Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On 03. 04. 20 1:25, Jeremy Cline wrote: 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 m

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 22:33, Adam Williamson wrote: > 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

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

On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 03:56:05PM -0400, David Cantrell wrote: > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 05:32:08PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Of course what can go into Rawhide should go into Rawhide, but that are > > not ELN/RHEL conditionals. > > I think this is part of what ELN is trying to address to mak

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

Il giorno ven, 03/04/2020 alle 09.20 +0200, Miro Hrončok ha scritto: > On 03. 04. 20 1:25, Jeremy Cline wrote: > > 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 a

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On 02/04/2020 23:51, Björn Persson wrote: 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 sho

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

20/4/3 10:06(e)an, Michal Konecny igorleak idatzi zuen: > > > On 02/04/2020 23:51, Björn Persson wrote: >> 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 tha

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

Dne 02. 04. 20 v 21:38 Kalev Lember napsal(a): > 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 > There are two things: 1) Of course I don't ex

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On 3 April 2020 10:23:58 CEST, Julen Landa Alustiza wrote: > >But there is an initiative to federate git forges, and they plan to >implement it on gitlab. Oh sorry, I meant on pagure :) > >https://forgefed.peers.community/ Oh that is quite the opportunity right there. The CPE team could get a

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

Dne 02. 04. 20 v 19:26 Matthew Miller napsal(a): > 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

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On 03/04/2020 01:25, Jeremy Cline wrote: 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

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

Dne 03. 04. 20 v 10:46 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > > > Dne 02. 04. 20 v 21:38 Kalev Lember napsal(a): >> 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 som

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 5:29 AM Michal Konecny wrote: > > On 03/04/2020 01:25, Jeremy Cline wrote: > > 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 no

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

On 02. 04. 20 20:07, Stephen Gallagher wrote: This is a great example of the Nirvana Fallacy. Essentially, you are arguing that improvements for one group is not acceptable unless it improves things for every other group too. (I will answer the entire e-mail hopefully later today, but I could n

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

On 2020-04-02 20:07, Stephen Gallagher wrote: 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 wa

Mock build of GO program fails

I need a bit of assistance from a GO package expert. I'm trying to package ssh-chat. (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819180) ssh-chat is written in GO and it implements a custom SSH server (on a different port) that provides a chat room instead of a shell. I was successful to bui

koji wait-repo (newRepo) is really taking a long time

I've been waiting on: $ koji wait-repo f33-build-side-20855 --build=ocaml-lacaml-9.3.2-17.fc33 for hours now. Seems like newRepo generation is again taking a very long time? Also it'd be nice if this command didn't time out after 2 hours (seems like a very odd and arbitrary choice - why not wa

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 3:58 PM 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 requi

Re: HEADS UP: repoquery --whatrequires yields incomplete results when run from Fedora 32+

On 11. 03. 20 17:25, Miro Hrončok wrote: I have upgraded to Fedora 32 today and after a while I have noticed that `repoquery --whatrequires` yields incomplete results. From Fedora 31: $ dnf --refresh repoquery --repo=rawhide{,-source} --whatrequires python3-flaky pipenv-0:2018.11.26-13.fc32.s

Orphaned three Java packages

Hi all, We have just orphaned three packages since they are no longer required any other package that's maintained by the Stewardship SIG: - guava20 - jetty-parent - plexus-bsh-factory guava20 is a compat package that should no longer be needed, since the whole machinery that's used for building

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

- Original Message - > From: "Michal Konecny" > To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 10:06:26 AM > Subject: Re: CPE Git Forge Decision > > > > On 02/04/2020 23:51, Björn Persson wrote: > > > > Paul Frields wrote: > > > > That statement rings hollow for

Fedora-Cloud-31-20200403.0 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: @core install picking up desktop packages

On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 02:59:33PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher 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 m

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 7:48 PM 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 normal

Re: @core install picking up desktop packages

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 2:18 PM Jan Pazdziora wrote: > The dependency chain from @core to gtk3 and fonts actually goes from > gnupg2, required by dnf, which recommends pinentry, which requires > libsecret-1.so.0()(64bit), which then recommends gnome-keyring, which > requires /usr/libexec/gcr-ssh-a

Re: Mock build of GO program fails

Hi. For Go packages, what we do is to use dependencies that are already in the repo and avoid download anything because as you saw, there is no connectivity inside mock. Also, we avoid using vendoring. You should take a look at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Golang/ bec

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

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 11:59 AM Petr Viktorin wrote: > > On 2020-04-02 20:07, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > 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

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 4:48 pm, Erich Eickmeyer wrote: It's very possible that the Fedora Council has failed too for allowing this situation to happen. I don't think this is entirely fair... Council hasn't had enough time to react to this yet. It seems they failed to adequately communicate t

Re: How to enable package gating

Hi Vojtěch, The issue is that the file suffix should be `.yaml`, not `.yml`. Damn that YAML suffix. It's a hard-to-find issue that happened before. Maybe Greenwave should fallback to get `gating.yml` (it would require an additional request to git repo thought). Lukas On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 2:

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 4:24 AM Julen Landa Alustiza wrote: > > > > 20/4/3 10:06(e)an, Michal Konecny igorleak idatzi zuen: > > > > > > On 02/04/2020 23:51, Björn Persson wrote: > >> Paul Frields wrote: > >>> That statement rings hollow for me, when Github is arguably the single > >>> biggest vendo

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

On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 07:48, Samuel Sieb wrote: > The problem is that in the past there have been some packages that have > had to be updated first to successfully do the upgrade. So we list them with versions and do a deterministic check. Being told over and over and again "you need to make sure

Re: @core install picking up desktop packages

On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 02:25:36PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote: > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 2:18 PM Jan Pazdziora wrote: > > > The dependency chain from @core to gtk3 and fonts actually goes from > > gnupg2, required by dnf, which recommends pinentry, which requires > > libsecret-1.so.0()(64bit), whic

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 11:11 am, Vít Ondruch wrote: Once there appears somebody brilliant in community, sooner or later Red Hat hires him. Unfortunately, this rarely means that the person keeps their independence. This also means that later we are missing the "pure" community. Much of the s

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 8:15 am, Michael Catanzaro wrote: Much of the strongest criticism in this thread (and the ELN thread) is coming from Red Hat employees (often using personal email addresses). Vit, I spent quite some time composing that mail, yet managed to send it *before* looking at

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

On 4/2/20 7:45 PM, Pavel Raiskup wrote: 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-

Re: How to enable package gating

On 03. 04. 20 14:49, Lukas Holecek wrote: Hi Vojtěch, The issue is that the file suffix should be `.yaml`, not `.yml`. Damn that YAML suffix. It's a hard-to-find issue that happened before. Maybe Greenwave should fallback to get `gating.yml` (it would require an additional request to git repo t

Re: Mock build of GO program fails

Le vendredi 03 avril 2020 à 10:58 +, Ralf Senderek a écrit : > I need a bit of assistance from a GO package expert. > > I'm trying to package ssh-chat. ( > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819180) > ssh-chat is written in GO and it implements a custom SSH server > (on a different

Modularity Survey

Hello everyone, On behalf of Red Hat's Modularity team, I'd like to ask you to fill out a survey on Modularity: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScOA97rGONieSOYmlZLsHdkq-EhdePZ4IN3RwOjJKd1F1a9sw/viewform?usp=sf_link Our goal is to use your feedback to improve Modularity, its documenta

Fwd: Modularity Survey

If you have questions or comments about the survey to discuss on the mailing list, use this thread: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/NAACOHBWTKAZN3IOQKWDNTEHS2BQ6OVJ/ -- Forwarded message - From: Daniel Mach Date: Fri, Apr 3, 2020

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 11:49:43AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Marie is also working on reforming the web, design, and marketing teams > > and building those up so we don't have to be directly dependent on Red > > Hat in those areas (where, let's face it, Red Hat has historically > > under-in

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 13:18 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote: > > > What I'm looking at is the commit logs. That's all that ultimately > > matters. But see above revisions, of course. > > > > I think that's a very narrow view of the world to base your assertions on > commit logs only, I don't see the

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 12:45 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote: > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 3:58 PM 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 requi

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 05:38 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 5:29 AM Michal Konecny > wrote: > > On 03/04/2020 01:25, Jeremy Cline wrote: > > > On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 11:52 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote: > > > > The number of active developers on Fedora initiatives has gone > > > > up

Re: Modularity Survey

On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 15:52 +0200, Daniel Mach wrote: > Hello everyone, > > On behalf of Red Hat's Modularity team, I'd like to ask you to fill out > a survey on Modularity: > https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScOA97rGONieSOYmlZLsHdkq-EhdePZ4IN3RwOjJKd1F1a9sw/viewform?usp=sf_link > > Our

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 4:04 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 13:18 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote: > > > > > What I'm looking at is the commit logs. That's all that ultimately > > > matters. But see above revisions, of course. > > > > > > > I think that's a very narrow view of the wo

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 4:20 PM Jeremy Cline wrote: > On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 05:38 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 5:29 AM Michal Konecny > > wrote: > > > On 03/04/2020 01:25, Jeremy Cline wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 11:52 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote: > > > > > The numb

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 11:59 AM Leigh Griffin wrote: > >> Can we *please* see the final actual definitely official Fedora list, >> then? If this is supposed to be an open process? > @Ben Cotton can oblige here, it's not my place to share it without a > stakeholder approval. The list sent to CPE

My Email

ayman.riad.sol...@gmail.com username : cryptorsa ___ 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-of-cond

ChnageReadyForWrangler category

I'm trying to add to the ChangeReadyForWrangler category. The sources has this: [[Category:ChangeReadyForWrangler]] but it doesn't appear in the footer or on the category page:

Re: koji wait-repo (newRepo) is really taking a long time

On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 12:03:31PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > I've been waiting on: > > $ koji wait-repo f33-build-side-20855 --build=ocaml-lacaml-9.3.2-17.fc33 > > for hours now. Seems like newRepo generation is again taking a very > long time? Yeah, trying to figure it out... htt

Re: ChnageReadyForWrangler category

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:16 PM Florian Weimer wrote: > > What can I do to fix this? > Good question! We had this problem before and didn't come to a good resolution. I reopened the infra ticket[1] and I'm going to leave the page alone for now so they can investigate it. But I will check it and se

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

On 4/3/20 6:09 AM, Richard Hughes wrote: On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 07:48, Samuel Sieb wrote: The problem is that in the past there have been some packages that have had to be updated first to successfully do the upgrade. So we list them with versions and do a deterministic check. Being told over

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 12:07 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 11:59 AM Leigh Griffin wrote: > > > Can we *please* see the final actual definitely official Fedora list, > > > then? If this is supposed to be an open process? > > @Ben Cotton can oblige here, it's not my place to share

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:42 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > > The end result of this is that we (Fedora) have somehow indicated to > CPE that we have no preference whatsoever for F/OSS tooling. I do not > believe that should have been the case. > For what it's worth, when I sent the list I included a

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 09:42:12AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > He is the FPL, he is not the Pope. I think we can all agree that this is for the best. :) -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.or

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 11:11:52AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > I see one more trend nobody is really talking about. > > Once there appears somebody brilliant in community, sooner or later Red > Hat hires him. Unfortunately, this rarely means that the person keeps > their independence. This also

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 01:04:33PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > For what it's worth, when I sent the list I included a reminder that > FOSS is always our strong preference where viable. It was a mistake to > not leave that in as a user story. I own that. I did that because of Eh, I remember it somew

Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Removal of the glibc-headers package

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RemoveGlibcHeaders == Summary == It was always the intent that on Fedora for x86-64, only the `glibc-headers.x86_64` was installed and available from composes. However, due to compose tool limitations, the `glibc-headers.i686` package sometimes leaks into the

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 13:04 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > One thing I'll note here: this is *exactly* the kind of thing that > > would have come to light very quickly if the open process which was > > committed to at the start had actually been followed through on. > > You are absolutely right. I sc

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 13:18 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 01:04:33PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > > For what it's worth, when I sent the list I included a reminder that > > FOSS is always our strong preference where viable. It was a mistake to > > not leave that in as a user

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 10:08 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 11:11:52AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > I see one more trend nobody is really talking about. > > > > Once there appears somebody brilliant in community, sooner or later Red > > Hat hires him. Unfortunately, this rarel

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Removal of the glibc-headers package

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 1:20 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RemoveGlibcHeaders > > == Summary == > It was always the intent that on Fedora for x86-64, only the > `glibc-headers.x86_64` was installed and available from composes. > However, due to compose tool limitat

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

On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 10:32:31PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote: > Would it be possible to formalize the kind of spec processing ELN wants > available in a set of generic operations with generic arguments (or > control variables)? > > I would not mind seeing a set of ELN macro calls in m

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 09:55:48AM +0200, Clement Verna wrote: ...snip... (side note: can people please try and trim their replies to this list? I know gmail makes that hard, but it's anoying to read a thread where you have to keep hitting page down to get the next few lines of new text. Thanks

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Removal of the glibc-headers package

* Neal Gompa: > Maybe this is a dumb question, but why do we not want to ship this? I > can't seem to figure out why we keep trying to block it, what harm it > causes to ship it, and so on... We haven't been able to ship it *consistently*. It either has to be always available in the x86_64 compo

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Removal of the glibc-headers package

On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 07:36:34PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Neal Gompa: > > > Maybe this is a dumb question, but why do we not want to ship this? I > > can't seem to figure out why we keep trying to block it, what harm it > > causes to ship it, and so on... > > We haven't been able to shi

Fedora 32 compose report: 20200403.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-32-20200402.n.0 NEW: Fedora-32-20200403.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:1 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 1 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 98 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 376.48 KiB Size of dropped packages:0 B Size of

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 1:28 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 09:55:48AM +0200, Clement Verna wrote: > > ...snip... > > (side note: can people please try and trim their replies to this list? > I know gmail makes that hard, but it's anoying to read a thread where > you have to keep

Re: How to enable package gating

- Original Message - > From: "Miro Hrončok" > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > , "Lukas Holecek" > > Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 3:25:16 PM > Subject: Re: How to enable package gating > > On 03. 04. 20 14:49, Lukas Holecek wrote: > > Hi Vojtěch, > > > > The issue is

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On 3 April 2020 19:18:57 CEST, Matthew Miller wrote: >On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 01:04:33PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: >> For what it's worth, when I sent the list I included a reminder that >> FOSS is always our strong preference where viable. It was a mistake to >> not leave that in as a user story

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

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 1:27 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 10:32:31PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote: > > Would it be possible to formalize the kind of spec processing ELN wants > > available in a set of generic operations with generic arguments (or > > control variab

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020, 18:21 Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 13:04 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > > > One thing I'll note here: this is *exactly* the kind of thing that > > > would have come to light very quickly if the open process which was > > > committed to at the start had actually

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020, 18:22 Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 13:18 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 01:04:33PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > > > For what it's worth, when I sent the list I included a reminder that > > > FOSS is always our strong preference where

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On 4/3/20 1:53 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: Honestly, the main app I have trouble seeing a broader community for is Bodhi. It*could* be done, but I'd have to sit down and do a fair bit of work to figure out what parts are "Fedora-only" verses "Fedora-favored". It speaks volumes that even*Red Hat* does

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

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 8:23 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 1:27 PM Matthew Miller > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 10:32:31PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote: > > > Would it be possible to formalize the kind of spec processing ELN wants > > > available in a

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20200403.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20200402.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20200403.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:2 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 6 Dropped packages:3 Upgraded packages: 214 Downgraded packages: 95 Size of added packages: 41.96 MiB Size of dropped packages

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

On 03. 04. 20 20:23, Stephen Gallagher wrote: Fabio Valenti made this comment in the FESCo ticket[1]. "Side note: I think more people would be amenable to including "conditionals" into their packages if they weren't only shown off as `%if eln this else that`. I think there's more value in doing

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020, 17:42 Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 12:07 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 11:59 AM Leigh Griffin > wrote: > > > > Can we *please* see the final actual definitely official Fedora list, > > > > then? If this is supposed to be an open proces

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 20:12 +0200, Markus Larsson wrote: > > On 3 April 2020 19:18:57 CEST, Matthew Miller > wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 01:04:33PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > > > For what it's worth, when I sent the list I included a reminder that > > > FOSS is always our strong preferenc

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 19:30 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote: > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020, 18:22 Adam Williamson > wrote: > > > On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 13:18 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 01:04:33PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > > > > For what it's worth, when I sent the list I includ

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

Hi Leigh, On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 17:00 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 4:20 PM Jeremy Cline > wrote: > > On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 05:38 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 5:29 AM Michal Konecny < > > mkone...@redhat.com> > > > wrote: > > > > On 03/04/2020

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 19:28 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote: > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020, 18:21 Adam Williamson > wrote: > > > On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 13:04 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > > > > > One thing I'll note here: this is *exactly* the kind of thing that > > > > would have come to light very quickly if t

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On 4/3/20 3:08 PM, Leigh Griffin wrote: It may have caught that for sure but it would have opened a lot more problems as stakeholders try to counter each others requirements with new more specific requirements to influence the decision. This is how software development is *supposed* to work. I

Non-responsive maintainer: kyrofa

Hi, Does anyone know how to contact Kyle Fazzari? He seems to have log in last on October 31st last year, and last updated his squashfuse package in 2018. I've opened a bug asking for either an EPEL 8 branch for squashfuse, or to be added as an admin or committer, on March 2nd: https://b

FedoraRespin-31-updates-20200402.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 3/18 (x86_64) ID: 566237 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso release_identification URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/566237 ID: 566238 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso apps_startstop URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/566238 ID: 566251

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

Once upon a time, Kevin Fenzi said: > Fedora Infrastructure has always been open and welcoming of community > work. The VAST majority of folks who have worked on it (at least the > operations side) in the past or are now, started out in the community > and eventually ended up doing it full time.

Non-responsive maintainer: ndim

Hi, Does anyone know how to contact Hans Ulrich Niedermann? He seems to have log in last on February 4th. I've opened a bug asking for either an EPEL 8 branch for terminus-fonts, or to be added as an admin or committer, on February 24th: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=18067

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 14:41 -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Kevin Fenzi said: > > Fedora Infrastructure has always been open and welcoming of community > > work. The VAST majority of folks who have worked on it (at least the > > operations side) in the past or are now, started out in

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:10 pm, Adam Williamson wrote: I assume Gitlab likes money. :P $100/month per user for Ultimate (the only offering that meets the "requirements")... 2339 packages in FAS... so $233900 * 12 works out to roughly $3 million per year just for Fedora, assuming we never le

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 2:46 pm, Michael Catanzaro wrote: packages Sorry, I meant: packagers Probably only packagers need access to dist-git, but we have other Fedora teams besides packagers that will need to use the instance too. So that's a minimum ___

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 01:53:18PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 1:28 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 09:55:48AM +0200, Clement Verna wrote: > > > > ...snip... > > > > (side note: can people please try and trim their replies to this list? > > I know gmail

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 14:46 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:10 pm, Adam Williamson > wrote: > > I assume Gitlab likes money. :P > > $100/month per user for Ultimate (the only offering that meets the > "requirements")... 2339 packages in FAS... so $233900 * 12 works o

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 3:57 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 14:46 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:10 pm, Adam Williamson > > wrote: > > > Another is requirement 19 ("As a Project > > contributor...I want to be able to use kanban boards...So that

Re: Take over maintenance of Hugo package

On Wednesday, 1 April 2020 18:13:51 CEST W. Michael Petullo wrote: > I would like to co-maintain or take over the maintenance of our Hugo > package. The package presently does not build, and thus it is at risk > of being orphaned: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1799514 > > -- >

%bcond_with/%bcond_without

On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 02:23:12PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > Fabio Valenti made this comment in the FESCo ticket[1]. > > "Side note: I think more people would be amenable to including > "conditionals" into their packages if they weren't only shown off as > `%if eln this else that`. I think

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020, 20:26 Randy Barlow wrote: > On 4/3/20 3:08 PM, Leigh Griffin wrote: > > It may have caught that for sure but it would have opened a lot more > > problems as stakeholders try to counter each others requirements with > > new more specific requirements to influence the decision.

Re: %bcond_with/%bcond_without

On 03. 04. 20 22:36, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: So... could we please get a way to express this in rpm with a sane syntax: %define_cond docs 0%{?fedora} > 0 (Naming and details of syntax are just examples, but the important parts are: one line, name before value, positive logic). Yes

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

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 10:41 AM Samuel Sieb wrote: > > On 4/3/20 6:09 AM, Richard Hughes wrote: > > On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 07:48, Samuel Sieb wrote: > >> The problem is that in the past there have been some packages that have > >> had to be updated first to successfully do the upgrade. > > > > So

Fedora 32 Final blocker bug email #1

Oh gosh, it's almost Final freeze time! (7 April) Action summary Accepted blockers - 1. dnf — DNF prompts for GPG key import for "repo_gpgcheck=1"-repositories despite "rpm --import"-ing the keys first — NEW ACTION: "everyone" to come to agreement on a solutio

Re: Fedora 32 Final blocker bug email #1

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 3:31 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > 1. dnf — https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1768206 — NEW > DNF prompts for GPG key import for "repo_gpgcheck=1"-repositories > despite "rpm --import"-ing the keys first > > DNF has a separate database of GPG keys, which leads to unexpect

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

Le 20-04-02 à 13 h 30, Samuel Sieb a écrit : The problem is that in the past there have been some packages that have had to be updated first to successfully do the upgrade.  As Kamil said, the list can change at any time.  The easiest way to ensure the upgrade works is to make sure that your c

  1   2   >