Re: orphaning packages recode, python-bibtex, pybliographer

On 2019-08-15, Zoltan Kota wrote: > I am orphaning the following packages: > > recode -- The upstream development of recode is not very active, and I > don't use it anymore. I use it occasionally. I will take it. -- Petr ___ devel mailing list -- devel

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

Richard Shaw wrote: > Perhaps a partial solution is encouraging people to ask for help. Sure > it's easy to post to the devel list but sometimes it's difficult to admit > you need help :) IMHO, it should be the job of those people who broke the packages to fix them. E.g., if yet another incompati

Re: Why retire Python 2 packages and games that still work to end user ?

Miro Hrončok wrote: > Once more: The one package you keep talking about stays. The python2 package stays, but we have to jump through completely unreasonable hoops to be allowed to actually use it. Kevin Kofler ___ devel mailing list -- devel@l

Missing arches on EPEL 8 for LibRaw?

I assume this is because LibRaw is available in RHEL but only for x86_64 and ppc64le? So I'm assuming there is some sort of procedure to build only for s390x and aarch64 for EPEL? Thanks, Richard ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org T

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 1:33 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > Or just fix it so it damn well builds. Even if *you* don't need to use > it. I mean, is it so hard? I get *itchy* if I have an FTBFS bug on one > of my packages for three days. I can't imagine letting one sit there > for six months! > I do

Re: Where are f31 packages going?

Please disregard, just found the thread covering this. Thanks, Richard ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-

Where are f31 packages going?

Now that f32 has branched when I build packages for f31 I can't add them to a bodhi update nor are they added automatically. Is f31 acting like pre-gating rawhide or are the packages going into the nether? Thanks, Richard ___ devel mailing list -- devel

Re: Unresponsive SIG Leader

SIGs are more of a mediocrity so Bob may be one of the founders but whether he's still active or not is irrelevant. :) Just edit the wiki to join and dig in! I took over maintenance of a lot of the packages NBEMS suite (fldigi, flrig, flmsg, etc), QSSTV, CQRLOG, wsjtx, js8call, the AX.25 stack (wh

Re: Better interactivity in low-memory situations

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 7:48 AM Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 2:19 PM Chris Murphy wrote: > > > > [ 718.068633] fmac.local kernel: SLUB: Unable to allocate memory on > > node -1, gfp=0x900(GFP_NOWAIT|__GFP_ZERO) > > [ 718.068636] fmac.local kernel: cache: page->ptl, object s

Re: Better interactivity in low-memory situations

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 2:19 PM Chris Murphy wrote: > > [ 718.068633] fmac.local kernel: SLUB: Unable to allocate memory on > node -1, gfp=0x900(GFP_NOWAIT|__GFP_ZERO) > [ 718.068636] fmac.local kernel: cache: page->ptl, object size: 72, > buffer size: 72, default order: 0, min order: 0 > [ 7

Re: ppc64le Rawhide VM issues

> My qemu boot command is currently: > qemu-system-ppc64 -m 2048 -smp 2 -machine pseries -cpu power9 -hda -cdrom Looks like you are running an LE image in the BE machine: try qemu-system-ppc64le ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: when will bodhi (updates) recognize fc31/f31 updates

On 8/15/19 7:44 AM, Alexander Bokovoy wrote: > On to, 15 elo 2019, Kaleb Keithley wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:21 AM Alexander Bokovoy >> wrote: >> >>> On to, 15 elo 2019, Kaleb Keithley wrote: >>> >I've tried to submit a build on f31 to testing, using both the cli >>> and via >>> >the web

Re: unable to branch to epel8

On 8/15/19 3:18 AM, Dave Love wrote: > I've tried to get a couple of epel8 branches created, and the tickets > have been closed (twice in one case after I re-opened it) with "The > branch in PDC already exists". (It worked for other packages.) I don't > know what PDC is, but the branch definitely

Re: Better interactivity in low-memory situations

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 1:51 AM Artem Tim wrote: > > BFQ scheduler help a lot with this issue. Using it on Fedora since 4.19 > kernel. Also there was previous discussion about make it default for > Workstation > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ker...@lists.fedoraproject.org/message

Re: bootctl: no entry could be determined as default (Was: Upgrade to F30 gone wrong)

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 9:14 AM Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > > > Well, it went through many revisions, and some of the bits are very > > recent. For example, the pre-boot random seed stuff has been added in > > v243, of which we only posted an -rc1 so far, > > > > However, the basics have been aroun

Re: Unresponsive SIG Leader

On 8/13/19 4:21 AM, Geoffrey Marr wrote: > I have tried to join the Amateur Radio SIG twice, once in January, and > again recently in August. The owner, Bob Jensen [0], does not seem to be > around any longer in the Fedora community or the amateur radio community as > his FCC license has expired an

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

On Thu, 2019-08-15 at 09:33 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 15. 08. 19 7:39, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Of course you might consider this special case, but apparently all the > > other people who speak up had different special cases. > > "special cases aren't special enough to break the rules" > > I

Re: Requesting F31 branches

Will do. --  Gwyn Ciesla she/her/hers   in your fear, seek only peace  in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, August 15, 2019 1:06 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On 8/15/

Re: Requesting F31 branches

On 8/15/19 11:03 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 1:21 PM Gwyn Ciesla via devel < > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > >> CCing Mohan. >> >> >> -- >> Gwyn Ciesla >> she/her/hers >> >> in your fear, seek only peace >> in yo

Re: Requesting F31 branches

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 1:21 PM Gwyn Ciesla via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > CCing Mohan. > > > -- > Gwyn Ciesla > she/her/hers > > in your fear, seek only peace > in your fear, seek only love > -d. bowie > > Sent with ProtonMail

Re: RFC: Drop lz4-static

On 8/14/2019 2:08 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: "DS" == David Sommerseth writes: DS> As I can see it, there is little benefit of removing lz4-static. Isn't that entirely the decision of those maintaining the package? It's still completely reasonable if they want to remove it for no other re

Re: Requesting F31 branches

CCing Mohan. --  Gwyn Ciesla she/her/hers   in your fear, seek only peace  in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, August 15, 2019 11:26 AM, Robert-André Mauchin wro

Re: Requesting F31 branches

On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 18:40:53 CEST Gwyn Ciesla via devel wrote: > I believe Mohan has corrected this in git, but hasn't cut a release yet. > > -- > Gwyn Ciesla > she/her/hers > > in your fear, seek only peace > in your fear, seek only lov

Re: unable to branch to epel8

On Thursday, 15 August 2019 12:18:12 CEST Dave Love wrote: > I've tried to get a couple of epel8 branches created, and the tickets > have been closed (twice in one case after I re-opened it) with "The > branch in PDC already exists". (It worked for other packages.) I don't > know what PDC is, but

Re: ppc64le Rawhide VM issues

On Thu, 15 Aug 2019, Greg Hellings wrote: I'm trying to track down a build error in my package that appears only on ppc64le architectures in Rawhide. As I have no access to ppc64le machines, I'm attempting to boot a VM with qemu. But when I get into the system many of the more useful commands ar

ppc64le Rawhide VM issues

Halp! I'm trying to track down a build error in my package that appears only on ppc64le architectures in Rawhide. As I have no access to ppc64le machines, I'm attempting to boot a VM with qemu. But when I get into the system many of the more useful commands aren't working properly. Like "dnf". My

Taskjuggler COPR and its relevance

Hello, It somehow slipped my radar that rubygem-taskjuggler had been retired. Even though upstream isn't exactly active, the current git HEAD builds fine. I've set it up in a COPR here now: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/ankursinha/Takjuggler The updated spec and sources are here on my

Re: bootctl: no entry could be determined as default (Was: Upgrade to F30 gone wrong)

> Well, it went through many revisions, and some of the bits are very > recent. For example, the pre-boot random seed stuff has been added in > v243, of which we only posted an -rc1 so far, > > However, the basics have been around very early on, yes. Well, from someone not versed in bios, efi and

Re: when will bodhi (updates) recognize fc31/f31 updates

On to, 15 elo 2019, Kaleb Keithley wrote: On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:21 AM Alexander Bokovoy wrote: On to, 15 elo 2019, Kaleb Keithley wrote: >I've tried to submit a build on f31 to testing, using both the cli and via >the web site, and both are failing > >On the web site I get a popup with: B

Re: when will bodhi (updates) recognize fc31/f31 updates

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:21 AM Alexander Bokovoy wrote: > On to, 15 elo 2019, Kaleb Keithley wrote: > >I've tried to submit a build on f31 to testing, using both the cli and via > >the web site, and both are failing > > > >On the web site I get a popup with: Builds : Cannot find release > assoc

Re: when will bodhi (updates) recognize fc31/f31 updates

On to, 15 elo 2019, Kaleb Keithley wrote: I've tried to submit a build on f31 to testing, using both the cli and via the web site, and both are failing On the web site I get a popup with: Builds : Cannot find release associated with build: nfs-ganesha-2.8.2-5.fc31, tags: ['f31'] fedpkg update g

when will bodhi (updates) recognize fc31/f31 updates

I've tried to submit a build on f31 to testing, using both the cli and via the web site, and both are failing On the web site I get a popup with: Builds : Cannot find release associated with build: nfs-ganesha-2.8.2-5.fc31, tags: ['f31'] fedpkg update gets: Could not execute update: Could not gen

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 11:23:53 -0500, you wrote: >So in summary, I guess I mostly support allowing packages which can't be >rebuilt to stay in the distribution as long as they actually work and >aren't causing maintenance burden elsewhere On the other hand, unbuildable packages could be viewed as a

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

On 15. 08. 19 14:40, Vít Ondruch wrote: Interestingly enough, some people who complains the most about the process are too busy to even switch the component to assigned ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ To rephrase: People have real work to do, so we should stop bothering them. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

Dne 15. 08. 19 v 14:40 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > > > Dne 15. 08. 19 v 13:36 Pavel Valena napsal(a): >> - Original Message - >>> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 12:42:02 PM >>> Subject: Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy >>> >>> On 15. 08. 19 12:06, Vít Ondruch wrote: At the end, if som

Re: Why retire Python 2 packages and games that still work to end user ?

On 15. 08. 19 14:33, Kevin Kofler wrote: What is more work: maintaining one compatibility package, or porting hundreds of packages (which are not getting ported upstream for whatever reason) to the new incompatible version? Once more: The one package you keep talking about stays. -- Miro Hronč

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

Dne 15. 08. 19 v 13:36 Pavel Valena napsal(a): > - Original Message - >> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 12:42:02 PM >> Subject: Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy >> >> On 15. 08. 19 12:06, Vít Ondruch wrote: >>> At the end, if somebody cares about such cases, it should not be hard to >>>

Re: Why retire Python 2 packages and games that still work to end user ?

Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > I've been seeing migrations like this for d decades, with major > releases of many software tools. Preserving legacy versions, forever, > is the precise opposite of "scalable". What is more work: maintaining one compatibility package, or porting hundreds of packages (wh

orphaning packages recode, python-bibtex, pybliographer

Hi, I am orphaning the following packages: recode -- The upstream development of recode is not very active, and I don't use it anymore. python-bibtex -- The upstream develepoment is not very active and it depends on python2. See the bug at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1738118 pyb

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

- Original Message - > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 12:42:02 PM > Subject: Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy > > On 15. 08. 19 12:06, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > At the end, if somebody cares about such cases, it should not be hard to > > discover and act upon them, i.e. bugging the maintai

Re: What other external trackers would you like added to Bugzilla?

Hello, Thanks for the links folks. If there are any others, please reply to this e-mail today. I'll submit our request tomorrow. -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Time zone: Europe/London signature.asc Description:

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

On 15. 08. 19 12:06, Vít Ondruch wrote: At the end, if somebody cares about such cases, it should not be hard to discover and act upon them, i.e. bugging the maintainer, fixing them, taking over the maintenance etc. This part is problematic. Because it requires human action that can be seen as

unable to branch to epel8

I've tried to get a couple of epel8 branches created, and the tickets have been closed (twice in one case after I re-opened it) with "The branch in PDC already exists". (It worked for other packages.) I don't know what PDC is, but the branch definitely isn't in git. An example is

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

Dne 15. 08. 19 v 9:33 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): > On 15. 08. 19 7:39, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> Of course you might consider this special case, but apparently all the >> other people who speak up had different special cases. > > "special cases aren't special enough to break the rules" They had either

Re: RFC: Drop lz4-static

On 14/08/2019 23:08, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> "DS" == David Sommerseth writes: > > DS> As I can see it, there is little benefit of removing lz4-static. > > Isn't that entirely the decision of those maintaining the package? It's > still completely reasonable if they want to remove it f

Re: Join the new Minimization Team

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 8:49 PM Robbie Harwood wrote: > > Here's the scriptlet: > > > > %triggerun libs -- krb5-libs < 1.15.1-5 > > if ! grep -q 'includedir /etc/krb5.conf.d' /etc/krb5.conf ; then > > sed -i '1i # To opt out of the system crypto-policies > > configuration of krb5, > > remove

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

On 8/14/19 8:22 PM, Ben Cotton wrote: I want to publicly express my appreciation for Miro's efforts to enforce our policy and his willingness to take the hits from people being rightly upset at its flaws. Seconded. FWIW. - Panu - ___ devel m

Re: systemd-243-rc1

Dne 02. 08. 19 v 12:33 Matthew Miller napsal(a): > On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 10:16:40AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: >> Hmm. I never really chipped into the ~ discussion, but it just occurred >> to me it intersects with a discussion I care quite a lot about: RPM >> version comparison. Especially RP

Re: Better interactivity in low-memory situations

BFQ scheduler help a lot with this issue. Using it on Fedora since 4.19 kernel. Also there was previous discussion about make it default for Workstation https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ker...@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/I2OZWDD4QCDYUXJ5NHYTMGNAB4KLJN2K/ __

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

On 15. 08. 19 7:39, Vít Ondruch wrote: Of course you might consider this special case, but apparently all the other people who speak up had different special cases. "special cases aren't special enough to break the rules" I still think that if somebody would need to keep package unretired for