Fonts packaging policy rewrite proposal

Hi, A fonts packaging policy rewrite proposal has been pushed to FPC today: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/934 It should be clearer, more opinionated, and take into account: – updates of The OpenType standard – variable fonts – web fonts – upstream depreciation of non Ope

Re: Add a rule to have a compose when Fedora branched

If you think the change proposal is a better way then I'll create a draft and before sending it I'll contact you off the list to polish it. Thanks a lot everyone for helping. You are the best! Jirka On Mon, 2019-11-11 at 19:16 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 11. 11. 19 19:09, Miro Hrončok wrote:

Re: Fonts packaging policy rewrite proposal

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 5:01 PM Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/nim/fonts-rpm-macros/builds/ > > showcases the new policy on 62 real-world source packages, generating > 139 installation packages. Some of those are badly delayed updates to > Fedora packages, others

Bodhi Outage Ongoing - Deploying 5.0

Dear all, There is an outage on going, which may last up to 2 hours. Rawhide update will suffer a longer outage which will probably last until later today (15:00 UTC). I will send an update to the list once everything is back to normal. Apologies for not sending this notice earlier. To convert U

thunderbird-enigmail: help needed to restrict available architectures

Hi, recently I took thunderbird-enigmail to fix some CVEs + unbreak the package. With the help of two Fedora users I updated the package + improved the spec file (I hope :-). Now I wanted to push out an update but taskotron complains: > dist.rpmdeplint FAILED for thunderbird-enigmail-2.1.3-4.fc2

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Hi. I've been silent so far, while mostly agreeing with the "let's just drop Modularity" proposal. This post hit a nerve, so I felt compelled to reply. On Monday, 11 November 2019 at 19:24, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 1:15 PM Robbie Harwood wrote: [...] > > It's really frus

Re: Bodhi Outage Ongoing - Deploying 5.0

On 12. 11. 19 10:45, Clement Verna wrote: We will be upgrading bodhi to its 5.0 release. This release comes in with few UI changes but also task scheduling system (rabbitmq/celery based) allowing to offload some of the tasks currently performed in the front-end to distributed workers. This shou

Problems using fedpkg

Hi, When i try to use "fedpkg co vcglib", i get $ fedpkg co vcglib Cloning into 'vcglib'... muft...@pkgs.fedoraproject.org: Permission denied (publickey). fatal: Could not read from remote repository. Please make sure you have the correct access rights and the repository exists. Could not execut

Orphaning trac plugins

Hello, I have orphaned the following trac plugins, as I do not use trac anymore trac-xmlrpc-plugin trac-doxygen-plugin https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/trac-xmlrpc-plugin https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/trac-doxygen-plugin Regards, Sergio ___ deve

Re: Fonts packaging policy rewrite proposal

Le 2019-11-12 10:06, Akira TAGOH a écrit : On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 5:01 PM Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Hi Akira https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/nim/fonts-rpm-macros/builds/ showcases the new policy on 62 real-world source packages, generating 139 installation packages. Some of those are

Re: Problems using fedpkg

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:14 AM J. Scheurich wrote: > > Hi, > > When i try to use "fedpkg co vcglib", i get > > $ fedpkg co vcglib > Cloning into 'vcglib'... > muft...@pkgs.fedoraproject.org: Permission denied (publickey). > fatal: Could not read from remote repository. > > Please make sure you h

Re: Problems using fedpkg

Hi, >> When i try to use "fedpkg co vcglib", i get >> >> $ fedpkg co vcglib >> Cloning into 'vcglib'... >> muft...@pkgs.fedoraproject.org: Permission denied (publickey). >> fatal: Could not read from remote repository. >> >> >> How to set/reset the right account information ? >> >> so long >> MUFTI

Re: Problems using fedpkg

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 12:03 PM J. Scheurich wrote: > > Hi, > >> When i try to use "fedpkg co vcglib", i get > >> > >> $ fedpkg co vcglib > >> Cloning into 'vcglib'... > >> muft...@pkgs.fedoraproject.org: Permission denied (publickey). > >> fatal: Could not read from remote repository. > >> > >>

Re: Problems using fedpkg

On Tue, 2019-11-12 at 12:02 +0100, J. Scheurich wrote: > Hi, > > > When i try to use "fedpkg co vcglib", i get > > > > > > $ fedpkg co vcglib > > > Cloning into 'vcglib'... > > > muft...@pkgs.fedoraproject.org: Permission denied (publickey). > > > fatal: Could not read from remote repository. > >

[Bug 1744690] [RFE] EPEL8 branch of perl-Plack

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744690 --- Comment #4 from Xavier Bachelot --- The following missing dependencies neither have a bug filed nor a build done: perl-Cookie-Baker perl-Devel-StackTrace-AsHTML perl-HTTP-Entity-Parser perl-HTTP-Server-Simple-PSGI perl-LWP-Protocol-http10

Re: vagrant can't up rawhide compose

On 11/6/19 4:23 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Isn't it this issue? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1759603 Vít It seems to be something different. I opened: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771446 Dne 06. 11. 19 v 14:02 Pavel Březina napsal(a): I'm trying vagrant image

Re: thunderbird-enigmail: help needed to restrict available architectures

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 10:48 AM Felix Schwarz wrote: > > Hi, > > recently I took thunderbird-enigmail to fix some CVEs + unbreak the package. > With the help of two Fedora users I updated the package + improved the spec > file (I hope :-). > > Now I wanted to push out an update but taskotron comp

Re: thunderbird-enigmail: help needed to restrict available architectures

Hi Fabio, Am 12.11.19 um 13:37 schrieb Fabio Valentini: > There's a specific section about this issue in the Packaging Guidelines: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_noarch_with_unported_dependencies > > So, in your case, I think you'd have to use something like this: >

Taking over the orphaned json_diff package

Hi, I would like to take over the json_diff package, already talked with the previous maintainer and he seems to be fine with it :) On the other hand he is no longer the owner The issue with the request https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8995 The repo https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/json_diff/tre

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Build Python 3 to statically link with libpython3.8.a for better performance

Dne 05. 11. 19 v 16:03 Ben Cotton napsal(a): == Summary == Python 3 traditionally in Fedora was built with a shared library libpython3.?.so and the final binary was dynamically linked against that shared library. This change is about creating the static library and linking the final python3 binar

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Hi, On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 10:50 AM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > Hi. > I've been silent so far, while mostly agreeing with the "let's just drop > Modularity" proposal. This post hit a nerve, so I felt compelled to reply. > > On Monday, 11 November 2019 at 19:24, Stephen Gallagher wr

Re: Potential module for wxGTK3.1 unstable series / Audacity

On 12/11/19 8:46 am, Scott Talbert wrote: On Mon, 11 Nov 2019, Scott Talbert wrote: Ouch.  So now you're talking about wanting to package a *fork* of a development release of wxGTK. No. (unless it was done by simply turning on a config item). Looking closer, building audacity requires an alre

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Build Python 3 to statically link with libpython3.8.a for better performance

On 12. 11. 19 14:00, Miroslav Suchý wrote: Dne 05. 11. 19 v 16:03 Ben Cotton napsal(a): == Summary == Python 3 traditionally in Fedora was built with a shared library libpython3.?.so and the final binary was dynamically linked against that shared library. This change is about creating the static

Re: thunderbird-enigmail: help needed to restrict available architectures

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 1:44 PM Felix Schwarz wrote: > > Hi Fabio, > > Am 12.11.19 um 13:37 schrieb Fabio Valentini: > > There's a specific section about this issue in the Packaging Guidelines: > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_noarch_with_unported_dependencies > > >

Re: Bodhi Outage Ongoing - Deploying 5.0

On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 11:08, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 12. 11. 19 10:45, Clement Verna wrote: > > We will be upgrading bodhi to its 5.0 release. This release comes in > with few UI > > changes but also task scheduling system (rabbitmq/celery based) allowing > to > > offload some of the tasks curr

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 11:42:38PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > One of the things I love about Fedora is that we don't have a big company- > > vs-community divide. > Huh? In what parallel universe do you live? We have a big company _investment_, but I don't think it's a divide. That's the one I

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Build Python 3 to statically link with libpython3.8.a for better performance

On 12. 11. 19 14:18, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 12. 11. 19 14:00, Miroslav Suchý wrote: Dne 05. 11. 19 v 16:03 Ben Cotton napsal(a): == Summary == Python 3 traditionally in Fedora was built with a shared library libpython3.?.so and the final binary was dynamically linked against that shared library

Re: Bodhi Outage Ongoing - Deploying 5.0

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:46 AM Clement Verna wrote: > > We will be upgrading bodhi to its 5.0 release. This release comes in with few > UI changes I think you're underestimating how different the UI is with 5.0. I don't know where anything is yet... It looks slick, but it'll take some getting u

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Build Python 3 to statically link with libpython3.8.a for better performance

> Will python still be PIE? Or will you disable hardening and build it as > a position-dependent binary? Yes, the python ELF binary still uses PIE (Position Independent Executable). I checked the patched package: $ file /usr/bin/python3.8 /usr/bin/python3.8: ELF 64-bit LSB pie executable, x86-6

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Dne 12. 11. 19 v 14:04 Aleksandra Fedorova napsal(a): > Hi, > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 10:50 AM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski > wrote: >> Hi. >> I've been silent so far, while mostly agreeing with the "let's just drop >> Modularity" proposal. This post hit a nerve, so I felt compelled to reply.

NeuroFedora review swaps: IV and jLEMS

Hello, Two more NeuroFedora packages need review if anyone would like to swap reviews please? - 1150441 – Review Request: iv - InterViews graphical library: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150441 - 1770582 – (jLEMS) Review Request: jLEMS - Java Interpreter for the Low Entropy Mo

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 09:49, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > Dne 12. 11. 19 v 14:04 Aleksandra Fedorova napsal(a): > > Hi, > > > > > 2) I don't think Modularity is a failure in its current state. > > > > Yes, we do have a problem of default streams. There are several > > reasons for that. > > > > One t

Re: vagrant can't up rawhide compose

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:49 AM Pavel Březina wrote: > On 11/6/19 4:23 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Isn't it this issue? > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1759603 > > > > > > Vít > > It seems to be something different. I opened: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=17714

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019, 14:13 Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 10:50 AM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski > wrote: > > > > Hi. > > I've been silent so far, while mostly agreeing with the "let's just drop > > Modularity" proposal. This post hit a nerve, so I felt compelled

Re: Bodhi Outage Ongoing - Deploying 5.0

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 7:42 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > I think you're underestimating how different the UI is with 5.0. I > don't know where anything is yet... It looks slick, but it'll take > some getting used to... It does look slick, but here are two issues I've already run into with it. 1. The

Re: Bodhi Outage Ongoing - Deploying 5.0

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 8:27 AM Jerry James wrote: > 2. It is not possible to create a newpackage update with the GUI. > I've got a brand new package, gap-pkg-fining, with a brand new build > for F31. I type "gap-pkg-fining" into the "Name" field, and it tells > me that it cannot find the package

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Hi, Igor, On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:20 PM Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019, 14:13 Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 10:50 AM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski >> wrote: >> > >> > Hi. >> > I've been silent so far, while mostly agreeing with the "let's j

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:03 AM Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > Again, no one forces you or any other packager to use modularity > tooling right now. > This is not true. Once content is modularized, things that were able to depend on it in the normal form can no longer do so unless they too modul

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On 12. 11. 19 17:02, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: Again, no one forces you or any other packager to use modularity tooling right now. As Fedora developer you have a choice to join the effort, bring your input and use cases, try and test (and revert if it doesn't work) or you can stay away from it

Re: Bodhi Outage Ongoing - Deploying 5.0

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 08:46:03AM -0700, Jerry James wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 8:27 AM Jerry James wrote: > > 2. It is not possible to create a newpackage update with the GUI. > > I've got a brand new package, gap-pkg-fining, with a brand new build > > for F31. I type "gap-pkg-fining" int

Re: Bodhi Outage Ongoing - Deploying 5.0

Il 12/11/19 16:46, Jerry James ha scritto: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 8:27 AM Jerry James wrote: >> 2. It is not possible to create a newpackage update with the GUI. >> I've got a brand new package, gap-pkg-fining, with a brand new build >> for F31. I type "gap-pkg-fining" into the "Name" field, a

Re: Bodhi Outage Ongoing - Deploying 5.0

Le 12/11/2019 à 10:45, Clement Verna a écrit : > We will be upgrading bodhi to its 5.0 release. This release comes in with > few UI changes but also task scheduling system (rabbitmq/celery based) > allowing to offload some of the tasks currently performed in the front-end > to distributed workers.

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Le mardi 12 novembre 2019 à 17:02 +0100, Aleksandra Fedorova a écrit : > Hi, Igor, > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:20 PM Igor Gnatenko > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 10:50 AM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski > > > wrote: > > > > > > So is it really about making tooling (writing new,

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 5:10 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 12. 11. 19 17:02, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > Again, no one forces you or any other packager to use modularity > > tooling right now. > > > > As Fedora developer you have a choice to join the effort, bring your > > input and use cases,

Re: Fonts packaging policy rewrite proposal

Le mardi 12 novembre 2019 à 09:00 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit : > Hi, > > A fonts packaging policy rewrite proposal has been pushed to FPC > today: > https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/934 > > It is based on the new fonts-rpm-macros project for automation: https://pagure.io/fo

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 12:26, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 5:10 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > > On 12. 11. 19 17:02, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > > Again, no one forces you or any other packager to use modularity > > > tooling right now. > > > > > > As Fedora developer

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 7:31 PM Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 5:10 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > > On 12. 11. 19 17:02, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > > Again, no one forces you or any other packager to use modularity > > > tooling right now. > > > > > > As Fedora developer

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Hi, Aleksandar, On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 6:40 PM Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 7:31 PM Aleksandra Fedorova > wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 5:10 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: >> > >> > On 12. 11. 19 17:02, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: >> > > Again, no one forces you or

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 7:55 PM Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > Hi, Aleksandar, > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 6:40 PM Aleksandar Kurtakov > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 7:31 PM Aleksandra Fedorova > wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 5:10 PM Miro Hrončok > wrote: > >> > > >>

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Hi Stephen, On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 6:40 PM Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 12:26, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 5:10 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > > > > On 12. 11. 19 17:02, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > > > Again, no one forces you or any ot

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 7:03 PM Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 7:55 PM Aleksandra Fedorova > wrote: >> >> Hi, Aleksandar, >> >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 6:40 PM Aleksandar Kurtakov >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 7:31 PM Aleksandra Fedorova >>

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Tue, 2019-11-12 at 09:24 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > Have the same opportunity to participate in leadership. Only two of the council seats are elected. The rest are appointed, and some of those appointed only by specific Red Hat employees. Thus, I don't think it's exactly the same opportuni

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 02:09:10PM -0500, Randy Barlow wrote: > > Have the same opportunity to participate in leadership. > Only two of the council seats are elected. The rest are appointed, and > some of those appointed only by specific Red Hat employees. > > Thus, I don't think it's exactly the

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 10:26 AM Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > The question arises, what people are supposed to do when they modularized > content because modularity is (was?) good tool to have "buildroot-only > packages," "separate lifecycle from Fedora" and "no difference from normal > packages."

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:10 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:03 AM Aleksandra Fedorova > wrote: > > > > Again, no one forces you or any other packager to use modularity > > tooling right now. > > > > This is not true. Once content is modularized, things that were able > to d

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 3:20 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:10 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:03 AM Aleksandra Fedorova > > wrote: > > > > > > Again, no one forces you or any other packager to use modularity > > > tooling right now. > > > > >

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 12:31 PM Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 5:10 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > > On 12. 11. 19 17:02, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > > Again, no one forces you or any other packager to use modularity > > > tooling right now. > > > > > > As Fedora develop

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 12:40 PM Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 12:26, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > Again I fail to see the _technical_ difference between the ursine rpm > > package and a package which was built as a part of default stream. It > > is the same rpm spec fr

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 12:40 PM Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > The way Eclipse is treated makes me really sad and kind of regret the time > spent on Fedora over the years! Being forced to be a module but blocked to be > default stream by FESCo arguing over whether it wants modularity (sorry, this

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 1:32 PM Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 7:03 PM Aleksandar Kurtakov > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 7:55 PM Aleksandra Fedorova > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, Aleksandar, > >> > >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 6:40 PM Aleksandar Kurtakov >

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 3:29 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 3:20 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:10 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:03 AM Aleksandra Fedorova > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Again, no one forces you or an

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tuesday, 12 November 2019 at 21:15, Stephen Gallagher wrote: [...] > I agree with Aleksandra here. And we *did* establish that our policy > going forward is that we will forbid any default stream from providing > non-API content. (Filtered out packages are orthogonal to this.) What does that ev

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:03 PM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > On Tuesday, 12 November 2019 at 21:15, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > [...] > > I agree with Aleksandra here. And we *did* establish that our policy > > going forward is that we will forbid any default stream from providing > >

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 15:36, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 12:40 PM Stephen John Smoogen > wrote: > > > > On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 12:26, Aleksandra Fedorova > > wrote: > > > Again I fail to see the _technical_ difference between the ursine rpm > > > package and a package

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tuesday, 12 November 2019 at 22:07, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:03 PM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski > wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, 12 November 2019 at 21:15, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > [...] > > > I agree with Aleksandra here. And we *did* establish that our policy > >

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:17 PM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski < domi...@greysector.net> wrote: > On Tuesday, 12 November 2019 at 22:07, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:03 PM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski > > wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, 12 November 2019 at 21:15, Stephe

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 7:49:06 AM MST Vít Ondruch wrote: > > 1) I don't think Modularity is about being LTS and "enterprisy". > > Lifecycle differences are not the only feature Modularity provides. > > > > I see Modularity as a tool which bridges the gap between container > > world and a pa

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 9:02:07 AM MST Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > Again, no one forces you or any other packager to use modularity > tooling right now. This is not actually the case. We have several major packages which are ONLY available as modules, for example. -- John M. Harris, Jr.

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019, at 3:35 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 12:40 PM Stephen John Smoogen > wrote: > > > > On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 12:26, Aleksandra Fedorova > > wrote: > > > Again I fail to see the _technical_ difference between the ursine rpm > > > package and a packag

Re: thunderbird-enigmail: help needed to restrict available architectures

Am 12.11.19 um 14:49 schrieb Fabio Valentini: On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 1:44 PM Felix Schwarz wrote: Am 12.11.19 um 13:37 schrieb Fabio Valentini: There's a specific section about this issue in the Packaging Guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_noarch_with_unp

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:02 AM John M. Harris Jr wrote: > On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 9:02:07 AM MST Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > Again, no one forces you or any other packager to use modularity > > tooling right now. > > This is not actually the case. We have several major packages which a

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Build Python 3 to statically link with libpython3.8.a for better performance

On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 6:18:00 AM MST Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 12. 11. 19 14:00, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > > Dne 05. 11. 19 v 16:03 Ben Cotton napsal(a): > > > >> == Summary == > >> Python 3 traditionally in Fedora was built with a shared library > >> libpython3.?.so and the final binary w

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 7:24:16 AM MST Matthew Miller wrote: > We have a big company _investment_, but I don't think it's a divide. > That's the one I live in. This is clearly not the case, though I understand why, as the FPL, you would want to say such a thing. -- John M. Harris, Jr. Sp

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 3:19:59 PM MST Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > So people would prefer no packages at all over packages in modules? I ask > this as the traditional rpm way of doing is simply not working and that's > the reason why many of us (old time Java packagers) just gave up, it's >

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 10:26 AM Igor Gnatenko > wrote: > > You say we need to improve tooling and iterate fast, fine. But why then > > https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7662 is still not implemented? On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 03:15:06PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > To be clear, the team that r

Re: Bodhi Outage Ongoing - Deploying 5.0

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 05:28:23PM +0100, Remi Collet wrote: > Le 12/11/2019 à 10:45, Clement Verna a écrit : > > We will be upgrading bodhi to its 5.0 release. This release comes in with > > few UI changes but also task scheduling system (rabbitmq/celery based) > > allowing to offload some of the

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On 12. 11. 19 18:25, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 5:10 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: On 12. 11. 19 17:02, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: Again, no one forces you or any other packager to use modularity tooling right now. As Fedora developer you have a choice to join the effort, br

Re: Potential module for wxGTK3.1 unstable series / Audacity

David Timms wrote: > And this usage can be the impetus that allows library development to be > well tested by multiple real applications and issues > known/fixes/improvements in place before the library hardens it's > ABI/API interfaces at the release. But why would you want to abuse renowned appl

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Build Python 3 to statically link with libpython3.8.a for better performance

On 12. 11. 19 23:21, John M. Harris Jr wrote: If that software was to be packaged, in this case, you'd simply: Requires: python3 change the shebang to /path/to/my/python3 I am strongly against any proposals that involve /path/to/my/python3. However, I believe there's a third option here. It

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Again, no one forces you or any other packager to use modularity > tooling right now. > > As Fedora developer you have a choice to join the effort, bring your > input and use cases, try and test (and revert if it doesn't work) or > you can stay away from it and keep using same tools as before. > W

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

You mean like quota-devel? Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 12, 2019, at 4:14 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski > wrote: > > On Tuesday, 12 November 2019 at 22:07, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:03 PM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski >>> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, 12 Nov

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Build Python 3 to statically link with libpython3.8.a for better performance

John M. Harris Jr wrote: > However, I believe there's a third option here. It could be as simple as > providing a python3-static in addition, and NOT using `alternatives`. This > way, packages and scripts that actually need the performance improvements > can directly call python3-static, and everyt

Re: thunderbird-enigmail: help needed to restrict available architectures

Felix Schwarz wrote: > Currently I have these lines in thunderbird-enigmail's .spec file: > ,- > BuildArch: noarch > # Thunderbird is not available on all supported platforms > ExcludeArch: armv7hl > ExcludeArch: s390x > `- That

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Build Python 3 to statically link with libpython3.8.a for better performance

On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 4:21:03 PM MST Kevin Kofler wrote: > But the wasted space will be even more, because now you have libpython, the > dynamic python3 linked against it, AND the python3-static binary. So it > does not address the issue at all. Yes, that would be the case if something in

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > 1) I don't think Modularity is about being LTS and "enterprisy". > Lifecycle differences are not the only feature Modularity provides. > > I see Modularity as a tool which bridges the gap between container > world and a packaged distribution. > > Without modularity we

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Igor Gnatenko wrote: > You say we need to improve tooling and iterate fast, fine. But why then > https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7662 is still not implemented? I understand > that it is opensource And everyone can contribute, but the fact is that > people who work on Modularity tooling is entirely p

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 12:31 PM Aleksandra Fedorova > wrote: >> Ursa Prime effort achieves the same goal. It removes the "viral" part >> of Modularity I think. > > That is absolutely its purpose. If we fall short of that, it's a bug > and we will fix it as soon as pos

Re: dnf unable to download source due to rpmfusion-free-source

On Mon, 2019-11-11 at 12:07 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Samuel Sieb wrote: > > > On 11/10/19 1:52 PM, Neal Becker wrote: > > > Well it does work if you do > > > > > > dnf --disablerepo=rpmfusion-free,rpmfusion-nonfree download -- > > > enablerepo=rawhide --source mercurial > > > > > > But that

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > The way Eclipse is treated makes me really sad and kind of regret the time > spent on Fedora over the years! Being forced to be a module but blocked to > be default stream by FESCo arguing over whether it wants modularity > (sorry, this is how it looks) is the best way

Re: dnf unable to download source due to rpmfusion-free-source

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019, at 7:50 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2019-11-11 at 12:07 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Samuel Sieb wrote: > > > > > On 11/10/19 1:52 PM, Neal Becker wrote: > > > > Well it does work if you do > > > > > > > > dnf --disablerepo=rpmfusion-free,rpmfusion-nonfree downloa

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > So people would prefer no packages at all over packages in modules? I see 2 reasons so far why some packages are module-only: 1. because a dependency of the package is module-only. That is exactly what we want to prevent by proposing a ban on module-only packages. 2

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Stephen Gallagher wrote: > Modular builds have metadata that can indicate to consumers which > subpackages in this module should be considered "API". If a module > produces a package artifact and does not list it thusly, it is meant > to be treated as an internal implementation detail of the module

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 3:17 AM Kevin Kofler wrote: > Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > > So people would prefer no packages at all over packages in modules? > > I see 2 reasons so far why some packages are module-only: > 1. because a dependency of the package is module-only. That is exactly what >

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Le mercredi 13 novembre 2019 à 00:19 +0200, Aleksandar Kurtakov a écrit : > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:02 AM John M. Harris Jr < > joh...@splentity.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 9:02:07 AM MST Aleksandra Fedorova > > wrote: > > > Again, no one forces you or any other packager

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Le mercredi 13 novembre 2019 à 06:43 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot via devel a écrit : > > The native Go component format (also, confusingly, named > module) handles those 3 constrains and won't present any core > difficulty in rpm packaging once it is finished upstream. And, BTW, we added auto-buildere

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Le mercredi 13 novembre 2019 à 06:43 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot via devel a écrit : > > Fedora modules are an horrifically complex way to pretend those basic > three constrains do not exist, while actually implementing them > (except in a broken non-working way, because the *pretence* is that > the c

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On 13. 11. 19 6:17, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 3:17 AM Kevin Kofler > wrote: Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > So people would prefer no packages at all over packages in modules? I see 2 reasons so far why some packages are modul

R-testit license change: GPLv2+ to GPLv3

Hello, Upstream has changed the license metadata for testit from 'GPL' to 'GPL-3', resulting in the consequential change of the Fedora package license from GPLv2+ to GPLv3. -- Elliott ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscri

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Build Python 3 to statically link with libpython3.8.a for better performance

Dne 13. 11. 19 v 0:21 Kevin Kofler napsal(a): But the wasted space will be even more, because now you have libpython, the dynamic python3 linked against it, AND the python3-static binary. So it does not address the issue at all. +1 "Requires: /path/to/my/python3" is no go. Because no maintaine