Re: ckermit?

* Steven A. Falco: > I'd like to request a rebuild for F32. Is it sufficient to request > that here, or is there some other procedure that I should use? I've merged the F33 change (dropping termcap-devel) and kicked off a new build. Please test the update and provide karma

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers (anaconda also affected)

Hello, On 2020-04-27 12:39, Miro Hrončok wrote: > drbd  orphan   2 > weeks ago I'll take a look at this one. Sincerely Peter signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ devel mailing

Re: python2-dns without DNSSEC support in rawhide

Hi Lumir, On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 07:35:43 +0200 Lumir Balhar wrote: > Hello. > > I'd like to switch python-dns crypto backend from pycryptodomex and > ecdsa to python-cryptography. Upstream already did the same in master > branch: https://github.com/rthalley/dnspython/pull/449 > > But, because

Re: python2-dns without DNSSEC support in rawhide

On 4/29/20 10:31 AM, Paul Howarth wrote: Hi Lumir, On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 07:35:43 +0200 Lumir Balhar wrote: Hello. I'd like to switch python-dns crypto backend from pycryptodomex and ecdsa to python-cryptography. Upstream already did the same in master branch: https://github.com/rthalley/dnspy

Re: python2-dns without DNSSEC support in rawhide

On ke, 29 huhti 2020, Lumir Balhar wrote: On 4/29/20 10:31 AM, Paul Howarth wrote: Hi Lumir, On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 07:35:43 +0200 Lumir Balhar wrote: Hello. I'd like to switch python-dns crypto backend from pycryptodomex and ecdsa to python-cryptography. Upstream already did the same in maste

Interest in a GraphQL SIG?

Hi, With the emergence of GraphQL I feel like it won't be long before we see it being used in our community. More and more services are creating GraphQL APIs and I think it would be interesting to look at those and see how we in Fedora could leverage them or where we could possibly create our own.

Fedora-IoT-33-20200429.0 compose check report

Missing expected images: Iot dvd aarch64 Iot dvd x86_64 Passed openQA tests: 8/8 (x86_64) New passes (same test not passed in Fedora-IoT-33-20200425.0): ID: 588960 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/588960 ID: 588961 Test:

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers (anaconda also affected)

On 4/28/20 22:15, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 08:01:31AM +0200, Dan Čermák wrote: Sérgio Basto writes: On Mon, 2020-04-27 at 12:39 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: GConf2 GConf2 is orphan, why ? no maintainers or a task force to be removed ? GConf2 has been deprecated for well

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers (anaconda also affected)

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 11:47:33AM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote: > > On 4/28/20 22:15, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 08:01:31AM +0200, Dan Čermák wrote: > > > Sérgio Basto writes: > > > > > > > On Mon, 2020-04-27 at 12:39 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > > > GConf2 > > > > > > > >

Fedora-Cloud-30-20200429.0 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

Self Introduction: Iago Rubio

Hello, I am Iago Rubio and I work as software developer in Spain. I have been involved with fedora some years ago and on the FOSS movement as well. I have had some packages on Fedora, and back in 2005 I was the upstream developer of cssed and colorcombinate, two small projects for web development

Fedora-Cloud-32-20200429.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Soft failed openQA tests: 1/1 (x86_64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) ID: 588977 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/588977 -- Mail generated by check-compose: https://pagure.i

Fedora-IoT-32-20200429.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Passed openQA tests: 8/8 (x86_64) New passes (same test not passed in Fedora-IoT-32-20200428.2): ID: 588969 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/588969 ID: 588970 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso ins

Fedora-Cloud-31-20200429.0 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: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers (anaconda also affected)

On 29. 04. 20 11:47, Kalev Lember wrote: GConf2 is orphan, why ? no maintainers or a task force to be removed ? GConf2 has been deprecated for well over a decade and afaik unmaintained for nearly half a decade. Thus: please just remove it from your dependencies and use gsettings instead (the u

Orphaned uglify-js

Hi, I orphaned the package. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/uglify-js because * I removed the uglify-js dependency from rubygem-uglifier. * When I asked the co-maintainers, there was no response. * The difficulty of the management. uglify-js requires nodejs-acorn, which requires nodejs-rollup

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers (anaconda also affected)

- Original Message - > From: "Kevin Fenzi" > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 12:26:46 AM > Subject: Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers (anaconda also > affected) > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 11:30:46PM +0200, Dominik '

Re: Orphaned uglify-js

On ke, 29 huhti 2020, Jun Aruga wrote: Hi, I orphaned the package. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/uglify-js because * I removed the uglify-js dependency from rubygem-uglifier. * When I asked the co-maintainers, there was no response. * The difficulty of the management. uglify-js requires n

Re: Orphaned uglify-js

On ke, 29 huhti 2020, Alexander Bokovoy wrote: On ke, 29 huhti 2020, Jun Aruga wrote: Hi, I orphaned the package. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/uglify-js because * I removed the uglify-js dependency from rubygem-uglifier. * When I asked the co-maintainers, there was no response. * The di

Renaming pythonXY packages to pythonX.Y (e.g. python39 to python3.9)

Hello everyone. I’m working on a change to rename pythonXY packages to pythonX.Y, e.g. python39 to python3.9. *Motivation:* When you install an additional Python interpreter, the command that runs it contains a dot (e.g. /usr/bin/python3.9) but the package name does not (e.g. dnf install pyth

Re: ckermit?

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 10:12:06AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: * Steven A. Falco: I'd like to request a rebuild for F32. Is it sufficient to request that here, or is there some other procedure that I should use? I've merged the F33 change (dropping termcap-devel) and kicked off a new build.

Re: ckermit?

On 4/29/20 4:12 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: * Steven A. Falco: I'd like to request a rebuild for F32. Is it sufficient to request that here, or is there some other procedure that I should use? I've merged the F33 change (dropping termcap-devel) and kicked off a new build. Please test the upda

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers (anaconda also affected)

I did an epel8 build yesterday. I've added you to the list of maintainers. Thanks! On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 03:26:49PM -0500, Martin Jackson wrote: I would be happy to maintain it -and it looks like it needs an epel8 build.  (FAS: mhjacks) Thanks, Marty On 4/27/20 2:13 PM, David Cantrell wro

Re: Orphaned uglify-js

> >FreeIPA depends on uglify-js to minimize its JS code. Do we have any > >other alternative that doesn't change meaning of the code? > > I quickly hacked on to use python3-rjsmin, seems to work fine for our > use case. Okay. It's good to know it. I tried to suggest bundling your uglify-js in the

Re: Fedora 32 is available now!

Dne 28. 04. 20 v 15:55 Matthew Miller napsal(a): > It’s here! We’re proud to announce the release of Fedora 32. > Thanks to the hard work of thousands of Fedora community > members and contributors, we’re celebrating yet another > on-time release! > > Read the official announcement at: > > * htt

[Bug 1829493] New: perl-Text-Aligner-0.16 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1829493 Bug ID: 1829493 Summary: perl-Text-Aligner-0.16 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-Text-Aligner Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

Re: RFC: Feature macros (aka USE flags)

Dne 27. 04. 20 v 13:19 Petr Šabata napsal(a): > Based on the recent discussions around %fedora/%rhel macros and ELN, > and %bcond generally being confusing to work with, I came up with a > distribution-wide feature that defines generic feature keywords and > associated helper macros that packages c

Re: RFC: Feature macros (aka USE flags)

Dne 29. 04. 20 v 18:07 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a): > Dne 27. 04. 20 v 13:19 Petr Šabata napsal(a): >> Based on the recent discussions around %fedora/%rhel macros and ELN, >> and %bcond generally being confusing to work with, I came up with a >> distribution-wide feature that defines generic feature k

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers (anaconda also affected)

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 08:02:15AM -0400, Martin Kolman wrote: > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Kevin Fenzi" > > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 12:26:46 AM > > Subject: Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers (anac

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers (anaconda also affected)

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 11:47 am, Kalev Lember wrote: I agree; it's time to let GConf2 and the rest of the GNOME 2 libraries go. If anyone disagrees and should pick it up, please only keep it for F33 and then retire it in F34, so that we don't keep the old baggage in the distro forever. Well

Re: Renaming pythonXY packages to pythonX.Y (e.g. python39 to python3.9)

Le mercredi 29 avril 2020 à 16:27 +0200, Tomas Orsava a écrit : Hi, > I’m working on a change to rename pythonXY packages to pythonX.Y, > e.g. python39 to python3.9. > > Motivation: > When you install an additional Python interpreter, the command that > runs it contains a dot (e.g. /usr/bin/pytho

Re: Renaming pythonXY packages to pythonX.Y (e.g. python39 to python3.9)

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 10:28 AM Tomas Orsava wrote: > > Hello everyone. > I’m working on a change to rename pythonXY packages to pythonX.Y, e.g. > python39 to python3.9. > > Motivation: > When you install an additional Python interpreter, the command that runs it > contains a dot (e.g. /usr/bin

Retired packages in Fedora are now disabled in bugzilla

Good Morning Everyone, This is something that was asked a while ago and that we finally tackled. If a package is retired in Fedora, it will now be "disabled" in bugzilla, meaning no one can open new bugs against it. The script doing this ensures that the package is retired on all active branches

Re: Renaming pythonXY packages to pythonX.Y (e.g. python39 to python3.9)

On 29. 04. 20 18:41, Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote: Le mercredi 29 avril 2020 à 16:27 +0200, Tomas Orsava a écrit : Hi, I’m working on a change to rename pythonXY packages to pythonX.Y, e.g. python39 to python3.9. Motivation: When you install an additional Python interpreter, the command tha

Re: Retired packages in Fedora are now disabled in bugzilla

On 29. 04. 20 19:14, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: Good Morning Everyone, This is something that was asked a while ago and that we finally tackled. If a package is retired in Fedora, it will now be "disabled" in bugzilla, meaning no one can open new bugs against it. The script doing this ensures th

Re: Retired packages in Fedora are now disabled in bugzilla

On Wed, 2020-04-29 at 19:19 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 29. 04. 20 19:14, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > Good Morning Everyone, > > > > This is something that was asked a while ago and that we finally > > tackled. If a > > package is retired in Fedora, it will now be "disabled" in > > bugzilla,

Re: Renaming pythonXY packages to pythonX.Y (e.g. python39 to python3.9)

On 29. 04. 20 18:51, Neal Gompa wrote: What do you think? Do you foresee any problems? I'm good with this plan, except for one thing I thought of we need to address: How do we do comparisons for python versions? In spec %ifs? I've been doing it with %python3_version_nodots. That'll work until

Re: Renaming pythonXY packages to pythonX.Y (e.g. python39 to python3.9)

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 4:28 PM Tomas Orsava wrote: > Hello everyone. > I’m working on a change to rename pythonXY packages to pythonX.Y, e.g. > python39 to python3.9. > Changing it to pythonX.Y makes sense I think. It's likely going to be a lot of work for little gain, but I appreciate that you

Re: Retired packages in Fedora are now disabled in bugzilla

On 29. 04. 20 19:14, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: This is something that was asked a while ago and that we finally tackled. If a package is retired in Fedora, it will now be "disabled" in bugzilla, meaning no one can open new bugs against it. Thanks! Can we please also close all the open Bugzilla

Re: Renaming pythonXY packages to pythonX.Y (e.g. python39 to python3.9)

Le mercredi 29 avril 2020 à 19:18 +0200, Miro Hrončok a écrit : > All [compat packages] MUST include the base name suffixed by either: Well we are not creating a compat package here and not adding an hyphen creates an artificial numeric/non numeric special case. But, I see someone formalised the

Re: Renaming pythonXY packages to pythonX.Y (e.g. python39 to python3.9)

On 29. 04. 20 19:37, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Le mercredi 29 avril 2020 à 19:18 +0200, Miro Hrončok a écrit : All [compat packages] MUST include the base name suffixed by either: Well we are not creating a compat package here and not adding an hyphen creates an artificial numeric/non numeric spe

Re: Renaming pythonXY packages to pythonX.Y (e.g. python39 to python3.9)

On 29. 04. 20 19:50, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: I don't agree that "python3.9" as a package name annoys humans or break automation scripts. How does it? As soon as you have a different naming convention for numeric and non numeric qualifiers all the code that manipulates your package names must tes

Re: Renaming pythonXY packages to pythonX.Y (e.g. python39 to python3.9)

Le mercredi 29 avril 2020 à 19:57 +0200, Miro Hrončok a écrit : > Such automation is broken anyway, because it cannot tell if python- > requests is a > Python library or a Python "qualifier". It is no more broken than automation that "knows" test means is a version. Of course before you apply

Re: Renaming pythonXY packages to pythonX.Y (e.g. python39 to python3.9)

Le mercredi 29 avril 2020 à 19:43 +0200, Miro Hrončok a écrit : > On 29. 04. 20 19:37, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le mercredi 29 avril 2020 à 19:18 +0200, Miro Hrončok a écrit : > > > > > All [compat packages] MUST include the base name suffixed by > > > either: > > Well we are not creating a comp

Re: Retired packages in Fedora are now disabled in bugzilla

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 07:32:01PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 29. 04. 20 19:14, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > This is something that was asked a while ago and that we finally tackled. > > If a > > package is retired in Fedora, it will now be "disabled" in bugzilla, > > meaning no > > one can

Re: Retired packages in Fedora are now disabled in bugzilla

On 29. 04. 20 20:24, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: We may need/want to track this in another script than this one. Could you open a ticket for this? I know there is some automation once a package is retired, so that may be one place where we could do this. Or we'll have to find another place for this

Re: Renaming pythonXY packages to pythonX.Y (e.g. python39 to python3.9)

Le mercredi 29 avril 2020 à 19:57 +0200, Miro Hrončok a écrit : > And I don't understand what kind of automation are we > talking about that needs to parse the "3.9" part and figure out it is > a "qualifier". It mostly hits you in the package creation code. The Go macro code will just dump -qualif

Re: Fedora 32 is available now!

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 05:57:48PM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > In fact, we do that in branching time. And you can enable building for F32 > in settings. And if you check the "Follow branching" option in settings, > then we automatically enable new version of Fedora for you at branching > time.

Re: Retired packages in Fedora are now disabled in bugzilla

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 08:25:42PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 29. 04. 20 20:24, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > We may need/want to track this in another script than this one. Could you > > open a > > ticket for this? I know there is some automation once a package is retired, > > so > > that m

Re: RFC: Feature macros (aka USE flags)

On Mon, Apr 27, 2020, at 7:19 AM, Petr Šabata wrote: > Details in the gist: > https://gist.github.com/contyk/0f0585c57976ca18a293b3566408 How about s/use/globalbuildopt/ ? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send

Backports of fixes from F32 -> F31?

Hi Florian, I've hit numerous bugs in GNOME in F31. Some of these are fixed in F32, such as this one against mutter: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1770296 Could we get some of these fixes backported? I've not heard from you on this bug at all, despite a needinfo request since Marc

Re: Backports of fixes from F32 -> F31?

Let's try this with the right Florian... Sorry! - Original Message - > From: "Alex Scheel" > To: "Florian Weimer" > Cc: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 4:02:48 PM > Subject: Backports of fixes from F32 -> F31? > > Hi Florian, > > I've

Re: Retired packages in Fedora are now disabled in bugzilla

Hi! On Wednesday, 29 April 2020 at 19:14, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > Good Morning Everyone, > > This is something that was asked a while ago and that we finally tackled. If a > package is retired in Fedora, it will now be "disabled" in bugzilla, meaning > no > one can open new bugs against it.

Re: Retired packages in Fedora are now disabled in bugzilla

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 10:24:03PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > Hi! > > On Wednesday, 29 April 2020 at 19:14, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > Good Morning Everyone, > > > > This is something that was asked a while ago and that we finally tackled. > > If a > > package is retired i

Re: Backports of fixes from F32 -> F31?

* Alex Scheel: > Hi Florian, > > I've hit numerous bugs in GNOME in F31. Some of these are fixed in F32, > such as this one against mutter: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1770296 > > > Could we get some of these fixes backported? I've not heard from you on > this bug at all, despi

Re: Backports of fixes from F32 -> F31?

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 4:24 PM Alex Scheel wrote: > > Let's try this with the right Florian... > > > Sorry! > > - Original Message - > > From: "Alex Scheel" > > To: "Florian Weimer" > > Cc: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 4:02:48 PM

Re: Retired packages in Fedora are now disabled in bugzilla

On 4/29/20 10:14 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: Good Morning Everyone, This is something that was asked a while ago and that we finally tackled. If a package is retired in Fedora, it will now be "disabled" in bugzilla, meaning no one can open new bugs against it. The script doing this ensures

Re: Backports of fixes from F32 -> F31?

You need @fmuellner i suppose. :) ___ 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-conduct/ List Guide

Re: Backports of fixes from F32 -> F31?

On Wed, 2020-04-29 at 16:59 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 4:24 PM Alex Scheel wrote: > > Let's try this with the right Florian... > > > > > > Sorry! > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Alex Scheel" > > > To: "Florian Weimer" > > > Cc: "Development discussion

Re: Block discard on more things

Once upon a time, James Cassell said: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020, at 6:51 PM, Chris Adams wrote: > > Now that Fedora 32 has fstrim.timer enabled by default... how about > > discards for the things that fstrim doesn't get? Two main things I know > > of: > > > > - swap: Do discard at swapon time by se

Re: Retired packages in Fedora are now disabled in bugzilla

On 29. 04. 20 21:11, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 08:25:42PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 29. 04. 20 20:24, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: We may need/want to track this in another script than this one. Could you open a ticket for this? I know there is some automation once a pa

Re: Retired packages in Fedora are now disabled in bugzilla

On 30. 04. 20 0:14, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 29. 04. 20 21:11, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 08:25:42PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 29. 04. 20 20:24, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: We may need/want to track this in another script than this one. Could you open a ticket for this?

Re: Renaming pythonXY packages to pythonX.Y (e.g. python39 to python3.9)

On 29. 04. 20 21:42, Lloyd Kvam wrote: What you say is true. I still don't agree that "python3.9" as a package name annoys humans. I am not a package pro, but simply reading along as an interested human user. To me, adding periods in package names can be confusing. My sentence was about "pyth

Non-responsive maintainer check for hubbitus

Hi, Does anybody know how to contact Pavel Alexeev (fas: hubbitus) ? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1829117 Last comment on the most recent ticket on bugzilla: #1737349 2019-09-08 pahan #1215344 2016-01-01 pahan #1200038 2015-10-04 pahan #1130101 2014-09-09 pahan List o

Re: Renaming pythonXY packages to pythonX.Y (e.g. python39 to python3.9)

On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 18:44, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 29. 04. 20 21:42, Lloyd Kvam wrote: > >> What you say is true. I still don't agree that "python3.9" as a package > name > >> annoys humans. > > I am not a package pro, but simply reading along as an interested human > user. To me, adding > >

Re: Renaming pythonXY packages to pythonX.Y (e.g. python39 to python3.9)

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 7:04 PM Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > > On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 18:44, Miro Hrončok wrote: >> >> On 29. 04. 20 21:42, Lloyd Kvam wrote: >> >> What you say is true. I still don't agree that "python3.9" as a package >> >> name >> >> annoys humans. >> > I am not a package

Re: Renaming pythonXY packages to pythonX.Y (e.g. python39 to python3.9)

On 30. 04. 20 1:07, Neal Gompa wrote: my usual mistake is where I do a stupid programming and do something like ls -1 | awk '{split($0,a,"."); print a[1]}' | whatever I needed for just the names of rpms which for most packages will give me the Name-Ver[.sion removed]. it is lazy script progra

Re: Renaming pythonXY packages to pythonX.Y (e.g. python39 to python3.9)

On Thu, 2020-04-30 at 01:10 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 30. 04. 20 1:07, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > my usual mistake is where I do a stupid programming and do something like > > > > > > ls -1 | awk '{split($0,a,"."); print a[1]}' | whatever I needed for just > > > the names of rpms > > > > > >

Re: Retired packages in Fedora are now disabled in bugzilla

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 02:06:06PM -0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: > > > On 4/29/20 10:14 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > Good Morning Everyone, > > > > This is something that was asked a while ago and that we finally tackled. > > If a > > package is retired in Fedora, it will now be "di

Re: Backports of fixes from F32 -> F31?

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 5:20 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-04-29 at 16:59 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 4:24 PM Alex Scheel wrote: > > > Let's try this with the right Florian... > > > > > > > > > Sorry! > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > > From: "Al

Re: Backports of fixes from F32 -> F31?

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 3:05 AM Josh Boyer wrote: > Perhaps there are other reasons, like some third party software not > working on F32, for example. I'm generally curious about how people > actually use our distributions and what prevents them from just > drinking from the firehose. Well, sinc

Re: Retired packages in Fedora are now disabled in bugzilla

On 4/29/20 5:26 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: It seems that if I try and file a bug against 0install, I still get to pick all of 30, 31, 32, and rawhide under Version. Is this expected? Unfortunately yes. Bugzilla can only disable a component for bugs, not specific versions of a component. If this i

Re: Backports of fixes from F32 -> F31?

On 4/29/20 8:04 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: Sure, that's valid. Although for installations contained to just Fedora content, the upgrade from release to release has been downright boring (that's a good thing). It's almost equivalent to a reboot. Perhaps there are other reasons, like some third part

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers (anaconda also affected)

On 4/27/20 1:39 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote: > The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they > are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know > for sure > that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper > reason: > https://fedoraproject.org/wi

Re: Renaming pythonXY packages to pythonX.Y (e.g. python39 to python3.9)

On 30. 04. 20 1:21, Adam Williamson wrote: I have this in my PATH (called pkgname): #!/usr/bin/python3 import fileinput for line in fileinput.input(): print('-'.join(line.split('-')[:-2])) how about: print(line.rsplit("-", 2)[0]) That's indeed probably nicer. -- Miro Hrončok --

Re: Renaming pythonXY packages to pythonX.Y (e.g. python39 to python3.9)

On 30. 04. 20 8:50, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 30. 04. 20 1:21, Adam Williamson wrote: I have this in my PATH (called pkgname): #!/usr/bin/python3 import fileinput for line in fileinput.input():   print('-'.join(line.split('-')[:-2])) how about: print(line.rsplit("-", 2)[0]) That's i