On 16.10.2019 06:13, Neal Gompa wrote:
> We cannot remove already existing default modules without further
> breaking things. Moreover, DNF will refuse to expose non-modular RPMs
> if it's aware of modular ones that have existed at some point. The
> best we can do is stop people from making more.
On ti, 15 loka 2019, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 9:40:31 PM MST Neal Gompa wrote:
And to be fair, while it is a hard problem to solve, it's a worthy
one. It makes sense and if done well, could really distinguish Fedora
from the rest in providing a way for codifying indi
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:50 AM Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
>
> On ti, 15 loka 2019, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> >On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 9:40:31 PM MST Neal Gompa wrote:
> >> And to be fair, while it is a hard problem to solve, it's a worthy
> >> one. It makes sense and if done well, could real
I submitted a Change for wrangling today, but I'm also putting it here
for discussion:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OnDemandSideTags
This is intended to be an alternative to modularity, in the sense
that it allows some rpms to be built against older or newer versions
of dependencies, but
* Jerry James:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 5:08 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>> And did not bump soname at the same time? I suspected as much once I
>> stared at the problem some more.
>
> Yes, that's exactly right.
Okay, that makes the mpfr transition much harder, and what you did
certainly looks re
Il giorno mer 16 ott 2019 alle ore 11:58 Fabio Valentini
ha scritto:
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:50 AM Alexander Bokovoy
> wrote:
> >
> > On ti, 15 loka 2019, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> > >On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 9:40:31 PM MST Neal Gompa wrote:
> > >> And to be fair, while it is a hard
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:15 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:11 AM John M. Harris Jr
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 9:07:51 PM MST Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:05 AM John M. Harris Jr
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday, Octo
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:05 AM John M. Harris Jr wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 6:26:31 PM MST Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > given that we're talking about the need to migrate defaults
>
> To clarify, that has not been decided, and a prominent option mentioned in
> this thread is the opt
OLD: Fedora-31-20191015.n.0
NEW: Fedora-31-20191016.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 9
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 0
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of upgraded
I have opened BZ ticket [1] for unresponsive maintainer mdarade (CC'd).
Does anyone know how to contact him? (outside of his email, already
tried that some time before)
Thanks
[1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1762227
--
Jiri Vymazal
Software Engineer, Platform Security - Speci
Hi everyone,
Just an FYI. The two pull requests that I'd filed to get our Comp Neuro
Lab image generated by releng (release engineering) have been merged.
Related URLs:
- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Comp_Neuro_Lab
- https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8873
- https://pagure.io/fedora-kicksta
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 5/153 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-31-20191015.n.0):
ID: 471132 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_browser
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/471132
ID: 471145 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 14:11:32 +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> Hi everyone,
Ugh, sorry---was only meant to go to the neuro-sig ML. "Reply to all"
failure. Apologies.
Neuro-sig folks, please check that devel@ isn't included in To/CC before
you reply.
--
Thanks,
Regards,
Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He /
Jiří Vymazal wrote on 2019/10/16 22:05:
I have opened BZ ticket [1] for unresponsive maintainer mdarade (CC'd). Does
anyone know how to contact him? (outside of his email, already tried that some
time before)
Thanks
[1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1762227
By the way, not r
On Wed, 2019-10-16 at 10:02 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> I submitted a Change for wrangling today, but I'm also putting it here
> for discussion:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OnDemandSideTags
>
> This is intended to be an alternative to modularity, in the sense
> that it
On Tue, 2019-10-15 at 12:25 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> > So: I'm on board with most of what you say here, but there's no need to
> > say it means Modularity is "a failure". It means right now it's not
> > entirely baked and we're realizing the concept needs extending and
> > perhaps reworking a
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019, Stephen Gallagher
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:05 AM John M. Harris Jr
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 6:26:31 PM MST Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > > given that we're talking about the need to migrate defaults
> >
> > To clarify, that has not b
Hi All,
I haven't heard anyone mention FOSDEM yet. Booth applications are due soon
and I'd like to see us coordinate again with our friends in CentOS. Is
there anyone interested in owning this? If so, can you put together a
proposal for Mindshare?
regards,
bex
--
Brian "bex" Exelbierd (he/hi
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 4:48 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Jerry James:
> > Sorry for not cluing you in sooner. I sent email to the maintainers
> > of all the packages I need to rebuild, but that didn't include you.
> > I'll let you know as soon as these builds are tagged into Rawhide.
>
> Oh no,
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 09:06:19AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-10-16 at 10:02 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > I submitted a Change for wrangling today, but I'm also putting it here
> > for discussion:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OnDemandSideTags
> >
>
Thanks Sérgio,
It's been some time now and still no word.
I can see on https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libpar2 there is a
co-maintainer by the name of maci. Perhaps he can take over the package?
Alternatively I don't mind doing so either.
Chris
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 10:36 PM Sérgio Basto w
On 10/15/19 9:26 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Module stream metadata would gain two new optional attributes,
"upgrades:" and "obsoletes:".
If the "upgrades: " field exists in the metadata, libdnf
should switch to this stream if the following conditions are met:
1) Changing the stream would not i
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:11 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2019-10-15 at 12:25 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> >
> > > So: I'm on board with most of what you say here, but there's no need to
> > > say it means Modularity is "a failure". It means right now it's not
> > > entirely baked and we'r
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 1:19 PM Przemek Klosowski via devel
wrote:
>
> On 10/15/19 9:26 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > Module stream metadata would gain two new optional attributes,
> > "upgrades:" and "obsoletes:".
> >
> > If the "upgrades: " field exists in the metadata, libdnf
> > should swit
On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 at 19:53, wrote:
>
> I would like to log a serious issue with https://SoftwareCollections.org
>
> It says I need a Fedora ID.
>
OK first off, to log issues with SoftwareCollections, I don't see
where having a Fedora ID would do anything (or asked for). On the
bottom of the fro
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 10:02:12AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> I submitted a Change for wrangling today, but I'm also putting it here
> for discussion:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OnDemandSideTags
>
> This is intended to be an alternative to modularity, in the sense
>
On 10/15/19 10:59 PM, Leigh Scott wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:44 AM, John M. Harris Jr
Don't waste your time answering this troll, he isn't listening.
This is gold. Red Hat and Fedora will happily enforce a ridiculous Code
of Conduct on non Red Hat and Fedora members but Red Hat and F
This is the Minimization Objective [0] update.
Status: Discovery phase
== Next phase proposed ==
The next phase has been proposed [1] [2] to the Council and feedback is
being collected. A formal vote happens in two weeks.
== PostgreSQL ==
Started talking to the maintainers about removing syste
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 01:06:50PM -0500, Ty Young wrote:
> This is gold. Red Hat and Fedora will happily enforce a ridiculous
> Code of Conduct on non Red Hat and Fedora members but Red Hat and
> Fedora contributors will readily engage in name calling, harassment,
> and intimidation both on and of
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 09:01:31PM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> > Don't waste your time answering this troll, he isn't listening.
> I am not a troll, and I definitely am listening. I read the third party
> software guidelines very carefully, on both the FESCo page, and the
> Workstation Gro
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 01:00:37PM -0400, Przemek Klosowski via devel wrote:
> It's a difficult choice. My understanding is that Fedora does not
> 'recommend' proprietary software, but rather allows it to be found,
> in response to people searching for it by either specific terms
> (package name) o
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 01:28:37PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> 1) This will be solved by the new Koji/MBS feature that we've
> codenamed "Ursa Prime" (as a replacement for the original "Ursa Major"
> tool that was built for RHEL 8). Unlike its predecessor, it requires
> no additional daemon s
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1762242
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #2 from F
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 08:31:10AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> This is not true. It should be *possible* to have a fully modularized
> distribution, but that isn't a specific goal for Fedora or RHEL.
Because this keeps coming up, we talked about this at the Fedora Council
meeting today. Our
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 02:33:41PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> This isn't a settled question in Fedora, and it's one that people feel very
> passionate about in both sides. In the end, we decided that allowing the
> experiment was worthwhile _as a means to the eventual end_. This is why
> there'
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 01:32:49PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> remove it" or something like that. It should never be used in the
> general case. Not even for "This is so old we should force upgrades".
> For that we should just drop the stream entirely from the next
> release, which would resu
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 06:22:52PM +0200, Brian (bex) Exelbierd wrote:
> I haven't heard anyone mention FOSDEM yet. Booth applications are due soon
> and I'd like to see us coordinate again with our friends in CentOS. Is
> there anyone interested in owning this? If so, can you put together a
> p
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 2:56 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 01:32:49PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > remove it" or something like that. It should never be used in the
> > general case. Not even for "This is so old we should force upgrades".
> > For that we should just d
> On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 8:59:18 PM MST Leigh Scott wrote:
>
> I am not a troll, and I definitely am listening. I read the third party
> software guidelines very carefully, on both the FESCo page, and the
> Workstation Group's page.
Sorry for mislabeling you :-)
Fedora only provides th
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 09:01:31PM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
>
> Yes; Leigh, let's please refrain from name calling. I often disagree with
> John, but I don't think he's acting in bad faith here (or in Fedora in
> general).
Did I manage to earn another misconduct badge for that? ;-)
_
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 07:10:11PM -, Leigh Scott wrote:
> > Yes; Leigh, let's please refrain from name calling. I often disagree with
> > John, but I don't think he's acting in bad faith here (or in Fedora in
> > general).
> Did I manage to earn another misconduct badge for that? ;-)
I hope t
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 2:41 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 01:28:37PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > 1) This will be solved by the new Koji/MBS feature that we've
> > codenamed "Ursa Prime" (as a replacement for the original "Ursa Major"
> > tool that was built for RHEL
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 10:49:29AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 10:02:12AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > I submitted a Change for wrangling today, but I'm also putting it here
> > for discussion:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OnDemandSideTags
> >
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 04:30:32PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> The idea is that it would act exactly the same way that dnf on the
> local system would act: if you builddep software from a stream that
> requires a non-default stream, it would enable that non-default
> stream.
Ah, I see. Thank
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 2:30:21 PM MST Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 04:30:32PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> > The idea is that it would act exactly the same way that dnf on the
> > local system would act: if you builddep software from a stream that
> > requires a n
Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
> You are mixing up parallel availability and parallel installability.
> These aren't the same. Modularity does solve parallel availability
> problem. It was never designed to solve parallel installability problem.
… which is exactly why it causes version hell.
> I don't
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> An awful lot of people are repeating this as if it's a solution
> without understanding the existing architecture. Believe it or not,
> attempting to abandon default streams and go back to only non-modular
> content available by default is a lot harder than it sounds (or
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> 3) We need to get the policy I described above written onto -stone
> tablets- the Packaging Guidelines and then we need to go and make any
> stream that isn't compliant with it a non-default stream.
But then we need a policy that requires a default version (non-modular o
mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
> I think you're probably right that people mainly want Chrome for the
> multimedia support. But well, surely you are well aware that we'll
> never be able to point to the rpmfusion codecs packages in any official
> location. I know it's very frustrating, but the legal t
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 7:58 PM Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > An awful lot of people are repeating this as if it's a solution
> > without understanding the existing architecture. Believe it or not,
> > attempting to abandon default streams and go back to only non-modular
> >
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 8:12 PM Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > 3) We need to get the policy I described above written onto -stone
> > tablets- the Packaging Guidelines and then we need to go and make any
> > stream that isn't compliant with it a non-default stream.
>
> But th
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 8:27 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 7:58 PM Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >
> > Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > > An awful lot of people are repeating this as if it's a solution
> > > without understanding the existing architecture. Believe it or not,
> > > a
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 8:44 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 8:27 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 7:58 PM Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > > > An awful lot of people are repeating this as if it's a solution
> > > > without
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> Currently, our default stance has been "disallow the system upgrade if
> the modules they've locked onto won't be available there". This is
> based on our philosophy that ultimately "the app is what matters".
> Most people don't install Linux because they enjoy clicki
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 8:42 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 8:12 PM Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >
> > Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > > 3) We need to get the policy I described above written onto -stone
> > > tablets- the Packaging Guidelines and then we need to go and make any
>
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:14 PM Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>
> Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>
>>
>> Currently, our default stance has been "disallow the system upgrade if
>> the modules they've locked onto won't be available there". This is
>> based on our philosophy that ultimately "the app is what ma
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:17 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:14 PM Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >
> >
> > Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Currently, our default stance has been "disallow the system upgrade if
> >> the modules they've locked onto won't be available th
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:00 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 8:44 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 8:27 PM Stephen Gallagher
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 7:58 PM Kevin Kofler
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 7:58 PM Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> So completely disable all module support in DNF by default with some
>> global flag (make all the module code conditional under some new
>> enable_modules flag and default the flag to enable_modules = 0), then it
>> w
Hi
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:21 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:17 PM Stephen Gallagher
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:14 PM Rahul Sundaram
> wrote:
> > If that's the case, the most obvious way to inform you is to disallow
> > the upgrade and have you resolve it by
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Not necessarily. It may be that we have to content ourselves with some
> software always requiring a module enablement to use it. For example,
> I maintain a module for Review Board, a Django-based code review tool.
> For complicated reasons, it cannot run against Django
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 8:44 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>> It was damaging when it was happening before we have a way to depend
>> on modules from non-modular content. It essentially forces other
>> packagers to move to modules too. It's a snowball effect. And *right
>> now* m
Neal Gompa wrote:
> It'd be interesting if an "inverse filter" could be applied. Instead
> of modules shadowing non-modular content, the other way around would
> occur. That would make it easy to clean that up.
And as I pointed out, if the proposal to require a non-modular default
version for all
There seems to be some confusion here as to the use cases of Fedora vs RHEL.
What's good for RHEL is not necessarily what's good for Fedora. I'm sorry, but
Fedora is not simply a sandbox to test things for RHEL, and that needs to be
made clear.
I'm comfortable saying that most Fedora users are
On 10/15/19 1:33 PM, Ankur Sinha wrote:
Hi Orion,
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 15:37:57 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
I have no idea as I really don't know exactly what --enable-mpi-cxx does. I
was surprised that it didn't appear to affect more packages.
F30 still seems to suffer from this issue. A
On to, 17 loka 2019, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
You are mixing up parallel availability and parallel installability.
These aren't the same. Modularity does solve parallel availability
problem. It was never designed to solve parallel installability problem.
… which is exactly
66 matches
Mail list logo
