Re: Blanket approval for EPEL packages

2020-01-21 Thread Stephen John Smoogen
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 04:35, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Hi, > > There used to be page with blanket approval for EPEL packages. Is there > still something like this? It is tiring to respond all the EPEL request > I don't really care about. > The page went away because it had not 'worked' but people t

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

2020-01-21 Thread Felix Schwarz
Am 21.01.20 um 21:48 schrieb Guido Aulisi: > I totally agree with Fabio, I can’t think of a single reason we should dismiss > pagure. Gitlab is used by many free software communities like Freedesktop, Gnome, Debian. Using the same tools could help to facilitate inter-process/inter-distro collabora

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

2020-01-21 Thread Felix Schwarz
Am 21.01.20 um 22:31 schrieb Michael Catanzaro: > Well since we have a request for requirements: I propose requirements #1 and > #2 are to be self-hosted and open source. +1 Felix ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe s

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

2020-01-21 Thread Michael Watters
On 1/21/20 4:59 PM, Felix Schwarz wrote: > (Though > I somehow got used to pagure and getting the gitlab integration to the same > level as pagure currently will be a lot of work for sure.) Maybe I'm just a grumpy old system admin but it sounds like a lot of work for little, if any, gain. ___

Re: Fedora 32 system-wide change proposal: reduce installation media size by improving the compression ratio of SquashFS filesystem

2020-01-21 Thread John M. Harris Jr
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 4:41:06 PM MST Chris Murphy wrote: > I admit I'm biased toward the two endpoints: create and consume, not > distribution ,i.e the mirror donors. Their storage and bandwidth > concerns were evaluated with the RPM change from xz to zstd. So I'm > mystified by the bias for

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

2020-01-21 Thread John M. Harris Jr
On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 2:31:47 PM MST Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 4:04 pm, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > And any discussion of GitHub isn't going to involve self-hosted, it's > > going to involve GitHub.com, which means we're talking about losing > > more of our independenc

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

2020-01-21 Thread Neal Gompa
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 5:14 PM John M. Harris Jr wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 2:31:47 PM MST Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 4:04 pm, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > > And any discussion of GitHub isn't going to involve self-hosted, it's > > > going to involve GitHub.co

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

2020-01-21 Thread Peter Robinson
> >> And any discussion of GitHub isn't going to involve self-hosted, it's > >> going to involve GitHub.com, which means we're talking about losing > >> more of our independence as a project. This is one of those things > >> that I'm not sure is a wise move. > > > > Well since we have a request for

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

2020-01-21 Thread Alexander Bokovoy
On ti, 21 tammi 2020, Alex Scheel wrote: For a period of time, IDM tried using Pagure for FreeIPA development. They filed a huge number of issues. Now we host issues on Pagure, and have moved development to GitHub. [*] I think we've mostly quit filing bugs; the Pagure team has done a good job wit

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

2020-01-21 Thread Michael Catanzaro
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 3:13 pm, John M. Harris Jr wrote: Both Gitea and Gogs are potential options, in my opinion, both are lightweight and easy to extend. I have some experience with Gogs. I don't recommend it. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lis

Re: Copr Build System - review of 2019 and vote for features in 2020

2020-01-21 Thread Jakub Kadlcik
> For what it's worth, I never got the promised notification for my Coprs. > The legacy chroots are just gone forever with no warning whatsoever. I am truly sorry to hear that. I am afraid, that there is no way to recover those data. Thank you for reporting it though, I have investigated the issue

Re: qpid-proton removal impact

2020-01-21 Thread Miro Hrončok
On 21. 01. 20 20:31, Irina Boverman wrote: I re-took the ownership of qpid-proton package yesterday, if this is not reflected in fedora package db, what do I need to do to hold on to it? Nothing. Everything is fine. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok

Re: Vague proposal: ship prebuilt initramfs images

2020-01-21 Thread Matthew Garrett
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:43:47PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > configinitrd file1 file2 file3 > initrd initramfs1.img initramfs2.img CONFIG Huh - it seems like grub may already support this? It looks like: initrd initramfs.img newc:/etc/crypttab:/boot/crypttab will add /boot/crypttab to the

Re: coq build failure with OCaml 4.10

2020-01-21 Thread Jerry James
On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 9:39 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > ... Or maybe not. That patch fixes the first problem, but then > there's a seemingly much harder problem: > > https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5534/40745534/build.log > > I'm going to leave Coq alone for now. I found an up

Re: Announcing multi-builds updates gating

2020-01-21 Thread Tom Stellard
On 01/21/2020 08:59 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > Good Morning Everyone, > > We are pleased to announce that the work to gate rawhide packages has leveled > up! > Thank you to everyone who worked on this. This is great! -Tom > Back in July we announced the first phase where bodhi got the su

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

2020-01-21 Thread Dan Čermák
Felix Schwarz writes: > Am 21.01.20 um 21:48 schrieb Guido Aulisi: >> I totally agree with Fabio, I can’t think of a single reason we should >> dismiss >> pagure. > > Gitlab is used by many free software communities like Freedesktop, Gnome, > Debian. Using the same tools could help to facilitate

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

2020-01-21 Thread John M. Harris Jr
On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 9:57:59 PM MST Dan Čermák wrote: > Felix Schwarz writes: > > Am 21.01.20 um 21:48 schrieb Guido Aulisi: > >> I totally agree with Fabio, I can’t think of a single reason we should > >> dismiss pagure. > > > > Gitlab is used by many free software communities like Freed

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

2020-01-21 Thread Peter Robinson
On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:59 AM Dan Čermák wrote: > > Felix Schwarz writes: > > > Am 21.01.20 um 21:48 schrieb Guido Aulisi: > >> I totally agree with Fabio, I can’t think of a single reason we should > >> dismiss > >> pagure. > > > > Gitlab is used by many free software communities like Freedes

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

2020-01-21 Thread Michal Konecny
On 21/01/2020 23:13, John M. Harris Jr wrote: On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 2:31:47 PM MST Michael Catanzaro wrote: On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 4:04 pm, Neal Gompa wrote: And any discussion of GitHub isn't going to involve self-hosted, it's going to involve GitHub.com, which means we're talking

Re: Copr Build System - review of 2019 and vote for features in 2020

2020-01-21 Thread Pavel Raiskup
On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 11:59:50 PM CET Jakub Kadlcik wrote: > > For what it's worth, I never got the promised notification for my Coprs. > > The legacy chroots are just gone forever with no warning whatsoever. > > I am truly sorry to hear that. I am afraid, that there is no way to recover >

Re: Copr Build System - review of 2019 and vote for features in 2020

2020-01-21 Thread Pavel Raiskup
On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 8:35:32 AM CET Pavel Raiskup wrote: > On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 11:59:50 PM CET Jakub Kadlcik wrote: > > > For what it's worth, I never got the promised notification for my Coprs. > > > The legacy chroots are just gone forever with no warning whatsoever. > > > > I

<    1   2