Re: Proposal for integration tests infrastructure

On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:10:23 -0600 Tim Flink wrote: > On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 01:43:57 PM you wrote: > > Fedora lacks integration testing (unit testing done during build is > > not enough). Taskotron will be able to fill some gaps in the future, > > so maintainers will be able to set-up va

Re: Proposal for integration tests infrastructure

On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 01:43:57 PM you wrote: > Fedora lacks integration testing (unit testing done during build is > not enough). Taskotron will be able to fill some gaps in the future, > so maintainers will be able to set-up various tasks after their > component is built. But even before

[Test-Announce] Fedora 21 Beta to slip by one week

Today at Go/No-Go meeting it was decided to slip Fedora 21 Beta release by one week due to unresolved blocker bugs [1]. More details in meeting minutes [2]. As a result, ALL MAJOR MILESTONES, and their dependent tasks, will be pushed out by one week [3]. The next Go/No-Go meeting is on Thursday,

Re: U2F and a review swap?

On Friday, October 24, 2014 10:07:09 AM Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > Has Fedora considered supporting U2F for its infrastructure. IMO it's > *much* nicer than standard Yubikeys. > > On a related note, I will gladly swap a review for libu2f-host: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155

RE: Proposal for integration tests infrastructure

Some thoughts: >> Where to keep tests? a/ in current dist-git for related components >> (problem with sharing parts of code, problem where to keep tests >> related for more components) b/ in separate git with similar >> functionality as dist-git (needs new infrastructure, components are >> not dir

Re: dnf vs yum

Hi Of course, dnf repoquery for packages that depend on yum/yum-utils yielded quite a few more packages. So I have filed RFE's against all of them and added them to the tracker and fixed the wiki references etc just to complete this process https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=1

[PkgDB] limb updated perl-CGI-FormBuilder

user: limb created branch epel7 on package perl-CGI-FormBuilder To make changes to this package see: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/perl-CGI-FormBuilder -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraprojec

U2F and a review swap?

Has Fedora considered supporting U2F for its infrastructure. IMO it's *much* nicer than standard Yubikeys. On a related note, I will gladly swap a review for libu2f-host: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155826 --Andy -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admi

5tFTW: Five Conferences in Fedora This Week! FUDCon Managua, LinuxCon EU, SeaGL, and upcoming FOSDEM and DevConf.cz (2014-10-24)

Reposted from . Fedora is a big project, and it’s hard to keep up with everything that goes on. This series highlights interesting happenings in five different areas every week. It isn’t comprehensive news coverage — just quick summaries with links to ea

Re: dnf vs yum

> > > "Drop" as in "use yum for that, but dnf for the new versions"? That > > sounds reasonable. > > Well reality is f-r is mostly for checking *current* Fedora > guidelines that in some cases apply only to rawhide. If someone is > running f-r on a system from 4 years ago to verify current packagin

Re: dnf vs yum

On Fri 24 Oct 2014 05:35:00 PM CEST Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 04:56:20PM +0200, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote: >> Thought we should really switch to actually use dnf api instead. Things >> get complicated for us when we want to support EL6 then...Maybe we should >> just drop EPEL

Re: dnf vs yum

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 04:56:20PM +0200, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote: > Thought we should really switch to actually use dnf api instead. Things > get complicated for us when we want to support EL6 then...Maybe we should > just drop EPEL6 support. "Drop" as in "use yum for that, but dnf for the new

Re: dnf vs yum

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote: > On Fri 24 Oct 2014 02:26:37 PM CEST Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > > > Bodhi-client, fedpkg, python-meh, libreport-python, yum-utils depends on > > yum and yum-utils itself is a dependency for fedora-review, lpf and > > mock. > > FWIW fe

Re: dnf vs yum

On Fri 24 Oct 2014 04:27:37 PM CEST Tim Lauridsen wrote: > On Fri Oct 24 2014 at 4:01:20 PM Stanislav Ochotnicky < > sochotni...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On Fri 24 Oct 2014 02:26:37 PM CEST Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> >> > Hi >> > >> > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> > >> >> >> >

Re: dnf vs yum

On Fri Oct 24 2014 at 4:01:20 PM Stanislav Ochotnicky < sochotni...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Fri 24 Oct 2014 02:26:37 PM CEST Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > > Hi > > > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > >> > >> Yes, switch the defaults ASAP. Thanks > >> > > > > FWIW, there is

Re: dnf vs yum

On Fri 24 Oct 2014 02:26:37 PM CEST Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > >> >> Yes, switch the defaults ASAP. Thanks >> > > FWIW, there is still considerable work left is switching over to dnf > completely. > > Filtering out some minor details (bas

Re: Improving the offline updates user experience

On 10/24/2014 12:59 PM, Richard Hughes wrote: 853 must be close to every package on your box... Nope. $ rpm -qa |wc -l 4337 -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCE, RHCDS Red Hat, Senior Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedor

Re: dnf vs yum

On 10/24/2014 01:33 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: That would be a good reason to switch the default in Rawhide at this stage. No. This is the *first* release with explicit DNF support. Until now it was tested only by those who run mock directly from git checkout (that is maybe 3-5 people). Now it

Re: dnf vs yum

Hi On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Yes, switch the defaults ASAP. Thanks > FWIW, there is still considerable work left is switching over to dnf completely. Filtering out some minor details (based on my system), Bodhi-client, fedpkg, python-meh, libreport-python, yum-

Re: Request new package

Am 24.10.2014 um 13:54 schrieb Richard Shaw: On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Valerio Pachera mailto:siri...@gmail.com>> wrote: [Service] EnvironmentFile=/etc/conf.d/ sheep.conf ExecStart=/usr/sbin/sheep --pidfile /var/run/sheep.pid ${SHEEP_OPTS} ${SHEEP_PATH} PIDFile=/v

Re: dnf vs yum

Dne 24.10.2014 v 13:43 Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 07:33:06AM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >>Hi >>On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Tim Lauridsen wrote: >> >> Proberly because dnf support is very new, so it will need some more real >> time use >> >>T

Re: dnf vs yum

Am 24.10.2014 um 13:45 schrieb Corey Sheldon: its in the repos and in the test release notes last i saw so use as you feel and test it out and last i checked while it is the cornerstone feature not likely a blocker as yum is still working and IT is afterall a fork of yum first: stop top posti

Re: Request new package

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Valerio Pachera wrote: > [Service] > EnvironmentFile=/etc/conf.d/ > sheep.conf > ExecStart=/usr/sbin/sheep --pidfile /var/run/sheep.pid ${SHEEP_OPTS} > ${SHEEP_PATH} > PIDFile=/var/run/sheep.pid > Type=forking > Does sheep fork by default? Is there an option to m

Re: dnf vs yum

its in the repos and in the test release notes last i saw so use as you feel and test it out and last i checked while it is the cornerstone feature not likely a blocker as yum is still working and IT is afterall a fork of yum Corey W Sheldon Freelance IT Consultant, Multi-Discipline Tutor 310.909

Re: dnf vs yum

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 07:33:06AM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >Hi >On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Tim Lauridsen wrote: > > Proberly because dnf support is very new, so it will need some more real > time use > >That would be a good reason to switch the default in Rawhide

Re: dnf vs yum

Am 24.10.2014 um 13:38 schrieb Corey Sheldon: Rawhide is far from "realtime use" in my book as that means public use not just developer/tester types and how do you ever reach "public use" if it keeps disabled for devel/testing? On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Rahul Sundaram signature

Re: dnf vs yum

Rawhide is far from "realtime use" in my book as that means public use not just developer/tester types Corey W Sheldon Freelance IT Consultant, Multi-Discipline Tutor 310.909.7672 www.facebook.com/1stclassmobileshine On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi > > On Fri, Oct 24

Re: dnf vs yum

Hi On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 7:27 AM, Tim Lauridsen wrote: > Proberly because dnf support is very new, so it will need some more real > time use > That would be a good reason to switch the default in Rawhide at this stage. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.f

Re: dnf vs yum

On Fri Oct 24 2014 at 1:23:27 PM Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Tim Lauridsen wrote: > >> >> Mock still defaults to yum, but supports dnf also using >> config_opts['package_manager']='dnf' >> >> So it makes sense to have a hard requirement on yum >> > > Well the

F-21 Branched report: 20141024 changes

Compose started at Fri Oct 24 07:15:02 UTC 2014 Broken deps for armhfp -- [PyQuante] PyQuante-libint-1.6.4-11.fc21.1.armv7hl requires libint(armv7hl-32) = 0:1.1.6-2.fc21 [audtty] audtty-0.1.12-9.fc20.armv7hl requires libaudcli

Re: dnf vs yum

Hi On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Tim Lauridsen wrote: > > Mock still defaults to yum, but supports dnf also using > config_opts['package_manager']='dnf' > > So it makes sense to have a hard requirement on yum > Well the question is, why doesn't it default to dnf in Rawhide? Rahul -- devel

Re: Bumping python-requests in f20?

On 10/23/2014 10:57 PM, Ralph Bean wrote: > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 01:16:29PM -0700, Ed Marshall wrote: >> Is it API-compatible? > > Not exactly > https://github.com/kennethreitz/requests/blob/master/HISTORY.rst#230-2014-05-16 I would personally say no to updating libraries to incompatible vers

[Base] Base Design WG agenda meeting 24 October 2014 15:00 UTC on #fedora-meeting

Agenda: - Status buildrequires cleanup work (davids & nils!) - Revisit/update factory-reset/config subpackage - Open Floor Thanks & regards, Phil -- Philipp Knirsch | Tel.: +49-711-96437-470 Manager Core Services| Fax.: +49-711-96437-111 Red Hat GmbH | E

rawhide report: 20141024 changes

Compose started at Fri Oct 24 05:15:03 UTC 2014 Broken deps for i386 -- [3Depict] 3Depict-0.0.16-3.fc22.i686 requires libmgl.so.7.2.0 [PyQuante] PyQuante-libint-1.6.4-11.fc22.1.i686 requires libint(x86-32) = 0:1.1.6-2.fc21 [Sp

Re: Improving the offline updates user experience

Am 24.10.2014 um 12:02 schrieb Mathieu Bridon: On Fri, 2014-10-24 at 12:00 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote: I'm not updating daily. I upgraded my machine IIRC 2-3 weeks ago. So lets benchmark it and provide you real data. My machine have classic magnetic disk, however in SW RAID1. Timing cache

Re: Improving the offline updates user experience

On 24 October 2014 11:00, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > I run "dnf upgrade" and I have been offered 853 packages and 1.3 GB to > download. I'm pretty sure F21 for the last few weeks is not representative of a normal installed system over a 2 week period. 853 must be close to every package on your box..

Re: dnf vs yum

On Fri Oct 24 2014 at 12:46:41 PM Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Michael Simacek wrote: > >> >> Mock-1.2 no longer depends on yum API and has been ported to use DNF. >> So if you use the new version and set config_opts['package_manager']='dnf' >> and also install

Re: dnf vs yum

Hi On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Michael Simacek wrote: > > Mock-1.2 no longer depends on yum API and has been ported to use DNF. > So if you use the new version and set config_opts['package_manager']='dnf' > and also install dnf-plugins-core, you should be able to use it without > any proble

Re: Request new package

2014-10-20 15:04 GMT+02:00 Richard Shaw : > On a side note, I played around building a package and noticed that only a > sysvinit file is provided. Now we have initial systemd support in upstream (master branch). -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/

Re: Improving the offline updates user experience

On Fri, 2014-10-24 at 12:00 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > I'm not updating daily. I upgraded my machine IIRC 2-3 weeks ago. So lets > benchmark it and provide you real data. > > My machine have classic magnetic disk, however in SW RAID1. > Timing cached reads: 12236 MB in 2.00 seconds = 612

Re: Improving the offline updates user experience

On 10/23/2014 12:57 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: The upgrade can last one hour (more or less). An hour?! Most of my offline updates take a few tens of seconds with F21. Is this on fairly up-to-date SSD hardware? Are any specific packages taking longer than the others? an hour was surely exaggerat

Re: dnf vs yum

- Original Message - > From: "Rahul Sundaram" > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > > Sent: Monday, October 6, 2014 10:00:54 AM > Subject: Re: dnf vs yum > > Hi > > On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 3:52 AM, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: > > > Too bad that it does not also say that it

Re: Bumping python-requests in f20?

Incompatible though. But without v2, some packages will not work. V2 should be pushed already, but V1 is still used in f20. Yours sincerely, Christopher Meng http://cicku.me -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of

[Test-Announce] Fedora 21 Beta Release Candidate 1 (RC1) Available Now!

As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Beta Release Candidate 1 (RC1) is now available for testing. Content information, including changes, can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6010#comment:11 . Please see the following pages for download links (including delta ISOs) and te