Re: Interdependent packages *must* go in the same update - a reminder (ref. nss and nspr)

On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 08:16 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 17:34 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > There are currently separate updates for nss 3.33.0 and nspr 4.17.0 > > in > > both Fedora 26 and 27. However, nss 3.33.0 requires nspr 4.17.0. > > > > As a reminder, this is a v

Re: Interdependent packages *must* go in the same update - a reminder (ref. nss and nspr)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 17:34 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > There are currently separate updates for nss 3.33.0 and nspr 4.17.0 > in > both Fedora 26 and 27. However, nss 3.33.0 requires nspr 4.17.0. > > As a reminder, this is a violation of the Upd

[Test-Announce] Fedora 27 Branched 20171012.n.0 nightly compose nominated for testing

Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event for Fedora 27 Branched 20171012.n.0. Please help run some tests for this nightly compose if you have time. For more information on nightly release validation testing, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki

Fedora Rawhide-20171012.n.0 compose check report

Missing expected images: Server dvd i386 Workstation live i386 Server boot i386 Kde live i386 Failed openQA tests: 85/128 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20171011.n.0): ID: 156670 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_live URL: https://openqa.f

Fedora 27-20171012.n.0 compose check report

Missing expected images: Server dvd i386 Workstation live i386 Server boot i386 Kde live i386 Failed openQA tests: 14/128 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm) ID: 156774 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso base_services_start URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/156774 ID: 156784 Test: x86_64 Workstatio

Interdependent packages *must* go in the same update - a reminder (ref. nss and nspr)

There are currently separate updates for nss 3.33.0 and nspr 4.17.0 in both Fedora 26 and 27. However, nss 3.33.0 requires nspr 4.17.0. As a reminder, this is a violation of the Updates Policy: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Updating_inter-dependent_packages "When one updated pack

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 6 updates-testing report

The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing: Age URL 827 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7031 python-virtualenv-12.0.7-1.el6 821 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7168 rubygem-crack-0.3.2-2.el6 711 https://bodhi.fedoraproje

Re: A less "bloated" KDE spin

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 05:27:39 +0200, you wrote: >family of tools. Every regular user will choose their own tools for >calendar, email, etc. Simple picture viewer/kpaint etc, should be included >because they are essential part of a desktop system, however, calendar, >address book, email client, are

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 22:57 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: > > The biggest issues are NoScript (which is supposedly coming) and Cookie > Monster (which seems to be hopeless) but there are plenty of others. As someone else mentioned, uMatrix is an alternative (in many ways superior) to Noscript, and se

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 12/10/17 22:48, John Florian wrote: On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 19:54 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 09:05:33AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: It's true that a number of older extensions will not work. Well, looking at the most popular extensions: https://addons.mozilla.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 19:54 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 09:05:33AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > It's true that a number of older extensions will not work. > > Well, looking at the most popular extensions: > > https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/extensions/?sor

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 22:37 +0200, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: > > - Mail original - > De: "Adam Williamson" > > > Yes, but we're a *distributor*. It's our job to mediate change for our > > users, not to just pass it along and wash our hands of it by saying > > upstream was tellin

Schedule for Friday's FESCo Meeting (2017-10-13)

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo meeting Friday at 16:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net. To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto or run: date -d '2017-10-13 16:00 UTC' Links to all issues below ca

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

- Mail original - De: "Adam Williamson" > Yes, but we're a *distributor*. It's our job to mediate change for our > users, not to just pass it along and wash our hands of it by saying > upstream was telling them about it. Sure, and Fedora had the choice of - shipping Firefox - shipping

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 21:22 +0200, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: > De: "Adam Williamson" > > > I don't believe anyone > > outside of Firefox enthusiasts and the package maintainer were even > > aware there was an issue to discuss. > > The last 2 or 3 Firefox releases have been adding warnin

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

De: "Adam Williamson" > I don't believe anyone > outside of Firefox enthusiasts and the package maintainer were even > aware there was an issue to discuss. The last 2 or 3 Firefox releases have been adding warnings (and ramping them up) in the Firefox extension panel. I even had a specific pr

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 20:42 +0200, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: > If Fedora is getting cold feet at the last minute I'd suggest that this is an inaccurate characterization of the issue. I don't believe that 'Fedora' as an entity had even *considered* this situation until the start of this t

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 11:22 -0700, stan wrote: > Mozilla has been warning about this for over a year in their > development version (nightly), so it shouldn't come as a surprise. For me at least, it is a surprise. I had not heard about this until this mailing list thread. I'm sure it's not a surp

Re: Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

Also I would be *very* surprised if network or website operators that rely on stuff Mozilla is obsoleting didn't start testing for ESR in the user-agent to adopt specific behaviour, if not this year then next one's when Mozilla kills plugins (Yes they're not supposed to. When did that stop them?

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:42 AM, wrote: > > > If Fedora is getting cold feet at the last minute the best solution would > be to package ESR separately and make it available for people that don't > really want to be "First". It's probable Mozilla will use the next ESR > branching for similar inva

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 09:05:33AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > It's true that a number of older extensions will not work. Well, looking at the most popular extensions: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/extensions/?sort=users hardly any of them are parked as "compatible with firefox 57+".

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

- Mail original - De: "Matthew Miller" > Also we might be able to forward-port patches from the latest ESR. Though that would not be overly nice to upstream. They took the pain of creating, documenting and supporting two specific update streams to coordinate this change, I'm quite sur

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 10/12/2017 10:52 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > I think that may not realistically be possible, though, as 56 is not > being made an ESR, AFAICT, and it sounds like downgrading from 56 to 52 > (the most recent ESR), aside from the epoch bump it'd require on our > side, is not straightforward (it

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 09:05:33 -0700 Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On 10/12/2017 01:08 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > In practical terms, FF57 disables all extensions. > > I think thats a bit overstated. I'm running FF57 here with a bunch of > extensions that work with it. I agree with this. I run n

Re: Announcement: fdk-aac

For those interested the bugzilla request for adding this module is here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522 - Original Message - > From: "Tom Callaway" > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > , le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Sent: Thursday, October 12, 20

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:52:52AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > However, I don't think this means we MUST ship 57. Talking about > 'security backports' in the abstract is all well and good, but no-one > even seems to have stated yet that there *are* any important security > fixes in 57. Even if

Fedora 27 Server Beta status is NO-GO

Release status of the Fedora 27 Server Beta is NO-GO. The next Go/No-Go meeting is planned on Thursday, October 19th. The F27 Server Beta release slips for one week. A FESCo issue [1] has been opened to determine whether the F27 Server Final GA slips as well or whether there is going to be "Rain D

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 10:16 -0700, Thomas Daede wrote: > On 10/12/2017 02:54 AM, Till Hofmann wrote: > > Yes, but that wasn't branded as all-new, better-than-ever Firefox (which > > it is), that intentionally breaks stuff which is directly visible by the > > end-user. An update that breaks the majo

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 10/12/2017 02:54 AM, Till Hofmann wrote: > Yes, but that wasn't branded as all-new, better-than-ever Firefox (which > it is), that intentionally breaks stuff which is directly visible by the > end-user. An update that breaks the majority of extensions is very hard > to sell for a stable release,

Re: Giving us the ability to go backwards [was Re: plan to update F27 to systemd-235]

- Mail original - De: "Pierre-Yves Chibon" >Ok, another random/crazy/likely stupid idea for the same outcome: the >possibility to go backwards in our packaging. >What if we inverted version and release? > So -2.1-1 become -1-2.1? Same problem than with epoch. Does not work with third-

Re: Announcement: fdk-aac

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Peter Lemenkov wrote: > Great news! Now we have almost everything required for modern audio decoding! > > Any news about mp3 predecessors, btw? The answer to this is always going to be "When there is news, you will hear it." for these kind of items. Asking about

Re: Announcement: fdk-aac

Great news! Now we have almost everything required for modern audio decoding! Any news about mp3 predecessors, btw? 2017-10-12 18:05 GMT+02:00 Tom Callaway : > Hi Fedorans! > > Today, a Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec > Library for Android has been cleared for inclusi

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 05:35 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Reindl Harald > wrote: > > > --- Comment #13 from Martin Stransky --- > > Sorry but the update stays there unless there's a general agreement it > > should > > be removed. If you feel so please file FESCo

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 10/12/2017 01:08 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > In practical terms, FF57 disables all extensions. I think thats a bit overstated. I'm running FF57 here with a bunch of extensions that work with it. It's true that a number of older extensions will not work. One thing to look at is to go to th

Announcement: fdk-aac

Hi Fedorans! Today, a Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android has been cleared for inclusion in Fedora. This specific library has been modified to be useful with Linux and gstreamer, and provides some support for encoding and decoding of the AAC digital aud

Re: Pagure roles at Fedora

On 10/11/2017 10:24 PM, Christopher wrote: > > Thanks, that definitely helps. > > I think the hardest part of being a contributor to Fedora is trying to get > an understanding of how all the backend stuff fits together, so that you > understand where you fit as a contributor. Some tools like `fe

Re: the torch - bash install-deps

On jeudi 12 octobre 2017 17:38:39 CEST Cătălin George Feștilă wrote: > Hi teams . > > I report a issue about torch, see : > > https://github.com/torch/torch7/issues/1085 > the main reason is: bash install-deps . > > As you know: > > Torch is a scientific computing framework with wide support f

Re: Giving us the ability to go backwards [was Re: plan to update F27 to systemd-235]

On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 12:31:04PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 10:33:38AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > > I'm personally very in favor of this; of course my usual refrain > > here is that we should *try* new things and have the ability > > to back them out if they don't w

the torch - bash install-deps

Hi teams . I report a issue about torch, see : https://github.com/torch/torch7/issues/1085 the main reason is: bash install-deps . As you know: Torch is a scientific computing framework with wide support for machine learning algorithms that puts GPUs first. It is easy to use and efficient, tha

Re: The Code of Conduct applies to all Fedora participation [was Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?]

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > Wrong. The Code of Conduct applies to all participation in Fedora. > > As I understand the history, your messages are on moderation because > ... well, you keep doing this. That's not okay. If you had sent this > just to me privately as a w

Re: A less "bloated" KDE spin

Radka Janekova wrote: > Now that said, it was discussed that the spin is meant to be as a showoff > of the KDE family. Is it? Or is it meant for the *actual user* who has > preferences. Both, with (personally) a priority on the former if there are conflicts of interest. -- Rex _

The Code of Conduct applies to all Fedora participation [was Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?]

Wrong. The Code of Conduct applies to all participation in Fedora. As I understand the history, your messages are on moderation because ... well, you keep doing this. That's not okay. If you had sent this just to me privately as a way of blowing off steam, I might try to personally talk you down.

Re: Batched updates for development cycles

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 07:12:51AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > It seems batched updates is turned on for F-27 [1], surely it makes > > sense for updates to go straight out in the development cycle, this > > affects things getting into the nightly composes for testing in live > > i

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

Harald, you've had plenty of warnings. When you go off like this, it stops the conversation from being about the policies and problems. Don't do that. It is not productive or constructive. At the very, very minimum, it is a terrible way to get the results you want. But it is also against the Fedor

Re: Removing ghostscript-fonts package

- Mail original - De: "David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]" > If you wish, we could create a BlueJeans meeting > (open for everyone) to go through these guidelines and fix them together. > ;) I unfortunately don't have right to edit the wiki, nor I want to mess > with something which you maintain(?).​

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > --- Comment #13 from Martin Stransky --- > Sorry but the update stays there unless there's a general agreement it > should > be removed. If you feel so please file FESCo ticket for that. > I've opened a FESCo ticket: https://pagure.io/fe

Re: Removing ghostscript-fonts package

Sorry for the delay in reply, vacation... Anyway, back to work! :) On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 6:25 PM, wrote: > > > - Mail original - > De: "David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]" > > > * Regarding the font family names and subpackages -- it's another mess. > > Not just in Fedora (the FPG for fonts are rea

Re: Call for testing - Firefox 57

On 10/12/2017 11:16 AM, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Martin Stransky wrote: and also expect new versions there. Please give it a shot and report any issue to our [1] or Mozilla bugzilla [2]. Hi Martin, Do you want feedback in bodhi as well? Please use Red

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 10/12/2017 11:32 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:22:52AM +0200, Till Hofmann wrote: Actually, as a regular desktop user, I'd be surprised if I got the FF57 with a regular update without upgrading to the latest Fedora release. I don't think FF57 should be in F26 at a

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:22:52AM +0200, Till Hofmann wrote: > Actually, as a regular desktop user, I'd be surprised if I got the FF57 with > a regular update without upgrading to the latest Fedora release. I don't > think FF57 should be in F26 at all. Looking at the updates in bodhi, F26 was rel

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 10/11/2017 10:58 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: I don't get the whole kerfuffle about FF57 being beta: F27 is in beta now too, and it's the time to test what will be in the relased version, and using a pre-release of a package seems to be a better way to do this than using some old

Re: Call for testing - Firefox 57

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Martin Stransky wrote: > and also expect new versions there. Please give it a shot and report any > issue to our [1] or Mozilla bugzilla [2]. Hi Martin, Do you want feedback in bodhi as well? And do you want to be notified about bugs filed upstream? I noticed

Re: Call for testing - Firefox 57

I don't have enough information for a proper bug report yet, but I observed the following: I installed firefox 57 from u-t yesterday on a freshly installed F27 box, and hooked it up to my sync account. On a second machine, I have firefox-56.0-2.fc26.x86_64. After setting up sync on the new insta

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 10:56, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:48:45AM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski > wrote: > > On Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 10:08, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > In practical terms, FF57 disables all extensions. > > > > > > I had forgo

Re: Call for testing - Firefox 57

On 10/12/2017 10:52 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 09:57:20AM +0200, Martin Stransky wrote: - and disabled XUL extensions For people who don't follow the internals of how Firefox works, this means all extensions you have installed will stop working. Apparently there is

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:53:18AM +0200, Martin Stransky wrote: > On 10/12/2017 10:48 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > >On Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 10:08, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > >>In practical terms, FF57 disables all extensions. > >> > >>I had forgotten how unusable the web ha

Re: Call for testing - Firefox 57

On 10/12/2017 09:57 AM, Martin Stransky wrote: Hi folks, let's have some fun with upcoming Firefox 57 a.k.a Firefox Quantum. This is a major Firefox update with key - pleasant and unpleasant - changes: - fastest than ever with Rust, CSS Stylo, Sandbox... - new "Photon" look - and disabled XUL

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:48:45AM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > On Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 10:08, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > In practical terms, FF57 disables all extensions. > > > > I had forgotten how unusable the web has become without NoScript ... > > Have you tested

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 10:44, Felix Schwarz wrote: [...] > However I know at least one somewhat popular addon (NoScript) which is planned > to have a release just before the Firefox 27 release > (https://noscript.net/getit#devel). So the push to F26 updates-testing really > hurts some user

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 10/12/2017 10:48 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: On Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 10:08, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: In practical terms, FF57 disables all extensions. I had forgotten how unusable the web has become without NoScript ... Have you tested with the latest noscript? 5.1.1

Re: Call for testing - Firefox 57

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 09:57:20AM +0200, Martin Stransky wrote: > - and disabled XUL extensions For people who don't follow the internals of how Firefox works, this means all extensions you have installed will stop working. Apparently there is preference "extensions.legacy.enabled" which should

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 10:08, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > In practical terms, FF57 disables all extensions. > > I had forgotten how unusable the web has become without NoScript ... Have you tested with the latest noscript? 5.1.1 claims to support Fx57 and is in updates-testing, too. Reg

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

Am 11.10.2017 um 21:08 schrieb Martin Stransky: > I believed that the update-testing repository is intended for testing and it's > used by power users who can handle that, exclude the package from testing if > needed, downgrade broken package and so on. > > I'm surprised that people use updates-t

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

In practical terms, FF57 disables all extensions. I had forgotten how unusable the web has become without NoScript ... Anyway, I wouldn't advise anyone else to update to this version if you use extensions at all. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~r

Call for testing - Firefox 57

Hi folks, let's have some fun with upcoming Firefox 57 a.k.a Firefox Quantum. This is a major Firefox update with key - pleasant and unpleasant - changes: - fastest than ever with Rust, CSS Stylo, Sandbox... - new "Photon" look - and disabled XUL extensions according to the disruptive nature

Re: Pagure roles at Fedora

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:41:57PM -0700, Ed Marshall wrote: > On 10/11/2017 08:57 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > pagure.io is for "upstream" projects and general trackers. This is a > > replacement for fedorahosted.org and similar to github or gitlab. > > > > src.fedoraproject.org is a pagure instanc

Re: Batched updates for development cycles

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 08:06:18AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> It seems batched updates is turned on for F-27 [1], surely it makes >> sense for updates to go straight out in the development cycle, this >> affec

Re: Batched updates for development cycles

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 08:06:18AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > Hi All, > > It seems batched updates is turned on for F-27 [1], surely it makes > sense for updates to go straight out in the development cycle, this > affects things getting into the nightly composes for testing in live > images an

[389-devel] Build failed in Jenkins: NIGHTLY #106

See -- [...truncated 18533 lines...] and trace logs """ self._ldap_object_lock.acquire() if __debug__: if self._trace_level>=1:

Batched updates for development cycles

Hi All, It seems batched updates is turned on for F-27 [1], surely it makes sense for updates to go straight out in the development cycle, this affects things getting into the nightly composes for testing in live images and other such things. I feel this should be something that is only used for