Re: Removal of BuildRoot

Dne 19.2.2018 v 15:30 Randy Barlow napsal(a): > On 02/19/2018 06:19 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> The problem with Bodhi is that we don't use Bodhi for Rawhide where >> majority of work should be done. > There is an infrastructure hackathon in April where we hope to discuss a > way to enable Bodhi

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 11:30 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 09:06:17AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: >> failed tests do not show up >> on the main page (probably was not considered because of how poorly >> the test information fetching goes). > > I guess

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 09:06:17AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > failed tests do not show up > on the main page (probably was not considered because of how poorly > the test information fetching goes). I guess you're referring to the: `Tests Passed` under the `Test Gating Status` on the right hand

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 02/17/2018 02:30 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > Rpmlint can be configured using the --rpmlintconf/-r option or by setting a > .rpmlint file in the working directory There's an open RFE to get taskotron to use such a file, though it hasn't yet been suggested that it use the same path as

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 02/19/2018 06:19 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > The problem with Bodhi is that we don't use Bodhi for Rawhide where > majority of work should be done. There is an infrastructure hackathon in April where we hope to discuss a way to enable Bodhi for Rawhide so it can gate updates based on automated

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 02/15/2018 10:17 AM, Michal Novotny wrote: I feel PRs are better for this sort of stuff. Mainly because people are informed why exactly this change is made, they can read the guidelines and then merge the change when they are sure they understand it. It helps spreading knowledge and keeping

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 6:19 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > Dne 17.2.2018 v 14:01 Neal Gompa napsal(a): >> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III >> wrote: "NG" == Neal Gompa writes: >>> NG> As upstream for

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

Dne 17.2.2018 v 14:01 Neal Gompa napsal(a): > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III > wrote: >>> "NG" == Neal Gompa writes: >> NG> As upstream for rpmlint, I do not believe anyone cares at all about >> NG> rpmlint in Fedora. >> >> We

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 02/16/2018 02:36 PM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: On 16 February 2018 at 11:21, Panu Matilainen > wrote: [..] Not everybody runs rpmlint for everything they produce, on the contrary I suspect it's fairly small percentage of packagers out

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 09:13:22AM +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 10:37:08PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 4:25 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III > > wrote: > > >> "DS" == David Sommerseth writes: > > > > > >

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 18 February 2018 at 18:06, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: [..] >> I think that you are not fully aware what you've just done. > > Actually I am fully aware. I have been agreeing with parts of what you > have written but you keep thinking I am attacking you because I don't >

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 18 February 2018 at 00:46, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On 16 February 2018 at 15:50, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > [..] >> >> Even before EPEL-5 was EOL, very little of Fedora would compile out of >> >> the box and required massive amounts of %if and

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 10:37:08PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 4:25 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III > wrote: > >> "DS" == David Sommerseth writes: > > > > DS> False positives are also easily filtered out by adding .rpmlint to > > DS> the

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 16 February 2018 at 15:50, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: [..] > Even before EPEL-5 was EOL, very little of Fedora would compile out of > the box and required massive amounts of %if and other hacks to even > try to compile from a rawhide spec file. > > If someone wanted to keep

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 4:25 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> "DS" == David Sommerseth writes: > > DS> False positives are also easily filtered out by adding .rpmlint to > DS> the dist-git repository. > > Which is an absolutely terrible name for that.

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 2018-02-15 04:44 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> "LT" == Luya Tshimbalanga writes: > LT> When you get a chance, would you also update the spec guideline as > LT> well? > > Which spec guideline did you mean? If you were referring to the > packaging guidelines,

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 02/17/2018 11:37 AM, Neal Gompa wrote: > When tests have failures or > warnings, they are _not_ featured on the update page itself. The test tab shows the counts of passing, warning, and failing tests, once they finish loading. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 16 February 2018 at 12:43, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 16/02/18 12:36, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > >> On 16 February 2018 at 11:21, Panu Matilainen > > wrote: >> [..] >> >> Not everybody runs rpmlint for everything they produce, on

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

> "NG" == Neal Gompa writes: NG> What do you want it to be? What the other distros use seems far better to me. Alternately, just "rpmlintrc". - J< ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> "NG" == Neal Gompa writes: > > NG> The problem with Bodhi is that it's too late. > > I don't disagree, but you've switched up your argument. You made the > statement that Fedora doesn't

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

> "NG" == Neal Gompa writes: NG> The problem with Bodhi is that it's too late. I don't disagree, but you've switched up your argument. You made the statement that Fedora doesn't care about rpmlint so there's no point in improving it. People do care, and rpmlint is

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 02/13/2018 11:05 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > Just a small heads up, BuildRoot tag is not needed since RHEL6 (which > is oldest > supported one nowadays, it's been year or so after EL5 retirement). And we > don't support EL5 anymore, so... > > I wanted to send this heads up before I actually

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> "NG" == Neal Gompa writes: > > NG> As upstream for rpmlint, I do not believe anyone cares at all about > NG> rpmlint in Fedora. > > We seemingly care so little for it that the rpmlint

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On Friday, February 16, 2018 7:48:17 PM CET Tom Hughes wrote: > On 16/02/18 18:26, David Sommerseth wrote: > > > But my "worst" example was probably the openvpn package I'm now in charge > > for > > (and I am a core upstream developer for that project as well). But it > > didn't > > take that

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 06:48:17PM +, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 16/02/18 18:26, David Sommerseth wrote: > > > But my "worst" example was probably the openvpn package I'm now in charge > > for > > (and I am a core upstream developer for that project as well). But it > > didn't > > take that

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

> "DS" == David Sommerseth writes: DS> False positives are also easily filtered out by adding .rpmlint to DS> the dist-git repository. Which is an absolutely terrible name for that. Really. Why would anyone at all ever think it is a good idea to _hide_ the file that

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

> "NG" == Neal Gompa writes: NG> As upstream for rpmlint, I do not believe anyone cares at all about NG> rpmlint in Fedora. We seemingly care so little for it that the rpmlint status appears on every bodhi update. I did spend some time trying to make rpmlint better ages

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

> "NK" == Nico Kadel-Garcia writes: NK> While RHEL 5 is obsolete, that does not mean EPEL 5 is obsolete. epel-rpm-macros set up the default buildroot value for EPEL5 and thus rendered the BuildRoot: tag unnecessary well before that release went EOL. But even without that

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 16/02/18 19:48, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 16/02/18 18:26, David Sommerseth wrote: > >> But my "worst" example was probably the openvpn package I'm now in charge for >> (and I am a core upstream developer for that project as well).  But it didn't >> take that much efforts to iron out most of those

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 16/02/18 18:26, David Sommerseth wrote: But my "worst" example was probably the openvpn package I'm now in charge for (and I am a core upstream developer for that project as well). But it didn't take that much efforts to iron out most of those issues. False positives are also easily

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 16/02/18 17:21, Martin Kolman wrote: > On Fri, 2018-02-16 at 10:52 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: [...snip...] >> As upstream for rpmlint, I do not believe anyone cares at all about >> rpmlint in Fedora. One more warning or error won't mean anything. From >> time to time, I have considered making a

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 2018-02-16, 12:36 GMT, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > And this is why for example calling rpmlint should be one of > the pre steps done by koji on sending build request. It would > be good to perform at least one time a month rpmlint test > across all packages, and if it anything wrong

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On Fri, 2018-02-16 at 10:52 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 11:19 AM, Jonathan Wakely > wrote: > > On 15/02/18 11:10 -0500, David Cantrell wrote: > > > > > > On 02/15/2018 11:02 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > > > > > On 15/02/18 08:46 -0500,

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 11:19 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 15/02/18 11:10 -0500, David Cantrell wrote: >> >> On 02/15/2018 11:02 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>> >>> On 15/02/18 08:46 -0500, David Cantrell wrote: First, I actually don't care if this change is

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 16 February 2018 at 03:14, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 7:44 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III > wrote: >>> "LT" == Luya Tshimbalanga writes: >> >> LT> When you get a chance, would you also update the spec

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 02/16/2018 12:14 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 7:44 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III > wrote: >>> "LT" == Luya Tshimbalanga writes: >> >> LT> When you get a chance, would you also update the spec guideline as >> LT> well? >> >>

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

> I don't follow. How else (other than manual download) do you get your > sources other than by spectool? Surely if you download them manually > you would notice any URL change? You can have an old source copy in Sources (downloaded manually of by spectool) but by the time you finish QA and

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 12:11:12PM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: >On 15 February 2018 at 09:17, Paul Howarth wrote: >[..] > > Same here. Whilst I don't mind this change, as it stands I'm getting no > notifications when the packages I maintain are changed by

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 7:22 AM, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 16/02/18 13:13, Richard Shaw wrote: > > I think it would be better to have fedpkg run rpmlint on "fedpkg build". >> It can be informative only. At least then it would not require the >> maintainer to run rpmlint themselves.

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 16/02/18 13:13, Richard Shaw wrote: I think it would be better to have fedpkg run rpmlint on "fedpkg build". It can be informative only. At least then it would not require the maintainer to run rpmlint themselves. Please no. See above about ridiculous noise. One thing I started doing was

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 6:43 AM, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 16/02/18 12:36, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > >> On 16 February 2018 at 11:21, Panu Matilainen > > wrote: >> [..] >> >> Not everybody runs rpmlint for everything they produce,

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 16/02/18 12:36, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: On 16 February 2018 at 11:21, Panu Matilainen > wrote: [..] Not everybody runs rpmlint for everything they produce, on the contrary I suspect it's fairly small percentage of packagers out

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 16 February 2018 at 11:21, Panu Matilainen wrote: [..] > Not everybody runs rpmlint for everything they produce, on the contrary I > suspect it's fairly small percentage of packagers out there that do. If rpm > itself doesn't directly complain about such things they'll

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 03:14:43AM -0500, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > While RHEL 5 is obsolete, that does not mean EPEL 5 is obsolete. Are > there any EPEL tools that are identical to the upstream Fedora > releases, that might still use any of htese for legacy environments? FWIW EPEL 5 systems

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 15 February 2018 at 09:17, Paul Howarth wrote: [..] > Same here. Whilst I don't mind this change, as it stands I'm getting no > notifications when the packages I maintain are changed by other people, > and that's supposed to be one of the safeguards against potential >

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 16/02/18 09:14, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 7:44 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III > wrote: [...snip...] > While RHEL 5 is obsolete, that does not mean EPEL 5 is obsolete. Are > there any EPEL tools that are identical to the upstream Fedora > releases, that

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On Fri, 2018-02-16 at 13:21 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: > On 02/16/2018 12:54 PM, Michael Schroeder wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 12:41:18PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: > > > Actually, inspired by this thread, rpm will start at least warning about > > > BuildRoot tag in the next release

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 02/16/2018 12:54 PM, Michael Schroeder wrote: On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 12:41:18PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: Actually, inspired by this thread, rpm will start at least warning about BuildRoot tag in the next release or so. The reason for silently ignoring all this time was to allow spec

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 12:41:18PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: > Actually, inspired by this thread, rpm will start at least warning about > BuildRoot tag in the next release or so. > > The reason for silently ignoring all this time was to allow spec sharing > between old and new rpm versions,

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 02/15/2018 06:19 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 15/02/18 11:10 -0500, David Cantrell wrote: On 02/15/2018 11:02 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 15/02/18 08:46 -0500, David Cantrell wrote: First, I actually don't care if this change is made or not.  My personal opinion is that it's a

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 09:19:54 +0100 Pavel Raiskup wrote: > On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 5:44:57 PM CET Remi Collet wrote: > > Le 13/02/2018 à 23:05, Igor Gnatenko a écrit : > > > Just a small heads up, ... > > > > As I said on IRC > > > > - waste of time > > - waste of

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 14 February 2018 at 16:44, Remi Collet wrote: > Le 13/02/2018 à 23:05, Igor Gnatenko a écrit : > > Just a small heads up, ... > > > As I said on IRC > > - waste of time > - waste of energy > - absolutely no value > > And > > - abuse proven packager privileges >

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 5:44:57 PM CET Remi Collet wrote: > Le 13/02/2018 à 23:05, Igor Gnatenko a écrit : > > Just a small heads up, ... > > As I said on IRC > > - waste of time > - waste of energy > - absolutely no value > > And > > - abuse proven packager privileges Agreed, and it

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 7:44 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> "LT" == Luya Tshimbalanga writes: > > LT> When you get a chance, would you also update the spec guideline as > LT> well? > > Which spec guideline did you mean? If you were referring to

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

> "LT" == Luya Tshimbalanga writes: LT> When you get a chance, would you also update the spec guideline as LT> well? Which spec guideline did you mean? If you were referring to the packaging guidelines, they have said that BuildRoot: should not be used since 2016:

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 15/02/18 11:10 -0500, David Cantrell wrote: On 02/15/2018 11:02 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 15/02/18 08:46 -0500, David Cantrell wrote: First, I actually don't care if this change is made or not.  My personal opinion is that it's a nice-to-have cleanup that will probably not cause

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 02/15/2018 11:02 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 15/02/18 08:46 -0500, David Cantrell wrote: >> First, I actually don't care if this change is made or not.  My personal >> opinion is that it's a nice-to-have cleanup that will probably not cause >> problems, but you never know with that many

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 2018-02-13 02:05 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > Just a small heads up, BuildRoot tag is not needed since RHEL6 (which > is oldest > supported one nowadays, it's been year or so after EL5 retirement). And we > don't support EL5 anymore, so... > > I wanted to send this heads up before I actually did

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 15/02/18 08:46 -0500, David Cantrell wrote: First, I actually don't care if this change is made or not. My personal opinion is that it's a nice-to-have cleanup that will probably not cause problems, but you never know with that many packages. So that's why I feel it should be approached

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 15/02/18 08:52 -0500, David Cantrell wrote: Does it actually hurt or is it just unnecessary? Removing unnecessary things from spec files is fine with me, but I was not seeing this as actually breaking things at the moment. If BuildRoot lines have been in spec files for 10+ years and we are

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 15.2.2018 10:17, Michal Novotny wrote: I feel PRs are better for this sort of stuff. Mainly because people are informed why exactly this change is made, they can read the guidelines and then merge the change when they are sure they understand it. It helps spreading knowledge and keeping

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 02/15/2018 02:11 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> Sadly, commit notifications does NOT work for months >> (works for old packages, not for newly imported one) > > It does not work at all. I did not get any notification about mass > rebuild changes what so ever. No build notifications, no commit >

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 02/15/2018 03:08 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote: > On 02/14/2018 11:27 PM, David Cantrell wrote: >> On 02/14/2018 02:41 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: >>> On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 14:25 -0500, David Cantrell wrote: On 02/14/2018 11:44 AM, Remi Collet wrote: > Le 13/02/2018 à 23:05, Igor Gnatenko a

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 02/14/2018 04:47 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > Am 14.02.2018 um 22:27 schrieb David Cantrell: >> I am not disputing the policy.  I feel this change is pointless and is a >> lot of commits for no real benefit.  They are not fixes.  You're just >> scrubbing spec files that are not broken.  Who

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

Michal Novotny wrote: > I feel PRs are better for this sort of stuff. In theory yes. In practice (in my experience so far), it's still not very practical to go through the process of: * fork * commit * file PR for anything more than a handful of packages. Unless, anyone knows of a way to

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Igor Gnatenko < ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On Thu, 2018-02-15 at 10:17 +0100, Michal Novotny wrote: > > I feel PRs are better for this sort of stuff. Mainly because people are > > informed why

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Thu, 2018-02-15 at 10:17 +0100, Michal Novotny wrote: > I feel PRs are better for this sort of stuff. Mainly because people are > informed why exactly this change is made, > they can read the guidelines and then merge the change when they are

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 08:11:17 +0100 Vít Ondruch wrote: > Dne 15.2.2018 v 07:55 Remi Collet napsal(a): > > Le 15/02/2018 à 07:47, Igor Gnatenko a écrit : > >> On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 14:06 -0500, Rob Crittenden wrote: > >>> nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: > Hi, >

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

I feel PRs are better for this sort of stuff. Mainly because people are informed why exactly this change is made, they can read the guidelines and then merge the change when they are sure they understand it. It helps spreading knowledge and keeping community involved. Python team did it very well

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 02/15/2018 10:34 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote: Dne 14.2.2018 v 20:41 Igor Gnatenko napsal(a): On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 14:25 -0500, David Cantrell wrote: On 02/14/2018 11:44 AM, Remi Collet wrote: - abuse proven packager privileges +1 +1 Please, read policy[0] once more. Sometimes there are

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

Dne 14.2.2018 v 20:41 Igor Gnatenko napsal(a): > On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 14:25 -0500, David Cantrell wrote: >> On 02/14/2018 11:44 AM, Remi Collet wrote: >>> - abuse proven packager privileges >> +1 +1 > Please, read policy[0] once more. > >> Sometimes there are situations where it's simply a lot

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 02/14/2018 11:27 PM, David Cantrell wrote: On 02/14/2018 02:41 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 14:25 -0500, David Cantrell wrote: On 02/14/2018 11:44 AM, Remi Collet wrote: Le 13/02/2018 à 23:05, Igor Gnatenko a écrit : Just a small heads up, ... As I said on IRC -

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

Dne 15.2.2018 v 07:55 Remi Collet napsal(a): > Le 15/02/2018 à 07:47, Igor Gnatenko a écrit : >> On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 14:06 -0500, Rob Crittenden wrote: >>> nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: Hi, Thank you for cleaning up the cruft in the repository ! Regards, >>>

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

Le 15/02/2018 à 07:47, Igor Gnatenko a écrit : > On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 14:06 -0500, Rob Crittenden wrote: >> nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Thank you for cleaning up the cruft in the repository ! >>> >>> Regards, >>> > >> Agreed. I'm usually pretty anal about others touching

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 14:06 -0500, Rob Crittenden wrote: > nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Thank you for cleaning up the cruft in the repository ! > > > > Regards, > > > > Agreed. I'm usually pretty anal about others touching

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 02/14/2018 02:41 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 14:25 -0500, David Cantrell wrote: >> On 02/14/2018 11:44 AM, Remi Collet wrote: >>> Le 13/02/2018 à 23:05, Igor Gnatenko a écrit : Just a small heads up, ... >>> >>> >>> As I said on IRC >>> >>> - waste of time >>> - waste

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 02/13/2018 03:05 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Just a small heads up, BuildRoot tag is not needed since RHEL6 (which is oldest supported one nowadays, it's been year or so after EL5 retirement). And we don't support EL5 anymore, so... I wanted to

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 14:25 -0500, David Cantrell wrote: > On 02/14/2018 11:44 AM, Remi Collet wrote: > > Le 13/02/2018 à 23:05, Igor Gnatenko a écrit : > > > Just a small heads up, ... > > > > > > As I said on IRC > > > > - waste of time > > -

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 11:05:28PM +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > Just a small heads up, BuildRoot tag is not needed since RHEL6 (which is > oldest > supported one nowadays, it's been year or so after EL5 retirement). And we > don't support EL5 anymore, so... > > I wanted to send this heads up

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 02/14/2018 11:44 AM, Remi Collet wrote: > Le 13/02/2018 à 23:05, Igor Gnatenko a écrit : >> Just a small heads up, ... > > > As I said on IRC > > - waste of time > - waste of energy > - absolutely no value > > And > > - abuse proven packager privileges +1 -- David Cantrell

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: > Hi, > > Thank you for cleaning up the cruft in the repository ! > > Regards, > Agreed. I'm usually pretty anal about others touching packages I maintain without at least a heads-up but in this case it doesn't bother me. I guess particularly since he didn't

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 02/13/2018 02:05 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > Just a small heads up, BuildRoot tag is not needed since RHEL6 (which is > oldest > supported one nowadays, it's been year or so after EL5 retirement). And we > don't support EL5 anymore, so... > > I wanted to send this heads up before I actually

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

Hi, Thank you for cleaning up the cruft in the repository ! Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

IMO, bikesheding and stylishness with any actual usefulness. If you really want to enforce this, make it a feature request for f30 and have FESCO vote on it. Ralf ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

Le 13/02/2018 à 23:05, Igor Gnatenko a écrit : > Just a small heads up, ... As I said on IRC - waste of time - waste of energy - absolutely no value And - abuse proven packager privileges Remi ___ devel mailing list --

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 16:17 +, Michael J Gruber wrote: > No, that commit description was not helpful as it did not explain why you see > a need to exert your proven packager privileges, nor the fact that this is a > mass change. I had to go

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

No, that commit description was not helpful as it did not explain why you see a need to exert your proven packager privileges, nor the fact that this is a mass change. I had to go around and look for you and some info about your commit. Frankly, I hate it when I notice that someone is stepping