Re: BuildRequires: redhat-rpm-config

On 11/14/2013 05:45 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: On Thu, 2013-11-14 at 08:56 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: - Is this a bug in redhat-rpm-config/Python/RPM/Fedora? Yes. People hit this _constantly_ in a lot of ways. Like "why am I not getting debuginfo packages". The theory is that you migh

Re: BuildRequires: redhat-rpm-config

On 11/15/2013 05:25 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 11/14/2013 06:13 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 11/14/2013 05:45 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: On Thu, 2013-11-14 at 08:56 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: - Is this a bug in redhat-rpm-config/Python/RPM/Fedora? Yes. People hit this _constantly_

Re: openssl multilib broken

On 11/15/2013 10:44 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 01.11.2013 04:08, schrieb Kevin Kofler: Reindl Harald wrote: but sadly you can't do "Requires: package.x86_64" explicitly You can actually: Requires: openssl(x86-64) See also the %{_isa} macro you can't, been there done that in trying to lis

Re: File conflict when upgrading package

On 11/18/2013 10:27 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: On 11/18/2013 12:44 AM, Mattias Ellert wrote: sön 2013-11-17 klockan 22:12 +0100 skrev Sandro Mani: Upgrading from xflr5-6.09.05-4.fc21.x86_64 to xflr5-6.09.05-5.fc21.x86_64 however fails with Transaction check error: file /usr/share/applicatio

Re: dnf versus yum

On 01/04/2014 11:50 AM, Mattia Verga wrote: This is the first time I heard of DNF. Looking at the page where differences between DNF and yum are explained (http://akozumpl.github.io/dnf/cli_vs_yum.html) my question is: do we really need DNF to replace yum? Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me t

Re: Problem changing symlink to directory with %pretrans scriptlet

On 01/06/2014 11:47 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: Richard Fearn (richardfe...@gmail.com) said: On 28 December 2013 16:43, Bruno Wolff III wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#The_.25pretrans_scriptlet Notes that you need to use lua in pretrans scriptlets, not shell commands.

Re: Go packaging guidelines?

On 01/14/2014 01:06 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: On 01/13/2014 04:11 PM, H. Guémar wrote: there's a draft, i suggest that you start checking it. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Go A couple of questions and comments. I think overall, the approach works. # Packaging Libraries This

Re: Perl autorequires failing for git-svn

On 01/15/2014 02:56 AM, Todd Zullinger wrote: Hi all, [I posted this to the packaging list a few days ago, but haven't gotten any responses, so I want to open this to a wider audience in the hope of getting some pointers to what I'm missing.] I'm trying to fix a problem with the git-svn package

Re: Perl autorequires failing for git-svn

On 01/15/2014 05:31 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote: Panu Matilainen wrote: Also FYI, /usr/lib/rpm/find-requires (or -provides) is not what's used during rpmbuild unless specifically overridden to use that legacy mechanism. Thanks Panu. Is there a way to get rpmbuild to be more verbose abou

Re: Perl autorequires failing for git-svn

On 01/15/2014 11:17 AM, Jan Kaluža wrote: On 01/15/2014 08:28 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 01/15/2014 02:56 AM, Todd Zullinger wrote: Hi all, [I posted this to the packaging list a few days ago, but haven't gotten any responses, so I want to open this to a wider audience in the ho

Re: RPMbuild mystery parameters "--with" and "--without"

On 01/20/2014 04:24 PM, Björn Persson wrote: Apparently RPMbuild has a pair of parameters "--with" and "--without" that can supposedly enable and disable optional features in a package. Has anyone seen any documentation that explains how those work and how they interact with a spec file? I want

Re: RPMbuild mystery parameters "--with" and "--without"

On 01/20/2014 07:31 PM, Alek Paunov wrote: On 20.01.2014 16:24, Björn Persson wrote: According to the Packaging Guidelines we're not supposed to use those parameters when building "the source RPM to be submitted", because they somehow get "serialized" into the source package. I don't understand

Re: RPMbuild mystery parameters "--with" and "--without"

On 01/20/2014 05:56 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 03:24:12PM +0100, Björn Persson wrote: Apparently RPMbuild has a pair of parameters "--with" and "--without" that can supposedly enable and disable optional features in a package. Has anyone seen any documentation that exp

Re: rawhide builder issues?

On 01/31/2014 03:23 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Dan Horák wrote: On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 08:10:49 -0500 Josh Boyer wrote: Hi, I've sent two builds of linux-firmware to koji this morning and both fail with a strange error in root.log/mock_output.log: ERROR: Command fa

Re: Problems running mock with rawhide build root

On 02/04/2014 02:44 PM, Sergio Pascual wrote: Hi, I'm having problems running mock with a rawhide buildroot. I get the following error ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/repoquery -c /tmp/tmpQ6Wu7m --installed -a --qf '%{nevra} %{buildtime} %{size} %{pkgid} %{yumdb_info.fr

Re: [HELP NEEDED] LUA expert to help convert fedora-release %post scripts

On 03/03/2016 05:55 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: * Stephen Gallagher: On 03/03/2016 10:22 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: On 03/03/2016 04:00 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: So what I am looking for is someone who is fluent in LUA to help me convert these scripts over so that they can run entirely under

Re: iproute package split

On 04/07/2016 04:07 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: On Thu, 2016-04-07 at 12:55 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: If you have: (main package) Obsoletes: %{name} < the-new-version-release %package tc Obsoletes: %{name} < the-new-version-release Both subpackages should get installed on upg

Re: iproute package split

On 04/07/2016 09:12 PM, Phil Sutter wrote: On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 05:35:00PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 04:35:49PM +0100, James Hogarth wrote: On 7 Apr 2016 16:07, "Phil Sutter" wrote: Hi, On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 12:55:40PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewsk

Re: F25 System Wide Change: Use /etc/distro.repos.d as default reposdir

On 05/12/2016 11:07 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote: On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 09:36:32AM +0200, Jan Kurik wrote: = Proposed System Wide Change: Use /etc/distro.repos.d as default reposdir = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ReposInEtcDistroReposD Change owner(s): * Neal Gompa * Jan Silhan == Det

Re: RPM %changelog?

On 10/25/2016 05:15 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Matthew Miller wrote: On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 07:39:19PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: Hmmm. I think I don't consider it duplicated information. A commit messages in the VCS afaics is something that is written for other developers that want to unde

Re: RPM %changelog?

On 10/25/2016 09:35 PM, David Shea wrote: Please, no, don't do that. RPM is a standard lol. * The representation of file names in package headers changed in rpm-4.0. * Originally, file names were stored as an array of absolute paths. * In rpm-4.0, file names are stored as separate arrays of

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On 10/30/2016 03:26 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: Hi folks! I kinda hate kicking off discussions like this without having a solid solution to propose or being able to promise to work on one, but this really seems important. Unfortunately I can't claim I'm gonna have time to do any concrete work on

Re: Koji payload hash?

On 10/31/2016 05:17 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: On 10/21/2016 05:34 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 16:42:02 + Christopher wrote: What is the "Payload Hash" in koji? It looks like an MD5, but of what? It's not the rpm... I've checked. Should koji be providing verification hashes

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

On 11/02/2016 08:15 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Sun, 2016-10-30 at 08:50 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: On a related note, why on earth is the main Fedora repo set to expire every two weeks? (and its -source and -debuginfo every week??) It's not supposed to change *ever* for a released d

Re: Heads up: lua-lpeg 1.0.1 in Rawhide; lua no longer in mock root by default?

On 01/15/2017 05:44 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: Hi all, Just a heads-up: I just built lua-lpeg 1.0.1 for Rawhide. The release notes does not seem to suggest any significant API change, but just to be sure we should probably let it sit i

Re: Is it possible to manually insert shared library deps in an RPM?

On 02/03/2017 05:52 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 02:51:28PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 02:45:08PM +, David Howells wrote: Hi, gcc and cross-gcc currently dynamically load the isl-0.14 shared library - which means that rpm-build doesn't auto

Re: Is it possible to manually insert shared library deps in an RPM?

On 02/03/2017 06:18 PM, David Howells wrote: Okay, creating a script: #!/bin/sh if [ -x /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/find-requires ] ; then FINDREQ=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/find-requires else FINDREQ=/usr/lib/rpm/find-requires fi $FINDREQ $* case

Re: Is it possible to manually insert shared library deps in an RPM?

On 02/05/2017 01:32 AM, David Howells wrote: Panu Matilainen wrote: %if %{__isa_bits} == 64 Requires: libisl.so.15()(64bit) %else Requires: libisl.so.15() %endif That doesn't work. It complains about illegal characters. Sure it works. It's copy-pasted from a spec I just buil

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

On 3/26/20 1:02 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:22:47AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: === Upgrading === * Ability to upgrade is not affected * After upgrade completes, manual action (rpmdb --rebuilddb) will probably be needed to convert to sqlite. Alternatively user

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

On 3/26/20 1:32 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 01:16:22PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 3/26/20 1:02 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:22:47AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: === Upgrading === * Ability to upgrade is not affected

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

On 3/26/20 2:35 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 02:00:49PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: [cutting to the chase] - a one-shot service: this is easier to implement, it just needs to happen in one place. The hard part is making sure that the machine does not

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

On 3/26/20 2:20 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 07:38:33AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: Since RPM 4.14, RPM creates a new directory, writes the database content there, then renames the directory when it's done. Does it use renameat2(RENAME_EXCHANGE)? No, rpm doesn'

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

perspective, --rebuilddb was *much* worse for over twenty years and I've never heard anybodys database getting nuked because of *that*. On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 03:29:50PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: No, rpm doesn't use many Linux-specific calls and this is no exception. In fact

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

+0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: No, rpm doesn't use many Linux-specific calls and this is no exception. In fact it doesn't use any of the *at() family calls directly either. But why?! It's not like rpm is massive on Windows Server... Isn't good support for Linux absolutely the

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

On 3/26/20 2:35 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 02:00:49PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: previous-release-blocker(s) and previous-previous-release-blockers(s), since the changes would need to be deployed in F32 and F31. Also note that the last time when

Re: Upgrade tooling

On 3/27/20 9:04 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 3/26/20 2:35 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 02:00:49PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:    previous-release-blocker(s) and previous-previous-release-blockers(s),    since the changes would need to be deployed in F32

Re: Upgrade tooling

On 3/27/20 9:55 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 09:04:53AM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 3/26/20 2:35 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 02:00:49PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: previous-release-blocker(s) and previous-previous

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

On 3/27/20 1:32 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote: > The conditional approach will only allow this:   %if 0%{?rhel}   Version: 7.4.5   %else   Version: 8.0.0~rc1   %endif (And I assume the rest of the spec file would need major %if/%else mess as well, because Brainfuck 8 is built with meson, while

Re: Upgrade tooling

On 3/28/20 8:59 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 10:34:49AM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 3/27/20 9:55 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 09:04:53AM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 3/26/20 2:35 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote

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

On 3/28/20 2:01 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: So, my concern here is timeline vs the upcoming datacenter move. ;( Do you have any ideas when rpm 4.16 will be released? I don't see any dates on the change. Or perhaps I guess the question is when it will land in rawhide? RPM 4.16 alpha was released las

Re: Upgrade tooling

On 3/30/20 3:00 PM, Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote: On 3/28/20 8:59 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: Yes, that is an important hurdle that Fedora generally doesn't encounter at all. Fedora usually waits until the new rpm functionality is released in older versions of Fedora before allo

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

, 31 Mar 2020 09:26:36 +0300 From: Panu Matilainen To: devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org It's that time of year again... as our RPM change proposals passed with flying colors in yesterdays meeting, I'll hope to land RPM 4.16 alpha in rawhide later today or tomorrow by latest. Th

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

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

Heads-up: RPM 4.16 alpha coming to rawhide

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

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

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

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

On 3/31/20 7:45 PM, Björn Persson wrote: Panu Matilainen wrote: new expression features (in spec %if and macros) including but not limited to ternary operator (eg %[1==0?"yes":"no"]) For dependencies I'm told that the syntax is if else . So the syntax for c

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

On 3/31/20 3:34 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 8:10 AM Panu Matilainen wrote: It's that time of year again... as our RPM change proposals passed with flying colors in yesterdays meeting, I'll hope to land RPM 4.16 alpha in rawhide later today or tomorrow

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On 3/31/20 8:44 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: I understand there are practical resource considerations and so on here, but I still think this merits more high level and serious consideration. At the very least, if we have somehow reached a point where Red Hat is no longer willing to provide suffici

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

On 4/1/20 10:32 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote: Dne 31. 03. 20 v 8:26 Panu Matilainen napsal(a): # rpmdb --rebuilddb I always wanted to ask: how the rebuilddb works? The man page states that rpmdb rebuilds db from package headers. Where are those headers stored? The database rebuild indeed just

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On 4/1/20 12:49 PM, Clement Verna wrote: On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 09:47, Panu Matilainen <mailto:pmati...@redhat.com>> wrote: On 3/31/20 8:44 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > I understand there are practical resource considerations and so on > here, but I still think t

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

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 behavior, which will need fixing to be buildable with 4.16. Is there a list of those thirty

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

On 4/1/20 4:24 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 3:11 AM Panu Matilainen wrote: On 3/31/20 3:34 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 8:10 AM Panu Matilainen wrote: It's that time of year again... as our RPM change proposals passed with flying colo

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Mark libdb as deprecated

On 4/1/20 8:37 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:30:37AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Libdb_deprecated == Summary == This change should inform maintainers and developers about effort to remove libdb in future. == Owner == * Name: [[User

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: 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

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

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: 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: 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: %bcond_with/%bcond_without

On 4/6/20 12:53 PM, Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote: Le lundi 06 avril 2020 à 09:03 +0200, Petr Pisar a écrit : # Build an HTML manual with ascidoc %bcond_without docs # Perform the tests %bcond_without tests I feel the above syntax is hopeless. You need boilerplate (in all eln specs!) to exp

Re: Corrupt RPM package in Fedora 31 compose: perf-debuginfo-5.5.9-200.fc31.x86_64

On 4/6/20 2:06 PM, Petr Pisar wrote: On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 12:14:23PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: Installation fails like this: Running transaction Preparing: 1/1 Installing : perf-debuginfo-5.5.15-200.fc31.x86_64

Re: Corrupt RPM package in Fedora 31 compose: perf-debuginfo-5.5.9-200.fc31.x86_64

On 4/6/20 1:14 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: Installation fails like this: Running transaction Preparing: 1/1 Installing : perf-debuginfo-5.5.15-200.fc31.x86_64 1/1 Error unpacking rpm package perf-debuginfo-5.

Re: Call for testers for rpmautospec in staging

On 4/14/20 5:17 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 14. 04. 20 15:30, Petr Pisar wrote: I don't know what specific features of rpmdev-vercmp tool you need, but version comparison is implemented in rpmvercmp() function of rpm library. Exactly that, but without the need to use ctypes. Note thought tha

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

On 3/26/20 1:32 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 01:16:22PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: Right. I realize %posttrans is not a good idea. But *some* mechanism is necessary, because without that the change will mostly be a noop for most users. So I think this needs

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

On 4/17/20 5:09 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 04:48:11PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 3/26/20 1:32 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 01:16:22PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: Right. I realize %posttrans is not a good idea. But

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

On 4/20/20 1:07 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 10:38:18AM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 4/17/20 5:09 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 04:48:11PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 3/26/20 1:32 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote

Re: RFC: Feature macros (aka USE flags)

On 4/27/20 5:33 PM, Petr Šabata wrote: On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 4:04 PM Petr Pisar wrote: On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 01:19:29PM +0200, Petr Šabata wrote: Details in the gist: https://gist.github.com/contyk/0f0585c57976ca18a293b3566408 I'm very interested in overriding the global settings:

Re: RFC: Feature macros (aka USE flags)

On 4/28/20 10:53 AM, Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote: Le mardi 28 avril 2020 à 08:43 +0200, Petr Pisar a écrit : On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 04:33:52PM +0200, Petr Šabata wrote: %_use_ncurses %{lua: if rpm.expand("%{name}") == "yourpackage1" or rpm.expand("%{name}") == "yourpackage2" then pr

Re: Intent to retire jamin

On 5/3/20 5:05 PM, Guido Aulisi wrote: Hello, I'm going to retire the jamin package [0], because it's unmaintained upstream and it uses an old audio plugin standard (LADSPA). According to this thread [1], it introduces a lot of distortion too. It's also been terminally broken (segfault on sta

Re: Grub, EFI, and SELinux

On 5/4/20 10:17 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 4:40 AM Jerry James wrote: On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 4:33 AM Christopher wrote: Those are bugs filed against RPM. Is the RPM package responsible for executing lsetfilecon, or is it the grub2 package? If the grub2 package

Re: New rpmbuild failure - new rpm? Other?

On 5/5/20 2:44 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 05. 05. 20 1:14, Orion Poplawski wrote: https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/cobbler?collection=f33 Fails building the SRPM: DEBUG util.py:600:  error: /chroot_tmpdir/srpm_unpacked/SPECS/cobbler.spec: line 119: %S: argument expected Line is:

Re: New rpmbuild failure - new rpm? Other?

Oops, almost forgot to reply to this... On 5/5/20 1:36 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 05. 05. 20 8:43, Panu Matilainen wrote: Hmm, OTOH this is a bit questionable: macro primitives can only take arguments in the %{foo:bar} form, so perhaps the non-%{} form actually should fall through silently

Re: Strange rpm trigger behavior in koji rawhide

On 5/19/20 6:01 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote:   We're trying to track down a problem that only appears in koji and copr, but I can't reproduce locally in mock on my rawhide VM.  It's related to file triggers and we're trying to debug with something this: %transfiletriggerin -n texlive-kpathsea -

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

On 10/2/19 8:33 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 05:31:56PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: ○ Every changes to dist-git is done via pull-requests Erm, no thank you. Pull requests are a terrible workflow. It's definitely the winning workflow in the open source world today, p

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

On 10/4/19 3:17 PM, Björn Persson wrote: Panu Matilainen wrote: On 10/2/19 8:33 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 05:31:56PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: ○ Every changes to dist-git is done via pull-requests Erm, no thank you. Pull requests are a terrible workflow

Re: Has fedpkg + dist-git replaced rpmbuild for building new/local packages?

On 10/8/19 11:54 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: On Tuesday, 08 October 2019 at 08:34, Vít Ondruch wrote: [...] 2) fedpkg would not be needed if rpmbuild would be sanely able to do something like `fedpkg --release master srpm` but even so basic think requires either shuffling with file

Re: Has fedpkg + dist-git replaced rpmbuild for building new/local packages?

On 10/8/19 12:45 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 08. 10. 19 v 11:21 Panu Matilainen napsal(a): On 10/8/19 11:54 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: On Tuesday, 08 October 2019 at 08:34, Vít Ondruch wrote: [...] 2) fedpkg would not be needed if rpmbuild would be sanely able to do

Re: Has fedpkg + dist-git replaced rpmbuild for building new/local packages?

On 10/8/19 3:26 PM, Ankur Sinha wrote: On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 13:03:48 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: Look, I'm no more in love with the traditional layout than anybody, I'm just saying changing the default is not as simple as you'd like to think. Anybody wanting to work on chang

Re: The same RPM macro but different value for arch/noarch builds - how?

On 11/7/19 5:24 PM, Peter Lemenkov wrote: Hello All, We have a set of macros for Erlang libraries rpm building. Some of these macros evaliated before actual build (if I understand RPM build process correctly) and their actual value depends on a type of a package - arch-dependent or noarch. Previ

Re: Is 50+ RPM Subpackages too extreme?

On 11/27/19 5:45 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote: Chris writes: Hi guys, I just wanted to poll you for some advice.  My notification tool I maintain supports more than 50+ services now, but the only package isolation I do You should really count the number of texlive subpackages… I would not

Re: HEADS UP: /usr/bin/python is Python 3 in rawhide

On 7/15/19 7:09 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote: Just a reminder that builds are currently running for python2 and python3 that change the meaning of /usr/bin/python from Python 2 to Python 3 in rawhide. Two weeks late to the party, but yay, thank you. Finally some light at the end of the python-tran

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: x86-64 micro-architecture update

On 7/22/19 9:51 PM, Ben Cotton wrote: After preliminary discussions with CPU vendors, we propose AVX2 as the new baseline. AVX2 support was introduced into CPUs from 2013 to 2015. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Vector_Extensions#CPUs_with_AVX2 CPUs with AVX2]. This proposal see

Re: HEADS UP: /usr/bin/python is Python 3 in rawhide

On 7/30/19 12:18 PM, Alec Leamas wrote: On 7/15/19 7:09 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote: Finally some light at the end of the python-transition tunnel :) - Panu - If you see some light down the tunnel, it might be the train coming... That wouldn't be so bad, it'd still end the pain.

Re: Fedora 31 Self-Contained Change proposal: Limit Scriptlet Usage of core packages

On 7/15/19 6:57 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 11:52 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 10:13:21AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 10:04 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote: Dne 10. 07. 19 v 9:19 James Antill napsal(a): 2. adduser/group/etc.

Re: Fedora 31 Self-Contained Change proposal: Limit Scriptlet Usage of core packages

On 7/30/19 6:10 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: "PM" == Panu Matilainen writes: PM> So a big +1 for sysusers in sub-packages + file trigger to handle PM> running systemd-sysusers. It solves more problems than the current PM> sysusers-proposal and in a far more elegant way a

Dropping python2-rpm subpackage?

I'd like to drop the python2-rpm subpackage in Fedora 31. There are a handful of dependencies left for it still but these all appear more or less dead upstream (and some even downstream), and will go down with the great python2 flush soon anyway. Kobo is the exception but that has a python3 c

Re: Dropping python2-rpm subpackage?

On 8/7/19 10:48 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 07. 08. 19 9:32, Panu Matilainen wrote: I'd like to drop the python2-rpm subpackage in Fedora 31. There are a handful of dependencies left for it still but these all appear more or less dead upstream (and some even downstream), and will go

Re: Dropping python2-rpm subpackage?

On 8/7/19 1:09 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 07. 08. 19 10:19, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 8/7/19 10:48 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 07. 08. 19 9:32, Panu Matilainen wrote: I'd like to drop the python2-rpm subpackage in Fedora 31. There are a handful of dependencies left for it still but thes

Re: RANT: compton-ng…

On 8/13/19 11:17 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1738293 How did it pass review? Obsoletes: compton Silently doing Obsoletes of an active package and doing so even without version which is prohibited by the Packaging Guidelines. Really? cp -a yshui

Re: RANT: compton-ng…

On 8/13/19 1:19 PM, Kamil Dudka wrote: On Tuesday, August 13, 2019 11:26:12 AM CEST Panu Matilainen wrote: On 8/13/19 11:17 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1738293 How did it pass review? Obsoletes: compton Silently doing Obsoletes of an active

Re: RANT: compton-ng…

On 8/13/19 1:38 PM, Kamil Dudka wrote: On Tuesday, August 13, 2019 12:22:17 PM CEST Panu Matilainen wrote: On 8/13/19 1:19 PM, Kamil Dudka wrote: On Tuesday, August 13, 2019 11:26:12 AM CEST Panu Matilainen wrote: On 8/13/19 11:17 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: https://bugzilla.redhat.com

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change: glusterfs dropping 32-bit arches

On 8/14/19 10:59 AM, Andreas Tunek wrote: On Tue, 13 Aug 2019, 23:33 Kevin Kofler, > wrote: Kaleb Keithley wrote: > Building it on 32-bit in the CI is only to ensure correctness of sprintf > format strings. It's a compile-only test. And th

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change: glusterfs dropping 32-bit arches

On 8/14/19 12:28 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: * Panu Matilainen: Attitudes like that is why there's rottenware in the distro that last actually worked sometime around 2011, dutifully rebuilt on each mass-rebuild and even spec cleanups taking place but the software itself crashes on startup (

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

On 8/14/19 8:22 PM, Ben Cotton wrote: I want to publicly express my appreciation for Miro's efforts to enforce our policy and his willingness to take the hits from people being rightly upset at its flaws. Seconded. FWIW. - Panu - ___ devel m

Re: Lines disordered in mock's build.log

On 7/1/19 3:54 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote: Hello, I've noticed that last couple of weeks, I see disordered lines in mock's build.log. This happens constantly in local mock, copr and Koji. Example: [...] See the "error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.yUtVju (%check)" part in the middle of

Re: i686 hw builders running out of ram in cpio?

On 7/19/19 8:29 AM, John Reiser wrote: Anyone else seeing this?  It seems to only happen on physical i686 machines, not vm's, but that's based on only three builds so far. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=36329825 BUILDSTDERR: create archive failed: cpio: write failed - C

Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 31 Beta Freeze

On 8/29/19 8:30 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: I'd support changing the freeze dates to be something more like 18:00UTC the date they are listed. That would give people more time/be actually on the date when people are awake. I'll float the idea to releng and then fesco. That would be awesome. It's r

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

On 9/13/19 1:38 AM, vvs vvs wrote: But there should be some reason for that lack of interested volunteers in Fedora. Right now I'm looking at stats for other distributions which are not going to drop i686 any time soon, e.g. Debian, NixOS, Gentoo. There must me some very fundamental difference

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

On 9/26/19 10:05 PM, Jeremy Cline wrote: On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 02:57:56PM -0400, Randy Barlow wrote: On Thu, 2019-09-26 at 14:49 +, Jeremy Cline wrote: The combination of these two makes no sense to me. I do plenty of work where I don't want to build it (specfile cleanup, patches, configu

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

On 9/27/19 5:57 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 9:54 AM Panu Matilainen wrote: On 9/26/19 10:05 PM, Jeremy Cline wrote: On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 02:57:56PM -0400, Randy Barlow wrote: On Thu, 2019-09-26 at 14:49 +, Jeremy Cline wrote: The combination of these two makes no

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >