Re: [HEADS-UP] adding missing systemd links in rawhide upgrades
On 04/08/10 00:10, Lennart Poettering wrote: > Heya, > > just a little heads up for when you upgrade a rawhide system that is a > few weeks old to current rawhide: since we changed the way how some of > the default symlinks of systemd are created you will end up with an > installation that lacks many of the necessary symlinks -- but only if > you upgrade from a systemd version from older rawhide to current > rawhide. It's really only a problem in this case. It is not a problem > with fresh F14 installations, and it is not a problem with upgrades from > F13. The fix is easy: after upgrading just run this command as root and > the missing links should be created: > > # systemctl enable ge...@.service prefdm.service getty.target > rc-local.service remote-fs.target > > And that should make things work again. > > Sorry for the late heads-up. > > Lennart > Ah, thanks. You've saved my day. Matthias -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Review swaps
Hello all, currently I'm looking for a review for two of my packages: lockfile-progs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=601115 is a dependency of logcheck: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589867 liblockfile (needed for lockfile-progs) is included in rawhide and in updates-testing for F-13 resp. F-14. Those packages are quite small and I appreciate each help. I would like to trade reviews. Matthias -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Review swaps
On 08/14/2010 02:19 PM, pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Matthias Runge > wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> currently I'm looking for a review for two of my packages: >> lockfile-progs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=601115 >> is a dependency of >> logcheck: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=589867 >> >> liblockfile (needed for lockfile-progs) is included in rawhide and in >> updates-testing for F-13 resp. F-14. >> >> Those packages are quite small and I appreciate each help. >> >> I would like to trade reviews. > > I'll swap you them for: > meego-help https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624205 > gupnp-dlna https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617141 > > Both fairly basic reviews as well. > > Peter Great to hear, thank you! Pavel, Martin and Michael gave hints for #601115 which I would like to include. I'll do it later today, and take a deeper look onto your packages. Matthias -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Kernel 2.6.34 for F13?
On 20/08/10 03:31, Reindl Harald wrote: > Will 2.6.34 pushed to stable? > > My question is because there were also some> 2.6.30 builds for > F11 which never rolled out and it could possible relax some things > in combination with VMware / open-vm-tools > > https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1373 > > I see this two builds in my test-vm form "updates-testing" > kernel-2.6.33.6-147.2.4.fc13.x86_64 > kernel-2.6.34.2-34.fc13.x86_64 > > There are some regressions in 2.6.34.2- I would prefer, that they're getting solved before it is shipped. One regression is e.g. a hard lockup during suspend. c.f. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/kernel-2.6.34.3-37.fc13 I've seen additional random lockups during daily use, as another tester reported. Matthias -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: bugzilla bugzappers?
On 04/11/10 04:23, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: >>> On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 22:12 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 21:02 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > >> Maybe it is time to discuss the usefulness of ABRT to Fedora. I think >> that it is a great idea for commercial products such as RHEL, but it >> obviously did not fit Fedora as is. > > I disagree. I have seen many bugs fixed with the aid of abrt feedback. > It beats the hell out of a bug report which says 'it crashed'. > Does it compare to this number? (it takes a while to open) http://tinyurl.com/39yr832 >>> >>> Not hard to run the numbers. There've been 31,603 bugs reported to >>> Bugzilla by abrt. There are 2,216 bugs reported by abrt that have been >>> closed as CURRENTRELEASE, RAWHIDE, ERRATA or NEXTRELEASE (which are the >>> resolutions that usually imply 'it got fixed'). I think a tool that's >>> resulted in 2,216 fixes for crasher bugs is pretty cool. :) >>> >> >> I am pretty sure a subset of these closed bugs are "mass-closing" of >> bugs when a maintainer updates the software. Sometimes, when you >> forward the report upstream, they don't understand the output either, >> and say "it may be fixed, just update and try". You update the >> software, put it to testing, and ask the user if it is fixed for him. >> The user doesn't respond as usual. Then you mark it as fixed without >> really knowing what's going on. Then you have such statistics. YAY! >> > > I randomly picked 20 bug reports out of those 2,216 that were closed > CURRENTRELEASE, RAWHIDE, ERRATA or NEXTRELEASE. > > 1 had the software patched, and updated (Good fix) > 2 had some sort of discussion (1-2 messages) before the maintainer > updates the software and marks it fixed > 17 had no conversation at all. The maintainer just updates the > software to the next version. > > Of course some of these might be real fixes. I didn't look deeply into it. > > However, believing that these bugs are "fixed" thanks to the ABRT > reports sounds to me like wishful thinking. > > Orcan I am aware of at least two bugs filed from me via abrt, which were fixed because of the report. I'm pretty sure, I did not file hundreds or thousands of abrt-reports. Maybe your perspective is a bit too negative. Matthias -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Default services enabled
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 24/08/11 14:18, JB wrote: > This guy is a loose cannon, with an outsized ego, but lacking UNIX > understanding and design skills. Ok, it's getting clear, both of you won't become best friends. Assuming, all arguments were written to this list, please stop affronts on him. This has nothing to do with systemd's quality, however do you rate it. Thanks - -- Matthias Runge -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOVPMeAAoJEOnz8qQwcaIWorQH/0WXPyHcXI7Kra9bQ1qGio6g DyVd7RIen+ue/7GYwnqPGbVLMWq43QOh6YBCuxO3h6s8xIxULRqsp1GTmJXzysgD zV4nZXYqkQxrkCeV1brv/8rG9FV1y4djxL6avMRM/VlvZkjF3U918XbfSEq/NRXW Gk1bvFbKR1KCmt06heDwEMHjf6cevah6VsWZBQbDgMt1sNof3nfJkDupd2FS93vm qGnnP7ScyUQA1dAbojhgrD6eWv8qsCSDf1Kg2WLDv5G7/KPVwBgndaWDTHjXgvn1 ugZxNNcstj4O8Mu8kS8MPCp5fO8q5iZK98RT5PGIuGf621QZtTM7pWAVnCaePBI= =d85W -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Askbot - Additional dependencies to be packaged
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 20/09/11 08:11, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi, > > The upcoming release of Askbot (used for > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ask_fedora) has a number of > additional dependencies. Django-registration is already in the > repository and was packaged in advance of this but there are still > quite a few ones left > > * akismet - Praveen Kumar has filed a review request at > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739777 > > Needs to be put up for review. All of these are in pypi > > * django-extra-form-fields * multi-registry * import-utils * > django-authenticator==0.1.4 > > If anyone wants to help out, reply here and file a review request. > Thanks. > > Rahul > > > Hi, just submitted * django-authenticator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739832 Matthias - -- Matthias Runge -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOeEMbAAoJEOnz8qQwcaIWsZUH/12YyB5+gQOsJ6nnz0xyz+y2 /oYn8mlOkPjYQ2sf3VtVoHCWCgh/tvHOBO6OhcLv8VPmPmQT4yHPOvLYXhM2TEtA MTkhvtNeCIXnO6JZGHfyW9e4bBgRdialYFk/BhZG8B8Q/HQdWwVVeLdExtWoxviB fbOfFUSJP/1wAdA/V0myPpxTSTcr604X4BoD/bBnKQQsvZ7MwMSiATcwV9RZB8HN S2F7WUw8OrsAAEDeIiXyzIUqkYcbHQPR0bDOEIDqKIIfLevuH1dQxo7+bvFY8DZQ n6wvA4RgqfdUzffc0LfUfT2f6ZkcDL9qH+xu+vryCMHEoI0plY6ruNgaZfemerU= =y7qb -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Askbot - Additional dependencies to be packaged
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 20/09/11 08:11, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi, > > The upcoming release of Askbot (used for > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ask_fedora) has a number of > additional dependencies. Django-registration is already in the > repository and was packaged in advance of this but there are still > quite a few ones left > > * akismet - Praveen Kumar has filed a review request at > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739777 > > Needs to be put up for review. All of these are in pypi > > * django-extra-form-fields * multi-registry * import-utils * > django-authenticator==0.1.4 > > If anyone wants to help out, reply here and file a review request. > Thanks. > > Rahul > > > Hi another one, * django-extra-form-fields https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739837 Matthias - -- Matthias Runge -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOeEZ0AAoJEOnz8qQwcaIWIO4H/jOEd7dnXSDb9qXkV6IhFcY4 ptjI17N8lU5hnzu7LVVzjwrEWGbiu8g9fjvhzr6/7qa6TIZQczZTPaRnus29xAKS oHSdvWhsPylRrsIGV6VvKWP52v9CFwNBo5HpUROuFGV/3OHLKPkB3CL+7hSBbBiK Zjmh+G/s0jvLUvG+TECJz5mKIi7Gqab6+v1noXyiCHGrrz6Di1DI2x5CDR8rIAJx CPwhzlzezexF/FG21/YB11kV7VBdUZs90s4R37Olr70MiO01Crrg7z+qzpIO7N/n HxHpSmJkmY8mZ7OAyd44//jKvxZOSsyhJNFpdiBZQ9HnzzMy59y7AkHbiwS7xG8= =IebG -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Askbot - Additional dependencies to be packaged
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 20/09/11 09:53, Matthias Runge wrote: > On 20/09/11 08:11, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> Hi, > >> The upcoming release of Askbot (used for >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ask_fedora) has a number of >> additional dependencies. Django-registration is already in the >> repository and was packaged in advance of this but there are >> still quite a few ones left > >> * akismet - Praveen Kumar has filed a review request at >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739777 > >> Needs to be put up for review. All of these are in pypi > >> * django-extra-form-fields * multi-registry * import-utils * >> django-authenticator==0.1.4 > >> If anyone wants to help out, reply here and file a review >> request. Thanks. > >> Rahul > > > > Hi another one, > > * django-extra-form-fields > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739837 > > Matthias Hi, just a short status update: * multi-registry https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739904 * python-wordpress-xmlrpc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739908 * python-import-utils (already reviewed and approved) * django-extra-form-fields (already reviewed and approved) * django-authenticator (currently under review) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739832 - -- Matthias Runge -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOeIDXAAoJEOnz8qQwcaIWufIH+gKfYNs17D1nyM8eCG9dJh5P TT1RY3kG2hQzN8PX3DxdAPE7m/bBiHwEYcBNxKUL8IvZ3151Qi0AsflkmzIFxSJf iFIBdB99Kf4jP6GCxMa+xCTc6bhOaQvMzEB5X0X0TEU6WSTqTsjW6wVe4eOBJxkW SzXD4sueC2ac+LFjwV5ld1wH7v+Ild0FrK+im28DDRSfCs6/phA+Annfn4rtSW6A GvDhIh0RO2QbbyW8lGtN0BhuBV3cM86QYiK7SqNyzpLmksFNwCFFQewl/0L96d2O V9EgGTHm16M6ys3lrffG6Kx5peirgHEWWf04DSxBFY4T9tzcGoEgZmePect4Lpw= =t8iq -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 22/09/11 09:15, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: > On 09/21/2011 05:33 PM, Till Maas wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 04:43:38PM +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote: >> >>> And that's always fine and dandy if these issues are resolved >>> in a reasonable amount of time. Right now Rawhide has packages >>> with dependencies broken since pre-F15. This isn't acceptable. >> >> If you notice this, ask FESCo to ask FES to perform a rebuild to >> fix the dependency: >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Engineering_Services >> >> Probably any member of the provenpackager group can help you >> here. >> >> Regards Till >> >> >> > I hope you don't suggest for every rebuild of few dependent > packages one FESCo ticket. > Thinking some time about this: Would it help to have a person (per branch), responsible for rebuilding packages with broken deps? The person may rebuild himself or try to force package maintainers to rebuild, retire packages, when they stay in broken state since .. days/releases/...? Cheers, Matthias - -- Matthias Runge -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOewLRAAoJEOnz8qQwcaIW/IkH/A4BNpTcqwH8+x9FXdHGWeNv pw1FoeT1SZx+UtLdVbSmXiDKAsIvZ9InGD8+9hXF1Af6QRz0+ECJXhJ6Vn16FEO4 zmLtZ7SX/gZGtcafxw4ua7W0QjW/96EY+E5sAzIJ34DqSaDmklt/rOTuqf37oRuQ pf1wim9KYcbeLTJhV2iJ3OWEAXW2lmyH2JQSg+sfZv7QQTSjGl6VmD+asV7Ktn/3 aiYmquIRtwIdxLkJtfEvVq4yUUqVvsAg3GWgH2HQXG3QHvzFTT0hpWgQ00h5M0n+ a0YVLpBqleiVRP9x1/evh5qdywxtdWZ2uucQCE6rQu/zZXEPXhkhZg1BSXF7uv4= =1iuC -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Orphaning packages
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/11/11 21:56, James Bowes wrote: > ipython -- An enhanced interactive Python shell mod_wsgi -- A WSGI > interface for Python web applications in Apache I'm interested in those two packages and requested rights in pkgdb. Is there no branch mod_wsgi for epel6? Matthias - -- Matthias Runge -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOsPccAAoJEOnz8qQwcaIW6uMH/jEsVwBvVcBWdvXUD3DUE1At cEYkl5woI/DDryltaoqVcZWpEbNBiKEI9edcKBzEl6lmwqx34aGEc37xVcXwjWK9 BsoMfYUwt1e3jVtKG/IrweOvt2v+WUloVCreJ5hfA94jQQacZvfUNL7jI14MpuyL pR3GWWMdGKorsO+BnOMTRiFbxISiZizoLZpIc4qiqptFAIkT1M+IuYTTCh7/ABvG ObUfGZcFlekR1Z5+UzeyXjH0zZPZldWf1X388opc8rumP8je/KWKH9WZWn9MjQrL /pzXHTdMveitEX8QhXSxcE7TvAnGVVCdNeHyY7aW3NJsBU3qVJ3Dgrmzs0JDeWI= =wMK1 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Orphaning packages
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/11/11 17:23, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >> Is there no branch mod_wsgi for epel6? >> > I believe mod_wsgi is in RHEL6 thus no EPEL6 branch at this time. > > -Toshio Yes it is. I just checked this (should have done this earlier, before asking) - -- Matthias Runge -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOsbSlAAoJEOnz8qQwcaIWiVIH/Apq0SHl591zPQRS7FmmMTxR nPJco1W1iSJ4Vem8XLhlIHd1SBbFtOZZAfYxQN9CkqYg1L6MbXRqYlEW6T9tv50c oZb82clqsad/yxwImOpXcDSR9Rvvff/7JyAK7Kqbd6BAARUQ0D5Pa2VpSFb8+wGP A1iXQ2wqThdAsGalYdLdJzf9usfMi37TpUS1EKZ4V+u7HiVV0F2wUyjdjNGwoGze aBxY/oMLvDdzJ4lxSeTJM7f/z8Lz6BW+XrCRxt3MCTTmfspy6wdR9st3UBA0e8wY cpxJuWArfm6icADToTzYNIJcFC/X4R9IfrOrrAyDwKDtCs6syrDLsbCXgaa9/3g= =mngy -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Failure to boot new F15 minimal netinst install
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/04/11 09:00, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After upgrading my F15 netbook today, it failed to boot again. It
there are (at least) two known bugs regarding systemd-21 and booting.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=692573
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=692602
You may try to boot with enforcing=0 appended on kernel command line in
grub.
> refused to give me a login prompt and nothing happened after at least 20
> minutes after sitting at this[1] screen. In this state, the only way to
> get any response was to hard-reset the machine. Ctrl+Alt+{Fn,Delete} did
> nothing. Going into init 1 (via grub menu editing) got me a shell, but
> trying systemctl default or ^D put it in the same state as before. After
> so much of this, it seems as though something on /boot became unhappy
> (it was uncleanly unmounted every time) as the keyboard behaved weird
> ('1' inserted a 't' and everything else seemed to be just spaces) so I
> was locked out of init 1 as well. I tried doing a fresh F15 minimal
> netinst install and I am at the same state. I'm hesitant to do too much
> without some guidance because of the chance that /boot gets corrupted
> again and needing another reinstall.
>
>>From what I can recall and hints from Bodhi, (at least) the following
> were upgraded on the original install:
>
> - kernel-PAE-2.6.28.2-8
> - systemd-21
> - udev-167-$unsure
>
> Other things may have also been installed, but I can't recall. The
> previous kernel upgrade was 2.6.38.1-$unsure to give a lower bound on
> packages that may have changed. I have a list of what was installed
> (after an attempted yum history undo from one of the init 1 instances to
> fix things, unfortunately partial due to packages being deleted from the
> repos), but it's on the netbook yet (saved in /home).
>
> --Ben
>
> [1]http://i.imgur.com/odjeA.jpg
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNlXnRAAoJEOnz8qQwcaIW5uEH/0M1SDxfSmWk34DI1FlwiUVK
sbiEOKIRdUEVll+n9133hgc3mFqHL5m3dbA93GrURxId5koPCxxiuIh+jNpTu1uR
OUlczM4Yk28Yt6L3wd1Tjna22UMAy11+US6xj8palz8ct445e5K/lqBF2p4r/rFs
zu2bG+PGz5g/7AG4H7KyUK2Fua4IW27bZ+tkbNi9cU+INpj7ZO8RjWScex5ikkBA
st0I5ZRkllhwW5YrxhCFNcj7saUQp2jT7M++pLoP89S8Ncxy3HuR5KmSQOPcsgWO
etbyYoAo8wMjPQsT6KIWwBZuhMQPX61opCTPQWthzmWYaT6SsBek68X7NNObVYQ=
=ngbm
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
can someone reach Doug Warner (silfreed)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, the subject says it: Is someone able to reach Douglas Warner? I hope, he's ok, but it looks like, he's very busy. He sought help for maintenance of syslog-ng [1], which I offered. This was his last post on devel-list (dated Feb. 2, 2011), but I may be wrong. His last build in koji is much older. Since then, I tried to reach him three times privately and got one answer on Feb. 24 (where he applied me for commiting to syslog-ng). Recently, syslog-ng upstream contacted the maintainers to get the latest version into fedora. To get syslog-ng built in latest version, I also need to update eventlog. There are already bug reports for eventlog [2] and syslog-ng [3] requesting for package update. Since those bug reports are unanswered from Doug, I assume he might be too busy for a solution. How to proceed for now? Thanks, Matthias [1] http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-February/148292.html [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=695975 [3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=651823 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNrDSZAAoJEOnz8qQwcaIW2EQH/AkGcW77mx/+lZCW4U8N7fQm iKW0j/uSmF819zUEYEHUlpkoTMnwMnQ+DZP2sXyqpE3F1rbs8cDJxfN6llF8p7mo jf/pNvtxCNnblDmtiJESQXfl+3keez7bgUk34amvJLa58LkOZi0AomUz4xnciNiO 12dJY0MU3ZjC+LVkP89Polwy/KRitSLVqi2wE0af2J8pBLqpXaQQF1IhT7YRr20q +JioAlheI49k5RaQOXGLzUwPMoRi2fZaXcYqcHQPaJJBajepbudwEYbEH0fn/o77 /U4PhyvmcjE9pOfcnDGj6pc1DTuwfkjc3n9A18si7ZOJJiWfP7pzOmF0oy7Ru/A= =qwZd -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: can someone reach Doug Warner (silfreed)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 20/04/11 20:18, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:54:49 +0200 > Matthias Runge wrote: > Thank you for your offer. Doug answered my mail and approved me. Recently I built latest versions of eventlog and syslog-ng for rawhide. I think, I'll build them for F15, too. syslog-ng is the only package requiring eventlog. No package requires syslog-ng, so it shouldn't break anything. Matthias >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Hi, > > ok, so you have commits for eventlog, but not syslog-ng? > > Go ahead and apply for those and I can approve you if Doug does not. > I'll email him as well... > > kevin > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNry7kAAoJEOnz8qQwcaIWTdsH/1pvV5dA5vv90fAEKEaQ0zfS 02Qf9hXI8dSr7S9xlJS9ABQclTdwRVkvT1z2JPkoYmb2CIqpGRvhhDdyCxPRXblz 016iRg49upxD4byJyN0kQIdOzKgfNA+AX8HNW2SOqJJZYPBc2jEFchuB0DYSuheI wsSvVoy5FZLt1jBxbUcWkbe42AuBnYDzNgTAbXF5TFKLMSDKAZVu4LiBPHekEWxC Q9dauUfEJZLWzWdtoDi7c22vl5gUJdwTU7jZL7nucCGzYdPL5zvhcbJf/VpNdNh0 mBBZeD/NdMPhe31nJXpdb1JS/MOcOuUG0Iv97zFHBXbvpXv68XAIYgRCb7OjB2A= =8UOD -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
bodhi curiosity
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, a few minutes ago I ran into two issues regarding bodhi feedback - - I tried to submit feedback via fedora-easy-karma and got a 500 internal server error. - - afterwards I submitted my vote via web interface and (probably) produced this: bodhi - 2011-05-03 04:28:44 (karma 0) This update has been pushed to testing bodhi - 2011-05-03 06:45:29 (karma 0) Critical path update approved mrunge (proventesters) - 2011-05-03 06:45:29 (karma 1) This fixes 698533 for me. thank you https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gnome-settings-daemon-3.0.1-4.fc15 Why the critpath-approve first, (who was the second vote)? was my vote counted twice? (probably). :-/ Matthias -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNv6j+AAoJEOnz8qQwcaIWfEkH/idq1rK7uZt/BNPGDASmNAI5 SzLUVxxD/a/AE0xdxmIYdtz+KbQdrHqiBBK8HujaO+KWl/ofG1ZQ7W3fJi0BiLuA Jqa+4DFSjy2iFxupBycGZ5WtX6N1z6/zS8yPa/dxVVjJPbfDuYi99VMc4wFqZ2P3 v57WfeB3DYnb1sKx9JPPZqyfRo8ZSPKCbxmUxQpt6rThnm5gwwq1RjfJ+RRtA5tq QJMt70tgze62txZU3jKs95Opzdhd5PEz1AEzQzjIQOCfDWVmjK6rbuTF/M+Z5mDA +/ZFKN4YXSCbQPIIl1tNYfYD9kqo9gu52+WFiyOfnYLGR/ZqHTFz9LEWLvC3UwE= =Tds/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
karma for syslog-ng-3.2.3-2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Greetings, we all know, the final change freeze arrives tomorrow, May 9th. I would like to ask you, if you could provide some (positive) karma for syslog-ng. It is the latest stable version and I'd like to pull it into F15 before change freeze. Thanks, Matthias -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNxvnlAAoJEOnz8qQwcaIWr/4IAIeEYCMD88uJH8g7IeHk71r2 tQ0jm7QanUrTIldn2DRKROWo0IAHclOLidwbAI4eujHZcC+KUtctkVP81GqvZsDO P/xoOD0U/CNqgzAdsZFMroqHzNjqfhoSndK0YeZVAdj/tnQIl11RtwnMo15mvXd7 fPZkGvmBZYznP78MdNNxg6lw05eHaVqyqCarpevXGAG18yz1qE+LQptIa6ArFkCk t/Em4fzPb+j/gg2+rJiZIMol/0ndKUjJQUWXp3zMd/zc9nd/GMOvd6oa7aHG0/Bf VgnVmSDftfAq6ql6FoLMEytm2wyPbUeQQyHL70osTpxqvBJgPmqHpXHCKvsQeug= =vub4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: rpmlint warning "file-not-in-%lang"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 20/06/11 13:27, Heiko Adams wrote: > Hi, > what does rpmlint's warning "file-not-in-%lang" mean? Searching google > doesn't realy help. I would try rpmlint -i It is much more informative than rpmlint (without parameter -i) - -- Matthias Runge -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJN/zJ4AAoJEOnz8qQwcaIW6T4H/jz/evv5tJuNpIRuqmVxC4k0 R0py13v6BluR1ArvIoZiE7MX8S43yk2lY4E//IhOAppxaBqND5OY6cfc2YAAVWXz XDjaRVox6S7Ip1nJ9eOwM+uvqTQbiAijk4EnoBQt9VJx7xG8FdZeizQigc9xq6iz QWhvd1SOkPExO90186rmTfC54cynhHvIb6RWP2005CBm6tLqMiCw+vSNEfoUdoeD knWLel56n/p/yO4CzxliGCLOyNKgDwr0w7p4tOmPOm4c3aaGzqc4jgdW9a60H9H1 LUfeRWklgunoV4YuH4JSSTvtHUO4yhJQHaKXPHEKJK0yxgQHj9OlQIXw1qxNoBY= =0Lex -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Packages that will be orphaned
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I'll take these: > django-contact-form > django-notification > django-pagination > django-sct > django-tagging Matthias -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJN/6UAAAoJEOnz8qQwcaIWGOgH/3uVq+5/qBlD/1RxFXy7IQkC +FKD3VQwOTcIau8MjGFsGnSxerh1LpSypSB3GwX+xRutjpCyJHnhNGtp0CSstaOQ IZIXLANNMlveOfs1i46VzbevtGIeBwQG51wI23C1zjj4My5YBNXyn3lLAr6wTRKi 8uHUVZGdAFbpVVE2Ie21MMLXZhjr1Ajg2U2O4qW6LXPKBWT68B5t31w+69xdOUUJ oCMmJ0YYxZjAV+eKsx5gq/wCIVPMpBm0zW1CQqwGIjTv+Yd7bartbknizrTJV71L 8A0Z5N9FK+VzIWprznnPUHd6bQotVIjzCOk26yIoeHqrcd9s8sh9VZ5YRQCBlJ0= =y8hn -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Packages that will be orphaned
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 21/06/11 00:06, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > Note that three of these have EPEL branches that are already orphaned: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/django-tagging > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/django-pagination > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/django-notification > > If you want the EPEL branches, go ahead and take them in the pkgdb. > > -Toshio > Thank you! I grabbed those EPEL branches just a few minutes ago. - -- Matthias Runge -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOADhtAAoJEOnz8qQwcaIWpK8IAJQzGpb5q1XDyDmbTH1NHE5c coLhToFxsnsKVx62zrd56k7nB6YXh2m0pMN9BYJRe4rpr2+icrqewWmjHBneSty1 h1PTmYvsb0K2alewqxtZmwlVbznaRuuSjYmMdtR1CvwWjfw8G15xJg+aSsvhtBzI KaI4sjTVUS9nyzfzelDSn/Fqtz6ts/APi2XmmeyCqivtbV0m63rPPrpEDr5lFdUp FlYgcHiGwY2Pre0I8PJQFWepu+vgAlbagkvxAuc/TbIbTB7a3u6fjq66nh/JcUFd BTELg/vxwPw1WQHCqBnsIgaT5iNIi11hRq7WyE0/8TSFjp4xegnqEBAG7EouGok= =LIOj -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Orphaning: diction, pylint, python-logilab-common, python-logilab-astng, uqm
On 24/03/10 01:07, Brian C. Lane wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 03/23/2010 12:03 PM, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: >> Hello, all: >> >> I've been doing a poor job maintaining these. I'm sure someone else >> can do a better job maintaining them and keeping them current. >> >> diction >> pylint >> python-logilab-common >> python-logilab-astng >> uqm > > I've picked up pylint > Hi, if you need assistance, I'm happy to support you. Sadly, I'm not approved, yet, this could get a bit tricky. Matthias -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
CVS Permissions
Hi, who do I ask, to get the permission to set the fedora-cvs-flag in bugzilla? I would like to import my recently approved package into cvs. Or did I understood the procedure https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CVS_admin_requests#New_Packages wrong? (First wait for permission, then request a CVS module)? Package is here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=540617 Matthias -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Postgresql namespace
On 04/23/2010 08:47 PM, Jean-Francois Saucier wrote: >> On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 11:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Devrim =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=DCND=DCZ?= writes: >>> On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 16:40 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=251805#c28 Should we have: postgresql-pgpool-II postgresql-orafce or just: pgpool-II orafce Let start discussing. My opinion is postgresql-* because it has kind of same namespace. >> >>> Let's get rid of postgresql- prefixes. They don't match upstream names >>> and they are just useless. >> >> FWIW, I've recently renamed postgresql-tcl and postgresql-python to >> better match their upstream project names, so I guess that's precedent >> for Devrim's position. >> >> regards, tom lane > >> It's also worth noting what other distributions do, do they honor the >> upstream names or pre/postpend some sort of identifier? > > > If I check in the Ubuntu Lucid repository, orafce is packaged as > postgresql-8.3-orafce, same for Debian. > > OpenSuse and Mandriva don't seem to ship orafce. > > > Thinking of more general packages, e.g a java binding for postgresql, I would prefer names like postgresql-java (or similar) to be able to differentiate from mysql-java, ingres-java (given, those packages do exist). To be conformant to this naming scheme, other packages, that do only exist e.g. for postgresql, should IMHO be named postgresql-something. Even a search on packages gets you faster to results just by browsing package names (yes, I know yum is pretty smart and does not need that.) Cheers, Matthias -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Request update of shared-mime-info
On 21/11/11 20:36, Jon Masters wrote: > Can someone please push the update that I made (with permission) to > shared-mime-info? I'm getting "jcm does not have commit access" when I > try to make the F16 update. This fix is required to actually be able to > play many MP3 files (including all purchased from Amazon.com) on F16. > > Tested Koji builds: > > F16: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3530557 > F17: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3530543 Hi, hopefully not disturbing someones circles; I just tried to push it a few minutes ago. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/shared-mime-info (it looks like proven-testers are able to submit any package to testing). Is this correct? Matthias -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Non-responsive maintainer ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/12/11 23:08, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > Hi, > > Once in a while comes back the question: "is > around ?" Normally followed by: "I have opened and pinged him > several time on ". > Great work! There was/is some tool around/mentioned some time doing nearly the same. Is this yours? Did it someone else? I would check some other mailing lists, too,e.g. t...@lists.fedoraproject.org, Some people are hanging in irc, too. irc-nick is listed in fedora account system. I would watch on channels #fedora, #fedora-devel and maybe in #fedora-(lang), if country is listed in fas. There is a vacation list in wiki https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Vacation which may be checked, too. Should vacation be moved to fas? > Hope this helps and feel free to give suggestions, Pierre - -- Matthias Runge -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJO3d3uAAoJEOnz8qQwcaIWgBcH/j7dAGr59qJutob1uf+Ksl94 70Mm14Wt5asLH5RMDDuefTyHQOznBMzVzrSpdiFOEHBVZEil/F7xBuzcrIy3aFFn MCHh7gSRHhD9S64rVyYyEqO7cL7HvQM/pXx5kDGiY5nSypawBvjw5MBw7X/Ja651 +zX0p1ObcZ+IAW7Ue5EYuVTESUBzFct2Im983bfnEJHbEFSqTqdotnlv9fBbL5j1 NZXJUYB7biWonYvIVanXMBt94EFGXtyCZbOrEy18bsAq2KUQ/U8u9gt19pJjoY7G 2MN1CQWMJID1fS00i64rAI6OUvGO1geiabxiXpwF4oGxsoSGgQKgJ3ycAUVD1Bw= =IaI6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: fedora-create-review
On 09/01/12 18:11, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 9.1.2012 17:44, Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): Hi, Some time ago I was speaking with Tibbs who mentioned such a tool, so I wrote a small script this week-end called fedora-create-review. The idea is simple: It would be really nice if something like this could become part of "fedpkg", so we would have just one tool for packaging. Vit Very valuable! Thank you! I don't think this should belong to fedpkg. Maybe more to the great fedora-review-tool (to make a tool/package bundling all review-related tools). I would like to see this packaged it sooner than later. Are you going to do this? -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: fedora-create-review
On 09/01/12 22:19, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: >>> - from a spec and srpm >>> - start a koji scratch build >>> - if build worked >>> - upload to fedorapeople.org >>> - create the bugzilla ticket >>> - Add the koji build in the bugzilla as a link >>> - otherwise: >>> - warn user could you also run rpmlint on spec and srpm and attach the output? -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: review of bacula-docs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/01/12 11:37, Itamar Reis Peixoto wrote: > bacula is already in fedora. > > why there are a review ( with review + ) for bacula-docs ? > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771941 > > why not add bacula-docs as sub-package of bacula ? > > This has been discussed earlier on fedora-packaging mailing list. bacula-docs is rather large and doesn't change often. The plan is, to make bacula-docs subpackage a real own package. So, if the maintainer does it right, it won't produce a problem. - -- Matthias Runge -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPDWdEAAoJEOnz8qQwcaIW2zQH+gNFVqjBFqkkDQDU5eK8UcNh +gfqzOudcizpTF5ApF7kN9fUt0eGzBJtvOTy8f2KjMwhHgZU8E7/6jtN4Qkwxatq zO9/4kF5XNnr1Y7SXXJF9uaAMVOlD1jk0cpcqHX/kQqC+uTP6aIOspQ33RxnkW8H bpRsLB4Yr1ksjZQ6L0UcPxChLGLTM0/12UlCrfIBp7IK6+kzwkQI0qahXfj4pbDJ aa/6GFwczkWAIbVmgsljQMHqZDcvhMLxGQXd1bGVZvKyYpRoyTBg1Kq9kLT2yqaw a5sNgps+he7WYRWh4wBcNczCKrT90v4+IfOIQfXW0xNkGIruntUNE6gm10vN9DQ= =DfSf -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Orphan Packages
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 6:50 AM, Dave Riches wrote: django-dpaste -- dpaste is a code pastebin application using Django. django-mptt -- Utilities for implementing Modified Preorder Tree Traversal django-simple-captcha -- Django application to add captcha images to any Django form django-tracking -- Django site visitor tracking, including basic blacklisting I took those django-* packages. As always, co-maintainers welcome! Matthias -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Django packages - proposed name changes
Am 24.01.2012 13:18, schrieb Bohuslav Kabrda:
Hi,
I think that you should follow the two guidelines that I mentioned in one of my
previous mails: [1], [2].
Therefore, you should use something like:
Provides: django-debug-toolbar = %{version}-%{release}
Obsoletes: django-debug-toolbar< 0.9.3-1
And you should also throw in some comment about the change (maybe just a link
to this thread, so that everyone will be able to find out why the changes took
place). And again, let's leave it for the next Rawhide :)
Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda
Should I have mentioned, this is a new package?
No need to provide something, which didn't exist earlier. But until the
name change finally took place, it is related, somehow.
During the big change I just would need to change requirements from
Django to python-django and I'm done. So I think it doesn't make sense
to create a package django-... today and get it reviewed in 4 weeks again.
Matthias
___
python-devel mailing list
python-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/python-devel
Re: Rolling release Fedora - "testing-release"-Proposal
On 30/01/12 00:59, Henrique Junior wrote: > I've started talking to Greg KH, the guy who implemented openSUSE > Tumbleweed. Here is what he said: Oh great. Thank you for doing something constructive here. I'm concerned about bundled libs and requirements of libraries. If I remember right, up to a certain point, gnome was dependant on a special javascript-library of firefox. So updateing firefox to a higher version would have broken gnome (to a certain point). One could avoid this, if one would include required libraries for own packages. (canceling the no-bundled-libs-rule). This rule afaik does not exist in SuSE. Their guidelines have this: [1] (same for fedora [2]) Packages in openSUSE should make every effort to avoid having multiple, separate, upstream projects bundled together in a single package. In other words: as maintainer you should try to avoid bundling libraries and other dependencies, but it's not strictly forbidden, like in fedora. [3] In some other ways, I had the feeling, other distros didn't try to be as clean as fedora tries to be (I must admint, I have a very limited and onesided view). Being less strict here creates more freedom for package maintainers. Maybe introducing a "testing"-release as concession to both sides is acceptable? - newest versions, including risk of being broken -> rawhide - (merely) stable versions will be propagated from rawhide to "testing" - branching stable versions each six months (or so) from testing-branch If someone wants a rolling release, he might use "testing" without the bleeding edge of rawhide. A testing version just wouldn't break everything we had in the past and also support a more usable testing platform. Matthias [1] http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines#Bundling_of_multiple_projects [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Bundling_of_multiple_projects [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Rolling release Fedora - "testing-release"-Proposal
On 31/01/12 01:44, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Matthias Runge wrote: >> Maybe introducing a "testing"-release as concession to both sides is >> acceptable? >> >> - newest versions, including risk of being broken -> rawhide >> - (merely) stable versions will be propagated from rawhide to "testing" >> - branching stable versions each six months (or so) from testing-branch > > No. > > * It's extra work to maintain the extra branch: Who would decide when a > package is stable enough for testing? Most likely, the maintainer, who would > then have to deal with Bodhi for testing as well, in addition to doing it > for the releases. Having to work with Bodhi for Rawhide builds is a non- > starter, it's already enough of a PITA to do it for the branched release. We > cannot get any development done that way. > > * As I already pointed out elsewhere in the thread, branching stable from > testing rather then Rawhide would mean older software in stable. We are not > Debian, we want to ship current software! > > So no, I don't see the Debian model working for us, at all, and I don't > consider that an acceptable compromise at all. > > Kevin Kofler > You're right, putting a testing line between rawhide and stable makes software in stable a little older. Nobody said, packages in testing should stay there as long as in debian-testing. Let users decide, if something goes from rawhide to testing; take a limit of 3 days to stay in rawhide, before it's allowed for testing. Three days should prevent major breakages. I know, this is kind of strict and burdens more work to maintainers. Building in this model into bodhi could automate almost everything of it. If we take your model (if I remember right): everybody is allowed to submit everything in every branch may lead to some instable systems. This model can't prevent breakage in any branch. I'd say: it provokes breakage. I'm pretty convinced, nobody wants to break something. Ignorance, even through no ones fault will do easily harm here. -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Rolling release Fedora - "testing-release"-Proposal
On 31/01/12 11:55, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Ignorance must be fought through education, not bureaucracy! > > Kevin Kofler Right. Bureaucracy must be minimized, but I also think, processes must get designed in a way preventing people from making bad errors. If a little bureaucracy facilitates it, so in somebody's name do it. I'm not proposing a rolling release. My intention was, to show a way, how to get both (current stable release model AND rolling release) from our infrastructure and release model. You're not alone, when thinking, rolling releases would be mostly unsupportable. I also know, discussions about releases and packager policies come and go (about once or even twice every release cycle), so let's stop here. -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove?
On 10/02/12 12:11, Michael Schroeder wrote: > (We're mostly doing it because to provide some kind of Fedora > compatibility for 3rd parties.) What? You don't think, there are other/better reasons to do this? Harald and Kay described better/other reasons on their feature-page. I think this is really astonishing! -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove?
On 10/02/12 12:45, Tomas Mraz wrote: > I hope that this is just sarcasm. Many of the reasons were refuted to > not be real. Of course there are still some positive reasons remaining > but they are very weak in comparison to the break of expectations of > existing users and developers of 3rd party software. So if you mainly > ignore the existing expectations you might come to a conclusion that > this feature is a net gain however this is by no means certain thing and > undisputable. I think, there are good reasons to move. Doing it, mainly because of others do, is not such a good reason for me. -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove?
On 10/02/12 13:01, Reindl Harald wrote: > what missed here is the main point: > > there is no single bleding wound to do it NOW under pressure > nobody would have been died if F17 would have bean left in peace > and the "feature" would been introduced in F18 or even F19 because > it brings no single benefit NOW You're absolutely right. There's no need to hurry. This was not, was I was discussing. My point was: If everybody does it, why don't we do it? Comparable to: 1000 flies can not be mistaken, shit must be great. Having no other reason than 'everybody does it' is imho a bad reason. -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
/usrmove in rawhide?
Greetings, recently, I'm getting a broken dependency for eventlog in rawhide. Looking at the spec: Conflicts: filesystem < 3 Requires(post): /usr/sbin/ldconfig Requires(postun): /usr/sbin/ldconfig ldconfig should live in /usr/sbin, since the /usr-move should have landed in rawhide also, right? Thanks, -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fwd: Review Request: ovirt-engine-cli
On 22/02/12 10:14, Ofer Schreiber wrote: Any chances to find a reviewer for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=791233 here? As I mentioned, I'm willing to do a review in return. Thanks, Ofer. Hi Ofer, I'll do a review later. I don't have any current reviews to swap, so feel free and take any other ;-) Matthias -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
On 02/03/12 12:52, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > > If a maintainer doesn't respond to a bug repord with the status > new in a week - give commit rights to the reporter in pkgdb > so he/she can fix it himself. I kind a' like this proposal. You're speaking of current package maintainers getting commit rights automatically after a timespan, right? What about bug reporter being unable to fix the mentioned bug? And does the bug-reporter get his right revoked after a time (automatically?) -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
On 02/03/12 12:53, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: > I'm afraid we end up with more bureaucracy than we have now. I'm not > against tracking some statistics, so you can look up who is active and > probably will answer in few days, but I'd rather not use it for the > unresponsive process. > > Marcela I'm thinking about how to support Jóhann with a proven packager (or two). Since it seems not wanted by Fesco, to give him the corresponding rights to commit his changes directly? This final target (all services are supported by systemd) seems to be clear to everyone. -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
On 02/03/12 13:10, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > What about bug reporter being unable to fix the mentioned bug? Oh no. I'm mean unable to fix because of missing knowledge, not unable because of missing commit rights. I might file a bug against kernel, but I'm definitely not the right person to patch there. (You might substitute kernel with everything you want, just to make the picture). I'm a bit puzzled by quick-and-dirty 'fixes' which may lead to errors somewhere else. -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
On 02/03/12 13:06, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: > Yes, I would be afraid that reporters won't be able to fix it > properly. Even if I'm a provenpackager, I don't commit into > packages not related to mine. Yes, I guess, that's a more general problem. But since we have proven packagers, they might jump in in this limited case. -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
On 02/03/12 13:24, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > Well, the whole idea came in a second so someone should refine it. > FWIW the period should be long enough - in my eyes not less than a > months so if noone responded in like 3 months the fix would no longer > be at least quick. And as always we trust people to do the right and > have a good understanding of their capabilities and knowledge. No > proposal/technology can prevent bad intentions. Yes, I guess, many people have very different time frame in their heads. If we'd like to try this out, what would be the right way to propose this change? -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
On 02/03/12 13:16, Panu Matilainen wrote: > Not to mention bug reporter not necessarily understanding the full > consequences of a change - change that might look trivial but has > world-breaking effects. > > And FWIW, four week vacations are common in this part of the world... > > - Panu - Absolutely. I think, this can not (easily) be automated. I would prefer to have a manual selection of packagers getting access, something like proven packagers. (I know, this leads to bureaucracy and should be avoided) Accidental mistakes can happen, at least proven packagers know, how to revert this. What about: getting more proven packagers? Make them more prominent, i.e. making it easier to contact them? -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
On 02/03/12 13:37, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > I really have no idea nor I would have the time to deal with such > thing anytime soon as it will also require development work if > accepted. The current process works fine for me. I just wanted to > show that there are better way than throwing out people. Ok, agreed, My question was merely academic. Who to contact, if... I didn't ran into a limitation so far. Ok, once or twice. In total the system works well. Changing a large number of packages is surely a corner case. -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Django 1.4 in F17?
On 06/03/12 16:58, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > yeah, this sort of thing comes up sadly. > > I think in the EPEL world the conclusion we came to was: > > - Create a parallel installable 1.4 version, submit for review and > get added to the collection. > > - Continue to maintain the 1.2 version as long as it's feasible to > backport security fixes or the like. Note to the epel-announce > list that 1.2 is on life support and ask people to consider moving > to 1.4. > > - When 1.2 becomes no longer possible to support, announce to > epel-announce that it's going to end of life. > > - After a while, end of life it. > > kevin > That sounds like a good plan. A short read on the section Backwards incompatible changes in the release notes [1] list some smaller changes; it doesn't look like something, what can't easily be fixed. [1} https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/releases/1.4-beta-1/#backwards-incompatible-changes-in-1-4 I'd support updating to 1.4 in fedora and creating a python-django14-package for EL6. -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: phoronix benchmarks ext4 vs. btrfs
On 09/03/12 07:43, Adam Williamson wrote: > Don't file transfers get cached and return to a console as 'complete' > long before the data is ever written, sometimes? I've learned a long time ago, if you want to get near real numbers, you have to write data at least three times larger than memory size to get around file system caching. I guess, that's still valid. -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: phoronix benchmarks ext4 vs. btrfs
On 09/03/12 08:13, Chris Murphy wrote: > OK well if I'm going to use real files, and I don't want disk read > performance to be a factor in this, I kinda need to put the source > files into a ramdisk. So if it's 3x of cache, out of 7.4G free, a 6G > ramdisk would be at least 3x that of what remains for use as cache > and should qualify? if your file system places data inefficiently on disk/storage, you want to measure this, too. If you're comparing file system speed, I think, you should measure the whole thing and be sure to create comparable data. You can't really control, how your file system cache is filled. Although I must say, measuring a the whole effort a few times consecutively provides more reliable numbers (caution: but no disk speed measurement). -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Access rights for system logs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, currently, I'm the maintainer of logcheck. It parses system logs and sends mails defined by regular expressions. It's a package mostly adopted for debian. The README says, it is recommended to create an own user and put it into adm group. This leads to some problems, because fedoras system logs are currently owned root:root and currently just readable by user. Three possible solutions appear: - - make logcheck owned by root (against package maintainers hint) - - make the log reading program use the sticky option - - change systems logs owners from root:root mode 600 to root:adm mode 640 (or something similar) I would prefer the latter. What package owns "/var/log/messages"? (Who to contact...?) yum provides "*/messages" did not list it. Is it really unowned? What do you think? Did I miss something? Has anybody of you another hint? Thanks, Matthias -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNZ2SoAAoJEOnz8qQwcaIWTI0H/0P3rL7bBhcbfLP85wKHt8TK STEv8xQSu8c1vxUZdr/acyOM/18iTfEl/rH9odj07qoHvwiuUl7ZD+GRgLlI/Geo xKhDquRfcm6qZeBAAYV/oHsbFywl4nkRmftfndTwgibyKk9XN4bkPes99x/k5yxy qG65tdanoBQP9nRPLLjoeZKxtU49lYMCEZve0NQY8hfgBEsh7zyLRkpUcBlQ/pi2 Ipcf/sKdAJ8fxVgr5mvKKjUxfA2C8kSE/n7rmNypQVWdu7e+Kn+Pog0VDmvmKD9j mxp85+JA1XIL8HnOsj1VeiymvYm4M5aczH/gXP5cGWg7eJHvDTpJP5uVWIL10mA= =Sa/e -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Access rights for system logs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/25/11 17:21, Till Maas wrote: > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 03:50:57PM +0100, Matej Cepl wrote: >> Dne 25.2.2011 10:39, Mogens Kjaer napsal(a): >>> create 640 root wheel >>> >>> to /etc/logrotate.d/syslog and have added bbuser to the wheel group. >>> >>> That file is owned by rsyslog in Fedora and sysklogd in RHEL. >> >> I am not sure whether wheel is the correct group ... I don't think we >> should mix together two different things (who can use sudo, who can see >> logs). > > I like a special group just for accounts that should be able to read all > log files, too, e.g. a group logread. > > Regards > Till > That sounds good to me. Should we include a group "logwriter" or "logger" for completeness? Who is in charge to change this? ... which way do I/we have to go to reach this aim? Is this just contacting rsyslog-maintainer to change ownership? I suppose not. Matthias -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNaMtlAAoJEOnz8qQwcaIWhxgH/2omTQsYaQkb4mRQz5zSrbms 1HWrlkUfo+7OQ4dIZfe4ufbbhkSoyVg4fbDZIrtrAhZQvHfg1yTP0b2t0SkAE5g3 /6pXFRRsHh+7S4yq5yWoTE26SzeIDYwFxWEVv9DXjQ4J3xxKIXgkS9MoA8H2tSoO DbcrYYFudc1j+nvTwSBrVhvJh7BNCT+dMNc+z221iCx1RPe2P7BUlI/EHzDZpi2F P40d6Gs9Ii4GKqp4VaU7lC9ylGUId1WkYiVTjx9ykyelfGqUy1W6YTtYugXqkZRJ haJQjow0WrxKvFVw4DHhi0ZP3RkPO/F8g6PHU8yBBo7W+wJ9Ex4QTlccWc5pHRU= =wUQ0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Access rights for system logs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/28/11 17:46, Steve Grubb wrote: > On Friday, February 25, 2011 03:13:31 am Matthias Runge wrote: >> - change systems logs owners from root:root mode 600 to root:adm mode >> 640 (or something similar) > > So, what would be the implementation of this? How would logcheck or any log > reader > work. Would they be setgid applications or would they start as root and > change to this > new account? > > There are things in the logs that ordinary users cannot have access to to by > default. > > -Steve I try to keep this simple: normal users don't get into those groups. Installing logcheck etc. will require some administrative rights, there is no disclosure of something that should be hidden. I won't give logcheck etc. no setuid/setguid (why should we do so, we don't need to!) The simple concept is as depicted above: create a group "logreader" and change group ownership of all(/some) system logs to logreader. That's it. I know, there are other applications, like logwatch. This may/could be changed not to require root permission. It's implementation will be very simple and fast. AFAIK there will be no breakage of existing packages, but we gain more flexibility. Matthias -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNbAQuAAoJEOnz8qQwcaIW9JYH/22h/3/6oyn+jmDq1bBavx4c WYdCwS3+nPK5kd2KVv7xhS1oTLDmxwK28PXKC9wCGTqSv7ox66Uhq5Hh1aCVea0m HFxCOcm+FSknZaYiCFAwW05pmB4XjfWZlFo08gQHdw6W2YUzLnusTy8R6NKdR+Ws CA27AkI7vyZZRDoivvDdlnpRW8ub0Er+3xGJdGQBzu268ejPyuF0DCkCkrnclcVH moZW4bIK0GgMTVBXjPm1yg3pELU6mzpgQqG4S4YYCo0Cdla7VNAfelFxZbIO+2Yt LMVSkwCajQdUgT49UsmUgLS2TBZIqf8UmB3UuXe5O4eVJmsERwiKKjtgGIpsem8= =mJAa -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Access rights for system logs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/03/11 23:07, Cleaver, Japheth wrote:
>> On Friday, February 25, 2011 03:13:31 am Matthias Runge wrote:
>>> - change systems logs owners from root:root mode 600 to root:adm mode
>>> 640 (or something similar)
>>
snip
> One benefit of setgid over simply giving an account "logreader" group
> membership is that that even that user account doesn't have general read
> access to logs outside of a specific escalation point (in this case, the
> setgid logfetch tool). To the extent a security review of the log reading
> code is needed, it makes auditing easier.
>
> If there are multiple levels of log security needed (secure vs. everything
> else?) one could use multiple setgid tools ("logreader" or "daemon" for
> regular logs, "adm" for secure ones?), or I suppose just have different users
> with different group/secondary group memberships.
>
> Either way, one should still never need to make a tool setuid root to read a
> log we authorized it to.
>
> See also http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2006-3373 for
> logfetch, which prompted this
>
>
> Japheth Cleaver
since logs currently are only readable and writable for root user (not
group), setgid wouldn't work. Thinking it over, I still would use a
special log reader group (and putting users for log reading programs
into this group).
logcheck e.g. uses a small tool (logtail) for reading logs. If we simply
setgid logtail, everybody could read logs. Still I can not see an
advantage of setgid.
This will touch *all* log files. Kevin Fenzi suggested, this should
become a feature (I think this is rather a bugfix than a feature, but
I'm not a fesco member), I started a Feature Page in the wiki:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mrunge/Logreader
it is far from complete, take it as work in progress.
Matthias
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNcNNsAAoJEOnz8qQwcaIWfY0IAI//91z/mGWF/DTTELYIKEu9
tcOiB5eFnL0Bn1cYQL6GUKUtZ3CFsSh7EHJjVE3mYfvBiSCD+O6eyqHgGQab1Kac
m/xhpVr5hOnU7py3NHN8tU6O23tnUkV2iUy23vUiJIkMnh5EYld70Od2Y6614XfU
619lmU+EJHR70QKZokVxEMbuxi75LWkFfNJ30OBv5dDL19KLl2XP9oiYoRi+eHtz
TcieCdMT3ZWfWYzoFj3tOEBWLfcZZYRCowVd6PnaPAEEqFkx62YewUcgQvewL8FM
Jo+PySiHeJDYIHBVg2bzSVG/vBSasDONrgq/36osLKOE1m2+5VaAdsK/Z038fII=
=uOTy
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: F-13 yum in kvm or vmware guests
On 05/05/10 23:40, Warren Togami wrote: > (10/12): samba-3.5.2-60.fc13.x86_64.rpm (71%) 73% > [- ] 0.0 B/s | 3.7 MB > 3340883129410265958989882401668816722716705737932:48 ETA > > Anyone else seeing this kind of behavior with F-13 yum within kvm or > vmware guests? It seems to happen consistently here in the middle of > downloading multiple packages where I need to kill yum and try again. > > Warren Hi, did mention it on some VirtualBoxes running F13. I did not dive into this, so I don't know, how to reproduce. Sometimes, I need to kill yum several times and try again. Matthias -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: F-13 yum in kvm or vmware guests
On 06/05/10 10:47, James Cassell wrote: > On Thu, 06 May 2010 09:02:06 +0200, Matthias Runge > wrote: >> On 05/05/10 23:40, Warren Togami wrote: >>> (10/12): samba-3.5.2-60.fc13.x86_64.rpm (71%) 73% >>> [- ] 0.0 B/s | 3.7 MB >>> 3340883129410265958989882401668816722716705737932:48 ETA >>> >>> Anyone else seeing this kind of behavior with F-13 yum within kvm or >>> vmware guests? It seems to happen consistently here in the middle of >>> downloading multiple packages where I need to kill yum and try again. >>> >>> Warren >> Hi, >> did mention it on some VirtualBoxes running F13. >> I did not dive into this, so I don't know, how to reproduce. >> Sometimes, I need to kill yum several times and try again. >> >> Matthias > > I've seen this after I've put my phiscial machine on Suspend, while yum > was downloading. After waking back up, it just stays like that until I > kill it and start again. > > That sounds right. Maybe, we were hit by timeout of the connection to an update server. This is true, if machine was suspended or if the update server isn't good reachable. (whatever that means). In both cases, I can't blame yum and just had bad luck. Matthias -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: I am not available
On 07/18/2010 11:05 PM, Till Maas wrote: > Hi, > > I cannot maintain my packages or handle anything else until further > notice, because I had an accident. > > Regards > Till > I'm sorry to hear and get well soon. I hope it's nothing serious. Matthias -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Seeking to merge python 2.7 into rawhide
Am 27.07.2010 03:27, schrieb David Malcolm: > Current status: 114 failing builds > http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/python-packaging/failures-2010-07-26-02.html > > See also the notes on: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Python_2.7#Current_status > > Many of these appear to be pre-existing FTBFS; as far as I can make out, > the #includes for parts of the GTK stack are substantially broken in > rawhide. > > Can we get all of the hundreds of successful builds into rawhide before > it drifts further? > > Dave > Sadly, my name (for django-lint) is on the list. I've seen a rebuild of django-lint produced an error. Of course, fixed it, but the fix was not taken in account for the above list. What can I do to correct this situation, esp. my correct build was before the failed build initiated by dmalcolm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=10153 resp. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=185662 Thanks, Matthias -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Orphaning python-xhtml2pdf
Hello, I'm orphaning python-xhtml2pdf. It has been more or less dead upstream for years. Matthias -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] FTBFS Packages in rawhide (2015-07-11)
On 11/07/15 17:24, Haïkel wrote: I fixed python-autopep8 as provenpackager. Thank you! I had it on my plate and wanted to look at it today, observing it was fixed already :D Matthias -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Sponsors - who does (not) work on FE-NEEDSPONSOR tickets
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 09:14:34AM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > I don't know if this has changed in he new age of having crazy human > > coding machines, but the last time i looked it was extremely difficult > > to see someone's sponsor and to generate statistics on sponsorship > > activities. I had some tooling a very long time ago which was used to > > stir up a whole pile of flames surrounding the handling of inactive > > sponsors. > > Although I think too, that right way is to sponsor somebody via Package > Review, I enhanced my script to show direct > sponsorship - which means that this information is available in FAS :) > Mind that this information is not (yet?) linked to that BZ reviews, so I show > BZ reviews *and* independently sponsorship > in FAS. Without information if this was result of some Package Review. There is this process to become a co-maintainer. I think this is quite useful: The way this is intended (IMHO), is, to get an upstream developer becoming a package maintainer for the specific component. That person at first might not be the best person to maintain an rpm package. But this person knows the software quite well. -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Copr for FeedReader
On 03/09/15 02:51, Pete Walter wrote: > On 09/02/2015 01:00 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: >>> I was advised to ask on this list for help regarding setting up a copr >>> repository. >> >> Why Copr and not Fedora official package? Is there something which >> conflicts with Fedora's Packaging Guidelines [1]? Otherwise I can't see >> Copr to be less maintenance effort then official package (except the >> initial review). > > I posted a review request at > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259532 to include it in Fedora > proper, but I am not a packager yet and would need a sponsor. > Pete, thank you for putting this up. Ideally, you'd collaborate with Jan. It's possible, that there are issues with the package, which require changes in upstream code. Matthias -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Orphaned Packages in rawhide (2015-09-21)
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:35:30AM +, opensou...@till.name wrote: > The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they > are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure > that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life > tinymceorphan, mrunge, ngompa, rhe 0 weeks ago > tinymce-spellchecker orphan, mrunge, ngompa, rhe 0 weeks ago ... > Depending on: tinymce (1), status change: 2015-09-20 (0 weeks ago) > python-django-tinymce (maintained by: yuwang, mrunge) > python-django-tinymce-1.5.2-2.fc21.noarch requires tinymce = > 3.5.10-3.fc23 Those 3 package should imho just go away. Any takers? Otherwise I'd retire them in 2 weeks. -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Self Introduction / Contributing a package to Fedora
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 09:27:12PM -0500, Derek Pressnall wrote:
> > The Fedora packaging process can be a bit tricky the first time
> > around; I'd recommend locating a member of the Fedora Sponsors who is
> > interested in helping you with your first package and showing you the
> > ropes.
>
> Ok, where do I find a Sponsor? on this list, or is there another one? Or
> is that the whole part where I have to submit the package, open up a bug
> report, and reference that here? (I think that's what I got out of the
> docs last time I went through it).
I bet, there are quite a few sponsors reading here.
You're right, it's the whole part with opening a bug etc. The process is
described at [1]. I suggest you to submit your spec for review.
To mark your bug as blocked by the lack of being sponsored, you should
add insert 177841 as a blocker for your bug. (Blocks field).
At least some sponsors are watching that NEEDSPONSOR bug (numbered
177841); they'll get an auto mail about a change.
A few remarks about your spec given at [2]:
- Source0 should be a valid URL (if possible)
- in files section, you should use %{_bindir} instead of /usr/bin
- the same applies to your install section
- and of course your changelog must contain entries
- insert real version numbers and release numbers to Version and Release
Once you did that, you might want to try rpmlint -i on your SPEC and
SRPM file. That will check for most common issues and will report them.
HTH,
Matthias
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process
[2] https://github.com/derekp7/snebu/blob/master/snebu.spec
--
Matthias Runge
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: HEADSUP: json-c SONAME BUMP
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 09:43:14AM +0800, Christopher Meng wrote: > TL;DR: Updates revoked, rawhide+f21 reverted to 0.12 without bump, > deciding if we need to add epoch to revert back to 0.11. Thank you. I noticed, you're a bit quick in pushing updates to stable releases. When pushing to older branches, please keep our stable updates policy in mind [1]. Thanks, Matthias [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Stable_Releases -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [RETRACTION] Re: Unofficial Poll: Flock 2015 (North America) Bids
On 22/09/14 02:36, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > (Sorry for top-posting) > > I've been informed that there is an *official* poll coming shortly from the > Flock Planning Committee. Please disregard this thread and await that poll. > > To make it a bit more complicate: could we have more specific dates as well? It might become tricky (or more expensive) to get to e.g Cape Cod during Holiday season? Matthias -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [RETRACTION] Re: Unofficial Poll: Flock 2015 (North America) Bids
On 22/09/14 17:18, Haïkel wrote: > Proposals are supposed to provide travel costs from pre-determined > airports at the *targeted* period. > If I trust informations from the proposals, SLC would be too expensive > to cover travel expenses for EMEA folks. > A brief look revealed, a trip e.g. to Cape Cod would cost (in August) at least US$ 2500 (cheap motel and a flight, not covering anything else). I assume, that's a bit over the limit? E.g. in June, flights to Boston are US$ 850 vs US$ 1400 in August. Maybe it's a good idea to move the conference out of main holiday season? Matthias -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Django 1.4 and 1.5 retired in Fedora 21 [Was: F-21 Branched report: 20140923 changes]
On 23/09/14 14:23, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > Django 1.4 and 1.5 have been retired from the Fedora collection in > Fedora 21 in favor of the two supported branches, 1.6 and 1.7. > Thank you Stephen, I'm guilty to have missed to send this heads-up mail. > On 09/23/2014 07:34 AM, Fedora Branched Report wrote: >> Compose started at Tue Sep 23 07:15:03 UTC 2014 > ... > >> Broken deps for x86_64 >> -- >> [askbot] askbot-0.7.48-13.fc21.noarch requires python-django14 Did anyone run askbot on something other than epel6? What I've heard is: it's broken everywhe >> [django-recaptcha] django-recaptcha-0.1-7.20091212svn6.fc21.noarch django-recaptcha has an open bug to be renamed since 2012-07-13, latest version is 1.0.2, which adds Django-1.7 support as well, and it looks like a leaf package, which just could be dropped. >> requires python-django14 [openslides] >> openslides-1.3.1-3.fc21.noarch requires python-django < 0:1.5 OpenSlides is outdated as well. Latest upstream supports later Django versions, but introduced a lot of dependencies as well. This was the reason, why I did not made an upgrade yet. For time reasons, I'm looking for co-maintainers! openslides is a quite cool system to support smaller and larger meetings, elections, etc.[1]. There's even a demo available online[2] Matthias [1] http://openslides.org/en/about/ [2] http://openslides.org/en/demo/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [RETRACTION] Re: Unofficial Poll: Flock 2015 (North America) Bids
On 24/09/14 19:54, Máirín Duffy wrote: >> E.g. in June, flights to Boston are US$ 850 vs US$ 1400 in August. Maybe >> it's a good idea to move the conference out of main holiday season? > > Are you located in EMEA or APAC? Because Flock alternates between North > America and EMEA I think partially because of this reason... > I missed last two Flocks, because they were in main holiday season. It's way easier for me to travel, when kids are in school. > As one of the folks who put together a bid - I wasn't aware dates far > outside of August were really an option - we definitely could have > gotten much better rates outside of the high vacation season (late > spring would have worked really well.) I was told going outside of the > summer makes it more difficult for Europeans to travel because it falls > outside of their vacation time. If this isn't the case and it makes it > harder, I agree we need to re-evaluate the time of year for the conference. > Thank you for putting this lovely bid together, it's really an exciting place. If there is the chance, please re-evaluate the time and e.g move it to late spring or early summer. Matthias -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Django 1.4 and 1.5 retired in Fedora 21 [Was: F-21 Branched report: 20140923 changes]
On 24/09/14 19:01, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > ...snip... > > Fedora Infrastructure only runs it on RHEL6 currently. > > I don't know off hand if it runs on newer django, but can take a look. > > It would be nice to get it running on rhel7/epel7. > > kevin > > Kevin, I totally agree. askbot upstream still requires django < 1.6, which pretty much limits to Django14, which is supposed to be supported until March next year. Django-1.5 is not supported any more. Matthias -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Multiple directory ownership including filesystem package
On 24/09/14 21:36, Till Maas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed that mulitple packages own /etc/bash_completion.d/ even though
> it is nowadays part of the filesystem package. From what I read from the
> Guidelines, it is not clear to me whether it is prohibited or not.
> Should it be fixed? Here is a current list for Fedora 19:
>
> repoquery --whatprovides /etc/bash_completion.d/ --qf "%{sourcerpm}" | rev |
> cut -d- -f 3- | rev | sort -u | src/fedoradev-pkgowners
> mrunge python-django
Thanks for the heads-up. Fixed.
Matthias
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Django-1.7 for Fedora 21
Hello, in Fedora 21, we have Django-1.6. Django-1.7 was released a few weeks ago. As we're in feature freeze, but still pre-beta. I'd like to ask for opinions, if an upgrade to Django-1.7 would be still acceptable. I have a copr available containing Django-1.7 [1] Thoughts? Matthias [1] https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/mrunge/django-1.7/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Django-1.7 for Fedora 21
On 16/10/14 14:25, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi > > On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Matthias Runge wrote: > > Hello, > > in Fedora 21, we have Django-1.6. Django-1.7 was released a few weeks > ago. As we're in feature freeze, but still pre-beta. I'd like to ask for > opinions, if an upgrade to Django-1.7 would be still acceptable. > > I have a copr available containing Django-1.7 [1] > > Thoughts? > > > Does it bring any substantial benefits? Does it break existing apps? > Two things to be considered: - Django-1.6 will get out of maintenance when F21 is still released (probably in March 2015) - when running an app, the following lines in your wsgi file need to be placed or replaced: from django.core.wsgi import get_wsgi_application application = get_wsgi_application() instead of whatever was there earlier to define the application. Matthias -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Broken dependencies in F21
On 16/10/14 14:40, Kalev Lember wrote: > Hi all, > > We seem to have a number of broken dependencies in F21 that have gone > unfixed for a quite some time. Not sure what's up with them; the > maintainers are supposed to get daily notifications to make sure these > don't go unnoticed. > > Does anyone have ideas how to deal with these packages? > > I wonder if it would make sense to just drop them before F21. Having > broken dependencies basically means that the packages are completely > broken and cannot be installed at all. Not much point in shipping those > in the repositories ... > > Any ideas how to deal with this? > openslides: Needs an update to latest version, and a few reviews for currently unpackaged deps. I didn't had the time for it django-recaptcha: I'm not the maintainer here. IMHO we just can drop it right now. pipelight-selinux: a leftover from pipelight removal. Should be dropped ASAP. python-askbot-fedmsg: askbot was retired, so should this one. Matthias -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Django-1.7 for Fedora 21
On 16/10/14 15:32, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > There are no Django applications that are part of the install sets of > any of the Products or Spins so far as I am aware, so the risk to the > Project deliverable dates would be minimal. I'd suggest bringing it to > FESCo for a more complete risk-analysis, but I'd argue that we'd be > better off shipping python-django as 1.7 and also the python-django16 > package in Fedora 21. I opened a ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1357 Matthias -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Attempting to contact unresponsive maintainer - jomara
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 10:23:35AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > If you have a way to contact this maintainer, please let them > know that we'd appreciate knowing what to do with their packages. > Thanks! > > * jomara - former email address jom...@redhat.com > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packager/jomara/ > > Point of contact: > > openstack-tuskar -- A service for managing OpenStack deployments > ( master f21 f20 epel7 ) > > openstack-tuskar-ui -- The UI component for Tuskar ( master f21 f20 > epel7 ) > > python-soaplib -- A python library for writing and calling soap web > services ( master f21 f20 f19 el6 ) > > python-tuskarclient -- Python client for the Tuskar API ( master f21 > f20 epel7 ) Co-maintainer: > > python-flask-babel -- Adds i18n/l10n support to Flask applications > ( epel7 ) > python-pyghmi -- Python General Hardware Management Initiative (IPMI > and others) ( epel7 ) Oh yes! Accidentally, we didn't solve this earlier. The plan, discussed with jomara was, Jason Rist (FAS: jrist) should take over these packages (and probably python-soaplib as well). I sponsored him some time ago for exactly that reason and will help him through cliffs and shallow waters here as best as I can. I added myself as co-maintainer to openstack-tuskar, openstack-tuskar-ui and python-tuskarclient. > If we don't hear anything in a week, we will be setting the point of > contact on these packages to orphan. I don't see a reason, why we need to wait for a week here, and I think, we can solve this situation immediately. Matthias - -- Matthias Runge -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUYRkUAAoJEOnz8qQwcaIWSXEH/3eK+tJ+elWynT8E8WkE02rD K1WZ6bFqhwdJHnBxc6QfJHy+H1oinetZyagePVZ4cRMkqpYQMdQ1VQNpe00Pv/Q4 fmuWSKjZYDBeo9PYDCQDHJ8FEzzroU1j2S+expR0yMIcyfNTH5dYXQi9H1nrA6go fSPuzyLFLgpdoIs0DjUvNn+Ajx7ga9zvKOey4C++DztCH1KMQSdmJWVL6wuCjeK8 wjlew3gWIyADAKHcKiaQ/t55EJ2K4PBF1PhizoA35YDzDI5fmu6AEnT4CfnnYKHP rdlffo/uskfsc4EHyjbDodRqNAPl+SQ0AznSXAIyFj443yRRUwXq5Roir1PSSZ0= =5upU -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: F17 latest yum update hoses grub.cfg, grubby?
> The yum update didn't update grub, but it did update the kernel. This is > the first time you have done a kernel update via yum with the new grub2. > > grubby updates the grub.cfg file. seems reproducible. My grub config is pretty empty, too. During update, I get something an error: grubby fatal error; unable to find a suitable template -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Django 1.4 in F17?
On 25/03/12 13:54, Jos Vos wrote: > FWIW: > Django 1.4 has now been officially released. > > I submitted an upgrade request in bugzilla: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806614 > yes, thank you. We're aware of it. Please refer also to bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=806463 -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: F17 TC1 DVD still no btrfs as install option?
On 25/04/12 09:48, Vít Ondruch wrote: > +1. I'd like to see this fixed before final. Yes, me too. Afaik, SuSE supports btrfs even for their enterprise distro. -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: F17 TC1 DVD still no btrfs as install option?
On 25/04/12 19:17, Adam Williamson wrote: Its absence as an option in the interactive installer in F17 is a regression, but an intentional one. See http://fedorapeople.org/groups/docs/release-notes/en-US/ , section 2.3.3: 2.3.3. btrfs btrfs is not available as a target file system during installation. This is a temporary situation and will be resolved in Fedora 18. btrfs is still available after installation. The reason is that anaconda's *backend* code for dealing with btrfs was rewritten early in F17 cycle to be much more sophisticated and take advantage of all btrfs' shiny features. At that time, it was still expected that the new anaconda UI would land for F17, so the frontend code in the old UI was not updated to cope with the new backend code. Unfortunately, newui got deferred to F18, so now we're stuck in F17 with some awesome backend code but no matching frontend code. No-one has time to substantially rewrite the oldui partitioning code just for btrfs, so it's been taken out from the UI entirely just for this release. Thank you Adam for this explanation! Sounds reasonable, and I'd say, let's take another round and make it rock solid for F18. -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging
On 26/04/12 00:21, Ken Dreyer wrote: > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III > wrote: >> My proposal is at >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/RevitalizingSponsorshipProposal >> >> I've run this by FESCo, whose response was favorable, so I'm sending >> this to a larger audience. Please let me know what you think. > > Looks good to me. I was unaware that sponsors are (currently) also > provenpackagers. I've considered the idea of becoming a sponsor Yes, this is a good step ahead. I never understood, why sponsoring is mightier (in the view of doing harm) than proven packager. A sponsor can elevate packagers and approve packages, a proven packager could demolish all packages. I thought of applying myself for sponsor, but can not substantiate, why I should get proven packager rights. Helping out review process for new packagers results in finding a potential sponsor. This is some kind of suboptimal for helping people. (To be clear, this never made a problem for me, but slows down the process.) -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging
On 26/04/12 09:45, drago01 wrote: > Well the idea was that a sponsor is a trusted packer so why would he > "demolish all packages"? > IMO the bar for being a provenpacker shouldn't be that high. Having > more manpower (as in people that can fix things globally) should be > something we want I fully agree! Yes, we trust our packagers(!), and I'm not aware of any "demolishion"! To become a proven packager, you have to request becoming one and have to motivate, why someone should promote you. Looking at fesco protocols it looks like this barrier is pretty high. There were a few proven packager requests denied in the past. -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging
On 26/04/12 16:32, Paul Wouters wrote: On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: That's not really within the scope of the document. I haven't proposed lowering the standards for reviewing packages. I think there is quiet a group of experienced packagers, who do not consider themselves provenpackers, but who would like to help out and sponsor people. I know I'm one of those. Especially with fedora-review as a base for the mundane work, it should be a relatively easy (and fun!) task to bring on more people. exactly, I fully agree. I think, we should lower the barrier to become a sponsor, maybe dropping the necessity to become a proven packager first. In many cases that is really not needed; a sponsor could/should become co-maintainer of the first packages of a new packager. Using a co-maintainer status between packager and sponsor seems a good idea to me. It would help in cases where new packagers vanish. Paul -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging
On 26/04/12 20:37, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: That's in the proposal, too. Ahem, I'm sorry, I must have skipped that. Regarding activity report: When doing statistics, I'd love to see the review-status report again. I don't remember when and why it vanished; it makes work of packagers/reviewer more transparent. Even knowing how many sponsors/packagers/proven packagers are out there would be valuable. (Yes, one could dig into FAS, to get those numbers.) Digging further in that direction: Would it make sense to create some credits, like crowns in some forums? Something to check in fas? E.g. "congrats John Doe, this last week you reviewed two packages, sponsoring one new packager"? Or to report top 20 "Packagers/Reviewers/Sponsors of the week"? Something like that works well in learning environments, why it should work here? -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging
On 26/04/12 20:57, Matthias Runge wrote: Something like that works well in learning environments, why it should work here? should read: ... why it shouldn't work here? -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Drpython testing request. Bugzilla #821296
On 14/05/12 03:35, Adrian Alves wrote: > Hello Guys, > Am looking for someone to test DrPython, .. > Regards, Adrian.- It is pretty unusual, to test a package before it's released. If you're looking for a reviewer, I'd like to point you to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Contributor: 4. Wait for someone to review your package! If that doesn't help, you might offer: Review Swaps If nobody comments on your review request, you might want to mail to a mailing list (devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, for example) asking for a "review swap". This is an offer to do a review of someone else's package in exchange for them reviewing your package. This is usually one-for-one, or can be some other private arrangement depending on the difficulty of the respective packages. Just mailing devel@lists saying: hey everybody, here's something to test might work but is usually not a good strategy. There are about 700 packages waiting to get reviewed. Just start a few and the chances for your packages will improve. -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: for thinkpad lovers - thinkpad-trackpoint-scroll
On 29/05/12 08:24, Peter Hutterer wrote: > Hi Adrian, > Drop this in /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/99-wheel-emulation.conf and it will be > persistent. I don't think we need a separate rpm for this. > > Cheers, > Peter +1 I don't think, we need a config-only package. Configuration in fedora is IMHO left to the user. I think, this configuration snippet should be dropped somewhere in the wiki as good example how to configure Xorg The other problem, I see is, that there's no (real) upstream, and esp. no issue tracker (other than bugzilla). -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Review requests for tntnet
On 02/07/12 09:38, Martin Gansser wrote: > Hi all, > > I've just packaged tntnet - A web application server for web applications. > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821224 > tntnet is needed for vdr-live - An interactive web interface for VDR > > can someone review this package ? > Until now, no response from recent reviewer, can someone take the review. > It seems you should become more patient. For most of us it's not their day-job to review packages. The last comment in that review request was from your reviewer and it's currently four days old. In between, you should improve this situation by reviewing other packages. Thanks, -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: pandorafms-agent - review package
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 02:23:02AM +0100, Sancho Lerena wrote: > I submitted a package for review / looking for SPONSOR some weeks ago, but it > stills waiting, is there anyone who want to help me with this package ?. > Pandora FMS is a monitoring software, and this is the agent for Linux. > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060386 > Hello and welcome, the corresponding wiki page[1] is still valid. Usually, it speeds up the review and sponsoring process, when sending a mail to the list (done) and doing inofficial reviews on others packages. (tbd) [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Renaming the cloud-utils package
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 06:18:30PM +0100, Juerg Haefliger wrote: > Hi, > > I'm trying to figure out if it makes sense to rename the cloud-utils > (sub-)package for EPEL7 and F21. > > Upstream (Ubuntu) used to have a single package named cloud-utils which we > decided to split up into two packages, cloud-utils and > cloud-utils-growpart. The reason being that cloud-utils pulls in a lot of > additional packages which is sub-optimal for cloud images. > > Now Ubuntu followed suit and provides cloud-guest-utils and > cloud-image-utils sub-packages. My question is if we should align with > Ubuntu and rename our packages or stick with what we have? > > I admit I'm ignorant to all the ramifications of renaming a package but > from a user's perspective it's definitely a benefit if package names match > across distros. It makes sense to follow upstream here. The process is documented here[1]. I'd inform the cloud WG, because they might be interested ;-) Matthias [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Renaming_Process -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: python-django update to Django-1.6
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/20/2014 08:19 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > Just to bring this thread back to life, we're getting to a point > where support for Django 1.6 is becoming more and more necessary. > Is there an ETA on its inclusion in Rawhide or COPR? > Whah, thank you! There's a Django-1.6 build here in copr[1], and I'd like to push an update to rawhide in about 14 days. Any feedback is appreciated! What about pushing Django-1.6 to epel7, too? [1] https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/mrunge/Django-1.6/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTBwTWAAoJEOnz8qQwcaIWpr8IAKZnHbn0NFkgqHACL6x11mCj CSmo/3FIAfeG6PCUY/9lJ6brZhrDx0YCnFG5E5mfG2vph4dcQ4IZixmiQKsunHb0 Duiy/aODhiCSBss2DJLChOY+EYJckJ+zZd/tfSQE4ifsAhj+6NH5qdg/KGe6NRfP F0eghLxhZifh1f82UunhNUy/TkCEQvVUSptI4dq9s8lbAMRvcUKrHOXxabiTjOus uXqNrcKrUNukidl0KBdQh5oQvbU+5xzeqaM0aHyWqga3mEB9o6ZqZABMS44Xmp8z H9DeIGuqnLq/FH/nPtFbv4kR9UqOB2t06Q2VoHElRa8bTiAN1vdnif8jp8AAVs0= =gmXo -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: python-django update to Django-1.6
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 08:40:52AM -0500, john.flor...@dart.biz wrote: > I too would much prefer this approach. For somebody like me who wants to > maintain company-private packages based on django, this affords more > flexibility. I realize it may always mean more packaging work to keep > several python-djangoXYs in the distro, but it makes for a less rigid > coupling between the OS and what framework version you need to use. The issue with this approach is, there is no upgrade, i.e. if your fantasticApp-1.0 uses python-django15 and fantasticApp-1.1 requires python-django16, you'd still have the older Django installed, which will produce a conflict. Thus the upgrade will fail. -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: python-django update to Django-1.6
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:36:24AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote: > +1 I still have an application that is slowly moving to 1.5 but not > there yet and it is painful to have to keep an older Fedora Version > running just because of that. I hear you! My current plan would be, to provide at least a python-django-1.5 version. Matthias -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: python-django update to Django-1.6
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 07:57:34AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Have we sorted out how exactly we want to build this in Fedora? I'm
> still in favor of killing off the python-django package in favor of
> python-django16 and python-django15.
We haven't sorted this yet. Still I'd prefer a kind of rolling version
(python-django) as the most recent version. That way, at least packages
working with the latest version would get upgrades automatically.
If we have a better plan, i.e if reviewboard requires Django-1.5 instead
of Django-1.4, we need to make sure, Django-1.4 gets replaced by
Django-1.5.
A Django-package should provide e.g Django = %{version}
and a package requiring series 1.4.x should
require Django >= 1.4, Django < 1.5
Then ideally the package providing Django-1.5 would obsolete Django-1.4
to get that replaced, the same for later packages.
Does that sound sane, does it make sense? I'd still would like to test
out, if that would lead to selecting the right Django package, instead
of just installing the latest version.
Currently, Django is named Django in EPEL6, python-djangp in EPEL7 and
in Fedora. It would make sense, to unify all the packages; that
shouldn't be a big problem at all.
Matthias
--
Matthias Runge
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: python-django update to Django-1.6
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 01:28:54PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On 02/21/2014 01:14 PM, Matthias Runge wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:36:24AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote: > >> +1 I still have an application that is slowly moving to 1.5 but > >> not there yet and it is painful to have to keep an older Fedora > >> Version running just because of that. > > I hear you! My current plan would be, to provide at least a > > python-django-1.5 version. > > > My suggestion would actually be that Fedora releases should ship ONLY > with the latest supported upstream version and should be allowed to > pick up the next one during its supported lifecycle. Hmm, looking at larger Django applications included in Fedora. Askbot: still requires exclusively Django-1.4, does not work with later versions. OpenStack-Dashboard: supports Django-1.4, 1.5, Django-1.6 support is in the development branch, release will be in April ReviewBoard: you already mentioned, Django-1.6 support is in preparation. I'm sure, I forgot something important. Ideally, we'd provide the same versions on EPEL and on Fedora. If we'd try to prevent breaking older applications, Django packages have to carry the version in their name. At least, this enables us to pick new upstream releases, when they come out, without breaking anything. > Now, EPEL on the other hand gets even more troubling, since it has a > much longer lifecycle... Yes, and I'm very twofold here: on one hand, I see folks asking for upgrades as quick as possible, and on the other hand, people complain, if their unsupported version really gets deprecated. > > One other approach we might consider (though this is not currently an > FPC-approved solution) would be to package Django as a software > collection and all Django apps would depend on the appropriate > collection. Since the 1.5 and 1.6 collections could coexist on the > system, when an app updates to support the new one, it needs only > change its Requires: to use the newer Django collection and it should > Just Work(TM). > > Now, that's forbidden by policy at this point, but maybe we could at > least experiment with this in a COPR repository for the time being. It > would be nice to be able to come to the FPC with a working setup and > ask them to bless it for us, rather than presenting them a problem > statement and hoping that they can find a consensus. I like the should just work idea/target :-) and I think I need to experiment with different builds here, to see if something brings us nearer to a solution. -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Packages with missing %check
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 08:50:18AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote: > On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 12:45 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote: > > > 1) Do we consider this a bug and if yes what priority do you give it? From > > last > > week discussions it looks like most people prefer to have tests executed in > > %check. > > I don't consider %check to be an appropriate way to run tests, so no, I > don't consider it a bug. Stating it broadly: we don't have a separate > phase for it in koji, which means we can't adequately set up tests in > general; and adding it to koji would be a mistake, because build > construction and build validation are fundamentally different phases. > > This is an argument against %check, not against testing in general. We > should be relying on rpmbuild less, not more. rpm doesn't even have > anything like Requires(check), does it? Hmm, then we should probably about enhancing this? Like adding a separate phase of for %check to rpmnbuild? IMHO, that still belongs to building a package, as I don't want a package pushed, when checks are not executed successfully. Checks could be executed in a different phase, e.g before acutally pushing to a repo. Separating from build would have another benefit: being able to execute tests, e.g when required packages were updated. That'd require significant changes in our infrastructure and in many packages, as test suites and test data currently don't belong to most packages. -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Packages with missing %check
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:01:06AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote: > You are failing to distinguish between "pushed to package git" and > "pushed to an installable repository", which is a mistake. I'm distinguishing: 1. package compiles successfully 2. rpmbuild manages to include all files into an rpm package 3. including that rpm in a package repository In this last step (3) could be executed a test/check if that compiled package actually works; that could be e.g unit tests or whatever. I was not talking about a git repo (or so), which may be used as backend for any package descriptions, patches etc. -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: python-django update to Django-1.6
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 01:29:54PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > Okay, here's some diff's to the current python-django14 package that will > make it parallel installable. Once you have the parallel installable > package you may also have to modify a few things in the dependent packages > to make them choose the parallel installed version of django instead of the > default version. sgallagh and I worked on reviewboard today and found that > one script, rb-site worked out of the box (once we restored the requires.txt > to the reviewboard egg-info ;-). The reviewboard.wsgi file needed some > patching but we got that to work as well. Thank you, Stephen and Toshio, it's very much appreciated! In between, I submitted a request for review[1] for a python-django15 package. I'd intend to change the python-django14 package based on Toshios patch as well, so that we'll have sooner or later 2-3 Django versions installable in parallel. Best, Matthias [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070230 -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [Owner-change] Fedora packages ownership change
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 10:39:44AM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi > > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 6:00 AM, wrote: > > > Change in ownership over the last 168 hours > > === > > > > 20 packages were orphaned > > > > It is entirely unclear from this report whether any of the packages in this > list remain orphaned or have they all been picked up. It would be useful > to know whether packages that one tends to rely on are getting orphaned. e.g python-selenium was orphaned by halfie and is currently (still?) owned by halfie. The list of orphaned packages can be just a snapshot, as that's in continuous flux. It's totally non obvious, why a package was orphaned (by accident, because of upstream is dead, lack of time, ...) -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Per-Product Config file divergence
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 01:55:59PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > For cloud, the answer is "start with the new image", or else "okay then, > you're on your own". But cloud has a big luxury of being the easy case > in this regard. What about folks trying to move their server from the server product into the cloud? Matthias -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
[HEADS UP] Update to Django-1.6
Hey there, now that we can have python-django15 in f21, I'll upgrade python-django to Django-1.6 in a week. Any interest, to have this on F20, too? python-django15 is installable in parallel, no penguin will be harmed, but the upgrade to Django-1.6 might hurt one or the other. Matthias -- Matthias Runge -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
[HEADS UP] Update to Django-1.6, even for f20
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 08:17:36AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> When this goes to updates-testing for F20, please make a
> devel-announce post describing what changes that Django package owners
> should make in order to keep their package on Django 1.5 or older if
> they need to.
Earlier today, I've built Django-1.6 for Rawhide and for F20 as well and
submitted the upgrade to f20-testing via bodhi[1]. Please test
and leave karma there.
If you're a packager and your package requires an older Django version,
please change your package to require python-django15 and add
from pkg_resources import require
require('Django>=1.5,<1.6')
to appropriate location(s) in your package. There is a blog post[2] on
how to consume older versions of Django. Even if the update to
Django-1.6 won't make it to stable, it should be safe to change your
package anyways, as older Django versions will be retired sooner or
later.
If you require help, please contact me off list.
Thanks,
Matthias
[1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-django-1.6.2-1.fc20
[2] https://www.matthias-runge.de/2014/03/26/fedora-django-1-6/
--
Matthias Runge
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
