Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, 2020-04-01 at 22:33 -0400, Randy Barlow wrote: > On 4/1/20 1:16 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Has it been demonstrated that either Pagure or Gitlab CE are > > "not viable" for the purposes Fedora needs? > > Hey Adam! > > I agree with you that Pagure and Gitlab CE are both viable for Fedo

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

On 4/1/20 8:40 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: This is _only_ going into Rawhide / F33? It looks like the change to the new OCaml dependency generator will require a complete rebuild of all OCaml packages. https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/a6fe37c39b39acbcbd014dd1e6d5653ff842

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2020-04-02 16:00 UTC)

I just wonder, is the FPC working? I don't see any meeting minutes, the agenda is the same for this week as it was for the last week and the week before and the week before the week before, there is 56 opened tickets + 20 opened PR, but there are just 4 of them listed here ... Vít Dne 01. 04.

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

On 4/1/20 5:08 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 01. 04. 20 9:11, Panu Matilainen wrote: Besides meta-packages, another potential use-case for meta (whether Requires or weak dependencies) is those just-in-case dependencies across sub-packages to ensure nobody runs weird combinations even though sonam

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 09:24:44PM -0400, Randy Barlow wrote: > and pkgdb was in a state that made it expensive to alter > (or even to maintain). Source? Pierre ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to dev

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2020-04-02 16:00 UTC)

On 02. 04. 20 9:38, Vít Ondruch wrote: I just wonder, is the FPC working? I don't see any meeting minutes, the agenda is the same for this week as it was for the last week and the week before and the week before the week before, there is 56 opened tickets + 20 opened PR, but there are just 4 of t

Mock v2.2 release

Hello maintainers, I'm pleased to announce that a new bugfix release v2.2 of mock tool, A 'simple' chroot build environment manager for building RPMs, is out. There are few important fixes and changes that I'll mention here directly. - The /etc/mock/site-defaults.cfg file was moved from mock to

Re: ocaml-zip update

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 03:38:45PM -0600, Jerry James wrote: > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 11:26 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > Right, this change was made by Olaf (and I reviewed it), see: > > > > https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/913 > > > > We may well need to rebuild everyth

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

* Adam Williamson: > On Wed, 2020-04-01 at 06:11 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 12:39:21 +0200, >> Florian Weimer wrote: >> > * Bruno Wolff, III: >> > >> > > RHEL is a special case, as CENTOS provides a free drop in replacement >> > > and switching from CENTOS to Fedo

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

On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 10:36:58AM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: > On 4/1/20 8:40 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > >This is _only_ going into Rawhide / F33? It looks like the change to > >the new OCaml dependency generator will require a complete rebuild of > >all OCaml packages. > > > >https:/

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

Dne 01. 04. 20 v 19:28 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 11:51:01AM +0200, clime wrote: >> On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 10:54, Vít Ondruch wrote: >>> Do you mean https://github.com/fedora-infra/pkgdb2/ ? :) > No. > >> This is just hilarious, so after going all pagure for dist-git and >> m

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2020-04-02 16:00 UTC)

Le jeudi 02 avril 2020 à 10:04 +0200, Miro Hrončok a écrit : > > If there anything you need to add to the agenda, just ask and I'll > add the tag. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/951 please? Will just wither away without FPC attention Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot ___

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

On 4/2/20 11:43 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 10:36:58AM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 4/1/20 8:40 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: This is _only_ going into Rawhide / F33? It looks like the change to the new OCaml dependency generator will require a complete rebuild o

Fedora-Cloud-31-20200402.0 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: [Fedora-packaging] Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2020-04-02 16:00 UTC)

There is nothing super important, but I have already opened 4 PRs: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-requests?status=Open&author=vondruch One should have been already merged as completely nobrainer, for other, there was no reaction at all and the rest is just rotting there :/ Vít Dne

Could gnome-software update fedora-gpg-keys before upgrading to next version?

I tried to upgrade from F30 to F32 without doing updates first, and I got: gnome-software[2045]: not handling error download-failed for action refine: failed to refine distro upgrade: Failed to download gpg key for repo 'fedora': Curl error (37): Couldn't read a file:// file for file:///etc/pki

Fedora-IoT-32-20200402.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64) Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-32-20200401.0): ID: 564268 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso base_services_start URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/564268 Passed openQA tests: 7/8 (x86_64) -- Mail generated

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On 4/2/20 3:15 AM, clime wrote: On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 23:22, Paul Frields wrote: On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 7:03 AM Neal Gompa wrote: On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 6:52 AM Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote: Le mercredi 01 avril 2020 à 11:30 +0100, Leigh Griffin a écrit : To distill it down: - Gitl

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

Yeah, it's really starting to smell as though this whole process was a "consultation" done in bad faith with a predetermined outcome. Not what one expects from Fedora/Red Hat. On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 11:53, Panu Matilainen wrote: > On 4/2/20 3:15 AM, clime wrote: > > On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 23:22,

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 12:20, Neil Thompson wrote: > > Yeah, it's really starting to smell as though this whole process was a > "consultation" done in bad faith with a predetermined outcome. Not what one > expects from Fedora/Red Hat. I am convinced that the consultation was done in good faith,

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 17:21:14 -0400, Paul Frields wrote: That statement rings hollow for me, when Github is arguably the single biggest vendor of open source in the world, no part of itself is open source, and thanks to its pervasiveness, open source has won the war of how development shoul

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 7:28 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2020-04-01 at 11:49 +0200, Clement Verna wrote: > > On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 09:47, Panu Matilainen > wrote: > > > > > On 3/31/20 8:44 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > > > > I understand there are practical resource considerations an

Re: Could gnome-software update fedora-gpg-keys before upgrading to next version?

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 11:27 AM Paul Dufresne via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > I tried to upgrade from F30 to F32 without doing updates first, and I got: > gnome-software[2045]: not handling error download-failed for action > refine: failed to refine distro upgrade: Failed to do

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:05 AM Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2020-04-01 at 22:33 -0400, Randy Barlow wrote: > > On 4/1/20 1:16 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > Has it been demonstrated that either Pagure or Gitlab CE are > > > "not viable" for the purposes Fedora needs? > > > > Hey Adam! > > >

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

* Paul Frields: > That statement rings hollow for me, when Github is arguably the single > biggest vendor of open source in the world, no part of itself is open > source, and thanks to its pervasiveness, open source has won the war > of how development should work. For those who think this statem

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

Am Mittwoch, den 01.04.2020, 14:36 +0300 schrieb Panu Matilainen: > On 3/31/20 8:24 PM, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > > 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 beh

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 12:54, Leigh Griffin wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 7:28 PM Adam Williamson > wrote: > >> On Wed, 2020-04-01 at 11:49 +0200, Clement Verna wrote: >> > On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 09:47, Panu Matilainen >> wrote: >> > >> > > On 3/31/20 8:44 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: >> > >

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

To be honest, I didn't really have energy to read all of the thread, by skimming it, I would like to add my thoughts w.r.t. the path forward. I really like the idea of having a RedHat/Fedora/CentOS provided an supported GitLab. But as we plan to ahe gitlab as the alternative to pagure as both git

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

Dne 02. 04. 20 v 13:52 Björn 'besser82' Esser napsal(a): > rubygem-scruffy.spec:7: bad %if condition: (prerelease) Is this construct really forbidden? https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-scruffy/c/ecdb3b762fef08eae8055d30dc9dfc2255e3c275 Anyway, the whole conditional should have been d

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 1:22 PM clime wrote: > > On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 12:54, Leigh Griffin wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 7:28 PM Adam Williamson < >> adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 2020-04-01 at 11:49 +0200, Clement Verna wrote: >>> > On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 09:47, Pa

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On 4/2/20 3:03 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: At the outset of this whole mess, quite a lot of people said "well this is obviously just all a pretext for dropping Pagure and going to hosted Gitlab". Much offence seemed to be taken at this, and much was made of this absolutely not being the case at al

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

On 4/2/20 3:45 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 02. 04. 20 v 13:52 Björn 'besser82' Esser napsal(a): rubygem-scruffy.spec:7: bad %if condition: (prerelease) Is this construct really forbidden? https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-scruffy/c/ecdb3b762fef08eae8055d30dc9dfc2255e3c275 It's n

Re: Change the way to acquire the keys for package upgrades [changed]

Le 20-04-02 à 07 h 01, Kamil Paral a écrit : We failed to convince gnome-software maintainer to do the same: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336435 Well, actually I am more on the opposite side of you on this. I am more like not wanting to updates so many packages for current ver

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 8:16 pm, Paul Frields wrote: For a solution to be viable it needs to meet requirements. Of course, but the problem is that the requirements identified by CPE are wildly inconsistent with the actual requirements of the Fedora community. The Pagure we have right now seem

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

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 4:34 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 03:55:19PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 3:24 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > > wrote: > I disagree, both to "aren't design documents" and to the usefulness of > providing d

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 10:57 AM Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 8:16 pm, Paul Frields > wrote: > > For a solution to be viable it needs to meet requirements. > > Of course, but the problem is that the requirements identified by CPE > are wildly inconsistent with the actual req

Fedora 32 compose report: 20200402.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-32-20200401.n.1 NEW: Fedora-32-20200402.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:6 Dropped images: 1 Added packages: 9 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 81 Downgraded packages: 1 Size of added packages: 40.28 MiB Size of dropped packages:0 B Size of

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 10:57, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 8:16 pm, Paul Frields > wrote: > > For a solution to be viable it needs to meet requirements. > > Of course, but the problem is that the requirements identified by CPE > are wildly inconsistent with the actual require

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 11:43 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > > Red Hat CPE team, and as indicated earlier somewhere, CPE team is not > a community team. I want to correct myself here. I do not personally believe that CPE team is not part of the community. All the members of the team are valued members of

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

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 8:42:37 AM CEST Panu Matilainen wrote: > Last but certainly not least, please do test the database stuff! We will > not be changing the default until several weeks from now (for > stabilization and coordination with infrastructure/rel-eng efforts), but > you can and sh

Full history of linux kernel (Re: CPE Git Forge Decision)

On 2020-03-31 21:39, Przemek Klosowski via devel wrote: [...]> Still, the official Linux git log ( https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/log/?ofs=905000 ) lacks the development history preceding 2005-04-16, and starts with one heck of a commit: FWIW, this is ma

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

On 31. 03. 20 17:31, Stephen Gallagher wrote: 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

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

Paul Frields writes: > Neal Gompa wrote: >> Nicolas Mailhot wrote: >>> Leigh Griffin a écrit : >>> To distill it down: - Gitlab has more features that are needed right now for our stakeholder group - Gitlab has an entire company dedicated to roadmap features, we do

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 02:49:13PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > I agree, and wonder about this too. But such a conversation > immediately runs into the delicate and awkward realm of corporate > politics: would Red Hat even allow other sponsors, and what are the > parameters by which this could even

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

Hi, Miro, On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 6:56 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 31. 03. 20 17:31, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > 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 thi

@core install picking up desktop packages

Hello, I've been doing some testing of F32 and was curious about something. I have a kickstart file that just installs @core to be a minimal system. While looking over the resulting system, there are fonts, wayland, gtk3 and others. Is this intentional? The system probably doesn't have everythi

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 11:34:08AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Yeah -- and this bigger picture is still the Fedora Project's overall > > goal. The change is in the mission of CPE vs. the previous Fedora > > Engineering team structure, not in what we want to do as a project. > > If there's a

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

On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 07:21:33PM +0200, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > ELN is a tool to develop Fedora. Conditionals for ELN packages are going > to be applied in those places where it makes sense and where it is > approved by the Fedora packager. Yes, we believe that adding the > flexibility in Fe

Re: @core install picking up desktop packages

On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 13:24 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote: > Hello, > > I've been doing some testing of F32 and was curious about something. I have a > kickstart file that just installs @core to be a minimal system. While looking > over the resulting system, there are fonts, wayland, gtk3 and others.

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

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 12:56 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > The change proposal received overly negative feedback by the packager > community > as represented both by RHEL¹ and non-RHEL maintainers. Despite being reworked > several times, none of this feedback was reflected in the proposal, only new >

Re: @core install picking up desktop packages

Le jeudi 02 avril 2020 à 13:24 -0400, Steve Grubb a écrit : > Hello, > > I've been doing some testing of F32 and was curious about something. > I have a > kickstart file that just installs @core to be a minimal system. While > looking > over the resulting system, there are fonts, wayland, gtk3 a

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 11:52 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote: [up front: apologies for any weird formatting in this email, Evolution is crashing on me like crazy while I try to edit it, so I'm sending it from Roundcube which I don't normally do] I'm also not entirely sure about Adam Saleh, but he

Re: @core install picking up desktop packages

On Thursday, April 2, 2020 1:55:10 PM EDT Adam Jackson wrote: > On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 13:24 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > I've been doing some testing of F32 and was curious about something. I > > have a kickstart file that just installs @core to be a minimal system. > > While lo

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 13:26 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 11:34:08AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > Yeah -- and this bigger picture is still the Fedora Project's overall > > > goal. The change is in the mission of CPE vs. the previous Fedora > > > Engineering team s

Packit-as-a-Service case studies and tips

I am considering using Packit-as-a-Service [1] for an upstream project, as the maintainer of the project suggested managing the RPM spec file on the upstream's repository in Github. Could you tell me some case studies of the upstream project using Packit-as-a-Service? I know rebase-helper [2] is u

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 12:06 -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 10:57, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 8:16 pm, Paul Frields > > wrote: > > > For a solution to be viable it needs to meet requirements. > > > > Of course, but the problem is that the re

Re: @core install picking up desktop packages

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 2:50 PM Steve Grubb wrote: > > On Thursday, April 2, 2020 1:55:10 PM EDT Adam Jackson wrote: > > On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 13:24 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I've been doing some testing of F32 and was curious about something. I > > > have a kickstart f

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

Dne 02. 04. 20 v 20:07 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a): > but I *did* > acknowledge that we are going to incorporate the possibility of > maintaining separate specs for ELN and Rawhide for any maintainer who > absolutely wants to do more manual work. You see, this is precisely the point where the di

Re: @core install picking up desktop packages

On 4/2/20 11:59 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: That said, I think gtk3 is always part of the standard installation because it's needed by Anaconda. Wouldn't that be only for the install media though? A minimal install shouldn't include anaconda on the installed system.

Re: @core install picking up desktop packages

On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 14:59 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 2:50 PM Steve Grubb wrote: > > On Thursday, April 2, 2020 1:55:10 PM EDT Adam Jackson wrote: > > > On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 13:24 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote: > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > I've been doing some

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

Dne 02. 04. 20 v 17:39 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a): > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 4:34 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 03:55:19PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 3:24 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek >>> wrote: >> I disagree, both to "aren't

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 11:47 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > So if we include Ryan on both lists and add Michal, we get to this. > Previous: > > puiterwijk > Randy (bowlofeggs) > pingou > jcline > Ralph > jflory > abompard > rlerch > > Current: > > abompard > lrossetti/odra > pingou > scoady

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

Dne 02. 04. 20 v 21:01 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > Dne 02. 04. 20 v 20:07 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a): >> but I *did* >> acknowledge that we are going to incorporate the possibility of >> maintaining separate specs for ELN and Rawhide for any maintainer who >> absolutely wants to do more manual work.

Re: @core install picking up desktop packages

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:03 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 14:59 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 2:50 PM Steve Grubb wrote: > > > On Thursday, April 2, 2020 1:55:10 PM EDT Adam Jackson wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 13:24 -0400, Steve Grubb wr

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

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 3:02 PM Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > Dne 02. 04. 20 v 20:07 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a): > > but I *did* > > acknowledge that we are going to incorporate the possibility of > > maintaining separate specs for ELN and Rawhide for any maintainer who > > absolutely wants to do more

Re: @core install picking up desktop packages

On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 20:05 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:03 PM Adam Williamson > wrote: > > On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 14:59 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 2:50 PM Steve Grubb wrote: > > > > On Thursday, April 2, 2020 1:55:10 PM EDT Adam Jackson

RPM packages included in Medical and Biology category in Fedora?

I created lists of RPM packages in Medical and Biology using Koschei's group tag feature. The medical-sig tag is for medical, healthcare, biology, computing biology, bioinformatics. The biology tag is for biology, computing biology, bioinformatics, genomics. Could you tell me any other packages y

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

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 2:07 pm, Stephen Gallagher wrote: We've collected the feedback in good faith, examined it and then identified shortcomings with it. For the sake of clarity in the Change Proposal, I've recorded that reasoning there. I don't have any comment on the overall proposal, I j

Re: Nvidia binary drivers fail to install on Fedora 32

On 3/30/20 3:37 AM, Daniel Smith wrote: You will likely need to reset any mutations you have performed $ rpm-ostree reset I decided to just download and install Fedora 31 and upgrade to Fedora 32 as I would as if I was using it(AKA installing Nvidia drivers). It was a bit rocky, to say t

Re: @core install picking up desktop packages

On Thursday, April 2, 2020 2:59:33 PM EDT Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 2:50 PM Steve Grubb wrote: > > On Thursday, April 2, 2020 1:55:10 PM EDT Adam Jackson wrote: > > > On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 13:24 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote: > > > > I've been doing some testing of F32 and was c

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 14:57, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 12:06 -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 10:57, Michael Catanzaro > wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 8:16 pm, Paul Frields > > > wrote: > > > > For a solution to be viable it needs to me

Re: Nvidia binary drivers fail to install on Fedora 32

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 9:23 PM Ty Young wrote: > rpm-ostree first gave some error about fedora-release(31) and the > RPMFusion repos. Why does Fedora not attempt to bump the RPMFusion repo > version automatically? > That's https://github.com/coreos/rpm-ostree/issues/1978 -- Kalev _

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

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 9:10 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote: > And having to manually perform a sync between those packages for every > update is somehow less work than *checks notes* adding some > conditionals once and then letting it get pulled from the master > branch thereafter? I don't understand

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20200402.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20200401.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20200402.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:3 Dropped images: 1 Added packages: 8 Dropped packages:15 Upgraded packages: 121 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 7.62 MiB Size of dropped packages

Re: Nvidia binary drivers fail to install on Fedora 32

On 4/2/20 2:30 PM, Kalev Lember wrote: On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 9:23 PM Ty Young > wrote: rpm-ostree first gave some error about fedora-release(31) and the RPMFusion repos. Why does Fedora not attempt to bump the RPMFusion repo version automatically?

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

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 05:32:08PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 01. 04. 20 v 16:01 David Cantrell napsal(a): On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 10:19:08AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: So although this update clarifies some part, we have not moved anywhere: ~~~ === Can we do this in a branch instead of i

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 20:49, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 11:52 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote: > > [up front: apologies for any weird formatting in this email, Evolution > is crashing on me like crazy while I try to edit it, so I'm sending it > from Roundcube which I don't normally

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

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 03:55:19PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 3:24 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 11:40:49AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 6:46 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 01,

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 11:47 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > Can you help me understand what the mystery is about? We took in 300+ > > requirements that we distilled down into the generic list that we came > > up > > with, many of which are buckets / Epics. Every single requirement was > > ana

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 21:58 +0200, Clement Verna wrote: [evolution is still crashing. sigh. such is life. apologies for formatting, again] > > So yeah, let's discount the releng folks first, because releng has > > existed all along, and - as I said - my original statement was not about > > "peopl

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

Le jeudi 02 avril 2020 à 16:04 -0400, David Cantrell a écrit : > > > * We could force all ELN builds to have epoch+100 when they rebuild > > (this has problems with future updates). > > No need to modify the Epoch. And not advisable. Wild idea (perhaps completely unworkable): upstream packagers

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 21:58:36 +0200, Clement Verna wrote: > Honestly I have no words, and no motivation to go and fix any of the tickets > that are waiting to be fixed. I think a lot of the community will empathise with you here. You are certainly not alone. That is part of the reason why this thr

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

Paul Frields wrote: > That statement rings hollow for me, when Github is arguably the single > biggest vendor of open source in the world, no part of itself is open > source, and thanks to its pervasiveness, open source has won the war > of how development should work. Github shows that *proprieta

[HEADS UP] Working fontconfig validation in rawhide

Hi all, Now that Fedora fonts packaging guidelines have been switched to standard macro calls like %fontcheck, is is possible to fix problems in a central place, without relying on boilerplate missing in 3/4th of our specs. One of those longstanding problems, is the lack of validation of the font

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 1:12 PM Robbie Harwood wrote: > Paul Frields writes: > > Neal Gompa wrote: [...snip...] > >> It's also important to note that at the core of GitLab's incentive > >> model is that they want to remove incentives to use FOSS solutions in > >> favor of their unified proprietar

How to retire a package only for Fedora 32+

I'm aware of the `fedpkg retire` command, but that seemingly retires the package entirely, and even auto pushes the changes to my package repo. (I will now need to revert this or something -- I'd assumed there would at least be a prompt to confirm before doing a git push...) The package I want

Re: rpminspect Jenkins is effectively down

That took a bit longer than I had hoped but as of the time I'm sending out this email, the Jenkins instance running rpminspect is back up and is in the process of slowly working through its backlog. There are some rpminspect results that were lost and aren't currently part of the backlog. My next

Re: How to retire a package only for Fedora 32+

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:12 AM Andrew Toskin wrote: > > I'm aware of the `fedpkg retire` command, but that seemingly retires the > package entirely, and even auto pushes the changes to my package repo. (I > will now need to revert this or something -- I'd assumed there would at least > be a pr

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 11:52 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote: > > The number of active developers on Fedora initiatives has gone up > drastically since I joined the team in 2019. You are possibly not > seeing that as the team have moved from a model of siloed work on > multiple apps, swimming against th

Re: How to retire a package only for Fedora 32+

> The Guidelines say to run "fedpkg retire" on all branches you want the > package to be retired on, starting with the oldest one. Since you > already started with "master", you'll still have to switch to the f32 > branch and run "fedpkg retire" there as well. Is the implied `git push` at the end

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

Hi all. I'm a relative newcomer here and came to take-up the Fedora Jam project. I've been following this discussion very closely, and I've got to say, that I'm quite disappointed at the way this has been handled. I'm not a software engineer by trade. I'm an audio engineer with 26 years of expe

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 16:48 -0700, Erich Eickmeyer wrote: > > The root of this leadership failure seems to be that the discussion happened > mostly behind closed doors without any announcement *to this list* that this > was being discussed. Transparency is *key* in leadership. Correction here:

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Thursday, April 2, 2020 4:56:33 PM PDT Adam Williamson wrote: > Correction here: the decision process *was* actually initiated quite > publicly. It was announced in January, in a thread titled "Git Forge > Requirements: Please see the Community Blog", which (as you'd guess) > linked to a Communi

Re: How to retire a package only for Fedora 32+

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 1:42 AM Andrew Toskin wrote: > > > The Guidelines say to run "fedpkg retire" on all branches you want the > > package to be retired on, starting with the oldest one. Since you > > already started with "master", you'll still have to switch to the f32 > > branch and run "fedpk

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

- Original Message - > From: "Erich Eickmeyer" > To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 2:02:23 AM > Subject: Re: CPE Git Forge Decision > > On Thursday, April 2, 2020 4:56:33 PM PDT Adam Williamson wrote: > > Correction here: the decision process *was* actually

Re: Change the way to acquire the keys for package upgrades [changed]

On 4/2/20 7:08 AM, Paul Dufresne via devel wrote: Le 20-04-02 à 07 h 01, Kamil Paral a écrit : We failed to convince gnome-software maintainer to do the same: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336435 Well, actually I am more on the opposite side of you on this. I am more like not w