Best practice for multiple version/OS boot?

Hi, IIRC fedora-review suggested to test packages on all sup- ported Fedora releases. So, with a larger hard disk, I want to install Fedora 19, 20 (soon) and Rawhide and throw in (recent) Debian and Ubuntu as well. As my notebook doesn't support VMs, I'm interested in best practices for

Self introduction

Hi, after posting bug reports and patches for quite some time, I finally decided to set up a FAS account to see how I can help with packaging and other tasks at hand. I believe my Linux experience started with Vanderbilt af- ter one encounter with DJ'ing Slackware onto my system and giving up

Re: Firefox not working anymore over ssh?

Michael Catanzaro wrote: >> Yes.  This makes it work.  Thanks a lot. > Then it was probably broken by this update: > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-606ca05253 The "LIBGL_DRI3_DISABLE=1" workaround fixed it for me as well (running Iceweasel on a

Re: Announcing the release of Fedora 24 Beta!

Dennis Gilmore wrote: > […] > Cloud > - > We are working hard to make Fedora the best platform for containerized > applications, from base Fedora container images to a full-featured > platform as a service to run and manage them. To meet this goal, we are > packaging

Re: fedorahosted.org retired today (2017-03-01)

Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Today we have retired fedorahosted.org. > Please see the following wiki page for up to date information: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/Fedorahosted-retirement > * ssh pushes will direct you to the above wiki page and not complete. > *

Re: Purpose of Makefile in package repository?

Adam Jackson wrote: >> I searched a bit in the wiki, and my sense is that at some >> point in the past packages were maintained in a CVS reposi- >> tory with Makefiles and that those have been replaced by Git >> repositories and fedpkg. >> Is that correct? Can such a Makefile

Purpose of Makefile in package repository?

Hi, pytz has a Makefile in its package repository with the con- tents (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pytz/blob/master/f/Makefile): | # Makefile for source rpm: pytz | # $Id$ | NAME := pytz | SPECFILE = $(firstword $(wildcard *.spec)) | define find-makefile-common | for d in common

Re: Is it possible to upload new sources of a package from a URL?

Hedayat Vatankhah wrote: > […] > Yes, but even if I'm forced to download locally, it is much > better than being forced to upload it again. (Also, note > that the current process doesn't prevent MITM if it happens > when I download the source). > Also, it is easier to

Re: Changes Policy & Fedora Release Life Cycle - request for review

Przemek Klosowski wrote: > In MediaWiki, revisions compared in a diff do not need to > belong to the same article. So for example, to compare the > current revision of...(488139) to the current revision of > ...(505754), you can use the URL >

Re: Changes Policy & Fedora Release Life Cycle - request for review

Adam Williamson wrote: >> I tried to merge together all the changes we were facing during the >> last time with regards to Changes Policy & Fedora Release Life Cycle. >> The outcome is available in [1] and [2]. Before I will ask FESCo for a >> review, I would like to

Re: Security updates and batched pushes

Kevin Fenzi wrote: > […] I really don't understand why we do this "batched" thing to begin with. >>> To reduce the constant flow of updates that are very minor or affect >>> very few mixed in with the major updates that affect lots of people and >>> are urgent. >> But

Re: Please stop re-adding gtk-update-icon-cache scriptlets (for Fedora)

Igor Gnatenko wrote: > […] >> I was not fully aware of this and I've personally hit this difficulty >> not on my proposal of the remove hicolor icon caches but on proposing, >> for example, OpenIPMI or readline changes. >> Most of my changes were by those

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > […] > Who said that I'm demanding something? > Look one more time on https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/736 > Igor took this tasks VOLUNTARILY and started working on necessary specs > before I've delivered batch of patches. > When I

Re: RPM packaging and ldconfig handling

Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > […] > This is like with with problems on taking care of the production issues or > faults. > Always needs to be someone who is controlling whole situation but this person > does not need to to person doing all OS, HW, app, db related things

Re: RPM Lint Errors

Greg Hellings wrote: > I have a package that includes a group of Ansible playbooks embedded into a > Python module. The playbooks include a number of templates that are designed > to be > uploaded into remote systems, templated out with appropriate variables, and >

/results_* and /*.rpm in .gitignore (was: Source tarballs are being placed in git?)

Todd Zullinger wrote: > […] > For example, the rpmlint's .gitignore contains the > following¹: > /*.rpm > /results_rpmlint/ > /rpmlint-*/ > /rpmlint-*.tar.gz > […] Apropos: Many .gitignores only reference the source files, i. e. not /results_${name} or /${name}-*.rpm. Therefore I usually

Re: qarte - compilation fails

"Martin Gansser" wrote: > when compiling qarte-4.4.0 with this spec file > https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Packages/test/qarte.spec > '[' noarch = noarch ']' > + case "${QA_CHECK_RPATHS:-}" in > + /usr/lib/rpm/check-buildroot > + /usr/lib/rpm/brp-compress > +

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

James Hogarth wrote: > […] > FIrst thing when I fired up my test harness was that F28 has changed, > and thus broken, kickstart for the user option compared to a standard > minimal that worked going back to F22 and EL7 so that had to be > debugged and fixed ... done >

Re: some man pages have bugs, can't be grep'd

Chris Murphy wrote: > I've been seeing this since clean installing Fedora 30. I don't recall > ever seeing it before, including on a Fedora 29 -> Fedora 30 upgraded > system (is now the clean installed system). > [chris@flap ~]$ man rpm | grep -C 10 rpmverbosity > :176: warning [p 3, 0.8i]:

Re: What is the most time consuming task for you as packager?

Josh Boyer wrote: > I am looking for challenges for upcoming year - what I and my team should > enhance. I have some ideas, but I want to hear > yours. > What you - as Fedora packager - find most time consuming on packaging? > Where you will welcome more simplicity or automation? >

Re: src.fedoraproject.org branch conversion status

Todd Zullinger wrote: > […] > In case it's helpful (and not better documented elsewhere), > it's possible to rename your existing local master branch to > rawhide and adjust the upstream tracking branch. > In a typical dist-git clone from the rpms tree, you'd do > this: > git fetch && git

Re: F35 Change proposal: RPM 4.17 (System-Wide Change proposal)

Miro Hrončok wrote: > […] >> 2. change %check not to rely on unpackaged files in buildroot > That one is non-trivial and depends on the reason it is needed. > For example, what is common for Python "namepsace" packages, e.g. > pkg_name.foo. > 1) We want to test installed files, not what is

Re: Fedora 34 Change: GitRepos-master-to-main (Self-Contained Change)

Kevin Fenzi wrote: > […] > The purpose here is to make the Fedora project a more welcoming place to > people who _do_ find those terms unwelcome. That doesn't mean everyone > does. It means we want to be welcoming and not jerks. ^ > I'm

Please remove "-i" from "%forgemeta" templates on wiki

Hi, using "%forgemeta" with the "-i" option causes debug infor- mation to be output which leads to %changelog entries being garbled: | [tim@passepartout ~/.cache/rpm-specs]$ grep -l '^.*%forgemeta.\+$' *.spec | xargs -r fgrep 'Packaging variables read or set by %forgemeta' | ddiskit.spec:* Tue

Re: Please remove "-i" from "%forgemeta" templates on wiki

Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: >> I don't think "documentation is harder to keep up to date there" is right, > Well, I guess it does not apply that much to the pages which were already in > an ACL-locked namespace, in particular, the packaging guidelines that can > only be edited by FPC. I

Re: Please remove "-i" from "%forgemeta" templates on wiki

Otto Urpelainen wrote: > […] > Like I said, I am not expert in forge macros, so if anybody thinks that > my edit removal was a bad idea, wiki has an undo button. Thanks! Tim ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send

Re: Three steps we could take to make supply chain attacks a bit harder

Kevin Kofler wrote: >> This is not helpful in the slightest and the tone is not appreciated at >> all. > Well, I have been arguing against this exception (exempting prebuilt > autotools output) from the "no prebuilt blobs" rule for years, and it > saddens me that something like this had to

Re: some man pages have bugs, can't be grep'd

I wrote a very long time ago: >> I've been seeing this since clean installing Fedora 30. I don't recall >> ever seeing it before, including on a Fedora 29 -> Fedora 30 upgraded >> system (is now the clean installed system). >> [chris@flap ~]$ man rpm | grep -C 10 rpmverbosity >> :176: warning [p

Re: F41 Change Proposal - Reproducible Package Builds (System-Wide)

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > […] >> - use dynamic buildrequires to detect what plugins are needed > My problem is that the binary is linked to the libpython3.12.so shared > library… The detection part is easy, the hard part is how to have the > binary work when the shared lib is not

Re: SPDX Statistics - L'Aigle meteorite edition

John Reiser wrote: >> New projection when we will be finished is 2025-04-06 (+5 >> days from last report).  Pure linear approximation. > Such a linear approximation, based on the entire tracked history, > is the second worst possible estimate. (The worst possible estimate > is the output of a

Re: Mass Package Change: Turn deprecated %patchN syntax into %patch -PN

Vít Ondruch wrote: %patch otoh (now) is a regular (though internally implemented) macro that is expanded with other macros and though can be used in other macros and expressions. >>> Do I read correctly that we can now use `%patch` in >>> e.g. `%check` section? Interesting. Is

Re: perl: warning: Setting locale failed.

Petr Šabata wrote: >> > Adding >> > BuildRequires: glibc-all-langpacks >> > to all the *.specs obviously fixes this issue. However, I doubt this is >> > right, because I think these warnings originate from some rpm-internal >> > scripts and not from the packages. >> I suspect you're running

Re: perl: warning: Setting locale failed.

I wrote: > […] > Adding: > | config_opts['environment']['LANG'] = 'C' > to ~/.config/mock.cfg seems to solve that. That was meant to say: | config_opts['environment']['LANG'] = 'LANG=C.UTF-8' Tim ___ perl-devel mailing list --

[rpms/perl-PAR-Packer] PR #1: Remove obsolete requirements for %post/%postun scriptlets

scfc opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-PAR-Packer` that you are following: `` Remove obsolete requirements for %post/%postun scriptlets `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-PAR-Packer/pull-request/1

Macro for a binary package's documentation directory name?

Hi, on Fedora 38, the binary package python3-collada ships a broken symlink (CHANGELOG.rst): | $ rpm -qlv python3-collada | grep /usr/share/doc/python3-collada | drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Jan 20 2023 /usr/share/doc/python3-collada | -rw-r--r--1 root root

[rpms/perl-AnyEvent-I3] PR #1: Fix URL

scfc opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-AnyEvent-I3` that you are following: `` Fix URL `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-AnyEvent-I3/pull-request/1 -- ___ perl-devel mailing list --