thunderbird-enigmail: how to claim ownership for F31 if package is retired in rawhide?

Hey, thunderbird-enigmail was retired in rawhide after being orphaned for more than 6 weeks. However F30+F31 still have the RPM but it does not work at all due to Thunderbird changes. I'm not interested in taking over the master branch but I'd like to ensure that F31 ships working software. Which

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Build Python 3 to statically link with libpython3.8.a for better performance

On Thu, 07 Nov 2019 22:36:44 +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Thu, 07 Nov 2019 15:59:41 +0100, Victor Stinner wrote: > > I cannot explain why inlining cannot be done more often in libpython. > > > > I cannot explain why PLT is needed when a libpython function calls a > > libpython function. > >

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On 11/5/19 1:17 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > I'd like to gather a constructive list of the actual use-cases that > you feel Modularity is causing problems for, with the following > stipulations: Any *subjective* problems will be ignored. "I think > writing YAML is harder than writing a spec file"

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On 07. 11. 19 22:03, Stephen Gallagher wrote: I am currently working up a report on what exactly that will entail. I hope to have it ready to share tomorrow. Note that I have promised to share some draft about what would be needed if we decide to got this way, but I'm certainly not able to do

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Build Python 3 to statically link with libpython3.8.a for better performance

Chris Adams wrote: > Alternately, is there some way to reduce the overhead of the dynamic > library (that could help multiple languages)? -fno-semantic-interposition Can this please be tried on the dynamically linked Python? Kevin Kofler ___ de

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Build Python 3 to statically link with libpython3.8.a for better performance

* Vít Ondruch: > Dne 07. 11. 19 v 16:05 Tom Hughes napsal(a): >> On 07/11/2019 14:59, Victor Stinner wrote: >> >>> I cannot explain why PLT is needed when a libpython function calls a >>> libpython function. >> >> Because an exported symbol in an ELF shared library is subject to >> potential inter

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Build Python 3 to statically link with libpython3.8.a for better performance

On Thu, 07 Nov 2019 15:59:41 +0100, Victor Stinner wrote: > I cannot explain why inlining cannot be done more often in libpython. > > I cannot explain why PLT is needed when a libpython function calls a > libpython function. Could you re-run the benchmark with shared library but with -fno-semant

Re: EPEL-8 builds

Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:23:11 -0500 > Message-ID: > sjrbn+...@mail.gmail.com> > > On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 05:13, Peter Robinson wrote: > > I'd like to know why people are pushing EPEL-8 builds without engaging > > with the maintainers of the packages. I've had a few packages where > > I'm

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 3:54 PM Kevin Kofler wrote: > Christopher Engelhard wrote: > > Personally, I like a solution along the lines of what e.g. Kevin Kofler > > suggested earlier, that is > > > > 1) every package has a default version > > 2) any default version can only depend on default version

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Christopher Engelhard wrote: > Personally, I like a solution along the lines of what e.g. Kevin Kofler > suggested earlier, that is > > 1) every package has a default version > 2) any default version can only depend on default versions > 3) the package manager distinguishes between 'install defaul

Re: Something wrong with kernel-headers on fedora 30?

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019, at 3:46 PM, James Cassell wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019, at 2:50 PM, Laura Abbott wrote: > > On 11/7/19 1:31 PM, James Cassell wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019, at 1:23 PM, Joseph D. Wagner wrote: > > >> I am on kernel 5.3.8 but I still have > > >> kernel-headers-5.3.6

Re: Something wrong with kernel-headers on fedora 30?

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019, at 2:50 PM, Laura Abbott wrote: > On 11/7/19 1:31 PM, James Cassell wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019, at 1:23 PM, Joseph D. Wagner wrote: > >> I am on kernel 5.3.8 but I still have > >> kernel-headers-5.3.6-200.fc30.x86_64, which hasn't updated. > >> > >> Is there a reason

Re: Encrypted DNS in Fedora

Le jeudi 07 novembre 2019 à 18:32 +0100, Sheogorath via devel a écrit : > > The talk is right on many points, but I think it dismisses the most > essential point DoH does right: DNS is a decision of the device > owner. And the owner should be able to delegate this decision to the network manager.

Re: Encrypted DNS in Fedora

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 12:20 pm, David Sommerseth wrote: Please just watch the talk by Paul Vixie (who is one of the really big DNS gurus these days, even ISC BIND maintainer for quite some years). And you will see that DoH is pointless when you have DoT. Looks like we're headed towards a D

Re: Something wrong with kernel-headers on fedora 30?

On Thu, 07 Nov 2019 13:31:23 -0500 "James Cassell" wrote: > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019, at 1:23 PM, Joseph D. Wagner wrote: > > I am on kernel 5.3.8 but I still have > > kernel-headers-5.3.6-200.fc30.x86_64, which hasn't updated. > > > > Is there a reason a new kernel-headers package hasn't been > > g

Re: Something wrong with kernel-headers on fedora 30?

On 11/7/19 1:31 PM, James Cassell wrote: On Thu, Nov 7, 2019, at 1:23 PM, Joseph D. Wagner wrote: I am on kernel 5.3.8 but I still have kernel-headers-5.3.6-200.fc30.x86_64, which hasn't updated. Is there a reason a new kernel-headers package hasn't been generated for the newer versions?  Has

Re: Add a rule to have a compose when Fedora branched

On 07. 11. 19 18:35, Ben Cotton wrote: Here's the link to the Community Blog post that looks at the schedule options: https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/accommodating-flock-in-the-release-schedule/ From the post: I’m inclined to go with option 0, plus a brief freeze after branch. This s

Re: Jenkins plugin upgrade to change from fedmsg to fedora-messaging

Hello Fedora teams! We performed the upgrade this morning, however we ran into a few issues and we rolled back to the previous configuration. We will try again next week and when we have that firmed up, I'll send another email to the groups at large. Thanks, -Jim On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 10:50

Re: Something wrong with kernel-headers on fedora 30?

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019, at 1:23 PM, Joseph D. Wagner wrote: > I am on kernel 5.3.8 but I still have > kernel-headers-5.3.6-200.fc30.x86_64, which hasn't updated. > > Is there a reason a new kernel-headers package hasn't been generated for > the newer versions?  Has it be superseded by another pack

Re: List of Python 2 packages to be removed mid-November (= in a week)

On 11/7/19 2:34 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 07. 11. 19 13:59, Felix Schwarz wrote: Am 07.11.19 um 13:01 schrieb Petr Viktorin: If this took you by surprise, don't panic. It's possible to change the default. Let us know and we'll work things out. Somehow I feel like I don't understand the repo

Something wrong with kernel-headers on fedora 30?

I am on kernel 5.3.8 but I still have kernel-headers-5.3.6-200.fc30.x86_64, which hasn't updated. Is there a reason a new kernel-headers package hasn't been generated for the newer versions?  Has it be superseded by another package? If so, then dependencies on glibc-headers need to be fixed.

Re: EPEL-8 builds

On 07. 11. 19 18:28, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 04:48:41PM +, Peter Robinson wrote: On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 4:36 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote: Dne 07. 11. 19 v 11:12 Peter Robinson napsal(a): I'd like to know why people are pushing EPEL-8 builds without engaging with the mainta

Re: EPEL-8 builds

On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 12:29, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 04:48:41PM +, Peter Robinson wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 4:36 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > > > > > Dne 07. 11. 19 v 11:12 Peter Robinson napsal(a): > > > > I'd like to know why people are pushing EPEL-8 builds w

Re: Add a rule to have a compose when Fedora branched

Here's the link to the Community Blog post that looks at the schedule options: https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/accommodating-flock-in-the-release-schedule/ I have disabled comments on that post so that we can keep the conversation on this thread. -- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Fedora Prog

Re: Encrypted DNS in Fedora

On Thu, 2019-11-07 at 07:47 -0700, stan via devel wrote: > On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 12:20:50 +0100 > David Sommerseth wrote: > > > Please just watch the talk by Paul Vixie (who is one of the really > > big DNS gurus these days, even ISC BIND maintainer for quite some > > years). And you will see that

Re: EPEL-8 builds

On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 04:48:41PM +, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 4:36 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > > > Dne 07. 11. 19 v 11:12 Peter Robinson napsal(a): > > > I'd like to know why people are pushing EPEL-8 builds without engaging > > > with the maintainers of the packages. >

Re: Encrypted DNS in Fedora

Le mercredi 06 novembre 2019 à 07:11 +0100, Tomasz Torcz a écrit : > On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 10:00:17PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot via devel > wrote: > > Le mardi 05 novembre 2019 à 19:45 +0100, Tomasz Torcz a écrit : > > > > > > I don't agree with centralisation. You should run your own DoH > > >

Re: EPEL-8 builds

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 4:36 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > Dne 07. 11. 19 v 11:12 Peter Robinson napsal(a): > > I'd like to know why people are pushing EPEL-8 builds without engaging > > with the maintainers of the packages. > > Because they can? > Nothing in guidelines say: "you have to contact mai

Re: EPEL-8 builds

On 07. 11. 19 17:35, Miroslav Suchý wrote: Dne 07. 11. 19 v 11:12 Peter Robinson napsal(a): I'd like to know why people are pushing EPEL-8 builds without engaging with the maintainers of the packages. Because they can? Nothing in guidelines say: "you have to contact maintainer of different bra

Re: EPEL-8 builds

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 11:36 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > Dne 07. 11. 19 v 11:12 Peter Robinson napsal(a): > > I'd like to know why people are pushing EPEL-8 builds without engaging > > with the maintainers of the packages. > > Because they can? > Nothing in guidelines say: "you have to contact ma

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Build Python 3 to statically link with libpython3.8.a for better performance

Once upon a time, Miro Hrončok said: > If we build things statically with libraries, it's a can full of worms. > What needs to be said about this change that we don't staticaly link > against different libraries, we just build CPython source into one > "fat" executable instead of splitting it into

Re: EPEL-8 builds

Dne 07. 11. 19 v 11:12 Peter Robinson napsal(a): I'd like to know why people are pushing EPEL-8 builds without engaging with the maintainers of the packages. Because they can? Nothing in guidelines say: "you have to contact maintainer of different branch when you request new one". Of course,

Re: List of Python 2 packages to be removed mid-November (= in a week)

On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 01:01:09PM +0100, Petr Viktorin wrote: > Dear maintainers, > here is an updated list of packages that (transitively, at build or run > time) require Python 2 and have not yet got a FESCo exception to do so. > If you were bcced on this e-mail, it affects one or more of your p

Re: Python Annual Release Cycle adjusted to match odd-numbered Fedora releases

On 07. 11. 19 17:28, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 01:42:30PM +0100, Felix Schwarz wrote: Am 07.11.19 um 13:31 schrieb Miro Hrončok: "[2 months for RCs instead of 1] allows for synchronizing the schedule of Python release management with Fedora. They've been historically very help

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Build Python 3 to statically link with libpython3.8.a for better performance

On 07. 11. 19 17:15, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 07. 11. 19 v 16:05 Tom Hughes napsal(a): On 07/11/2019 14:59, Victor Stinner wrote: I cannot explain why PLT is needed when a libpython function calls a libpython function. Because an exported symbol in an ELF shared library is subject to potentia

Re: Python Annual Release Cycle adjusted to match odd-numbered Fedora releases

On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 01:42:30PM +0100, Felix Schwarz wrote: > > Am 07.11.19 um 13:31 schrieb Miro Hrončok: > > "[2 months for RCs instead of 1] allows for synchronizing the schedule of > > Python release management with Fedora. They've been historically very > > helpful > > in early finding re

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Build Python 3 to statically link with libpython3.8.a for better performance

On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 05:15:18PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: > This sounds like the whole system could be 25% faster if we link statically. Yeah, that's the advantage of static linking. This brings us stuff like statically linked distibutions - https://sta.li/faq/ Generally advantages of dyna

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Thu, 2019-11-07 at 05:06 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > Symbiotic is, I think, the best way to describe the Red Hat/Fedora > > relationship. > > Well, a symbiosis has to go both ways. In this case, I unfortunately get the > feeling that this feature was implemented

Re: EPEL-8 builds

On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 05:13, Peter Robinson wrote: > > Hi, > > I'd like to know why people are pushing EPEL-8 builds without engaging > with the maintainers of the packages. I've had a few packages where > I'm the only maintainer and I've explicitly not built them for EPEL-8 > for reasons yet peop

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Build Python 3 to statically link with libpython3.8.a for better performance

Dne 07. 11. 19 v 16:05 Tom Hughes napsal(a): > On 07/11/2019 14:59, Victor Stinner wrote: > >> I cannot explain why PLT is needed when a libpython function calls a >> libpython function. > > Because an exported symbol in an ELF shared library is subject to > potential interposition using LD_PRELOA

Re: Getting notified on broken deps from updates-testing

On 07. 11. 19 16:26, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 10:14 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: On 07. 11. 19 9:55, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Thu, Nov 7, 2019, 09:25 Miro Hrončok mailto:mhron...@redhat.com>> wrote: On 06. 11. 19 23:10, Randy Barlow wrote: > On Wed, 2019-11-06 at 2

Re: Getting notified on broken deps from updates-testing

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 10:14 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 07. 11. 19 9:55, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019, 09:25 Miro Hrončok > > wrote: > > > > On 06. 11. 19 23:10, Randy Barlow wrote: > > > On Wed, 2019-11-06 at 21:32 +0100, Miro Hrončok wro

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

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. Previously we've used %{buildarch} macro to disti

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Build Python 3 to statically link with libpython3.8.a for better performance

On 07/11/2019 14:59, Victor Stinner wrote: I cannot explain why PLT is needed when a libpython function calls a libpython function. Because an exported symbol in an ELF shared library is subject to potential interposition using LD_PRELOAD so the calls need to go through the PLT to be resolved

Re: List of Python 2 packages to be removed mid-November (= in a week)

On 07. 11. 19 14:59, Felix Schwarz wrote: Am 07.11.19 um 14:57 schrieb Felix Schwarz: Is there some automation to remove "python2-" subpackages or do you plan some "single hero"-style changes? If neither what is the plan for maintainers who just don't do anything? I should do more reading bef

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Build Python 3 to statically link with libpython3.8.a for better performance

> Where are these number coming from? There are pyperformance results: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/PythonStaticSpeedup#Benefit_to_Fedora It's the official benchmark suite to measure the Python performance on speed.python.org. I ran the benchmarks on my laptop using CPU isolation (iso

Re: Encrypted DNS in Fedora

On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 12:20:50 +0100 David Sommerseth wrote: > Please just watch the talk by Paul Vixie (who is one of the really > big DNS gurus these days, even ISC BIND maintainer for quite some > years). And you will see that DoH is pointless when you have DoT. > But DoT can also go much furth

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers (incl. wine, dosbox, nextcloud, owncloud)

On 11/7/19 1:52 AM, Frantisek Zatloukal wrote: I can take wine if you want that only as a last resort :) But, I'd be happy if you would co-maintain that, more people looking after the package like this is always better. FAS: frantisekz Andreas was the primary owner but has been away from Fed

Re: List of Python 2 packages to be removed mid-November (= in a week)

Am 07.11.19 um 14:57 schrieb Felix Schwarz: > Is there some automation to remove "python2-" subpackages or do you plan some > "single hero"-style changes? If neither what is the plan for maintainers who > just don't do anything? I should do more reading before replying to emails :-/ Change descr

Re: List of Python 2 packages to be removed mid-November (= in a week)

Am 07.11.19 um 14:47 schrieb Miro Hrončok: > On 07. 11. 19 14:41, Felix Schwarz wrote: >> However the wiki page says: >> "All packages depending on any python2 package will be removed." > > All "binary" packages. (...) >> So maybe I just misunderstood the change. What happens when a package like >

Re: List of Python 2 packages to be removed mid-November (= in a week)

On 07. 11. 19 14:41, Felix Schwarz wrote: Hi Miro, Am 07.11.19 um 14:34 schrieb Miro Hrončok: We actually are wiping out the entire Python 2 ecosystem here, that is the point. Ok, maybe I misunderstood the change. Just to be clear: I'm fine with the Python 2 package removal (though I expect

Re: List of Python 2 packages to be removed mid-November (= in a week)

Hi Miro, Am 07.11.19 um 14:34 schrieb Miro Hrončok: > We actually are wiping out the entire Python 2 ecosystem here, that is the > point. Ok, maybe I misunderstood the change. Just to be clear: I'm fine with the Python 2 package removal (though I expect I'll continue to develop Python 2 code out

Re: List of Python 2 packages to be removed mid-November (= in a week)

On 07. 11. 19 13:59, Felix Schwarz wrote: Am 07.11.19 um 13:01 schrieb Petr Viktorin: If this took you by surprise, don't panic. It's possible to change the default. Let us know and we'll work things out. Somehow I feel like I don't understand the report – or we are approaching an (almost) un

Re: Please, IMHO, resolve in some way the Samba MIT kerberos problem.

On Mon, 2019-11-04 at 20:45 -0500, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 8:39 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > > > The problem with the Samba team's advice is that it essentially > > prevents the MIT Kerberos AD-DC implementation from getting any > > better. Without people using it, we can't kn

Re: List of Python 2 packages to be removed mid-November (= in a week)

On 07. 11. 19 14:04, Jun Aruga wrote: ## What exactly is happening? The formal change proposal is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RetirePython2 Packages requiring Python 2 will be removed starting November 15 (unless they have an exception). Components with all essential subpackage

Re: List of Python 2 packages to be removed mid-November (= in a week)

> ## What exactly is happening? > > The formal change proposal is here: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RetirePython2 > > Packages requiring Python 2 will be removed starting November 15 (unless > they have an exception). > Components with all essential subpackages removed will be retired.

Re: List of Python 2 packages to be removed mid-November (= in a week)

Am 07.11.19 um 13:01 schrieb Petr Viktorin: > If this took you by surprise, don't panic. It's possible to change the > default. Let us know and we'll work things out. Somehow I feel like I don't understand the report – or we are approaching an (almost) unmitigated disaster here: There are so many

Re: Python Annual Release Cycle adjusted to match odd-numbered Fedora releases

On 07. 11. 19 13:42, Felix Schwarz wrote: Am 07.11.19 um 13:31 schrieb Miro Hrončok: "[2 months for RCs instead of 1] allows for synchronizing the schedule of Python release management with Fedora. They've been historically very helpful in early finding regressions not only in core Python but a

Re: Python Annual Release Cycle adjusted to match odd-numbered Fedora releases

Am 07.11.19 um 13:31 schrieb Miro Hrončok: > "[2 months for RCs instead of 1] allows for synchronizing the schedule of > Python release management with Fedora. They've been historically very helpful > in early finding regressions not only in core Python but also in third-party > libraries, helping

Python Annual Release Cycle adjusted to match odd-numbered Fedora releases

Hello, I'd like to inform you that [PEP 602] "Annual Release Cycle for Python" has been approved and [PEP 596] "Python 3.9 Release Schedule" is pending approval: tl;dr New Python 3.X versions will be released annually, with RC period adjusted to make it possible to update Python in odd-number

List of Python 2 packages to be removed mid-November (= in a week)

Dear maintainers, here is an updated list of packages that (transitively, at build or run time) require Python 2 and have not yet got a FESCo exception to do so. If you were bcced on this e-mail, it affects one or more of your packages. The default action will be to remove such packages startin

Re: Encrypted DNS in Fedora

On 06/11/2019 18:56, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 4:54 pm, David Sommerseth wrote: >> Yes, TLSv1.3 with encrypted SNI will help to some degree, but still there IP >> addresses you connect to will still provide meta data which can be used to >> profile you and give an indicatio

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On 11/5/2019 9:17 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > I'd like to gather a constructive list of the actual use-cases that > you feel Modularity is causing problems for, Thank you, that seems like a very good way forward. > 6. We don't provide a direct solution for parallel-installability. > This is a

Re: Please, IMHO, resolve in some way the Samba MIT kerberos problem.

On Wed, 2019-11-06 at 23:28 -0500, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 1:00 PM Dario Lesca > wrote: > > Il giorno mer, 06/11/2019 alle 09.03 -0500, Nico Kadel-Garcia ha > > scritto: > > > > Can the Fedora samba maintainers do that? > > > > > > > > Thank > > > > > > > > > > They ar

EPEL-8 builds

Hi, I'd like to know why people are pushing EPEL-8 builds without engaging with the maintainers of the packages. I've had a few packages where I'm the only maintainer and I've explicitly not built them for EPEL-8 for reasons yet people are now coming without any engagement what so ever and buildin

bibutils change soversion anounce

Bibutils 6.8 change soversion to 6.8. I am update it for rawhide, F31, F30. As I see no one package not require it so I will no rebuild anything else. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@li

Re: Getting notified on broken deps from updates-testing

On 07. 11. 19 9:55, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Thu, Nov 7, 2019, 09:25 Miro Hrončok > wrote: On 06. 11. 19 23:10, Randy Barlow wrote: > On Wed, 2019-11-06 at 21:32 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: >> Is there any good way to get notified about this sort of prob

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers (incl. wine, dosbox, nextcloud, owncloud)

Hi, I will take dynamite. I've filed an ownership request for this here: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8975 Regards, Hans On 06-11-2019 20:15, 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

Re: Getting notified on broken deps from updates-testing

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019, 09:25 Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 06. 11. 19 23:10, Randy Barlow wrote: > > On Wed, 2019-11-06 at 21:32 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > >> Is there any good way to get notified about this sort of problems in > >> timely manner prior to the update being pushed? This is currently not

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 05:06:33AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > Symbiotic is, I think, the best way to describe the Red Hat/Fedora > > relationship. > > Well, a symbiosis has to go both ways. In this case, I unfortunately get the > feeling that this feature was imple

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On 05. 11. 19 21:17, Stephen Gallagher wrote: I'm sure there are other pain points and I encourage you to share them. Please adhere to the guidelines about objectively measurable issues, though. M4. Since modularity started in Fedora, I've observed a pattern. A certain dnf behavior is UX unfri

Re: Getting notified on broken deps from updates-testing

On 06. 11. 19 23:10, Randy Barlow wrote: On Wed, 2019-11-06 at 21:32 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: Is there any good way to get notified about this sort of problems in timely manner prior to the update being pushed? This is currently not optimal. I'm not familiar with an existing solution to this

Re: Please, IMHO, resolve in some way the Samba MIT kerberos problem.

On ke, 06 marras 2019, Scott Schmit wrote: On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 03:14:34PM +0100, Dario Lesca wrote: Il giorno lun, 04/11/2019 alle 08.38 -0500, Neal Gompa ha scritto: > What defines it as experimental? https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Running_a_Samba_AD_DC_with_MIT_Kerberos_KDC > Using MIT