Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 6:44 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 08:13:58PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:WeakDependencies > > Awesome -- thanks, FPC! This is really exciting. That is exciting! Thanks to everyone involved in this

Re: Hadoop javadoc problem (FTBFS)

Il 09/07/2015 23:45, Christopher ha scritto: Regarding https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1239555 Hadoop seems to have a problem due to javadocs. It seems to be affecting rawhide, and maybe earlier versions, but I haven't verified. Aside from patching the upstream javadoc bug, is ther

Hadoop javadoc problem (FTBFS)

Regarding https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1239555 Hadoop seems to have a problem due to javadocs. It seems to be affecting rawhide, and maybe earlier versions, but I haven't verified. Aside from patching the upstream javadoc bug, is there a way to get the build to proceed in a way that

Re: F23 Self Contained Change: RPM MPI Requires Provides

On 07/09/2015 03:06 PM, Sandro Mani wrote: > > > On 09.07.2015 21:42, Orion Poplawski wrote: >> On 07/09/2015 01:14 PM, Sandro Mani wrote: >>> On 09.07.2015 20:18, Orion Poplawski wrote: Also, it doesn't seem to get all of the requires quite right. For scorep-openmpi I have:

Re: F23 Self Contained Change: RPM MPI Requires Provides -> Review request

On 09.07.2015 21:39, Orion Poplawski wrote: On 07/08/2015 05:03 PM, Sandro Mani wrote: Once the package is approved, openmpi and mpich will need to BuildRequire: rpm-mpi-hooks, and openmpi-devel and mpich-devel will need to Require: rpm-mpi-hooks. And finally, once that is done too, all *-ope

Re: F23 Self Contained Change: RPM MPI Requires Provides

On 09.07.2015 21:42, Orion Poplawski wrote: On 07/09/2015 01:14 PM, Sandro Mani wrote: On 09.07.2015 20:18, Orion Poplawski wrote: Also, it doesn't seem to get all of the requires quite right. For scorep-openmpi I have: Provides: libscorep_adapter_compiler_event.so.2()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64

Re: F23 Self Contained Change: RPM MPI Requires Provides

On 07/09/2015 01:14 PM, Sandro Mani wrote: > On 09.07.2015 20:18, Orion Poplawski wrote: >> Also, it doesn't seem to get all of the requires quite right. For >> scorep-openmpi I have: >> >> Provides: libscorep_adapter_compiler_event.so.2()(64bit)(openmpi-x86_64) >> >> but: >> >> Requires: libscore

Re: F23 Self Contained Change: RPM MPI Requires Provides -> Review request

On 07/08/2015 05:03 PM, Sandro Mani wrote: > > Once the package is approved, openmpi and mpich will need to BuildRequire: > rpm-mpi-hooks, and openmpi-devel and mpich-devel will need to Require: > rpm-mpi-hooks. > > And finally, once that is done too, all *-openmpi and *-mpich packages will > nee

Re: F23 Self Contained Change: RPM MPI Requires Provides

On 09.07.2015 20:18, Orion Poplawski wrote: Also, isn't the -x86_64 redundant? Also though I guess we don't have an mpi variable MPI_NAME. Yes it is redundant, but it is the prettiest variable I could find, given the lack of MPI_NAME. Also, your trick of using: for module in $(module ava

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] FTBFS Packages in rawhide (2015-07-08)

On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 08:54:23PM +0200, Till Maas wrote: > I created the list of FTBFS packages with this script: > https://pagure.io/fork/till/releng/blob/F23-FTBFS/f/scripts/find_FTBFS.py > From the list of packages, only two seem to be wrongly missing: The problem is that the script also co

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] FTBFS Packages in rawhide (2015-07-08)

On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 09:42:09AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: > This email confuses me. What command line did you use to generate this > list? I don't get a list anything like this for either --release > rawhide or --release branched. I created the list of FTBFS packages with this script: https

Re: F23 Self Contained Change: RPM MPI Requires Provides -> Review request

On 07/08/2015 05:03 PM, Sandro Mani wrote: > > > On 08.07.2015 22:28, Orion Poplawski wrote: >> It appears to be sufficient to define this macro anywhere, not just in >> elf.attr. So I think it could be added in to a rpm macros file in >> openmpi/mpich-devel. > Ah cool, actually it seems to also

Re: F23 Self Contained Change: RPM MPI Requires Provides

On 07/07/2015 03:12 AM, Sandro Mani wrote: > Hello > > I've got an initial implementation of this using the rpm dependency generator > hooks, as suggested in the other thread [1]. > > The resulting scripts are here: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/rpm-mpi-hooks/ > > There is just one problem: an

Re: updates-testing: multilib broken for days now

On 07/09/2015 07:48 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote: >> On 09/07/15 12:39, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > Protected multilib versions: polkit-0.113-1.fc21.x86_64 != > polkit-0.112-7.fc21.1.i686 This is due to polkit splitting out a polkit-libs package between those two versions. T

Re: updates-testing: multilib broken for days now

> On 09/07/15 12:39, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > >>> Protected multilib versions: polkit-0.113-1.fc21.x86_64 != > >>> polkit-0.112-7.fc21.1.i686 > >> > >> This is due to polkit splitting out a polkit-libs package between those > >> two versions. This makes it only include the polkit-libs packa

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] [RFC] Switching to SPDX in license tags

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Haïkel wrote: > 2015-07-09 16:49 GMT+02:00 Richard Fontana : >> On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 04:41:00PM +0200, Haďkel wrote: >>> From my PoV, the abbreviation system is already an improvement, >>> if it's commonly shared with other distros (and Suse already switched to

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] [RFC] Switching to SPDX in license tags

2015-07-09 17:17 GMT+02:00 Richard Hughes : > On 9 July 2015 at 13:24, Richard Fontana wrote: >> What distros or upstream projects are actually using the SPDX format? > > AppStream uses it[1], and also tries to map the Fedora licences to > SPDX forms[2], with a limited amount of success. We use it

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] [RFC] Switching to SPDX in license tags

2015-07-09 16:49 GMT+02:00 Richard Fontana : > On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 04:41:00PM +0200, Haďkel wrote: >> From my PoV, the abbreviation system is already an improvement, >> if it's commonly shared with other distros (and Suse already switched to it). > > I don't see how it's an improvement if the u

Re: Packaging golang for secondary architectures, go-srpm-macros

On 2015-07-09, Jan Chaloupka wrote: > On 07/09/2015 03:07 PM, Dan Horák wrote: >> On Thu, 9 Jul 2015 10:49:01 + (UTC) >> Petr Pisar wrote: >> >>> On 2015-07-09, Jan Chaloupka wrote: # Define arches for PA and SA %golang_arches %{ix86} x86_64 %{arm} >>> [...] Recommended use

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 11:22 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > Is there any case to allow Supplements: in the Fedora Collection? It > seems to me like this could be problematic. (e.g. I write a plugin > for > a popular engine and package it, then add Supplements: so that it > gets > pulled in by d

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 20:13 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines. Note that > there is also a set of Python guideline changes pending which I will > send in a separate announcement. > > - > > Guidelines for making use of weak dependenci

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] [RFC] Switching to SPDX in license tags

On 9 July 2015 at 13:24, Richard Fontana wrote: > What distros or upstream projects are actually using the SPDX format? AppStream uses it[1], and also tries to map the Fedora licences to SPDX forms[2], with a limited amount of success. We use it to show a clickable link in gnome-software. Richar

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] [RFC] Switching to SPDX in license tags

On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 10:49 -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > If the underlying meaning of the abbreviations is not itself > standardized, then (for purposes of the distros) the SPDX abbreviation > system is a pseudo-standard and I would expect or at least hope the > SPDX group would oppose the water

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] [RFC] Switching to SPDX in license tags

On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 04:41:00PM +0200, Haïkel wrote: > From my PoV, the abbreviation system is already an improvement, > if it's commonly shared with other distros (and Suse already switched to it). I don't see how it's an improvement if the underlying meaning of the abbreviations is not standa

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] [RFC] Switching to SPDX in license tags

On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 10:05 -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 03:53:51PM +0200, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote: > > Without looking too much into SPDX license list - would some of the > > licenses we currently consider MIT fall under different license name > > under SPDX? > > No,

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] [RFC] Switching to SPDX in license tags

2015-07-09 16:21 GMT+02:00 Richard Fontana : > On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 09:42:55AM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote: >> I'm hesitant to go down this road for a number of reasons: > [...] >> 5) It implies that we're planning on implementing the full SPDX >> specification. And we're not. > > This last one is

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] [RFC] Switching to SPDX in license tags

On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 09:42:55AM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote: > I'm hesitant to go down this road for a number of reasons: [...] > 5) It implies that we're planning on implementing the full SPDX > specification. And we're not. This last one is a big concern for me. What I've been seeing, and I don

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] [RFC] Switching to SPDX in license tags

2015-07-09 15:42 GMT+02:00 Tom Callaway : > On 07/09/2015 09:14 AM, Haïkel wrote: >> Currently Suse is using it, they even patched their packaging compliance >> checkers to support it. > > Well, no, actually, they're not. They're using the matching identifiers. > Yes, we're not concerned by the SP

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] [RFC] Switching to SPDX in license tags

On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 03:53:51PM +0200, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote: > On Thu 09 Jul 2015 03:36:54 PM CEST Richard Fontana wrote: > > Can you elaborate a bit on the MIT(Fedora) != MIT(SPDX)? > > Is the SPDX text of MIT different from what we'd consider MIT in > Fedora? One difference I can see i

rawhide report: 20150709 changes

Compose started at Thu Jul 9 05:15:04 UTC 2015 Broken deps for i386 -- [apache-scout] apache-scout-1.2.6-11.fc21.noarch requires mvn(org.apache.juddi:uddi-ws) apache-scout-1.2.6-11.fc21.noarch requires mvn(org.apache.juddi:ju

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] [RFC] Switching to SPDX in license tags

On Thu 09 Jul 2015 03:36:54 PM CEST Richard Fontana wrote: > On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 03:22:41PM +0200, Haïkel wrote: >> 2015-07-09 15:17 GMT+02:00 Miro Hrončok : >> > On 9.7.2015 14:48, Haïkel wrote: >> >> * mass changing all specs => could be automated >> > >> > Actually, openSUSE has a tool for t

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] [RFC] Switching to SPDX in license tags

On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 02:48:48PM +0200, Haïkel wrote: > * Suse: standardized to SPDX > * Debian: considering it > https://wiki.debian.org/SPDX > * Ubuntu: same (Canonical is also part of the SPDX WG) That may be accurate about Canonical, though if you're basing this merely on the Nascar-style lo

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] [RFC] Switching to SPDX in license tags

On 07/09/2015 09:14 AM, Haïkel wrote: > Currently Suse is using it, they even patched their packaging compliance > checkers to support it. Well, no, actually, they're not. They're using the matching identifiers. I'm hesitant to go down this road for a number of reasons: 1) It's a LOT of change f

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] FTBFS Packages in rawhide (2015-07-08)

On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 21:55 +, opensou...@till.name wrote: > The following packages did not build for two releases and should be > retired when Fedora (F23) is branched, unless someone takes care of them. If > you > know for sure that the package should be retired, please do so now with a > pr

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] [RFC] Switching to SPDX in license tags

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 03:14:36PM +0200, Haïkel wrote: >> 2015-07-09 14:24 GMT+02:00 Richard Fontana : >> > What distros or upstream projects are actually using the SPDX format? >> > I am not aware of any. >> > >> >> Currently Suse is using

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] [RFC] Switching to SPDX in license tags

On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 03:14:36PM +0200, Haïkel wrote: > 2015-07-09 14:24 GMT+02:00 Richard Fontana : > > What distros or upstream projects are actually using the SPDX format? > > I am not aware of any. > > > > Currently Suse is using it, they even patched their packaging compliance > checkers to

Re: updates-testing: multilib broken for days now

On 09/07/15 12:39, Miloslav Trmač wrote: On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 21:30:40 +0200 Reindl Harald wrote: ...snip... Protected multilib versions: polkit-0.113-1.fc21.x86_64 != polkit-0.112-7.fc21.1.i686 This is due to polkit splitting out a polkit-libs package between those two versions. Thi

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] [RFC] Switching to SPDX in license tags

On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 03:22:41PM +0200, Haïkel wrote: > 2015-07-09 15:17 GMT+02:00 Miro Hrončok : > > On 9.7.2015 14:48, Haïkel wrote: > >> * mass changing all specs => could be automated > > > > Actually, openSUSE has a tool for this: > > > > https://github.com/openSUSE/spec-cleaner > > > > It c

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] [RFC] Switching to SPDX in license tags

2015-07-09 15:17 GMT+02:00 Miro Hrončok : > On 9.7.2015 14:48, Haïkel wrote: >> * mass changing all specs => could be automated > > Actually, openSUSE has a tool for this: > > https://github.com/openSUSE/spec-cleaner > > It can convert their old license abbrevs to SPDX, I don't know if we are > usi

Re: Packaging golang for secondary architectures, go-srpm-macros

On 07/09/2015 03:07 PM, Dan Horák wrote: On Thu, 9 Jul 2015 10:49:01 + (UTC) Petr Pisar wrote: On 2015-07-09, Jan Chaloupka wrote: # Define arches for PA and SA %golang_arches %{ix86} x86_64 %{arm} [...] Recommended use in spec file: 1) To choose the correct compiler: %ifarch %{gol

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] [RFC] Switching to SPDX in license tags

On 9.7.2015 14:48, Haïkel wrote: > * mass changing all specs => could be automated Actually, openSUSE has a tool for this: https://github.com/openSUSE/spec-cleaner It can convert their old license abbrevs to SPDX, I don't know if we are using the same ones, but the data set can be changed of cou

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] [RFC] Switching to SPDX in license tags

2015-07-09 14:24 GMT+02:00 Richard Fontana : > What distros or upstream projects are actually using the SPDX format? > I am not aware of any. > Currently Suse is using it, they even patched their packaging compliance checkers to support it. > > I am aware of some projects using these identifiers.

Re: Packaging golang for secondary architectures, go-srpm-macros

On Thu, 9 Jul 2015 10:49:01 + (UTC) Petr Pisar wrote: > On 2015-07-09, Jan Chaloupka wrote: > > # Define arches for PA and SA > > %golang_arches %{ix86} x86_64 %{arm} > [...] > > Recommended use in spec file: > > 1) To choose the correct compiler: > > %ifarch %{golang_arches} > > BuildRequ

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] [RFC] Switching to SPDX in license tags

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Haïkel wrote: > 2015-07-09 14:08 GMT+02:00 Josh Boyer : >> >> Can you elaborate on how you envision this working? SPDX appears to >> work best when upstream projects integrate it and maintain it >> themselves. Doing that downstream is possible, but it sounds both

Re: OpenSSL security fix

new update http://openssl.org/news/secadv_20150709.txt -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

OpenSSL security fix

A new incoming OpenSSL security fix for high rated security bug https://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-announce/2015-July/37.html -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] [RFC] Switching to SPDX in license tags

2015-07-09 14:08 GMT+02:00 Josh Boyer : > > Can you elaborate on how you envision this working? SPDX appears to > work best when upstream projects integrate it and maintain it > themselves. Doing that downstream is possible, but it sounds both > time consuming and easy to get wrong or stale. > >

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 08:13:58PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:WeakDependencies Awesome -- thanks, FPC! This is really exciting. -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedora

Re: [RFC] Switching to SPDX in license tags

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Haïkel wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I would like to get feedback from Fedora Legal and also my fellow > > contributors about considering > > SPDX. > > > > SPDX (Software Package Data Exchange) is a specification hosted

Re: [RFC] Switching to SPDX in license tags

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Haïkel wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to get feedback from Fedora Legal and also my fellow > contributors about considering > SPDX. > > SPDX (Software Package Data Exchange) is a specification hosted by the > Linux Foundation defining > a standard format for communic

[RFC] Switching to SPDX in license tags

Hi, I would like to get feedback from Fedora Legal and also my fellow contributors about considering SPDX. SPDX (Software Package Data Exchange) is a specification hosted by the Linux Foundation defining a standard format for communicating components, licenses and copyrights associated with a sof

Re: updates-testing: multilib broken for days now

> On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 21:30:40 +0200 > Reindl Harald wrote: > > ...snip... > > > Protected multilib versions: polkit-0.113-1.fc21.x86_64 != > > polkit-0.112-7.fc21.1.i686 > > This is due to polkit splitting out a polkit-libs package between those > two versions. This makes it only includ

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] FTBFS Packages in rawhide (2015-07-08)

On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 21:55:06 + (UTC) opensou...@till.name wrote: > The following packages did not build for two releases and should be > retired when Fedora (F23) is branched, unless someone takes care of them. > If you know for sure that the package should be retired, please do so now > with

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] FTBFS Packages in rawhide (2015-07-08)

Il 09/07/2015 12:54, Mat Booth ha scritto: On 8 July 2015 at 22:55, > wrote: Depending on: mysql-connector-java (288), status change: 2014-05-14 (60 weeks ago)a This one is fixed. -- Mat Booth http://fedoraproject.org/get-fedora thanks soon also jun

Re: Packaging golang for secondary architectures, go-srpm-macros

On 07/09/2015 12:49 PM, Petr Pisar wrote: On 2015-07-09, Jan Chaloupka wrote: # Define arches for PA and SA %golang_arches %{ix86} x86_64 %{arm} [...] Recommended use in spec file: 1) To choose the correct compiler: %ifarch %{golang_arches} BuildRequires: golang %else BuildRequires: gcc-g

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] FTBFS Packages in rawhide (2015-07-08)

On 8 July 2015 at 22:55, wrote: > > > Depending on: mysql-connector-java (288), status change: 2014-05-14 (60 > weeks ago)a > This one is fixed. -- Mat Booth http://fedoraproject.org/get-fedora -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinf

Re: Packaging golang for secondary architectures, go-srpm-macros

On 2015-07-09, Jan Chaloupka wrote: > # Define arches for PA and SA > %golang_arches %{ix86} x86_64 %{arm} [...] > Recommended use in spec file: > 1) To choose the correct compiler: > %ifarch %{golang_arches} > BuildRequires: golang > %else > BuildRequires: gcc-go >= %{gccgo_min_vers} > %endif >

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] FTBFS Packages in rawhide (2015-07-08)

On 8.7.2015 23:55, opensou...@till.name wrote: > Depending on: prelink (30), status change: 2014-05-14 (60 weeks ago) There are lot of my packages in there and also lot's of others. I haven't willingly chosen this package to be the dependency, so I guess this is happening automatically. Should I

Re: [Fedora Update] [comment] springframework-data-mongodb-1.5.2-1.fc22

hi Taskotron depcheck test FAILED with springframework-data-mongodb-1.5.2-1.fc22 because of this https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-10965/springframework-data-commons-1.8.4-4.fc22?_csrf_token=afc764d7e468ff6e54a1c11c233dbd3d9b2bcf31 so i should wait still a week for have the pac

Packaging golang for secondary architectures, go-srpm-macros

Hi, at the moment golang packages are built only on primary architectures (defined by %go_arches macro) due to golang compiler architecture support. For secondary architectures gcc-go is available. In order to provide an easy way for packagers to package golang projects for secondary architec

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] FTBFS Packages in rawhide (2015-07-08)

> > maven-resources-plugin (maintained by: huwang, akurtakov, java-sig, > mizdebsk, pingou, weli, yyang) > maven-resources-plugin-2.7-3.fc23.noarch requires > mvn(org.apache.maven:maven-core) = 3.3.3, > mvn(org.apache.maven:maven-plugin-api) = 3.3.3 > maven-res

Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] FTBFS Packages in rawhide (2015-07-08)

Hi Sergio, On 9 July 2015 at 01:07, Sérgio Basto wrote: > On Qua, 2015-07-08 at 21:55 +, opensou...@till.name wrote: >> nightfall mmahut, astronomy-sig 60 weeks >> ago > > version available on Fedora : nightfall-1.62-15.fc20 > version available upstream : nightfa