Re: Orphaning owncloud and nextcloud

Hi all, There's been no interest from anyone else so I've gone ahead and orphaned these. James On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 10:16, James Hogarth wrote: > Hi all, > > It's become clear that I haven't had the time I thought I'd have this past > year due to $life ... > >

Orphaning owncloud and nextcloud

Hi all, It's become clear that I haven't had the time I thought I'd have this past year due to $life ... These are in a bit of a broken state and right now I'd advise people that need them to use upstream packages/containers. I don't foresee sufficient time coming in the near future with family

Re: Status of OwnCloud/NextCloud

On 2 May 2018 at 12:11, Marek Greško wrote: > Randy, it is the same with nextcloud. > To keep people up to date ... I figured I'd do owncloud first as that looked a simple single version jump ... There was much pain that ensued trying to maintain the unbundling of the PHP

Re: systemd in non-privileged container

On 30 April 2018 at 15:56, Daniel Walsh <dwa...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 04/30/2018 10:42 AM, James Hogarth wrote: >> >> On 27 April 2018 at 17:47, Pavel Raiskup <prais...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Friday, April 27, 2018 5:41:19 PM CEST Lennart Poet

Re: systemd in non-privileged container

On 27 April 2018 at 17:47, Pavel Raiskup wrote: > On Friday, April 27, 2018 5:41:19 PM CEST Lennart Poettering wrote: >> On Fr, 27.04.18 17:27, Pavel Raiskup (prais...@redhat.com) wrote: >> >> > Hi all, >> > >> > just wanted to let you know about trivial experiment [1] with

Re: Should boost package install boost-python2 / boost-python3 / both or none?

On Thu, 19 Apr 2018, 19:02 Jonathan Wakely, wrote: > On 19/04/18 18:42 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >On 19/04/18 19:07 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > >>I was recently surprised that `dnf install boost` brings in python2. > >> > >>It is like that because boost brings

[EPEL-devel] Re: Ansible in EL7

On 11 April 2018 at 20:32, Dylan Silva wrote: > I am very afraid I am jumping into a lion's den here... However, I am going > to try to alleviate some concerns. > > Our move from EPEL to Extras was actually to solve for the needs of RHEL and > the RHEL System Roles. We

Re: [EPEL-devel] Re: Ansible in EL7

On 11 April 2018 at 15:02, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 4:43 AM, Alexander Bokovoy > wrote: > >> I'm not in Ansible engineering or product management so take this with a >> grain of salt. My understanding is that cadence of Ansible

[EPEL-devel] Re: Ansible in EL7

On 11 April 2018 at 14:30, Kevin Fenzi <ke...@scrye.com> wrote: > On 04/11/2018 04:52 AM, James Hogarth wrote: > >> >> Especially if EPEL7 now has a clash with an optional repo that is available >> to all subscribers... >> >> There are priority

[EPEL-devel] Re: Ansible in EL7

On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, 10:05 Peter Robinson, <pbrobin...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:58 AM, Todd Zullinger <t...@pobox.com> wrote: > > James Hogarth wrote: > >> I was under the impression that as of 2.4.0 in EL7 we removed ansible > >

Re: [EPEL-devel] Re: Ansible in EL7

On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, 10:05 Peter Robinson, <pbrobin...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:58 AM, Todd Zullinger <t...@pobox.com> wrote: > > James Hogarth wrote: > >> I was under the impression that as of 2.4.0 in EL7 we removed ansible > >

[EPEL-devel] Re: Ansible in EL7

On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, 01:26 Todd Zullinger, <t...@pobox.com> wrote: > James Hogarth wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, 00:59 Todd Zullinger, <t...@pobox.com> wrote: > >> Red Hat announced today that Ansible was being deprecated > >> from the extras channel. T

Re: [EPEL-devel] Re: Ansible in EL7

On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, 01:26 Todd Zullinger, <t...@pobox.com> wrote: > James Hogarth wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, 00:59 Todd Zullinger, <t...@pobox.com> wrote: > >> Red Hat announced today that Ansible was being deprecated > >> from the extras channel. T

[EPEL-devel] Re: Ansible in EL7

On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, 01:13 James Hogarth, <james.hoga...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, 00:59 Todd Zullinger, <t...@pobox.com> wrote: > >> James Hogarth wrote: >> > I was under the impression that as of 2.4.0 in EL7 we removed ansible

Re: [EPEL-devel] Ansible in EL7

On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, 01:13 James Hogarth, <james.hoga...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, 00:59 Todd Zullinger, <t...@pobox.com> wrote: > >> James Hogarth wrote: >> > I was under the impression that as of 2.4.0 in EL7 we removed ansible

Re: [EPEL-devel] Ansible in EL7

On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, 00:59 Todd Zullinger, <t...@pobox.com> wrote: > James Hogarth wrote: > > I was under the impression that as of 2.4.0 in EL7 we removed ansible > > from EPEL7 since Red Hat included it in their extras repo, and EPEL > > policy is not to conflict. &

[EPEL-devel] Ansible in EL7

Hi all, I was under the impression that as of 2.4.0 in EL7 we removed ansible from EPEL7 since Red Hat included it in their extras repo, and EPEL policy is not to conflict. I was surprised just now to see ansible 2.5.0 on a test centos system, when it wasn't in extras, and on a little bit of a

Ansible in EL7

Hi all, I was under the impression that as of 2.4.0 in EL7 we removed ansible from EPEL7 since Red Hat included it in their extras repo, and EPEL policy is not to conflict. I was surprised just now to see ansible 2.5.0 on a test centos system, when it wasn't in extras, and on a little bit of a

Re: Intent to orphan Python 2

On 6 April 2018 at 10:18, Petr Viktorin <pvikt...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 04/04/18 18:21, James Hogarth wrote: > [...] >> >> Can we please get some consistency here? >> >> I noted today that firewalld has dropped python2-firewall but of course >> ansible

Re: Intent to orphan Python 2

On 6 April 2018 at 01:10, Eric Garver <egar...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 10:53:03PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:06 PM, James Hogarth <james.hoga...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > >&g

Re: Intent to orphan Python 2

On Thu, 5 Apr 2018, 18:28 Matthew Miller, <mat...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 04:03:24PM +0000, James Hogarth wrote: > > > I'm imagining all those dependent packages _also_ moving to that > > > module > > Sorry Matthew but I can't s

Re: Intent to orphan Python 2

On Thu, 5 Apr 2018, 16:05 Matthew Miller, <mat...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 03:11:47PM +0100, James Hogarth wrote: > > But it's not python2 itself going that is really the painful part of > > this ... it's the various python2-* packages going bye-b

Re: Intent to orphan Python 2

On 5 April 2018 at 13:23, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:58:57AM +0200, Petr Viktorin wrote: >> And if you read the original mail to the end, you'll find that our >> position is not as black-and-white as it might look from the Subject >> line. >> As

Re: Intent to orphan Python 2

On 4 April 2018 at 22:06, Kevin Fenzi <ke...@scrye.com> wrote: > On 04/04/2018 01:35 PM, James Hogarth wrote: >> On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, 21:28 Adam Williamson, <adamw...@fedoraproject.org> >> wrote: >> >>> This rather begs the question of whether there are an

Re: Status of OwnCloud/NextCloud

On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, 19:54 Stephen Gallagher, wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 2:36 PM Przemek Klosowski < > przemek.klosow...@nist.gov> wrote: > >> On 04/04/2018 01:59 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> > The short version is that Modules *are* distribution packages. They're

Re: Status of OwnCloud/NextCloud

On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, 20:26 Adam Williamson, <adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Wed, 2018-04-04 at 11:15 +0100, James Hogarth wrote: > > On 4 April 2018 at 11:01, David Sommerseth <d...@eurephia.org> wrote: > > > On 03/04/18 21:00, Christian Glombek wrote:

Re: Intent to orphan Python 2

On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, 21:28 Adam Williamson, <adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Wed, 2018-04-04 at 10:51 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On 04/04/2018 10:46 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > On 04/04/2018 09:21 AM, James Hogarth wrote: > > > > > > ...sn

Re: Status of OwnCloud/NextCloud

On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, 18:39 Kevin Fenzi, <ke...@scrye.com> wrote: > On 04/04/2018 07:51 AM, James Hogarth wrote: > ...snip... > > Today I've spent time between $realwork getting my ansible plays > > updated to handle F28 (thanks for dropping python2-* early guys!) and

Re: Intent to orphan Python 2

On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, 18:52 Kevin Fenzi, <ke...@scrye.com> wrote: > On 04/04/2018 10:46 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On 04/04/2018 09:21 AM, James Hogarth wrote: > > > > ...snip... > > > >> Can we please get some consistency here? > >> > >&g

Re: Intent to orphan Python 2

On Mon, 26 Mar 2018, 10:59 Petr Viktorin, wrote: > On 03/24/18 15:28, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Petr Viktorin wrote: > >> As with any orphaning, that leaves two options: > >> - someone else agrees now to take over in 2020 (keeping in mind this is > >> a security-critical

Re: Status of OwnCloud/NextCloud

On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, 16:37 Stephen Gallagher, <sgall...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 11:34 AM James Hogarth <james.hoga...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, 15:59 Reindl Harald, <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote:

Re: Status of OwnCloud/NextCloud

On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, 16:51 William Moreno, wrote: > > > 2018-04-04 9:43 GMT-06:00 Randy Barlow : > >> On 04/04/2018 11:37 AM, William Moreno wrote: >> > A well documented setp can help users to move from OC to NC. >> >> James

Re: Local test VMs (was: Status of OwnCloud/NextCloud)

On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, 16:11 Tim Landscheidt, <t...@tim-landscheidt.de> wrote: > James Hogarth <james.hoga...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > […] > > > FIrst thing when I fired up my test harness was that F28 has changed, > > and thus broken, kickstart for the user op

Re: Status of OwnCloud/NextCloud

On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, 16:27 Randy Barlow, wrote: > Another thought on this topic: > > It's probably a lot of work to maintain OwnCloud and NextCloud, and it > sounds like a lot of people have moved to NextCloud or intend to in the > future. Would it help if we went

Re: Status of OwnCloud/NextCloud

On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, 15:59 Reindl Harald, <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote: > > > Am 04.04.2018 um 16:51 schrieb James Hogarth: > > Last bit to debug before I can start testing an update of OC and NC is > > why my automated setup explodes with: > > > > PHP Fat

Re: Status of OwnCloud/NextCloud

On 4 April 2018 at 14:48, William Moreno wrote: > > > 2018-04-03 13:11 GMT-06:00 Stephen Gallagher : >> >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 3:01 PM Christian Glombek >> wrote: >>> >>> I should probably add that the

Re: Status of OwnCloud/NextCloud

On 4 April 2018 at 11:01, David Sommerseth wrote: > On 03/04/18 21:00, Christian Glombek wrote: >> I should probably add that the actual updater program has not been shipped >> in the rpms thus far. Although I'm not sure how this affects major updates, >> it is leading to

Re: Status of OwnCloud/NextCloud

On 4 April 2018 at 08:38, Benson Muite wrote: > >> >> So, I don't think we can update the package from 10 to 13, thus breaking >> all user installations. >> >> I see 2 possible way >> >> The classical one >> >> - create nextcloud11, nextcloud12 and nextcloud13 packages

Re: Starting Boost 1.66.0 rebuilds in f28-boost side tag

On 23 Jan 2018 15:39, "Jonathan Wakely" wrote: As happens for most releases, I'm updating Boost in rawhide and rebuilding the affected packages in a side tag (f28-boost). https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F28Boost166 If you maintain a package that depends on

Re: Exploring the idea of CentOS/RHEL branches in dist-git [was Re: Python3 will be in next major RHEL release, please adjust %if statements accordingly]

On 17 January 2018 at 17:13, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 08:18:42AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: >> - Better Git frontend for CentOS >> - Possibility to submit PRs against RHEL branches >> - Easy to see changes from RHEL and Fedora (and CentOS). >> What

Re: Proposal to remove NetworkManager from Core group

On 19 January 2018 at 11:44, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 11:48:52AM +0100, Thomas Haller wrote: >> When you say "Core" group, what are the practical effects of removing >> it? You can uninstall NetworkManager on Fedora today. Do you mean, it >> should

Re: F28 System Wide Change: Rename "nobody" user

On 11 January 2018 at 01:41, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 10:26:24AM -0500, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 6:18 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek >> wrote: >> > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 11:56:46AM +0100,

Re: F28 System Wide Change: Kerberos in Python modernization

On 5 January 2018 at 09:35, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Fri, 2018-01-05 at 09:23 +0100, Jan Kurik wrote: >> >> >> == Detailed Description == >> Replace older, clunkier, less user-friendly python interfaces to >> Kerberos with python-gssapi. python-gssapi uses the GSSAPI

Re: Modularity questions for "traditional" RPM packaging

On 14 November 2017 at 09:50, Marek Skalický wrote: > Christopher píše v St 08. 11. 2017 v 22:33 +: >> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:27 PM Igor Gnatenko > oject.org> wrote: >> > On Wed, 2017-11-08 at 18:58 +, Christopher wrote: >> > > Hi, I've

[EPEL-devel] Re: ansible1.9 package

On 3 Nov 2017 9:28 pm, "Peter Rex" wrote: You seem to be the guy who does the builds. If you could advise, despite the grumpiness: Since updating Ansible playbooks, tasks, libraries and such to work with a more current Ansible version isn't practical, on existing servers,

Re: plan to update F27 to systemd-235 cancelled

On 26 Oct 2017 22:37, "Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek" wrote: Hi, two weeks ago I signalled a plan to update systemd to v235 in F27. I have now given up on this. Reasons: there were some issues in the implementation of the DynamicUser feature. Handling this took some time and

Re: NSS Default File Format SQL in Fedora 28

On 25 October 2017 at 16:16, Kai Engert <k...@kuix.de> wrote: > On 25.10.2017 15:22, James Hogarth wrote: >> There's always process if something is high enough level to be >> considered a "Change" >> >> Please follow the appropriate process to have this i

Re: NSS Default File Format SQL in Fedora 28

On 25 October 2017 at 10:45, Kai Engert wrote: > TL;DR: The change originally planned for Fedora 27 will now be done for > Rawhide Fedora 28, probably tomorrow. > > > We had previously announced to change the NSS crypto library to use the > new sql file format by default. Please see

Re: Updates for Firefox 57 beta

On 20 October 2017 at 12:41, Alexander Ploumistos <alex.ploumis...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 2:07 PM, James Hogarth <james.hoga...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> I do need sleep at some point ;) > > :-O > >> Ive pulled the commits and kicke

Re: Updates for Firefox 57 beta

On 20 October 2017 at 12:07, James Hogarth <james.hoga...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 19 October 2017 at 19:17, Alexander Ploumistos > <alex.ploumis...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 9:09 PM, Mátyás Selmeci <mselmeci...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>&g

Re: Updates for Firefox 57 beta

On 19 October 2017 at 19:17, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 9:09 PM, Mátyás Selmeci wrote: >> Where is the COPR? I searched for "firefox" on copr.fedorainfracloud.org but >> did not find it. > >

Re: Updates for Firefox 57 beta

On 19 Oct 2017 18:26, "James Hogarth" <james.hoga...@gmail.com> wrote: On 18 Oct 2017 13:21, "James Hogarth" <james.hoga...@gmail.com> wrote: On 17 Oct 2017 17:40, "Gerald B. Cox" <gb...@bzb.us> wrote: On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 1:33 A

Re: Updates for Firefox 57 beta

On 18 Oct 2017 13:21, "James Hogarth" <james.hoga...@gmail.com> wrote: On 17 Oct 2017 17:40, "Gerald B. Cox" <gb...@bzb.us> wrote: On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 1:33 AM, James Hogarth <james.hoga...@gmail.com> wrote: > > And even if we hypothetica

Re: "New" developer here

On 19 October 2017 at 10:11, Will Crawford wrote: > I've actually been using Red Hat, then Fedora, for ~20 years now, but > I'm signing up to package things, I'd like to put some more R packages > in the repo, licences permitting. > > Please get in touch if you're

Re: Updates for Firefox 57 beta

On 17 Oct 2017 17:40, "Gerald B. Cox" <gb...@bzb.us> wrote: On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 1:33 AM, James Hogarth <james.hoga...@gmail.com> wrote: > > And even if we hypothetically forked Firefox (as that is what it would be) > to add legacy extension capability b

Re: Updates for Firefox 57 beta

gt; > present in the developer version to assist in the migration and porting >> etc >> > >> > As of FF57 beta WebExtension only is supported and legacy is killed off. >> >> I think the whole *idea* was to suggest making the option available >> again in Fe

Re: Updates for Firefox 57 beta

On 16 Oct 2017 9:57 pm, "Richard W.M. Jones" wrote: On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 01:45:09PM +0300, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: > Hello, > > Now that FESCo has ruled that "firefox 57beta is removed from f25/f26 > updates-testing but stays in f27/rawhide", could we at least keep >

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 16 October 2017 at 14:58, John Florian wrote: > On Sun, 2017-10-15 at 09:23 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > people are going to notice is the improved performance and cleaner > interface. > > > Yes! Because of this thread's original message, I pulled 57 into F26 eager >

Re: Updates for Firefox 57 beta

On 16 October 2017 at 10:18, Martin Stransky <stran...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 10/16/2017 11:10 AM, James Hogarth wrote: > >> On 16 October 2017 at 10:00, Martin Stransky <stran...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> On 10/15/2017 03:58 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: >

Re: Updates for Firefox 57 beta

On 16 October 2017 at 10:00, Martin Stransky wrote: > On 10/15/2017 03:58 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > >> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 3:45 AM, Alexander Ploumistos < >> alex.ploumis...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hello, >>> >>> Now that FESCo has ruled that "firefox 57beta is removed

Re: Do I need Epoch: for downgrades in rawhide?

On 16 October 2017 at 08:13, Till Hofmann wrote: > > > On 10/15/2017 08:08 PM, Randy Barlow wrote: > > On 10/15/2017 12:34 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > >> I would suggest that you submit librealsense1 as a separate package, > >> instead. The applications that use the older

Re: GCL and SELinux: help requested

On 14 Oct 2017 12:08 am, "Adam Williamson" wrote: On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 15:58 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On 10/13/2017 03:00 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 14:53 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > It's really hard to say what the trouble > > >

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 11 Oct 2017 4:48 pm, "Pierre-Yves Chibon" <pin...@pingoured.fr> wrote: On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 04:34:52PM +0100, James Hogarth wrote: >On 11 October 2017 at 16:23, Gerald B. Cox <gb...@bzb.us> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Till Hofmann >

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 11 October 2017 at 16:23, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Till Hofmann > wrote: > >> >> >> The very first sentence of the page you linked above: >> >>> The updates-testing repository, also referred to as Test Updates, >>>

Re: plan to update F27 to systemd-235

On 9 October 2017 at 11:30, Solomon Peachy wrote: > On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 10:17:31PM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > > The killing of logged out user processes, without record and with > > no option to disable it after compilation in release 230 was another > > one. > >

Re: plan to update F27 to systemd-235

On 7 October 2017 at 13:14, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 09:19:17AM +0100, James Hogarth wrote: > > Although personally I have no specific objections and indeed plan to use > > the IP accounting stuff on a bunch of units..

Re: plan to update F27 to systemd-235

On 6 Oct 2017 16:08, "Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek" wrote: Hi, systemd 235 was released today. A large number of issues was closed upstream, including many bug fixes, documentation updates, and long-standing RFEs. There are some new features, but relatively few entirely new

Re: Kernel 4.13 rebase plans

On 2 October 2017 at 03:26, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > El vie, 22-09-2017 a las 15:25 -0500, Michael Catanzaro escribió: > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Chris Adams > > wrote: > > > On what grounds? There is nothing in the Fedora guidelines that > > >

[EPEL-devel] Re: Adding a new RPM to EPEL

On 5 Oct 2017 3:57 am, "Digimer" wrote: Hi all, Pardon if this is the wrong place to ask, or if there is a FAQ for this (I checked https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL#How_can_I_contribute.3F). I've created a new RPM for the perl module Log::Journald, which makes writing

Re: [HEADS-UP] PHP 7.2 in rawhide next week

On 3 Oct 2017 07:16, "Remi Collet" wrote: Le 29/09/2017 à 16:11, Remi Collet a écrit : > Hi, > > I plan to build PHP 7.2.0RC3 in rawhide next week, so we'll have a lot > of time to ensure everything is ok before F28 is branched. "remi's php-7.2.0~RC3-1.fc28 tagged

Re: Package add request

On 27 Sep 2017 04:50, "Jason L Tibbitts III" wrote: > "HV" == Hedayat Vatankhah writes: HV> I'd say to stick with upstream naming, which is the Fedora HV> way. Changing the names to lower case is a must in Debian, they HV> simply don't allow upper

Re: Removal of dependencies on net-tools

On 26 September 2017 at 19:43, Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote: > > > Am 26.09.2017 um 20:39 schrieb James Hogarth: > >> >> >> On 26 Sep 2017 6:37 pm, "Chris Adams" <li...@cmadams.net > li...@cmadams.net>> wrote: >>

Re: Fwd: Removal of dependencies on net-tools

On 26 Sep 2017 6:37 pm, "Chris Adams" <li...@cmadams.net> wrote: Once upon a time, James Hogarth <james.hoga...@gmail.com> said: > You're correct that this isn't covering BR situations but I didn't want the > scope of this to blow out to the less reasonable. > >

Re: Fwd: Removal of dependencies on net-tools

On 26 Sep 2017 5:41 pm, "Miro Hrončok" <mhron...@redhat.com> wrote: On 26.9.2017 15:56, James Hogarth wrote: > Hi, > > So net-tools has been deprecated a long time at this point with numerous > known issues - especially as we enter an IPv6 world. > > There was

Fwd: Removal of dependencies on net-tools

Hi, So net-tools has been deprecated a long time at this point with numerous known issues - especially as we enter an IPv6 world. There was an initial discussion a few months back as can be reviewed here: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/de...@lists.fe

Fwd: Removal of dependencies on net-tools

Hi, So net-tools has been deprecated a long time at this point with numerous known issues - especially as we enter an IPv6 world. There was an initial discussion a few months back as can be reviewed here: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.

Re: [Fedora-php-devel-list] Re: Fedora 27, httpd in thread mode by default, need for ZTS php modules

On 25 Sep 2017 11:23 am, "Remi Collet" wrote: Additional information: php-fpm is now the default configured way to enable PHP with apache in F27+ I.e. mod_php for ZTS is still provided but not loaded by default, as unsupported by upstream. Remi. P.S.

Re: State of Sparkeshare in Fedora

On 24 September 2017 at 16:29, Michael Catanzaro <mike.catanz...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 2:09 AM, James Hogarth <james.hoga...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Based on the fedora update policy and the acknowledged breaking changes >> in 2.0 we shou

Re: Kernel 4.13 rebase plans

On 22 September 2017 at 15:02, James Hogarth <james.hoga...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 22 September 2017 at 14:50, Gary Gatling <gsgat...@ncsu.edu> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 9:41 AM, James Hogarth <james.hoga...@gmail.com> >>

[EPEL-devel] Re: EOL for EPEL

On 22 September 2017 at 15:21, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 22 September 2017 at 07:28, Somers-Harris, David | David | OPS > wrote: > > Hello, > > > > > > > > It is my understanding that the EOL for each EPEL is in line with RHEL. > > > > >

Re: Kernel 4.13 rebase plans

On 22 September 2017 at 14:50, Gary Gatling <gsgat...@ncsu.edu> wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 9:41 AM, James Hogarth <james.hoga...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >>> >> Pretty sure the last testing I did with the details form Hans's blog[0] >&

Re: Kernel 4.13 rebase plans

On 22 September 2017 at 14:34, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 09:22:08AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > repo is supported and it needs to not break. We've been super super > lenient > > > > That's a completely untenable position. There is only one

Re: Kernel 4.13 rebase plans

On 15 September 2017 at 11:00, James Hogarth <james.hoga...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 13 September 2017 at 01:39, James Hogarth <james.hoga...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On 12 Sep 2017 10:49 pm, "Laura Abbott" <labb...@redhat.co

Re: State of Sparkeshare in Fedora

On 22 Sep 2017 4:46 am, "Luya Tshimbalanga" <l...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: On 21/09/17 08:02 AM, James Hogarth wrote: On 21 September 2017 at 07:17, Luya Tshimbalanga <l...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Sparkleshare package is currently behind upstream wh

Re: State of Sparkeshare in Fedora

On 21 September 2017 at 07:17, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: > Sparkleshare package is currently behind upstream which just reach > 2.0[1][2] > The maintainer was contacted for updating the package with current broken > dependency below on Fedora 27 and above: > > Problem:

Re: Kernel 4.13 rebase plans

On 13 September 2017 at 01:39, James Hogarth <james.hoga...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 12 Sep 2017 10:49 pm, "Laura Abbott" <labb...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 09/05/2017 09:41 AM, Laura Abbott wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Kernel 4.13 was

Re: Kernel 4.13 rebase plans

On 12 Sep 2017 10:49 pm, "Laura Abbott" wrote: On 09/05/2017 09:41 AM, Laura Abbott wrote: > Hi, > > Kernel 4.13 was released this past weekend. This kernel has been > built for rawhide and is building for F27 as well. We will be > following the same upgrade procedure as in

Re: Fedora Modular Server: status and game plan?

On 8 September 2017 at 16:04, Randy Barlow wrote: > On 09/08/2017 10:51 AM, Tom Hughes wrote: > > Surely (c) would make a mockery of change system. What would not make a > > mockery of the change system would be to invoke the contingency plan. > > > > Except there

Re: Better to bundle a library or package different version than upstream?

On 5 September 2017 at 23:43, Alexander Ploumistos < alex.ploumis...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:27 AM, James Hogarth <james.hoga...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I do suggest popping a comment in the spec at the appropriate point > > expla

Re: Better to bundle a library or package different version than upstream?

On 5 September 2017 at 22:17, Alexander Ploumistos < alex.ploumis...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you James, this did feel like the proper course of action. > ___ > > No worries ... special cases do come up and it's important to be responsive to upstream

Re: Kernel 4.13 rebase plans

On 5 September 2017 at 22:40, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Chris Murphy > wrote: > > > FWIW, you can just download the F27 kernel, kernel-core, > > kernel-modules (optionally extras), and 'sudo dnf install *rpm' in > >

Re: Kernel 4.13 rebase plans

On 5 September 2017 at 18:26, Laura Abbott <labb...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 09/05/2017 09:59 AM, James Hogarth wrote: > > > > > > On 5 Sep 2017 5:42 pm, "Laura Abbott" <labb...@redhat.com labb...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > > >

Re: Kernel 4.13 rebase plans

On 5 Sep 2017 5:42 pm, "Laura Abbott" wrote: Hi, Kernel 4.13 was released this past weekend. This kernel has been built for rawhide and is building for F27 as well. We will be following the same upgrade procedure as in the past. F25 and F26 will get rebased to 4.13 after a

Re: Better to bundle a library or package different version than upstream?

On 5 September 2017 at 00:27, Alexander Ploumistos < alex.ploumis...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear all, > > About ten days ago I asked a question on this list, but I guess on one > hand it was too specific, while on the other it coincided with people > travelling to Flock or being on vacation. As I

Re: tcp_wrappers deprecation

On 24 August 2017 at 10:33, Peter Robinson wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-08-15 at 13:58 +0200, Jakub Jelen wrote: > >> Hello Fedora devels and users, > >> > >> more than three years ago, the same topic started discussion if we > >> want > >> this package in Fedora or not and how

Re: tcp_wrappers deprecation

On 18 Aug 2017 4:42 pm, "Jakub Jelen" wrote: On Tue, 2017-08-15 at 13:58 +0200, Jakub Jelen wrote: > Hello Fedora devels and users, > > more than three years ago, the same topic started discussion if we > want > this package in Fedora or not and how [1]. The discussion

Re: Nonresponsive maintainer: attempting to contact kanarip

On 27 June 2017 at 12:40, Vít Ondruch <vondr...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > Dne 27.6.2017 v 10:41 Jeroen van Meeuwen (Kolab Systems) napsal(a): > > On Fri, 2017-06-23 at 11:39 +0100, James Hogarth wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Has anyone heard from kanarip

Re: Nonresponsive maintainer: attempting to contact kanarip

On 27 Jun 2017 9:42 am, "Jeroen van Meeuwen (Kolab Systems)" < vanmeeu...@kolabsys.com> wrote: On Fri, 2017-06-23 at 11:39 +0100, James Hogarth wrote: > Hi, > > Has anyone heard from kanarip or able to contact him? > Most people do hear from kanarip at unde

Re: Nonresponsive maintainer: attempting to contact kanarip

On 23 June 2017 at 12:33, Haïkel <hgue...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > 2017-06-23 12:39 GMT+02:00 James Hogarth <james.hoga...@gmail.com>: >> Hi, >> >> Has anyone heard from kanarip or able to contact him? >> >> I've been attempting to contact fo

Nonresponsive maintainer: attempting to contact kanarip

Hi, Has anyone heard from kanarip or able to contact him? I've been attempting to contact for this bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223593 If there's no response in one week an issue will be filed with FESCo following the nonrepsonsive maintainer policy to review the ownership

  1   2   3   >