Re: Self Introduction

2018-08-11 Thread José Abílio Matos 
On Sunday, 12 August 2018 00.02.19 WEST Iñaki Úcar wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I'm still seeking a sponsor. My first package review request was
> approved (thanks, Robert-André!), and I've been doing some informal
> reviews, which are linked in the comments here:
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1609800
> 
> Regards,
> Iñaki

Hi Iñaki,
I will sponsor you. :-)

Regards,
-- 
José Abílio

___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/GHLOA5V24HNPLEPKDRUZI4ODDUAERXXN/

Re: Proposal: Reduce *-devel packages dependencies on other unneeded *-devel packages

2018-08-11 Thread Adam Williamson 
On Sat, 2018-08-11 at 22:06 -0400, Robert Marcano wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 8:07 PM Rex Dieter  wrote:
> 
> > Robert Marcano wrote:
> > 
> > > For example, someone developing against krb5-devel for a GSSAPI client,
> > > probably doesn't need openssl-devel installed, that they are linking
> > > against Kerberos doesn't means they use the same crypto library
> > > directly, they could use nss for example.
> > 
> > I think you're most likely going to need to deal with this on a
> > case-by-case
> > basis.  In this specific example, find out for sure if "probably doesn't
> > need openssl-devel" is entirely accurate or not, and take appropriate
> > measures.
> > 
> 
> Not sure a case-by-case basis will always work, for example I force removed
> compat-openssl10-devel (rpm - e compat-openssl10-devel --nodeps) that is
> pulled by nodejs-devel, and I am able to link against NodeJS libraries,
> because the modules I need to build doesn't use OpenSSL. So
> compat-openssl10-devel should not be a hard dependency for nodejs-devel.
> Sadly the package maintainer think this is fine [1].
> 
> A small packaging guideline change about reducing *-devel hard dependencies
> when they aren't  always required could help.

You're treating complicated situations as if they were simple, which is
always a bad idea. Reality does not always map perfectly to "requires"
or "does not require". Stephen explained in the bug why the dependency
is present, and it's a good reason: if it's not there, Node modules
could well get built such that they don't work properly. You're not
making a very good case for why this dependency is wrong, let alone why
there should be a guideline saying it shouldn't exist.
-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/RGTIBQXQQBVJK5Q6HKIBXQKBWXIW4WTV/

Re: Proposal: Reduce *-devel packages dependencies on other unneeded *-devel packages

2018-08-11 Thread Stephen Gallagher 
On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 4:39 AM Robert Marcano 
wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 8:07 PM Rex Dieter  wrote:
>
>> Robert Marcano wrote:
>>
>> > For example, someone developing against krb5-devel for a GSSAPI client,
>> > probably doesn't need openssl-devel installed, that they are linking
>> > against Kerberos doesn't means they use the same crypto library
>> > directly, they could use nss for example.
>>
>> I think you're most likely going to need to deal with this on a
>> case-by-case
>> basis.  In this specific example, find out for sure if "probably doesn't
>> need openssl-devel" is entirely accurate or not, and take appropriate
>> measures.
>>
>
> Not sure a case-by-case basis will always work, for example I force
> removed compat-openssl10-devel (rpm - e compat-openssl10-devel --nodeps)
> that is pulled by nodejs-devel, and I am able to link against NodeJS
> libraries, because the modules I need to build doesn't use OpenSSL. So
> compat-openssl10-devel should not be a hard dependency for nodejs-devel.
> Sadly the package maintainer think this is fine [1].
>
> A small packaging guideline change about reducing *-devel hard
> dependencies when they aren't  always required could help.
>
> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1613852
>

The problem is that if you build Node.js with OpenSSL 1.0 and then you
build a native NPM module with OpenSSL 1.1, you’re going to have a bad day
trying to run it. I’m pretty sure you’re going to have a symbol conflict at
runtime that will be hard to identify. (And will lead to me getting BZs
about it).

That said, maybe this can be solved in a different way (and one that could
handle switching OpenSSL versions within a release if needed). We might
provide a macro in the nodejs-devel package (not nodejs-packaging) that
records which OpenSSL we compiled against and then put in the guidelines
that native NPMs that need OpenSSL must use that macro for BuildRequires.

I’m about to head to the airport after Flock, but I’ll think about this a
bit in-transit and see what I come up with.


>
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/5WZQVHPHCOJEHJYI7FK7O7YEEFC2RBP7/

Re: Proposal: Reduce *-devel packages dependencies on other unneeded *-devel packages

2018-08-11 Thread Robert Marcano 
On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 8:07 PM Rex Dieter  wrote:

> Robert Marcano wrote:
>
> > For example, someone developing against krb5-devel for a GSSAPI client,
> > probably doesn't need openssl-devel installed, that they are linking
> > against Kerberos doesn't means they use the same crypto library
> > directly, they could use nss for example.
>
> I think you're most likely going to need to deal with this on a
> case-by-case
> basis.  In this specific example, find out for sure if "probably doesn't
> need openssl-devel" is entirely accurate or not, and take appropriate
> measures.
>

Not sure a case-by-case basis will always work, for example I force removed
compat-openssl10-devel (rpm - e compat-openssl10-devel --nodeps) that is
pulled by nodejs-devel, and I am able to link against NodeJS libraries,
because the modules I need to build doesn't use OpenSSL. So
compat-openssl10-devel should not be a hard dependency for nodejs-devel.
Sadly the package maintainer think this is fine [1].

A small packaging guideline change about reducing *-devel hard dependencies
when they aren't  always required could help.

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1613852
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/LUMO4IGVOXK2IM4YAKJ6YGPPL4I2KA2N/

Re: Fedora Rawhide-20180810.n.1 compose check report

2018-08-11 Thread Adam Williamson 
On Sat, 2018-08-11 at 10:50 +, Fedora compose checker wrote:
> No missing expected images.
> 
> Failed openQA tests: 22/141 (x86_64), 6/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
> 
> New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20180810.n.0):
> 
> ID: 264897Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_role_deploy_domain_controller
> URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/264897
> ID: 264913Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_freeipa_replication_master
> URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/264913

These both failed because freeipa-server wasn't installable. This was
because jss 4.5.0-1, which conflicts with ldapjdk < 4.20, got built
slightly ahead of ldapjdk-4.20.0-1, and the compose unfortunately
happened in that narrow window. The next compose shouldn't have this
problem.

> ID: 264924Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default_upload
> URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/264924
> ID: 264925Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default@uefi
> URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/264925
> ID: 264939Test: i386 Workstation-live-iso install_default
> URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/264939

These failed because GNOME crashed on boot. This turns out to be
because llvm6.0 ships the LLVM 6.0 libs in a subdir of /usr/lib64, but
the config file telling ld.so to add that subdir to the library path
wasn't in the same package as the libs themselves; the live image got
the libs but not the config file, so the libs were not being found.

This has already been fixed in llvm6.0-6.0.1-7, so again, should be
fixed in the next compose.

I'll check the rest of the failures on the next compose, if they keep
happening...
-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/NWX6QUPGLLSWKSQDIFPG5MUTL3D566H3/

Re: Proposal: Reduce *-devel packages dependencies on other unneeded *-devel packages

2018-08-11 Thread Rex Dieter 
Robert Marcano wrote:

> For example, someone developing against krb5-devel for a GSSAPI client,
> probably doesn't need openssl-devel installed, that they are linking
> against Kerberos doesn't means they use the same crypto library
> directly, they could use nss for example.

I think you're most likely going to need to deal with this on a case-by-case 
basis.  In this specific example, find out for sure if "probably doesn't 
need openssl-devel" is entirely accurate or not, and take appropriate 
measures.

-- Rex
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/P7UOTMZTE5LF3SIYPIE4G7LIHVSWUEYA/

Re: Self Introduction

2018-08-11 Thread Iñaki Úcar 
Hi everyone,

I'm still seeking a sponsor. My first package review request was
approved (thanks, Robert-André!), and I've been doing some informal
reviews, which are linked in the comments here:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1609800

Regards,
Iñaki

El lun., 30 jul. 2018 a las 16:12, Iñaki Úcar () escribió:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> My name is Iñaki Ucar, and I am based in Madrid, Spain. I have been a
> happy Fedora user and advocate for many many years (since Fedora Core
> 2). Now I would love to start contributing to the project as a package
> maintainer, so I am seeking a sponsor.
>
> I am package maintainer for the R Project since 2015, so I am
> primarily interested in this ecosystem, which has grown spectacularly
> in recent years. To start with, I have submitted my first package,
> 'simmer', for which I am the upstream maintainer. It is a
> discrete-event simulator, and you can find the review request here:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1609800
>
> For more information, please visit my GitHub profile
> https://github.com/Enchufa2, and feel free to drop me an email. My GPG
> key can be found in my Keybase profile: https://keybase.io/enchufa2.
>
> Regards,
> Iñaki
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/SGPWG3FFRJEZSZ245HF7NGZSQAKAHNNL/

Fedora testing-20180811.0 compose check report

2018-08-11 Thread Fedora compose checker 
No missing expected images.

Passed openQA tests: 2/2 (x86_64)
-- 
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/QZITMAZWM6EGVWRXZVZIJIUIVCBC2CKQ/

Fedora updates-20180811.0 compose check report

2018-08-11 Thread Fedora compose checker 
No missing expected images.

Passed openQA tests: 2/2 (x86_64)

Installed system changes in test x86_64 AtomicHost-dvd_ostree-iso 
install_default: 
System load changed from 0.37 to 0.09
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/264218#downloads
Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/265062#downloads

Installed system changes in test x86_64 AtomicHost-dvd_ostree-iso 
install_default@uefi: 
System load changed from 0.22 to 0.34
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/264219#downloads
Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/265063#downloads
-- 
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/VCYXIDV2JMYPSQILSTS3R7SXINJ6ODGU/

Proposal: Reduce *-devel packages dependencies on other unneeded *-devel packages

2018-08-11 Thread Robert Marcano 

Greetings.

Current *-devel packages tend to pull a lot of dependencies, probably to 
make developers life easier, but I think some of them are not needed.


For example, someone developing against krb5-devel for a GSSAPI client, 
probably doesn't need openssl-devel installed, that they are linking 
against Kerberos doesn't means they use the same crypto library 
directly, they could use nss for example.


This is somewhat related to the remove excessive linking change [1]. We 
could help developers detect they are over linking by not installing 
unnecessary *-devel dependencies. So in summary, the proposal is to 
reduce inter *-devel packages dependencies, and only add them when one 
module exports symbols, data structures or other stuff that make linking 
against the other library necessary.


Note: this all started with bug 1613852 [2], where nodejs-devel is 
pulling compat-openssl10-devel and my NodeJS development needs don't 
require to link to OpenSSL (the native module being built doesn't do 
crypto), but for others projects I really need openssl-devel (not 
compat*) and both, openssl-devel and compat-openssl10-devel conflicts



[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RemoveExcessiveLinking
[2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1613852
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/IQEXOYO4XYM3E5YDSKDK4ATPXJJYAB3W/

Re: [HEADS UP] mercurial rebase for F29

2018-08-11 Thread Petr Stodulka 
Mercurial has been rebased to v4.5.3 as has been mentioned earlier.

On 6.8.2018 13:05, Petr Stodulka wrote:
> Hi folks,
> we want to do rebase of mercurial for F29 before beta freeze yet. Currently
> we have version v4.4.2 which is already old. Few days ago there have been
> release new stable version v4.7. But many applications would be broken because
> of changed API (as it is with every bump of minor version). From this point,
> I would like to do rebase to v4.5.3 (or v4.6) as I believe that apps with
> living upstream (and which requires mercurial) are already compatible with
> those versions of mercurial. After the F29 will be branched, we will do rebase
> to v4.7 in rawhide so there will be enough time to fix any issues because of
> changes in the new version.
> 
> Here is the list of components that depends on mercurial:
>   - git-cinnabar
>   - gitifyhg
>   - git-remote-hg
>   - golang
>   - gwsmhg
>   - hg-git
>   - hgsubversion
>   - hgsvn
>   - hgview
>   - python-anyvc
>   - python-hgapi
>   - python-hghooks
>   - python-vcstools
>   - python-wstool
>   - pyvcs
>   - qct
>   - rabbitvcs
>   - rbm
>   - tortoisehg
>   - trac-mercurial-plugin
> 
> Please give me a note in case you have troubles with this rebase now. I would
> like to do in few days. Add POCs into Cc.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/ZFAZYEBHT3KM3JODS7XB37PINHHMZHNV/
> 

-- 
Petr Stodulka
Core Services (In-place upgrades and migrations)
IRC nicks: pstodulk, skytak
Red Hat



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/RZEW6EPKX66MD5H7KDOG5ZUD7TNMVEWH/

Resurrecting an old review request

2018-08-11 Thread Ville-Pekka Vainio 
Hi!

After a break I've gotten back to Fedora packaging. Two years ago I
took an attempt at packaging foma (https://github.com/mhulden/foma)
but I never finished the work. I think I've now fixed all of the
issues pointed out in the review. The new spec and SRPM are here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357110#c2

The review request was closed WONTFIX (rightly so), can I just reopen
it? Anyone interested in reviewing it again?

The point of getting foma into Fedora is to be able to package
voikko-fi, the new version of the Finnish spell checking dictionary.

After having gone through two of the most stressful years of my life
thus far, I've decided to only work on Fedora during the weekends for
now. Just letting you know in case my replies take some time.

Ville-Pekka
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/YNE5X6TPS77RZDO4JAYPT67YMC7WR7NE/

Re: Orphaned bouml

2018-08-11 Thread Raphael Groner 
Hi Debarshi,

I can take bouml (and maybe also bouml-doc).

New homepage and latest version of bouml is 7.7.1:
https://www.bouml.fr/historic.html

Maybe we should do a new package review because of the major version bump and 
verify with current packaging guidelines? But without going through an official 
orphan process.

Regards, Raphael
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/INDYSZHBIROYIZX3FTDHWRFCGGUAHPXW/

Fedora Rawhide-20180810.n.1 compose check report

2018-08-11 Thread Fedora compose checker 
No missing expected images.

Failed openQA tests: 22/141 (x86_64), 6/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm)

New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20180810.n.0):

ID: 264897  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_role_deploy_domain_controller
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/264897
ID: 264913  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_freeipa_replication_master
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/264913
ID: 264924  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/264924
ID: 264925  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/264925
ID: 264939  Test: i386 Workstation-live-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/264939
ID: 264944  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_browser
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/264944
ID: 264955  Test: i386 KDE-live-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/264955
ID: 265004  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_desktop_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/265004
ID: 265006  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_server_domain_controller
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/265006
ID: 265009  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_realmd_client
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/265009
ID: 265026  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_desktop_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/265026
ID: 265027  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_desktop_encrypted_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/265027
ID: 265037  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_desktop_encrypted_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/265037
ID: 265047  Test: i386 universal upgrade_2_desktop_32bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/265047
ID: 265048  Test: i386 universal upgrade_desktop_32bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/265048
ID: 265059  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_no_user
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/265059

Old failures (same test failed in Rawhide-20180810.n.0):

ID: 264923  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_notifications_live
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/264923
ID: 264950  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_postinstall
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/264950
ID: 264956  Test: arm Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz 
install_arm_image_deployment_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/264956
ID: 264983  Test: x86_64 universal install_european_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/264983
ID: 264984  Test: x86_64 universal install_cyrillic_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/264984
ID: 264985  Test: x86_64 universal install_arabic_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/264985
ID: 264986  Test: x86_64 universal install_asian_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/264986
ID: 264996  Test: x86_64 universal install_repository_http_variation
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/264996
ID: 265001  Test: x86_64 universal install_lvmthin@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/265001
ID: 265016  Test: x86_64 universal install_scsi_updates_img
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/265016
ID: 265039  Test: x86_64 universal install_iscsi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/265039
ID: 265056  Test: i386 universal install_ext3
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/265056
ID: 265058  Test: i386 universal install_package_set_kde
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/265058

Soft failed openQA tests: 64/141 (x86_64), 16/24 (i386)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)

New soft failures (same test did not soft fail in Rawhide-20180810.n.0):

ID: 264892  Test: x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/264892
ID: 264893  Test: x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/264893
ID: 264895  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/264895
ID: 264896  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/264896
ID: 264905  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_repository_nfs_graphical
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/264905
ID: 264911  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_updates_nfs
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/264911
ID: 264912  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_repository_nfs_variation
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/264912
ID: 264918  Test: i386 Server-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/264918
ID: 264919  Test: i386 Server-dvd-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/264919
ID: 264920  Test: x86_64 Everything-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/264920
ID: 264921  Test: x86_64 Ever

Re: About to orphan python-pymtp

2018-08-11 Thread Ville-Pekka Vainio 
On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 at 22:40, Ville-Pekka Vainio  wrote:
> Anyone interested in maintaining this package?

Orphaned now.

Ville-Pekka
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/OUHAEGERAIJSCFYMPMF7DC75DQNY3EOM/

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20180810.n.1 changes

2018-08-11 Thread Fedora Rawhide Report 
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20180810.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20180810.n.1

= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images:  13
Added packages:  2
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages:   83
Downgraded packages: 0

Size of added packages:  285.20 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of upgraded packages:   2.20 GiB
Size of downgraded packages: 0 B

Size change of upgraded packages:   -422.00 MiB
Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B

= ADDED IMAGES =

= DROPPED IMAGES =
Image: Scientific vagrant-virtualbox x86_64
Path: 
Labs/x86_64/images/Fedora-Scientific-Vagrant-Rawhide-20180810.n.0.x86_64.vagrant-virtualbox.box
Image: Container_Base docker s390x
Path: 
Container/s390x/images/Fedora-Container-Base-Rawhide-20180810.n.0.s390x.tar.xz
Image: Server dvd ppc64
Path: Server/ppc64/iso/Fedora-Server-dvd-ppc64-Rawhide-20180810.n.0.iso
Image: Everything boot ppc64
Path: 
Everything/ppc64/iso/Fedora-Everything-netinst-ppc64-Rawhide-20180810.n.0.iso
Image: Scientific_KDE live x86_64
Path: Labs/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Scientific_KDE-Live-x86_64-Rawhide-20180810.n.0.iso
Image: Scientific vagrant-libvirt x86_64
Path: 
Labs/x86_64/images/Fedora-Scientific-Vagrant-Rawhide-20180810.n.0.x86_64.vagrant-libvirt.box
Image: AtomicHost raw-xz ppc64le
Path: 
AtomicHost/ppc64le/images/Fedora-AtomicHost-Rawhide-20180810.n.0.ppc64le.raw.xz
Image: Cloud_Base qcow2 s390x
Path: Cloud/s390x/images/Fedora-Cloud-Base-Rawhide-20180810.n.0.s390x.qcow2
Image: Cloud_Base raw-xz ppc64
Path: Cloud/ppc64/images/Fedora-Cloud-Base-Rawhide-20180810.n.0.ppc64.raw.xz
Image: Cloud_Base raw-xz s390x
Path: Cloud/s390x/images/Fedora-Cloud-Base-Rawhide-20180810.n.0.s390x.raw.xz
Image: Cloud_Base qcow2 ppc64
Path: Cloud/ppc64/images/Fedora-Cloud-Base-Rawhide-20180810.n.0.ppc64.qcow2
Image: AtomicHost qcow2 ppc64le
Path: 
AtomicHost/ppc64le/images/Fedora-AtomicHost-Rawhide-20180810.n.0.ppc64le.qcow2
Image: Server boot ppc64
Path: Server/ppc64/iso/Fedora-Server-netinst-ppc64-Rawhide-20180810.n.0.iso

= ADDED PACKAGES =
Package: lizardfs-3.13.0-0.rc1r1.module_1987+e7db591a
Summary: Distributed, fault tolerant file system
RPMs:lizardfs-adm lizardfs-cgi lizardfs-cgiserv lizardfs-chunkserver 
lizardfs-client lizardfs-master lizardfs-metalogger lizardfs-uraft
Size:14.43 MiB

Package: llvm6.0-6.0.1-6.fc29
Summary: The Low Level Virtual Machine
RPMs:llvm6.0 llvm6.0-devel llvm6.0-doc llvm6.0-libs llvm6.0-static
Size:270.77 MiB


= DROPPED PACKAGES =

= UPGRADED PACKAGES =
Package:  389-ds-base-1.4.0.14-1.fc29
Old package:  389-ds-base-1.4.0.13-1.fc29
Summary:  389 Directory Server (base)
RPMs: 389-ds-base 389-ds-base-devel 389-ds-base-legacy-tools 
389-ds-base-libs 389-ds-base-snmp cockpit-389-ds python3-389-ds-base-tests 
python3-lib389
Size: 17.76 MiB
Size change:  -3.93 MiB
Changelog:
  * Fri Aug 10 2018 Mark Reynolds  - 1.4.0.14-1
  - Bump version to 1.4.0.14
  - Ticket 49891 - Use "__python3" macro for python scripts
  - Ticket 49890 - ldapsearch with server side sort crashes the ldap server
  - Ticket 49029 - RFE -improve internal operations logging
  - Ticket 49893 - disable nunc-stans by default
  - Ticket 48377 - Update file name for LD_PRELOAD
  - Ticket 49884 - Improve nunc-stans test to detect socket errors sooner
  - Ticket 49888 - Use perl filter in rpm specfile
  - Ticket 49866 - Add password policy features to CLI/UI
  - Ticket 49881 - Missing check for crack.h
  - Ticket 48056 - Add more test cases to the basic suite
  - Ticket 49761 - Fix replication test suite issues
  - Ticket 49381 - Refactor the plugin test suite docstrings
  - Ticket 49837 - Add new password policy attributes to UI
  - Ticket 49794 - RFE - Add pam_pwquality features to password syntax checking
  - Ticket 49867 - Fix CLI tools' double output


Package:  R-git2r-0.23.0-2.fc29
Old package:  R-git2r-0.23.0-1.fc29
Summary:  Provides Access to Git Repositories
RPMs: R-git2r
Size: 2.49 MiB
Size change:  -440.91 KiB
Changelog:
  * Fri Aug 10 2018 Igor Gnatenko  - 0.23.0-2
  - Rebuild for libgit2 0.27.x


Package:  R2spec-4.2.1-13.fc29
Old package:  R2spec-4.2.1-12.fc29
Summary:  Python script to generate R spec file
RPMs: R2spec
Size: 49.09 KiB
Size change:  -96 B
Changelog:
  * Fri Aug 10 2018 Pierre-Yves Chibon  - 4.2.1-13
  - Bump release


Package:  anaconda-29.23-3.fc29
Old package:  anaconda-29.23-2.fc29
Summary:  Graphical system installer
RPMs: anaconda anaconda-core anaconda-dracut anaconda-gui 
anaconda-install-env-deps anaconda-tui anaconda-widgets anaconda-widgets-devel
Size: 17.96 MiB
Size change:  -2.99 MiB
Changelog:
  * Fri Aug 10 2018 Adam Williamson  - 29.23-3
  - Switch back to running dnf in a subprocess (#1614511)


Package:  armadillo-8.600.1-1.fc29
Old package:  armadillo-8.600.0-2.fc29
Summary:  Fast C++ matrix library with syntax similar to MATLAB and Octave
RPMs: armadillo arm

fedora-messaging for Copr - what do you need?

2018-08-11 Thread Miroslav Suchý 
As part of migration of fedmsg from ZMQ to AMQP, I would like to revisit what 
is Copr sending to fedmsg.

Right now we are sending:

'build.start': {
'what': "build start: user:{user} copr:{copr}" \
" pkg:{pkg} build:{build} ip:{ip} pid:{pid}",
},
'chroot.start': {
'what': "chroot start: chroot:{chroot} user:{user}" \
" copr:{copr} pkg:{pkg} build:{build} ip:{ip} pid:{pid}",
},
'build.end': {
'what': "build end: user:{user} copr:{copr} build:{build}" \
" pkg:{pkg} version:{version} ip:{ip} pid:{pid} 
status:{status}",
},

I have several ideas what we *should* send. Thou, I'd like to hear *your* use 
case. You do not need to be technically
detailed. Something like:

  I can utilize if you send message and the end/start of XXX and you will put 
there information . I would use this
information for .

Miroslav
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/OMIVYTJ27O5Z2QPZFSUXHBYLAZ7VPAZX/

Re: Golang SIG for Fedora

2018-08-11 Thread Jakub Cajka 




- Original Message -
> From: "Michael Cronenworth" 
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 8:11:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Golang SIG for Fedora
> 
> On 08/09/2018 05:12 AM, Jakub Cajka wrote:
> > I have create the SIG page in the
> > wikihttps://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Go.
> > Please add yourself in to the members list if you are interested to
> > participate.
> > If you have any comments or improvements to the SIG page please bring it up
> > or just do it:).
> >
> > I believe that next step should be meeting where we will share our
> > expectations, etc. Please let me know what would suite you.
> 
> Random Go question: Will you be working to use the Go plugin system instead
> of
> statically compiling end-user binaries?
> 
> It seems against Fedora principals to allow Go into Fedora with the way all
> Go
> programs are compiled today.

I believe that the Go ecosystem is not against the guidelines since like 3y 
ago(same time I'm around Go). I plugins IMO doesn't make sense in the Fedora 
for something like equivalent to dynamic linking. I'm for like 2y considering 
dynamic liking, which unfortunately dosn't make much sense for regular 
libraries/binaries as most of the projects do not have stable API, but it might 
make sense for the stdlib as it is fairly stable.

JC

> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/MZB4SYIPKUYY4RSC5HXHYKHQM2423LIS/
> 
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/GT643GIGSS6ZYVERUGU57IFSWUZGGXYF/