Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 16 February 2018 at 15:50, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: [..] > Even before EPEL-5 was EOL, very little of Fedora would compile out of > the box and required massive amounts of %if and other hacks to even > try to compile from a rawhide spec file. > > If someone wanted to keep compiling for EL-5

Re: Koji build: cannot find spec file

On 02/17/2018 08:22 PM, Jerry James wrote: > On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 9:19 PM, Jerry James wrote: >> And it looks like the issue has been fixed. Thanks, Mamoru. > > Except that it hasn't. Sorry, I misread the linked ticket as being > this one so, no, the issue is still ongoing. Yeah, it's still

Re: Koji build: cannot find spec file

On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 9:19 PM, Jerry James wrote: > And it looks like the issue has been fixed. Thanks, Mamoru. Except that it hasn't. Sorry, I misread the linked ticket as being this one so, no, the issue is still ongoing. -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/

Re: Koji build: cannot find spec file

On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 7:27 PM, Mamoru TASAKA wrote: > Reported to infra pagure: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/6710 And it looks like the issue has been fixed. Thanks, Mamoru. -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/ ___ devel mailin

Fedora Rawhide-20180217.n.2 compose check report

Missing expected images: Workstation live i386 Kde live i386 Failed openQA tests: 22/129 (x86_64), 8/22 (i386), 1/2 (arm) ID: 193435 Test: x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/193435 ID: 193436 Test: x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_defa

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 4:25 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> "DS" == David Sommerseth writes: > > DS> False positives are also easily filtered out by adding .rpmlint to > DS> the dist-git repository. > > Which is an absolutely terrible name for that. Really. Why would > anyone at all eve

Re: Koji build: cannot find spec file

Jerry James wrote on 02/18/2018 09:48 AM: This is the second of two attempts to build sympy this evening, both of which failed the same way: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25124365 According to mock_output.log, the spec file can't be found. What is going on? Reported to

Koji build: cannot find spec file

This is the second of two attempts to build sympy this evening, both of which failed the same way: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25124365 According to mock_output.log, the spec file can't be found. What is going on? -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/ _

Re: to batch or not to batch?

On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > Did I miss something on the plus or minus side? Or some good statistics? I thought that was a pretty good summary of the ups and downs. Thank you for that. I have no statistics. But you also asked for anecdotal evidence, and

Re: Should we have a release manager for each release? (or, "who owns rawhide"?)

this policy "means" there is: we don't want to ship the libevent soname bump out until it's at least not stopping release blocking images from composing any more. That seems like a fairly reasonable position to me, really - is it really 'better' if we sync out a Rawhide repo

Re: F29 Self Contained Change: FedoraScientific VagrantBox

On 02/17/2018 01:38 AM, Jan Kurik wrote: Fedora Scientific is currently delivered as ISOs. Shipping vagrant boxes will give potential users a friendlier option to try out Fedora Scientific while keeping their current operating system. Where is this ISO? There have been questions at ask.fpo for

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 2018-02-15 04:44 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> "LT" == Luya Tshimbalanga writes: > LT> When you get a chance, would you also update the spec guideline as > LT> well? > > Which spec guideline did you mean? If you were referring to the > packaging guidelines, they have said that BuildRo

to batch or not to batch?

Bodhi currently provides "batched updates" [1] which lump updates of packages that are not marked urgent into a single batch, released once per week. This means that after an update has graduated from testing, it may be delayed up to a week before it becomes available to users. Batching is now the

Re: Should we have a release manager for each release? (or, "who owns rawhide"?)

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 12:14:39PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2018-02-16 at 14:34 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > I wish the compose process was more transparent. May be it is just me, > > but I don't know where to start looking when I don't get the daily > > compose report. > > https:/

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 02/17/2018 11:37 AM, Neal Gompa wrote: > When tests have failures or > warnings, they are _not_ featured on the update page itself. The test tab shows the counts of passing, warning, and failing tests, once they finish loading. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 16 February 2018 at 12:43, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 16/02/18 12:36, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > >> On 16 February 2018 at 11:21, Panu Matilainen > > wrote: >> [..] >> >> Not everybody runs rpmlint for everything they produce, on the >> contrary I suspect it's fair

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

> "NG" == Neal Gompa writes: NG> What do you want it to be? What the other distros use seems far better to me. Alternately, just "rpmlintrc". - J< ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le..

Re: [HEADS UP] Replacing %post/%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

On 14/02/2018 21:59, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > As guidelines changed[0] and now require maintainers who package libraries in > default library path (/usr/lib, /usr/lib64) to use %ldconfig_scriptlets in > case > they want spec file to be compatible with all Fedora/EPEL versions or drop > them > entir

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> "NG" == Neal Gompa writes: > > NG> The problem with Bodhi is that it's too late. > > I don't disagree, but you've switched up your argument. You made the > statement that Fedora doesn't care about rpmlint so there's no point in

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

> "NG" == Neal Gompa writes: NG> The problem with Bodhi is that it's too late. I don't disagree, but you've switched up your argument. You made the statement that Fedora doesn't care about rpmlint so there's no point in improving it. People do care, and rpmlint is featured in an important

Re: F29 Self Contained Change: FedoraScientific VagrantBox

On 02/17/2018 04:38 AM, Jan Kurik wrote: > ** List of deliverables: > N/A (not a System Wide Change) Since a VagrantBox is a deliverable, should this be a system wide change? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ devel mailing list

Re: F29 System Wide Change: Remove GCC from BuildRoot

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 I started rebuilding all active Fedora packages (on internal koji instance⁰). Here are some stats: * 20301 builds total * 4073 builds passed * 809 builds failed on autotools check * 561 builds failed with command not found * 238 builds failed on CMa

Re: Removal of sln

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 09:53:35PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > sln (staticly linked ‘ln’) was removed from glibc recently: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1531546 > > The explanation for this was: > > "The sln program is no longer useful, so we will not ship it anymore

Elasticsearch dependency tree trim?

The dependency tree for Elasticsearch is way huge, even bringing in parts of the X stack. Do you reckon folks could work together to trim this a bit? Thanks! -- John. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedo

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On 02/13/2018 11:05 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > Just a small heads up, BuildRoot tag is not needed since RHEL6 (which > is oldest > supported one nowadays, it's been year or so after EL5 retirement). And we > don't support EL5 anymore, so... > > I wanted to send this heads up before I actually did

Re: RFC: BugURL in packages

On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 2:43 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 6:03 AM, Fabio Valentini wrote: >> On Feb 15, 2018 11:52, "Pierre-Yves Chibon" wrote: >> >> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 11:22:27AM +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote: >>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >>> Hash: SHA256 >>> >>>

Re: RFC: BugURL in packages

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 6:03 AM, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Feb 15, 2018 11:52, "Pierre-Yves Chibon" wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 11:22:27AM +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA256 >> >> Hello, >> >> it's been just 9 years since BugURL has been add

Pagure - Can't remove yourself from a project if not an admin?

I spent about 10 minutes trying to figure out how to remove myself from a project (for which I'm not an admin) and I have come to the conclusion that I'm not able to do so. Is this a known issue? Thanks, Richard ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fed

Re: Removal of BuildRoot

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> "NG" == Neal Gompa writes: > > NG> As upstream for rpmlint, I do not believe anyone cares at all about > NG> rpmlint in Fedora. > > We seemingly care so little for it that the rpmlint status appears on > every bodhi update. > > I

Re: Re: [HEADS UP] Replacing %post/%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

De: "Fabio Valentini" > Additionally, there are lots of packages that look like their > maintainer hasn't touched them in years (for example, the only git > commits are from mass rebuilds), Actually it's hard to find the motivation to touch a package just for a little syntactic cleanup. Mass c

Re: [HEADS UP] Replacing %post/%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 11:02 AM, Remi Collet wrote: > Le 17/02/2018 à 10:05, Igor Gnatenko a écrit : >> On Sat, 2018-02-17 at 07:08 +0100, Remi Collet wrote: >>> Le 16/02/2018 à 15:18, Mark Wielaard a écrit : >> I had to tweak it a little though so the spec could still be build older RH

Re: [HEADS UP] Replacing %post/%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

On 02/16/2018 10:35 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> "RR" == Roberto Ragusa writes: > RR> Was that a valid consideration? Has something changed on that front? > > It was, and packages will now fail to build (via brp-ldconfig) if they > don't package those symlinks. Though in practice pack

Re: Scilab, rkward install in Rawhide: nothing provides libgfortran.so.4()

On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 11:05:39AM -, Amit Saha wrote: > Hi all, > > `scilab` and `rkward` installation in Rawhide (in the Fedora Scientific > build) is currently failing with: nothing provides libgfortran.so.4(). I can > see that nothing provides libgfortran.so.4 on rawhide. The reason seem

Scilab, rkward install in Rawhide: nothing provides libgfortran.so.4()

Hi all, `scilab` and `rkward` installation in Rawhide (in the Fedora Scientific build) is currently failing with: nothing provides libgfortran.so.4(). I can see that nothing provides libgfortran.so.4 on rawhide. The reason seems to be a new release of libgfortran. The last libgfortran release w

Re: [HEADS UP] Replacing %post/%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

Le 17/02/2018 à 10:05, Igor Gnatenko a écrit : > On Sat, 2018-02-17 at 07:08 +0100, Remi Collet wrote: >> Le 16/02/2018 à 15:18, Mark Wielaard a écrit : > >>> I had to tweak it a little though so the spec could still be build >>> older RHEL or Fedora (I reuse the spec to build on RHEL and with SCL

F29 Self Contained Change: FedoraScientific VagrantBox

= Proposed Self Contained Change: FedoraScientific VagrantBox = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FedoraScientific_VagrantBox Owner(s): * Amit Saha Fedora Scientific is currently delivered as ISOs. Shipping vagrant boxes will give potential users a friendlier option to try out Fedora Sc

Re: [HEADS UP] Replacing %post/%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Fri, 2018-02-16 at 15:18 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi Igor, > > On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 21:59 +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > Your options: > > > > * Speak up and tell package names I should not touch because … (you should > > complete this se

Re: [HEADS UP] Replacing %post/%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Sat, 2018-02-17 at 07:08 +0100, Remi Collet wrote: > Le 16/02/2018 à 15:18, Mark Wielaard a écrit : > > > I had to tweak it a little though so the spec could still be build > > older RHEL or Fedora (I reuse the spec to build on RHEL and with SCL)