Re: How should we handle gnupg v1.4.X as gpg1?

2017-10-10 Thread Christopher
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 5:44 PM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski < domi...@greysector.net> wrote: > On Tuesday, 10 October 2017 at 20:57, Christopher wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 1:04 PM Brian C. Lane wrote: > > > > > The time for change is finally, almost here :) Upstream is talking > about

Re: How should we handle gnupg v1.4.X as gpg1?

2017-10-10 Thread Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
On Tuesday, 10 October 2017 at 20:57, Christopher wrote: > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 1:04 PM Brian C. Lane wrote: > > > The time for change is finally, almost here :) Upstream is talking about > > installing the v1.4 series as gpg1. They have already switched the > > default install of 2.2 to /usr/

Re: How should we handle gnupg v1.4.X as gpg1?

2017-10-10 Thread Christopher
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 1:04 PM Brian C. Lane wrote: > The time for change is finally, almost here :) Upstream is talking about > installing the v1.4 series as gpg1. They have already switched the > default install of 2.2 to /usr/bin/gpg, but we currently override this > with the --enable-gpg-is-

Fedora 27-20171010.n.0 compose check report

2017-10-10 Thread Fedora compose checker
Missing expected images: Server dvd i386 Workstation live i386 Server boot i386 Kde live i386 Failed openQA tests: 12/128 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test did not fail in 27-20171008.n.0): ID: 154881 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default_upload URL: https://openqa.fedoraproj

How should we handle gnupg v1.4.X as gpg1?

2017-10-10 Thread Brian C. Lane
The time for change is finally, almost here :) Upstream is talking about installing the v1.4 series as gpg1. They have already switched the default install of 2.2 to /usr/bin/gpg, but we currently override this with the --enable-gpg-is-gpg2 switch in gnupg2. Tracker bug here - https://dev.gnupg.or

Re: Incomaptible changes in new package for f27

2017-10-10 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 01:51:30PM +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote: > On 10/10/2017 01:44 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > >On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:29:19 +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote: > > > >>Hello all! > >> > >>I seek advice how to proceed with following situation. > >> > >>There is new package for f27 - java-9-op

Re: [HEADS UP] libselinux golang bindings will be dropped from Rawhide

2017-10-10 Thread Zygmunt Krynicki
As it's too early to tell which way we'll go with SELinux and golang I think it's okay to drop this. Once we start to make some progress into making any policy work in snapd we'll either revive this or use a maintained package. Best regards ZK ___ devel

Re: Broken dependencies: audacity

2017-10-10 Thread Pierre-Yves Chibon
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 08:44:27AM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 12:05:40AM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 18:34:09 +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > > > > > I've not been a maintainer of the package since Fedora 13. > > > > > > > > I'm not l

Re: [HEADS UP] libselinux golang bindings will be dropped from Rawhide

2017-10-10 Thread Neal Gompa
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Petr Lautrbach wrote: > Hi, > > libselinux golang bindings [1] haven't been touched since 2014, have > never been upstreamed, nothing requires/uses them in Fedora and since > there's another SELinux golang bindings maintained by opencontainers [2] > I'm going to dr

Re: RFC: Always sourcing /etc/bashrc for interactive mode in bash

2017-10-10 Thread Siteshwar Vashisht
- Original Message - > From: "Siteshwar Vashisht" > To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2017 3:42:14 PM > Subject: RFC: Always sourcing /etc/bashrc for interactive mode in bash > > We are discussing about always sourcing /etc/bashrc for interactive mode in > bug 11

Re: Incomaptible changes in new package for f27

2017-10-10 Thread Jiri Vanek
On 10/10/2017 01:44 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:29:19 +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote: Hello all! I seek advice how to proceed with following situation. There is new package for f27 - java-9-openjdk. The issue is, RPM do not like change of directory to symlink which is exact

Re: Incomaptible changes in new package for f27

2017-10-10 Thread Michael Schwendt
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:29:19 +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote: > Hello all! > > I seek advice how to proceed with following situation. > > There is new package for f27 - java-9-openjdk. > The issue is, RPM do not like change of directory to symlink which is exactly > what happened, and > dies with cpi

Incomaptible changes in new package for f27

2017-10-10 Thread Jiri Vanek
Hello all! I seek advice how to proceed with following situation. There is new package for f27 - java-9-openjdk. It have been first built some two or three months ago. For f27. Before it was available in copr repository. When it was first built for f27 (and in meantime also for f26, but never

[HEADS UP] libselinux golang bindings will be dropped from Rawhide

2017-10-10 Thread Petr Lautrbach
Hi, libselinux golang bindings [1] haven't been touched since 2014, have never been upstreamed, nothing requires/uses them in Fedora and since there's another SELinux golang bindings maintained by opencontainers [2] I'm going to drop them from Fedora Rawhide. [1] https://github.com/fedora-selinu