Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 14 September 2015 at 16:47, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > They simply have welcomed their new container overlords and are using only > the recommended upstream method for installing for their application ( > pip,gem etc since developers can use the upstream support community for > those ) in

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 09/15/2015 08:41 AM, Ian Malone wrote: On 14 September 2015 at 16:47, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: They simply have welcomed their new container overlords and are using only the recommended upstream method for installing for their application ( pip,gem etc since developers can use the ups

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 15 September 2015 at 10:11, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > > > On 09/15/2015 08:41 AM, Ian Malone wrote: >> >> On 14 September 2015 at 16:47, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson >> wrote: >> >>> They simply have welcomed their new container overlords and are using >>> only >>> the recommended upstream metho

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 09/14/2015 01:56 PM, Haïkel wrote: 2015-09-14 13:17 GMT+02:00 Andrew Haley : On 09/13/2015 09:23 PM, Haïkel wrote: I'm not speaking about PHP, most of the upstream I deal with are python developers. Bad habits are rather spreading than regressing. We're not going to solve that problem by a

rawhide report: 20150915 changes

Compose started at Tue Sep 15 05:15:03 UTC 2015 Broken deps for i386 -- [IQmol] IQmol-2.3.0-9.fc24.i686 requires libboost_serialization.so.1.58.0 IQmol-2.3.0-9.fc24.i686 requires libboost_iostreams.so.1.58.0 [ScientificPython]

F-23 Branched report: 20150915 changes

Compose started at Tue Sep 15 07:15:03 UTC 2015 Broken deps for armhfp -- [ScientificPython] ScientificPython-2.8-20.fc22.armv7hl requires libmpi.so.1 [apache-scout] apache-scout-1.2.6-11.fc21.noarch requires mvn(org.apache.jud

rpmbuild - empty RPMS directory

I have been working on my first rpmbuild since quite a few days now. The rpm is intendeed to install R[0] built with Intel MKL libraries and Intel compiler. As a base for the spec file, I used the one from Fedora R package[1]. I setup the directory structure: % ls ~/.rpmbuild BUILD/ BUILDROOT/

Re: rpmbuild - empty RPMS directory

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 1:58 PM, arnaud gaboury wrote: > I have been working on my first rpmbuild since quite a few days now. > > The rpm is intendeed to install R[0] built with Intel MKL libraries > and Intel compiler. As a base for the spec file, I used the one from > Fedora R package[1]. > > I

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 09/14/2015 02:18 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: Also, I'd like to be clear on this: whatever the outcome of this discussion, I want Fedora packagers to continue to work with their packages and upstreams to unbundle as much as possible. I think that this*does* lead to significant improvements

[Bug 1263240] New: perl-Dancer-1.3142 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263240 Bug ID: 1263240 Summary: perl-Dancer-1.3142 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-Dancer Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee: jples...@redhat.

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Ian Malone wrote: > On 15 September 2015 at 10:11, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson > wrote: > > > > > > On 09/15/2015 08:41 AM, Ian Malone wrote: > >> > >> On 14 September 2015 at 16:47, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson < > johan...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> They simply have

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On 09/14/2015 05:10 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > You are right that we do need to think about overall goals to be > achieved, then the policies that achieve those goals. For my part I > am interested in distinguishing the OS from the applications that run > on top of it. This might be the differe

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 09/14/2015 08:29 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 09/11/2015 04:34 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > >>> How do you propose to resolve symbol conflicts if both the system >>> library and the bundled library are loaded into the same process? The >>> current ELF linking scheme lacks good support for bu

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On 09/14/2015 11:40 PM, Miroslav Suchy wrote: Dne 14.9.2015 v 23:10 Brendan Conoboy napsal(a): /Then/ we could start thinking about /truly minimal/ concepts, perhaps “container minimal” = “the minimal set needed to start and run an executable dependent on Fedora ABI” (e.g. kernel version requir

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Tue, 2015-09-15 at 09:41 -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On 09/14/2015 08:29 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > > On 09/11/2015 04:34 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > > > >>> How do you propose to resolve symbol conflicts if both the system > >>> library and the bundled library are loaded into the same pr

Re: rpmbuild - empty RPMS directory

On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 13:58:38 +0200, arnaud gaboury wrote: > Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files > .. > > These last lines are part of the %file section, Why have you deleted the lines? What did they tell? You've quoted lo

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > On 09/14/2015 11:40 PM, Miroslav Suchy wrote: > >> Dne 14.9.2015 v 23:10 Brendan Conoboy napsal(a): >> >>> /Then/ we could start thinking about /truly minimal/ concepts, perhaps “container minimal” = “the minimal set needed to start

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

'On Mon, Sep 14, 2015, at 05:12 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > > I'm just one person with an opinion, it would be best if everybody > with a stake took part in the ring definitions. Creating additional > rings that address communities where self-hosting is a foreign concept > may be useful and d

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 02:19:38PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > Let's say ring 0 isn't self hosting, but ring 0 + 1 ring is. Can we > offer a longer term of support for ring 0 than ring 1? What happens > when a bug in ring 0 requires a fix in ring 1, but the support > window for ring 1 has clo

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 15.09.2015 15:58, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Tue, 2015-09-15 at 09:41 -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >> On 09/14/2015 08:29 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: >>> I think the real issue here is the ELF model with backwards/forwards >>> linking and symbol interposition. Ideally, we should load each DSO >>> e

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:26:24AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > 'On Mon, Sep 14, 2015, at 05:12 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > > > > I'm just one person with an opinion, it would be best if everybody > > with a stake took part in the ring definitions. Creating additional > > rings that address c

Re: Can't push update to stable

On 8 September 2015 at 18:36, Dave Love wrote: > I haven't had any messages saying that things could be pushed to stable > recently, though, which I had previously (to bodhi2?). Should that be > working? I wondered about this too. There is an open issue on GitHub: https://github.com/fedora-infr

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:26:24AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > One small thing we could do to try to emulate this for ring0 > would be to put all of the spec files for Ring 0 into one git > repository for example. And have actual peer review > for patches, just like one sees on: > http://lists.o

Re: rpmbuild - empty RPMS directory

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 13:58:38 +0200, arnaud gaboury wrote: > >> Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files >> .. >> >> These last lines are part of the %file section, > > Wh

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On 09/15/2015 07:27 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 02:19:38PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote: Let's say ring 0 isn't self hosting, but ring 0 + 1 ring is. Can we offer a longer term of support for ring 0 than ring 1? What happens when a bug in ring 0 requires a fix in ring 1,

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 02:19:38PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote: >> Let's say ring 0 isn't self hosting, but ring 0 + 1 ring is. Can we >> offer a longer term of support for ring 0 than ring 1? What happens >> when a bug in ring 0 require

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On 2015-09-14, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > On 09/07/2015 05:34 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote: >> So we are going to include all those *-doc subpackages? And all >> languages bindings? E.g look at rpm subpackages. > > Yes, this is a good question. Per elsewhere in the thread, it may > make sense to have 2

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On 09/15/2015 07:51 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 02:19:38PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote: Let's say ring 0 isn't self hosting, but ring 0 + 1 ring is. Can we offer a longer term of support for ring 0 than ring 1? What h

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On 09/15/2015 07:26 AM, Colin Walters wrote: 'On Mon, Sep 14, 2015, at 05:12 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote: I'm just one person with an opinion, it would be best if everybody with a stake took part in the ring definitions. Creating additional rings that address communities where self-hosting is a

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:54:31AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > Whereas in *other* conversations, we have an apparent consensus that > Fedora ships far too *many* updates, too often. A. Things that I care about keeping up to date are always moving too slowly. B. Things that I care about ke

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

Once upon a time, Matthew Miller said: > A. Things that I care about keeping up to date are always moving too >slowly. > > B. Things that I care about keeping stable are always moving too quickly. > > C. Things that I don't care about shouldn't bother me by having bugs, >security holes,

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 09/15/2015 09:08 AM, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Matthew Miller said: >> A. Things that I care about keeping up to date are always moving too >>slowly. >> >> B. Things that I care about keeping stable are always moving too quickly. >> >> C. Things that I don't care about shouldn'

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > On 09/15/2015 07:51 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: >> >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Matthew Miller >> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 02:19:38PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote: Let's say ring 0 isn't self hosting, but ring 0

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015, at 11:03 AM, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > We talked about a related question at flock: Should packages built as > COPRs be allowed into low level rings? The answer from RCM was no, > due to trust and stability issues. I think we're assuming ring 0 is > RPMs because we don't

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 09/15/2015 03:41 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >> I looked at the Solaris documentation, and I'm not sure if it's the >> > right use-case. This seems to provide complete isolation, and would >> > break things like SQLite (at least older versions without file-private >> > locks) which need process-

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On 2015-09-15, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > It would be really helpful if we had some automated mechanism that > upon rebase, all packages that used the rebase package as > a BuildRequires was auto-scratch-built. We have . Unfortnutely it's only a wrapper abov

openmpi 1.10.0 coming to rawhide soon

I'll be building openmpi 1.10.0 for rawhide soon. This has soname bumps so I'll be rebuilding dependent packages as well: MUMPS-5.0.1-2.fc24.src.rpm Ray-2.3.1-11.fc24.src.rpm boost-1.59.0-3.fc24.src.rpm boost-1.59.0-4.fc24.src.rpm coin-or-Ipopt-3.12.4-3.fc24.src.rpm cp2k-2.7.0-0.2.20150911svn1587

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Matthew Miller said: > > A. Things that I care about keeping up to date are always moving too > >slowly. > > > > B. Things that I care about keeping stable are always moving too quickly. > > > > C. Things that I don't c

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

2015-09-15 15:48 GMT+02:00 Brendan Conoboy : > On 09/14/2015 11:40 PM, Miroslav Suchy wrote: > >> Dne 14.9.2015 v 23:10 Brendan Conoboy napsal(a): >> >>> /Then/ we could start thinking about /truly minimal/ concepts, perhaps “container minimal” = “the minimal set needed to start and run

Re: rpmbuild - empty RPMS directory

On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 16:47:44 +0200, arnaud gaboury wrote: > >> Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files > >> .. > >> > >> These last lines are part of the %file section, > > > > Why have you deleted the lines? > > What did they t

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

2015-09-14 23:10 GMT+02:00 Brendan Conoboy : > AFAICS somehow the goals and means have gotten confused, and we are >> trying to find goals that would make sense in a specific >> implementation method; that’s completely backwards. >> > > Let’s think about the/produced artifacts/, whatever that is

Re: rpmbuild - empty RPMS directory

On 15/09/15 13:58 +0200, arnaud gaboury wrote: I have been working on my first rpmbuild since quite a few days now. The rpm is intendeed to install R[0] built with Intel MKL libraries and Intel compiler. As a base for the spec file, I used the one from Fedora R package[1]. I setup the directory

Re: rpmbuild - empty RPMS directory

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 16:47:44 +0200, arnaud gaboury wrote: > >> >> Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files >> >> .. >> >> >> >> These last lines are part of the %file sec

Re: rpmbuild - empty RPMS directory

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 15/09/15 13:58 +0200, arnaud gaboury wrote: >> >> I have been working on my first rpmbuild since quite a few days now. >> >> The rpm is intendeed to install R[0] built with Intel MKL libraries >> and Intel compiler. As a base for the spe

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 09/15/2015 10:14 AM, Ben Rosser wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Chris Adams > wrote: > > Once upon a time, Matthew Miller > said: > > A. Things that I care about keeping up to date are always moving too >

Re: rpmbuild - empty RPMS directory

On 15/09/15 13:58 +0200, arnaud gaboury wrote: I have been working on my first rpmbuild since quite a few days now. As a more gneral comment, why not try something *much* simpler for your first rpmbuild? Try something that doesn't use an alternative compiler, doesn't require lots of environmen

Re: Fedora Ring 0 definition

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:51:14AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > This can be addressed by having a Ring 1 policy that packages may > > change, but all currently-supported Ring 0s need to be buildable from > > the latest Ring 1. If a Ring 1 update would be break that, a compat > > package would be re

Re: rpmbuild - empty RPMS directory

On 15/09/15 18:31 +0200, arnaud gaboury wrote: On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 16:47:44 +0200, arnaud gaboury wrote: >> Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files >> .. >> >> These

Fedora 23 Branched 20150915 compose check report

Missing expected images: Cloud atomic Disk x86_64 Cloud base Disk i386 No images in this compose but not 23 Branched 20150914 No images in 23 Branched 20150914 but not this. -- Mail generated by check-compose: https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedora-qa.git/tree/check-compose -- devel mailing

Fedora Rawhide 20150915 compose check report

Missing expected images: Kde Live i386 Kde Live x86_64 Cloud base Disk i386 Kde Disk armhfp Cloud atomic Disk x86_64 Images in this compose but not Rawhide 20150914: Cloud base Vagrant x86_64 Cloud base Disk x86_64 No images in Rawhide 20150914 but not this. -- Mail generated by check-compose:

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 09/15/2015 03:58 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: >> I'm not sure how difficult this would be because I'm not sure how many >> symbols rely upon indirect dependencies. I think it would be a worthwhile >> cleanup to turn on something like you suggest, and attempt to bootstrap >> the OS using Fedora Bootstr

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Tue, 2015-09-15 at 19:59 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 09/15/2015 03:58 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: > > >> I'm not sure how difficult this would be because I'm not sure how many > >> symbols rely upon indirect dependencies. I think it would be a worthwhile > >> cleanup to turn on something like y

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Tue, 2015-09-15 at 10:59 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: > On 09/15/2015 10:14 AM, Ben Rosser wrote: > > > > > > The only real "solution" to this, to the extent that there is one, > > is better > > support to have multiple versions of at least some things install- > > able either > > in paralle

Re: Packaging guidelines for documentation clairfication needed

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > Older versions of rpm allowed mixing relative %doc and direct installs > into %_pkgdocdir. > > rpm - as upstream calls it - "fixed it" (IMHO, they broke rpm - of course > upstreams disagrees with me). > > As a consequence of this, rpm now

Re: Packaging guidelines for documentation clairfication needed

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Richard Shaw wrote: > The other option being to move the documentation back to %buildroot and > use relative paths... > Responding to myself here... That doesn't work because if I use the %doc method in the doc subpackage then the files get installed to: %{_docdi

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 09/15/2015 01:27 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Tue, 2015-09-15 at 10:59 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: >> Other than the large python2/3 split, you don't. There's no way in >> the python >> import statement to specify a version of the module you want, so >> there's no >> way to provide both

Re: rpmbuild - empty RPMS directory

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 15/09/15 18:31 +0200, arnaud gaboury wrote: >> >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Michael Schwendt >> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 16:47:44 +0200, arnaud gaboury wrote: >>> >> Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/ch

Re: rpmbuild - empty RPMS directory

On 15/09/15 23:22 +0200, arnaud gaboury wrote: As for my first rpmbuild, it is the opportunity which make me do this build. I am a archlinux user running a Fedora nspawn container. The container has vocation to be a prod server for data computing with R. To speed R, I need to build it with Intel

Re: rpmbuild - empty RPMS directory

Also, when will you stop posting your failures at here? I see most of failures are caused by yourself. Basically, I'd read docs first. From your tons of email here, the only thing I can summarize is that your mind is in a whirl. Meanwhile, it appears lots of Archlinux users treat mailing list like

[Test-Announce] Fedora 23 Beta Release Candidate 1 (RC1) Available Now!

As scheduled [1], Fedora 23 Beta Release Candidate 1 (RC1) is now available for testing. Please help us complete all the validation testing! The 32-bit cloud base image is known to be missing from this compose. Otherwise there are no major known issues. Content information, including changes, can