Re: vim has lost it's damn mind

2020-08-07 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 06/08/20 11:34 -0400, John Florian wrote: I understand better now my problems with my mappings.  Above, I said I had a mapping for :nohlsearch.  In actuality, this was ^E :nohlsearch.  Both should work but only the latter now only works with vim; gvim shows the mapping with :map but I

Re: Reminder: upcoming Fedora 33 deadlines & milestones

2020-08-05 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 05/08/20 04:35 +0200, J. Scheurich wrote: Am 05.08.20 um 01:52 schrieb Ben Cotton: Here are some upcoming deadlines and milestones for the Fedora 33 development cycle: Are you sure, that boost1.73 should be part of fedora 33 ? It lloks like boost.173 would require a future verson of

Re: vim has lost it's damn mind

2020-08-04 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 04/08/20 10:59 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote: On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 10:49 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 03/08/20 13:32 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote: >I finally ran into another issue and used the vim faq. It was ":set >cindent" that was causing the crazy indentation in spec file %

Re: Lots of FTBFS bugs filed for S390x "BuildrootError: Requested repo (1785390) is DELETED" / "rpm.error: error reading package header" errors

2020-08-04 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 04/08/20 17:48 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:46 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 03/08/20 19:29 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: >On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 6:59 PM Hans de Goede wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On 8/3/20 5:53 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >>

Re: vim has lost it's damn mind

2020-08-04 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 03/08/20 13:32 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote: I finally ran into another issue and used the vim faq. It was ":set cindent" that was causing the crazy indentation in spec file %changelogs. I still consider this a bug as the file doesn't even end in c, cpp, cxx, c++ etc. What's turning it on for

Re: Lots of FTBFS bugs filed for S390x "BuildrootError: Requested repo (1785390) is DELETED" / "rpm.error: error reading package header" errors

2020-08-04 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 03/08/20 19:29 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 6:59 PM Hans de Goede wrote: Hi, On 8/3/20 5:53 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 05:21:58PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> >> I just noticed that a lot my packages got a FTBFS because of >>

Re: Lots of FTBFS bugs filed for S390x "BuildrootError: Requested repo (1785390) is DELETED" / "rpm.error: error reading package header" errors

2020-08-04 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 03/08/20 18:03 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: Hi, On 8/3/20 5:53 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 05:21:58PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: Hi All, I just noticed that a lot my packages got a FTBFS because of failing to build on s390x. The first set of rebuilds failed with:

Re: s390x weirdness during mass rebuild

2020-08-03 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 03/08/20 17:16 +0200, Andrea Musuruane wrote: Hi guys, at least one of the packages I maintain was also affected. Fedora I'm seeing the same error for boost on both s390x and armv7hl. Release Engineering has opened a bug against the package for this issue. Can you please avoid that?

Re: Help with reviewing a compiler toolchain

2020-07-29 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 28/07/20 22:46 +0200, Andy Mender wrote: Dear Fedorians, I really need some help with a review of a GCC toolchain variant I've started recently: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 A Koji build of the most recent SRPM:

Re: Query on upgrading the Fedora package

2020-07-29 Thread Jonathan Wakely
I don't know what part of the procedure you're unclear about, so here's a summary of the entire process from start to finish. Get the package sources: fedpkg clone fctxpd cd fctxpd Now download the new upstream code. Optionally verify the package was downloaded correctly by checking a SHA or

Re: How do Fedora developers get access to devtoolset for testing.

2020-07-29 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 29/07/20 10:23 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: * Jonathan Wakely: It's not about devtoolset. Installing CentOS 7 RPMs on Fedora rawhide is outlandish. It won't work in general, because the CentOS RPMs have dependencies on CentOS packages, and Fedora has different versions. Steven has a point

Re: Query on upgrading the Fedora package

2020-07-28 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 28/07/20 15:05 +0530, Muneendra Kumar M via devel wrote: Hi All, I want to upgrade the fctxpd fedora package with additional features. Iam the maintainer of this fctxpd package in fedora. Can anyone help me the procedure regarding the same. I don't know what part of the procedure

Re: How do Fedora developers get access to devtoolset for testing.

2020-07-22 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 21/07/20 17:12 -0500, Steven Munroe wrote: Dave Love; writes: ... I'm pretty sure I said to do that a while ago, like I did when testing the trivial patch that I didn't expect to cause such trouble. You probably did say so ;) I come from a different culture and experience. I am not as

Re: How do Fedora developers get access to devtoolset for testing.

2020-07-21 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 21/07/20 19:12 +0100, Dave Love wrote: Jonathan Wakely writes: On 20/07/20 16:01 -0500, Steven Munroe wrote: Jonathan Wakely wrote: Why are you asking fedpkg to build for f33 if you are trying to package something for el7 and el8? I am trying to get better turn around for myself as I

Re: How do Fedora developers get access to devtoolset for testing.

2020-07-20 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 21/07/20 00:00 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: Steven Munroe wrote: $ sudo dnf install devtoolset-9-gcc-9.3.1-2.el7.ppc64le.rpm devtoolset-9-gcc-c++-9.3.1-2.el7.ppc64le.rpm devtoolset-9-runtime-9.1-0.el7.ppc64le.rpm devtoolset-9-libstdc++-devel-9.3.1-2.el7.ppc64le.rpm Installing individual RPMs

Re: How do Fedora developers get access to devtoolset for testing.

2020-07-20 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 20/07/20 16:01 -0500, Steven Munroe wrote: Jonathan Wakely wrote: Why are you asking fedpkg to build for f33 if you are trying to package something for el7 and el8? I am trying to get better turn around for myself as I have local access to a POWER8 machine. And I was having difficulty

Re: How do Fedora developers get access to devtoolset for testing.

2020-07-20 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 20/07/20 13:09 -0500, Steven Munroe wrote: Then I would have to learn what a "EL7 mock chroot" is. And how it is man mock different from "rpmbuild " That builds the package on your local system, using the packages available on your local system. If that's Fedora, then you're not going

Re: How do Fedora developers get access to devtoolset for testing.

2020-07-20 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 20/07/20 17:08 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 20/07/20 10:54 -0500, Steven Munroe wrote: That looks like a more complete list. Still having problems with dependencies: $ sudo dnf install devtoolset-9-gcc-9.3.1-2.el7.ppc64le.rpm devtoolset-9-gcc-c++-9.3.1-2.el7.ppc64le.rpm devtoolset-9

Re: How do Fedora developers get access to devtoolset for testing.

2020-07-20 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 20/07/20 10:54 -0500, Steven Munroe wrote: That looks like a more complete list. Still having problems with dependencies: $ sudo dnf install devtoolset-9-gcc-9.3.1-2.el7.ppc64le.rpm devtoolset-9-gcc-c++-9.3.1-2.el7.ppc64le.rpm devtoolset-9-runtime-9.1-0.el7.ppc64le.rpm

Re: Heads up: changing the subject format of change proposal announcements

2020-07-16 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 16/07/20 08:39 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 11:49:13AM -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 7/15/20 3:30 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: >FCP33: Support PARSEC [Self-Contained] >FCP33: PostgreSQL 31 [Self-Contained] >FCP33: Policy for Modules in Fedora and Fedora

Re: Need assistance to build openshadinglanguage

2020-07-13 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 12/07/20 12:52 +0100, Ian McInerney wrote: On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 12:46 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 12/07/20 12:33 +0100, Ian McInerney wrote: This is what the upstream project explicitly says to do when using LLVM10: > https://github.com/imageworks/OpenShadingLanguage/blob/master/

Re: Need assistance to build openshadinglanguage

2020-07-12 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 12/07/20 12:33 +0100, Ian McInerney wrote: On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 12:15 PM Andy Mender wrote: On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 21:47, Robert-André Mauchin wrote: %build %cmake \ -B build \ -DUSE_BOOST_WAVE=ON \ -DUSE_PARTIO=OFF \ -DCMAKE_CXX_STANDARD=14 \ -DLLVM_STATIC=0 \

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

2020-07-11 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 11/07/20 01:44 -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote: I said that php-fpm was fast than mod_php, however it's just not a huge When? I see the opposite claim, repeatedly: On 10/07/20 18:38 -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote: They've been running just fine for years. I don't see any reason to lose

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

2020-07-07 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 07/07/20 14:24 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: Ben Cotton wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/UseNanoByDefault == Summary == Let's make Fedora more approachable, by having a default editor that doesn't require specialist knowledge to use. == Owner == * Name: [[User:chrismurphy| Chris

Re: The future of legacy BIOS support in Fedora.

2020-07-02 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 02/07/20 07:08 -0500, Brandon Nielsen wrote: On 7/2/20 12:55 AM, John M. Harris Jr wrote: Lennart, We don't need more systemd-bloat just to boot our systems. However your bootloader works, it doesn't really matter if it's not up to snuff with GRUB2. When it supports LUKS, LVM, LUKS+LVM,

Re: Is allowed in certain cases to override default Fedora compiler flags?

2020-07-02 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 02/07/20 14:41 -0300, Sergio Belkin wrote: El jue., 2 jul. 2020 a las 13:30, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel (< devel@lists.fedoraproject.org>) escribió: On 01.07.2020 22:47, Sergio Belkin wrote: > So the question is: in this case I can override the Fedora compiler flags? Don't do this, please.

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

2020-07-01 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 01/07/20 09:54 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: I might support this, but Nano is a terrible editor. It has key bindings that are quite unlike any other program and conflict with normal bindings that newbies might be used to (eg. ^X is cut, not exit). If we're going to newbies how about a

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

2020-06-26 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 26/06/20 13:23 -0400, Neil Horman wrote: Heres a thought that I hadn't considered before though, and it might be useful. Apple at one point (and still may), shiped iphones without the itunes (or some common) app on it, and they did so intentionally, because they knew it was an app that people

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

2020-06-26 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 26/06/20 19:15 +0200, David Kaufmann wrote: On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 03:42:39PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: "In the last year, How to exit the Vim editor has made up about .005% of question traffic: that is, one out of every 20,000 visits to Stack Overflow questions. That means during

Re: Bundled compiler conundrum

2020-06-26 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 26/06/20 12:01 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: On 6/25/20 11:45 PM, Tom Stellard wrote: Are you tying to build with mingw-gcc? What errors are you getting? Yes, mingw-gcc, as we do not ship the Clang based MinGW toolchain in Fedora. Here's a sample: cc1plus: error: unrecognized

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

2020-06-26 Thread Jonathan Wakely
> I came here with peace. Let's face it. It's always between the two. I > respect vim and I learned quite some things in vim. But I'm an emacs > user and I find the original decision between vim and emacs for 'git > commit' unfair. Git doesn't use vim by default, it uses vi, and it's got nothing

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

2020-06-26 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 26/06/20 09:24 -0500, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Matthew Miller said: And it really isn't just git, although that may the most common tool people run into it with. "crontab -e" is another example off the top of my head. And visudo/sudoedit, systemctl edit, bash ^X^E, mysql \e,

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

2020-06-26 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 26/06/20 10:33 -0400, Neil Horman wrote: On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 09:00:58AM -0400, Solomon Peachy wrote: On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 08:43:19AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > Do we have real stasitics on this (somthing in the form of bz reports or > comments on a list) indicating that users

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

2020-06-26 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 26/06/20 13:11 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 01:59:39PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 1:58 PM Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 1:48 PM Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 2:45 pm, Michael

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

2020-06-26 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 26/06/20 14:59 +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote: On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 12:27:39PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 26/06/20 10:19 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 09:57:49 +0200, Samuel Sieb wrote: > > The dnf one works fine. > > It does not as I have shown. Moreo

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

2020-06-26 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 26/06/20 08:43 -0400, Neil Horman wrote: On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 01:27:54PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 26/06/20 09:22 -0300, Sergio Belkin wrote: > Really do we believe that setting nano as a default editor will attract new > users to Linux? How many end users in last years use

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

2020-06-26 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 26/06/20 09:22 -0300, Sergio Belkin wrote: Really do we believe that setting nano as a default editor will attract new users to Linux? How many end users in last years use Debian because of the default editor change? A newbie generally does know nothing about vi/vim, cron, git, etc... The

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

2020-06-26 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 26/06/20 14:03 +0200, Theodore Papadopoulo wrote: On 6/26/20 1:30 PM, Qiyu Yan wrote: Adam Williamson mailto:adamw...@fedoraproject.org>> 于 2020年6月26日周五 上午9:32写道: On Fri, 2020-06-26 at 08:44 +0800, Qiyu Yan wrote: > What about to provide a prompt to the user telling them the

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

2020-06-26 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 25/06/20 18:48 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2020-06-25 at 22:30 -0300, Sergio Belkin wrote: Well, I strongy disagree whit this move. In fact on of the things that I hate of Debian/Ubuntu is the choice of nano and the poor version that they offer by default of vi. More friendly for

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

2020-06-26 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 26/06/20 13:32 +0200, David Kaufmann wrote: On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 01:15:58AM -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote: The most user friendly solution is to have nano by default with a very easy way to revert to vim for anyone that knows what they are doing. No, it is not. It is user friendly to the

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

2020-06-26 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 26/06/20 10:19 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote: On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 09:57:49 +0200, Samuel Sieb wrote: The dnf one works fine. It does not as I have shown. Moreover it takes so much time to do dnf command completion and one always has to ctrl-c it anyway. That is because dnf should use cached

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

2020-06-26 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 26/06/20 00:57 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 6/26/20 12:42 AM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 03:31:10 +0200, Samuel Sieb wrote: But regardless, that's something to fix in the dnf bash completion scripts, not a reason to completely disable completion as the earlier poster said.

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

2020-06-25 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 25/06/20 13:34 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 12:50 PM Jan Kratochvil wrote: On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 19:18:59 +0200, Ben Cotton wrote: > In contrast, Nano offers the kind of graphical text editing experience > that people are used to, This is another step trying to make

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

2020-06-25 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 25/06/20 20:50 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote: On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 19:18:59 +0200, Ben Cotton wrote: In contrast, Nano offers the kind of graphical text editing experience that people are used to, This is another step trying to make Fedora end-user friendly while the only effect is making it

Re: Packagers with no corresponding valid bugzilla accounts

2020-06-16 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 16/06/20 17:15 -0400, Christopher wrote: On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:10 AM Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:05:00AM -0400, Christopher wrote: >Why aren't the packager accounts linked to their FAS account alias? >[1]fa...@fedoraproject.org ? I've been annoyed by

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

2020-06-16 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 16/06/20 02:24 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: Ben Cotton wrote: == Summary == All retired packages are obsoleted by `fedora-retired-packages`. == Owner == * Name: [[User:msuchy| Miroslav Suchý]] * Email: msu...@redhat.com Absolute -1! IMHO, removing working packages from users' systems just

Re: wt (C++ Web Toolkit) package looking for a new maintainer

2020-06-15 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 15/06/20 11:04 +0200, Michal Minar wrote: Hello, I've just orphaned wt package in fedora. It now fails to install in Fedora 33 and I have no longer free cycles to maintain it. I'll be happy to

Re: Fedora Jam switch to GNOME

2020-06-11 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 10/06/20 09:09 -0700, er...@ericheickmeyer.com 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

Re: A few questions about a package update / policy questions / GCC 9 error

2020-06-11 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 10/06/20 21:43 +0300, Peter Pentchev wrote: On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 02:22:53PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: On Wed, 2020-06-10 at 14:16 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Wed, 2020-06-10 at 20:01 +0200, Dan Čermák wrote: > > "Nathanael D. Noblet" writes: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I maintain

Re: git merge issue

2020-06-11 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 11/06/20 06:41 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote: I'm working on updating fldigi to build better in the Fedora MinGW environment and I have commit access to the git repo (at least access to create my own branches). I have a branch called "tmp/mingw" and I've made several commits. I know other

Re: [HEADS UP] F33 Boost 1.73.0 rebuilds starting in a side tag

2020-06-09 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 09/06/20 00:02 -0400, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: On Thu, 2020-05-28 at 18:27 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 28/05/20 09:44 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > I'm starting the rebuilds for Boost 1.73.0 and packages that depend on > it, using the f33-boost side tag. > > If you

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

2020-06-08 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 05/06/20 23:11 -0600, Jeff Law wrote: On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 10:14 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: "Upstream only builds+tests with Clang and using GCC requires lots of work from the Fedora maintainer to fix problems that upstream don't care about" is a good reason to use Clang. &

Re: System-Wide Change proposal: CompilerPolicy Change

2020-06-08 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 05/06/20 13:10 -0600, Jeff Law wrote: On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 20:51 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: * Jeff Law: > As we both know, GCC has had ABI bugs as well. Both compilers strive > to be ABI compatible with each other and we should continue to work > together to find and address such

Re: [HEADS UP] F33 Boost 1.73.0 rebuilds starting in a side tag

2020-06-05 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 05/06/20 17:59 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 05/06/20 17:42 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 05/06/20 09:00 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote: Next problem... /usr/include/boost/geometry/index/detail/rtree/node/variant_visitor.hpp:51:25: error: no matching function for call to 'apply_visitor

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

2020-06-05 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 05/06/20 20:30 +0200, Igor Raits wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 13:25 -0400, Robert Marcano via devel wrote: On 6/5/20 12:31 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 16:23 +, > devel-requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote: > > Date: Fri, 5

Re: [HEADS UP] F33 Boost 1.73.0 rebuilds starting in a side tag

2020-06-05 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 05/06/20 17:42 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 05/06/20 09:00 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote: Next problem... /usr/include/boost/geometry/index/detail/rtree/node/variant_visitor.hpp:51:25: error: no matching function for call to 'apply_visitor(boost::geometry::index::detail::rtree::visitors

Re: [HEADS UP] F33 Boost 1.73.0 rebuilds starting in a side tag

2020-06-05 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 05/06/20 09:00 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote: Next problem... /usr/include/boost/geometry/index/detail/rtree/node/variant_visitor.hpp:51:25: error: no matching function for call to 'apply_visitor(boost::geometry::index::detail::rtree::visitors::insert, WireJoiner::PntGetter>::members_holder,

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

2020-06-05 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 05/06/20 12:46 +0200, 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 much better than GCC

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

2020-06-05 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 04/06/20 16:30 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CompilerPolicy [snip] == Documentation == Several years ago Red Hat's tools team championed for Fedora policy to strongly discourage the use of LLVM/Clang for package building. Exceptions were made for packages

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

2020-06-05 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 05/06/20 09:09 +0200, Igor Raits wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Thu, 2020-06-04 at 16:30 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CompilerPolicy == Summary == Fedora has historically forced packages to build with GCC unless the upstream

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

2020-06-05 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 05/06/20 10:26 +0200, Igor Raits wrote: Well, upstreams are not necessarily enabling many security features or optimizations. So you are effectively saying "upstream knows better" where I would have to disagree with you. Yes, this is a very good point. Many of Fedora's packages have

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

2020-06-05 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 05/06/20 10:23 +0200, Tomáš Popela wrote: On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 9:56 AM 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. Kevin, that's not true at all.

[Retired] boost-nowide

2020-06-04 Thread Jonathan Wakely
As previously discussed (by me ... nobody else responded) I have retired the boost-nowide package in rawhide. The boost-1.73.0 package now in rawhide provides boost-nowide as a subpackage, because the project is now part of the official Boost release. The packages that use boost-nowide have

Re: [HEADS UP] F33 Boost 1.73.0 rebuilds starting in a side tag

2020-06-03 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 03/06/20 15:21 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote: On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 3:16 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 03/06/20 20:25 +0100, Ian McInerney wrote: >On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 8:08 PM Richard Shaw wrote: > >> Ok, one problem after another with FreeCAD, maybe I'll get them fixed &

Re: [HEADS UP] F33 Boost 1.73.0 rebuilds starting in a side tag

2020-06-03 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 03/06/20 20:25 +0100, Ian McInerney wrote: On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 8:08 PM Richard Shaw wrote: Ok, one problem after another with FreeCAD, maybe I'll get them fixed before f33 is released :) /builddir/build/BUILD/FreeCAD-0.18.4/src/Gui/DAGView/DAGView.cpp: In constructor

Re: [HEADS UP] F33 Boost 1.73.0 rebuilds starting in a side tag

2020-06-03 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 03/06/20 13:36 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 03. 06. 20 13:32, Till Hofmann wrote: Yes, that's what I meant. I'm not going to test patches by submitting builds over and over again, that's not really time efficient. I'll just wait until it shows up in mock. $ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64

Re: [HEADS UP] F33 Boost 1.73.0 rebuilds starting in a side tag

2020-06-03 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 03/06/20 12:35 +0200, Till Hofmann wrote: On 6/2/20 5:24 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: ### C++ includes Several packages failed to build because they couldn't find C++ Standard Library algorithms: freeopcua: error: 'for_each' is not a member of 'std' I don't see a changelog entry

Re: [HEADS UP] F33 Boost 1.73.0 rebuilds starting in a side tag

2020-06-03 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 03/06/20 09:53 -, Markus Neteler wrote: Hi Here another package: PDAL https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/PDAL/tree/master It depends on boost and I don't see changes in changelog. It wasn't found by the repoquery last week, because the package didn't exist when I started rebuilding

Re: Packages that failed to build with Python 3.9

2020-06-02 Thread Jonathan Wakely
Le mar. 2 juin 2020 à 17:46, Jonathan Wakely a écrit : On 01/06/20 02:14 -, Denis Arnaud wrote: >Thanks for the follow up! > >| airinv airrac airtsp rmol sevmgr trademgen > >All those packages have been successfully rebuilt (after upstream upgrade): &

Re: [HEADS UP] F33 Boost 1.73.0 rebuilds starting in a side tag

2020-06-02 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 02/06/20 16:24 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: ### Boost.Bind Several packages failed to build because the Boost.Bind placeholders _1, _2, _3 etc. are no longer in the global namespace. See the message in : BOOST_PRAGMA_MESSAGE( "The practice of declaring the Bind placeholders (_

Re: [HEADS UP] F33 Boost 1.73.0 rebuilds starting in a side tag

2020-06-02 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 02/06/20 22:39 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 02/06/20 16:24 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 28/05/20 09:44 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: - obsolete the separate boost-nowide package, as Boost 1.73.0 includes the Boost.Nowide library now jhogarth, please confirm you're aware

Re: [HEADS UP] F33 Boost 1.73.0 rebuilds starting in a side tag

2020-06-02 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 02/06/20 16:24 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 28/05/20 09:44 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: I'm starting the rebuilds for Boost 1.73.0 and packages that depend on it, using the f33-boost side tag. If you see "Rebuilt for Boost 1.73.0" in the changelog for one of your packages,

Re: [HEADS UP] F33 Boost 1.73.0 rebuilds starting in a side tag

2020-06-02 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 02/06/20 20:00 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 02. 06. 20 19:51, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 02. 06. 20 17:24, Jonathan Wakely wrote: ### Boost.Endian Several packages fail because they were using an implementation detail of Boost, the  header. That no longer exists, but nobody should have been

Re: [HEADS UP] F33 Boost 1.73.0 rebuilds starting in a side tag

2020-06-02 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 02/06/20 17:58 +0200, Iñaki Ucar wrote: On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 17:37, Jonathan Wakely wrote: All packages from the f33-boost side tag have now been signed and should be in rawhide But not in Bodhi. Does this require manual intervention? No. Does it need to be in bodhi now? It's

Re: Packages that failed to build with Python 3.9

2020-06-02 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 01/06/20 02:14 -, Denis Arnaud wrote: Thanks for the follow up! | airinv airrac airtsp rmol sevmgr trademgen All those packages have been successfully rebuilt (after upstream upgrade): * airinv: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d6b3c81762 * airrac:

Re: [HEADS UP] F33 Boost 1.73.0 rebuilds starting in a side tag

2020-06-02 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 02/06/20 16:24 +0100, José Abílio Matos wrote: On Tuesday, 2 June 2020 15.57.14 WEST Jonathan Wakely wrote: The side tag is merging right now, you just have to wait for 100+ packages to be signed, and they'll be in rawhide. Oops, I submitted now a new lyx for rawhide. If for some reason

Re: [HEADS UP] F33 Boost 1.73.0 rebuilds starting in a side tag

2020-06-02 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 02/06/20 11:01 -0400, Kaleb Keithley wrote: On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 10:58 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote: >Up to now it hasn't. > >I've been waiting to get boost > 1.71 so that it can be built with the >system boost instead of its bundled copy. > >If the side tag build

Re: [HEADS UP] F33 Boost 1.73.0 rebuilds starting in a side tag

2020-06-02 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 28/05/20 09:44 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: I'm starting the rebuilds for Boost 1.73.0 and packages that depend on it, using the f33-boost side tag. If you see "Rebuilt for Boost 1.73.0" in the changelog for one of your packages, please do not make another update. Instead c

Re: [HEADS UP] F33 Boost 1.73.0 rebuilds starting in a side tag

2020-06-02 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 02/06/20 10:44 -0400, Kaleb Keithley wrote: On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 10:25 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote: ... ceph was not in my list, because it isn't returned by the first query shown at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F33Boost173#Dependencies Does it actually depend on any libboost_

Re: Upstream release monitoring can't handle files in dist-git?!?

2020-06-02 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 01/06/20 07:21 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote: When did this nonsense start happening? Some time between April 2019: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1558278#c10 and August 2019: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1558278#c17 ___

Re: Update on Rough Draft Implementation of KangarooTwelve

2020-06-02 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 02/06/20 09:54 +0200, Petr Pisar wrote: On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 07:58:15AM +0200, tsalim--- via devel wrote: At this point, I am working on adding support for numbers as large as 2^255 as required by the length_encode function detailed on page 9 of the RFC. The C Programming Language does

Re: [HEADS UP] F33 Boost 1.73.0 rebuilds starting in a side tag

2020-06-02 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 02/06/20 07:54 -0400, Kaleb Keithley wrote: Is the rebuild in the side tag something that's still in progress? I sent Jonathan an email asking, but didn't get a reply. Sorry, I didn't see the mail until today. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F33Boost173#Scope links to the ticket

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 33 Python 3.9 rebuilds have started in a side tag

2020-05-30 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 29/05/20 16:17 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 22. 05. 20 3:06, Miro Hrončok wrote: Hello, in order to deliver Python 3.9, we are running a coordinated rebuild in a side tag.     https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Python3.9 If you see a "Rebuilt for Python 3.9" (or similar) commit in

Re: python3-pyparsing: conflicting error

2020-05-29 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 29/05/20 15:21 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 2:29 PM Jun Aruga wrote: This just happened on Fedora rawhide build now. Could anyone fix it? https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=45138807

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 33 Python 3.9 rebuilds have started in a side tag

2020-05-29 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 29/05/20 12:17 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 29. 05. 20 11:49, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 29/05/20 09:34 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 29. 05. 20 9:32, Felix Schwarz wrote: Am 29.05.20 um 09:19 schrieb Miro Hrončok: The side tag is being merged right now. Thank you for all the work

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 33 Python 3.9 rebuilds have started in a side tag

2020-05-29 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 29/05/20 09:34 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 29. 05. 20 9:32, Felix Schwarz wrote: Am 29.05.20 um 09:19 schrieb Miro Hrončok: The side tag is being merged right now. Thank you for all the work (also in advance with all the alpha/beta versions) :-) Seems like quite a few Python packages

Re: Many packages unnecessarily link to libpython

2020-05-28 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 15/05/20 14:12 -0400, Charalampos Stratakis wrote: Hello everyone, As of Python 3.8, python C extensions modules should not link to libpython, unless they embed the interpreter in their code. Relevant upstream PR: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/12946 If your package links to

Re: [HEADS UP] F33 Boost 1.73.0 rebuilds starting in a side tag

2020-05-28 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 28/05/20 09:44 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: I'm starting the rebuilds for Boost 1.73.0 and packages that depend on it, using the f33-boost side tag. If you see "Rebuilt for Boost 1.73.0" in the changelog for one of your packages, please do not make another update. Instead c

Re: [HEADS UP] F33 Boost 1.73.0 rebuilds starting in a side tag

2020-05-28 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 28/05/20 14:21 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 2:16 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote: I've literally just started. The new boost hasn't even finished yet: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=45094034 I wonder if this build is actually broken

Re: [HEADS UP] F33 Boost 1.73.0 rebuilds starting in a side tag

2020-05-28 Thread Jonathan Wakely
? If not, then you don't need to worry about the rebuilds. A new build will arrive in rawhide when it's ready. The request to check with me was if you need to update the package. чт, 28 мая 2020 г., 11:45 Jonathan Wakely : I'm starting the rebuilds for Boost 1.73.0 and packages that depend on it, using

[HEADS UP] F33 Boost 1.73.0 rebuilds starting in a side tag

2020-05-28 Thread Jonathan Wakely
I'm starting the rebuilds for Boost 1.73.0 and packages that depend on it, using the f33-boost side tag. If you see "Rebuilt for Boost 1.73.0" in the changelog for one of your packages, please do not make another update. Instead co-ordinate with me to use the side tag for your update (if your

Re: [Rawhide] Missing boost-python3-devel in repository

2020-05-28 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 27/05/20 19:30 -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: On 2020-05-26 3:48 a.m., Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 23/05/20 12:18 -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: On 2020-05-23 11:20 a.m., Igor Raits wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Sat, 2020-05-23 at 11:09 -0700, Luya

Re: [Rawhide] Missing boost-python3-devel in repository

2020-05-26 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 23/05/20 12:18 -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: On 2020-05-23 11:20 a.m., Igor Raits wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Sat, 2020-05-23 at 11:09 -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: Hello team, It looks like the build system is missing boost-python3-devel which causes

Re: [Rawhide] Missing boost-python3-devel in repository

2020-05-26 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 24/05/20 00:43 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 23. 05. 20 20:09, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: Hello team, It looks like the build system is missing boost-python3-devel which causes openvdb to fail as  result below: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=44871050 Could someone

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 33 Python 3.9 rebuilds have started in a side tag

2020-05-22 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 22/05/20 14:49 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 22. 05. 20 13:06, Miro Hrončok wrote: Could you give me the list of packages? Is it this? $ repoquery -C --repo=rawhide{,-source} --whatrequires boost-devel | grep src$ I can see where the sets overlap. Maybe we can figure things out somehow.

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 33 Python 3.9 rebuilds have started in a side tag

2020-05-22 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 22/05/20 13:06 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 22. 05. 20 12:54, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 22/05/20 10:47 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 22. 05. 20 8:28, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 22/05/20 03:06 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: Hello, in order to deliver Python 3.9, we are running a coordinated

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 33 Python 3.9 rebuilds have started in a side tag

2020-05-22 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 22/05/20 11:43 +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 10:42, Miro Hrončok wrote: [..] It is just the component name. The user installable package is still python3. I call it thing-which-should-not-exist or thing-which-shall-not-pass. That way it is easier to pronounce 

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 33 Python 3.9 rebuilds have started in a side tag

2020-05-22 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 22/05/20 10:47 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 22. 05. 20 8:28, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 22/05/20 03:06 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: Hello, in order to deliver Python 3.9, we are running a coordinated rebuild in a side tag.    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Python3.9 If you see

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 33 Python 3.9 rebuilds have started in a side tag

2020-05-22 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 22/05/20 03:06 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: Hello, in order to deliver Python 3.9, we are running a coordinated rebuild in a side tag. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Python3.9 If you see a "Rebuilt for Python 3.9" (or similar) commit in your package, please don't rebuild it in

Should 'boost' metapackage install boost-python3 and boost-numpy3 now?

2020-05-13 Thread Jonathan Wakely
The 'boost' package doesn't install anything, it just pulls in most of the subpackages built from boost.spec: # boost is an "umbrella" package that pulls in all boost shared library # components, except for MPI and Python sub-packages. Those are special # in that there are alternative

  1   2   3   4   5   >