Re: Changes to make MySQL vs. MariaDB less confusing

[Orcan Ogetbil]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 3:27 AM, Bjorn Munch wrote:
> On 21/08 17.26, Ken Dreyer wrote:
>> Are the Oracle employees still around?
>
> Yes we are! Sorry for the long silence. The window for F19 closed so
> it became less urgent, then I had vacation, was sick, then others here
> were on vacation but we're all here now and I shall be uploading new
> packages with MySQL 5.6.13 very soon.

For future reference, we have a wiki page where you can add your away
information. It is a useful tool to check when someone is missing in
action.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Vacation

Best,
Orcan
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Bundled Flash

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 21:47 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:

> As plupload is a .sh not a .as3 I *think* we may be able to build it
> with swfc. I'll see whether that's possible.

plupload looks like, well, a giant pain in the ass. It depends on a bit
called moxie which is just kinda smooshed into the .swf shipped with
wordpress. If someone else wants to work on building that mess, go for
it, but for now, I'm going to work on ripping out the Flash and
Silverlight parts from plupload, and ripping out swfupload entirely.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Bundled Flash

[T.C. Hollingsworth]

On 8/15/13, T.C. Hollingsworth  wrote:
> It's come to my attention that a number of packages contain Flash (.swf)
> files,
> but absolutely none of them have BuildRequires on a free software Flash
> toolchain, nor do any of them seem to be shipping the source for these
> files.
> :-(
>
> It has never been permissible to included prebuilt files of this nature in
> Fedora [1], and FPC unequivocally stated during today's meeting that they
> have
> no interest in making an exception for this.
>
> Please remove this prohibited content from your packages, or ensure that
> any
> included .swf files are built from source using a free software toolchain
> like
> `swfc` during the %build phase.  A list of affected packages sorted by owner
> is
> included below, and I'll be filing bugs for these soon.

Bugs are now filed:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=WebAssets-BundledBinaries

The query ran for this includes Flash files (.swf), Flash source files
(.fla), Silverlight files (.xap), and Shockwave Director (.dcr) files.
 No new packages were surfaced by the expanded query but quite a few
that have .swf files turned out to be bundling some of the more exotic
kind too.

The list of files found is included with the bug, of course.

Anyone who has fixed their packages in Rawhide already won't get a
bug.  If you did get a bug despite having fixed your package please
double-check it, as these files still appear as of last night's
Rawhide compose. There was at least one I thought someone already said
they had fixed.

-T.C.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Bundled Flash

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 20:20 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
> On 8/22/13, Adam Williamson  wrote:
> > Looked into this a bit further this afternoon. Both swfupload and
> > plupload are open source projects, but Wordpress ships compiled binaries
> > in its 'source tarball', there is no build system in there for them at
> > all. Wordpress posts the sources for them on its site, though:
> > http://wordpress.org/download/source/
> >
> > The Debian package includes the sources for them in its source tarball
> > in a 'missing sources' directory - you can grab
> > http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/w/wordpress/wordpress_3.5.2
> > +dfsg-1.debian.tar.xz and see the 'missing-sources' directory with a
> > README explaining the situation. The package documentation indicates
> > that they possibly actually rebuild the .swfs from this source during
> > package build, but I'm not expert enough at the Debian package format to
> > be able to see where and how exactly this is done. But we should
> > probably harmonize with them on this.
> 
> That Debian package doesn't build anything. :-(
> 
> Plupload's flash directory taunts you with a .sh script, but it needs
> this thing to build:
> https://flex.apache.org/
> 
> And of course that allegedly "open source" framework is chock full of
> binary goop from Adobe.  Shame on you, Apache.

Doing a bit more digging around, I found 'as3compile' as a part of
swftools, which looks like what we'd want as a F/OSS ActionScript
compiler. However, swftools is in rpmfusion as it apparently has a
dependency on lame:

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1252

swfupload wouldn't actually need any kind of mp3 support, I don't think,
so we could theoretically build it with an as3compile without the lame
stuff (and hence safe for Fedora). But I'm not sure if we want to go
through that trouble.

As plupload is a .sh not a .as3 I *think* we may be able to build it
with swfc. I'll see whether that's possible.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Bundled Flash

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 20:20 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:

> What were the people who made this thing thinking, anyway?

"UPLOAD WIDGETS FOR ALL THE THINGS!!!11", I think.

If we could actually build the blobs I was thinking of setting up the
package to build them in a separate tree then drop them into the
wordpress source tree prior to 'building' it, but if it's not possible,
I think we'll just have to go for the 'rip them out' plan.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Bundled Flash

[T.C. Hollingsworth]

On 8/22/13, Adam Williamson  wrote:
> Looked into this a bit further this afternoon. Both swfupload and
> plupload are open source projects, but Wordpress ships compiled binaries
> in its 'source tarball', there is no build system in there for them at
> all. Wordpress posts the sources for them on its site, though:
> http://wordpress.org/download/source/
>
> The Debian package includes the sources for them in its source tarball
> in a 'missing sources' directory - you can grab
> http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/w/wordpress/wordpress_3.5.2
> +dfsg-1.debian.tar.xz and see the 'missing-sources' directory with a
> README explaining the situation. The package documentation indicates
> that they possibly actually rebuild the .swfs from this source during
> package build, but I'm not expert enough at the Debian package format to
> be able to see where and how exactly this is done. But we should
> probably harmonize with them on this.

That Debian package doesn't build anything. :-(

Plupload's flash directory taunts you with a .sh script, but it needs
this thing to build:
https://flex.apache.org/

And of course that allegedly "open source" framework is chock full of
binary goop from Adobe.  Shame on you, Apache.

> Not sure if Debian's done anything about the Silverlight bits, yet.

That's bundled too.

Can *we* do anything about Silverlight?  Last time I checked Moonlight
was no bueno for Fedora (and now I guess it's dead upstream anyway).

What were the people who made this thing thinking, anyway?  What sort
of crazy person has Silverlight installed but not Flash??  There's
someone that uses Netflix but not YouTube???

-T.C.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F20 release name election?

[Nico Kadel-Garcia]

You forgot the third camp, who want their release names without punctuation
so it doesn't break a decade of configuration scripting. Releases need
punctuation and non-7-bit ASCII in their names like goldfish need martinis.


On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Dan Mashal  wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Chris Murphy 
> wrote:
> >> *smack own forehead* I like that better than the other options also.
> For me, one extra point for Vidalia onion over "20".
> >>
> >> Heck I like "Crazy Train" based on a recent Matthew Miller assertion.
> >>
> >> Assuming there can be no late add ins though, the overwhelmingly
> obvious correct answer is Heisenbug. I attract more Heisenbugs than anyone
> I know. It's funny. It's true, they totally exist. And (sorry!) all the
> other options are snoozers. Now, had it been "Santa's reindeer" that might
> have made it a *little* less obvious, what the correct answer is.
> >
> >
> > How about no release name, just this one time. In his honor? I love
> > release names, and while I didn't know Seth very well personally,
> > probably the main reason I use Fedora/RHEL/CentOS is because of yum.
> > He deserves the honor in my opinion. The choices up there are lame.
>
> The choices are what the community came up with.  At this point, that
> is what we have to chose from.
>
> > If i I had to choose I guess I'd vote for Santa Claus but this is
> ridiculous.
>
> I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but there are essentially two camps
> right now.  Those that don't care about release names one bit (like
> me), and those that do.  If those that do care want better names,
> they'll need to work harder at creating meaningful suggestions.
>
> The Board has an open ticket on the naming process.  We're working
> through it now, but "no release names" isn't an immediate option
> because the last time we proposed that the community vote showed names
> were still desired.  Hopefully we'll resolve the ticket shortly and
> explain how naming needs to work in the future.
>
> > With all due respect can someone please explain to me how this release
> > is "dedicated" to Mr. Vidal?
>
> It will be dedicated in the release announcement.  Perhaps someone
> might add something to the download page on the website as well.
>
> josh
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
>
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

F20 release name election

[Matt Eskes]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

FINALLY! there was someone who hated release names as much, if not
more than I. I say we forgo a release name on f20, as well.

M

On 08/22/2013 07:29 PM, devel-requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
> Send devel mailing list submissions to 
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit 
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel or, via
> email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to 
> devel-requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at 
> devel-ow...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
> specific than "Re: Contents of devel digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
> 1. Re: F20 release name election? (Dan Mashal) 2. Re: F21 schedule:
> what would you do with more time? (Chris Murphy) 3. Re: F20 release
> name election? (Josh Boyer) 4. Re: F19 server install experience
> (Chris Murphy) 5. Re: F21 schedule: what would you do with more
> time? (Adam Williamson) 6. Re: F20 release name election? (Chris
> Murphy) 7. Re: F19 server install experience (Adam Williamson) 8.
> Re: F19 server install experience (Chris Murphy) 9. Re: F20 release
> name election? (Dan Mashal) 10. Re: Bundled Flash (Adam
> Williamson) 11. Re: F19 server install experience (Adam
> Williamson) 12. Re: F20 release name election? (Billy Crook) 13.
> Re: F20 release name election? (Chris Murphy) 14. Re: F20 release
> name election? (Paul Wouters)
> 
> 
> --
>
>  Message: 1 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 17:05:57 -0700 From: Dan Mashal
>  To: Development discussions related to
> Fedora  Subject: Re: F20 release
> name election? Message-ID: 
> 
>
> 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Chris Murphy
>  wrote:
>> *smack own forehead* I like that better than the other options
>> also. For me, one extra point for Vidalia onion over "20".
>> 
>> Heck I like "Crazy Train" based on a recent Matthew Miller
>> assertion.
>> 
>> Assuming there can be no late add ins though, the overwhelmingly
>> obvious correct answer is Heisenbug. I attract more Heisenbugs
>> than anyone I know. It's funny. It's true, they totally exist.
>> And (sorry!) all the other options are snoozers. Now, had it been
>> "Santa's reindeer" that might have made it a *little* less
>> obvious, what the correct answer is.
> 
> 
> How about no release name, just this one time. In his honor? I
> love release names, and while I didn't know Seth very well
> personally, probably the main reason I use Fedora/RHEL/CentOS is
> because of yum. He deserves the honor in my opinion. The choices up
> there are lame.
> 
> If i I had to choose I guess I'd vote for Santa Claus but this is
> ridiculous.
> 
> With all due respect can someone please explain to me how this
> release is "dedicated" to Mr. Vidal?
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 2 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 18:11:16 -0600 From: Chris Murphy
>  To: Development discussions related to
> Fedora  Subject: Re: F21 schedule:
> what would you do with more time? Message-ID:
>  
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> 
> On Aug 22, 2013, at 3:03 PM, Adam Williamson 
> wrote:
>> 
>> QA, releng and anaconda are on a more or less permanent
>> iteration treadmill from Alpha TC1 onwards, severely limiting the
>> time we have to work on anything else. We can only really get
>> substantive work done on 'things that are not release validation'
>> in the ~two months (on a regular cycle) between FNN Go and FNN+1
>> Alpha TC1.
> 
> 
> I'm going to take a wild guess here, QA could probably use a month
> of going into a black hole for starters, as in, en vacaciones, no
> me contacte. So in reality, that probably translates into maybe a
> four day weekend. But how much time do you think QA needs for
> "things other than release validation"? So far the push back range
> is a wee bit broad, 2 weeks to six months.
> 
> If it needs to be six months, fine. But there's also a risk of
> losing a lot of momentum with a six month hiatus. That's why I
> arbitrarily came up with 3 months on the high end. There are still
> positives to the Fedora pressure cooker (ANOTHER RELEASE NAME
> IDEA!), a.k.a. crazy train.
> 
> 
> Chris Murphy
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 3 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 20:12:10 -0400 From: Josh Boyer
>  To: Development discussions related to
> Fedora  Subject: Re: F20 release
> name election? Message-ID: 
> 
>
> 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Dan Mashal 
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Chris Murphy
>>  wrote:
>>> *smack own forehead* I like that better than the other options
>>> also. For me, one extra point for Vidalia onion over "20".
>>> 
>>> Heck I like "Crazy Train" based on a recent Matthew Miller
>>> assertion.
>>> 
>>> Assumi

Re: bug filed against "distribution"

[Reindl Harald]

Am 23.08.2013 01:50, schrieb Adam Williamson:
> On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 22:05 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> since i have enough of bugzilla-mails as response of bugreports
>> containing referecnes to any Fedora version but not the reported
>> i consider this as bug in the distribution itself
>>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=998035
>>
>> *at least* a "we do not fix this in F18 because "
>> or "it will most likely done in the next package-update for Fq8"
>> would be what anybody who is wasting his time for verify things
>> in the distribution and report bugs/guideline-violations should
>> be a response
>> ___
>>
>> hence i even do not understand why not every maintainer is reading
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#PIE and after
>> logout from the DE calls "checksec --proc-all" and *MUST enable*
>> in the guidelines is no opt-in
>>
>> as well as read things like
>> http://tk-blog.blogspot.co.at/2009/02/relro-not-so-well-known-memory.html
>>
>> thanks god, some of the packages i reported in the last months
>> are in the meantime fixed - but why maintainers and/or at least
>> QA do not care that the guidelines are respected?
> 
> We don't have the resources for all this stuff, to be honest

which ressources?

the main question is why *each* maintainer itself does not
read the guidelines and check his own packages instead
waiting for QA and people reporting bugs

> I'd never seen any of the bugs you link in this mail before

clearly, only the maintainer takes notice (or not)

> There is no QA-matron which sees all bugs filed in Fedora, I'm afraid. 
> There's a small group of monkeys running as fast as we can to keep up 
> with release validation and update testing, pretty much

that is why i wrote this mail to remember each single maintainer
he should care itself if his packages are hardened and if they
must or should - with or without a specific bugreport should not
matter in this case

taht's why in doubt the whole distribution should be hardened
and this prelink-nonsense banned at all



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F20 release name election?

[Paul Wouters]

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013, Chris Murphy wrote:



On Aug 22, 2013, at 6:12 PM, Josh Boyer  wrote:


I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but there are essentially two camps
right now.  Those that don't care about release names one bit (like
me), and those that do.  If those that do care want better names,
they'll need to work harder at creating meaningful suggestions.


OK I'm third camp: peanut gallery. I don't really care about release names, I'm 
happier to see them go away, but insofar as we have them, I'm playing along by 
a.) voting, b.) complaining. [1]


It would be good if the next vote would allow "none" as an option. I
could not vote 'none' on the last election. And I think it is important
to track the percentage of people who want to kill the meaningless
names.

I would not mind meaningful names where meaningful is declared like
ubuntu has done, alphabetically so we can infer something from the name.

Paul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F20 release name election?

[Chris Murphy]

On Aug 22, 2013, at 6:12 PM, Josh Boyer  wrote:
> 
> I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but there are essentially two camps
> right now.  Those that don't care about release names one bit (like
> me), and those that do.  If those that do care want better names,
> they'll need to work harder at creating meaningful suggestions.

OK I'm third camp: peanut gallery. I don't really care about release names, I'm 
happier to see them go away, but insofar as we have them, I'm playing along by 
a.) voting, b.) complaining. [1] 


> The Board has an open ticket on the naming process.  We're working
> through it now, but "no release names" isn't an immediate option
> because the last time we proposed that the community vote showed names
> were still desired.  Hopefully we'll resolve the ticket shortly and
> explain how naming needs to work in the future.

Understood. Thanks.


Chris Murphy


[1] I wouldn't dare be helpful and come up with better names for something I'd 
rather see go away.  But hey, I'll whine about names that make me yawn to death 
as motivation for those who really do care. I mean, come on Chateaubriand and 
Cherry Ice Cream? And the name that makes me think of a cross between feral 
cats and youtube cat videos? Give me a wet stinky fur ball to choke on. (I like 
indoor cats, or cats in potentially poisonous gas boxes. Every outdoor cat 
should be in one of those two locations.)
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F20 release name election?

[Billy Crook]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Chris Murphy  wrote:
> On Aug 22, 2013, at 6:05 PM, Dan Mashal  wrote:
>>
>> How about no release name, just this one time. In his honor?
>
> I'd back no release name for 20 with 8 points and 0 for everything else, if 
> it's an option, and in particular if the marketing includes to the effect of: 
> "Fedora 20 is nameless in honor of Seth Vidal who hated release names with 
> the white hot passion of 10,000 supernovas."

I agree.   The absence of release name for 20 would be an excellent,
lasting tribute to Seth.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F19 server install experience

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 18:30 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Aug 22, 2013, at 6:24 PM, Adam Williamson  wrote:
> 
> > No, we're not talking about the bash prompt on tty2, but there's an
> > actual *login prompt* on like tty6 or something. So far as I and the OP
> > knows, there is no account with a known password for you log in as, and
> > you have the root prompt on tty2, so the existence of the login prompt
> > seems a bit odd.
> 
> I could be confused, but I think Live vs Netinst (again) have different tty 
> behaviors/assignments. I distinctly recall using that login prompt and 
> logging in as liveuser with no password, and I'd like to think I'm gloriously 
> lazy (efficient) and would have used a bash prompt instead, had it been 
> available.

Yes, we're talking about the non-live installer here. Logging into the
live image from a tty is of course a perfectly sane thing to do.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Bundled Flash

[Adam Williamson]

On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 01:42 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 15:41 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
> > WordPress?
> > 
> > Not easy.
> 
> Two of the ones in wordpress are both in upload libraries - plupload and
> swfupload. Both are present in the source tarball, it doesn't look like
> they're built during source compile.
> 
> It looks like we could lift swfupload right out with consequences that
> at least aren't fatal:
> 
> http://make.wordpress.org/core/2013/06/21/secure-swfupload/
> 
> "WordPress does not use SWFUpload, but we continue to include it in
> WordPress core for plugins that have yet to be updated to use Plupload,
> our upload library of choice."
> 
> I don't know how many plugins that affects, but at least not core
> WordPress. The bad news is that, as that text mentions, Plupload is
> Wordpress's "library of choice", and it's the other thing with a .swf
> file. I don't have Flash installed here so I'm not sure how vital it is
> to the functioning of the uploader, but it looks like it's just an
> alternative:
> 
> http://www.plupload.com/
> 
> "Allows you to upload files using HTML5, Gears, Silverlight, Flash,
> BrowserPlus or normal forms"
> 
> Noting the mention of Silverlight, the js/plupload directory contains
> also contains plupload.silverlight.xap, which I'll wager is a
> Silverlight blob.
> 
> I'd guess that the consequence of removing both .swf and .xap wouldn't
> be deadly and the regular old 'boring' HTML uploaders would continue to
> work, and recommend that we do that, and kill swfupload. I'm a sort of
> stealth co-maintainer of wordpress using my provenpackager privileges,
> but I don't use the upload functionality at all, so I'm reluctant to do
> this - Remi, can you look at it at all? Thanks.
> 
> Wordpress 3.6 introduces the 'mediaelement' include, and that one has
> yet another .swf and .xap:
> wp-includes/js/mediaelement/flashmediaelement.swf ,
> wp-includes/js/mediaelement/silverlightmediaelement.xap. We'll have to
> deal with those too when bumping to 3.6.
> 
> http://mediaelementjs.com/ says "Instead of offering an HTML5 player to
> modern browsers and a totally separate Flash player to older browsers,
> MediaElement.js upgrades them with custom Flash and Silverlight plugins
> that mimic the HTML5 MediaElement API.", and "HTML5 audio and video
> players in pure HTML and CSS.", so I'm hopeful we can just kill the
> blobs and not completely break stuff.
> 
> Oh, for the love of God, I just found one more:
> 
> wp-includes/js/tinymce/plugins/media/moxieplayer.swf
> 
> https://github.com/moxiecode/moxieplayer
> 
> somebody get me my gun. The inclusion of this crap in Wordpress is
> working out precisely as well as you'd expect:
> 
> http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2013/Jun/256
> 
> Basically I think all of these are fallbacks of one kind or another, and
> we could just yank them without hurting much. But further checking is
> required.

Looked into this a bit further this afternoon. Both swfupload and
plupload are open source projects, but Wordpress ships compiled binaries
in its 'source tarball', there is no build system in there for them at
all. Wordpress posts the sources for them on its site, though:
http://wordpress.org/download/source/

The Debian package includes the sources for them in its source tarball
in a 'missing sources' directory - you can grab
http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/w/wordpress/wordpress_3.5.2
+dfsg-1.debian.tar.xz and see the 'missing-sources' directory with a
README explaining the situation. The package documentation indicates
that they possibly actually rebuild the .swfs from this source during
package build, but I'm not expert enough at the Debian package format to
be able to see where and how exactly this is done. But we should
probably harmonize with them on this.

Not sure if Debian's done anything about the Silverlight bits, yet.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F20 release name election?

[Dan Mashal]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Josh Boyer  wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Dan Mashal  wrote:
>
> The choices are what the community came up with.  At this point, that
> is what we have to chose from.
>
> I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but there are essentially two camps
> right now.  Those that don't care about release names one bit (like
> me), and those that do.  If those that do care want better names,
> they'll need to work harder at creating meaningful suggestions.
>
> The Board has an open ticket on the naming process.  We're working
> through it now, but "no release names" isn't an immediate option
> because the last time we proposed that the community vote showed names
> were still desired.  Hopefully we'll resolve the ticket shortly and
> explain how naming needs to work in the future.
>
>
> It will be dedicated in the release announcement.  Perhaps someone
> might add something to the download page on the website as well.
>

Hi Josh,

Thanks for replying.

I personally LOVE release names. However, I feel that we should forego
it this one release.

What is the point of the board of the community decides everything?

We all know that there needs to be a tough decision made by the board,
and it's not release names vs no release names. For me it's about
doing what Seth would have wanted, whether he was close to us or not,
whether he he touched us or knew us or cared about personally.

Please seriously consider the following and have a BOARD vote on it:

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Chris Murphy  wrote:
>
> On Aug 22, 2013, at 6:05 PM, Dan Mashal  wrote:
>>
>> How about no release name, just this one time. In his honor?
>
> I'd back no release name for 20 with 8 points and 0 for everything else, if 
> it's an option, and in particular if the marketing includes to the effect of: 
> "Fedora 20 is nameless in honor of Seth Vidal who hated release names with 
> the white hot passion of 10,000 supernovas."
>
>
> Chris Murphy
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct


Thank you,
Dan
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F19 server install experience

[Chris Murphy]

On Aug 22, 2013, at 6:24 PM, Adam Williamson  wrote:

> No, we're not talking about the bash prompt on tty2, but there's an
> actual *login prompt* on like tty6 or something. So far as I and the OP
> knows, there is no account with a known password for you log in as, and
> you have the root prompt on tty2, so the existence of the login prompt
> seems a bit odd.

I could be confused, but I think Live vs Netinst (again) have different tty 
behaviors/assignments. I distinctly recall using that login prompt and logging 
in as liveuser with no password, and I'd like to think I'm gloriously lazy 
(efficient) and would have used a bash prompt instead, had it been available.

Chris Murphy

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F20 release name election?

[Chris Murphy]

On Aug 22, 2013, at 6:05 PM, Dan Mashal  wrote:
> 
> How about no release name, just this one time. In his honor?

I'd back no release name for 20 with 8 points and 0 for everything else, if 
it's an option, and in particular if the marketing includes to the effect of: 
"Fedora 20 is nameless in honor of Seth Vidal who hated release names with the 
white hot passion of 10,000 supernovas."


Chris Murphy
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F19 server install experience

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 18:16 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Aug 22, 2013, at 5:54 PM, Adam Williamson  wrote:
> > On Sat, 2013-08-17 at 11:57 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> >> On 08/17/2013 12:28 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > 
> > Yeah, I've seen that kind of thing in some of my tests. A lot of my live
> > installs wind up with New York as the timezone, IIRC.
> 
> I'm spacing out which has which behavior, but Live vs Netinst
> consistently produce different results for me for geoip/timezone
> selection. One always works (Denver), the other never works (New
> York). Always the same IP.

For a while I thought it was live installs never getting it right, but
then I saw one or two where it did work.

> 
> >> 
>  One odd thing I noticed while
>  cycling through the consoles was that console 6 had a login prompt on
>  it.  I didn't actually try logging in.
>  
> >> Any thoughts on this one?  It was rather surprising to find a login 
> >> prompt during the installing process.
> > 
> > IIRC it's been there for a while, I'm not entirely sure of its purpose.
> > More a question for anaconda team I think.
> 
> Oh I use that all the time for top, or taring and scping anaconda logs from 
> tmp.

No, we're not talking about the bash prompt on tty2, but there's an
actual *login prompt* on like tty6 or something. So far as I and the OP
knows, there is no account with a known password for you log in as, and
you have the root prompt on tty2, so the existence of the login prompt
seems a bit odd.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F21 schedule: what would you do with more time?

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 18:11 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Aug 22, 2013, at 3:03 PM, Adam Williamson  wrote:
> > 
> > QA, releng and anaconda are on a more or less permanent iteration
> > treadmill from Alpha TC1 onwards, severely limiting the time we have to
> > work on anything else. We can only really get substantive work done on
> > 'things that are not release validation' in the ~two months (on a
> > regular cycle) between FNN Go and FNN+1 Alpha TC1.
> 
> 
> I'm going to take a wild guess here, QA could probably use a month of
> going into a black hole for starters, as in, en vacaciones, no me
> contacte. So in reality, that probably translates into maybe a four
> day weekend. But how much time do you think QA needs for "things other
> than release validation"? So far the push back range is a wee bit
> broad, 2 weeks to six months.
> 
> If it needs to be six months, fine. But there's also a risk of losing
> a lot of momentum with a six month hiatus. That's why I arbitrarily
> came up with 3 months on the high end. There are still positives to
> the Fedora pressure cooker (ANOTHER RELEASE NAME IDEA!), a.k.a. crazy
> train.

The more time we have, the more stuff we can do. We have a list of
things we'd like to have that could fill a couple of years of work easy,
most likely.

I was thinking three months was not arbitrary, but 'the right amount of
time to get back into sync with GNOME', which was one of the aims of our
six month cycle prior to F18. If we're going to do a 'hiatus', it would
seem sensible to use it to get back into a cycle which works nicely with
the GNOME dev cycle. (No, I am not going to use the word 'cadence' at
any point in this mail. Damni-)
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F19 server install experience

[Chris Murphy]

On Aug 22, 2013, at 5:54 PM, Adam Williamson  wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-08-17 at 11:57 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
>> On 08/17/2013 12:28 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> 
> Yeah, I've seen that kind of thing in some of my tests. A lot of my live
> installs wind up with New York as the timezone, IIRC.

I'm spacing out which has which behavior, but Live vs Netinst consistently 
produce different results for me for geoip/timezone selection. One always works 
(Denver), the other never works (New York). Always the same IP.


>> 
 One odd thing I noticed while
 cycling through the consoles was that console 6 had a login prompt on
 it.  I didn't actually try logging in.
 
>> Any thoughts on this one?  It was rather surprising to find a login 
>> prompt during the installing process.
> 
> IIRC it's been there for a while, I'm not entirely sure of its purpose.
> More a question for anaconda team I think.

Oh I use that all the time for top, or taring and scping anaconda logs from tmp.


Chris Murphy
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F20 release name election?

[Josh Boyer]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Dan Mashal  wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Chris Murphy  wrote:
>> *smack own forehead* I like that better than the other options also. For me, 
>> one extra point for Vidalia onion over "20".
>>
>> Heck I like "Crazy Train" based on a recent Matthew Miller assertion.
>>
>> Assuming there can be no late add ins though, the overwhelmingly obvious 
>> correct answer is Heisenbug. I attract more Heisenbugs than anyone I know. 
>> It's funny. It's true, they totally exist. And (sorry!) all the other 
>> options are snoozers. Now, had it been "Santa's reindeer" that might have 
>> made it a *little* less obvious, what the correct answer is.
>
>
> How about no release name, just this one time. In his honor? I love
> release names, and while I didn't know Seth very well personally,
> probably the main reason I use Fedora/RHEL/CentOS is because of yum.
> He deserves the honor in my opinion. The choices up there are lame.

The choices are what the community came up with.  At this point, that
is what we have to chose from.

> If i I had to choose I guess I'd vote for Santa Claus but this is ridiculous.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but there are essentially two camps
right now.  Those that don't care about release names one bit (like
me), and those that do.  If those that do care want better names,
they'll need to work harder at creating meaningful suggestions.

The Board has an open ticket on the naming process.  We're working
through it now, but "no release names" isn't an immediate option
because the last time we proposed that the community vote showed names
were still desired.  Hopefully we'll resolve the ticket shortly and
explain how naming needs to work in the future.

> With all due respect can someone please explain to me how this release
> is "dedicated" to Mr. Vidal?

It will be dedicated in the release announcement.  Perhaps someone
might add something to the download page on the website as well.

josh
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F21 schedule: what would you do with more time?

[Chris Murphy]

On Aug 22, 2013, at 3:03 PM, Adam Williamson  wrote:
> 
> QA, releng and anaconda are on a more or less permanent iteration
> treadmill from Alpha TC1 onwards, severely limiting the time we have to
> work on anything else. We can only really get substantive work done on
> 'things that are not release validation' in the ~two months (on a
> regular cycle) between FNN Go and FNN+1 Alpha TC1.


I'm going to take a wild guess here, QA could probably use a month of going 
into a black hole for starters, as in, en vacaciones, no me contacte. So in 
reality, that probably translates into maybe a four day weekend. But how much 
time do you think QA needs for "things other than release validation"? So far 
the push back range is a wee bit broad, 2 weeks to six months.

If it needs to be six months, fine. But there's also a risk of losing a lot of 
momentum with a six month hiatus. That's why I arbitrarily came up with 3 
months on the high end. There are still positives to the Fedora pressure cooker 
(ANOTHER RELEASE NAME IDEA!), a.k.a. crazy train.


Chris Murphy
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F20 release name election?

[Dan Mashal]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Chris Murphy  wrote:
> *smack own forehead* I like that better than the other options also. For me, 
> one extra point for Vidalia onion over "20".
>
> Heck I like "Crazy Train" based on a recent Matthew Miller assertion.
>
> Assuming there can be no late add ins though, the overwhelmingly obvious 
> correct answer is Heisenbug. I attract more Heisenbugs than anyone I know. 
> It's funny. It's true, they totally exist. And (sorry!) all the other options 
> are snoozers. Now, had it been "Santa's reindeer" that might have made it a 
> *little* less obvious, what the correct answer is.


How about no release name, just this one time. In his honor? I love
release names, and while I didn't know Seth very well personally,
probably the main reason I use Fedora/RHEL/CentOS is because of yum.
He deserves the honor in my opinion. The choices up there are lame.

If i I had to choose I guess I'd vote for Santa Claus but this is ridiculous.

With all due respect can someone please explain to me how this release
is "dedicated" to Mr. Vidal?

Dan
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F19 server install experience

[Adam Williamson]

On Sat, 2013-08-17 at 11:57 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 08/17/2013 12:28 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >> VLAN setup for installing!  Yay!  However, after rebooting,
> >> NetworkManager wasn't able to bring it up, something about not knowing
> >> the "virtual interface name".  Turned out to be the ethernet interface
> >> name changed from what it was at install time.
> >
> > This would be the rather brown-paper-bag-ish
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=965718 . Last I
> > checked we were still working out the precise implications of that one.
> > This sounds like another of them.
> >
> I should remember to check common bugs, but since I follow this list I'm 
> normally familiar with the existing issues.  But after looking at the 
> entry, it wouldn't have been helpful to my case since it says there 
> shouldn't be any issues.  

Yeah. We need to fix that. The problem is that now I know it *does*
cause some issues, but I still don't know *what* issues. Bill was
supposed to be looking into it and updating the bug, but unless I missed
a comment, he didn't get around to it yet.

> In this case, the problem is cross-interface 
> matching.  The ethernet interface was created with one name and the vlan 
> references that one.  However, after rebooting the ethernet interface 
> has a different name, so the vlan can't find it and fails.
> 
> >> Didn't detect my timezone.  Not a big deal, but I was hoping it would
> >> since there's been some discussion here about it working.
> >
> > We'd probably need the apparent public IP address of the system you were
> > installing on to debug this one.
> >
> I just tested the ip against the fedora geoip service and it returns the 
> correct info.  I wonder if there is something timing related.  Since I 
> had to setup the vlan interface before it had internet access, maybe it 
> was too late for the lookup.

Yeah, I've seen that kind of thing in some of my tests. A lot of my live
installs wind up with New York as the timezone, IIRC.

> >> Eventually I read the instructions carefully
> >
> > You damn dirty liar. You are CLEARLY not a Fedora user.
> >
> It was my last resort!  And since I was installing the gateway server, I 
> didn't have internet access to use Google or ask on the mailing list. ;-)
> 
> >>   and then looked at the
> >> mount point entry again and saw that it wasn't disabled.  I wonder if
> >> there is some way to make it more obvious...
> >
> > Trumpets? :)
> >
> Sure!  I don't know, maybe a different color, but that gets into other 
> issues...  It's not a huge deal, but in the sea of grey, the one black 
> label didn't stick out much.
> 
> >> One odd thing I noticed while
> >> cycling through the consoles was that console 6 had a login prompt on
> >> it.  I didn't actually try logging in.
> >>
> Any thoughts on this one?  It was rather surprising to find a login 
> prompt during the installing process.

IIRC it's been there for a while, I'm not entirely sure of its purpose.
More a question for anaconda team I think.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: bug filed against "distribution"

[Adam Williamson]

On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 22:05 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> since i have enough of bugzilla-mails as response of bugreports
> containing referecnes to any Fedora version but not the reported
> i consider this as bug in the distribution itself
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=998035
> 
> *at least* a "we do not fix this in F18 because "
> or "it will most likely done in the next package-update for Fq8"
> would be what anybody who is wasting his time for verify things
> in the distribution and report bugs/guideline-violations should
> be a response
> ___
> 
> hence i even do not understand why not every maintainer is reading
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#PIE and after
> logout from the DE calls "checksec --proc-all" and *MUST enable*
> in the guidelines is no opt-in
> 
> as well as read things like
> http://tk-blog.blogspot.co.at/2009/02/relro-not-so-well-known-memory.html
> 
> thanks god, some of the packages i reported in the last months
> are in the meantime fixed - but why maintainers and/or at least
> QA do not care that the guidelines are respected?

We don't have the resources for all this stuff, to be honest. I'd never
seen any of the bugs you link in this mail before. There is no QA-matron
which sees all bugs filed in Fedora, I'm afraid. There's a small group
of monkeys running as fast as we can to keep up with release validation
and update testing, pretty much.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F21 schedule: what would you do with more time?

[Chris Murphy]

On Aug 22, 2013, at 9:42 AM, Dennis Gilmore  wrote:
> 
> some of the things I would like to work on include, fully automating
> the release process, today i have to do mutliple things from multiple
> locations to trigger off the different pieces of the release. write a
> tool like mash for pulling together the Live Spins and Images trees.
> run pungi and mash inside of koji so that all parts of the release
> compose process are done as koji tasks and make greater transparency on
> what Release Engineering do.
> get time to update all the documentation, and list out all the thoughts
> in my brain and try to build a community around release engineering so
> I don't have to work 60-80 hours a week just to try and keep up.
> 
> work on a composedb that gives easier insight into where things are in
> the release cycles. where releases are in their cycle, i.e end of life,
> stable or in development, for stable releases when updates where last
> pushed, or if updates push is in progress, for in development, last
> nightly compose, last milestone compose,  and if things are in progress.
> 
> ive probably missed a bunch of things here but thats a brief dump of
> some of what ive been wanting to work on for ages and not had thetime
> to do so.

Sooo, is about one week enough time for all of this? Or other?


Chris Murphy
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F20 release name election?

[Chris Murphy]

On Aug 22, 2013, at 2:53 PM, Dan Mashal  wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Stephen John Smoogen  
> wrote:
>> I believe that it was decided that like had been done in the past, this
>> release would be dedicated to Seth Vidal, but not named after him as Seth
>> hated released names with a white hot passion of 10,000 supernovas. [Of
>> course he would probably still laugh if the release was named Vidalia Onion]
>> 
> 
> Yes I remember his hatred of release names being thrown around, and it
> was suggested that we just call it "20", and that might please the
> gods.

*smack own forehead* I like that better than the other options also. For me, 
one extra point for Vidalia onion over "20".

Heck I like "Crazy Train" based on a recent Matthew Miller assertion.

Assuming there can be no late add ins though, the overwhelmingly obvious 
correct answer is Heisenbug. I attract more Heisenbugs than anyone I know. It's 
funny. It's true, they totally exist. And (sorry!) all the other options are 
snoozers. Now, had it been "Santa's reindeer" that might have made it a 
*little* less obvious, what the correct answer is.


Chris Murphy
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Changes to make MySQL vs. MariaDB less confusing

[Andrew Rist]

On 8/21/2013 5:01 PM, Chris Adams wrote:

Once upon a time, Ken Dreyer  said:

I fear a similar fate is going to befall mysql-workbench before too
long, since it's been orphaned for a while. Are the Oracle employees
still around?

I looked a while back, and it is marked "deprecated" in the Fedora
package database.  I'm not sure why it wasn't just orphaned, since AFAIK
it still works, still maintained, and there's no direct replacement.

There are several of us still around.  Bjorn has been working on the 
packages and chimed in earlier.
We'd really like to get 5.6 into Fedora as it's been GA for 6 months 
now.  Also, we just released workbench 6.0 and we would love to get that 
and our latest connectors in as well.
For that, it would be made much easier with a different namespace for 
mysql and each of the forks (esp. the client libraries)
I know a lot of the current communications about the packages is going 
on in the background, but when issues come up, either bring it up here 
or contact us directly.  We are seriously interested in helping out 
where we can.


Andrew

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F20 release name election?

[punto...@libero.it]

Il 23/08/2013 01:22, punto...@libero.it ha scritto:

Il 22/08/2013 22:53, Dan Mashal ha scritto:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Stephen John Smoogen 
 wrote:

I believe that it was decided that like had been done in the past, this
release would be dedicated to Seth Vidal, but not named after him as 
Seth

hated released names with a white hot passion of 10,000 supernovas. [Of
course he would probably still laugh if the release was named 
Vidalia Onion]



Yes I remember his hatred of release names being thrown around, and it
was suggested that we just call it "20", and that might please the
gods.

Dan

+1
regards
gil



or https://twitter.com/skvidal >> skvidal

<>-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F20 release name election?

[punto...@libero.it]

Il 22/08/2013 22:53, Dan Mashal ha scritto:

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Stephen John Smoogen  wrote:

I believe that it was decided that like had been done in the past, this
release would be dedicated to Seth Vidal, but not named after him as Seth
hated released names with a white hot passion of 10,000 supernovas. [Of
course he would probably still laugh if the release was named Vidalia Onion]


Yes I remember his hatred of release names being thrown around, and it
was suggested that we just call it "20", and that might please the
gods.

Dan

+1
regards
gil
<>-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F20 release name election?

[punto...@libero.it]

Il 23/08/2013 01:08, David ha scritto:

On 8/22/2013 7:03 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:

On Aug 22, 2013, at 2:50 PM, Stephen John Smoogen  wrote:


  [Of course he would probably still laugh if the release was named Vidalia 
Onion]

HEY! Why isn't Vidalia Onion one of the name options? That's way better than 
any of the other options.


Chris Murphy



Me too!! I like Vidalia Onions!


-1
regards
gil
<>-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F20 release name election?

[David]

On 8/22/2013 7:03 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> 
> On Aug 22, 2013, at 2:50 PM, Stephen John Smoogen  wrote:
> 
>>  [Of course he would probably still laugh if the release was named Vidalia 
>> Onion]
> 
> HEY! Why isn't Vidalia Onion one of the name options? That's way better than 
> any of the other options.
> 
> 
> Chris Murphy
> 


Me too!! I like Vidalia Onions!

-- 

  David
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F20 release name election?

[Chris Murphy]

On Aug 22, 2013, at 2:50 PM, Stephen John Smoogen  wrote:

>  [Of course he would probably still laugh if the release was named Vidalia 
> Onion]

HEY! Why isn't Vidalia Onion one of the name options? That's way better than 
any of the other options.


Chris Murphy
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Proposal for new package group: Development:Formal Methods Tools

[Jerry James]

On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 1:31 PM, John C. Peterson  wrote:
> I would like to edit comps.xml to add a new package group for the tools
> that have already been packaged by the Formal Methods SIG.
>
> I propose that the group be located under the "Development" category.
>
> Id: formal-methods-tools
> Name: Formal Methods Tools
> Description: These tools for the development of hardware and software are 
> based on Formal proof methods.
>
> The default for the group itself will be false (will not be installed by
> default). Find below a list of package names to be included in the group
> with the proposed level (D for default, O for optional). Given that the
> scope of application of these tools is very diverse, it made sense to
> me to make most of the packages optional;
>
> O alt-ergo
> O alt-ergo-gui
> O coq
> O coq-coqide
> O coq-doc
> O coq-emacs
> O coq-emacs-el
> O cryptominisat
> O cryptominisat-devel
> O csisat
> O cudd
> O cvc3
> O cvc3-devel
> O cvc3-doc
> O cvc3-emacs
> O cvc3-emacs-el
> O cvc3-java
> O cvc3-xemacs
> O cvc3-xemacs-el
> O E
> O emacs-common-proofgeneral
> O emacs-proofgeneral
> O emacs-proofgeneral-el
> O flocq
> O flocq-source
> D frama-c
> O gappa
> O gappalib-coq
> O glueminisat
> D minisat2
> O picosat
> D prover9
> O prover9-apps
> O prover9-devel
> O prover9-doc
> O pvs-sbcl
> O sat4j
> O stp
> O stp-devel
> O tex-zfuzz
> O why
> O why-all
> O why-coq
> O why-gwhy
> O why-jessie
> O why-pvs-support
> O why3
> O why3-emacs
> O zenon

I maintain or comaintain a fair number of these packages.  I
originally added them to comps under "Engineering and Scientific",
just because there was no other category that was even remotely close
to what these packages do.  However, they are not really a great fit
for that category.  I like John's proposal.  We should probably move
all of them over to this new category once it is created.  We can
consider whether some of them should be listed in both places, but I
think most would be in the new formal-methods-tools category only.
-- 
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F21 schedule: what would you do with more time?

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 17:19 +0200, drago01 wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Matthew Miller
>  wrote:
> > Based on discussion at Flock, on the devel mailing list, and in the FESCo
> > meeting, we are looking for feedback on the idea of a longer release cycle
> > for Fedora 21 -- not (right now at least) the bigger question of the 6-month
> > cycle overall, but just, right now, slowing down for a release to get some
> > things in order.
> >
> > Specifically, both Release Engineering and QA have clear needs (and even
> > plans for) greater automatiion, but are also incredibly busy simply doing
> > the things they need to do _now_ to get the release out the door.
> >
> > So, FESCo would like to see some specifics, like "If we had one week with
> > nothing else to worry about, we could have automated generation and upload
> > of cloud images" (to pick an example I personally care about). Or "with six
> > months of overall delay, we could have continuous integration testing of a
> > key subset of rawhide". Or "we could spend a couple of weeks and automate
> > the new package and review workflow".
> >
> > What Infrastructure projects would be helped by this? Web and design team,
> > would slowing down the release focus allow time to work on, oh, say, getting
> > the Wiki beautiful (or does it not matter)? What else?
> >
> > As we look at Fedora.next ideas and possibly decide to start implementation
> > in the F21 timeframe, we will likely find _new_ things that take specific
> > work. Let's not worry about that right now. What things we do _now_ could be
> > improved with the investment of some effort?
> 
> Given that most of this stuff can be done parallel to the release (it
> is not like everyone is busy for full 6 months during the release
> cycle) I doubt this gains us much if anything. People will use the
> addtional time to do what they always do which means we just get a
> release with roughly the changes / churn of 2 releases.

QA, releng and anaconda are on a more or less permanent iteration
treadmill from Alpha TC1 onwards, severely limiting the time we have to
work on anything else. We can only really get substantive work done on
'things that are not release validation' in the ~two months (on a
regular cycle) between FNN Go and FNN+1 Alpha TC1.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F20 release name election?

[Dan Mashal]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Stephen John Smoogen  wrote:
> I believe that it was decided that like had been done in the past, this
> release would be dedicated to Seth Vidal, but not named after him as Seth
> hated released names with a white hot passion of 10,000 supernovas. [Of
> course he would probably still laugh if the release was named Vidalia Onion]
>

Yes I remember his hatred of release names being thrown around, and it
was suggested that we just call it "20", and that might please the
gods.

Dan
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F20 release name election?

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 22 August 2013 14:45, Dan Mashal  wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Stephen John Smoogen 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> What happened to naming 20 in honor of Seth?
>
> Dan
>
>
I believe that it was decided that like had been done in the past, this
release would be dedicated to Seth Vidal, but not named after him as Seth
hated released names with a white hot passion of 10,000 supernovas. [Of
course he would probably still laugh if the release was named Vidalia Onion]


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F20 release name election?

[Dan Mashal]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Stephen John Smoogen  wrote:
>
>
>
> On 22 August 2013 13:31, Michael Schwendt  wrote:
>>
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/voting/about/relnamef20
>>
>> Is this thing for real?
>>
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/voting/
>> says the End Date is 2013-08-23 23:59:59.
>>
>> Where has it been announced this time?
>> There's nothing in the archives for announce and devel-announce list.
>
>
>
> It didn't get announced but is real. Due to the lack of announcement it is
> being extended a week til 2013-08-30 23:59:59 (the Board ok'd that in
> today's meeting.) and an announcement will go out. [I guess no one read my
> blog :)]
>
>
> --
> Stephen J Smoogen.
>
>
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

What happened to naming 20 in honor of Seth?

Dan
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

[389-devel] Please review (coverity fix): [389 Project] #48: Active Directory has certain uids which are reserved and will cause a Directory Server replica initialization of an AD server to abort.

[Noriko Hosoi]

https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/48

https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/48/0001-Ticket-48-Active-Directory-has-certain-uids-which-ar.2.patch
git patch file (master) -- fixing Coverity CID 11943

 Coverity CID 11943 - Logically dead code

 Fix description: The following commit mistakenly put the "Ignoring
 ALREADY EXIST case" code before retrieving the ldap_result_code.
 This patch fixes the order.
   commit b00b8acca54267560c6d7ec614bc52cfe541200a
   Author: Noriko Hosoi 
   Date:   Fri Aug 16 14:04:27 2013 -0700


--
389-devel mailing list
389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel

Re: F21 schedule: what would you do with more time?

[Till Maas]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:41:25AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 18:00:54 +0200
> Ralf Corsepius  wrote:
> 
> ...snip...
> 
> > > What Infrastructure projects would be helped by this?
> > A web infrastructure to
> > * ease package orphanage.
> > * launch AWOL/MIA requests
> > * a unified koji/bodhi/bugzilla Web-GUI
> > * much longer build.log holding time for FTBFS.

* Manage SCM branches

> Yep. Although these could be done any time in the release cycle if
> people were working on them right? 

The problem is that stuff is not documented enough and key persons do
not have time to help/accept patches. AFAIK Luke is the only person
deploying new versions of Bodhi for example. Therefore it usually takes
ages until a patch moves from trac to the live system. Also most of the
inner architecture of Fedora's release process is not visible for most
people, making it very hard to improve stuff.

Regards
Till
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F21 schedule: what would you do with more time?

[Till Maas]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:03:52AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:

> As we look at Fedora.next ideas and possibly decide to start implementation
> in the F21 timeframe, we will likely find _new_ things that take specific
> work. Let's not worry about that right now. What things we do _now_ could be
> improved with the investment of some effort?

To me it seems that core applications are currently stuck in development
because key persons do not have enough time. For example Bodhi2 is
expected for years. Also getting signature verification into fedup
is blocked by implementing signing in the composing process. In general
I would welcome if some time could be freed to make sure that every code
that is produced by Fedora can be easily acquired via a secure and
verified way.

Regards
Till
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F20 release name election?

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 22 August 2013 13:31, Michael Schwendt  wrote:

> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/voting/about/relnamef20
>
> Is this thing for real?
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/voting/
> says the End Date is 2013-08-23 23:59:59.
>
> Where has it been announced this time?
> There's nothing in the archives for announce and devel-announce list.
>


It didn't get announced but is real. Due to the lack of announcement it is
being extended a week til 2013-08-30 23:59:59 (the Board ok'd that in
today's meeting.) and an announcement will go out. [I guess no one read my
blog :)]


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

F20 release name election?

[Michael Schwendt]

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/voting/about/relnamef20

Is this thing for real?

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/voting/
says the End Date is 2013-08-23 23:59:59.

Where has it been announced this time?
There's nothing in the archives for announce and devel-announce list.

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

[perl-Carp-Fix-1_25/f20] (2 commits) ...Unbundle Test-Simple and use the system one (#998410)

[Paul Howarth]

Summary of changes:

  2c4bf77... Initial import (perl-Carp-Fix-1_25-1.01-2) (*)
  6123b32... Unbundle Test-Simple and use the system one (#998410) (*)

(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel

[perl-YAML-Tiny] Created tag perl-YAML-Tiny-1.54-1.fc21

[Paul Howarth]

The lightweight tag 'perl-YAML-Tiny-1.54-1.fc21' was created pointing to:

 534335f... Update to 1.54
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel

[perl-YAML-Tiny] Created tag perl-YAML-Tiny-1.54-1.fc20

[Paul Howarth]

The lightweight tag 'perl-YAML-Tiny-1.54-1.fc20' was created pointing to:

 534335f... Update to 1.54
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel

[perl-Test-Kwalitee] Update to 1.13

[Paul Howarth]

commit f6fd2cd1da5e06972c74e36f0f6f6c3a0f8d1175
Author: Paul Howarth 
Date:   Thu Aug 22 19:42:55 2013 +0100

Update to 1.13

- New upstream release 1.13
  - Added missing abstract for kwalitee-metrics script
  - No longer issuing a warning if the test is running from xt/ (see v1.10)
- BR:/R: perl(Dist::CheckConflicts) ≥ 0.02
- Bump perl(Module::Build::Tiny) version requirement to 0.026
- BR: perl(CPAN::Meta::Check) ≥ 0.007 for the test suite

 perl-Test-Kwalitee.spec |   16 ++--
 sources |2 +-
 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Test-Kwalitee.spec b/perl-Test-Kwalitee.spec
index 29c3554..288c7fd 100644
--- a/perl-Test-Kwalitee.spec
+++ b/perl-Test-Kwalitee.spec
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 Name:  perl-Test-Kwalitee
-Version:   1.12
+Version:   1.13
 Release:   1%{?dist}
 Summary:   Test the Kwalitee of a distribution before you release it
 License:   GPL+ or Artistic
@@ -8,15 +8,17 @@ URL:  http://metacpan.org/module/Test::Kwalitee
 Source0:   
http://cpan.metacpan.org/authors/id/E/ET/ETHER/Test-Kwalitee-%{version}.tar.gz
 BuildArch: noarch
 # Build
-BuildRequires: perl(Module::Build::Tiny) >= 0.025
+BuildRequires: perl(Module::Build::Tiny) >= 0.026
 # Module
 BuildRequires: perl(Cwd)
+BuildRequires: perl(Dist::CheckConflicts) >= 0.02
 BuildRequires: perl(Module::CPANTS::Analyse) >= 0.87
 BuildRequires: perl(namespace::clean)
 BuildRequires: perl(Test::Builder) >= 0.88
 # Test Suite
 BuildRequires: perl(blib)
 BuildRequires: perl(Capture::Tiny)
+BuildRequires: perl(CPAN::Meta::Check) >= 0.007
 BuildRequires: perl(File::Temp)
 BuildRequires: perl(Test::CheckDeps) >= 0.006
 BuildRequires: perl(Test::Deep)
@@ -26,6 +28,7 @@ BuildRequires:perl(Test::Tester) >= 0.108
 BuildRequires: perl(Test::Warnings)
 # Runtime
 Requires:  perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`perl -V:version`"; echo $version))
+Requires:  perl(Dist::CheckConflicts) >= 0.02
 
 %description
 Kwalitee is an automatically-measurable gauge of how good your software
@@ -53,8 +56,17 @@ chmod -c 755 %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/kwalitee-metrics
 %{perl_vendorlib}/Test/
 %{_mandir}/man1/kwalitee-metrics.1*
 %{_mandir}/man3/Test::Kwalitee.3pm*
+%{_mandir}/man3/Test::Kwalitee::Conflicts.3pm*
 
 %changelog
+* Thu Aug 22 2013 Paul Howarth  - 1.13-1
+- Update to 1.13
+  - Added missing abstract for kwalitee-metrics script
+  - No longer issuing a warning if the test is running from xt/ (see v1.10)
+- BR:/R: perl(Dist::CheckConflicts) ≥ 0.02
+- Bump perl(Module::Build::Tiny) version requirement to 0.026
+- BR: perl(CPAN::Meta::Check) ≥ 0.007 for the test suite
+
 * Fri Aug  2 2013 Paul Howarth  - 1.12-1
 - Update to 1.12
   - Adjusted tests to compensate for changes made in Module::CPANTS::Analyse
diff --git a/sources b/sources
index a77ee31..63c62b7 100644
--- a/sources
+++ b/sources
@@ -1 +1 @@
-715c8ec178ca63e01a988f7315912e58  Test-Kwalitee-1.12.tar.gz
+d32a3f3d70df7f5c314902758c2c30fb  Test-Kwalitee-1.13.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel

Re: F21 schedule: what would you do with more time?

[drago01]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 7:37 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
 wrote:
> On 08/22/2013 03:19 PM, drago01 wrote:
>>
>> Given that most of this stuff can be done parallel to the release (it
>> is not like everyone is busy for full 6 months during the release
>> cycle) I doubt this gains us much if anything.
>
>
> This is laughable response we in QA and I'm pretty sure it's the same for
> Releng are pretty much busy the entire time always!

"most" != "all"
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Overall fedora-review test results.

[Alec Leamas]

On 2013-08-22 19:20, Michael Schwendt wrote:

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:27:47 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:


The overall results with some comments are at http://ur1.ca/f5xxw .

The  CheckSoFiles  results might be .so plug-in libs (extension modules),
which are stored in private paths, i.e. outside run-time linker's search.
Or even non-versioned shared libs ending with .so, but being ordinary
run-time libs (and no build-time libs for optional -devel packages).
Yes, definitely. We could/should do a better job here, but at the bottom 
is f-r's roots in the review process where it's better  to warn than not 
to, users can handle it. However, this becomes a problem when doing this 
kind of bulk tests, too many false warnings. I. e., this is a new 
usecase with partly new requirements.


That said, I still think here are also useful findings.

--alec
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F21 schedule: what would you do with more time?

[Jóhann B. Guðmundsson]

On 08/22/2013 03:19 PM, drago01 wrote:

Given that most of this stuff can be done parallel to the release (it
is not like everyone is busy for full 6 months during the release
cycle) I doubt this gains us much if anything.


This is laughable response we in QA and I'm pretty sure it's the same 
for Releng are pretty much busy the entire time always!


We get about 3 - 5 weeks of "quiet time" after GA to actually work on 
the community side of stuff which most people just use to take a break 
to gather energy for $next cycle since after that we are back on full swing.


Additional 3 months to the release cycle will give us exactly that 3 
additional months to dedicate building our community, process and workflows


And I'm pretty sure the installer team is on same or similar "schedule" 
as us.


JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F21 schedule: what would you do with more time?

[Matthew Miller]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:38:38AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> In general most of our constraints are people related. We just don't
> have enough developers and sysadmins to setup, deploy and maintain all
> the things we might want to do. 

I definitely know how that is. Of the list you give, maybe the staging
releng environment is most helped by a pause?


> But as noted these mostly can be done anytime we have people willing to
> do them. 

So I guess the flip side of that is: anyone feel like their time would be
freed up to work on any of these things?


-- 
Matthew Miller  ☁☁☁  Fedora Cloud Architect  ☁☁☁  
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Rebuilding in dependency order (was: F21 schedule: what would you do with more time?)

[Björn Persson]

Miroslav Suchy wrote:
>On 08/22/2013 06:47 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> Well, I noticed the rebuild was running only some times. I assume
>> when they were there to launch the builds in that batch?
>>
>> Is there any way all the builds could be listed and just fired off
>> and queued all at once?
>
>Peter queue honor build requires (Dennis script for mass rebuilds does 
>not) so if some build fail, the queue is heavily reduced or stopped at 
>all. This last until the failed build is manually resolved.
>Firing off all builds at once will not help, because they would fail 
>anyway due missing build requires.

You make it sound like Peter has a tool for rebuilding in dependency
order. I need such a thing. Can it be made to work for other things
than Perl?

-- 
Björn Persson

Sent from my computer.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Self Introduction

[Frankie Onuonga]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Rolf Fokkens  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Having a great interrest in combining both the qualities of SSD's (speed)
> and the qualities of HDD's (capacity) I added the following change:
> https://fedoraproject.org/**wiki/Changes/SSD_cache
>
> Since this change was accepted, I now have to really do something :-) As a
> result here's my first review request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/**
> show_bug.cgi?id=999690
>
> I have to admit that my interest in the combination of SSD's and HDD's is
> primarily a user's interest. I'm not an experienced Fedora developer, but
> in general I built all kinds of software in the past. I hope that I'm able
> to contribute, and that in the end I'm able to experience the great
> performance of SSD's in combination with the storage capacity of HDD's.
>
> This topic intrigues me.
very nice.

cant wait to see what will come out of it.


> Rolf Fokkens
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.**org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> Fedora Code of Conduct: 
> http://fedoraproject.org/code-**of-conduct
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F21 schedule: what would you do with more time?

[Tim Flink]

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 11:03:52 -0400
Matthew Miller  wrote:

> Based on discussion at Flock, on the devel mailing list, and in the
> FESCo meeting, we are looking for feedback on the idea of a longer
> release cycle for Fedora 21 -- not (right now at least) the bigger
> question of the 6-month cycle overall, but just, right now, slowing
> down for a release to get some things in order.
> 
> Specifically, both Release Engineering and QA have clear needs (and
> even plans for) greater automatiion, but are also incredibly busy
> simply doing the things they need to do _now_ to get the release out
> the door.
> 
> So, FESCo would like to see some specifics, like "If we had one week
> with nothing else to worry about, we could have automated generation
> and upload of cloud images" (to pick an example I personally care
> about). Or "with six months of overall delay, we could have
> continuous integration testing of a key subset of rawhide". Or "we
> could spend a couple of weeks and automate the new package and review
> workflow".

For QA tools/automation, a week isn't going to give us much - we already
have a couple of weeks between releases and we're more blocked by
projects that will take longer than a week.

I've been meaning to sit down and come up with a more detailed
list/plan for qa development (automation, other tools) but that hasn't
happened yet. At the end of this email, I made a list of the things that
I've been talking about with various folks in the order of both how
important I think they are and how much the project would benefit from
a more extended break between releases. Exactly how much of this we
could do with more time depends on both how much time we're talking
about and who all would be involved.

Tim


Taskbot [1]:
  This will become the foundation for future automation work and at
  the moment is at least somewhat blocking our other automated testing
  initiatives from moving forward. This would (eventually, not all of
  this would be part of the first deliverable) give us:
   - easier for new people to get up to speed and help
 creating/maintaining checks/tasks
   - more flexibility in the types of checks/tasks that could be
 automated
   - better triggering (run X check for builds of Y package, run Z at a
 certain time etc.)
   - better reporting
   - automated analysis of logs for oddities or to answer questions
 like "how long have we been seeing this error in syslogs"

[1] http://tirfa.com/tag/taskbot.html


Automated Install Testing:
  Many of our current validation test cases [2] are very straight
  forward and could be automated to free up human testers to do other
  testing that isn't (easily) automate-able.

  We have a start on this with infinity [3] but there is still some
  development work, a lot of integration work to do and test cases to
  write before any of this is usable.

[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_20_Install_Results_Template
[3] https://github.com/garretraziel/infinity


Smoke image build automation:
  This has been started [4] as part of GSoC 2012 but is still a little
  shy of being usable in production. The idea would be to build images
  as soon as new packages (anaconda, maybe others) so that a set of
  automated install smoke tests could be kicked off. This could involve
  working with releng on something to do the composes - I'm less
  interested in who does the work than I am in being able to get images
  to test on demand.

[4] https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-build-service/


Test Case and Results Management:
  We want to replace our current wiki-based system of test cases and
  results matrices. I'm not aware of any existing system that would
  fit our needs and I think we're going to end up rolling our own
  unless something new shows up.


Update/Build Gating:
  There's been talk about gating updates based on automated test
  results for a while but nothing's finished yet. A lot of this is
  integration with bodhi/koji but there are still some bits that
  haven't been implemented (test result manual override is the first
  thing that comes to mind)


Better Automated Checks:
  Rewriting depcheck to be more useable, abi breakage checks, running
  gnome's new test suite or anything else that people can come up with.
  This can happen just as easily in parallel with releases once we have
  the infrastructure in place to run them, though and doesn't really
  require an extended break between releases.







> What Infrastructure projects would be helped by this? Web and design
> team, would slowing down the release focus allow time to work on, oh,
> say, getting the Wiki beautiful (or does it not matter)? What else?
> 
> As we look at Fedora.next ideas and possibly decide to start
> implementation in the F21 timeframe, we will likely find _new_ things
> that take specific work. Let's not worry about that right now. What
> things we do _now_ could be improved with the investment of some
> effort?
> 
> 



signature.asc
Descr

Re: Overall fedora-review test results.

[Michael Schwendt]

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 18:10:12 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:

> > Funny! I'm interested in hearing more about these,
> >
> >| 347 CheckStaticLibs
> >|Static libs not in a -static package. Most are haskell packages
> >|which have an exception not handled by f-r. There are more, 
> > though.
> >
> > since  http://mschwendt.fedorapeople.org/staticbugstat.html  is an ongoing
> > project. So far, I exclude Haskell and OCaml packages, Tcl/Tk stub libs,
> > flex-static, and the fake shared libs in binutils-devel (they are .so
> > GNU ld scripts that link with the static libs instead).
> 
> You have certainly better excludes than f-r. The packages failing f-r is 
> on http://ur1.ca/f5znn

Thanks!

Here's a guess. Many are on that list, because f-r doesn't implement the
static lib packaging guidelines correctly yet. Example, for isomd5sum
it tells:

  - Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
Note: Archive *.a files found in isomd5sum-devel
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries

Actually, a subsection of those guidelines applies instead, because the FPC
has not made -static subpackages a MUST:

  
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries_2
  |
  | 2. Static libraries only. When a package only provides static
  | libraries you can place all the static library files in the *-devel
  | subpackage. When doing this you also must have a virtual Provide for
  | the *-static package:

That's the case:

$ rpmls -p isomd5sum-devel-1.0.11-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm 
-rw-r--r--  /usr/include/libcheckisomd5.h
-rw-r--r--  /usr/include/libimplantisomd5.h
-rw-r--r--  /usr/lib64/libcheckisomd5.a
-rw-r--r--  /usr/lib64/libimplantisomd5.a

$ rpm -qp --provides isomd5sum-devel-1.0.11-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm 
isomd5sum-devel = 1:1.0.11-2.fc20
isomd5sum-devel(x86-64) = 1:1.0.11-2.fc20
isomd5sum-static = 1:1.0.11-2.fc20
 ^^^
 (!)

$ rpmls -p isomd5sum-1.0.11-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm 
-rwxr-xr-x  /usr/bin/checkisomd5
-rwxr-xr-x  /usr/bin/implantisomd5
drwxr-xr-x  /usr/share/doc/isomd5sum
-rw-r--r--  /usr/share/doc/isomd5sum/COPYING
-rw-r--r--  /usr/share/man/man1/checkisomd5.1.gz
-rw-r--r--  /usr/share/man/man1/implantisomd5.1.gz


Of course, these guidelines bear a risk. One can "BuildRequires: 
isomd5sum-devel"
and unwittingly have a build use the static libs. It would be better, if one
had to build-require a separate -static subpackage before this static-only
lib could be linked with. Tracking usage of a separate -static package is
a lot easier than examininig koji build logs in an attempt at finding out
whether a static lib is linked with.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Overall fedora-review test results.

[Michael Schwendt]

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:27:47 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:

> The overall results with some comments are at http://ur1.ca/f5xxw .

The  CheckSoFiles  results might be .so plug-in libs (extension modules),
which are stored in private paths, i.e. outside run-time linker's search.
Or even non-versioned shared libs ending with .so, but being ordinary
run-time libs (and no build-time libs for optional -devel packages).
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F21 schedule: what would you do with more time?

[Miroslav Suchy]

On 08/22/2013 06:47 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:

Well, I noticed the rebuild was running only some times. I assume when
they were there to launch the builds in that batch?

Is there any way all the builds could be listed and just fired off and
queued all at once?


Peter queue honor build requires (Dennis script for mass rebuilds does 
not) so if some build fail, the queue is heavily reduced or stopped at 
all. This last until the failed build is manually resolved.
Firing off all builds at once will not help, because they would fail 
anyway due missing build requires.


Mirek (who just sit beside Petr, so I coincidentally know about it)
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F21 schedule: what would you do with more time?

[Jóhann B. Guðmundsson]

On 08/22/2013 03:03 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:

Based on discussion at Flock, on the devel mailing list, and in the FESCo
meeting, we are looking for feedback on the idea of a longer release cycle
for Fedora 21 -- not (right now at least) the bigger question of the 6-month
cycle overall, but just, right now, slowing down for a release to get some
things in order.

Specifically, both Release Engineering and QA have clear needs (and even
plans for) greater automatiion, but are also incredibly busy simply doing
the things they need to do _now_ to get the release out the door.

So, FESCo would like to see some specifics, like "If we had one week with
nothing else to worry about, we could have automated generation and upload
of cloud images" (to pick an example I personally care about). Or "with six
months of overall delay, we could have continuous integration testing of a
key subset of rawhide". Or "we could spend a couple of weeks and automate
the new package and review workflow".

What Infrastructure projects would be helped by this? Web and design team,
would slowing down the release focus allow time to work on, oh, say, getting
the Wiki beautiful (or does it not matter)? What else?

As we look at Fedora.next ideas and possibly decide to start implementation
in the F21 timeframe, we will likely find _new_ things that take specific
work. Let's not worry about that right now. What things we do _now_ could be
improved with the investment of some effort?




In the core/baseOS...

Continue systemd integration stuff and other packaging cleanup 
surrounding the core/baseOS


In the QA community...

Work on implementing and intergrading the QA community member role which 
replaces proven testers and the bugzappers as well as work with releng 
and spins to sort out and implementing some form of the spin idea I had 
as well and work with Anaconda team to come up with some kind of testing 
plan and timing since it's quite time consume trying to be testing the 
installer at the same time we are working with package and other testing.


In a perfect QA world the installer release would be done at branch and 
or no later then alpha.


In the server community

Working with and implementing some of my ideas to further build and 
mobilise the server community.


JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F21 schedule: what would you do with more time?

[Dennis Gilmore]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 18:00:54 +0200
Ralf Corsepius  wrote:

> On 08/22/2013 05:03 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > Based on discussion at Flock, on the devel mailing list, and in the
> > FESCo meeting, we are looking for feedback on the idea of a longer
> > release cycle for Fedora 21 -- not (right now at least) the bigger
> > question of the 6-month cycle overall, but just, right now, slowing
> > down for a release to get some things in order.
> 
> E.g. going after these: http://ausil.fedorapeople.org/f20-failed.html
> 
> Right now we have ~350+ broken packages, a lengthy series of broken 
> deps, an unknown amount of defacto unmaintained packages and an
> unknown amout of maintainers having gone MIA.
> 
> > What Infrastructure projects would be helped by this?
> A web infrastructure to
> * ease package orphanage.
> * launch AWOL/MIA requests
> * a unified koji/bodhi/bugzilla Web-GUI
Since we dont run bugzilla I dont know that we could, I did bring up at
flock that id like to see a unified web gui for koji bodhi and
packagedb.

> * much longer build.log holding time for FTBFS.
This is a setting for the cron job that cleans things up. We have it
at a week because we have been tight on space for years. it used to be
two weeks. I just bumped it to four weeks for build logs and 3 weeks
for scratch builds, since we moved to bigger storage recently.  

> 
> Also,
> - faster builders: Introduction of the arm has significantly
> increased the turn around times of package building.
> - better mirroring: I am having the impression mirrormanager doesn't 
> work well at all. E.g. this morning, yum sent me around the globe for 
> rawhide and failed in the end, seemingly because all fast mirrors
> seem to be busy loading f20.
> 
> > Web and design team,
> > would slowing down the release focus allow time to work on, oh,
> > say, getting the Wiki beautiful (or does it not matter)?
> Well, IMO the web design is the least issue to be concerned about
> wrt. the release process and packager works.
> 
> What would really make sense is a faster koji/bodhi/bugzilla. From
> here, esp. bugilla is such kind of clumsy to use and ... such kind of
> slooow, I am glad I don't have to use it.

we do not run bugzilla, we cant do much about it. there has been people
looking at bugtracking and moving to something we would run.

Dennis
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlIWQiUACgkQkSxm47BaWfeicwCeJ33sq/sgHyo067rMWKByc5uS
XJUAoIm6oBJKAPIsatWFdWL4ILoDYYmD
=pEWq
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F21 schedule: what would you do with more time?

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 18:27:20 +0200
Ralf Corsepius  wrote:

> The issue with this perl rebuilt was the person conducting the
> initial rebuild didn't manage to finish it. Don't get me wrong - He
> did a good job, but his time frame simply was unrealistically short.

Well, I noticed the rebuild was running only some times. I assume when
they were there to launch the builds in that batch? 

Is there any way all the builds could be listed and just fired off and
queued all at once? 

Here's the distribution on the f20-perl rebuild builds: 

Jul 11:0
Jul 12:71
Jul 13:1
Jul 14:0
Jul 15:47
Jul 16:0
Jul 17:867
Jul 18:224
Jul 19:0
Jul 20:255
Jul 21:162
Jul 22:104
Jul 23:87
Jul 24:141
Jul 25:23
Jul 26:49
Jul 27:0
Jul 28:20
Jul 29:27
Jul 30:18

So, there were days with 0 builds and some with only a few. 

kevin


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: koji/f19 problem: kernel-xen.fc10 (!) pulled in for kernel?

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:17:32AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:23:55 +0100
> "Richard W.M. Jones"  wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Anyone want to hazard a guess about what's going on here?
> > http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/1341/5841341/root.log
> > 
> > The package, which builds fine in f20 and rawhide, buildrequires
> > the following:
> > 
> >   BuildRequires:   /usr/bin/perldoc
> >   BuildRequires:   cpio
> >   BuildRequires:   glibc-static
> >   BuildRequires:   qemu-system-x86
> >   BuildRequires:   kernel
> > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/qemu-sanity-check.git/tree/qemu-sanity-check.spec?h=f19
> > 
> > It seems as if the 'kernel' requirement is being satisfied by some
> > ancient zombie package kernel-xen-2.6.27-0.2.rc0.git6.fc10.x86_64.
> > I didn't know that was even possible.
> > 
> > Rich.
> > 
> 
> This is likely because I cut physically inheritance off between
> 17-updates and f18 in koji, I just wrote a script to make sure that
> anything blocked in f17 with inheritance  was blocked in f18.
> kernel-xen-2.6 is blocked next newRepo you should be fine.

It does appear to be fixed now, thanks.

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines.  Tiny program with many
powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc.
http://people.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F21 schedule: what would you do with more time?

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 11:03:52 -0400
Matthew Miller  wrote:

> Based on discussion at Flock, on the devel mailing list, and in the
> FESCo meeting, we are looking for feedback on the idea of a longer
> release cycle for Fedora 21 -- not (right now at least) the bigger
> question of the 6-month cycle overall, but just, right now, slowing
> down for a release to get some things in order.
> 
> Specifically, both Release Engineering and QA have clear needs (and
> even plans for) greater automatiion, but are also incredibly busy
> simply doing the things they need to do _now_ to get the release out
> the door.
> 
> So, FESCo would like to see some specifics, like "If we had one week
> with nothing else to worry about, we could have automated generation
> and upload of cloud images" (to pick an example I personally care
> about). Or "with six months of overall delay, we could have
> continuous integration testing of a key subset of rawhide". Or "we
> could spend a couple of weeks and automate the new package and review
> workflow".
> 
> What Infrastructure projects would be helped by this? Web and design
> team, would slowing down the release focus allow time to work on, oh,
> say, getting the Wiki beautiful (or does it not matter)? What else?

...snip...

So, on the infrastructure side we are pretty used to rolling things out
while the release cycle is going. We do freezes before milestones and
those freezes give us some time to work on things as well as other
'quiet' parts of the release cycle. 

In general most of our constraints are people related. We just don't
have enough developers and sysadmins to setup, deploy and maintain all
the things we might want to do. 

* move more infra hosts to selinux enforcing. 
* A fedora site search engine setup
* mailman3/hyperkitty roll out (this is progress, we do have people
  working on it)
* Setup a more usable release engineering side in our staging env. This
  entails setting up a koji, builder, tying to pkgs01.stg, tying to
  bodhi, etc.
* limesurvey instance (we have a package in review, it's been stalled
  for a long time, if someone could take over packaging that would be
  great! bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819480 )
* Figure out new docs process and how we can use it to deploy
  docs.fedoraproject.org (waiting on input from docs folks). 
* Re-install part of our cloud with latest openstack and test it out,
  then migrate things to it and reinstall the old one. 
* If we had time we could work on cleaning up a lot of cron
  jobs/scripts to use fedmsg/be smarter. 

...I can come up with a bunch more...

But as noted these mostly can be done anytime we have people willing to
do them. 

kevin


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F21 schedule: what would you do with more time?

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 18:00:54 +0200
Ralf Corsepius  wrote:

...snip...

> > What Infrastructure projects would be helped by this?
> A web infrastructure to
> * ease package orphanage.
> * launch AWOL/MIA requests
> * a unified koji/bodhi/bugzilla Web-GUI
> * much longer build.log holding time for FTBFS.

Yep. Although these could be done any time in the release cycle if
people were working on them right? 

> Also,
> - faster builders: Introduction of the arm has significantly
> increased the turn around times of package building.

Yeah. I don't know of any faster arm hardware yet, but if there is some
we could look at upgrading to it. 

> - better mirroring: I am having the impression mirrormanager doesn't 
> work well at all. E.g. this morning, yum sent me around the globe for 
> rawhide and failed in the end, seemingly because all fast mirrors
> seem to be busy loading f20.

I think part of this also might be us signing all the rpms for f20.
This means pretty much every package changes due to the signature.
Also, yeah, the f20 tree syncing out. (Although it should be hardlinked
to rawhide). Hopefully this will stablize in the next few days. 
> 
> > Web and design team,
> > would slowing down the release focus allow time to work on, oh,
> > say, getting the Wiki beautiful (or does it not matter)?
> Well, IMO the web design is the least issue to be concerned about
> wrt. the release process and packager works.
> 
> What would really make sense is a faster koji/bodhi/bugzilla. From
> here, esp. bugilla is such kind of clumsy to use and ... such kind of
> slooow, I am glad I don't have to use it.

Yeah, there are folks working on making bugzilla faster. ;( 

I agree it's an issue. 

kevin


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F21 schedule: what would you do with more time?

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 08/22/2013 05:12 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:08:18PM +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:

What things we do _now_ could be
improved with the investment of some effort?

Perl rebuild always take a lot of time, and as a result it will affect
the mass rebuild.


Apparently less so with all the new ARM builders, right?

Dunno.


Is this something
you're saying could be improved, or is it just something we always need to
budget time for?


The issue with this perl rebuilt was the person conducting the initial 
rebuild didn't manage to finish it. Don't get me wrong - He did a good 
job, but his time frame simply was unrealistically short.


This later on caused hickups during the official mass-rebuild, which 
still has its impact until today, because nobody has managed to fix some 
of the remaining bugs. When or even if these bugs can be overcome is 
still an open question.


Ralf

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Overall fedora-review test results.

[Alec Leamas]

On 2013-08-22 17:45, Michael Schwendt wrote:

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:27:47 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:


In an attempt to test fedora-review we have run it on almost allpackages
in the complete rawhide distribution. Our primary objective is to
certify that fedora-review is stable for all this kind of input. Also,
these test reveals some false warnings and other errors. Some are
detected and fixed, some certainly  not. This is a lot of data.

The overall results with some comments are at http://ur1.ca/f5xxw . Here
are some interesting findings such as a package with files in /buildroot
and more than 1200 packages without working source url.  However, this
is basically excess information for me.  Hereby shared.

--alec

Funny! I'm interested in hearing more about these,

   | 347 CheckStaticLibs
   |Static libs not in a -static package. Most are haskell packages
   |which have an exception not handled by f-r. There are more, though.

since  http://mschwendt.fedorapeople.org/staticbugstat.html  is an ongoing
project. So far, I exclude Haskell and OCaml packages, Tcl/Tk stub libs,
flex-static, and the fake shared libs in binutils-devel (they are .so
GNU ld scripts that link with the static libs instead).


You have certainly better excludes than f-r. The packages failing f-r is 
on http://ur1.ca/f5znn


Filed bugs on f-r:  https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/ticket/221 
and  https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/ticket/222.


--alec





--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Overall fedora-review test results.

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 16:03:22 +0200
Alec Leamas  wrote:

> On 2013-08-22 15:54, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > Yes... sorry I assumed you knew...
> >
> > -ow...@fedoraproject.org 
> >
> > Richard
> No, I don't know much.
> 
> Well, it should basically be piece of cake to generate such an email
> for all  packages. Before doing such a thing I would certainly like
> to have some kind of conclusion that's is a good thing to do on this
> list. Not all of these email would contain relevant info.
> 
> There are alternatives. I could perhaps arrange a directory tree with
> a report for each package which is accessible to be less invasive.

Yeah, I would think a site/tree with the reports first at least would
be good. Folks on this list could look at their packages and see if
there's things that are false positives or could be fixed up in some
clean system wide way. 

Then, you could run again and mail owners a link to their packages
reports ? 

kevin


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F21 schedule: what would you do with more time?

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 08/22/2013 05:03 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:

Based on discussion at Flock, on the devel mailing list, and in the FESCo
meeting, we are looking for feedback on the idea of a longer release cycle
for Fedora 21 -- not (right now at least) the bigger question of the 6-month
cycle overall, but just, right now, slowing down for a release to get some
things in order.


E.g. going after these: http://ausil.fedorapeople.org/f20-failed.html

Right now we have ~350+ broken packages, a lengthy series of broken 
deps, an unknown amount of defacto unmaintained packages and an unknown 
amout of maintainers having gone MIA.



What Infrastructure projects would be helped by this?

A web infrastructure to
* ease package orphanage.
* launch AWOL/MIA requests
* a unified koji/bodhi/bugzilla Web-GUI
* much longer build.log holding time for FTBFS.


Also,
- faster builders: Introduction of the arm has significantly increased 
the turn around times of package building.
- better mirroring: I am having the impression mirrormanager doesn't 
work well at all. E.g. this morning, yum sent me around the globe for 
rawhide and failed in the end, seemingly because all fast mirrors seem 
to be busy loading f20.



Web and design team,
would slowing down the release focus allow time to work on, oh, say, getting
the Wiki beautiful (or does it not matter)?
Well, IMO the web design is the least issue to be concerned about wrt. 
the release process and packager works.


What would really make sense is a faster koji/bodhi/bugzilla. From here, 
esp. bugilla is such kind of clumsy to use and ... such kind of slooow, 
I am glad I don't have to use it.



Ralf

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F21 schedule: what would you do with more time?

[Mat Booth]

On 22 August 2013 16:03, Matthew Miller  wrote:

> Based on discussion at Flock, on the devel mailing list, and in the FESCo
> meeting, we are looking for feedback on the idea of a longer release cycle
> for Fedora 21 -- not (right now at least) the bigger question of the
> 6-month
> cycle overall, but just, right now, slowing down for a release to get some
> things in order.
>
> Specifically, both Release Engineering and QA have clear needs (and even
> plans for) greater automatiion, but are also incredibly busy simply doing
> the things they need to do _now_ to get the release out the door.
>
> So, FESCo would like to see some specifics, like "If we had one week with
> nothing else to worry about, we could have automated generation and upload
> of cloud images" (to pick an example I personally care about). Or "with six
> months of overall delay, we could have continuous integration testing of a
> key subset of rawhide". Or "we could spend a couple of weeks and automate
> the new package and review workflow".
>
> What Infrastructure projects would be helped by this? Web and design team,
> would slowing down the release focus allow time to work on, oh, say,
> getting
> the Wiki beautiful (or does it not matter)? What else?
>
> As we look at Fedora.next ideas and possibly decide to start implementation
> in the F21 timeframe, we will likely find _new_ things that take specific
> work. Let's not worry about that right now. What things we do _now_ could
> be
> improved with the investment of some effort?
>
>
>
Here's my favourite bugbear: https://fedorahosted.org/packagedb/ticket/243

I have no idea why the package retirement process needs intervention from
rel-eng.

-- 
Mat Booth
http://fedoraproject.org/get-fedora
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

[perl-Perl6-Caller] Created tag perl-Perl6-Caller-0.100-2.el5

[Paul Howarth]

The lightweight tag 'perl-Perl6-Caller-0.100-2.el5' was created pointing to:

 9588ef9... Initial import (perl-Perl6-Caller-0.100-2)
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel

[perl-Perl6-Caller] Created tag perl-Perl6-Caller-0.100-2.el6

[Paul Howarth]

The lightweight tag 'perl-Perl6-Caller-0.100-2.el6' was created pointing to:

 9588ef9... Initial import (perl-Perl6-Caller-0.100-2)
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel

[perl-Perl6-Caller] Created tag perl-Perl6-Caller-0.100-2.fc18

[Paul Howarth]

The lightweight tag 'perl-Perl6-Caller-0.100-2.fc18' was created pointing to:

 9588ef9... Initial import (perl-Perl6-Caller-0.100-2)
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel

Re: F21 schedule: what would you do with more time?

[Tim Flink]

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 17:19:09 +0200
drago01  wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Matthew Miller
>  wrote:
> > Based on discussion at Flock, on the devel mailing list, and in the
> > FESCo meeting, we are looking for feedback on the idea of a longer
> > release cycle for Fedora 21 -- not (right now at least) the bigger
> > question of the 6-month cycle overall, but just, right now, slowing
> > down for a release to get some things in order.
> >
> > Specifically, both Release Engineering and QA have clear needs (and
> > even plans for) greater automatiion, but are also incredibly busy
> > simply doing the things they need to do _now_ to get the release
> > out the door.
> >
> > So, FESCo would like to see some specifics, like "If we had one
> > week with nothing else to worry about, we could have automated
> > generation and upload of cloud images" (to pick an example I
> > personally care about). Or "with six months of overall delay, we
> > could have continuous integration testing of a key subset of
> > rawhide". Or "we could spend a couple of weeks and automate the new
> > package and review workflow".
> >
> > What Infrastructure projects would be helped by this? Web and
> > design team, would slowing down the release focus allow time to
> > work on, oh, say, getting the Wiki beautiful (or does it not
> > matter)? What else?
> >
> > As we look at Fedora.next ideas and possibly decide to start
> > implementation in the F21 timeframe, we will likely find _new_
> > things that take specific work. Let's not worry about that right
> > now. What things we do _now_ could be improved with the investment
> > of some effort?
> 
> Given that most of this stuff can be done parallel to the release (it
> is not like everyone is busy for full 6 months during the release
> cycle) I doubt this gains us much if anything. People will use the
> addtional time to do what they always do which means we just get a
> release with roughly the changes / churn of 2 releases.

Sure, it could be done in parallel to the release if we had twice the
people. Are you volunteering to help test?

I can't speak for other groups but QA is usually consumed with testing
and coordination from branch to release. Granted, it isn't 100% of the
time it does practically prevent us from working on anything big like
automation or new tools. Constantly switching back and forth from full
testing mode to dev mode for a day or two at a time isn't practical for
most humans (myself included).

The delay isn't about increasing the number of features we can stuff
into F21 so much as it is about giving support groups more time to
improve processes and tools for going forward.

Tim


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Overall fedora-review test results.

[Michael Schwendt]

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:27:47 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:

> In an attempt to test fedora-review we have run it on almost allpackages 
> in the complete rawhide distribution. Our primary objective is to 
> certify that fedora-review is stable for all this kind of input. Also, 
> these test reveals some false warnings and other errors. Some are 
> detected and fixed, some certainly  not. This is a lot of data.
> 
> The overall results with some comments are at http://ur1.ca/f5xxw . Here 
> are some interesting findings such as a package with files in /buildroot
> and more than 1200 packages without working source url.  However, this 
> is basically excess information for me.  Hereby shared.
> 
> --alec

Funny! I'm interested in hearing more about these,

  | 347 CheckStaticLibs
  |Static libs not in a -static package. Most are haskell packages
  |which have an exception not handled by f-r. There are more, though.

since  http://mschwendt.fedorapeople.org/staticbugstat.html  is an ongoing
project. So far, I exclude Haskell and OCaml packages, Tcl/Tk stub libs,
flex-static, and the fake shared libs in binutils-devel (they are .so
GNU ld scripts that link with the static libs instead).
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F21 schedule: what would you do with more time?

[Dennis Gilmore]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 11:03:52 -0400
Matthew Miller  wrote:

> Based on discussion at Flock, on the devel mailing list, and in the
> FESCo meeting, we are looking for feedback on the idea of a longer
> release cycle for Fedora 21 -- not (right now at least) the bigger
> question of the 6-month cycle overall, but just, right now, slowing
> down for a release to get some things in order.
> 
> Specifically, both Release Engineering and QA have clear needs (and
> even plans for) greater automatiion, but are also incredibly busy
> simply doing the things they need to do _now_ to get the release out
> the door.
> 
> So, FESCo would like to see some specifics, like "If we had one week
> with nothing else to worry about, we could have automated generation
> and upload of cloud images" (to pick an example I personally care
> about). Or "with six months of overall delay, we could have
> continuous integration testing of a key subset of rawhide". Or "we
> could spend a couple of weeks and automate the new package and review
> workflow".
> 
> What Infrastructure projects would be helped by this? Web and design
> team, would slowing down the release focus allow time to work on, oh,
> say, getting the Wiki beautiful (or does it not matter)? What else?
> 
> As we look at Fedora.next ideas and possibly decide to start
> implementation in the F21 timeframe, we will likely find _new_ things
> that take specific work. Let's not worry about that right now. What
> things we do _now_ could be improved with the investment of some
> effort?

some of the things I would like to work on include, fully automating
the release process, today i have to do mutliple things from multiple
locations to trigger off the different pieces of the release. write a
tool like mash for pulling together the Live Spins and Images trees.
run pungi and mash inside of koji so that all parts of the release
compose process are done as koji tasks and make greater transparency on
what Release Engineering do.
get time to update all the documentation, and list out all the thoughts
in my brain and try to build a community around release engineering so
I don't have to work 60-80 hours a week just to try and keep up.

work on a composedb that gives easier insight into where things are in
the release cycles. where releases are in their cycle, i.e end of life,
stable or in development, for stable releases when updates where last
pushed, or if updates push is in progress, for in development, last
nightly compose, last milestone compose,  and if things are in progress.

ive probably missed a bunch of things here but thats a brief dump of
some of what ive been wanting to work on for ages and not had thetime
to do so.

Dennis
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlIWMXMACgkQkSxm47BaWffsKgCffKmZQCYcFT31N0Eday93+zFu
QTkAmwYqf9b2ZNMvW0sRY5iG5lK4u+dA
=GrLI
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Wider feedback requested on two changes to our base/core defaults

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Ondrej Vasik  said:
> I agree that opening square bracket is useless, but I want to have the
> directory and $/# character separated. This prompt is well established,
> however I agree that we can probably get one character less with
> something like 
> foo@localhost lib>$

I freely admit this is just an opinion thing, but: why do you need two
separator characters between the directory and the command?  Also, I
would avoid ">" as that's the old csh prompt character.

My personal prompt for a long time has been '\h:\!:\w\$ ', which gives
prompts like (I like having the full path, which is another reason I'm
sensitive to longer hostnames as well):

linode:20:~$ 
linode:21:/var/log$ 

Having the history number is useful if you like to use '!'
commands to re-run a previous command (although I don't usually do that
anymore, and have left ':\!' in the prompt just because it looks weird
to me without a number now :) ).

Obviously, I change the prompt on my personal systems, but not usually
on work/shared systems, so I would still affected by changing the
default.  I just think that any change should have some good
justification behind it at this point, not just opinion or "it is
obviously better" (with no reasoning).

-- 
Chris Adams 
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Scala package owner unresponsive

[Jochen Schmitt]

On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 09:41:52PM -0600, Jerry James wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Will Benton  wrote:
> > (1)  As far as I can tell, the package for Scala 2.9.2 on F19 (2.9.2-2) has 
> > broken dependencies; I can't install it via yum on my new F19 install.  Is 
> > this the case for anyone else?  If so, wouldn't it be best to have a 
> > working Scala 2.9 package in F19 and introduce 2.10 in a later release?
> 
> Version 2.9.2-4 was built for F-18, but was never built for F-19 or
> F-20.  The changelog entries for -3 and -4 say:

Yes, the reason fot this is very simple. On F18 we had a jdk-1.6.0 environment 
in
addition to the jdk-1.7.0. Scala was built explicitly agains jdk-1.6.0 because 
jdk-1.7.0
is not supported on this release.

Fedora 19 and late doesn't provides a jdk-1.6.0 environment which is the reason
for the broken dependency. So it's impossible to build scala-2.9.x for F19 or
later releases for Fedora.

Best Regards:

Jochen Schmitt
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

[perl-true] Created tag perl-true-0.18-2.fc19

[Paul Howarth]

The lightweight tag 'perl-true-0.18-2.fc19' was created pointing to:

 a4d4beb... Initial import (perl-true-0.18-2)
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel

[perl-true] Created tag perl-true-0.18-2.fc21

[Paul Howarth]

The lightweight tag 'perl-true-0.18-2.fc21' was created pointing to:

 a4d4beb... Initial import (perl-true-0.18-2)
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel

[perl-true] Created tag perl-true-0.18-2.fc20

[Paul Howarth]

The lightweight tag 'perl-true-0.18-2.fc20' was created pointing to:

 a4d4beb... Initial import (perl-true-0.18-2)
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel

[389-devel] please review: Ticket 47394 - remove-ds.pl should remove /var/lock/dirsrv

[Mark Reynolds]

https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/47394

https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/47394/0001-Ticket-47394-remove-ds.pl-should-remove-var-lock-dir.patch

--
Mark Reynolds
389 Development Team
Red Hat, Inc
mreyno...@redhat.com

--
389-devel mailing list
389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel

Re: F21 schedule: what would you do with more time?

[drago01]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Matthew Miller
 wrote:
> Based on discussion at Flock, on the devel mailing list, and in the FESCo
> meeting, we are looking for feedback on the idea of a longer release cycle
> for Fedora 21 -- not (right now at least) the bigger question of the 6-month
> cycle overall, but just, right now, slowing down for a release to get some
> things in order.
>
> Specifically, both Release Engineering and QA have clear needs (and even
> plans for) greater automatiion, but are also incredibly busy simply doing
> the things they need to do _now_ to get the release out the door.
>
> So, FESCo would like to see some specifics, like "If we had one week with
> nothing else to worry about, we could have automated generation and upload
> of cloud images" (to pick an example I personally care about). Or "with six
> months of overall delay, we could have continuous integration testing of a
> key subset of rawhide". Or "we could spend a couple of weeks and automate
> the new package and review workflow".
>
> What Infrastructure projects would be helped by this? Web and design team,
> would slowing down the release focus allow time to work on, oh, say, getting
> the Wiki beautiful (or does it not matter)? What else?
>
> As we look at Fedora.next ideas and possibly decide to start implementation
> in the F21 timeframe, we will likely find _new_ things that take specific
> work. Let's not worry about that right now. What things we do _now_ could be
> improved with the investment of some effort?

Given that most of this stuff can be done parallel to the release (it
is not like everyone is busy for full 6 months during the release
cycle) I doubt this gains us much if anything. People will use the
addtional time to do what they always do which means we just get a
release with roughly the changes / churn of 2 releases.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: koji/f19 problem: kernel-xen.fc10 (!) pulled in for kernel?

[Dennis Gilmore]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:23:55 +0100
"Richard W.M. Jones"  wrote:

> 
> Anyone want to hazard a guess about what's going on here?
> http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/1341/5841341/root.log
> 
> The package, which builds fine in f20 and rawhide, buildrequires
> the following:
> 
>   BuildRequires:   /usr/bin/perldoc
>   BuildRequires:   cpio
>   BuildRequires:   glibc-static
>   BuildRequires:   qemu-system-x86
>   BuildRequires:   kernel
> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/qemu-sanity-check.git/tree/qemu-sanity-check.spec?h=f19
> 
> It seems as if the 'kernel' requirement is being satisfied by some
> ancient zombie package kernel-xen-2.6.27-0.2.rc0.git6.fc10.x86_64.
> I didn't know that was even possible.
> 
> Rich.
> 

This is likely because I cut physically inheritance off between
17-updates and f18 in koji, I just wrote a script to make sure that
anything blocked in f17 with inheritance  was blocked in f18.
kernel-xen-2.6 is blocked next newRepo you should be fine.

Dennis
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlIWK5QACgkQkSxm47BaWffcWQCdFVBWndUzj2ytIFidiliNXqcK
QM4An2P2tbFFu+VCNmu/ojKUDyhWU7fY
=vg0T
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F21 schedule: what would you do with more time?

[Christopher Meng]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Matthew Miller
 wrote:
> What things we do _now_ could be
> improved with the investment of some effort?

Perl rebuild always take a lot of time, and as a result it will affect
the mass rebuild.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F21 schedule: what would you do with more time?

[Jaroslav Reznik]

- Original Message -
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Matthew Miller
>  wrote:
> > What things we do _now_ could be
> > improved with the investment of some effort?
> 
> Perl rebuild always take a lot of time, and as a result it will affect
> the mass rebuild.

It's unfortunately about Perl release timing...

Jaroslav

> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F21 schedule: what would you do with more time?

[Matthew Miller]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:08:18PM +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
> > What things we do _now_ could be
> > improved with the investment of some effort?
> Perl rebuild always take a lot of time, and as a result it will affect
> the mass rebuild.

Apparently less so with all the new ARM builders, right? Is this something
you're saying could be improved, or is it just something we always need to
budget time for?


-- 
Matthew Miller  ☁☁☁  Fedora Cloud Architect  ☁☁☁  
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

F21 schedule: what would you do with more time?

[Matthew Miller]

Based on discussion at Flock, on the devel mailing list, and in the FESCo
meeting, we are looking for feedback on the idea of a longer release cycle
for Fedora 21 -- not (right now at least) the bigger question of the 6-month
cycle overall, but just, right now, slowing down for a release to get some
things in order.

Specifically, both Release Engineering and QA have clear needs (and even
plans for) greater automatiion, but are also incredibly busy simply doing
the things they need to do _now_ to get the release out the door.

So, FESCo would like to see some specifics, like "If we had one week with
nothing else to worry about, we could have automated generation and upload
of cloud images" (to pick an example I personally care about). Or "with six
months of overall delay, we could have continuous integration testing of a
key subset of rawhide". Or "we could spend a couple of weeks and automate
the new package and review workflow".

What Infrastructure projects would be helped by this? Web and design team,
would slowing down the release focus allow time to work on, oh, say, getting
the Wiki beautiful (or does it not matter)? What else?

As we look at Fedora.next ideas and possibly decide to start implementation
in the F21 timeframe, we will likely find _new_ things that take specific
work. Let's not worry about that right now. What things we do _now_ could be
improved with the investment of some effort?


-- 
Matthew Miller  ☁☁☁  Fedora Cloud Architect  ☁☁☁  
___
devel-announce mailing list
devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-announce
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

[Bug 999032] perl-Ouch-0.0405 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=999032

Petr Šabata  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||perl-Ouch-0.0405-1.fc20
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2013-08-22 10:57:36



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=76w8Q9Adjf&a=cc_unsubscribe
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel

[perl-true/f19] Initial import (perl-true-0.18-2)

[Paul Howarth]

Summary of changes:

  a4d4beb... Initial import (perl-true-0.18-2) (*)

(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel

Re: Wider feedback requested on two changes to our base/core defaults

[Ondrej Vasik]

On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 08:21 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"  said:
> > You would just overwrite in in your own .bashrc if you have long
> > hostname and they get in your way.
> > 
> > Long hostnames are far more practical for administrators to use then
> > short hostnames have ever been.
> 
> That's your opinion; please don't state it as if it is an agreed-upon
> fact.  Mine differs; personal like/dislike is not a good reason to
> change existing defaults.
> 
> Some people have long domain names (and not just a lot of dotted
> components, but long individual sections); taking up a bunch of space on
> every prompt line just to re-print the same domain is a waste.  However,
> even with a short domain, it is just too much IMHO (and I worked for
> several years for someone with just about as short of a domain name as
> you can get).
> 
> I find the Red Hat/Fedora default prompt too long already; IMHO:
> 
> - The square brackets are useless wrapping; there's also a
>   character+space separator at the end of the prompt.

I agree that opening square bracket is useless, but I want to have the
directory and $/# character separated. This prompt is well established,
however I agree that we can probably get one character less with
something like 
foo@localhost lib>$

> - The "user@" is mostly useless; if you su/sudo to root, the character
>   at the end of the prompt changes from $ to #.  The only time I would
>   be interested in seeing user@ is if I've su/sudo to a user (other than
>   root) that doesn't match the login user for this TTY; on Linux this
>   can be as easy as the following bit of bash:
> 
>   local user=""
>   if [ "$UID" != 0 -a ! -O /proc/self/fd/0 ]; then
>   user='\u@'
>   fi
>   PS1="$user"'\h \W\$ '

Good suggestion, I like it - and maybe it would make sense to change the
default to this if wider audience will agree on that. 
Still I don't agree that this is useless - I usually have several
terminals with ssh connection and they are differentiated in user (e.g.
per tool I'm using on that machine). Having only hostname will make it
harder for me (as the hostnames differ only in number). Most of the
users probably don't have this scenario, so I'm a bit toward to +1 here.

Greetings,
 Ondrej

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: koji/f19 problem: kernel-xen.fc10 (!) pulled in for kernel?

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:03:06PM +0800, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> On Thursday, August 22, 2013 09:58 PM, drago01 wrote:
> >On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Richard W.M. Jones  
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>Anyone want to hazard a guess about what's going on here?
> >>http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/1341/5841341/root.log
> >>
> >>The package, which builds fine in f20 and rawhide, buildrequires
> >>the following:
> >>
> >>   BuildRequires:   /usr/bin/perldoc
> >>   BuildRequires:   cpio
> >>   BuildRequires:   glibc-static
> >>   BuildRequires:   qemu-system-x86
> >>   BuildRequires:   kernel
> >
> >Don't have an answer to your question but ... buildreq kernel? Can't
> >you assume that if you are building (on linux) a linux kernel is
> >present?
> 
> The build is happening on a Linux system (i.e a Linux kernel is
> installed and running on the host), but it might not be installed in
> the buildroot.

This.  The kernel needs to be in /boot (relative to the mock/koji
buildroot).

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines.  Tiny program with many
powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc.
http://people.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

[perl-Perl6-Caller/f19] Initial import (perl-Perl6-Caller-0.100-2)

[Paul Howarth]

Summary of changes:

  9588ef9... Initial import (perl-Perl6-Caller-0.100-2) (*)

(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel

Re: koji/f19 problem: kernel-xen.fc10 (!) pulled in for kernel?

[Mathieu Bridon]

On Thursday, August 22, 2013 09:58 PM, drago01 wrote:

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Richard W.M. Jones  wrote:


Anyone want to hazard a guess about what's going on here?
http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/1341/5841341/root.log

The package, which builds fine in f20 and rawhide, buildrequires
the following:

   BuildRequires:   /usr/bin/perldoc
   BuildRequires:   cpio
   BuildRequires:   glibc-static
   BuildRequires:   qemu-system-x86
   BuildRequires:   kernel


Don't have an answer to your question but ... buildreq kernel? Can't
you assume that if you are building (on linux) a linux kernel is
present?


The build is happening on a Linux system (i.e a Linux kernel is 
installed and running on the host), but it might not be installed in the 
buildroot.



--
Mathieu
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Overall fedora-review test results.

[Alec Leamas]

On 2013-08-22 15:54, Richard Shaw wrote:

Yes... sorry I assumed you knew...

-ow...@fedoraproject.org 

Richard

No, I don't know much.

Well, it should basically be piece of cake to generate such an email for 
all  packages. Before doing such a thing I would certainly like to have 
some kind of conclusion that's is a good thing to do on this list. Not 
all of these email would contain relevant info.


There are alternatives. I could perhaps arrange a directory tree with a 
report for each package which is accessible to be less invasive.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Overall fedora-review test results.

[Richard Shaw]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Alec Leamas  wrote:

>  The data is already parsed, I have tools to generate list of packages
> failing a given test as well as all tests failing for a given package.
> It's just that all this is quite a lot of data...
>
> No way this will happen often, though. This script needs days rather than
> hours to complete.
>
> I wonder if making it part of the branching process for a new release
would be a good idea (either just prior to or just after).

Richard
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Overall fedora-review test results.

[Alec Leamas]

On 2013-08-22 15:41, Richard Shaw wrote:

Very interesting...

What's the possibility of parsing all the data and sending individual 
reports to -owner@ ?


I don't know that I'd want to get this type of thing frequently, but 
once would be nice...


Richard


The data is already parsed, I have tools to generate list of packages 
failing a given test as well as all tests failing for a given package.  
It's just that all this is quite a lot of data...


No way this will happen often, though. This script needs days rather 
than hours to complete.


--alec
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: koji/f19 problem: kernel-xen.fc10 (!) pulled in for kernel?

[drago01]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Richard W.M. Jones  wrote:
>
> Anyone want to hazard a guess about what's going on here?
> http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/1341/5841341/root.log
>
> The package, which builds fine in f20 and rawhide, buildrequires
> the following:
>
>   BuildRequires:   /usr/bin/perldoc
>   BuildRequires:   cpio
>   BuildRequires:   glibc-static
>   BuildRequires:   qemu-system-x86
>   BuildRequires:   kernel

Don't have an answer to your question but ... buildreq kernel? Can't
you assume that if you are building (on linux) a linux kernel is
present?
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

[perl-Perl6-Caller] Initial import (perl-Perl6-Caller-0.100-2)

[Paul Howarth]

commit 9588ef99c2505a00c4a56934d92efd58fc416b71
Author: Paul Howarth 
Date:   Thu Aug 22 14:44:40 2013 +0100

Initial import (perl-Perl6-Caller-0.100-2)

By default, this module exports the caller function. This automatically
returns a new caller object. An optional argument specifies how many stack
frames back to skip, just like the CORE::caller function. This lets you do
things like this:

print "In ",   caller->subroutine,
  " called from ", caller->filename,
  " line ",caller->line;

If you do not wish the caller function imported, specify an empty import 
list
and instantiate a new Perl6::Caller object.

use Perl6::Caller ();
my $caller = Perl6::Caller->new;
print $caller->line;

Note: if the results from the module seem strange, please read
perldoc -s caller carefully. It has stranger behavior than you might be 
aware.

 .gitignore |1 +
 perl-Perl6-Caller.spec |   70 
 sources|1 +
 3 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index e69de29..5fa195f 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+/Perl6-Caller-[0-9.]*.tar.gz
diff --git a/perl-Perl6-Caller.spec b/perl-Perl6-Caller.spec
new file mode 100644
index 000..70fc926
--- /dev/null
+++ b/perl-Perl6-Caller.spec
@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+Name:   perl-Perl6-Caller
+Version:0.100
+Release:2%{?dist}
+Summary:OO caller() interface
+License:GPL+ or Artistic
+Group:  Development/Libraries
+URL:https://metacpan.org/release/Perl6-Caller
+Source0:
http://cpan.metacpan.org/authors/id/O/OV/OVID/Perl6-Caller-%{version}.tar.gz
+BuildRoot:  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(id -nu)
+BuildArch:  noarch
+BuildRequires:  perl(lib)
+BuildRequires:  perl(Module::Build)
+BuildRequires:  perl(overload)
+BuildRequires:  perl(strict)
+BuildRequires:  perl(Test::More)
+BuildRequires:  perl(Test::Pod) >= 1.14
+BuildRequires:  perl(Test::Pod::Coverage) >= 1.04
+BuildRequires:  perl(warnings)
+Requires:   perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`perl -V:version`"; echo $version))
+
+%description
+By default, this module exports the caller function. This automatically
+returns a new caller object. An optional argument specifies how many stack
+frames back to skip, just like the CORE::caller function. This lets you do
+things like this:
+
+print "In ",   caller->subroutine,
+  " called from ", caller->filename,
+  " line ",caller->line;
+
+If you do not wish the caller function imported, specify an empty import list
+and instantiate a new Perl6::Caller object.
+
+use Perl6::Caller ();
+my $caller = Perl6::Caller->new;
+print $caller->line;
+
+Note: if the results from the module seem strange, please read
+perldoc -s caller carefully. It has stranger behavior than you might be aware.
+
+%prep
+%setup -q -n Perl6-Caller-%{version}
+
+%build
+perl Build.PL installdirs=vendor
+./Build
+
+%install
+rm -rf %{buildroot}
+./Build install destdir=%{buildroot} create_packlist=0
+%{_fixperms} %{buildroot}
+
+%check
+./Build test
+./Build test --test_files="xt/*.t"
+
+%clean
+rm -rf %{buildroot}
+
+%files
+%doc Changes README
+%{perl_vendorlib}/Perl6/
+%{_mandir}/man3/Perl6::Caller.3pm*
+
+%changelog
+* Mon Aug 19 2013 Paul Howarth  - 0.100-2
+- Sanitize for Fedora submission
+
+* Fri Aug 16 2013 Paul Howarth  - 0.100-1
+- Initial RPM version
diff --git a/sources b/sources
index e69de29..14bad16 100644
--- a/sources
+++ b/sources
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+d19ce32a9b7f7dfbb59aff7e38d476b9  Perl6-Caller-0.100.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel

File Perl6-Caller-0.100.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by pghmcfc

[Paul Howarth]

A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Perl6-Caller:

d19ce32a9b7f7dfbb59aff7e38d476b9  Perl6-Caller-0.100.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel

Re: Overall fedora-review test results.

[Richard Shaw]

Very interesting...

What's the possibility of parsing all the data and sending individual
reports to -owner@ ?

I don't know that I'd want to get this type of thing frequently, but once
would be nice...

Richard
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Overall fedora-review test results.

[Alec Leamas]

In an attempt to test fedora-review we have run it on almost allpackages 
in the complete rawhide distribution. Our primary objective is to 
certify that fedora-review is stable for all this kind of input. Also, 
these test reveals some false warnings and other errors. Some are 
detected and fixed, some certainly  not. This is a lot of data.


The overall results with some comments are at http://ur1.ca/f5xxw . Here 
are some interesting findings such as a package with files in /buildroot
and more than 1200 packages without working source url.  However, this 
is basically excess information for me.  Hereby shared.


--alec
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct