > > > > == Owner == > > * Name: [[User:ignatenkobrain|Igor Raits]], [[User:besser82|Björn > > Esser]], [[User:ngompa|Neal Gompa]] > > * Email: ignatenkobr...@fedorapro

Re: Fedora 33 Self-Contained Change proposal: Default animated background for Fedora Workstation

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 4:11 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DefaultAnimatedBackground > > == Summary == > Fedora Workstation 33 uses animate background as default. > > == Owner == > * Name: [[User:luya| Luya Tshimbalanga]] > * Email: luyaATfedoraproject.org > * Pro

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: CMake to do out-of-source builds

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 10:25 PM Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Neal Gompa wrote: > > If they build a separate folder manually and are already using the > > VPATH macros, then there's no change. If they're using a different > > structure, we can adapt them to the stand

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Fedora-Retired-Packages

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 3:48 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Fedora-Retired-Packages > > == Summary == > All retired packages are obsoleted by `fedora-retired-packages`. > This whole process is unnecessary. You're basically asking for autoremove behavior to occur a

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: CMake to do out-of-source builds

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 6:30 AM Iñaki Ucar wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 03:09, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 8:22 PM Kevin Kofler wrote: > > > > > > How does this affect the many packages that already build in a separate > &g

Re: Fedora 33 Self-Contained Change proposal: Default animated background for Fedora Workstation

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 8:46 AM Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 2:03 pm, Kamil Paral wrote: > > The person proposing this Change should supply some video showcasing > > this, or a very detailed description, otherwise people will have very > > varying ideas of how this works a

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: CMake to do out-of-source builds

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:17 AM Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > Kevin, the goal is to *simply* these packages: > > > > mkdir -p %{_target_platform} > > pushd %{_target_platform} > > %cmake > > popd > > > > It's four lines. We get to simplify it down to one line. Proposal > >

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 8:45 AM Josh Boyer wrote: > > Hello Fedora Community! > > I am a long-time Fedora Community member, and may be familiar to many > through previous FESCo or devel list discussions and passionate > debates. However I write to you today with a different community hat > on, as

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 5:31 AM Dan Čermák wrote: > > Josh Boyer writes: > > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:54 PM David Cantrell wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 08:44:39AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > >> >Hopefully that provides some context and helps FESCo and the wider > >> >community unde

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Use %make_build and %make_install macros

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 2:16 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 05:11:43PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > > The %make_build macro enables parallel make builds using the -j option. In > > case a package does not build correctly with parallel make, then parallel > > make

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 5:25 PM John M. Harris Jr wrote: > > On Saturday, June 20, 2020 4:42:17 AM MST Neal Gompa wrote: > > TL;DR benefits of modularity for Fedora: > > > > * Automating build chains for producing artifacts > > * Straightforward mechanism of produci

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 6:51 PM John M. Harris Jr wrote: > > On Saturday, June 20, 2020 2:40:48 PM MST Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 5:25 PM John M. Harris Jr > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, June 20, 2020 4:42:17 AM MST Neal

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 7:40 PM Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 8:45 AM Josh Boyer wrote: > > Modularity has been an interesting idea on paper, but not worth the > effort. It should not be used for RHEL 9. > This is the wrong place to try to convince Red Hat otherwise. It's

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >