libvirt uninstallable in F30 Koji because of broken ceph dep

DEBUG util.py:554: BUILDSTDERR: Error: DEBUG util.py:554: BUILDSTDERR: Problem: package libvirt-daemon-kvm-5.1.0-1.fc30.x86_64 requires libvirt-daemon-driver-storage = 5.1.0-1.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed DEBUG util.py:554: BUILDSTDERR: - package libguestfs-1:1.40.2-2.f

Re: GNOME 3.31.92 megaupdate and the F30 Beta freeze

On 3/4/19 17:43, Kalev Lember wrote: It's GNOME 3.31.92 release this week. We have a f30-gnome side tag as usual; if you are helping with builds please do F30 builds with 'fedpkg build --target f30-gnome'. I'll collect all the builds from the side tag and submit a megaupdate to Bodhi later this w

Question about Python 2 (sub-)package removal in Fedora

Related to: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Mass_Python_2_Package_Removal I have some packages which build python 2 subpackages, but they are not "python packages" as such. One example is nbdkit: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1225638 This package isn't listed i

Re: Question about Python 2 (sub-)package removal in Fedora

On 07. 03. 19 9:11, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: Related to: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Mass_Python_2_Package_Removal I have some packages which build python 2 subpackages, but they are not "python packages" as such. One example is nbdkit: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/build

Re: libvirt uninstallable in F30 Koji because of broken ceph dep

On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 08:02:00AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > DEBUG util.py:554: BUILDSTDERR: Error: > DEBUG util.py:554: BUILDSTDERR: Problem: package > libvirt-daemon-kvm-5.1.0-1.fc30.x86_64 requires libvirt-daemon-driver-storage > = 5.1.0-1.fc30, but none of the providers can be in

Re: Question about Python 2 (sub-)package removal in Fedora

On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 09:15:23AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 07. 03. 19 9:11, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > >Related to: > >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Mass_Python_2_Package_Removal > > > >I have some packages which build python 2 subpackages, but they are > >not "python packages

Re: Question about Python 2 (sub-)package removal in Fedora

On 07. 03. 19 9:33, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 09:15:23AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 07. 03. 19 9:11, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: Related to: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Mass_Python_2_Package_Removal I have some packages which build python 2 subpackages, but

Re: Question about Python 2 (sub-)package removal in Fedora

On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 09:37:12AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 07. 03. 19 9:33, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > >On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 09:15:23AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > >>On 07. 03. 19 9:11, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > >>> > >>>Related to: > >>>https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Mass_Py

Re: libvirt uninstallable in F30 Koji because of broken ceph dep

On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 08:29:52AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 08:02:00AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > DEBUG util.py:554: BUILDSTDERR: Error: > > DEBUG util.py:554: BUILDSTDERR: Problem: package > > libvirt-daemon-kvm-5.1.0-1.fc30.x86_64 requires > > lib

Re: libvirt uninstallable in F30 Koji because of broken ceph dep

On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 09:47:51AM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 08:29:52AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 08:02:00AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > DEBUG util.py:554: BUILDSTDERR: Error: > > > DEBUG util.py:554: BUILDSTDERR: Pr

Re: libvirt uninstallable in F30 Koji because of broken ceph dep

Am Donnerstag, den 07.03.2019, 09:53 + schrieb Richard W.M. Jones: > On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 09:47:51AM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 08:29:52AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 08:02:00AM +, Richard W.M. Jones > > > wrote: > > >

Re: The state of Zanata Python client (Python 3 support)

On Thu, 2019-03-07 at 12:38 +0800, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote: > Thanks to Sundeep, who has already started and worked on this. > So hopefully we will have a working py3 zanata-python-client for F30+ soon. > :-) Nice & thanks in advance! :) Can definitely help testing the new version once it becom

Downgrading glibc from Rawhide removed /bin/sh (!)

$ sudo dnf install glibc-headers.i686 Last metadata expiration check: 0:53:05 ago on Thu 07 Mar 2019 09:42:26 GMT. Dependencies resolved. Package Architecture Version Repository Size

Re: Downgrading glibc from Rawhide removed /bin/sh (!)

Actually it's more subtle. It didn't remove the files, but it did break something really fundamental, perhaps execv? Perhaps new binaries cannot link with the slightly older glibc? $ echo /usr/bin/ls /usr/bin/ls $ /usr/bin/ls -bash: /usr/bin/ls: No such file or directory Rich. -- Richard Jon

Re: Downgrading glibc from Rawhide removed /bin/sh (!)

Hi, On 07-03-19 11:45, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: Actually it's more subtle. It didn't remove the files, but it did break something really fundamental, perhaps execv? Perhaps new binaries cannot link with the slightly older glibc? $ echo /usr/bin/ls /usr/bin/ls $ /usr/bin/ls -bash: /usr/bin/l

Re: Downgrading glibc from Rawhide removed /bin/sh (!)

* Richard W. M. Jones: > $ sudo dnf install glibc-headers.i686 … > Downgrading: That looks like a bug in itself. The last time I looked at something similar, I saw this: RPM would not adjust a pre-existing symbolic link to a new target very late in the transaction. Like deleting old files which

Re: Downgrading glibc from Rawhide removed /bin/sh (!)

On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 12:13:22PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Richard W. M. Jones: > > > $ sudo dnf install glibc-headers.i686 > … > > Downgrading: > > That looks like a bug in itself. > > The last time I looked at something similar, I saw this: RPM would not > adjust a pre-existing symbol

Re: Proposal: Abandon v8 package

On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 16:24, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 7:02 PM Elliott Sales de Andrade > wrote: > > > > Let's try this again, but CC'ing the package owners. > > > > On 2019-02-17 9:12 p.m., Elliott Sales de Andrade wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Sorry for resurrecting a

Re: Downgrading glibc from Rawhide removed /bin/sh (!)

On 3/7/19 1:13 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: * Richard W. M. Jones: $ sudo dnf install glibc-headers.i686 … Downgrading: That looks like a bug in itself. The last time I looked at something similar, I saw this: RPM would not adjust a pre-existing symbolic link to a new target very late in the

Re: Proposal: Abandon v8 package

Great, thanks. I took a look and did a review. I have a couple minor tweaks I'd like to see, then I'll go ahead and merge it (and backport/sideport it to the 8.x and 11.x branches) On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 6:44 AM Elliott Sales de Andrade wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 16:24, Stephen Gallagher

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal: Gating Rawhide - Single package updates

On 3/2/19 5:02 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > On Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 06:57:48PM -0800, Tom Stellard wrote: >> On 03/01/2019 01:19 PM, Ben Cotton wrote: >>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GatingRawhideSinglePackageUpdates >>> >>> == Summary == >>> We want to gate packages on test results

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal: Gating Rawhide - Single package updates

On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 10:24:00PM +0800, Zamir SUN wrote: > > > On 3/2/19 5:02 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 06:57:48PM -0800, Tom Stellard wrote: > >> On 03/01/2019 01:19 PM, Ben Cotton wrote: > >>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GatingRawhideSinglePackageUpd

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal: Gating Rawhide - Single package updates

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 10:07 AM Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 10:24:00PM +0800, Zamir SUN wrote: > > > > > > On 3/2/19 5:02 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 06:57:48PM -0800, Tom Stellard wrote: > > >> On 03/01/2019 01:19 PM, Ben Cotton wrote: > >

Re: Downgrading glibc from Rawhide removed /bin/sh (!)

* Panu Matilainen: > On 3/7/19 1:13 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Richard W. M. Jones: >> >>> $ sudo dnf install glibc-headers.i686 >> … >>> Downgrading: >> >> That looks like a bug in itself. >> >> The last time I looked at something similar, I saw this: RPM would not >> adjust a pre-existing sy

Re: Introducing packit

Hi Miro, sorry for a late reply: I wanted to think it through. Comments inline. On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 4:43 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 20. 02. 19 23:24, Tomas Tomecek wrote: > > Hello, > > > > at DevConf.cz, we have introduced a new project: packit [1] [2]. > > [1] https://www.youtube.com/wat

license change for python-metar

For your information: the python-metar package has changed license from MIT to BSD, starting with release 1.7.0. see: https://github.com/python-metar/python-metar/releases https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-metar best regards, Jos de Kloe. ___ d

Re: Scratch build uploads to koji VERY SLOW

On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 6:39 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On 3/6/19 4:14 PM, Richard Shaw wrote: > > > > New since the last couple of weeks but I've been more active working on > > FTBFS issues so can't say exactly when it started. It's never been super > > speedy but also never been this painful. > >

Packaging Question - Building the Binaries of my package

I’m a new maintainer and I’ve been trying to get my package, Open Liberty, into the Fedora repositories.   I currently build my rpms in a public Travis CI build. I do so by using wget to pull a zipped up pre-built openliberty package from “https://public.dhe.ibm.com/ibmdl/export/pub/software/openli

Re: Fedora rawhide compose report: 20190306.n.1 changes

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 12:17, Fedora Rawhide Report wrote: > > OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20190217.n.0 > NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20190306.n.1 > > = SUMMARY = > Added images:13 > Dropped images: 7 > Added packages: 128 > Dropped packages:174 > Upgraded packages: 1745 > Downgrade

Re: Fedora rawhide compose report: 20190306.n.1 changes

On 3/7/19 11:35 AM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 12:17, Fedora Rawhide Report > wrote: >> >> OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20190217.n.0 >> NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20190306.n.1 >> >> = SUMMARY = >> Added images:13 >> Dropped images: 7 >> Added packages: 128 >> Dropped p

Re: Fedora rawhide compose report: 20190306.n.1 changes

On 07. 03. 19 21:19, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On 3/7/19 11:35 AM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 12:17, Fedora Rawhide Report wrote: OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20190217.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20190306.n.1 = SUMMARY = Added images:13 Dropped images: 7 Added packages:

Re: Packaging Question - Building the Binaries of my package

Am 07.03.19 um 19:49 schrieb Michael Zhang: > So after tinkering around, I can incorporate the building of the > openliberty.zip into the Travis CI build but I cannot directly add it into the > %install phase of the rpm spec file. Would that be fine? To the best of my knowledge all building from

Re: Packaging Question - Building the Binaries of my package

On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 06:49:12PM +, Michael Zhang wrote: > Recently, someone advised me that I have to build the binaries from the > source code in the %install phase. That is to say that I have to make it > transparent how the binaries (ex. jar) are built.  As I understand it, in Debian, de

Re: Packaging Question - Building the Binaries of my package

On Thu, 2019-03-07 at 18:49 +, Michael Zhang wrote: > Recently, someone advised me that I have to build the binaries from > the source code in the %install phase. The building should happein the %build phase. The %install phase is where the resulting artifacts are copied into the buildroot.

Re: Fedora rawhide compose report: 20190306.n.1 changes

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 15:31, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 07. 03. 19 21:19, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On 3/7/19 11:35 AM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > >> On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 12:17, Fedora Rawhide Report > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20190217.n.0 > >>> NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20190306.n.1 > >>>

Fedora Atomic Host Two Week Release Announcement: 29.20190306.2

A new Fedora Atomic Host update is available via an OSTree update: Version: 29.20190306.2 Commit(x86_64): 57297da7779ed8b7b7b9a0f39f6f12a703000a40cf451770fe23749a5558f60d Commit(aarch64): df56dcbc9ae6c0653122753b835668b4d729ea3943cb2541114dabd9c1d271bb Commit(ppc64le): d01ba1b8cca9e71bd2a4e549e

Help needed regarding a build failure on x32 for python-twisted, might be kernel related

Hello, I'm trying to build the new python-twisted 18.9.0, but it fails on 32 bits architecture: BUILDSTDERR: In file included from /usr/include/asm/socket.h:1, BUILDSTDERR: from /usr/include/bits/socket.h:393, BUILDSTDERR: from /usr/include/sys/socket.h:33, BUIL

Re: Help needed regarding a build failure on x32 for python-twisted, might be kernel related

On 3/7/19 2:23 PM, Robert-André Mauchin wrote: Hello, I'm trying to build the new python-twisted 18.9.0, but it fails on 32 bits architecture: BUILDSTDERR: In file included from /usr/include/asm/socket.h:1, BUILDSTDERR: from /usr/include/bits/socket.h:393, BUILDSTDERR:

Re: Packaging Question - Building the Binaries of my package

Michael Zhang wrote: > Recently, someone advised me that I have to build the binaries from the > source code in the %install phase. That is to say that I have to make it > transparent how the binaries (ex. jar) are built. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/what-can-be-

Re: modular repositories in mock configs: please don't

Dne 06. 03. 19 v 14:00 Mikolaj Izdebski napsal(a): > - create a proper modulemd document > - build some (zero or more) RPM packages using rpmbuild > - create YUM repodata from built packages using createrepo_c > - attach modulemd to repodata using modifyrepo_c Yes. But the first and last steps nee

Re: Fedora rawhide compose report: 20190306.n.1 changes

-- Tomasz Kłoczko | Tel: 0774 1209067 | LinkedIn: http://lnkd.in/FXPWxH On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 20:37, Miro Hrončok wrote: [..] > > What ground/public repos do you mean here? The master mirror is > > definitely updated. It's a large pile of changes, so other mirrors may > > take a bit longer than no

Re: Fedora rawhide compose report: 20190306.n.1 changes

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 19:00, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > > -- Tomasz Kłoczko | Tel: 0774 1209067 | LinkedIn: http://lnkd.in/FXPWxH > On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 20:37, Miro Hrončok wrote: > [..] > > > What ground/public repos do you mean here? The master mirror is > > > definitely updated. It's a large pil

Re: Help needed regarding a build failure on x32 for python-twisted, might be kernel related

* Robert-André Mauchin: > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33279740 Since this has come up repeatedly in other contexts leading to confusion: This is not an x32 build. I don't think Fedora has any x32 builders. x32 is a distinct, incompatible architecture from i386/i686 and

Re: Fedora rawhide compose report: 20190306.n.1 changes

On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 at 00:37, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: [..] > We don't push to mirrors. They sync from either our main servers or a > tier 1 or tier 2 mirror which also pull/rsync from the master mirrors. > This means it will take time to get stuff down and out. So like I > said.. do not expect