Re: Fedora Packager Dashboard available for testing

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 3:16 AM Bob Hepple wrote: > > Nice! > > Is the ourobolos (the snake eating its own tail) supposed to animate > all the time? To me, that kinda sorta means something is working - but > what? Hovering over it gives no clue. > > Or should I just wait a bit longer for it to fin

Re: Fedora Packager Dashboard available for testing

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 01:06:07PM -0600, Jerry James wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 12:12 PM Alexander Ploumistos > wrote: > > Congratulations to all of you, this is very useful and beautifully > > made. I almost got a panic attack when I saw all the bugs, but I > > quickly realized that most o

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 06:51:36AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > I think there's some fear that "name mangling" is not a general > solution, and we'd have cases where names conflict. I think the > concern is realistic, but not a big issue in practice. With some > careful naming guidel

Re: Fedora Packager Dashboard available for testing

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 9:15 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > RFE: would it be possible to make the icons in the header clickable > (the part where there's the ladybug, zapf, blocks, wrench, etc), so that > we'd get redirected to that list of issues (e.g. FTI bugs)? > > Zbyszek Zbyszek,

Re: Fedora Packager Dashboard available for testing

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 9:15 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > RFE: would it be possible to make the icons in the header clickable > (the part where there's the ladybug, zapf, blocks, wrench, etc), so that > we'd get redirected to that list of issues (e.g. FTI bugs)? It also dawned on me th

Re: Fedora Packager Dashboard available for testing

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 9:05 AM Josef Skladanka wrote: > Bob, > from what I've heard from Frantisek and Lukas, the teeny VPS is under > constant load since yesterday, since we have _a lot_ of tasks in the > celery queues. It might well be that it will take some time to get to > sync your data. II

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 06:51:36AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > Yes. Putting the "stream identification" into the package name is the > most natural solution, and has been floated various times. This already happens. But not in Fedora. In RHEL, modular packages have Modularitylabel

Re: Please BuildRequire python3-setuptools explicitly

On Tue, 2020-06-23 at 18:26 +0200, Tomas Hrnciar wrote: > [...] > tpm2-pkcs11 jjelen pbrobinson Done for this package in rawhide (without rebuilt yet). Regards, -- Jakub Jelen Senior Software Engineer Security Technologies Red Hat, Inc. ___ de

Re: Fedora Packager Dashboard available for testing

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:30 PM Josef Skladanka wrote: > Hi, > > We'd like to announce public testing of the Packager Dashboard - a new > service for Fedora package maintainers aiming to provide all relevant > data: FTBFS/FTI status (from both Bugzilla, Koschei and health check), > orphan warning

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

Le mardi 23 juin 2020 à 20:31 +0200, clime a écrit : > Or we can bring the notion of > the namespaces into rpm itself (that's where my suggestion of > "Stream" > rpm attribute comes from but it could also be called just > "Namespace"). But then there is the argument: "Why not just put the > namespa

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 at 09:40, Petr Pisar wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 06:51:36AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > Yes. Putting the "stream identification" into the package name is the > > most natural solution, and has been floated various times. > > This already happens. But no

Re: Fedora Packager Dashboard available for testing

Dne 24. 06. 20 v 9:31 Josef Skladanka napsal(a): > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 9:15 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: >> RFE: would it be possible to make the icons in the header clickable >> (the part where there's the ladybug, zapf, blocks, wrench, etc), so that >> we'd get redirected to that

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:22:38AM +0200, clime wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 at 09:40, Petr Pisar wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 06:51:36AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > Yes. Putting the "stream identification" into the package name is the > > > most natural solution, and

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020, at 3:37 AM, Petr Pisar wrote: > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 06:51:36AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > Yes. Putting the "stream identification" into the package name is the > > most natural solution, and has been floated various times. > > This already happens. But

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 04:36:06AM -0400, James Cassell wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020, at 3:37 AM, Petr Pisar wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 06:51:36AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > Yes. Putting the "stream identification" into the package name is the > > > most natural sol

SELinux question

Hi, I need some help from a SELinux guru. TL;DR, I've developed a small service. An app talks to this service, the service does some stuff and, in the meanwhile, it reports the progress to the app user by writing some messages into the stderr (/proc//fd/2) of that app. So far so good. Now, I keep

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

Dne 23. 06. 20 v 14:02 Josh Boyer napsal(a): > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 7:56 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: >> On 23. 06. 20 13:43, Josh Boyer wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 7:36 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: On 23. 06. 20 13:29, Josh Boyer wrote: >> (It*may* be possible to automatize this, bu

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 09:22:39AM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote: > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 06:51:36AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > I think there's some fear that "name mangling" is not a general > > solution, and we'd have cases where names conflict. I think the > > concern is realistic

Re: SELinux question

Run your program in permissive mode and use audit2why [1], to see what's wrong. If you have to allow that, you can use audit2allow [2] to produce a policy package to allow that behavior in package. I don't know how to make this into a package, maybe [3] will help. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wik

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 at 10:35, Petr Pisar wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:22:38AM +0200, clime wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 at 09:40, Petr Pisar wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 06:51:36AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > > > wrote: > > > > Yes. Putting the "stream identific

Re: Fedora Packager Dashboard available for testing

Congrats for the great work! One question. I don't have many packages, but I only see one of them. Why? Iñaki On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 at 18:35, Josef Skladanka wrote: > > Hi, > > We'd like to announce public testing of the Packager Dashboard - a new > service for Fedora package maintainers aiming t

Re: Fedora Packager Dashboard available for testing

Iñaki, looking at your dashboard overview, my guess would be that only one of the packages has any bugs/updates/prs/... since we "know" you have six packages (shown in the header), but only one is shown in the dashboard. So according to our information, the other five packages just don't need any

Re: Fedora Packager Dashboard available for testing

First of all, thanks for the feedback! On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:28 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: > Would it be possible to change the "reset" to something like "set > all/unset all". When I wanted to know what actually "orphaned" means, I > had to click on every option, which is not very convenient. W

Re: [fedora-java] Re: Announcement: Aim to remove libdb-java from Fedora-rawhide

I don;t think this is a reason not removing libdb-java subpackage from Fedora-Rawhide. If you are an active user of it, or you know somebody who actively uses it, we can discuss more about these issues. Thanks, Ondrej On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 9:54 AM Florian Weimer wrote: > * Jiri Vanek: > > > I

Re: Fedora Packager Dashboard available for testing

On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 at 11:20, Josef Skladanka wrote: > > Iñaki, > > looking at your dashboard overview, my guess would be that only one of > the packages has any bugs/updates/prs/... since we "know" you have six > packages (shown in the header), but only one is shown in the > dashboard. So accordi

Re: Please BuildRequire python3-setuptools explicitly

On 23.06.2020 18:26, Tomas Hrnciar wrote: > xvitaly    libolm python-emoji python-node-semver python-patch-ng > python-pytelegrambotapi python-wloc  Fixed. Thanks. -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org) ___ devel mailing list -- devel@l

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Fedora-Retired-Packages

On 24.06.2020 04:40, Przemek Klosowski via devel wrote: > Nice, thanks for finding this --- but it also lists all the > debugsource/debuginfo packages This is intended, because debug repositories are disabled by default and these packages does not belongs to any repositories. You can run `sudo d

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 11:01:55AM +0200, clime wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 at 10:35, Petr Pisar wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:22:38AM +0200, clime wrote: > > > On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 at 09:40, Petr Pisar wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 06:51:36AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzeje

Re: Please BuildRequire python3-setuptools explicitly

On 23. 06. 20 18:43, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 23. 06. 20 18:36, Adam Williamson wrote: IMBW, but I think I recall the Python packaging guidelines specifically said that you could or should (I forget which) just BR python-devel and not BR python-setuptools at some point. At this point there seems t

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

Le mercredi 24 juin 2020 à 11:56 +0200, Petr Pisar a écrit : > I see. I focused on having the stream information on RPM level. Then > the > answer is no, the package name does not contain the information. > > My idea was that DNF could discriminate the same-name package using > the > ModularityLab

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

Le mercredi 24 juin 2020 à 12:03 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit : > Le mercredi 24 juin 2020 à 11:56 +0200, Petr Pisar a écrit : > > I see. I focused on having the stream information on RPM level. > > Then > > the > > answer is no, the package name does not contain the information. > > > > My idea

Re: Please BuildRequire python3-setuptools explicitly

So, turns out I got this right somehow (setup.py defaults to distutils) but not really: We don't even use setup.py but build the portmidi python module directly (cython/gcc/install). I removed setup.py and rebuilt, this works fine and produces the same package. So, I suggest removing setup.py

Re: SELinux question

On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 at 11:05, Qiyu Yan wrote: > > Run your program in permissive mode and use audit2why [1], to see what's > wrong. > If you have to allow that, you can use audit2allow [2] to produce a > policy package to allow that behavior in package. > I don't know how to make this into a pack

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:03:05PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote: > Le mercredi 24 juin 2020 à 11:56 +0200, Petr Pisar a écrit : > > I see. I focused on having the stream information on RPM level. Then the > > answer is no, the package name does not contain the information. > > > > My ide

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

Dne 24. 06. 20 v 11:56 Petr Pisar napsal(a): On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 11:01:55AM +0200, clime wrote: On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 at 10:35, Petr Pisar wrote: On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:22:38AM +0200, clime wrote: On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 at 09:40, Petr Pisar wrote: On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 06:51:36AM +

Re: Fedora Packager Dashboard available for testing

This is awesome, thank you. On my dashboard (https://packager.fedorainfracloud.org/lcts), the mouse-over tooltips of top-row icons don't show up (I can see them in other people's dashes). This might be related to the fact that my packages currently have nothing to display, as the same thing happe

Re: Fedora Packager Dashboard available for testing

Christopher Engelhard 于2020年6月24日周三 下午7:25写道： > > This is awesome, thank you. > > On my dashboard (https://packager.fedorainfracloud.org/lcts), the > mouse-over tooltips of top-row icons don't show up (I can see them in > other people's dashes). > > This might be related to the fact that my packag

Re: Bodhi 5.4.0 in production

Dne 23. 06. 20 v 15:08 Clement Verna napsal(a): > > > On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 at 12:32, Vít Ondruch > wrote: > > > Dne 23. 06. 20 v 9:23 Hans de Goede napsal(a): > > Hi, > > > > On 6/22/20 9:53 AM, Clement Verna wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I h

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 3:38 AM Petr Pisar wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 06:51:36AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > Yes. Putting the "stream identification" into the package name is the > > most natural solution, and has been floated various times. > > This already happens. But

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:48:07PM +0200, Daniel Mach wrote: > > My idea was that DNF could discriminate the same-name package using the > > ModularityLabel tag instead of relying on modulemd documents delivered in > > the > > repository metadata. > > > The "modularitylabel" is not going to help.

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

Dne 20. 06. 20 v 23:40 Neal Gompa napsal(a): > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 5:25 PM John M. Harris Jr > wrote: >> On Saturday, June 20, 2020 4:42:17 AM MST Neal Gompa wrote: >>> TL;DR benefits of modularity for Fedora: >>> >>> * Automating build chains for producing artifacts >>> * Straightforward me

Re: Default editor for LXQt spin

On 12/11/18 7:52 AM, Raphael Groner wrote: Hi, writing to general devel list intentionally. No idea if all members of lxqt-sig list can read here, too and especially @zsun. Hi Raphael I'm realy sorry, there are too many emails in devel so when I am not on cc list it's high chance that I

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 08:14:39AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 3:38 AM Petr Pisar wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 06:51:36AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > Yes. Putting the "stream identification" into the package name is the > > > most natural

Re: Please BuildRequire python3-setuptools explicitly

Tomas Hrnciar writes: > pyxattr defolos frankcrawford kevin szpak Fixed and rebuild in Rawhide. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@

Re: Please BuildRequire python3-setuptools explicitly

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 6:26 PM Tomas Hrnciar wrote: > Hello everyone, > > there are plenty of Python packages in Fedora currently using setuptools at > buildtime but not all of them are BuildRequiring it explicitly. This only > works > because python3-devel (transitively) depends on python3-set

Re: Fedora Packager Dashboard available for testing

On 6/23/20 6:28 PM, Josef Skladanka wrote: > Hi, > > We'd like to announce public testing of the Packager Dashboard - a new > service for Fedora package maintainers aiming to provide all relevant > data: FTBFS/FTI status (from both Bugzilla, Koschei and health check), > orphan warnings, bugzilla

[Bug 1850424] perl-libwww-perl-6.46 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1850424 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In Version|

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

On 24. 06. 20 14:41, Vít Ondruch wrote: Having python27 and python36 modules is fail, because these should be 2.7 and 3.6 streams of python module. Oh. We are so sorry for the failure. Could you please report is as a bug in RHEL 8 and explain why it is a problem? -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +4

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

Dne 24. 06. 20 v 15:47 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): > On 24. 06. 20 14:41, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> Having python27 and python36 modules is fail, because these should be >> 2.7 and 3.6 streams of python module. > > Oh. We are so sorry for the failure. Could you please report is as a > bug in RHEL 8 and ex

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:45 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > Dne 24. 06. 20 v 15:47 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): > > On 24. 06. 20 14:41, Vít Ondruch wrote: > >> Having python27 and python36 modules is fail, because these should be > >> 2.7 and 3.6 streams of python module. > > > > Oh. We are so sorry for

Re: Fedora Packager Dashboard available for testing

Dne 24. 06. 20 v 11:24 Josef Skladanka napsal(a): > First of all, thanks for the feedback! > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:28 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: >> Would it be possible to change the "reset" to something like "set >> all/unset all". When I wanted to know what actually "orphaned" means, I >> had

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

Dne 24. 06. 20 v 17:04 Neal Gompa napsal(a): > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:45 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: >> >> Dne 24. 06. 20 v 15:47 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): >>> On 24. 06. 20 14:41, Vít Ondruch wrote: Having python27 and python36 modules is fail, because these should be 2.7 and 3.6 streams o

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Use %make_build and %make_install macros

I wonder if there is PR with the implementation somewhere or is this just dry theoretical discussion O:-) Vít Dne 19. 06. 20 v 23:11 Ben Cotton napsal(a): > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/UseMakeBuildInstallMacro > > == Summary == > This change will update all spec files in Fedora that

Re: protobuf update coming to rawhide

On Mon, 2020-06-15 at 06:51 +0200, Adrian Reber wrote: > I prepared a protobuf update for rawhide to 3.12. It requires a rebuild > of all dependencies and of the 55 dependencies currently 10 fail to > rebuild. The following packages are failing: > > clementine > closure-compiler > fawkes > gazebo

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20200624.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20200623.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20200624.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:6 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 8 Dropped packages:2 Upgraded packages: 201 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 7.70 MiB Size of dropped packages

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Use %make_build and %make_install macros

On 06/24/2020 08:25 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > I wonder if there is PR with the implementation somewhere or is this just dry > theoretical discussion O:-) > > I have been experimenting with these changes over the past few months, so there are a number of PRs where I have implemented these changes

Re: protobuf update coming to rawhide

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 08:34:03AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2020-06-15 at 06:51 +0200, Adrian Reber wrote: > > I prepared a protobuf update for rawhide to 3.12. It requires a rebuild > > of all dependencies and of the 55 dependencies currently 10 fail to > > rebuild. The following pa

Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-06-24)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 = #fedora-meeting-2: FESCO (2020-06-24) = Meeting started by ignatenkobrain at 14:04:37 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/

Re: Please BuildRequire python3-setuptools explicitly

On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 at 18:37, Adam Williamson wrote: > IMBW, but I think I recall the Python packaging guidelines specifically > said that you could or should (I forget which) just BR python-devel and > not BR python-setuptools at some point. At this point there seems to be > no explicit mention,

Re: SELinux question

On Wed, 2020-06-24 at 12:12 +0200, Iñaki Ucar wrote: > Thanks, I got [1] and [2] more or less covered thanks to the output > of > the SELinux troubleshooter. The missing parts were how to get > policies > into a subpackage (and [3] explains this, thanks), and how to write a > rule just for my scrip

Preparing for ocaml 4.11

This message is mostly for Richard Jones, but I'm sending it to the list so that others who maintain OCaml packages can weigh in if they choose. I have BCCed a few of you that are affected by some suggestions I make below. I have spent the last several days doing mock builds to see if I can safel

Re: SELinux question

On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 at 20:45, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-06-24 at 12:12 +0200, Iñaki Ucar wrote: > > Thanks, I got [1] and [2] more or less covered thanks to the output > > of > > the SELinux troubleshooter. The missing parts were how to get > > policies > > into a subpackage (and

Re: SELinux question

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 4:55 AM Iñaki Ucar wrote: > I need some help from a SELinux guru. TL;DR, I've developed a small > service. An app talks to this service, the service does some stuff > and, in the meanwhile, it reports the progress to the app user by > writing some messages into the stderr

Re: Please BuildRequire python3-setuptools explicitly

On 24. 06. 20 20:21, Andy Mender wrote: *Packages MAY use the automatic Python dependency generator. This generator uses upstream egg/dist metadata (such as setuptool’s install_requires ) This is about the runtime dependencie

Re: Fedora 33 Self-Contained Change proposal: No more automagic Python bytecompilation phase 3

On Tuesday, 16 June 2020 07.09.17 WEST Lumir Balhar wrote: > Hello. > > The change has been accepted and implemented in: > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-922b21ffde > > This means that the affected packages will FTBFS with the following error: > > %_python_bytecompile_extra

Re: Preparing for ocaml 4.11

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:39:24PM -0600, Jerry James wrote: > This message is mostly for Richard Jones, but I'm sending it to the > list so that others who maintain OCaml packages can weigh in if they > choose. I have BCCed a few of you that are affected by some > suggestions I make below. > > I

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Fedora-Retired-Packages

On 6/24/20 5:51 AM, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: On 24.06.2020 04:40, Przemek Klosowski via devel wrote: Nice, thanks for finding this --- but it also lists all the debugsource/debuginfo packages This is intended, because debug repositories are disabled by default and these packages does no

wireguard kmod package

I noticed that kmod-wireguard is being updated on F31, even after WireGuard became a part of Linux kernel since 5.6.0. Shouldn't kernel>5.6.0 obsolete kmod-wireguard? Is it kept and updated because it was originally installed via @commandline? We had a discussion about not removing any obsolet

Re: SELinux question

El mié., 24 jun. 2020 21:15, Jared K. Smith escribió: > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 4:55 AM Iñaki Ucar > wrote: > >> I need some help from a SELinux guru. TL;DR, I've developed a small >> service. An app talks to this service, the service does some stuff >> and, in the meanwhile, it reports the prog

Re: wireguard kmod package

On 6/24/20 4:29 PM, Przemek Klosowski via devel wrote: I noticed that kmod-wireguard is being updated on F31, even after WireGuard became a part of Linux kernel since 5.6.0. Shouldn't kernel>5.6.0 obsolete kmod-wireguard? Is it kept and updated because it was originally installed via @command

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

On 6/24/20 8:56 AM, Petr Pisar wrote: On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 08:14:39AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 3:38 AM Petr Pisar wrote: On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 06:51:36AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: Yes. Putting the "stream identification" into the package nam

Re: wireguard kmod package

On 6/24/20 4:35 PM, Laura Abbott wrote: On 6/24/20 4:29 PM, Przemek Klosowski via devel wrote: I noticed that kmod-wireguard is being updated on F31, even after WireGuard became a part of Linux kernel since 5.6.0. Shouldn't kernel>5.6.0 obsolete kmod-wireguard? Is it kept and updated because

Re: wireguard kmod package

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 11:04 PM Przemek Klosowski via devel wrote: > > so the repo it's coming from is @commandline, but I am not doing > it---somehow akmods pulls it in? my repolist is: You probably have akmod-wireguard from rpmfusion-free. ___ devel

Re: wireguard kmod package

There is an akmod-wireguard package in RPMFusion, so you probably installed it from there are somepoint. You should be able to just uninstall the akmod. -Ian On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:03 PM Przemek Klosowski via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On 6/24/20 4:35 PM, Laura Abbott wr

Re: wireguard kmod package

On 6/24/20 4:02 PM, Przemek Klosowski via devel wrote: repo id repo name code Visual Studio Code  (blush) fedora Fedora 31 - x86_64 fedora-cisco-openh264 Fedora 31 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64 fedora-modular Fedora Modular 31 - x86_64 rpmfusion-free RPM Fusion for Fedora 31 - Free rpmfusion-fre

Re: wireguard kmod package

> I noticed that kmod-wireguard is being updated on F31, even after WireGuard > became a part > of Linux kernel since 5.6.0. Shouldn't kernel>5.6.0 obsolete kmod-wireguard? > Is it > kept and updated because it was originally installed via @commandline? > > We had a discussion about not removing

Re: wireguard kmod package

On 6/24/20 4:29 PM, Przemek Klosowski via devel wrote: I noticed that kmod-wireguard is being updated on F31, even after WireGuard became a part of Linux kernel since 5.6.0. Shouldn't kernel>5.6.0 obsolete kmod-wireguard? Is it kept and updated because it was originally installed via @commandli

Re: wireguard kmod package

On 6/24/20 4:28 PM, Przemek Klosowski via devel wrote: It was akmod-wireguard (thanks Laura, Alexander, Joe, Leigh and Ian). This leaves the question: Shouldn't kernel>5.6.0 obsolete kmod-wireguard and akmod-wireguard? and maybe replace wireguard with wireguard-tools? Looking at this RPM's ch

Re: wireguard kmod package

On 6/24/20 6:03 PM, Joe Doss wrote: On 6/24/20 4:28 PM, Przemek Klosowski via devel wrote: It was akmod-wireguard (thanks Laura, Alexander, Joe, Leigh and Ian). This leaves the question: Shouldn't kernel>5.6.0 obsolete kmod-wireguard and akmod-wireguard? and maybe replace wireguard with wireg

Re: wireguard kmod package

> > I noticed that kmod-wireguard is being updated on F31, even after > > WireGuard became a part of Linux kernel since 5.6.0. Shouldn't > > kernel>5.6.0 obsolete kmod-wireguard? Is it kept and updated because > > it was originally installed via @commandline? > > > > We had a discussion about not r

Re: wireguard kmod package

On 6/24/20 5:36 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: As rpmfusion isn't an official Fedora repository the kernel wouldn't obsolete it, how would that work for the 100s of quasi fedora repos that spring up all over the place? Maybe rpmfusion should have something akin to fedora-obsolete-package for componen

Heads up - %configure and %cmake changes affecting MPI packages

This change in redhat-rpm-config: * Wed Jun 03 2020 Igor Raits - 158-1 - Add option to choose C/C++ toolchain changed %_set_build_flags to also set the CC/CXX compiler variables: CC=%{__cc}; export CC ; \ CXX=%{__cxx}; export CXX ; \ This breaks the relatively common construct for buildin

Re: wireguard kmod package

We did attempt to obsolete it in f32 https://pkgs.rpmfusion.org/cgit/free/rpmfusion-free-obsolete-packages.git/log/?h=f32 TBH I don't really like the idea much, removing peoples VPN isn't cool and leaves them exposed. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@li

Re: Heads up - %configure and %cmake changes affecting MPI packages

Le mercredi 24 juin 2020 à 21:49 -0600, Orion Poplawski a écrit : > This change in redhat-rpm-config: > > * Wed Jun 03 2020 Igor Raits - > 158-1 > - Add option to choose C/C++ toolchain > > changed %_set_build_flags to also set the CC/CXX compiler variables: > >    CC=%{__cc}; export CC ; \ >