Re: F35 Change proposal: RPM 4.17 (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 4/8/21 10:17 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 4/7/21 4:16 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 4/7/21 2:21 PM, Tomas Orsava wrote: On the other hand, I understand where you're coming from: we have fought battles with unintended use of our tools too (e.g. sudo pip breaking dnf). But given the

Re: F35 Change proposal: RPM 4.17 (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 4/7/21 12:45 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 4/7/21 1:12 PM, Tomas Orsava wrote: On 4/7/21 11:38 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 4/7/21 12:06 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 07. 04. 21 10:45, Panu Matilainen wrote: I'm starting to think the right thing to do is to move %check to run after %

Re: F35 Change proposal: RPM 4.17 (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 4/7/21 11:38 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 4/7/21 12:06 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 07. 04. 21 10:45, Panu Matilainen wrote: I'm starting to think the right thing to do is to move %check to run after %build rather than %install. That would completely eliminate arguments over what is proper u

Re: Fedora 33 Self-Contained Change proposal: Distribute .repo files for modular repositories from a separate package

On 6/15/20 10:10 PM, Ben Cotton wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ModularReposSubpackage == Summary == Reintroduce the fedora-repos-modular package. Have the /etc/yum.repos.d/*-modular.repo files in it instead of fedora-repos. We install/keep fedora-repos-modular by default, users (a

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Let's standardize the way to disable tests during RPM build?

On 6/9/20 3:01 PM, Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote: Le mardi 09 juin 2020 à 14:56 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit : Le mardi 09 juin 2020 à 14:35 +0200, Vít Ondruch a écrit : The proposal was to optionally disable test. When somebody asked why, the answer was bootstrapping. But we know how to h

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Let's standardize the way to disable tests during RPM build?

16:10 +0200, Tomas Orsava wrote: Hi, I think it would be useful to have a standard way of disabling the running of tests during RPM build (in the %check section of a spec file). I see a lot of packages already having %bcond's or other macro definitions to archieve this, but each package has

Re: Let's standardize the way to disable tests during RPM build?

On 6/5/20 4:46 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 04:38:03PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 05. 06. 20 16:26, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 04:10:20PM +0200, Tomas Orsava wrote: Hi, I think it would be useful to have a standard way of disabling the

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Let's standardize the way to disable tests during RPM build?

On 6/5/20 4:39 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 10:28:39AM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote: Or just a new option to rpmbuild that skips %check ? It exists already: rpmbuild --nocheck. It's not wired into the rest of the stack - eg. you cannot start a Koji build with checks disab

Re: Let's standardize the way to disable tests during RPM build?

On 6/5/20 4:26 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 04:10:20PM +0200, Tomas Orsava wrote: Hi, I think it would be useful to have a standard way of disabling the running of tests during RPM build (in the %check section of a spec file). I see a lot of packages already having

Let's standardize the way to disable tests during RPM build?

Hi, I think it would be useful to have a standard way of disabling the running of tests during RPM build (in the %check section of a spec file). I see a lot of packages already having %bcond's or other macro definitions to archieve this, but each package has their own way, there's no real sta

Renaming pythonXY packages to pythonX.Y (e.g. python39 to python3.9)

Hello everyone. I’m working on a change to rename pythonXY packages to pythonX.Y, e.g. python39 to python3.9. *Motivation:* When you install an additional Python interpreter, the command that runs it contains a dot (e.g. /usr/bin/python3.9) but the package name does not (e.g. dnf install pyth

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change Proposal: ELN Buildroot and Compose V2

On 3/30/20 2:33 PM, Petr Pisar wrote: On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 01:57:22PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 30. 03. 20 13:52, Petr Pisar wrote: If I undeestand the proposal correctly there there will be an ELN branch or a name space. But not by default. Only for those packages that reject the change

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change Proposal: ELN Buildroot and Compose V2

On 3/30/20 12:54 PM, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:11 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: It is kind of irony, that the ELN branch idea is still rejected. I've made several attempts to explain this decision. You are ignoring them. Therefore there will be PRs coming from Stephen's a

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: ELN Buildroot and Compose

On 3/25/20 4:47 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: Starting a new sub-thread. On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 5:33 AM Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: As Ben is on PTO, I'd like to present the System-Wide Change https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ELN_Buildroot_and_Compose == Summary == The goal of the ELN

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On 11/14/19 10:52 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 4:49 PM Miro Hrončok > wrote: On 14. 11. 19 22:30, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 4:24 PM Miro Hrončok mailto:mhron...@redhat.com>> wrote: > >> Easy is su

Re: DNF: "There are following alternatives to this package"

On 09/13/2018 06:43 PM, Mathieu Bridon wrote: On Thu, 2018-09-13 at 18:17 +0200, Tomas Orsava wrote: We'd like to propose a new functionality for dnf: When a user tries to install a package XYZ and dnf doesn't find it, dnf would recommend them alternative packages. These offered pack

DNF: "There are following alternatives to this package"

All the best, Tomas Orsava ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedorap

Re: Prioritizing ~/.local/bin over /usr/bin on the PATH

May 2, 2018 4:49:18 PM Subject: Re: Prioritizing ~/.local/bin over /usr/bin on the PATH On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 10:35:28AM -0400, Siteshwar Vashisht wrote: - Original Message - From: "Tomas Orsava" To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" , "David Ka

Re: Prioritizing ~/.local/bin over /usr/bin on the PATH

On 05/02/2018 11:57 PM, Iain Rae wrote: On 02/05/18 17:50, Kamil Dudka wrote: On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 4:25:58 PM CEST Iain Rae wrote: if they've got sudo privs to install software in the system area as root then any malicious program is going to emulate su/sudo in which case you're rooted

Re: Prioritizing ~/.local/bin over /usr/bin on the PATH

On 05/02/2018 03:23 PM, Tomas Orsava wrote: Hi! I'd like to propose putting the ~/.local/bin in front of the /usr/bin on the PATH. Currently /usr/bin has priority over ~/.local/bin, which causes a [bug] where the old system-installed executable written in Python (from /usr/bin) is lau

Re: Prioritizing ~/.local/bin over /usr/bin on the PATH

On 05/02/2018 03:23 PM, Tomas Orsava wrote: Hi! I'd like to propose putting the ~/.local/bin in front of the /usr/bin on the PATH. Currently /usr/bin has priority over ~/.local/bin, which causes a [bug] where the old system-installed executable written in Python (from /usr/bin) is lau

Re: Prioritizing ~/.local/bin over /usr/bin on the PATH

On 05/02/2018 03:30 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 6:24 AM Tomas Orsava <mailto:tors...@redhat.com>> wrote: Hi! I'd like to propose putting the ~/.local/bin in front of the /usr/bin on the PATH. Currently /usr/bin has priority ove

Prioritizing ~/.local/bin over /usr/bin on the PATH

Hi! I'd like to propose putting the ~/.local/bin in front of the /usr/bin on the PATH. Currently /usr/bin has priority over ~/.local/bin, which causes a [bug] where the old system-installed executable written in Python (from /usr/bin) is launched, but it finds new Python sources (installed in

What happened to Platform-Python?

our current plan to python-devel ML soon. All the best, Tomas Orsava ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F25 System Wide Change: Automatic Provides for Python RPM Packages

On 07/04/2016 02:43 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Tomas Orsava wrote: Hi! We have just removed the dependency generator from the proposal [0], see diff [1]. The implementation of it (backported from RPM upstream) is significantly lacking: Python dependencies are most

Re: F25 System Wide Change: Automatic Provides for Python RPM Packages

kages [1] https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Changes%2FAutomatic_Provides_for_Python_RPM_Packages&diff=461233&oldid=461232 Tomas Orsava On 06/30/2016 02:20 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: = Proposed System Wide Change: Automatic Provides for Python RPM Packages = https://fedorapro

Re: F25 System Wide Change: Automatic Provides for Python RPM Packages

Also, hasn't this been already discussed on the python-devel Fedora mailing list? https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/python-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/3VYLAL22YPA7BSRTMRGAIAXKHXRFRGBF/ On 07/02/2016 12:13 PM, Tomas Orsava wrote: - Original Message - So

Re: F25 System Wide Change: Automatic Provides for Python RPM Packages

- Original Message - > So, the "problem" with --majorver-provides occurs when either of the > two conditions are true: > > * There's no dependency on a specific version of the Python ABI > ("python(abi) = X.Y") in the modules > * There's more than one package providing a python implementat

Re: F25 System Wide Change: Automatic Provides for Python RPM Packages

:46 PM Subject: Re: F25 System Wide Change: Automatic Provides for Python RPM Packages On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Tomas Orsava wrote: > I'm sorry, I could have expanded on it. > > The difference is that if we enable --majorver-provides than there's no way > we can shi

Re: F25 System Wide Change: Automatic Provides for Python RPM Packages

cted results may occur if there are multiple independent Python stacks per major version available." [1] [1] https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/29abb07fbf6b9ea255bd26e492c104eac8d2370f On 07/01/2016 02:23 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 2:48 AM, Tomas Orsav

Re: F25 System Wide Change: Automatic Provides for Python RPM Packages

Hi Jason! Ticket created: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/635 Tomas - Original Message - From: "Jason L Tibbitts III" To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 6:33:48 PM Subject: Re: F25 System Wide Change: Automatic Provides for Python RPM Packages > "JR

Re: F25 System Wide Change: Automatic Provides for Python RPM Packages

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ > Automatic_Provides_for_Python_RPM_Packages > > Change owner(s): > * Tomas Orsava <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Torsava> > * Miro Hroncok <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Churchyard> > * Email: python-ma...@redhat.com &g

New PyPI link format for Python packages

Hi! The Python Package Index (PyPI) has decided to change the format of the URLs to download tarballs/sources. The new format is not predictable, because part of the URL is a hash of the contents of the file. [0] This means that for the vast majority of Python packages (those using PyPI to do

Self Introduction: Tomas Orsava

Hi, I'm a new Red Hatter working in python-maintenance. I have submitted my first review-request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308956 It is the last missing dependency for a keyboard-driven, vim-like browser called qutebrowser, which I hope to package next: http://www.qutebrowser