Self Introduction: Dan Shoemaker

2020-02-26 Thread Daniel Shoemaker
Hi, my name is Dan Shoemaker. I have been using Fedora since Fedora Core 6 for both personal and professional use. About five years ago I started developing bash scripts in order to start automating tasks I was doing while maintaining Linux servers for various clients. Last year I started taking

Re: Ideas and proposal for removing changelog and release fields from spec file

2020-02-26 Thread Nicolas Mailhot via devel
Le mercredi 26 février 2020 à 23:07 -0500, Neal Gompa a écrit : > > You don't use Release for upstream versioning, even for snapshots. > For > your examples: > > * 0-0.1.beta.2 -> 0~beta.2-1 > * 0-0.1.20120225gitd6c789a -> 0~git20120225.d6c789a- Sorry but no You are attempting to redefine the m

Re: Ideas and proposal for removing changelog and release fields from spec file

2020-02-26 Thread Dan Čermák
Hi list, Stephen John Smoogen writes: > On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 11:50, Pierre-Yves Chibon > wrote: > >> Good Morning Everyone, >> >> This topic has already been discussed a few times over the past month, but >> Adam >> Saleh, Nils Philippsen and myself have had the opportunity to invest some >>

Fedora-Cloud-30-20200227.0 compose check report

2020-02-26 Thread Fedora compose checker
No missing expected images. Passed openQA tests: 1/1 (x86_64) -- Mail generated by check-compose: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedorap

CMake automatic dependencies generation changes

2020-02-26 Thread Orion Poplawski
For a while now we have generated rpm cmake provides automatically for packages that install cmake "packages". The was done in a case-sensitive manner using the name of the cmake files installed. However, cmake looks for packages in a case-insensitive manner so distributions that have also en

Re: Ideas and proposal for removing changelog and release fields from spec file

2020-02-26 Thread Neal Gompa
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:05 PM Robert-André Mauchin wrote: > > On Monday, 24 February 2020 17:48:36 CET Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > However, for the release field, we are struggling a little bit more, two > > options are more appealing to us: > > > > A) The release field is automatically genera

Re: Ideas and proposal for removing changelog and release fields from spec file

2020-02-26 Thread Robert-André Mauchin
On Monday, 24 February 2020 17:48:36 CET Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > However, for the release field, we are struggling a little bit more, two > options are more appealing to us: > > A) The release field is automatically generated using two elements: > - the number of commits at this version >

Re: State of FMN (FedMSG Notifications) and Replacement

2020-02-26 Thread Stephen John Smoogen
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 15:58, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 08:26:09AM +0100, Clement Verna wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > FMN (https://apps.fedoraproject.org/notifications) is currently one of > the > > main blocking point for dropping fedmsg in favour of fedora-messaging. > > FMN is

Re: Non-responsive maintainer: pocock

2020-02-26 Thread Dakota Williams via devel
On 2/24/20 5:57 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote: On 24/02/2020 20:47, Dakota Williams wrote: Does anyone know how to contact maintainer pocock? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806708 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1790674 Like most developers, I have a backlog of things t

Re: Ideas and proposal for removing changelog and release fields from spec file

2020-02-26 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 06:13:21PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 24. 02. 20 17:48, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > >However, for the release field, we are struggling a little bit more, two > >options > >are more appealing to us: > > Can we please have a "git is the only source of truth" version of

Re: State of FMN (FedMSG Notifications) and Replacement

2020-02-26 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 02:45:24PM +, Jeremy Cline wrote: > > FYI before I left the team I started hacking up a replacement[0]. My > design focused on how to get as rich a feature set as I could using > only AMQPs currently available filtering features. There's a couple > feature differences f

Re: State of FMN (FedMSG Notifications) and Replacement

2020-02-26 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 08:26:09AM +0100, Clement Verna wrote: > Hi all, > > FMN (https://apps.fedoraproject.org/notifications) is currently one of the > main blocking point for dropping fedmsg in favour of fedora-messaging. > FMN is quite important to the community and the composition of Fedora >

Re: Automatic close of bugs for retired packages?

2020-02-26 Thread Miro Hrončok
On 26. 02. 20 19:38, Ben Cotton wrote: Components can be marked inactive in Bugzilla, which I believe will prevent users from filing new bugs without losing any historical data. Correct. We have done this with the "python" component. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok __

Re: Automatic close of bugs for retired packages?

2020-02-26 Thread Ben Cotton
Components can be marked inactive in Bugzilla, which I believe will prevent users from filing new bugs without losing any historical data. Perhaps this should be part of the retirement process? -- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/

Re: State of FMN (FedMSG Notifications) and Replacement

2020-02-26 Thread Adam Williamson
On Wed, 2020-02-26 at 13:04 -0500, Robbie Harwood wrote: > > Would be nice if there were an API that would let us listen to it > without needing to write an IRC bot or loop polling an HTTP endpoint. > It sounds like this is similar to what Jeremy was proposing, but I'm not > sufficiently versed in

Re: State of FMN (FedMSG Notifications) and Replacement

2020-02-26 Thread Robbie Harwood
Clement Verna writes: > Fabio Valentini wrote: >> Clement Verna wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> FMN (https://apps.fedoraproject.org/notifications) is currently one >>> of the main blocking point for dropping fedmsg in favour of >>> fedora-messaging. FMN is quite important to the community and th

Re: Automatic close of bugs for retired packages?

2020-02-26 Thread Harsh Jain
I think we could just tell the user that a component is retired by changing the component name to name(retired) or maybe some other means . The gist is to tell the user that the component is retired and is probably not the one that is causing the bug and maybe point to other components which might

FedoraRespin-31-updates-20200224.0 compose check report

2020-02-26 Thread Fedora compose checker
No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 3/35 (x86_64) ID: 528383 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso apps_startstop URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/528383 ID: 528409 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_postinstall URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/test

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20200226.n.0 changes

2020-02-26 Thread Fedora Rawhide Report
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20200225.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20200226.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:2 Dropped images: 2 Added packages: 9 Dropped packages:3 Upgraded packages: 163 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 1.23 GiB Size of dropped packages

Fedora-IoT-32-20200226.0 compose check report

2020-02-26 Thread Fedora compose checker
Missing expected images: Iot dvd aarch64 Iot dvd x86_64 Failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-IoT-32-20200224.0): ID: 528416 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso release_identification URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/528416 Soft failed openQ

Fedora-32-20200226.n.0 compose check report

2020-02-26 Thread Fedora compose checker
No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 26/171 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-32-20200225.n.0): ID: 527934 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_vncconnect_client URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/527934 ID: 527937 Test: x86_64 Server-

Automatic close of bugs for retired packages?

2020-02-26 Thread Pavel Raiskup
I today tried to mimic something that random Fedora user can do, and I submitted bug against one of our long-time retired components. I haven't been warned at all that the package is dead. As user, it is easy to pick a wrong component when filling a bug - but the problem with orphaned/retired pac

Re: Ideas and proposal for removing changelog and release fields from spec file

2020-02-26 Thread Nils Philippsen
On Wed, 2020-02-26 at 11:29 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote: > Le 2020-02-26 11:14, Nils Philippsen a écrit : > > > Well, if we officially were to break with the upgrade path > > constraints, > > we'd have to document this. While we're at it, we should then > > document > > that Rawhide use

Re: Ideas and proposal for removing changelog and release fields from spec file

2020-02-26 Thread Stephen John Smoogen
On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 11:50, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > Good Morning Everyone, > > This topic has already been discussed a few times over the past month, but > Adam > Saleh, Nils Philippsen and myself have had the opportunity to invest some > time > on it with the hope of making the packager's

Re: OCaml 4.10.0 build in Fedora 32 and 33

2020-02-26 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
[This is mainly a note-to-self so I know what the problems are next time] On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 01:53:37PM -0700, Jerry James wrote: > I may have caused you a problem with the ocaml-ounit update I > requested. Now we have ocaml-ounit requiring ocaml-dune to build, and > ocaml-dune requiring oca

Re: Ideas and proposal for removing changelog and release fields from spec file

2020-02-26 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 26. 02. 20 v 12:16 clime napsal(a): > Few more notes: > - having just: Release: means every commit bumps > release and hence every commit should likely generate a new record > into changelog => changelog basically becomes dumped `git log` (in > rpm-compatible format) - i.e. there is no capabi

Re: Orphaning a few Java packages

2020-02-26 Thread Aleksandar Kurtakov
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 5:10 PM Fabio Valentini wrote: > Hi all, > > I've just orphaned a few Java packages on behalf of the Stewardship > SIG since we no longer have any use for them. > > - aalto-xml > - compress-lzf > - icu4j > ^^ Mat, should we take it or keep a huge patch removing the need f

Re: Ideas and proposal for removing changelog and release fields from spec file

2020-02-26 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 25. 02. 20 v 15:03 Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 12:59:39PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > [About the release field] > >> I am not really sure about this. How do you envision this is going to be >> implemented? Is there going to be "release" file, similarly to >> chang

Orphaning a few Java packages

2020-02-26 Thread Fabio Valentini
Hi all, I've just orphaned a few Java packages on behalf of the Stewardship SIG since we no longer have any use for them. - aalto-xml - compress-lzf - icu4j - jboss-marshalling - jetty-alpn-api - lz4-java - lzma-java - os-maven-plugin Fabio ___ devel m

Fedora 32 compose report: 20200226.n.0 changes

2020-02-26 Thread Fedora Branched Report
OLD: Fedora-32-20200225.n.0 NEW: Fedora-32-20200226.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:1 Dropped images: 1 Added packages: 0 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 57 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 0 B Size of dropped packages:0 B Size of

Re: State of FMN (FedMSG Notifications) and Replacement

2020-02-26 Thread Jeremy Cline
On Wed, 2020-02-26 at 08:26 +0100, Clement Verna wrote: > Hi all, > > FMN (https://apps.fedoraproject.org/notifications) is currently one > of the main blocking point for dropping fedmsg in favour of fedora- > messaging. > FMN is quite important to the community and the composition of Fedora > be

Fedora-Rawhide-20200226.n.0 compose check report

2020-02-26 Thread Fedora compose checker
No missing expected images. Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check! 1 of 43 required tests failed openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING** below Failed openQA tests: 22/171 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20200225.

Fedora-IoT-33-20200226.0 compose check report

2020-02-26 Thread Fedora compose checker
Missing expected images: Iot dvd aarch64 Iot dvd x86_64 Failed openQA tests: 2/8 (x86_64) Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-33-20200224.0): ID: 527917 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default_upload URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/527917 ID: 527918 Test:

Re: Fedora & Containers

2020-02-26 Thread Daniel Walsh
On 2/25/20 12:05 PM, Michal Schorm wrote: > Hello, > > Will anybody be able to explain to me the current state of the > containers & containerization in Fedora, please? > > I have some questions, but the more I searched for whom & where to > ask, the more confused I became. > > -- > > 1) There ́s a

Re: OCaml 4.10.0 build in Fedora 32 and 33

2020-02-26 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 01:53:37PM -0700, Jerry James wrote: > On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 1:57 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > * z3 - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1792740 > > Actually, z3 should build. I checked in a workaround. The bug is > still open to remind me to figure out an

Re: Seeking co-maintainer for libffi package

2020-02-26 Thread Miro Hrončok
On 26. 02. 20 12:19, Anthony Green wrote: Thank you for all of the offers. The team that maintains glibc (Carlos, Florian and DJ) has stepped up to help with libffi packaging. I think that this is the right group to handle libffi for now. Thanks! -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: m

Re: Seeking co-maintainer for libffi package

2020-02-26 Thread Anthony Green
Thank you for all of the offers. The team that maintains glibc (Carlos, Florian and DJ) has stepped up to help with libffi packaging. I think that this is the right group to handle libffi for now. Thanks again, AG On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:56 AM Anthony Green wrote: > > Hello -- I'm the curre

Re: Ideas and proposal for removing changelog and release fields from spec file

2020-02-26 Thread clime
Few more notes: - having just: Release: means every commit bumps release and hence every commit should likely generate a new record into changelog => changelog basically becomes dumped `git log` (in rpm-compatible format) - i.e. there is no capability to group multiple changes into one changelog r

Re: Ideas and proposal for removing changelog and release fields from spec file

2020-02-26 Thread Nicolas Mailhot via devel
Le 2020-02-26 11:14, Nils Philippsen a écrit : Well, if we officially were to break with the upgrade path constraints, we'd have to document this. While we're at it, we should then document that Rawhide users should use "dnf distro-sync". That won’t work because (for example) rawhide is pullin

Fedora-Cloud-31-20200226.0 compose check report

2020-02-26 Thread Fedora compose checker
No missing expected images. Passed openQA tests: 1/1 (x86_64) -- Mail generated by check-compose: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedorap

Re: Ideas and proposal for removing changelog and release fields from spec file

2020-02-26 Thread Nils Philippsen
On Mon, 2020-02-24 at 18:13 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 24. 02. 20 17:48, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > However, for the release field, we are struggling a little bit > > more, two options > > are more appealing to us: > > Can we please have a "git is the only source of truth" version of > thi

Re: Include non-RPM content in buildroot

2020-02-26 Thread Igor Gnatenko
Hi Martin, I was quite busy lately so did not have time to reply. (Most of the time I'll speak for Rust ecosystem below) On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 4:06 PM Martin Sehnoutka wrote: > > Hi, > > before I write the proposal itself I just want to stress the fact that > it isn’t my intention to change t

Re: Unannounced SONAME bump in cantor: libcantorlibs.so.23 → 24

2020-02-26 Thread Kevin Kofler
Adam Williamson wrote: > If a library is not intended for use by other things, it should not be > installed to the well-known public shared library path. It should be > installed somewhere private to the application and the application > should handle including it in its own library path when appro

Re: Ideas and proposal for removing changelog and release fields from spec file

2020-02-26 Thread Nils Philippsen
On Tue, 2020-02-25 at 17:45 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 25. 02. 20 15:27, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > Side note: I've been meaning to propose dropping Epoch because of > > this > > "we don't care about upgrade path anymore", but I've not gotten > > around > > to do that yet We still need Epoch

Re: Include non-RPM content in buildroot

2020-02-26 Thread Nicolas Mailhot via devel
Le 2020-02-26 09:50, Martin Sehnoutka a écrit : Hi, Hi, Go package management: I know that Go has a package management now, but the question is if upstream communities are going to adopt it. Upstream communities won’t have any choice if they want their software to be trusted by third partie

Re: State of FMN (FedMSG Notifications) and Replacement

2020-02-26 Thread Clement Verna
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 09:43, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:27 AM Clement Verna > wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > FMN (https://apps.fedoraproject.org/notifications) is currently one of > the main blocking point for dropping fedmsg in favour of fedora-messaging. > > FMN is qui

Re: State of FMN (FedMSG Notifications) and Replacement

2020-02-26 Thread Clement Verna
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 09:17, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2020-02-26 at 08:26 +0100, Clement Verna wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > FMN (https://apps.fedoraproject.org/notifications) is currently one of > the > > main blocking point for dropping fedmsg in favour of fedora-messaging. > > FMN is qui

Re: New font package

2020-02-26 Thread Nicolas Mailhot via devel
Le 2020-02-26 08:51, Iñaki Ucar a écrit : Hi, Welcome ! I've submitted a new font package for review [1], but I have 0 experience with fonts (I need it to unbundle it from [2]), and I found the documentation about font packages a little bit outdated. It's a pretty simple font (OFL, single fam

Re: Downgrading from rawhide

2020-02-26 Thread Marcin Juszkiewicz
W dniu 25.02.2020 o 16:09, Christophe de Dinechin pisze: > Is there any documented procedure to safely downgrade from rawhide > to the latest release? > > I tried > > # dnf update --releasever=32 fedora-release > # dnf distro-sync --allowerasing --skip-broken > > Does something like that have a

Orphaning most of the ancient Gnome 1 stack

2020-02-26 Thread Paul Howarth
Hi all, I've been looking after the ancient Gnome 1 library stack for the last decade as I had a local use for the libraries. That is no longer the case so I'm planning to orphan the following packages, none of which appear to be used by anything else in Fedora (Rawhide): * libglade * gnome-lib

Re: Include non-RPM content in buildroot

2020-02-26 Thread Martin Sehnoutka
Hi, thank you all for your input! I have few notes: Review process: I don't think that the review process is a problem. It is independent of the file format we use. I mean we can have regular review process and store the package in a tarball as well as we do it with RPM. Go package managemen

Re: State of FMN (FedMSG Notifications) and Replacement

2020-02-26 Thread Fabio Valentini
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:27 AM Clement Verna wrote: > > Hi all, > > FMN (https://apps.fedoraproject.org/notifications) is currently one of the > main blocking point for dropping fedmsg in favour of fedora-messaging. > FMN is quite important to the community and the composition of Fedora because

Re: State of FMN (FedMSG Notifications) and Replacement

2020-02-26 Thread Adam Williamson
On Wed, 2020-02-26 at 08:26 +0100, Clement Verna wrote: > Hi all, > > FMN (https://apps.fedoraproject.org/notifications) is currently one of the > main blocking point for dropping fedmsg in favour of fedora-messaging. > FMN is quite important to the community and the composition of Fedora > becaus

Re: Include non-RPM content in buildroot

2020-02-26 Thread Ankur Sinha
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 22:26:24 -0500, Randy Barlow wrote: > On 2/25/20 3:12 PM, Ankur Sinha wrote: > > Basically, packages do not pass review merely because they use good > > licenses. > > Note that I just said that I thought it was the primary purpose, not > the only purpose. Sure, but I'm arguin