On 22/08/2021 13:52, Ankur Sinha wrote:
An example of what, though?
All Flatpaks with --filesystem={home,system}.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an
Thank you Ankur
Happy to move forward with your help.
On 2021-08-22 12:52, Ankur Sinha wrote:
On Sat, Aug 21, 2021 11:31:32 +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: On
21/08/2021 10:57, Ankur Sinha wrote: So, if we can do anything to make
it easier for developers to just
maintain their one or
On Sat, Aug 21, 2021 11:31:32 +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 21/08/2021 10:57, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> > So, if we can do anything to make it easier for developers to just
> > maintain their one or two tools for the Fedora community, that'll be
> > good.
>
> And we will get a lot of
On 21/08/2021 10:57, Ankur Sinha wrote:
So, if we can do anything to make it easier for developers to just
maintain their one or two tools for the Fedora community, that'll be
good.
And we will get a lot of low-quality packages with bundled a lot of
libraries, ignoring Fedora build flags,
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 17:22:59 +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> * Ankur Sinha [20/08/2021 12:27] :
> >
> > I totally understand the point of the system we have in place, but I do
> > see how it doesn't quite address the case of upstream developers or
> > individuals who'd just like to maintain their
* Ankur Sinha [20/08/2021 12:27] :
>
> I totally understand the point of the system we have in place, but I do
> see how it doesn't quite address the case of upstream developers or
> individuals who'd just like to maintain their few packages.
To be fair, the system does address the case of the
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 11:34:51 +0100, Joan Moreau via devel wrote:
> Package is created properly, spec file is already maintained : https://
> github.com/grosjo/fts-xapian/tree/master/PACKAGES/RPM
>
>
> but now, honestly, I don't really know what to do.
>
> Any help very welcome
Well, "pushing
On 20/08/2021 12:34, Joan Moreau via devel wrote:
but now, honestly, I don't really know what to do.
You need to find a sponsor:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
Package is created properly, spec file is already maintained :
https://github.com/grosjo/fts-xapian/tree/master/PACKAGES/RPM
but now, honestly, I don't really know what to do.
Any help very welcome
On 2021-08-18 20:09, Ben Beasley wrote:
Relevant history:
Relevant history:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953340
https://github.com/grosjo/fts-xapian/issues/82
In short, a package was submitted and approved, but the submitter (who
is also the upstream author) is discouraged by the need to seek
sponsorship into the packager group.
Hi
How to find someone able to push the code in a RPM package ?
Reminder
- Source code : https://github.com/grosjo/fts-xapian/
- Reference : https://doc.dovecot.org/configuration_manual/fts/
- Existing ArchLinux package (not AUR)
:https://archlinux.org/packages/?q=dovecot-fts-xapian
-
ok but then just tell me what to fix in the proposed package (if any) so
this can be made available to users
On July 3, 2021 22:24:48 Mattia Verga via devel
wrote:
Il 03/07/21 16:58, Joan Moreau via devel ha scritto:
Thanks to you and @eclipseo
This has already been a full nightmare
Il 03/07/21 16:58, Joan Moreau via devel ha scritto:
>
> Thanks to you and @eclipseo
>
> This has already been a full nightmare to create the SRPM file, and
> now it seems that I again need to an additional nightmare to "prove
> myself"
>
> The package is already in Deb and archlinux (*). Isn't it
Thanks to you and @eclipseo
This has already been a full nightmare to create the SRPM file, and now
it seems that I again need to an additional nightmare to "prove myself"
The package is already in Deb and archlinux (*). Isn't it enough to push
it to Fedora ?
Thanks
(*)
Thanks to you and @eclipseo
This has already been a full nightmare to create the SRPM file, and now
it seems that I again need to an additional nightmare to "prove myself"
The package is already in Deb and archlinux (*). Isn't it enough to push
it to Fedora ?
Thanks
(*)
Il 02/07/21 22:29, Joan Moreau via devel ha scritto:
>
> In practical terms, how to get a "sponsor" ?
>
>
Open a ticket in https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/issues and ask
there for guidance.
Mattia
___
devel mailing list --
Hi,
Your package have been reviewed, but by a person which isn't a sponsor
and as you are not a packager is not valid.
You need that review be made by a sponsor and the sponsor that review
and approve your package, will sponsor you as packager.
I think you should do a Self Introduction in devel
In practical terms, how to get a "sponsor" ?
On 2021-06-29 11:13, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Sat, 2021-06-26 at 22:34 +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote: * Joan Moreau
via devel [26/06/2021 19:36] :
What is next ?
The answer is the same one you were given two months ago.
You need to seek out a
On Sat, 2021-06-26 at 22:34 +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> * Joan Moreau via devel [26/06/2021 19:36] :
> >
> > What is next ?
>
> The answer is the same one you were given two months ago.
>
> You need to seek out a sponsor:
>
>
Dne 26. 06. 21 v 19:16 Stephen John Smoogen napsal(a):
The process is complicated for multiple reasons:
1. There are a lot of steps to deal with corner cases which have come
up over the years which need to be dealt with.
2. There are some steps to make sure that the package is going to be
On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 10:34:02PM +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> You need to seek out a sponsor:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
Probably in this case, someone else with knowledge of / interest in Dovecot
and the related ecosystems would make sense.
* Joan Moreau via devel [26/06/2021 19:36] :
>
> What is next ?
The answer is the same one you were given two months ago.
You need to seek out a sponsor:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
Emmanuel
___
devel
ok
I updated https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953340
What is next ?
Thank you so much
On 2021-06-26 17:49, Sérgio wrote:
kinit -R @ FEDORAPROJECT
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/Kerberos
A 23 de junho de 2021 18:34:20 WEST, Joan Moreau via devel
escreveu:
The process is complicated for multiple reasons:
1. There are a lot of steps to deal with corner cases which have come
up over the years which need to be dealt with.
2. There are some steps to make sure that the package is going to be
maintained versus just dropped and forgotten as a lot of
kinit -R @ FEDORAPROJECT
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/Kerberos
A 23 de junho de 2021 18:34:20 WEST, Joan Moreau via devel
escreveu:
>Hello
>
>How can I move forward on this ?
>
>Thank you
>
>
>On April 27, 2021 21:51:53 Joan Moreau via devel
> wrote:
>> Hi Emmanuel
>> I am
Maybe there is a way to import RPM packages from Debian ?
https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/dovecot-fts-xapian
On Sat, 2021-06-26 at 12:37 +0200, Joan Moreau via devel wrote:
> Honeslt y , process is so complicated
>
> Now, I am again getting errors about "unaotirzed url"
>
> How to make
Honeslt y , process is so complicated
Now, I am again getting errors about "unaotirzed url"
How to make things happens intesaod of all thisnightmare ?
Thank you
On Wed, 2021-06-23 at 19:58 +0200, Arthur Bols wrote:
> On 23/06/2021 19:34, Joan Moreau via devel wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > How
Dne 23. 06. 21 v 19:34 Joan Moreau via devel napsal(a):
Hello
How can I move forward on this ?
You have to address the issues in comment #1 of
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953340#c1
And iterate until you get APPROVED comment and flag fedora-review+
And now, how to get
On 23/06/2021 19:34, Joan Moreau via devel wrote:
Hello
How can I move forward on this ?
Thank you
Hi Joan,
Could you elaborate please?
As Emmanuel said, you have two options:
a) use a COPR repository and publish instructions on enabling the repo
b) find an existing maintainer to do the
Hello
How can I move forward on this ?
Thank you
On April 27, 2021 21:51:53 Joan Moreau via devel
wrote:
Hi Emmanuel
I am trying my best to foloow the process but I get nowhere
Now I get a "koji" error ("AuthError: unable to obtain a session")
I tried "fedpkg request-repo --exception
On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 09:47:31AM +0300, Otto Urpelainen wrote:
> Thank you the explanation. If you hand the repository over to me, I
> can see that material from the wiki is migrated there and the
> repository published at docs.fp.o Engineering Teams [1] as "Package
> Maintainers" ( or is it
Matthew Miller kirjoitti 4.5.2021 klo 19.38:
On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 10:09:09AM +0300, Otto Urpelainen wrote:
Could you comment on the status of repository
package-maintainer-docs at pagure.io [1]? It looks like it is
intended to be that migration, I wanted to contribute and started
with a tiny
On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 10:09:09AM +0300, Otto Urpelainen wrote:
> Could you comment on the status of repository
> package-maintainer-docs at pagure.io [1]? It looks like it is
> intended to be that migration, I wanted to contribute and started
> with a tiny pull request (to be followed by more
Matthew Miller kirjoitti 3.5.2021 klo 17.36:
On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 04:29:54PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Right, but this sub- thread it about
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers
Ah, sorry. I got lost. :)
But now that you mention it, I'd like to see that
Awesome. I'll follow that suggestion and review my Technical Writing notes
from the Fall! :)
--
Badger Badger Badger Mushroom Mushroom
A ssnake
On Mon., May 3, 2021, 8:36 a.m. Matthew Miller,
wrote:
> On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 04:29:54PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > Right, but this
On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 04:29:54PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Right, but this sub- thread it about
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers
Ah, sorry. I got lost. :)
But now that you mention it, I'd like to see that migrated to the new docs
system too.
--
Dne 03. 05. 21 v 16:14 Matthew Miller napsal(a):
On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 11:11:23AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Just FTR, if anybody has some specific proposal but don't feel
empowered to update the wiki, I think it is still good idea to make
a copy of the wiki page in their personal space and
On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 11:11:23AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Just FTR, if anybody has some specific proposal but don't feel
> empowered to update the wiki, I think it is still good idea to make
> a copy of the wiki page in their personal space and add the
> suggestions on top of that page. This
Just FTR, if anybody has some specific proposal but don't feel empowered
to update the wiki, I think it is still good idea to make a copy of the
wiki page in their personal space and add the suggestions on top of that
page. This way, the specific proposal can be shared with wider audience
for
* Joan Moreau via devel [01/05/2021 09:21] :
>
> 1 - Those who have a great piece of software, simply willing to make it
> available to the large public. In such case, there should be only quality
> barrier of the package + rules of duration (i.e. added packages are not kept
> in Fedora if not
On 01.05.2021 10:55, Joan Moreau wrote:
COPR is like AUR on ARch or PPA on Debian/Ubuntu
Like PPA. Everyone can create its own repository.
These are not in the default installation of the user, and not easily acceisble
for a non-tech user, so these not really appropriate.
sudo dnf copr
COPR is like AUR on ARch or PPA on Debian/Ubuntu
These are not in the default installation of the user, and not easily
acceisble for a non-tech user, so these not really appropriate.
What I would suggest, is to join the two repositories (being "by
default" for the average end user) , except
On 01.05.2021 10:42, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
There must be a section that clearly states that if the scope is "I made
this piece of software and I'll fire through Fedora repositories, then
goodbye", or "I use this software, I'll push into Fedora repositories
and never touch it again until
Yes, that distinction is clear to me, but as you said if English is not
your first language it might be less clear or the process might seem scary.
I feel there could at least be maintenance of the documents themselves,
which never hurts. It's a part of Fedora too! We have the nice site for
On 01.05.2021 10:21, Joan Moreau via devel wrote:
For instance, personally, I am not using Fedora at all (Arch fan ;) )
but just willing to make my piece of software available widely for those
interested. I am happy to maintain the package in the long run, but will
not get involve to much into
Il 01/05/21 10:21, Joan Moreau via devel ha scritto:
>
> For instance, personally, I am not using Fedora at all (Arch fan ;) )
> but just willing to make my piece of software available widely for
> those interested. I am happy to maintain the package in the long run,
> but will not get involve to
My opinion as a simple enthusiast, is that things should be separated in
two
1 - Those who have a great piece of software, simply willing to make it
available to the large public. In such case, there should be only
quality barrier of the package + rules of duration (i.e. added packages
are
Bryce Carson kirjoitti 1.5.2021 klo 3.21:
For what it's worth, I'm trying to join and have a package included and
there are definitely some areas I would like to improve. Should we make a
thread on their mailing list?
On Fri., Apr. 30, 2021, 5:50 p.m. Bryce Carson,
wrote:
Perhaps we could
For what it's worth, I'm trying to join and have a package included and
there are definitely some areas I would like to improve. Should we make a
thread on their mailing list?
On Fri., Apr. 30, 2021, 5:50 p.m. Bryce Carson,
wrote:
> Perhaps we could improve the wiki page on Joining** to make it
Perhaps we could improve the wiki page on Joining** to make it more clear
what the process is like?
I read through the guidelines and the Joining page a couple times, and only
near the end does it state that Joining is more about, well, joining as a
person than publishing a package. I believe it
On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 at 12:26, Mattia Verga via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Il 30/04/21 15:16, Joan Moreau via devel ha scritto:
>
> Thanks but I am really scratching my head to try to understand all this:
>
> 1 - How to get to the "packager" group ou forum or else ?
>
> 2 -
Il 30/04/21 15:16, Joan Moreau via devel ha scritto:
> Thanks but I am really scratching my head to try to understand all this:
>
> 1 - How to get to the "packager" group ou forum or else ?
>
> 2 - What does it mean to "block the
>
* Joan Moreau via devel [30/04/2021 14:16] :
>
> 1 - How to get to the "packager" group ou forum or else ?
We use FAS (https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/user/eseyman/) to manage
Fedora developer accounts. FAS has the notion of groups, one of which is
the packager group
On 30.04.2021 15:16, Joan Moreau via devel wrote:
1 - How to get to the "packager" group ou forum or else ?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
2 - What does it mean to "block the FE-NEEDSPONSOR tracking bug" ?
Open your Bugzilla package review
On 29.04.2021 21:27, Joan Moreau via devel wrote:
Isn´t there a muh more systemic (and simpler) process to push a RPM in
the distribution ?
No. With great power comes great responsibility.
Each candidate must, at least, prove that they are familiar with the
Fedora packaging guidelines.
--
Thanks but I am really scratching my head to try to understand all this:
1 - How to get to the "packager" group ou forum or else ?
2 - What does it mean to "block the FE-NEEDSPONSOR [1] tracking bug" ?
So far, I have https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953340
Any help very welcome
Am 29.04.21 um 21:27 schrieb Joan Moreau via devel:
Isn´t there a muh more systemic (and simpler) process to push a RPM in the
distribution ?
Fedora tries to ship working software. This means there has to be at least one
person who really cares about each Fedora package. All these processes
(fixed quoting)
On Thursday, 29 April 2021 at 21:27, Joan Moreau via devel wrote:
> On 2021-04-29 14:51, Qiyu Yan wrote:
> > 在 2021-04-29星期四的 13:25 +0100，Joan Moreau via devel写道：
> >
> > > Concretely, how to "find a sponsor" ?
[...]
> > FYI:
> >
THank you
Isn´t there a muh more systemic (and simpler) process to push a RPM in
the distribution ?
On 2021-04-29 14:51, Qiyu Yan wrote:
在 2021-04-29星期四的 13:25 +0100，Joan Moreau via devel写道：
Thank you
Concretely, how to "find a sponsor" ?
FYI:
在 2021-04-29星期四的 13:25 +0100，Joan Moreau via devel写道：
> Thank you
> Concretely, how to "find a sponsor" ?
FYI:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
--
Qiyu Yan
GPG keyid: 0x4FC914F065F2DF12
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed
Thank you
Concretely, how to "find a sponsor" ?
On 2021-04-27 22:19, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
* Joan Moreau [27/04/2021 20:51] :
Hi Emmanuel
I am trying my best to foloow the process but I get nowhere
Now I get a "koji" error ("AuthError: unable to obtain a session")
That looks like a
* Joan Moreau [27/04/2021 20:51] :
>
> Hi Emmanuel
>
> I am trying my best to foloow the process but I get nowhere
>
> Now I get a "koji" error ("AuthError: unable to obtain a session")
That looks like a recurring kerberos issue.
https://pagure.io/koji/issue/2063
Hi Emmanuel
I am trying my best to foloow the process but I get nowhere
Now I get a "koji" error ("AuthError: unable to obtain a session")
I tried "fedpkg request-repo --exception dovecot-fts-xapian" -> Lead
some error ("fedpkg request-repo --exception dovecot-fts-xapian")
I filed a "bug"
fixed
On April 25, 2021 16:27:57 Dennis Gilmore wrote:
some of the changes have just been committed already, or an equivalent.
The value you have for the license is incorrect
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main lists the correct values
-License:LGPL-2.1
+License:
Not sure what happend but the failure is gone somehow
Anyway, I pushed the "bug report" here :
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953340
Is that correct ?
Thanks
On 2021-04-25 16:04, Joan Moreau wrote:
you probably sent the same srpm
No, it is a new one , re-generated
some of the changes have just been committed already, or an equivalent.
The value you have for the license is incorrect
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main lists the correct values
-License:LGPL-2.1
+License:LGPLv2
There is no need to explicitly Require
you probably sent the same srpm
No, it is a new one , re-generated
just fine, I did make a few changes to the spec file. with a correct
changelag entry it should pass review
What changes are you suggesting ?___
devel mailing list --
you probably sent the same srpm,
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2020 builds
just fine, I did make a few changes to the spec file. with a correct
changelag entry it should pass review
Dennis
On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 8:58 AM Joan Moreau via devel
wrote:
>
> Same status :(
Thank you so much
However, still the same issue:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/1947/1947/build.log
g++ is not found
On 2021-04-25 15:42, Jerry James wrote:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 7:58 AM Joan Moreau via devel
wrote:
Same status :(
Try the attached version. It
* Joan Moreau via devel [24/04/2021 18:49] :
>
> It looks overwhelmingly complicated.
Out of curiosity, which part of the process looks complicated.
Perhaps we can simplify it.
Emmanuel
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
thanks
With the correction I get
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/1646/1646/build.log
Still not finding g++ :(
On 2021-04-25 15:29, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 8:48 AM Richard Shaw
wrote:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 8:36 AM Joan Moreau via devel
wrote:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 7:58 AM Joan Moreau via devel
wrote:
> Same status :(
Try the attached version. It fixes several minor problems in the spec
file. The problem you were encountering was the lack of the "-n
fts-xapian-%{version}" argument to %autosetup. The default directory
name is
On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 8:48 AM Richard Shaw wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 8:36 AM Joan Moreau via devel
> wrote:
>>
>> When I launch the "koji" comand, build fails because it does not find g++
>>
>> (see :
>> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9140/66659140/build.log )
>>
>>
Same status :(
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9973/66659973/build.log
On 2021-04-25 14:46, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 8:36 AM Joan Moreau via devel
wrote:
When I launch the "koji" comand, build fails because it does not find
g++
(see :
On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 8:36 AM Joan Moreau via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> When I launch the "koji" comand, build fails because it does not find g++
>
> (see :
> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9140/66659140/build.log )
>
> However, I put gcc-c++ in the
Hello
I tried anyway to follow the process of submitting a new RPM
When I launch the "koji" comand, build fails because it does not find
g++
(see :
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9140/66659140/build.log )
However, I put gcc-c++ in the BuildRequires line
(see :
Thank you.
It looks overwhelmingly complicated.
Would there be someone here willing to maintain the RPM for the FTS
Xapian plugin ?
The plugins has already DEB and ARch packages.
SPEC file for Federoa is available here ->
https://github.com/grosjo/fts-xapian/issues/82
Thank you so much
Also look at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers
сб, 10 апр. 2021 г., 14:22 Peter Oliver :
> Welcome! Start at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process
> ___
> devel mailing list --
Welcome! Start at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
Hi
I am trying to create an "offical" RPM for a package related to dovecot
imap server
See : https://github.com/grosjo/fts-xapian/issues/82
How one should proceed to hae a RPM referenced in Fedora repositories ?
Thank you
JM___
devel mailing list
80 matches
Mail list logo
