Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

Le jeudi 31 janvier 2019 à 19:52 -0500, Neal Gompa a écrit : > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 6:58 PM Stephen John Smoogen > wrote: > > On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 07:28, Igor Gnatenko < > > ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > > Problem №1: Build-only packages > > > > > > Rawhide gating makes this m

Re: F30: Self-Contained Change proposal: Firefox Wayland By Default On Gnome

On 01/02/2019 06:49, Chris Murphy wrote: For what it's worth, starting with firefox 65 there are two packages: firefox-wayland-65.0-1.fc29.x86_64 firefox-65.0-1.fc29.x86_64 That has existed for some time, it's not new with 65. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ __

Re: F30: Self-Contained Change proposal: Firefox Wayland By Default On Gnome

For what it's worth, starting with firefox 65 there are two packages: firefox-wayland-65.0-1.fc29.x86_64 firefox-65.0-1.fc29.x86_64 And after installing them there are two application icons in gnome: Firefox and Firefox on Wayland. Both work fine when I've logged into a gnome wayland session; and

Re: Can't figure out how to build flatpaks

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 12:23 PM Pete Walter wrote: > I've noticed that someone created a flatpak build for one of my packages > (feedreader), but it's horribly out of date: flatpak has 2.5.1 vs rpm has > 2.7.0. I've been trying to update the flatpak build, but not much luck here. > The documen

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On 1/31/19 4:52 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: ...snip... > COPR was supposed to be that outlet, but no one gives a damn about it. > Everyone complains that the service is "bad" and that the design is > "bad" but no one wants to actually constructively improve it. The > quality of service on COPR has fall

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 6:58 PM Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 07:28, Igor Gnatenko > wrote: >> >> Problem №1: Build-only packages >> >> Rawhide gating makes this much more complicated because builds appear in >> buildroot slower, updating group of packages would need si

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 07:28, Igor Gnatenko < ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Problem №1: Build-only packages > > > Rawhide gating makes this much more complicated because builds appear in > buildroot slower, updating group of packages would need side tags and it’s > just painful to wor

Re: OpenVPN 3 Linux client - v3 beta release

On 01/02/2019 00:01, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 31/01/2019 22:44, David Sommerseth wrote: > >> This new client shares the same code base the OpenVPN Connect (proprietary) >> clients uses as well as the OpenVPN for Android when switching to use the >> OpenVPN 3 backend.  The OpenVPN 3 code base is a re

Re: OpenVPN 3 Linux client - v3 beta release

On 31/01/2019 22:44, David Sommerseth wrote: This new client shares the same code base the OpenVPN Connect (proprietary) clients uses as well as the OpenVPN for Android when switching to use the OpenVPN 3 backend. The OpenVPN 3 code base is a rewrite in C++ and makes use of the more modern feat

OpenVPN 3 Linux client - v3 beta release

Hi, As some of you know, I've been involved with the OpenVPN packages for some time as well as being an upstream OpenVPN developer and maintainer. Now we have released the third beta release of OpenVPN 3 Linux. This new client shares the same code base the OpenVPN Connect (proprietary) clients

Mass rebuild - emacs broken

emacs isn't installable at the moment, so any package that needs emacs fails to build, eg: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=32380321 Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwm

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On 1/31/19 4:24 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > ProblemsProblem №1: Build-only packages > > Some ecosystems have many build-only packages (packages which are used to > build other packages, without having them installed on end-user systems). > Those ecosystems include Java, Rust and Go. > > It is ext

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

On Thursday, January 31, 2019 4:32:38 PM EST Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 16:21, John Harris wrote: > > On Thursday, January 31, 2019 2:09:08 PM EST Chris Murphy wrote: > > > And that is the most central problem with the license, and why it > > > isn't free for everyone all

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 16:21, John Harris wrote: > On Thursday, January 31, 2019 2:09:08 PM EST Chris Murphy wrote: > > And that is the most central problem with the license, and why it > > isn't free for everyone all of the time. The idea free licenses can > > have gray areas where they aren't f

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

On Thursday, January 31, 2019 2:09:08 PM EST Chris Murphy wrote: > And that is the most central problem with the license, and why it > isn't free for everyone all of the time. The idea free licenses can > have gray areas where they aren't free, pollutes the free license > ecosystem with confusion.

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 4:42 PM John Harris wrote: > > On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 4:19:13 PM EST Simon Farnsworth wrote: > > But the SSPL also prevents you from using Free Software with it, unless you > > have sufficient rights to offer said Free Software under the SSPL, as per > > section 13

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: Retire YUM 3

On 1/30/19 1:39 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > Question: how plausibly can we sort of "test retire" yum? i.e. just > somehow run a single compose process without it included, and see what > breaks? Well, we could block yum in koji and remove it from all builders and see what happens, but I think it

Re: Boost 1.69 update with soname bumps in rawhide/F30

Hi, I maintain the hpx package, which links against boost. I would prefer to build my package by myself, since we will need to update it to compile/link with boost 1.69. I tested it yesterday and we need to patch our last stable release to work with boost 1.69. The patch should be available next w

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 07:28, Igor Gnatenko < ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Solution > >- > >Separate Koji + Koschei deployed in Fedora infrastructure cloud; > > > >- > >FAQ > > Why not COPR? > >- > >COPR has been starved of resources for years, which has impa

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: Retire YUM 3

On 31. 01. 19 16:32, Michal Domonkos wrote: On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 6:46 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: Based on the entire discussion so far, here's my proposal: - we change this to a system wide change - we move it to Fedora 31 - we retire the packages from rawhide as soon as f30 is branche

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

Igor, This is great. It seems like it would fit in really well with the Packager Experience objective proposal[1] that Ben Rosser was working on. I know you weighed in on that thread at one point. Is this a part of that proposed objective or is it separate? [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/arc

Can't figure out how to build flatpaks

Hi, I've noticed that someone created a flatpak build for one of my packages (feedreader), but it's horribly out of date: flatpak has 2.5.1 vs rpm has 2.7.0. I've been trying to update the flatpak build, but not much luck here. The documentation is pretty verbose, but seems to miss some crucial

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: Bash 5.0

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 6:07 AM Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 11:06:25PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > Please don't do that. You'll basically break the distribution for all > > third-party packagers. Modules are not supported by anyone at all, and > > it's too difficult to integ

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: Retire YUM 3

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 6:46 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > Based on the entire discussion so far, here's my proposal: > > - we change this to a system wide change > - we move it to Fedora 31 > - we retire the packages from rawhide as soon as f30 is branched regardless > of > the dependent packag

Re: [modularity] Policy change: module defaults changes & Fedora Changes

On Thursday, January 31, 2019 9:29:57 AM EST Adam Samalik wrote: > The Modularity Team has published an updated policy regarding changing > module defaults and submitting Fedora Changes [1]. > > Simplified summary: > instead of: "Packagers must submit a Fedora Change when changing module > default

Re: Boost 1.69 update with soname bumps in rawhide/F30

On Tuesday, 29 January 2019 20.11.13 WET Jonathan Wakely wrote: > Thanks! Do you want me to apply that patch for rawhide and rebuild it? I have added the patch and changed accordingly the spec file and I am expecting for it to be picked by the rebuild in course. :-) Thank you. :-) -- José Abíli

[modularity] Policy change: module defaults changes & Fedora Changes

The Modularity Team has published an updated policy regarding changing module defaults and submitting Fedora Changes [1]. Simplified summary: instead of: "Packagers must submit a Fedora Change when changing module defaults." it now says: "Packagers should submit a Fedora Change when changing modul

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 1:40 PM Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 1:36 PM Josh Boyer wrote: > > Why does this need to be deployed in the fedora infrastructure cloud? > > Seems like you could stand it up in AWS or somewhere else. > > Because we (Fedora contributors) don't have bu

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 1:36 PM Josh Boyer wrote: > Why does this need to be deployed in the fedora infrastructure cloud? > Seems like you could stand it up in AWS or somewhere else. Because we (Fedora contributors) don't have budget to pay AWS bills. If someone is willing to sponsor this then AW

Re: MBI (Playground 2.0)

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 7:28 AM Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > MayBe I …(can do something useful)? > > Hello, > > We've been discussing some (hopefully) nice idea with Mikolaj, Neal and Jakub > how we could improve packager (and user) experience and we have some proposal > which will be described belo

MBI (Playground 2.0)

MayBe I …(can do something useful)? Hello, We've been discussing some (hopefully) nice idea with Mikolaj, Neal and Jakub how we could improve packager (and user) experience and we have some proposal which will be described below. We would like to ask you to read it, understand it and ask us any

Re: Fedora 30 Mass Rebuild

Hi all, Fedora 30 Mass Rebuild will start in few minutes. We are preparing for the final steps and will run mass rebuild once everything is in place. On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 4:02 AM Mohan Boddu wrote: > Hi all, > > Per the Fedora 30 schedule[1] we are supposed to start the mass rebuild > on Jan

Re: Fixing Wireguard spec file

Joe, I found a machine on which I can reproduce the problem. I installed wireguard-dkms-0.0.20190123-2.fc29.noarch on top of wireguard-dkms-0.0.20190123-1.fc29.noarch but the machine while running # dkms autoinstall still returns Error! Could not locate dkms.conf file. File: /var/lib/dkms/wireguard

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: Retire YUM 3

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 05:46, Panu Matilainen wrote: > On 1/30/19 2:52 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > > > > So basically: treat all changes as system-wide by default with a single > proposal deadline, but if the review process discovers that a change > truly is a self-contained one then it

Re: Strange rawhide behaviour

On 31. 01. 19 11:51, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 05:21, Miro Hrončok > wrote: On 31. 01. 19 10:56, Adam Williamson wrote: > Just as a note, what's in the 'rawhide' repo right now differs quite a > lot from what's in the buildroo

Re: Strange rawhide behaviour

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 05:21, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 31. 01. 19 10:56, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Just as a note, what's in the 'rawhide' repo right now differs quite a > > lot from what's in the buildroot as we haven't had a successful compose > > since 2019-01-21. This is for various reasons

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: Retire YUM 3

On 1/30/19 2:52 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 07:11, Matthew Miller > wrote: On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 11:49:55AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > 1) Move System-Wide and Self-Contained proposal deadlines to be the > > same da

Re: Strange rawhide behaviour

On 31. 01. 19 11:18, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 31. 01. 19 10:56, Adam Williamson wrote: Just as a note, what's in the 'rawhide' repo right now differs quite a lot from what's in the buildroot as we haven't had a successful compose since 2019-01-21. This is for various reasons - most recently libreo

Re: Strange rawhide behaviour

On 31. 01. 19 10:56, Adam Williamson wrote: Just as a note, what's in the 'rawhide' repo right now differs quite a lot from what's in the buildroot as we haven't had a successful compose since 2019-01-21. This is for various reasons - most recently libreoffice needed rebuilding for the poppler so

Re: Fixing Wireguard spec file

Il giorno gio 31 gen 2019, 00:15 Joe Doss ha scritto: > Hey Germano, > > I have a working RPM that does not error out with Error! Could not locate > dkms.conf file if you want to test it out before I push it to copr. > Hi Joe, I can test it on next Wireguard snapshot release, actually I cannot

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: Bash 5.0

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 4:23 AM Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 03:01:55PM +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > > But wait also: can't the module just refer to the release-branch (base) > > > dist-git? Why maintain two copies? > > Well, they can. But someone needs to build it twice: o

Re: Strange rawhide behaviour

On Wed, 2019-01-30 at 15:37 +0100, Michal Schorm wrote: > Right. > > Yes, I'm trying to test the installation from the mirrors. There will > be a delay. > > Buildroot repo != compose repo. > That's where I was mistaken. > > Case closed, I'll wait :) Just as a note, what's in the 'rawhide' repo

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

* Emmanuel Seyman: > I'm also going to note that the SSPLv1 has been superseded by the SSPLv2 That's not correct. Version 1 is still current. Thanks, Florian ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel

Re: Fixing Wireguard spec file

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 00:15 Joe Doss Hey Germano, > > I have a working RPM that does not error out with Error! Could not locate > dkms.conf file if you want to test it out before I push it to copr. > > > https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/jdoss/wireguard-testing/fedora-29-x86_64/00852

Re: F30 Self-Contained Change proposal: MongoDB Removal

* John Harris [30/01/2019 21:09] : > > I'm offline for the night, but figured I'd head this off at the pass. I am > not > an attorney, and this does not constitute legal advice. On that note, I'm going to recommend that legal discussions take place on the legal list, not the devel one. I'm also