On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 01:04:34AM +0100, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> And couldn't we make the script which builds the repos
> understand some syntax extension to do it? E.g., what about
> Perhaps it would do just the retirement of devel branch.
>
> What about that?
The process is going to change soon
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 06:10:13PM -0500, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2015, Till Maas wrote:
>
> >The keyid is part of the fingerprint, so with the fingerprint one can
> >download the key and verify it. Therefore it is the only right thing to
> >do.
>
> I'm not saying don't store the fin
Helper script to generate the framework of a lib389 testcase script.
Only the "test" function needs to be filled in, the rest is handled by
the script.
https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/48017
https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/48017/0001-Ticket-48017-add-script-to-generate-lib38
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:09:08AM -0500, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> Some general notes:
> If your package depends on Python because of a Python script that has
> /usr/bin/python in hashbang, you need to change this to /usr/bin/python3. All
> "Requires" and "BuildRequires" on Python extension modul
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 01:04:34AM +0100, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> On 2015-01-28, 21:10 GMT, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >> I have just created (and got approved) python-mako1.0 as
> >> a compatibility package for EPEL-6. When I asked for the new
> >> repo for it, I expect to get also devel/Rawhide branch fo
On 2015-01-28, 21:10 GMT, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> I have just created (and got approved) python-mako1.0 as
>> a compatibility package for EPEL-6. When I asked for the new
>> repo for it, I expect to get also devel/Rawhide branch for it.
>> However, I don't see any purpose of it. Should I just orp
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 10:29:23 -0600
Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 01/26/2015 09:46 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > I think we added the Crawl-delay several years ago when we were
> > having storage issues. We could definitely try removing it and see
> > if things improve.
>
> 10 seconds may be on th
On Wed, 28 Jan 2015, Till Maas wrote:
The keyid is part of the fingerprint, so with the fingerprint one can
download the key and verify it. Therefore it is the only right thing to
do.
I'm not saying don't store the fingerprint, but use a separate field for
that which is not the keyid field. Pe
On 28.01.2015 21:43, Daniel Vrátil wrote:
Hi all,
this is an announcement that KDE SIG has pushed Plasma 5, the next major
version of KDE workspaces, into rawhide as part of the Plasma 5 change for
Fedora 22 [0].
The upgrade path from KDE 4 should be smooth and doable simply through yum
update
On Wed, 2015-01-28 at 21:43 +0100, Daniel Vrátil wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> For Fedora 20 and Fedora 21 users, Plasma 5 is still available
> through dvratil/plasma-5 Copr.
>
The only thing I see in the Copr is plasma 5.2 BETA. Is that really
still the beta version or has it been upgraded to t
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 05:50:35 -0500 (EST), Kamil Paral wrote:
> > Taskotron doesn't notice if subpackages have been dropped and cause
> > unresolvable dependencies because they are not obsoleted anywhere.
>
> Yes, depcheck doesn't currently handle that. I've created:
> https://phab.qadevel.cloud.f
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 11:48:55 -0700, Tim Flink wrote:
> > Taskotron doesn't notice if subpackages have been dropped and cause
> > unresolvable dependencies because they are not obsoleted anywhere.
>
> This isn't so much something that taskotron's checks missed as it's
> something we're not even ch
On Wed, 2015-01-28 at 10:38 -0500, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > There is in fact no strict *technical* requirement for anything to
> > move from yum to dnf in F22. yum will remain in the F22 package
> > set, it is not being removed.
> >
> > However, the Change seems to me to have been written with
On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 11:09:08 -0500 (EST)
Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> Hi,
> I just filed 2 bugs [A], [B] for the Python 3 switch [C] and I
> realized that I should probably follow the mass bug filing policy. As
> I've said previously, we've already had both Python 2 and Python 3 on
> LiveCDs for few
On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 20:48:02 +0100
Matěj Cepl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this is a question which I have encountered couple of times, but
> I have always forgot to ask about it: is it possible to have
> a package without Rawhide (devel) branch?
Nope.
> I have just created (and got approved) python-ma
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 03:34:02PM -0500, Paul Wouters wrote:
| Note that during FAS processing I found out that:
|
| 1) there are many nonsense values instead of keyid's in the fas field
| (some put in their fingerprint, which is not useful without a key,
| some had multiple keyids, and
Hi all,
this is an announcement that KDE SIG has pushed Plasma 5, the next major
version of KDE workspaces, into rawhide as part of the Plasma 5 change for
Fedora 22 [0].
The upgrade path from KDE 4 should be smooth and doable simply through yum
update without any need for manual intervention,
Hi,
Fedora is probably the First to use OPENPGPKEY at a large scale.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dane-openpgpkey-01
Everyone[*] who added a GPG keyid in FAS has their key published now
using the OPENPGPKEY specification. You can obtain a key using the
openpgpkey command of the hash-
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2015-01-28)
===
Meeting started by nirik at 18:02:12 UTC. The full logs are available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2015-01-28/fesco.2015-01-28-18.02.log.html
.
Meeting summary
Hi,
this is a question which I have encountered couple of times, but
I have always forgot to ask about it: is it possible to have
a package without Rawhide (devel) branch?
I have just created (and got approved) python-mako1.0 as
a compatibility package for EPEL-6. When I asked for the new
rep
Ok, I have completed a first draft and requested assistance in reviewing
the content to the devel list. If you want to link to it in the guidelines
here's the link:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_check_for_ABI_changes_in_a_package
Thanks,
Richard
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedorapr
With the new packaging guidelines requiring the setting of a
soname/soversion and referencing the abi-compliance-checker tool I have
completed a first draft of how to check for ABI changes in a package:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_check_for_ABI_changes_in_a_package
Please help by review
commit e283611cd175de74a8bd50aa42e54712be451474
Author: David Dick
Date: Thu Jan 29 06:00:17 2015 +1100
Initial import (#1183924).
.gitignore |1 +
perl-Time-TAI64.spec | 50 ++
sources |1 +
3 files changed,
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Time-TAI64:
6f91734171a72b418bd70456fda487ce Time-TAI64-2.11.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
Compose started at Wed Jan 28 14:23:02 UTC 2015
Broken deps for i386
--
[OpenColorIO]
OpenColorIO-tools-1.0.9-5.fc22.i686 requires libOpenImageIO.so.1.4
[Sprog]
Sprog-0.14-27.fc20.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.18.0)
[ae
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:01:44 -0700
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 18:09:02 +0100
> Jan Zelený wrote:
>
> > On 27. 1. 2015 at 10:03:54, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > > On 27 January 2015 at 01:37, Jan Zelený
> > > wrote:
>
> ...snip...
On Wed, 28 Jan 2015, Dan Williams wrote:
On Wed, 2015-01-28 at 11:09 -0500, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
Hi,
I just filed 2 bugs [A], [B] for the Python 3 switch [C] and I
realized that I should probably follow the mass bug filing policy.
As I've said previously, we've already had both Python 2 and Py
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2015-01-29 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.freenode.net.
Local time information (via. rktime):
2015-01-29 09:00 Thu US/Pacific PST
2015-01-29 12:00 Thu US/Eastern EST
2015-01-29 1
On 01/28/2015 06:08 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
On Wed, 2015-01-28 at 11:09 -0500, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
Hi,
I just filed 2 bugs [A], [B] for the Python 3 switch [C] and I realized that I
should probably follow the mass bug filing policy.
As I've said previously, we've already had both Python 2 an
On Wed, 2015-01-28 at 11:09 -0500, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> Hi,
> I just filed 2 bugs [A], [B] for the Python 3 switch [C] and I realized that
> I should probably follow the mass bug filing policy.
> As I've said previously, we've already had both Python 2 and Python 3 on
> LiveCDs for few releas
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015, at 11:09 AM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> So - I have no objections to consolidating, but I do wonder if the
> AtomicHost one is explicit enough. Some folks were expressing confusion
> about what the change was, exactly. (I forget who, it was either in
> #fedora-cloud or #atomic
On 01/28/2015 05:04 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
> Right now we have:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/AtomicHost
>
> Which I think encompasses:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Bare_Metal_Atomic
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Vagrant_Box_Atomic
>
> Any objections to c
Hi,
I just filed 2 bugs [A], [B] for the Python 3 switch [C] and I realized that I
should probably follow the mass bug filing policy.
As I've said previously, we've already had both Python 2 and Python 3 on
LiveCDs for few releases, so it makes sense to move as much as possible to
Python 3. My i
On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:01:44 -0700
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 18:09:02 +0100
> Jan Zelený wrote:
>
> > On 27. 1. 2015 at 10:03:54, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > > On 27 January 2015 at 01:37, Jan Zelený
> > > wrote:
>
> ...snip...
>
> > > > Does it mean that everything either
Right now we have:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/AtomicHost
Which I think encompasses:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Bare_Metal_Atomic
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Vagrant_Box_Atomic
Any objections to consolidating?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.o
On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 18:09:02 +0100
Jan Zelený wrote:
> On 27. 1. 2015 at 10:03:54, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > On 27 January 2015 at 01:37, Jan Zelený wrote:
...snip...
> > > Does it mean that everything either migrated to Fedora or at least
> > > considered
> > > to be migrated soon?
> >
On Tue, 2015-01-27 at 22:20 -0500, Scott Schmit wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 02:18:31PM -0600, Dan Williams wrote:
> > NetworkManager is not intended only for mobile devices or notebooks,
> > because that's a small part of the networking story. Plus, more than
> > just notebooks have needs for
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Stephen Gallagher
> My first question is "why do there need to be four branded network
> install releases?" If they're all capable of making a workstation,
> server, cloud image or generic Fedora, why not just have *one* network
> install release and a more user-
> There is in fact no strict *technical* requirement for anything to
> move from yum to dnf in F22. yum will remain in the F22 package set,
> it is not being removed.
>
> However, the Change seems to me to have been written with the basic
> idea that yum shouldn't be installed by default any more
> On 01/27/2015 07:03 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > All those are warnings, not "garbage" or debug output. File bugs about
> > those,
> > there should be zero warnings in normal usage.
>
> Shouldn't they trigger abrt then?
Yes, that would be a great help towards making the warnings filed and fix
> and the main point is: there is no need to replace network.service on
> *any* static configured machine
(As a short-time initscripts comaintainer way-back-when:) There may not be a
need for anything smarter than init.d/network for machines with _trivial_
static configuration (a few interfaces
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:13 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III
wrote:
> > "RS" == Richard Shaw writes:
>
> RS> Is this retroactive on all supported versions of Fedora?
>
> Packaging guideline changes are pretty much never retroactive; we don't
> really have an enforcement body.
>
Yeah, I could have
Tomasz Torcz a écrit :
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:11:35PM +0100, Casper wrote:
> > Or is it a luajit problem ?
> >
> > Dear devs hello.
> > I would like to determine if these AVC are caused by prosody, lua, or
> > a wrong SELinux policy.
>
> That would be https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.
Daniel J Walsh a écrit :
>On 01/27/2015 05:11 PM, Casper wrote:
>
> Or is it a luajit problem ?
>
> Dear devs hello.
> I would like to determine if these AVC are caused by prosody, lua, or
> a wrong SELinux policy.
>
>
>This avc (execmem) looks like it is allowed in Fedora
>seli
On 2015-01-28, 09:58 GMT, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> Nb. prosody got orphaned recently. You should think about migrating
> to other XMPP server or becoming a maintainer.
If somebody wants to help on
https://gitlab.com/mcepl/prosody2xep0227 I am all ears!
Matěj
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fe
On 27 January 2015 at 19:10, Przemek Klosowski
wrote:
> On 01/27/2015 07:03 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
> All those are warnings, not "garbage" or debug output. File bugs about
> those, there should be zero warnings in normal usage.
>
> Shouldn't they trigger abrt then? more importantly, is it pos
Dne 28.1.2015 v 09:53 Kamil Paral napsal(a):
>> In Fedora 22, we will be producing four network install ISOs:
>> * Fedora Server
>> - Server branding
>> - Default environment group: Fedora Server
>> - Auto-partitioning defaults: LVM on XFS (except /boot)
>> - Responsible WG: Server WG
>>
SSIA.
Cheers
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 11:11:35PM +0100, Casper wrote:
> Or is it a luajit problem ?
>
> Dear devs hello.
> I would like to determine if these AVC are caused by prosody, lua, or
> a wrong SELinux policy.
That would be https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150106
As Dan pointed out, this
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 12:53 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
> I have missed that discussion, so if it has been decided already, I'm late.
> But my feeling is that we're going to shoot ourselves in the foot with this.
> Our QA test matrices will explode once again, and we will be offering too
> many i
> > All those are warnings, not "garbage" or debug output. File bugs about
> > those,
> > there should be zero warnings in normal usage.
>
> Shouldn't they trigger abrt then? more importantly, is it possible to capture
> that in the QA process during distribution composition? I believe a lot of
>
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 08:26:14PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
> meeting tomorrow at 18:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on
> irc.freenode.net.
>
> Links to all tickets below can be found at:
> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9
I
> In Fedora 22, we will be producing four network install ISOs:
> * Fedora Server
> - Server branding
> - Default environment group: Fedora Server
> - Auto-partitioning defaults: LVM on XFS (except /boot)
> - Responsible WG: Server WG
> * Fedora Workstation
> - Workstation branding
>
53 matches
Mail list logo