Re: Is it okay to use /usr/bin/python again?

On 05/01/2022 08:46, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: Can you point to where that is forbidden? https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_shebang_lines env, /bin/env and /usr/bin/env MUST NOT be used. The interpreter used to run packaged applications cannot depend upon what the use

Re: Is it okay to use /usr/bin/python again?

On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 2:34 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > On 04/01/2022 19:36, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > > #!/usr/bin/env python3 > > Forbidden by Python guidelines too. Can you point to where that is forbidden? Because it remains quite popular for various working environments with mult

Re: Is it okay to use /usr/bin/python again?

On 04/01/2022 19:36, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: #!/usr/bin/env python3 Forbidden by Python guidelines too. -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org) ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to de

Re: File collision advice

On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 at 23:04, Jerry James wrote: > > I would like some advice on this bug: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036438 > > There are a number of packages with names of the form > python-sphinxcontrib-foo, which install their files into > %{python3_sitelib}/sphinxcontrib/

XEmacs retirement

I intend to retire the following packages soon: neXtaw xemacs xemacs-packages-base xemacs-packages-extra I believe all of the dependencies on these packages have been removed in Rawhide. Some of the affected packages have made the necessary change in git, but have not been rebuilt yet. The depe

Re: Review swaps

On Sat, Jan 1, 2022 at 7:46 PM Jerry James wrote: > Happy New Year! > > I am in need of some package reviews to update parts of the OCaml stack: > > - ocaml-bos: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031160 > - ocaml-odoc-parser: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036395 > - ocaml

File collision advice

I would like some advice on this bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036438 There are a number of packages with names of the form python-sphinxcontrib-foo, which install their files into %{python3_sitelib}/sphinxcontrib/foo/. The issue is that at least two of these, python-sphinxco

Re: New tool - license-validate

Dne 04. 01. 22 v 21:33 David Cantrell napsal(a): I feel like I'm missing something, but rpminspect has been doing what license-validate does for years now.  It's ready for SPDX expressions. Results show up for Fedora builds in Zuul.  Or you can run it locally. Here is my motivation: We are a

Self Introduction: Malcolm Inglis (mcinglis)

Hi Fedora developers, I’m looking to join your ranks 😊 I’ve made a few PRs already, and had mistakenly skipped this important step of introducing myself.

Re: New tool - license-validate

Dne 04. 01. 22 v 21:03 David Cantrell napsal(a): One of the difficult things with the Fedora abbreviations is that tokens can have spaces in them.  For example, the Apache 2.0 license in Fedora is called "ASL 2.0".  This makes it really hard to work with in software. Likewise, we have historical

Re: F36 Change: %set_build_flags for %build and %check (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 12/20/21 12:39, Florian Weimer wrote: * Ben Cotton: This change will be implemented by updating the %__spec_build_pre and %__speck_check_pre macros in redhat-rpm-config to include %set_build_flags. This will set these environment variables automatically before the %build and %check sections

Re: New tool - license-validate

Neal Gompa writes: > On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 3:10 PM Robbie Harwood wrote: >> >> Neal Gompa writes: >> >> > On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 2:25 PM Robbie Harwood wrote: >> >> >> >> Neal Gompa writes: >> >> >> >> > SPDX expression logic is identical to Fedora's, so that will not >> >> > change. >> >> >

Re: New tool - license-validate

On Tue, Jan 04, 2022 at 03:21:20PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 3:10 PM Robbie Harwood wrote: Neal Gompa writes: > On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 2:25 PM Robbie Harwood wrote: >> >> Neal Gompa writes: >> >> > SPDX expression logic is identical to Fedora's, so that will not >> >

Re: buildroot size growth

On Tue, 2022-01-04 at 14:57 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: > It seems that Rawhide buildroot has grown some dependencies between 10th > and 23rd of December. > > The last official build of Ruby I did [1] installs  152 packages: > > ~~~ > > DEBUG util.py:446: Install 152 Packages > DEBUG util.py:44

Re: New tool - license-validate

On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 3:10 PM Robbie Harwood wrote: > > Neal Gompa writes: > > > On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 2:25 PM Robbie Harwood wrote: > >> > >> Neal Gompa writes: > >> > >> > SPDX expression logic is identical to Fedora's, so that will not > >> > change. > >> > >> I don't believe that's correc

Re: New tool - license-validate

Neal Gompa writes: > On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 2:25 PM Robbie Harwood wrote: >> >> Neal Gompa writes: >> >> > SPDX expression logic is identical to Fedora's, so that will not >> > change. >> >> I don't believe that's correct. >> >> For instance, for the LGPL, SPDX uses "LGPL-2.0-only" and >> "LGPL

Re: New tool - license-validate

On Tue, Jan 04, 2022 at 02:40:06PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 2:25 PM Robbie Harwood wrote: Neal Gompa writes: > SPDX expression logic is identical to Fedora's, so that will not > change. I don't believe that's correct. For instance, for the LGPL, SPDX uses "LGPL-2.0-o

Re: New tool - license-validate

On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 2:25 PM Robbie Harwood wrote: > > Neal Gompa writes: > > > SPDX expression logic is identical to Fedora's, so that will not > > change. > > I don't believe that's correct. > > For instance, for the LGPL, SPDX uses "LGPL-2.0-only" and > "LGPL-2.0-or-later", while Fedora curr

Re: New tool - license-validate

Neal Gompa writes: > SPDX expression logic is identical to Fedora's, so that will not > change. I don't believe that's correct. For instance, for the LGPL, SPDX uses "LGPL-2.0-only" and "LGPL-2.0-or-later", while Fedora currently uses "LGPLv2" and "LGPLv2+". (From https://spdx.org/licenses/ an

Re: Is it okay to use /usr/bin/python again?

On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 8:11 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 04. 01. 22 13:57, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > On 04/01/2022 11:09, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> We have some scripts that are dual Python 2/Python 3, and Fedora tooling > >> forced us to carry a downstream-only patch to replace /usr/b

Re: Rust Stack Spring Cleaning (in Winter)

Thank you for working on this, Fabio! On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 6:32 AM Fabio Valentini wrote: > Hello Rust packagers, > > (I'm sending this email to the devel and rust lists, and I've added all > directly > affected package maintainers in Bcc - because adding them all to the "To" > or > "CC" fiel

Re: F36 Change: Hunspell Dictionary dir change (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Thu, 2021-12-30 at 09:21 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 10:01:49AM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote: > > == How To Test == > > 1. Check if default installed dictionary path is > > `/usr/share/hunspell/` instead of `/usr/share/myspell/` > > Would it be possible to sym

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Fedora Source-git SIG

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: Fedora Source-git SIG on 2022-01-05 from 14:30:00 to 15:30:00 GMT At meet.google.com/mic-otnv-kse The meeting will be about: Meeting of the Fedora source-git SIG Agenda: https://pagure.io/fedora-source-git/sig/issues?tags=meeting&status=Open

Re: F36 Change: Default To Noto Fonts (System-Wide Change proposal)

Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > I see in this table that there are still a bunch of languages using > non-Noto fonts where there appears to be a Noto equivalent available, > e.g., https://fonts.google.com/noto shows me Devanagari, Bengali, and > Tamil on the first page whereas your table indicates

buildroot size growth

It seems that Rawhide buildroot has grown some dependencies between 10th and 23rd of December. The last official build of Ruby I did [1] installs  152 packages: ~~~ DEBUG util.py:446: Install 152 Packages DEBUG util.py:446: Total download size: 59 M DEBUG util.py:446: Installed size: 231 M

Re: Copr success but no packages?

On 1/4/22 04:28 AM, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: On 03/01/2022 22:25, Steven A. Falco wrote: The builder-live.log in the F35 dir shows that the rpms were written, but they are missing from the dir. Too aggressive web cache on COPR side. I've seen this issue several times too. Thanks for

use of kernel/yama/ptrace_scope in rpm scriptlets

Happy New Year everyone, noticed on device: Pinephone At least since early last year, most likely much longer, rpm scriptlets report this message: Couldn't write '0' to 'kernel/yama/ptrace_scope', ignoring: No such file or directory Can the one responsible please add some sort of check to

Re: Is it okay to use /usr/bin/python again?

On 04. 01. 22 13:57, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: On 04/01/2022 11:09, Florian Weimer wrote: We have some scripts that are dual Python 2/Python 3, and Fedora tooling forced us to carry a downstream-only patch to replace /usr/bin/python with /usr/bin/python3.  I'd like to remove this patch.

Re: Is it okay to use /usr/bin/python again?

On 04/01/2022 11:09, Florian Weimer wrote: We have some scripts that are dual Python 2/Python 3, and Fedora tooling forced us to carry a downstream-only patch to replace /usr/bin/python with /usr/bin/python3. I'd like to remove this patch. It is forbidden. You should switch your SPEC to moder

RE: F36 Change: DIGLIM (System-Wide Change proposal)

> From: Panu Matilainen [mailto:pmati...@redhat.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 12:27 PM > On 1/4/22 10:41, Roberto Sassu via devel wrote: > > Hi everyone > > > > in the FESCo meeting yesterday, Zbigniew asked what is > > the relationship between this feature and > > https://fedoraproject.org

Re: F36 Change: DIGLIM (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 1/4/22 10:41, Roberto Sassu via devel wrote: Hi everyone in the FESCo meeting yesterday, Zbigniew asked what is the relationship between this feature and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FsVerityRPM. I try to explain here. Both features aim at providing reference values, i.e. values of

Re: Is it okay to use /usr/bin/python again?

On 04. 01. 22 11:09, Florian Weimer wrote: Or is it still banned in Fedora? We have some scripts that are dual Python 2/Python 3, and Fedora tooling forced us to carry a downstream-only patch to replace /usr/bin/python with /usr/bin/python3. I'd like to remove this patch. It is still forbidde

Re: Is it okay to use /usr/bin/python again?

On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 10:09 AM Florian Weimer wrote: > > Or is it still banned in Fedora? > > We have some scripts that are dual Python 2/Python 3, and Fedora tooling > forced us to carry a downstream-only patch to replace /usr/bin/python > with /usr/bin/python3. I'd like to remove this patch.

Re: Is it okay to use /usr/bin/python again?

According to the guidelines its still required to change the shebang to python3 https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_shebangs Jan Jan 4, 2022 11:09:40 AM Florian Weimer : > Or is it still banned in Fedora? > > We have some scripts that are dual Python 2/Python 3,

Is it okay to use /usr/bin/python again?

Or is it still banned in Fedora? We have some scripts that are dual Python 2/Python 3, and Fedora tooling forced us to carry a downstream-only patch to replace /usr/bin/python with /usr/bin/python3. I'd like to remove this patch. Thanks, Florian ___ de

Fedora-Cloud-34-20220104.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-34-20220103.0): ID: 1095678 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://op

Re: Copr success but no packages?

On 03/01/2022 22:25, Steven A. Falco wrote: The builder-live.log in the F35 dir shows that the rpms were written, but they are missing from the dir. Too aggressive web cache on COPR side. I've seen this issue several times too. -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org) _

Re: Copr success but no packages?

On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 8:51:58 AM CET Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Dne 03. 01. 22 v 22:57 Steven A. Falco napsal(a): > > On 1/3/22 04:38 PM, Elliott Sales de Andrade wrote: > >> Here are direct links to the chroots: > >>> > >>> https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/stevenfalco/kicad/fe

Fedora-Cloud-35-20220104.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-35-20220103.0): ID: 1095662 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://op

RE: F36 Change: DIGLIM (System-Wide Change proposal)

Hi everyone in the FESCo meeting yesterday, Zbigniew asked what is the relationship between this feature and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FsVerityRPM. I try to explain here. Both features aim at providing reference values, i.e. values of software fingerprint certified by the software ve

Re: F36 Change: Default To Noto Fonts (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 7:52 AM Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > I see in this table that there are still a bunch of languages using non-Noto > fonts where there appears to be a Noto equivalent available, e.g., > https://fonts.google.com/noto shows me Devanagari, Bengali, and Tamil on the > first p

Re: F36 Change: Relocate RPM database to /usr (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 1/3/22 22:55, Chris Murphy wrote: Does anyone know what /var/lib/rpm-state/gconf is used for? Owning package is GConf2-3.2.6-31.fc35.x86_64 On my Fedora 35 Workstation installation, it's empty. So no obvious conflict with the change proposal, but I'd like to make sure it's not something that