Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++

Hi Igor > 2018-02-18 18:09 GMT+01:00 Igor Gnatenko : > Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having gcc and > gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due to > random > reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by analyzing > hund

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 02/16/2018 02:36 PM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: On 16 February 2018 at 11:21, Panu Matilainen > wrote: [..] Not everybody runs rpmlint for everything they produce, on the contrary I suspect it's fairly small percentage of packagers out there that do. If rpm

Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Mon, 2018-02-19 at 09:12 +0100, Guido Aulisi wrote: > Hi Igor > > > 2018-02-18 18:09 GMT+01:00 Igor Gnatenko > > : > > Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having gcc > > and > > gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packag

Re: Pagure - Can't remove yourself from a project if not an admin?

On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 07:26:37AM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote: >I spent about 10 minutes trying to figure out how to remove myself from a >project (for which I'm not an admin) and I have come to the conclusion >that I'm not able to do so. >Is this a known issue? Yes there are more o

Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++

On 19/02/18 08:30, Igor Gnatenko wrote: On Mon, 2018-02-19 at 09:12 +0100, Guido Aulisi wrote: amsynth has been fixed in all supported branches. It should have both gcc and gcc-c++. I don't think you ever need both - the guidelines say "gcc, gcc-c++ or clang" and gcc-c++ has to require gc

Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 09:02:34AM +, Tom Hughes wrote: > and gcc-c++ has to require gcc anyway. It does. Jakub ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Intent to retire: zerofree

Rich, Thanks for packaging zerofree. It's been great to be able to install my own software without having to build it. Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >zerofree is a package that can take an ext2 (only?) filesystem, work >out what parts of the filesystem are not used, and either zero them or >sparsify

Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++

psabatatinyfugue wmname xssstate All three fixed in Rawhide. Also added other missing build deps when I was at it :) Also tinyfugue could do with some more love. I wonder if anybody is using it in Fedora, though. P signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: F29 System Wide Change: Remove GCC from BuildRoot

Dne 16.2.2018 v 17:03 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > > Dne 16.2.2018 v 16:54 Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a): >> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 04:22:58PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: >>> $ dnf repoquery --disablerepo=* --enablerepo=rawhide --source >>> --whatrequires 'libc.so.6*' | sort -u | sed -r 's/(.*)-.*-.*/\

Re: F29 System Wide Change: Remove GCC from BuildRoot

Dne 19.2.2018 v 00:52 Dennis Gilmore napsal(a): > El vie, 16-02-2018 a las 12:56 +0100, Jan Kurik escribió: >> Proposed System Wide Change: Remove GCC from BuildRoot >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_GCC_from_BuildRoot >> >> >> Owner(s): >> * Igor Gnatenko >> >> >> Removing gcc

Re: F29 System Wide Change: Remove GCC from BuildRoot

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 07:13:19PM +0100, Matěj Cepl wrote: > On 2018-02-16, 17:38 GMT, Daniel P Berrangé wrote: > > Yes, but that's likely a small % of overall and it is harmless > > if we addd BR: gcc to a few packages which don't need it > > - they'll be no worse off than they are today, and

Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++

2018-02-19 9:30 GMT+01:00 Igor Gnatenko : > On Mon, 2018-02-19 at 09:12 +0100, Guido Aulisi wrote: >> Hi Igor >> >> > 2018-02-18 18:09 GMT+01:00 Igor Gnatenko >> > : >> > Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having gcc >> > and >> > gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packa

Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Mon, 2018-02-19 at 09:02 +, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 19/02/18 08:30, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > > On Mon, 2018-02-19 at 09:12 +0100, Guido Aulisi wrote: > > > > > amsynth has been fixed in all supported branches. > > > > It should have both gcc

Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Mon, 2018-02-19 at 11:15 +0100, Guido Aulisi wrote: > 2018-02-19 9:30 GMT+01:00 Igor Gnatenko : > > On Mon, 2018-02-19 at 09:12 +0100, Guido Aulisi wrote: > > > Hi Igor > > > > > > > 2018-02-18 18:09 GMT+01:00 Igor Gnatenko > > > org> > > > > :

Re: Removal of sln

On 02/16/2018 10:53 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: There are some %post scripts which still use this, notably ca-certificates, so that's now broken. What do you propose instead? Revert the removal, exposing SELinux and other issues because some tools do not deal properly with hardlinks? Or r

Re: Removal of sln

On 16 Feb 2018, at 11:53 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > I also don't think rather fundamental, useful and old tools like this > should be removed without discussion. +1. While the foundations for your house might be old, taking a sledgehammer to those foundations without completely assessing

Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++

On 02/19/2018 11:27 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Mon, 2018-02-19 at 09:02 +, Tom Hughes wrote: On 19/02/18 08:30, Igor Gnatenko wrote: On Mon, 2018-02-19 at 09:12 +0100, Guido Aulisi wrote: amsynth has been fixed in all supported branches.

Re: Intent to retire: zerofree

Hello Richard, On Sun, 18 Feb 2018, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > If you wish to take it over, I can orphan it instead. I'm happy to take zerofree. Regards, Robert pgpCajlfkSZiz.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fe

Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Mon, 2018-02-19 at 11:47 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 02/19/2018 11:27 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA256 > > > > On Mon, 2018-02-19 at 09:02 +, Tom Hughes wrote: > > > On 19/02/18 08:30, Igo

Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++

2018-02-19 9:30 GMT+01:00 Igor Gnatenko : >> amsynth has been fixed in all supported branches. > > It should have both gcc and gcc-c++. Done, BR for both. Ciao Guido Aulisi fas account: tartina ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

Dne 17.2.2018 v 14:01 Neal Gompa napsal(a): > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III > wrote: >>> "NG" == Neal Gompa writes: >> NG> As upstream for rpmlint, I do not believe anyone cares at all about >> NG> rpmlint in Fedora. >> >> We seemingly care so little for it that the

Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++

Hi, I fixed: bibutils eb emacspeak hugs98 scim-hangul wmctrl Jens ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: to batch or not to batch?

I am using Rawhide, so I personally don't care. But anyway, why don't we have "updates-testing", "updates-batched" and "updates" repositories? "updates-batched" could be enabled by default while "updates" could be enabled manually if one wishes. Vít Dne 17.2.2018 v 23:15 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-S

Re: Removal of sln

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 11:37:09AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 02/16/2018 10:53 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > >There are some %post scripts which still use this, notably > >ca-certificates, so that's now broken. > > What do you propose instead? Revert the removal, exposing SELinux > and o

Re: Intent to retire: zerofree

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 11:57:03AM +0100, Robert Scheck wrote: > Hello Richard, > > On Sun, 18 Feb 2018, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > If you wish to take it over, I can orphan it instead. > > I'm happy to take zerofree. I *think* I've pressed the right buttons to give you the project ... There

Re: F29 System Wide Change: Remove GCC from BuildRoot

Jan Kurik wrote: > Since beginning of Fedora, gcc (and gcc-c++) are installed in every > buildroot. Times have changed and nowadays many of packages are not > written in C/C++, they are written in Python, Ruby, Node.js, Go, Rust, > OCaml, Perl and so on so they don't need to have C/C++ compiler. >

Re: F29 System Wide Change: Remove GCC from BuildRoot

On 02/16/2018 06:33 PM, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: ??? Other compilers such as golang can generate ELF binaries too. The world has moved on. Most of these languages will still call gcc for the final link (as they should). Calling ld directly makes very little sense and makes future

Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++

Dne 18.2.2018 v 18:09 Igor Gnatenko napsal(a): > List of packages and respective maintainers: > https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal-pkgs.txt > msuchy PyPAM imvirt obs-signd perl-Filesys-Df perl-Math-FFT rhnsd rhnsd - sent PR to upstream everything else fixed in rawhide. Than

Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++

On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 10:39 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having gcc and > gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due to > random > reasons and I grepped a

Re: HEADS UP - Changes to Ghostscript package in F28

Hello guys, and sorry for the delay - I've got caught in my other responsibilites. I have created the Wiki page for this change, as requested: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GhostscriptPackageUpdate28 To comply with the guidelines there, I had to categorize this as a "system-wide change"

Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++

On 18/02/18 18:09, Igor Gnatenko wrote: Some packages might be missed due to short koji outage, broken dependencies and so on, but majority of real failures is below. If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing packages in list or anything else -- please let me know. I fixed

Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++

>> On Sun, 2018-02-18 at 18:09 +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote: >> > Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild >> > without having gcc and gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora >> > packages, many of which failed due to random reasons and >> > I grepped all logs for some common errors found

Re: Orphaned Packages looking for a new point of contact

On Fri, 2018-02-16 at 16:40 -0500, David Cantrell wrote: > On 02/16/2018 11:32 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > Greetings. > > > > There's some packages that have been orphaned by FESCo and are > > seeking a > > new point of contact to stay in the collection. > > > > If you are interested in becoming t

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 6:19 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > Dne 17.2.2018 v 14:01 Neal Gompa napsal(a): >> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III >> wrote: "NG" == Neal Gompa writes: >>> NG> As upstream for rpmlint, I do not believe anyone cares at all about >>> NG> rpmlin

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 02/15/2018 10:17 AM, Michal Novotny wrote: I feel PRs are better for this sort of stuff. Mainly because people are informed why exactly this change is made, they can read the guidelines and then merge the change when they are sure they understand it. It helps spreading knowledge and keeping c

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 02/19/2018 06:19 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > The problem with Bodhi is that we don't use Bodhi for Rawhide where > majority of work should be done. There is an infrastructure hackathon in April where we hope to discuss a way to enable Bodhi for Rawhide so it can gate updates based on automated tes

Re: to batch or not to batch?

On 02/19/2018 06:34 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > But anyway, why don't we > have "updates-testing", "updates-batched" and "updates" repositories? > "updates-batched" could be enabled by default while "updates" could be > enabled manually if one wishes. When we talked about this in the past I believe r

f2c new version

While going through packages to add the BR for gcc/gcc-c++ I noticed that the f2c package needed some attention. I've cleaned up the spec file immensely and updated to the latest version. Checking with abi-compliance-checker shows the ABI hasn't changed so I plan to do the new build now. Thanks,

Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++

> On 18/02/18 18:09, Igor Gnatenko wrote: >> Some packages might be missed due to short koji outage, >> broken dependencies and so on, but majority of real failures >> is below. >> >> If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing >> packages in list or anything else -- please let

Re: to batch or not to batch?

On 02/19/2018 03:40 PM, Randy Barlow wrote: > On 02/19/2018 06:34 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> But anyway, why don't we >> have "updates-testing", "updates-batched" and "updates" repositories? >> "updates-batched" could be enabled by default while "updates" could be >> enabled manually if one wishes.

Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++

On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 12:09 PM, Igor Gnatenko < ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having gcc > and > gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due to > random > reasons and I grepped all logs for some

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 02/17/2018 02:30 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > Rpmlint can be configured using the --rpmlintconf/-r option or by setting a > .rpmlint file in the working directory There's an open RFE to get taskotron to use such a file, though it hasn't yet been suggested that it use the same path as fedpkg:

libgnome-games-support soname bump in rawhide

Hi, I've updated libgnome-games-support in rawhide to 1.3.90 , which comes with a soname bump. Should be API compatible. -Yanko ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++

On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 11:09 AM, Igor Gnatenko < ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having gcc > and > gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due

Re: F29 System Wide Change: Remove GCC from BuildRoot

El lun, 19-02-2018 a las 10:56 +0100, Vít Ondruch escribió: > > > Dne 19.2.2018 v 00:52 Dennis Gilmore napsal(a): > > El vie, 16-02-2018 a las 12:56 +0100, Jan Kurik escribió: > > > Proposed System Wide Change: Remove GCC from BuildRoot > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_GCC_from

BSD 2-Clause license

Hi, Would it be possible to add: BSD 2-clause to our table of valid licenses? It is already in https://spdx.org/licenses/ BSD 2-Clause "Simplified" License |BSD-2-Clause| and is OSI-approved. For reference: https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-2-C

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 09:06:17AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > failed tests do not show up > on the main page (probably was not considered because of how poorly > the test information fetching goes). I guess you're referring to the: `Tests Passed` under the `Test Gating Status` on the right hand si

Re: BSD 2-Clause license

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 11:22:56AM -0500, Fernando Nasser wrote: > Hi, > > > Would it be possible to add: > > BSD 2-clause > > to our table of valid licenses? Which table are you referring to ? The main list of licenses in the following page already includes it https://fedoraproject.org/wi

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 11:30 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 09:06:17AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: >> failed tests do not show up >> on the main page (probably was not considered because of how poorly >> the test information fetching goes). > > I guess you're referring to th

Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++

Il 18/02/2018 18:09, Igor Gnatenko ha scritto: If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing packages in list or anything else -- please let me know. I've fixed libpasastro, rawtherapee and wcstools. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lis

Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++

On Sun, 2018-02-18 at 18:09 +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having > gcc and > gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due > to random > reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by > analyzing >

Re: Should we have a release manager for each release? (or, "who owns rawhide"?)

On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 05:35:12PM -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > I would like to have us look at not only the processes for how we build > and ship the distribution. I have some ideas for how we can keep the > important pieces of how we build and ship things today, but give us the > flexibility to

Re: F29 System Wide Change: Remove GCC from BuildRoot

> "DPB" == Daniel P Berrangé writes: DPB> I'm suggesting committing actual changes. Creating several 1000 DPB> pull requests is just as much a burden on maintainers as expecting DPB> them to edit several 1000 specs themselves. I welcome automatic changes to the packages I maintain, but even

Re: Should we have a release manager for each release? (or, "who owns rawhide"?)

On Mon, 2018-02-19 at 14:14 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 05:35:12PM -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > > I would like to have us look at not only the processes for how we build > > and ship the distribution. I have some ideas for how we can keep the > > important pieces of how

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Modularity WG (once every two weeks)

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: Modularity WG (once every two weeks) on 2018-02-20 from 10:00:00 to 11:00:00 US/Eastern At fedora-meetin...@irc.freenode.net The meeting will be about: Meeting of the Modularity Working Group. More information available at: [Modularity Work

Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++

Am Sonntag, den 18.02.2018, 18:09 +0100 schrieb Igor Gnatenko: > Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having > gcc and > gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due > to random > reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by > anal

Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++

On Sun, 18 Feb 2018, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing packages in list > or anything else -- please let me know. > Fixed ascii, hardlink, netmask, pam_usb, and reptyr. -- Francisco Javier Tsao Santín http://gattaca.es 1024D/71CF4D62 42 F1 53 3

Fedora Rawhide-20180219.n.0 compose check report

Missing expected images: Workstation live i386 Kde live i386 Failed openQA tests: 24/129 (x86_64), 6/22 (i386), 1/2 (arm) ID: 194012 Test: x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/194012 ID: 194013 Test: x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_defa

Re: F28 System Wide Change: GCC8

On Tue, 2018-01-09 at 21:51 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 07:50:10PM +, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > Well, true, but then just like every year, we'll wind up doing a lot of > > > the spadework of fixing things to build with the new GCC. And probably > > > at first some

Re: F29 System Wide Change: Remove GCC from BuildRoot

Dne 19.2.2018 v 17:16 Dennis Gilmore napsal(a): > El lun, 19-02-2018 a las 10:56 +0100, Vít Ondruch escribió: >> >> Dne 19.2.2018 v 00:52 Dennis Gilmore napsal(a): >>> El vie, 16-02-2018 a las 12:56 +0100, Jan Kurik escribió: Proposed System Wide Change: Remove GCC from BuildRoot https:

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

Dne 19.2.2018 v 15:30 Randy Barlow napsal(a): > On 02/19/2018 06:19 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> The problem with Bodhi is that we don't use Bodhi for Rawhide where >> majority of work should be done. > There is an infrastructure hackathon in April where we hope to discuss a > way to enable Bodhi fo

Dynamically-generated C stored in SVN is breaking our distribution because life is awful (was Re: F28 System Wide Change: GCC8)

On Mon, 2018-02-19 at 22:57 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2018-01-09 at 21:51 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 07:50:10PM +, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > > Well, true, but then just like every year, we'll wind up doing a lot of > > > > the spadework of fixing