Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

From the community blog this decision seems more like a "what can we use to make CentOS Stream work" rather than an open community-made choice of what is best for Fedora. On 3/30/20 11:17 AM, Leigh Griffin wrote: Hi everyone, Thank you for your patience while the CPE Team worked through an i

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Introduce module Obsoletes and EOL

Wouldn't be easier to use something we already have? E.g. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-obsolete-packages Vít Dne 30. 03. 20 v 16:30 Ben Cotton napsal(a): > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Module_Obsoletes_and_EOL > > == Summary == > Fix Fedora upgradability issues when upgra

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Introduce module Obsoletes and EOL

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 09:25:45AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Wouldn't be easier to use something we already have? E.g. > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-obsolete-packages > DNF implements modules as an layer above RPM packages. Thus you cannot control modules metadata from an RPM metada

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

Dne 30. 03. 20 v 17:41 Pavel Raiskup napsal(a): > The only problem of GitLab is that Fedora - for years - was not able to > package it. I'm not a able to judge where the packaging problem is/was, > any more info? Are we going invest into packaging it? It was lot of dependencies, bundling, lack

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Introduce module Obsoletes and EOL

Le mardi 31 mars 2020 à 10:00 +0200, Petr Pisar a écrit : > > And not for a fresh new installation or an upgrade from an non-up-to- > date system Because, it’s better to make usupported configurations work, at the expense of stuff Fedora commited to support? Modular priorities are strange. Rega

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Introduce module Obsoletes and EOL

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 09:25:45AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Wouldn't be easier to use something we already have? E.g. > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-obsolete-packages Obsoletes in individual rpms have no effect on modules, and any enabled module "shadows" non-modular rpms that the

Fedora-Cloud-30-20200331.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Passed openQA tests: 1/1 (x86_64) -- Mail generated by check-compose: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedorap

Re: Upgrade tooling (was: Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Sqlite RpmDB)

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 02:40:03PM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Dne 27. 03. 20 v 8:55 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): > > In current "offline upgrade" scheme, the upgrade > > tools are running on the real system, with udev active. > This thread has mostly died, but I didn't want to leav

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 9:55 PM Till Maas wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 02:40:13PM +, Leigh Griffin wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 3:26 PM Till Maas wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 01:59:07PM +, Leigh Griffin wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:38 PM Chris Murphy wrote: > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 5:56 AM Leigh Griffin wrote: > > > > We haven't ironed out the full details but what was incredibly clear to > us was that Gitlab was the decision to make. The next step in getting there > is what we are engaging in n

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 8:10 AM Petr Kubat wrote: > From the community blog this decision seems more like a "what can we use > to make CentOS Stream work" rather than an open community-made choice of > what is best for Fedora. > The needs of Fedora, CentOS, RHEL and the CPE team were weighed equ

Re: The Git forge decision (was CPE Weekly: 2020-03-28)

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 7:17 PM clime wrote: > I thought CPE ("Community Platform Engineering") is a part of the > community. We are part of the CentOS and Fedora Communities, correct. > But no, because you want to hand over pagure.io to "the > Community", so what community is that...People t

Re: The Git forge decision (was CPE Weekly: 2020-03-28)

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:13 PM Till Maas wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:28:59AM +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote: > > > No singular Forge satisfied every single User Story. Any feature gaps > will > > land on the Backlog of Gitlab for voting and prioritisation as their > > Engineering te

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On 31. 03. 20 10:36, Leigh Griffin wrote: I respect that there is disagreement but Gitlab is the choice we are making. I always try to assume good intentions, but this is very hard now. I understand this statement as follows: "After collecting the requirements, we have not discussed the deci

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Introduce module Obsoletes and EOL

Dne 30. 03. 20 v 17:10 Petr Pisar napsal(a): On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:30:51AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Module_Obsoletes_and_EOL [...] *** When a module stream gets removed from a Fedora release, the maintainer of the module stream must provide a modul

How to deprecate a subpackage

Hey, I have a subpackage which is not needed anymore in the new version of the package. Is my assumption correct that for a smooth upgrade path I should simply delete the subpackage and make the main package to obsolete it: Obsoletes: %{name}-gtk2 Provides: %{name}-gtk2 Looks like rpmlint want

Re: How to deprecate a subpackage

Am 31.03.20 um 12:03 schrieb Lukas Zapletal: > I have a subpackage which is not needed anymore in the new version of the > package. Is my assumption correct that for a smooth upgrade path I should > simply delete the subpackage and make the main package to obsolete it: > > Obsoletes: %{name}-gtk

Re: How to deprecate a subpackage

On 31. 03. 20 12:03, Lukas Zapletal wrote: Hey, I have a subpackage which is not needed anymore in the new version of the package. Is my assumption correct that for a smooth upgrade path I should simply delete the subpackage and make the main package to obsolete it: Obsoletes: %{name}-gtk2 Pr

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Introduce module Obsoletes and EOL

Dne 30. 03. 20 v 19:20 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:30:51AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: document: TBD version: 1 data: # A string representing UTC date in ISO 8601 format: -MM-DD[T ]HH:MMZ # When merging, entries with a newer 'modified' value will o

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Introduce module Obsoletes and EOL

Dne 31. 03. 20 v 10:00 Petr Pisar napsal(a): On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 09:25:45AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: Wouldn't be easier to use something we already have? E.g. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-obsolete-packages DNF implements modules as an layer above RPM packages. Thus you cannot

Re: The Git forge decision (was CPE Weekly: 2020-03-28)

Hi Leigh, On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 09:56:10AM +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote: > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:13 PM Till Maas wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:28:59AM +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote: > > > > > No singular Forge satisfied every single User Story. Any feature gaps > > will >

Re: The Git forge decision (was CPE Weekly: 2020-03-28)

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 11:28 AM Till Maas wrote: > Hi Leigh, > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 09:56:10AM +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:13 PM Till Maas wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 11:28:59AM +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote: > > > > > > > No singula

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Introduce module Obsoletes and EOL

Dne 31. 03. 20 v 10:14 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 09:25:45AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: Wouldn't be easier to use something we already have? E.g. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-obsolete-packages Obsoletes in individual rpms have no effect on module

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:41 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 31. 03. 20 10:36, Leigh Griffin wrote: > > I respect that there is disagreement but Gitlab is the choice we are > making. > > I always try to assume good intentions, but this is very hard now. I > understand > this statement as follows: >

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

Leigh Griffin wrote: > Thank you for your patience while the CPE Team worked through an > incredible number of requirements from multiple stakeholder sources. On > Friday evening we announced on the Community Blog > our > decisi

Fedora-Cloud-31-20200331.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Passed openQA tests: 1/1 (x86_64) -- Mail generated by check-compose: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedorap

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

Am 31.03.20 um 12:42 schrieb Kevin Kofler: > I think that using anything other than Free Software as the hosting platform > for Fedora should be an absolute no go. In other words, self-hosted GitLab > CE or Pagure, no other options. +1 with one minor(?) exception: I'm ok with using a hosted ver

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: ELN Buildroot and Compose

Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > The goal of the ELN project is to continuously build Fedora Rawhide > packages and composes in the way which resembles the CentOS and RHEL > build process and to provide a feedback loop for Fedora maintainers on > the status of those builds. I don't see why it would be

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 11:43 AM Kevin Kofler wrote: > Leigh Griffin wrote: > > Thank you for your patience while the CPE Team worked through an > > incredible number of requirements from multiple stakeholder sources. On > > Friday evening we announced on the Community Blog > >

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 11:48 AM Felix Schwarz wrote: > > Am 31.03.20 um 12:42 schrieb Kevin Kofler: > > I think that using anything other than Free Software as the hosting > platform > > for Fedora should be an absolute no go. In other words, self-hosted > GitLab > > CE or Pagure, no other optio

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:42:18PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Leigh Griffin wrote: > > Thank you for your patience while the CPE Team worked through an > > incredible number of requirements from multiple stakeholder sources. On > > Friday evening we announced on the Community Blog > >

Re: Nvidia binary drivers fail to install on Fedora 32

Richard Shaw wrote: > Yes, some sort of automated solution would only work if the kernel stopped > breaking the builds so often, requiring manual intervention. Lately I've > gotten a new kernel on my Fedora 31 install almost every update. It's just > too much to deal with. RPM Fusion has a small fr

Re: Nvidia binary drivers fail to install on Fedora 32

Marius Schwarz wrote: > The precompiled kmod-nvidia packages where hell, because they sometimes > needed days to get online. > While people where waiting, the system did not boot into the newest > kernel as the needed driver was missing. DNF just needs to prevent the upgrade as long as the kmod is

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 11:41, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 31. 03. 20 10:36, Leigh Griffin wrote: > > I respect that there is disagreement but Gitlab is the choice we are > making. > > I always try to assume good intentions, but this is very hard now. I > understand > this statement as follows: > > "

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

Tomasz Torcz wrote: > We seem to have not problem in using proprietary SAAS solutions for > critical stuff. And that is exactly what I am complaining about. Kevin Kofler ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send

Re: Nvidia binary drivers fail to install on Fedora 32

> Richard Shaw wrote: > > But how do akmods solve that? What will happen with the akmod if the kernel > breaks the build is that the akmod will fail to build on the user's machine! > How does that resolve the issue? IMHO, it makes it worse! > > Kevin Kofler I can guarantee akmod-nvidia

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On 31. 03. 20 12:41, Leigh Griffin wrote: Am I wrong? Yes. Thanks for clarifying that. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On 31. 03. 20 13:09, Clement Verna wrote: On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 11:41, Miro Hrončok > wrote: On 31. 03. 20 10:36, Leigh Griffin wrote: > I respect that there is disagreement but Gitlab is the choice we are making. I always try to assume good intentions

Re: multiple definitions build failure on armv7hl only

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 16:20:32 +0200 Dan Horák wrote: > On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 20:38:07 -0700 > Orion Poplawski wrote: > > > On 3/4/20 10:09 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote: > > > Test building the latest gdl, I get the following errors only on > > > armv7hl: > > > > > > /usr/bin/ld: CMakeFiles/gdl.dir/ba

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Sqlite RpmDB

On 3/30/20 7:45 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:41:08PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: ...snip... No such things needed at this time. The database change is a separate change and does NOT come bundled with RPM 4.16, we'll only even consider switching that once 4.16 has had a pr

How to enable package gating

Hi, I need help with enabling gating on my package. I actually thought I've already enabled it 2 months ago but I've noticed the tests are not running in Bodhi and it also says that "no tests are required" on my last rawhide Bodhi update [1] This [2] is my gating.yml, I think the problem is wrong

Heads-up: RPM 4.16 alpha coming to rawhide

It's that time of year again... as our RPM change proposals passed with flying colors in yesterdays meeting, I'll hope to land RPM 4.16 alpha in rawhide later today or tomorrow by latest. There aren't any big incompatibility bumps here, but to pave way for the fancy new expression stuff, some

Re: fedpkg clone fails with Permission denied (publickey).

On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 1:28 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 12:32:33PM -0500, Richard Shaw wrote: > > Long story short I lost my home directory where I do all of my packager > > activities (separate from my main user) so I'm setting things up from > > scratch. > > > > I created n

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 13:46, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 31. 03. 20 13:09, Clement Verna wrote: > > On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 11:41, Miro Hrončok > > wrote: > > > > On 31. 03. 20 10:36, Leigh Griffin wrote: > > > I respect that there is disagreement but Gitlab is

Re: The Git forge decision (was CPE Weekly: 2020-03-28)

Leigh, > Do you know how many >> existing integrations with pagure there are? > > > No. Our analysis will tell us that in due course > I am concerned by this approach to the decision-making. In many of your replies, you mention wanting to get feature-parity with the current tooling and systems,

Specify debug build in qtmake?

Has something changed with Qt 5.14? I'm trying to update klog to new version but debuginfo is not being generated. Looking at the build log it's definitely missing "-g" during building but a debug build is requested: qmake-qt5 "PREFIX=%{buildroot}%{_prefix}" "CONFIG+=debug c++17" KLog.pro Lookin

Re: Specify debug build in qtmake?

Why you not use macro %qmake_qt5? It contain all flags. вт, 31 мар. 2020 г., 15:25 Richard Shaw : > Has something changed with Qt 5.14? I'm trying to update klog to new > version but debuginfo is not being generated. > > Looking at the build log it's definitely missing "-g" during building but >

Re: Heads-up: RPM 4.16 alpha coming to rawhide

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 8:10 AM Panu Matilainen wrote: > > It's that time of year again... as our RPM change proposals passed with > flying colors in yesterdays meeting, I'll hope to land RPM 4.16 alpha in > rawhide later today or tomorrow by latest. > Since Panu left it out of his announcement,

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

Il giorno mar, 31/03/2020 alle 12.42 +0200, Kevin Kofler ha scritto: > Leigh Griffin wrote: > > Thank you for your patience while the CPE Team worked through an > > incredible number of requirements from multiple stakeholder > > sources. On > > Friday evening we announced on the Community Blog > >

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Sqlite RpmDB

On 3/31/20 2:46 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 3/30/20 7:45 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:41:08PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: ...snip... No such things needed at this time. The database change is a separate change and does NOT come bundled with RPM 4.16, we'll only even c

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 7:10 AM Clement Verna wrote: > > I just want to give a bit of insight from someone who is working day to day > on Fedora's infrastructure, since I believe that might help give a bit more > empathy towards the Why of this decision. > > For me the Fedora's Infrastructure is

Re: Specify debug build in qtmake?

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 7:34 AM Vascom wrote: > Why you not use macro %qmake_qt5? > It contain all flags. > Good question. I inherited this package and hadn't dug into it much since it was building until today. Thanks, Richard ___ devel mailing list -

Re: Specify debug build in qtmake?

So this spec not follow Fedora's packaging guidlines and need to be fixed according them. вт, 31 мар. 2020 г., 15:57 Richard Shaw : > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 7:34 AM Vascom wrote: > >> Why you not use macro %qmake_qt5? >> It contain all flags. >> > > Good question. I inherited this package and h

Re: Specify debug build in qtmake?

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 8:04 AM Vascom wrote: > So this spec not follow Fedora's packaging guidlines and need to be fixed > according them. > Already done and new builds kicked off. Thanks for the quick reply! Thanks, Richard ___ devel mailing list --

Re: How to deprecate a subpackage

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 6:12 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 31. 03. 20 12:03, Lukas Zapletal wrote: > > Hey, > > > > I have a subpackage which is not needed anymore in the new version of the > > package. Is my assumption correct that for a smooth upgrade path I should > > simply delete the subpac

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Sqlite RpmDB

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 8:53 AM Panu Matilainen wrote: > > On 3/31/20 2:46 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote: > > On 3/30/20 7:45 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:41:08PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: > >> ...snip... > >>> > >>> No such things needed at this time. The database change

Re: The Git forge decision (was CPE Weekly: 2020-03-28)

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 1:23 PM Ian McInerney wrote: > Leigh, > > >> Do you know how many >>> existing integrations with pagure there are? >> >> >> No. Our analysis will tell us that in due course >> > > I am concerned by this approach to the decision-making. In many of your > replies, you mentio

Re: The Git forge decision (was CPE Weekly: 2020-03-28)

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:20:00AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > The original proposal promised Fedora Council involvement. I wonder > where that happened, I could not found any Pagure ticket nor a > Council mailing list thread about this. We were asked to help collect the user stories and requirem

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:55:39 +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote: Being self-hosted is a nice goal, but not important enough. There are parts of Fedora infrastructure which are not using Fedora, but other distributions like RHEL. We seem to have not problem in using proprietary SAAS solutions for

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: java-11-openjdk as system JDK in F33

On 30. 03. 20 18:52, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 30. 03. 20 17:47, Jiri Vanek wrote: On 3/30/20 5:04 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 30. 03. 20 16:04, Ben Cotton wrote: * Contingency mechanism: Return jdk8 as system jdk and mass rebuild again. Note, that this may be very hard, because during build of pa

Re: The Git forge decision (was CPE Weekly: 2020-03-28)

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:33:46 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: I understand the attachment we have as a project to Pagure -- someone in our community made it, after all, and lots of others have made direct and indirect contributions. I feel that too! But, we all know that it needs significant d

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:37 AM Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:55:39 +0200, > Tomasz Torcz wrote: > > > > Being self-hosted is a nice goal, but not important enough. > >There are parts of Fedora infrastructure which are not using Fedora, > >but other distributions like

Re: The Git forge decision (was CPE Weekly: 2020-03-28)

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 09:30:57AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > It's more than that. While the community edition of gitlab (assuming > we don't get stuck with the proprietary version) is technically open > source, the main fork is run by Gitlab who have a conflict of > interest in adding feature

Fedora 33 System-Wide Change Proposal: ELN Buildroot and Compose V3

I sent out the V2 version of the Change on Friday and then promptly managed to injure myself and be away from email until today. I've read through the email threads again this morning and I decided that, rather than try to address them one by one, I'd try again with a V3 that hopefully answers some

Koji is failing on s390x

Koji is failing to build before creating root.log and build.log on s390x right now. Is it a known issue? https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=42916760 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=42916889 Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/python3.7/site-pac

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 12:47 +0200, Felix Schwarz wrote: > Am 31.03.20 um 12:42 schrieb Kevin Kofler: > > I think that using anything other than Free Software as the hosting > > platform > > for Fedora should be an absolute no go. In other words, self-hosted > > GitLab > > CE or Pagure, no other

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

-- snip -- > > As for Pagure itself, I think this is where we fundamentally > disagree. > I think it behooves us to own and provide an experience tailored for > our community from beginning to end. That's why we have Koji, Bodhi, > Dist-Git, and many other tools in that part of the lifecycle. The

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:42 pm, Kevin Kofler wrote: What really worries to me is that: * using GitLab as SaaS is being considered, and * for self-hosting, using the proprietary "enterprise" editions is not excluded. I think that using anything other than Free Software as the hosting platfo

Re: Nvidia binary drivers fail to install on Fedora 32

Leigh Scott wrote: > Your kmod idea is flawed, the new kernel builds will always be at > least 7 days behind fedora kernel. This is due to 2 pushes being required > to get the new akmods to stable repo, I haven't got enough time to do > more pushes (sign, mash and sync repo's). That also really c

Re: Nvidia binary drivers fail to install on Fedora 32

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 3:57 PM Kevin Kofler wrote: > But ideally You seem to have a lot of thoughts about changes and improvements to the process. When should the RPMFusion community expect you to complete those improvements? ___ devel mailing l

Re: Koji is failing on s390x

On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 17:36:28 +0200 Jun Aruga wrote: > Koji is failing to build before creating root.log and build.log on > s390x right now. > Is it a known issue? > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=42916760 > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=42916889 > >

Re: Heads-up: RPM 4.16 alpha coming to rawhide

Panu Matilainen wrote: > new expression features (in > spec %if and macros) including but not limited to ternary operator (eg > %[1==0?"yes":"no"]) For dependencies I'm told that the syntax is if else . So the syntax for conditional expressions is different in different contexts within the RPM

Re: Nvidia binary drivers fail to install on Fedora 32

...snip... Perhaps you all could take this to the rpmfusion mailing lists? kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedor

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:48:55AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > Some failure of process or communication must have occurred > somewhere along the lines, because open source should have been the > first and most important requirement. A proprietary software > solution is incompatible with the e

Re: fedpkg clone fails with Permission denied (publickey).

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 07:14:46AM -0500, Richard Shaw wrote: > On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 1:28 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 12:32:33PM -0500, Richard Shaw wrote: > > > Long story short I lost my home directory where I do all of my packager > > > activities (separate from my m

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Sqlite RpmDB

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 02:46:01PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: > > The soname doesn't change and no dependencies on any rawhide > latest-and-greatest otherwise, so from that side there shouldn't be any > issues. > > The only real incompatibility should be on the spec parse side - the bare > wor

Re: Upgrade tooling

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:13:19AM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: > strategy into RHEL world, people could only start using file > triggers and rich dependencies in RHEL and EPEL 9 which I can only > assume will be released some year in the future. Think about that > for a while. For what it's wort

Re: fedpkg clone fails with Permission denied (publickey).

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:11 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 07:14:46AM -0500, Richard Shaw wrote: > > However, I'm still not able to log into the test instances. > > Any of them? Odd. Can you file an infra ticket and we can look closer... > Let me try, I've only attempted rawhi

Re: Heads-up: RPM 4.16 alpha coming to rawhide

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 6:43 AM Panu Matilainen wrote: > Based on rpm-specs-latest.tar.xz from this morning, there are thirtysome > packages relying on this behavior, which will need fixing to be > buildable with 4.16. Is there a list of those thirty something packages somewhere so that those pa

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 19:15, Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:48:55AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > Some failure of process or communication must have occurred > > somewhere along the lines, because open source should have been the > > first and most important requiremen

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 17:47 +0200, jkone...@redhat.com wrote: > -- snip -- > > As for Pagure itself, I think this is where we fundamentally > > disagree. > > I think it behooves us to own and provide an experience tailored for > > our community from beginning to end. That's why we have Koji, Bodhi,

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 13:08 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:48:55AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > Some failure of process or communication must have occurred > > somewhere along the lines, because open source should have been the > > first and most important requirem

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 07:30:16PM +0200, Iñaki Ucar wrote: > That's a false equivalence. Yes, many of us maintain projects on > GitHub and/or GitLab due to a variety of reasons, but if any of them > die tomorrow, I simply change the "upstream" in my clones and keep > going. If Fedora starts using

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:44:35AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Kevin and Michael here to a > significant extent. Running our own project on open source code has > always been a very big bright line for Fedora. You don't have to be sorry! I think it's very cl

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:31:21AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > I specifically mentioned at least the FSF angle on this mailing list, > over a month ago: > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/EJAKU3MO4T5ZEWEBUWIRSGBWTFQU44QK/ > > so at least th

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 13:08:05 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: We did communicate as the very top line of our gathered requirements that open source is essential to our community and central to our feedback. I'm not trying to be soft on that. Let's just not do purity-test level assessments and

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 13:55 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:44:35AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Kevin and Michael here to a > > significant extent. Running our own project on open source code has > > always been a very big bright l

Re: fedpkg clone fails with Permission denied (publickey).

Actually it worked now... Go figure. Thanks, Richard > ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code

Re: Koji is failing on s390x

> should be https://pagure.io/koji/issue/1974 > > What's the size of the srpm? Thanks for sharing the info. It's 238 KB. ``` $ ls -hl rubygem-puma-4.3.3-1.fc32.src.rpm -rw-rw-r-- 1 jaruga jaruga 238K Mar 31 19:52 rubygem-puma-4.3.3-1.fc32.src.rpm ``` But it might be my fault. I was putting ruby

Fedora 32 compose report: 20200330.n.1 changes

OLD: Fedora-32-20200328.n.0 NEW: Fedora-32-20200330.n.1 = SUMMARY = Added images:1 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 10 Dropped packages:2 Upgraded packages: 103 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 14.04 MiB Size of dropped packages:494.73 KiB S

Re: Koji is failing on s390x

> But it might be my fault. No, i have the same issue with different packages at this time as well. But now it's fine. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Cod

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 12:55 +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:42:18PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Leigh Griffin wrote: > > > Thank you for your patience while the CPE Team worked through an > > > incredible number of requirements from multiple stakeholder sources. On > > >

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 11:45 AM Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 13:08 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:48:55AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > > Some failure of process or communication must have occurred > > > somewhere along the lines, because ope

Re: Fedora 32: setup with encrypted LVM

Il giorno dom, 22/03/2020 alle 20.55 +0100, Dario Lesca ha scritto: > It's this behavior a new feature or it's a bug of Anaconda on Fedora > 32 ? It's a Bug. I have fill this bugzilla: "Anaconda create LV filesystem encrypted on a VG already encrypted" https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:40:55PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: ...snip... > > Because of switching costs, this is likely to prevent us from going back to > Pagure if it does develop a vibrant independent community. That would be > unfortunate. So, currently we are using pagure on src.fedoraproj

Fedora-32-20200330.n.1 compose check report

No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 5/171 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-32-20200328.n.0): ID: 562187 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_notifications_live URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/562187 ID: 562246 Test: x86_64 u

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 14:57, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 7:10 AM Clement Verna > wrote: > > > > I just want to give a bit of insight from someone who is working day to > day on Fedora's infrastructure, since I believe that might help give a bit > more empathy towards the Why of

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 2:37 AM Leigh Griffin wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:38 PM Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 5:56 AM Leigh Griffin wrote: >> > >> > We haven't ironed out the full details but what was incredibly clear to us >> > was that Gitlab was the decision

Fedora-Rawhide-20200330.n.1 compose check report

No missing expected images. Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check! 3 of 43 required tests failed openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING** below Failed openQA tests: 16/171 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20200329.

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 20:59 +0200, Clement Verna wrote: > > > The Fedora community itself has indicated that they want to keep on > > with Pagure, and many Fedorans are Pythonistas, which means that > > everyone can easily contribute to help make it better for everyone. > > > > Genuine question,

  1   2   >