Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2019-11-14 17:00 UTC)

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2019-11-14 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. uitime): = Day: Thursday == 2019-11-14 09:00 PST US/Pacific 2019-11-14

Orphaning packages

Hello, Due to time constraints, I'm orphaning packages which I'm not using anymore. rpms/fabric rpms/gns3-gui rpms/gns3-net-converter rpms/gns3-server rpms/python-aiohttp-cors rpms/python-fluidity-sm rpms/python-invoke rpms/python-lexicon rpms/python-multidict rpms/python-spec rpms/pyt

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Build Python 3 to statically link with libpython3.8.a for better performance

On 11/12/19 2:21 PM, John M. Harris Jr wrote: However, I believe there's a third option here. It could be as simple as providing a python3-static in addition, and NOT using `alternatives`. Is that an option, though?  From the discussion, I was under the impression that static vs dynamic pytho

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Modules in Non-Modular Buildroot

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 5:46 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 13. 11. 19 22:15, Stephen Gallagher wrote: ... > So the buildroot enabled modular repository contains only the 2 approved > modules > including their modular metadata... > > >> "an enabled or default module"? Who enables a module in the b

Re: Will orphan packages with NEW F31FTBFS bugs tomorrow

On 13. 11. 19 21:10, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 11. 11. 19 13:53, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 08. 11. 19 13:16, Miro Hrončok wrote: According to the policy for packages that fail to build from source: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/ I plan to

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On 13. 11. 19 23:27, Kevin Kofler wrote: So I guess the proposal is underspecified. What I really propose, and how I read Miro's proposal as well (Miro, please correct me if that is not what you intend), is that 1. any package that exists in a module MUST have a default version and that 2. that v

Re: Will orphan packages with NEW F31FTBFS bugs tomorrow

Hi! On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 09:10:24PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > vdirsyncer I've requested this now: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9011 ~astra signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To uns

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Stephen Gallagher wrote: > I'm wondering what you mean by "module mangling bits" here, because > what you described here is pretty much *exactly what module builds > do*. I think Neal means the special treatment the modules get on the client (DNF) end. Kevin Kofler __

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Modules in Non-Modular Buildroot

On 13. 11. 19 22:15, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 1:24 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: On 13. 11. 19 18:31, Stephen Gallagher wrote: Sorry for the long overdue reply here. Answers to your questions are inline. Thank you. On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 6:46 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: ...

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > 1) there are exactly 6 default streams in Fedora rawhide > > dwm > avocado > scala > ant > gimp > maven > > and eclipse is being discussed. What about libgit2, was that not a default stream? And what we are missing here is a list of modular packages with no default

Claiming recently orphaned packages

I'm claiming (and fixing FTBFS) on busybox and sqlite2. https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9009 https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9010 Thanks, Tom ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedorap

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Stephen Gallagher wrote: > You don't want to do that for libraries in general. Well yes. But the thing is, I am not convinced that this is universally agreed on, unfortunately. What I really worry about is a scenario where, say, the KDE module includes NetworkManager version x, and the GNOME mo

Re: Will orphan packages with NEW F31FTBFS bugs tomorrow

Miro Hrončok wrote: > merkaartor I'm taking this one: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9008 Kevin Kofler ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Con

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 4:01 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 3:49 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 1:34 PM Kevin Kofler wrote: > > > > > > Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > > > > Here you seem to be missing the third option packager may choose - > > > > mai

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Modules in Non-Modular Buildroot

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 1:24 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 13. 11. 19 18:31, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > Sorry for the long overdue reply here. Answers to your questions are inline. > > Thank you. > > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 6:46 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > ... > >> What I miss in the descriptio

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 3:49 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 1:34 PM Kevin Kofler wrote: > > > > Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > > > Here you seem to be missing the third option packager may choose - > > > maintain none of them and say bye to Fedora. Which IMHO is the most li

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 1:34 PM Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > > Here you seem to be missing the third option packager may choose - > > maintain none of them and say bye to Fedora. Which IMHO is the most likely > > outcome of all this. > > "Say bye to Fedora" is what I am goi

Re: Add a rule to have a compose when Fedora branched

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 02:59:56PM +0100, jkone...@redhat.com wrote: > On Wed, 2019-11-13 at 14:49 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 13. 11. 19 14:12, jkone...@redhat.com wrote: > > > Here's the draft. It would be great if you can check it out and do > > > the > > > appropriate edits to improve the

Re: Will orphan packages with NEW F31FTBFS bugs tomorrow

> zathura-cb > zathura-djvu > zathura-pdf-mupdf > zathura-pdf-poppler > zathura-ps Thanks very much. I've requested ownership of these packages: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9006 -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Tim

Re: Review request: perl-Dpkg

On 13.11.19 20:09, Sérgio Basto wrote: Hi, Sandro I think, What we need is update dpkg which will bring perl-Dpkg 1.19.x , for now we just have dpkg 1.18 on Rawhide I will try fix it today by updating dpkg Hi Sergio Ok thanks, then I'll close the review request. Sandro

Re: Will orphan packages with NEW F31FTBFS bugs tomorrow

On 11. 11. 19 13:53, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 08. 11. 19 13:16, Miro Hrončok wrote: According to the policy for packages that fail to build from source: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/ I plan to orphan packages with NEW Fedora 31 Fail To

Re: Review request: perl-Dpkg

On Wed, 2019-11-13 at 19:46 +0100, Sandro Mani wrote: > Hi > I'd appreciate a review of perl-Dpkg [1], which is needed to fix > the currently broken dependencies for devscripts-2.19.7 [2]. > Happy > to review in exchange. > Thanks > > Sandro > [1] https://bugzilla

Review request: perl-Dpkg

Hi I'd appreciate a review of perl-Dpkg [1], which is needed to fix the currently broken dependencies for devscripts-2.19.7 [2]. Happy to review in exchange. Thanks Sandro [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1772021 [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750909

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > Here you seem to be missing the third option packager may choose - > maintain none of them and say bye to Fedora. Which IMHO is the most likely > outcome of all this. "Say bye to Fedora" is what I am going to do if this forced modularity madness is not going to stop,

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Modules in Non-Modular Buildroot

On 13. 11. 19 19:21, Miro Hrončok wrote: What you are describing here sounds like we are doing Ursa Major, renamed to Ursa Prime, because Ursa Prime was a no-go. "because Ursa Major was a no-go" Too many terms, sorry. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Modules in Non-Modular Buildroot

On 13. 11. 19 18:31, Stephen Gallagher wrote: Sorry for the long overdue reply here. Answers to your questions are inline. Thank you. On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 6:46 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: ... What I miss in the description is: 1. How does this thing actually work? is there an additional repos

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Le mardi 12 novembre 2019 à 16:09 -0500, Stephen John Smoogen a écrit : > On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 15:36, Stephen Gallagher > wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 12:40 PM Stephen John Smoogen < > > smo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > The technology allows you to do this. The policy can restrict this.

Re: Jenkins upgrade to change from fedmsg to fedora-messaging

BTW , Jenkins was retired from rawhide [1]. I tried built Jenkins on rawhide but build failed with a lot of missing packages that are BuildRequires. [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jenkins/c/9e8c8fe1695dbf811e101ef829c51fdf240a02d3?branch=master On Wed, 2019-11-13 at 09:17 -0600, Jim Bai

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Modules in Non-Modular Buildroot

Sorry for the long overdue reply here. Answers to your questions are inline. On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 6:46 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: ... > What I miss in the description is: > > 1. How does this thing actually work? is there an additional repository > composed > from the default streams available in

Jenkins upgrade to change from fedmsg to fedora-messaging

Hello Fedora CI and Devel Teams! The CI team will be performing a Jenkins upgrade and jms-messaging plugin upgrade this Thursday to allow us to switch from fedmsg to fedora-messaging. While performing this upgrade, dist-git tests will be temporarily unavailable. When things are back to normal, we

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Wed, 2019-11-13 at 04:30 -0500, Ben Cotton wrote: > I don't think that's a fair characterization. For example, the FESCo > representative is appointed by FESCo, which is 100% community- > elected. > > Breaking it down, three seats (FPL, FCAIC, FPgM) are positions for > specific Red Hat employee

Re: Add a rule to have a compose when Fedora branched

On Wed, 2019-11-13 at 15:04 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 13. 11. 19 14:59, jkone...@redhat.com wrote: > > Link to this thread is at the bottom of the proposal in the > > Documentation section. > > oh, sorry for not noticing that. > No problem at all. Thanks a lot for your polishing! _

Fwd: wzzrd's libyubikey-1.13-12.fc32 failed to build

Hi, sorry if this is already known, but is there an issue with the s390x builders? Or did I mess up? Only the s390x build fails with: urllib.error.HTTPError: HTTP Error 503: Backend fetch failed Maxim Burgerhout ma...@wzzrd.com -- Forwarded message - From: Date: Wed, Nov

Re: Bodhi Outage Ongoing - Deploying 5.0

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 03:21:49PM +0100, Clement Verna wrote: >On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 11:08, Miro Hrončok <[1]mhron...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 12. 11. 19 10:45, Clement Verna wrote: > > We will be upgrading bodhi to its 5.0 release. This release comes in > with few UI >

Re: Add a rule to have a compose when Fedora branched

On 13. 11. 19 14:59, jkone...@redhat.com wrote: Link to this thread is at the bottom of the proposal in the Documentation section. oh, sorry for not noticing that. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ devel mailing list -- devel@

Re: Add a rule to have a compose when Fedora branched

On Wed, 2019-11-13 at 14:49 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 13. 11. 19 14:12, jkone...@redhat.com wrote: > > Here's the draft. It would be great if you can check it out and do > > the > > appropriate edits to improve the Change. > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Freeze_after_branching

Re: Add a rule to have a compose when Fedora branched

On 13. 11. 19 14:12, jkone...@redhat.com wrote: Here's the draft. It would be great if you can check it out and do the appropriate edits to improve the Change. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Freeze_after_branching_until_compose_is_ready I've made minor adjustments. What is missing: A

Re: Add a rule to have a compose when Fedora branched

Here's the draft. It would be great if you can check it out and do the appropriate edits to improve the Change. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Freeze_after_branching_until_compose_is_ready Thanks Miro! Jirka On Mon, 2019-11-11 at 19:16 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 11. 11. 19 19:09, M

Two NeuroFedora planets for neuroscience

Hello everyone, Just a quick FYI. Now that we have NeuroFedora up and running, we've moved the two neuroscience planets to the NeuroFedora domain. These are similar to the Fedora planet (https://fedoraplanet.org). - https://neuroblog.fedoraproject.org/planet-neuroscientists/ -> aggregation of

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 1:25 AM Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > 1) I don't think Modularity is about being LTS and "enterprisy". > > Lifecycle differences are not the only feature Modularity provides. > > > > I see Modularity as a tool which bridges the gap between container

Re: Fedora 31 Elections: Nomination period open

This is your final reminder that the nominations for various Fedora leadership bodies are open through 23:59 UTC on 13 November. That's just over fourteen hours from now! Nominations must be submitted before that time on the appropriate wiki page (links below). Current nomination counts: FESCo: 8

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 2:10 PM Randy Barlow wrote: > > Only two of the council seats are elected. The rest are appointed, and > some of those appointed only by specific Red Hat employees. > > Thus, I don't think it's exactly the same opportunities to participate > in leadership. > I don't think t

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Le 2019-11-13 10:14, Aleksandra Fedorova a écrit : Exactly the same way as "stay away" won't work for automatic BuildRequires generator feature, which we voted for in this cycle. Sure you can, automated BRs are a specific section in the spec file, staying away no more complex that not filling

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 10:04 AM Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 6:18 AM Aleksandar Kurtakov > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 3:17 AM Kevin Kofler wrote: > >> > >> Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > >> > So people would prefer no packages at all over packages in mod

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:00 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 12. 11. 19 18:25, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 5:10 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > >> > >> On 12. 11. 19 17:02, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > >>> Again, no one forces you or any other packager to use modularity > >>> t

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 6:18 AM Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 3:17 AM Kevin Kofler wrote: >> >> Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: >> > So people would prefer no packages at all over packages in modules? >> >> I see 2 reasons so far why some packages are module-only: >> 1. be

Re: thunderbird-enigmail: help needed to restrict available architectures

Am 13.11.19 um 00:52 schrieb Kevin Kofler: > Felix Schwarz wrote: >> Currently I have these lines in thunderbird-enigmail's .spec file: >> ,- >> BuildArch: noarch >> # Thunderbird is not available on all supported platforms >> ExcludeArch: armv7hl >> ExcludeArc

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Le 2019-11-13 07:39, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit : Le mercredi 13 novembre 2019 à 06:43 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot via devel a And anyway, if anyone feels the module design is actually needed (I don’t, because the problems are elsewhere), it could have been *easily* implemented within existing tools,