Re: rawhide - glibc/pthreads/... - broken pending mass rebuild?

I just met something which might be of similar nature. Recent FF 78.0-1.fc33.x86_64 fails to start with older glibc: ~~~ $ firefox XPCOMGlueLoad error for file /usr/lib64/firefox/libxul.so: /usr/lib64/firefox/libxul.so: undefined symbol: pthread_getattr_np, version GLIBC_2.32 Couldn't load XPCOM

Re: List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in August

Hi Alexandre, Thank you for your offer. I just wonder, are you sponsored into packager group? Vít Dne 29. 06. 20 v 17:57 alexandrebfar...@gmail.com napsal(a): > I'm interested in helping with those NodeJS packages.  > > --  > Alexandre de Farias / etinin > > On Mon,

Re: List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in August

Dne 29. 06. 20 v 17:21 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): > js-jquery1 nodejs-sig, patches, vondruch   Fedora 30 > js-jquery2 vondruch    Fedora 30 > js-sizzle  nodejs-sig, patches, vondruch   Fedora 30 > I was ranting about js-jquery (and js-sizzle is

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make nano the default editor

Dne 26. 06. 20 v 15:17 Ben Cotton napsal(a): > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:14 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 01:59:39PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: >>> Which is better? default or defaults? I don't have a preference. >> I went with "-defaults" in this case because

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

I wonder if there is PR with the implementation somewhere or is this just dry theoretical discussion O:-) Vít Dne 19. 06. 20 v 23:11 Ben Cotton napsal(a): > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/UseMakeBuildInstallMacro > > == Summary == > This change will update all spec files in Fedora that

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

Dne 24. 06. 20 v 17:04 Neal Gompa napsal(a): > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:45 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: >> >> Dne 24. 06. 20 v 15:47 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): >>> On 24. 06. 20 14:41, Vít Ondruch wrote: >>>> Having python27 and python36 modules is fail, because thes

Re: Fedora Packager Dashboard available for testing

Dne 24. 06. 20 v 11:24 Josef Skladanka napsal(a): > First of all, thanks for the feedback! > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:28 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: >> Would it be possible to change the "reset" to something like "set >> all/unset all". When I wanted

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

Dne 24. 06. 20 v 15:47 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): > On 24. 06. 20 14:41, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> Having python27 and python36 modules is fail, because these should be >> 2.7 and 3.6 streams of python module. > > Oh. We are so sorry for the failure. Could you please report is as

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

Dne 20. 06. 20 v 23:40 Neal Gompa napsal(a): > 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 me

Re: Bodhi 5.4.0 in production

Dne 23. 06. 20 v 15:08 Clement Verna napsal(a): > > > On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 at 12:32, Vít Ondruch <mailto:vondr...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > > Dne 23. 06. 20 v 9:23 Hans de Goede napsal(a): > > Hi, > > > > On 6/22/20 9:53 AM, Clement Vern

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

Dne 23. 06. 20 v 14:02 Josh Boyer napsal(a): > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 7:56 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: >> On 23. 06. 20 13:43, Josh Boyer wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 7:36 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: On 23. 06. 20 13:29, Josh Boyer wrote: >> (It*may* be possible to automatize this, bu

Re: Fedora Packager Dashboard available for testing

Dne 24. 06. 20 v 9:31 Josef Skladanka napsal(a): > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 9:15 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: >> RFE: would it be possible to make the icons in the header clickable >> (the part where there's the ladybug, zapf, blocks, wrench, etc), so that >> we'd get redirected to that

Re: Bodhi 5.4.0 in production

Dne 23. 06. 20 v 9:23 Hans de Goede napsal(a): > Hi, > > On 6/22/20 9:53 AM, Clement Verna wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I have just deployed Bodhi 5.4.0 >> (https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/releases) in production. We >> were running 5.2.2 so that deployment brings the improvement and bug >> fixes

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

Dne 18. 06. 20 v 21:40 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a): > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 3:34 PM John M. Harris Jr > wrote: >> The issues I've seen so far affect both Fedora and RHEL, but have gotten a >> bit >> better in Fedora. For example, a major concern that has been much worse in >> Fedora than RHEL

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

Dne 16. 06. 20 v 14:46 Michael Catanzaro napsal(a): > 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 and looks.

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

Dne 16. 06. 20 v 14:38 Christopher Engelhard napsal(a): > I can't speak to the implementation of this, but I am in favour of the > approach in general, with one caveat: I think it is important to > implement this in a way that makes it possible for users to keep > *individual* retired packages aro

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

Dne 17. 06. 20 v 9:15 Till Hofmann napsal(a): > > On 6/16/20 9:56 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> Also, I wonder what is wrong with "dnf autoremove", which is supposed to >> remove unused leaf packages, which were not explicitly installed? > On my system, it remove

Re: Fedora 33 Self-Contained Change proposal: Distribute .repo files for modular repositories from a separate package

Dne 17. 06. 20 v 0:21 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): > On 16. 06. 20 11:57, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> Not mentioned that weak dependencies are disabled in Mock. > > I don't understand why would the user need fedora-repos-modular > automatically pulled into mock when they install fedo

Re: Fedora 33 Self-Contained Change proposal: Distribute .repo files for modular repositories from a separate package

Dne 16. 06. 20 v 11:04 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): > On 16. 06. 20 10:03, Panu Matilainen wrote: >> Yeah it's a hard dependency of fedora-release-common. I suppose one >> possibility would be adding a recommends on fedora-repos-modular to >> fedora-release-common, but weak dependencies have an annoyin

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

I have sympathy for such proposal, but the implementation does not respect all the possible corner cases. 1) It does not reflect, that this is not just about retired packages, but also (or mainly?) about subpackages, which we don't retire. 2) The point (1) is closely related to -debuginfo package

Re: [ELN] Opt out python2.7 from ELN

You should probably open PR modifying this file: https://github.com/minimization/content-resolver-input/blob/master/configs/view-eln.yaml But I would expect that somebody else from the ELN provided more prompt guidance on questions like these ... Vít Dne 08. 06. 20 v 16:49 Miro Hrončok napsal

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Let's standardize the way to disable tests during RPM build?

Dne 09. 06. 20 v 13:33 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): > On 09. 06. 20 12:21, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> That won't be different for what was the original question here, i.e. >> conditionally disable tests. bconds are what we have for better or >> worse. >> >> And real

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Let's standardize the way to disable tests during RPM build?

Dne 09. 06. 20 v 12:12 Nicolas Mailhot napsal(a): > Le mardi 09 juin 2020 à 12:08 +0200, Vít Ondruch a écrit : >> Just FTR, we have bootstrapping guidelines >> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bootstrapping >> > Those suffer from > 1. the hor

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Let's standardize the way to disable tests during RPM build?

Dne 05. 06. 20 v 17:24 Tomas Orsava napsal(a): > On 6/5/20 4:46 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 04:38:03PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: >>> On 05. 06. 20 16:26, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 04:10:20PM +0200, Tomas Orsava wrote: > Hi, > I thi

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

Dne 05. 06. 20 v 9:52 Kevin Kofler napsal(a): > Ben Cotton wrote: >> == Summary == >> Fedora has historically forced packages to build with GCC unless the >> upstream project for the package only supported Clang/LLVM. This >> change proposal replaces that policy with one where compiler selection

Re: Adding Obsoletes to generated -debuginfo packages ?

Dne 04. 06. 20 v 11:25 Igor Raits napsal(a): > On Thu, 2020-06-04 at 10:56 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Dne 03. 06. 20 v 19:29 Igor Raits napsal(a): > >> On Wed, 2020-06-03 at 18:42 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > >>> Other possibility is to modify DNF to not

Re: Adding Obsoletes to generated -debuginfo packages ?

Dne 03. 06. 20 v 19:29 Igor Raits napsal(a): > On Wed, 2020-06-03 at 18:42 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Other possibility is to modify DNF to not touch such packages. Not > > sure > > if that would be better. Or is there already some functionality which > > would e

Re: Adding Obsoletes to generated -debuginfo packages ?

bsolv-self-destruct-pkg() ~~~ we use in fedora-obsolete-packages? Vít Dne 03. 06. 20 v 18:23 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > Because was bitten by this and there is not clear guideline, I have > tried to draft something here: > > https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/988 >

Re: Adding Obsoletes to generated -debuginfo packages ?

Because was bitten by this and there is not clear guideline, I have tried to draft something here: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/988 Vít Dne 03. 05. 18 v 12:10 Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a): > In libvirt we recently deleted a driver for the legacy Xen toolstack. > > This wa

Re: Bodhi: "how to install" is supposed to work?

Dne 03. 06. 20 v 11:03 Alessio napsal(a): > On Wed, 2020-06-03 at 10:54 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> Dne 02. 06. 20 v 9:32 Alessio napsal(a): >>> In Bodhi there is a dnf command in the "How to install" section, in >>> order to install the package to test. Som

Re: Has something changed with RPMS?

Dne 02. 06. 20 v 19:26 Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a): > On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 12:44:17PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Panu Matilainen: >> >>> Lets start with the basics: >>> - is sqlite even involved - it will only be used on rawhide builds if >>> mock bootstrap is used >>> - does it make a

Re: Bodhi: "how to install" is supposed to work?

Dne 02. 06. 20 v 9:32 Alessio napsal(a): > In Bodhi there is a dnf command in the "How to install" section, in > order to install the package to test. Something like: > > sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020- > 81a3b3df7d > > Is it supposed to work? Because every ti

Re: Upcoming fedoraproject Datacenter move reminder and plans

Just wonder, will there be any convenient way to remind me that the service is down for a reason? E.g. redirect to status page. It would be probably harder for all the CLI utilities we are using, but maybe something which should be addressed as well. Vít Dne 02. 06. 20 v 18:40 Kevin Fenzi napsa

Orphaning invokebinder + coro-mock

Hi, Since JRuby was retired, I am orphaning invokebinder and coro-mock, which used to be dependencies of JRuby. I don't think anything else depends on them. Also, they were not touched in several years. VĂ­t ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedora

Re: The price of FHS

It would be possible to install individual RPMs into paths such as: ~~~ /pkgs/programA_version1 /pkgs/libX_version1 contains ~~~ but I wonder how would you imagine the glue above this structure to make the programA_version1 to use the libX_version1? Vít Dne 22. 05. 20 v 21:50 Paul Dufresne

Re: FTBFS bug not reassigned

Dne 17. 05. 20 v 1:25 Benjamin Lowry napsal(a): > I recently adopted flatbuffers, which was orphaned due to an open FTBFS > in F32 [1]. I've fixed the spec, rebuilt, and made an update in bodhi, > but I'm unable to close the FTBFS bug because it hasn't been reassigned > to me. What should I do? Am

Orhpaning rubygem-inflecto

This package is deprecated upstream, nothing depends on it and I have no use for it, therefore I orphaning the package. VĂ­t ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fed

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

Dne 14. 05. 20 v 11:53 Michal Srb napsal(a): > Hello, > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 12:57 PM Felix Schwarz > mailto:fschw...@fedoraproject.org>> wrote: > > > Am 12.05.20 um 12:32 schrieb Ty Young: > > Right, I figured it was some Fedora policy and not up to you. I > suppose I > > sho

Re: Proposal: Revise FESCo voting policy

Dne 13. 05. 20 v 15:08 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): > On 13. 05. 20 14:45, Vít Ondruch wrote: > >> But then everybody felt strong that it is not possible, because if there >> was not official body approving this, that could be end of the world. So >> now, when we have t

Re: Proposal: Revise FESCo voting policy

Dne 12. 05. 20 v 14:22 Aleksandra Fedorova napsal(a): > Hi, > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 10:19 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: >> >> Dne 11. 05. 20 v 19:40 Aleksandra Fedorova napsal(a): >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 5:52 PM Stephen Gallagher

Re: Retired packages with maintainers

Dne 12. 05. 20 v 20:26 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > Dne 12. 05. 20 v 14:51 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): >> On 12. 05. 20 8:49, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: >>> Finally, does everyone agree about the original request: "remove all >>> maintainers >>> of retired pa

Re: Retired packages with maintainers

Dne 12. 05. 20 v 14:51 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): > On 12. 05. 20 8:49, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: >> Finally, does everyone agree about the original request: "remove all >> maintainers >> of retired packages"? Or should we bring this to FESCo? > > If the procedure is "remove all maintainers if all br

Re: Proposal: Revise FESCo voting policy

Dne 12. 05. 20 v 10:18 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > Dne 11. 05. 20 v 19:40 Aleksandra Fedorova napsal(a): >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 5:52 PM Stephen Gallagher >> wrote: >>> During today's FESCo meeting, we encountered an unusual voting >>>

Re: Proposal: Revise FESCo voting policy

Dne 11. 05. 20 v 19:40 Aleksandra Fedorova napsal(a): > Hi, > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 5:52 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> During today's FESCo meeting, we encountered an unusual voting >> situation for the first time: Four FESCo members voted in favor (+1) >> of a measure and five FESCo members

Re: Is dist-git a good place for work?

Dne 06. 05. 20 v 20:39 clime napsal(a): > On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 13:21, Fabio Valentini wrote: >> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 10:37 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: >>> >>> Dne 05. 05. 20 v 18:37 Fabio Valentini napsal(a): >>>> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 5:06 PM T

Re: Is dist-git a good place for work?

Dne 06. 05. 20 v 16:15 Robbie Harwood napsal(a): > Vít Ondruch writes: > >> Dne 05. 05. 20 v 21:26 Robbie Harwood napsal(a): >>> Tomas Tomecek writes: >>> >>>> Thank you all for raising all the questions and concerns. >>>> >>>> B

Re: Is dist-git a good place for work?

Dne 06. 05. 20 v 13:20 Fabio Valentini napsal(a): > On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 10:37 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: >> >> Dne 05. 05. 20 v 18:37 Fabio Valentini napsal(a): >>> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 5:06 PM Tomas Tomecek wrote: >>> >>> Hi Tomas, >>> >

Re: Is dist-git a good place for work?

Dne 06. 05. 20 v 11:19 Tomas Tomecek napsal(a): > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 6:16 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: In what way does keeping the spec file in our fork help us? >>> (speechless for like a minute) >> I don't really understand this comment. Speechless because our workflow is >> tedious? > I j

Re: Is dist-git a good place for work?

Dne 05. 05. 20 v 18:37 Fabio Valentini napsal(a): > On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 5:06 PM Tomas Tomecek wrote: > > Hi Tomas, > > I'll respond below with some of my experiences and opinions ... > >> Let’s talk about dist-git, as a place where we work. For us, >> packagers, it’s a well-known place. Yet fo

Re: Is dist-git a good place for work?

Dne 05. 05. 20 v 18:42 Adam Williamson napsal(a): > On Tue, 2020-05-05 at 17:45 +0200, Tomas Tomecek wrote: >> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 1:41 PM Petr Pisar wrote: >>> On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 12:41:06PM +0200, Tomas Tomecek wrote: Petr, I should have probably stressed that our target is Fedora (

Re: Proposal: Add "Feedback" section to change proposal template

I don't know, I am somewhat ambivalent on this. I am not sure who is going to collect the feedback there. Will it be the owner of the change or somebody else? What will be the structure? Will it be just bunch or quotes from random sources? Wouldn't it be better to utilize the "discussion" tab/feat

Re: Is dist-git a good place for work?

Dne 05. 05. 20 v 21:26 Robbie Harwood napsal(a): > Tomas Tomecek writes: > >> Thank you all for raising all the questions and concerns. >> >> Before I reply, I'd like to stress that we are still in a prototype >> phase - not everything is solved (clearly) and at this point, we >> experiment with

Re: Announcing bugzilla overrides coming to dist-git (stg)

There is very likely more packages like this: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nodejs-tern-cordovajs Vít Dne 05. 05. 20 v 8:53 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > I also wonder what happened to rubygem-slop [1], because it says it is > retired, while it should be only orphaned [2]. > > &g

Re: Announcing bugzilla overrides coming to dist-git (stg)

I also wonder what happened to rubygem-slop [1], because it says it is retired, while it should be only orphaned [2]. Vít [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-slop [2] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/AI57XN2SQVXMT7QQBGSZECYVJP4H3LOK

Re: Is dist-git a good place for work?

So what is the workflow, how you update to the latest upstream? Or how you apply custom patch? Vít Dne 04. 05. 20 v 17:05 Tomas Tomecek napsal(a): > Let’s talk about dist-git, as a place where we work. For us, > packagers, it’s a well-known place. Yet for newcomers, it may take a > while to lea

Re: Announcing bugzilla overrides coming to dist-git (stg)

And since I am asking questions like this, how does it work for group owned packages (if there are any, can't find any example ATM, but there used to be, right?)? Vít Dne 04. 05. 20 v 19:02 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > It seems that only the main admin can edit the owners (they have >

Re: Announcing bugzilla overrides coming to dist-git (stg)

It seems that only the main admin can edit the owners (they have displayed the "edit" button), is that expected? E.g. checking rubygem-puma [1], where I have admin bit, I cannot edit the BZ assignee, while for rubygem-tilt [2] as a main admin, I can. Vít [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/

Re: Call for testers for rpmautospec in staging

Will this work with modules? There is the context already increased for every build ... Vít Dne 09. 04. 20 v 15:43 Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): > Good Morning Everyone, > > You may remember that Nils, Adam and pingou have been investigating what > it would take to get rid of maintaining the ch

Re: RFC: Feature macros (aka USE flags)

Dne 27. 04. 20 v 19:40 Daniel Mach napsal(a): > > > Dne 27. 04. 20 v 19:00 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a): >> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 10:47 AM Daniel Mach wrote: > >> >>> Since I'm part of RPM team too, I hope they won't mind if I'll speak >>> for >>> them :) Don't you rather want to work with us on

Re: RFC: Feature macros (aka USE flags)

Dne 27. 04. 20 v 16:25 Petr Šabata napsal(a): > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 3:01 PM Vít Ondruch wrote: >> >> Dne 27. 04. 20 v 13:19 Petr Šabata napsal(a): >>> Based on the recent discussions around %fedora/%rhel macros and ELN, >>> and %bcond generally being confusi

Re: RFC: Feature macros (aka USE flags)

Dne 27. 04. 20 v 13:19 Petr Šabata napsal(a): > Based on the recent discussions around %fedora/%rhel macros and ELN, > and %bcond generally being confusing to work with, I came up with a > distribution-wide feature that defines generic feature keywords and > associated helper macros that packages

Re: Orphaned rubygem-ruby_parser and rubygem-gettext_i18n_rails

Actually, I have orphaned also rubygem-gettext_i18n_rails, which is required only by rubygem-activeldap. Vít Dne 27. 04. 20 v 9:40 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > Hi, > > Since I have orphaned rubygem-ruby2ruby, I don't have any other use for > rubygem-ruby_parser. While it is in de

Orphaned rubygem-ruby_parser

Hi, Since I have orphaned rubygem-ruby2ruby, I don't have any other use for rubygem-ruby_parser. While it is in dependency chain of rubygem-activeldap and rubygem-gettext_i18n_rails, I have not heard back from rubygem-activeldap maintainer, therefore I orphaned the package. Vít

Orphaned rubygem-ruby2ruby

Hi, I don't have any use for rubygem-ruby2ruby, therefore I orphaned it. Vít ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject

Re: Non-responsive maintainer: laxathom (Xavier Lamien)

Hi Xavier, Since this thread has your attention, I'd like to take over rubygem-json, if you don't mind. Vít Dne 22. 04. 20 v 21:03 Xavier Lamien napsal(a): > Oh hi, > > Looks like your email get lost in the pile if you tried to reach me > personally or my bugzilla's filter is too efficient I'd

Orphaned rubygem-slop

Hi all, I have orphaned ruybgem-slop. This used to be dependency of rubygem-pry, but nowadays, the old version of this package is bundled in pry (:'(), so I don't have any interested in this package. Vít ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedorapro

Orphaning rubygem-diff_dirs

Hi all, I am going to orphan rubygem-diff_dirs. This package was brought in as dependency of AsciiBinder, but AsciiBinder is long gone. Therefore it is time to let rubygem-diff_dirs go as well. Vít ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.or

Re: Fedpkg: (scratch)-build forked repo directly in Koji

Dne 20. 04. 20 v 13:52 Ondrej Nosek napsal(a): > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 11:42 AM Vít Ondruch <mailto:vondr...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > > Dne 20. 04. 20 v 1:31 Ondrej Nosek napsal(a): >> Thanks for answers, comment in the text follows. >> >&g

Re: Fedpkg: (scratch)-build forked repo directly in Koji

Dne 20. 04. 20 v 1:31 Ondrej Nosek napsal(a): > Thanks for answers, comment in the text follows. > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 12:16 PM clime <mailto:cl...@fedoraproject.org>> wrote: > > On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 12:05, Vít Ondruch <mailto:

Re: buildroot problems on rawhide i386, armv7hl ??

Is this problem back? https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43439516 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43439614 Vít Dne 09. 04. 20 v 20:28 Florian Weimer napsal(a): > Sorry about your troubles. > > I have identified the problematic upstream change, and we will

Re: Call for testers for rpmautospec in staging

Dne 14. 04. 20 v 16:30 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): > On 14. 04. 20 15:47, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 12:46:11PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: >>> >>> Dne 09. 04. 20 v 15:43 Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): >>>> >>>> PS: >&g

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers (incl. GConf2, keybinder3, orangefs)

Dne 14. 04. 20 v 20:02 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > Dne 14. 04. 20 v 11:26 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): >> On 14. 04. 20 11:18, Dan Horák wrote: >>>>> patrikopravil: jruby pbrobinson: GConf2, jruby >>>> Why am I listed against jruby? >>> you should search f

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers (incl. GConf2, keybinder3, orangefs)

Dne 14. 04. 20 v 11:26 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): > On 14. 04. 20 11:18, Dan Horák wrote: patrikopravil: jruby pbrobinson: GConf2, jruby >>> Why am I listed against jruby? >> you should search for your name in the full report >> >> jruby blocks rubygem-json and >> >> xapian-bindings (maintai

Re: Call for testers for rpmautospec in staging

Dne 09. 04. 20 v 15:43 Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): > > PS: > - F32 update: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7f41380eb9 > - F31 update: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-3ee46bf2cd > - F30 update: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-081a8769

Re: Fedpkg: (scratch)-build forked repo directly in Koji

Dne 14. 04. 20 v 0:13 Ondrej Nosek napsal(a): > TLDR: Is $SUBJ function reasonable to implement in fedpkg? > > Hi, > > some time ago, fedpkg issue tracker got a request [1] for method, that > allows direct builds. That means without sending srpms via "--srpm" > argument. Currently, user's changes

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers (incl. GConf2, keybinder3, orangefs)

Dne 14. 04. 20 v 11:18 Dan Horák napsal(a): > On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 10:12:35 +0100 > Peter Robinson wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 10:07 AM Miro Hrončok >> wrote: >>> The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they >>> are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them.

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers (incl. GConf2, keybinder3, orangefs)

Dne 14. 04. 20 v 11:06 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): > > rubygem-ruby2ruby orphan   1 > weeks ago It seems that the "take" button on Pagure does not work reliably. Last week, I have picked up several packages including this one just to find later that I actually

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change Proposal: ELN Buildroot and Compose V4

Dne 07. 04. 20 v 20:55 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a): > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:53 PM Stephen Gallagher > wrote: > > I've just published a fourth version[1] of the ELN proposal. With a > > lot of input from Miro Hrončok, I think I've finally been able to > > clarify some of the points that we were

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change Proposal: ELN Buildroot and Compose V4

Dne 06. 04. 20 v 23:53 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a): > I've just published a fourth version[1] of the ELN proposal. With a > lot of input from Miro Hrončok, I think I've finally been able to > clarify some of the points that we were getting hung up on. > > Changes in this version of the proposal[2]

Re: F32 ELF file analysis

Dne 06. 04. 20 v 19:45 Steve Grubb napsal(a): > On Monday, April 6, 2020 1:22:15 PM EDT Vít Ondruch wrote: >> Should I be able to see analysis for e.g. Ruby? I am asking, because I >> can't, so not sure if I am doing anything wrong. > Its likely not part of @Core packag

Re: F32 ELF file analysis

Should I be able to see analysis for e.g. Ruby? I am asking, because I can't, so not sure if I am doing anything wrong. Vít Dne 06. 04. 20 v 18:03 Steve Grubb napsal(a): > Hello, > > Just wanted to share with everyone the results of a data collection on > various metrics of ELF files when inst

Re: Fedora 32 FTBFS packages to be orphaned in 1 week

I have take the following: > rubygem-addressable > rubygem-ruby_parser > rubygem-ruby2ruby > rubygem-websocket > Vít ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Co

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

Dne 06. 04. 20 v 14:34 Josh Boyer napsal(a): > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 8:26 AM Stasiek Michalski wrote: >>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:10 pm, Adam Williamson >>> >> >>> $100/month per user for Ultimate (the only offering that meets the >>> "requirements")... 2339 packages in FAS... so $233900 * 12

Re: CPE Weekly: 2020-04-04

Dne 06. 04. 20 v 12:29 Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): > On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 11:09:37AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> Dne 04. 04. 20 v 21:02 Aoife Moloney napsal(a): >>> * rpmautospec 0.0.1 through 0.0.10 have been released and deployed in >>> staging >> >&

Re: CPE Weekly: 2020-04-04

Dne 04. 04. 20 v 21:02 Aoife Moloney napsal(a): > * rpmautospec 0.0.1 through 0.0.10 have been released and deployed in staging Could somebody please update on the status? What were the proof of concepts, what are takeaways? Was there any decision on the approach and why? Vít _

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change Proposal: ELN Buildroot and Compose V3

Dne 03. 04. 20 v 10:46 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > > > Dne 02. 04. 20 v 21:38 Kalev Lember napsal(a): >> On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 9:10 PM Stephen Gallagher > <mailto:sgall...@redhat.com>> wrote: >> >> And having to manually perform a sync between those pac

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

Dne 02. 04. 20 v 19:26 Matthew Miller napsal(a): > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 11:34:08AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > >>> Yeah -- and this bigger picture is still the Fedora Project's overall >>> goal. The change is in the mission of CPE vs. the previous Fedora >>> Engineering team structure, not

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change Proposal: ELN Buildroot and Compose V3

Dne 02. 04. 20 v 21:38 Kalev Lember napsal(a): > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 9:10 PM Stephen Gallagher > wrote: > > And having to manually perform a sync between those packages for every > update is somehow less work > There are two things: 1) Of course I don't ex

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change Proposal: ELN Buildroot and Compose V3

Dne 02. 04. 20 v 21:01 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > Dne 02. 04. 20 v 20:07 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a): >> but I *did* >> acknowledge that we are going to incorporate the possibility of >> maintaining separate specs for ELN and Rawhide for any maintainer who >> absolutely w

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change Proposal: ELN Buildroot and Compose V3

Dne 02. 04. 20 v 17:39 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a): > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 4:34 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 03:55:19PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 3:24 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek >>> wrote: >> I disagree, both to "aren't

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change Proposal: ELN Buildroot and Compose V3

Dne 02. 04. 20 v 20:07 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a): > but I *did* > acknowledge that we are going to incorporate the possibility of > maintaining separate specs for ELN and Rawhide for any maintainer who > absolutely wants to do more manual work. You see, this is precisely the point where the di

Re: Heads-up: RPM 4.16 alpha coming to rawhide

Dne 02. 04. 20 v 13:52 Björn 'besser82' Esser napsal(a): > rubygem-scruffy.spec:7: bad %if condition: (prerelease) Is this construct really forbidden? https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-scruffy/c/ecdb3b762fef08eae8055d30dc9dfc2255e3c275 Anyway, the whole conditional should have been d

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2020-04-02 16:00 UTC)

Vít Dne 02. 04. 20 v 10:04 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): > On 02. 04. 20 9:38, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> I just wonder, is the FPC working? I don't see any meeting minutes, the >> agenda is the same for this week as it was for the last week and the >> week before and the week befor

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

Dne 01. 04. 20 v 19:28 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 11:51:01AM +0200, clime wrote: >> On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 10:54, Vít Ondruch wrote: >>> Do you mean https://github.com/fedora-infra/pkgdb2/ ? :) > No. > >> This is just hilarious, so after goi

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2020-04-02 16:00 UTC)

I just wonder, is the FPC working? I don't see any meeting minutes, the agenda is the same for this week as it was for the last week and the week before and the week before the week before, there is 56 opened tickets + 20 opened PR, but there are just 4 of them listed here ... Vít Dne 01. 04.

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change Proposal: ELN Buildroot and Compose V3

Dne 01. 04. 20 v 16:01 David Cantrell napsal(a): > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 10:19:08AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> So although this update clarifies some part, we have not moved anywhere: >> >> >> ~~~ >> >> === Can we do this in a branch instead of in mast

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

Dne 01. 04. 20 v 15:34 Neal Gompa napsal(a): > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 9:26 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: >> >> Dne 01. 04. 20 v 14:33 Alex Scheel napsal(a): >>> - Original Message - >>>> From: "Panu Matilainen" >>>> To: devel@lists.fed

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

Dne 01. 04. 20 v 14:33 Alex Scheel napsal(a): > - Original Message - >> From: "Panu Matilainen" >> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >> Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 6:22:39 AM >> Subject: Re: CPE Git Forge Decision >> >>> I also appreciate that as a community developing our own solution

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

Dne 01. 04. 20 v 12:37 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): > On 01. 04. 20 10:53, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> >> Dne 01. 04. 20 v 10:37 Michal Konecny napsal(a): >>> >>> >>> On 31/03/2020 20:53, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >>>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:40:55PM -0500

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

Dne 01. 04. 20 v 14:41 Michal Konecny napsal(a): > > > On 01/04/2020 10:53, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> >> >> Dne 01. 04. 20 v 10:37 Michal Konecny napsal(a): >>> >>> >>> On 31/03/2020 20:53, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >>>> On Tue, Mar

<    3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   >