Fedora-Cloud-30-20200123.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Passed openQA tests: 1/1 (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

Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 32 Rawhide 20200122.n.1 nightly compose nominated for testing

You can see all results, find testing instructions and image download locations, and enter results on the Summary page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_32_Rawhide_20200122.n.1_Summary On x86_64 the package gcc-c++ is available only at version 9.2.1-1.fc32.3 whose

[389-devel] Please review: 50694 docker pem import

https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/50846 https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/50694 — Sincerely, William Brown Senior Software Engineer, 389 Directory Server SUSE Labs ___ 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To

[389-devel] 389 DS nightly 2020-01-23 - 96% PASS

https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2020/01/23/report-389-ds-base-1.4.3.1-20200123git2ebdd30.fc31.x86_64.html ___ 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

[389-devel] Please review 50787 plugin enable issue

https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/50845 https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/50787 — Sincerely, William Brown Senior Software Engineer, 389 Directory Server SUSE Labs ___ 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To

Fedora-Rawhide-20200122.n.1 compose check report

No missing expected images. Compose PASSES proposed Rawhide gating check! All required tests passed Failed openQA tests: 14/158 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm) ID: 512575 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_cockpit_updates URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/512575 ID: 512586 Test: x86_64

[Bug 1678623] Review Request: strip-nondeterminism - File non-deterministic information stripper

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678623 --- Comment #10 from Sergio Monteiro Basto --- Dridi, can I take this review , i.e. do a new review and close this one ? Thanks, -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

FedoraRespin-31-updates-20200122.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 2/35 (x86_64) ID: 512521 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso base_reboot_unmount URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/512521 ID: 512539 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso base_reboot_unmount URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/512539

Re: cjdns with gcc-10 in Fedora

On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 22:03 +, devel- requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote: > Send devel mailing list submissions to > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via email, send a message with subject or > body 'help' to > devel-requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:21 PM Felix Schwarz wrote: > > > Am 22.01.20 um 11:00 schrieb Neal Gompa: > > Yes, but neither of those communities actually have terribly special > > requirements. In fact, those communities either had *nothing* in terms > > of infrastructure (FreeDesktop/Xorg) or were

[Bug 1794207] perl-lib-abs-0.94 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1794207 --- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- the-new-hotness/release-monitoring.org's scratch build of perl-lib-abs-0.94-1.fc29.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=40886498 -- You are

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

Am 22.01.20 um 11:00 schrieb Neal Gompa: > Yes, but neither of those communities actually have terribly special > requirements. In fact, those communities either had *nothing* in terms > of infrastructure (FreeDesktop/Xorg) or were willing to throw > everything away for GitLab (GNOME). We would

[Bug 1794207] perl-lib-abs-0.94 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1794207 --- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- Created attachment 1654725 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1654725=edit [patch] Update to 0.94 (#1794207) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC

[Bug 1794207] New: perl-lib-abs-0.94 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1794207 Bug ID: 1794207 Summary: perl-lib-abs-0.94 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-lib-abs Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

[Test-Announce] Fedora 32 Rawhide 20200122.n.1 nightly compose nominated for testing

Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event for Fedora 32 Rawhide 20200122.n.1. Please help run some tests for this nightly compose if you have time. For more information on nightly release validation testing, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki

Orphaning argyllcms

Hi all, I've orphaned argyllcms. The current version fails to build in Fedora 32 and I no longer use these tools. The Fedora package is also a few minor versions out of date. For anyone wanting to take over this package be aware upstream is pretty hostile for Linux packaging. For instance, you

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of ...

On 1/21/20 6:35 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote: This is a known thing in gcc 10: https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-10/porting_to.html#common I have seen odd behavior in Wine with this change. Some code compiles successfully without requiring extern in x86 / x86_64 but the same code requires extern for

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of ...

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:58 PM Christoph Junghans wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 1:31 PM Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> >> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 14:54, Christoph Junghans wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:42 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: >> >> >> >> >> jtaylornetsniff-ng

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of ...

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 1:31 PM Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 14:54, Christoph Junghans > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:42 AM Miro Hrončok > wrote: > >> > > >> jtaylornetsniff-ng ocaml-lablgtk suricata > >> junghans gasnet > > > > Sorry, how do I install

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of ...

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 14:54, Christoph Junghans wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:42 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: >> >> jtaylornetsniff-ng ocaml-lablgtk suricata >> junghans gasnet > > Sorry, how do I install gcc10 on Rawhide? > "dnf upgrade --advisory=FEDORA-2020-a165791b6f" doesn't seem

[389-devel] please review: PR 50844 - Fix compiler failures and warnings

https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/50844 -- 389 Directory Server Development Team ___ 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:

[Bug 1794152] perl-Test-MockObject-1.20200122 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1794152 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|---

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of ...

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:42 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 22. 01. 20 12:33, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:12 PM Kevin Kofler > wrote: > >> > >> Miro Hrončok wrote: > >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-10/porting_to.html#common > >>> > >>> "Default to -fno-common > >>> > >>> A

1794117 – Disabling support for UDP for NFSv3

FYI... NFS over UDP will be deprecated in the 5.6 kernel. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1794117 Its not clear what or if any havoc this could cause but the commit (f745bfdc) has been accepted upstream. Just letting the community know... If by chance a bz is opened, please

1794117 – Disabling support for UDP for NFSv3

FYI... NFS over UDP will be deprecated in the 5.6 kernel. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1794117 Its not clear what or if any havoc this could cause but the commit (f745bfdc) has been accepted upstream. Just letting the community know... If by chance a bz is opened, please

[Bug 1794152] New: perl-Test-MockObject-1.20200122 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1794152 Bug ID: 1794152 Summary: perl-Test-MockObject-1.20200122 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-Test-MockObject Keywords:

[Bug 1794152] perl-Test-MockObject-1.20200122 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1794152 --- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- An HTTP error occurred downloading the package's new Source URLs: Getting https://cpan.metacpan.org/modules/by-module/Test/Test-MockObject-1.20200122.tar.gz to

Re:gcc-10 Fortran argument mismatch issue

On Tue, 2020-01-21 at 20:41 +, devel- requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote: > -- > > Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 21:27:47 +0100 > From: Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski > Subject: Re: gcc-10 Fortran argument mismatch issue > To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:58 PM Milan Crha wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 11:37 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > they all picked GitLab CE. > > Hi, > I do not want to pollute this thread with unrelated information, > but for what it worth, I only recently realized that GitLab CE,

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

Alexander Bokovoy writes: > On ti, 21 tammi 2020, Alex Scheel wrote: > >> For a period of time, IDM tried using Pagure for FreeIPA development. >> They filed a huge number of issues. Now we host issues on Pagure, and >> have moved development to GitHub. [*] I think we've mostly quit >> filing

Re: Default bugzilla assignee

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:32:29PM -0500, Randy Barlow wrote: > This documentation seems to be out of date: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/WhatHappenedToPkgdb#How_do_I_become_the_default_assignee_of_a_branch_in_bugzilla.3F > > I say that because the cited repository hasn't had

Re: Announcing multi-builds updates gating

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 06:22:33PM +0100, Martin Kolman wrote: > On Tue, 2020-01-21 at 17:59 +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > Good Morning Everyone, > > > > We are pleased to announce that the work to gate rawhide packages has > > leveled > > up! > Cool! :) > > > > Back in July we announced

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 11:37 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > they all picked GitLab CE. Hi, I do not want to pollute this thread with unrelated information, but for what it worth, I only recently realized that GitLab CE, the one hosted on GNOME, does not have searching working properly.

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:12 am, Neal Gompa wrote: I followed it pretty closely. In the GNOME case, you were willing to throw away Bugzilla, CGit, and older CI infrastructure to replace it with GitLab. To be clear, getting rid of Bugzilla was the goal, not a compromise. cgit is a nice

Default bugzilla assignee

This documentation seems to be out of date: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/WhatHappenedToPkgdb#How_do_I_become_the_default_assignee_of_a_branch_in_bugzilla.3F I say that because the cited repository hasn't had commits since December 09. How do we set the default assignee of a

Re: Announcing multi-builds updates gating

On Tue, 2020-01-21 at 17:59 +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > Good Morning Everyone, > > We are pleased to announce that the work to gate rawhide packages has leveled > up! Cool! :) > > Back in July we announced the first phase where bodhi got the support to gate > single-build updates. We can

Package name

Hi all, I have a package [0] that requires python-magic [1]. During the review [3] the choosing of the package name 'python-python-magic' was questioned. The issue is that python-magic is already used by the binding for file. Are there any suggestions about the name of the package? Thanks.

Re: Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of ...

> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 07:34:01 -0600 > From: Justin Forbes > Subject: Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of > ... > To: Development discussions related to Fedora > > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020

[Bug 1793082] Upgrade perl-Tie-DBI to 1.08

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793082 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|---

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 10:46 AM Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:00 am, Neal Gompa wrote: > > And there's this worry that GitLab will go the same path Transifex > > did. They have a ton of incentives to do so, and they already are > > starting to with the consideration of

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:00 am, Neal Gompa wrote: And there's this worry that GitLab will go the same path Transifex did. They have a ton of incentives to do so, and they already are starting to with the consideration of injecting nonfree JavaScript in all variants. Terrifying. Do you have a

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 13:51 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Miro Hrončok: > > > On 22. 01. 20 13:12, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > > I think that it would be more productive if you try to rationalize this > > > opinion. > > > I don't want to argue about the feeling you have, but I would be > >

[Bug 1793997] perl-FFI-CheckLib-0.26 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793997 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version|

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 10:22 AM Michael Watters wrote: > > > On 1/22/20 1:56 AM, Michal Konecny wrote: > > If we go this way, in a few years we will end up in the same situation > > as with Pagure today. We will have many custom patches (which we need > > to take care of) and we will not have

[Bug 1793997] perl-FFI-CheckLib-0.26 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793997 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On 1/22/20 1:56 AM, Michal Konecny wrote: > If we go this way, in a few years we will end up in the same situation > as with Pagure today. We will have many custom patches (which we need > to take care of) and we will not have manpower to compete with the > features of other major git forges.

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:43 PM Clement Verna wrote: > > > > On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 15:37, Ernestas Kulik wrote: >> >> On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 09:12 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: >> > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:08 AM Ernestas Kulik >> > wrote: >> > > On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 05:00 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:

[389-devel] Re: Please review: PR 50843 and PR 50837

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 03:46:49PM +0100, Simon Pichugin wrote: > Hi team, > please review these PRs: > > https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/50837 > https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/50842 Wrong PR number. The right one - https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/50843 > >

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 15:37, Ernestas Kulik wrote: > On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 09:12 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:08 AM Ernestas Kulik > > wrote: > > > On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 05:00 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > > > And then there's the issue that we are not upstream and

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 09:12 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:08 AM Ernestas Kulik > wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 05:00 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > > And then there's the issue that we are not upstream and might > > > > > have to > > > > > maintain the integration as a

Re: Copr Build System - review of 2019 and vote for features in 2020

On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 1:05:45 PM CET Kevin Kofler wrote: > Miro Hrončok wrote: > > Do you realize that copr is a free service (as in free beer in this > > argument)? > > So is Fedora as a whole, yet it does not completely delete EOL releases, > but puts them on archive.fedoraproject.org.

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:08 AM Ernestas Kulik wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 05:00 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > And then there's the issue that we are not upstream and might > > > > have to > > > > maintain the integration as a downstream patch forever as > > > > upstream might > > > > not

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 05:00 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > And then there's the issue that we are not upstream and might > > > have to > > > maintain the integration as a downstream patch forever as > > > upstream might > > > not want it. > > > > They've provided pretty good support to various

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of ...

On 22. 01. 20 14:34, Justin Forbes wrote: On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:42 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: On 22. 01. 20 12:33, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:12 PM Kevin Kofler wrote: Miro Hrončok wrote: https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-10/porting_to.html#common "Default to -fno-common A

[Bug 1793505] perl-SOAP-WSDL-3.003-14.fc32 FTBFS: Failed test 'conversion with timezone' at t/SOAP/WSDL/XSD/Typelib/Builtin/dateTime.t line 35.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793505 Damian Wrobel changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|---

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 2:21 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 22. 01. 20 14:03, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > can we have the power, scalability and feature-richness of a platform > > like Gerrit, but (optionally) hidden under the hood so that there is a > > "simple mode" for people who just need a

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of ...

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:42 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 22. 01. 20 12:33, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:12 PM Kevin Kofler > > wrote: > >> > >> Miro Hrončok wrote: > >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-10/porting_to.html#common > >>> > >>> "Default to -fno-common > >>> > >>>

[Bug 1793997] New: perl-FFI-CheckLib-0.26 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793997 Bug ID: 1793997 Summary: perl-FFI-CheckLib-0.26 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-FFI-CheckLib Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

* Miro Hrončok: >> The red X isn't a relevant indicator. This commit was merged and has it, >> too: >> >> > > The red X doesn't mean “CLA not signed”, it means any CI has > failed. CPython allows merges with some CI failed, they

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On 22. 01. 20 14:03, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: can we have the power, scalability and feature-richness of a platform like Gerrit, but (optionally) hidden under the hood so that there is a "simple mode" for people who just need a one-time contribution? I won't go there, becasue I don't think

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On 22. 01. 20 14:12, Florian Weimer wrote: * Miro Hrončok: On 22. 01. 20 11:21, Florian Weimer wrote: * Felix Schwarz: Personally I guess github would attract most contributions for Fedora from new contributors but it is closed source so I'd prefer gitlab for Fedora. I don't think Github

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

* Miro Hrončok: > On 22. 01. 20 11:21, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Felix Schwarz: >> >>> Personally I guess github would attract most contributions for Fedora >>> from new contributors but it is closed source so I'd prefer gitlab for >>> Fedora. >> >> I don't think Github allows disabling pull

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 1:25 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 22. 01. 20 13:12, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > I think that it would be more productive if you try to rationalize this > > opinion. > > I don't want to argue about the feeling you have, but I would be > > interested in comparing notes

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On 22. 01. 20 11:21, Florian Weimer wrote: * Felix Schwarz: Personally I guess github would attract most contributions for Fedora from new contributors but it is closed source so I'd prefer gitlab for Fedora. I don't think Github allows disabling pull requests for projects. This means that

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

* Miro Hrončok: > On 22. 01. 20 13:12, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: >> I think that it would be more productive if you try to rationalize this >> opinion. >> I don't want to argue about the feeling you have, but I would be >> interested in comparing notes on what exactly "Gerrit workflow" means >>

Re: Copr Build System - review of 2019 and vote for features in 2020

On 2020-01-22 12:03, Kevin Kofler wrote: Kevin Kofler wrote: IMHO, this whole "delete by default" concept is inherently flawed and dangerous and cannot be fixed. Notification e-mails can be lost in so many ways (wrong Fedora notification settings, e-mail provider issues, spam filter false

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

* Aleksandra Fedorova: >> I even think sending patches over e-mail is probably better. > > I think that it would be more productive if you try to rationalize > this opinion. Gerrit makes it really hard to figure out your open tasks. You can see a list of the reviews you have “started”

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

Hello, Thanks for the thread. Lots of good stuff there. Would it be also OK to add a non technical requirement into the mix: - whatever we do choose, we stick to it for N years. I add this because an important reason for moving away from Pagure seems to be that we don't have the man-power to

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On 22. 01. 20 13:12, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: I think that it would be more productive if you try to rationalize this opinion. I don't want to argue about the feeling you have, but I would be interested in comparing notes on what exactly "Gerrit workflow" means to you, and whether or not it is

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

* Aleksandra Fedorova: > If we go for splitting up use cases, than I'd like to highlight one thing: > > src.fedoraproject.org is not a GitForge, it is a centrally managed > code-review platform > > Git Forges play a lot with the idea of users being able to create > their own forks of the

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:38 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 22. 01. 20 12:19, Neal Gompa wrote:>> We do need a better discoverability > and > visibility in the generic > >> development community. But it is a solvable task: we can create a > >> read-only mirror of our code on every common

Re: Copr Build System - review of 2019 and vote for features in 2020

On 22. 01. 20 13:05, Kevin Kofler wrote: Miro Hrončok wrote: Do you realize that copr is a free service (as in free beer in this argument)? So is Fedora as a whole, yet it does not completely delete EOL releases, but puts them on archive.fedoraproject.org. Gratuity (the state of being free

Re: Copr Build System - review of 2019 and vote for features in 2020

Miro Hrončok wrote: > Do you realize that copr is a free service (as in free beer in this > argument)? So is Fedora as a whole, yet it does not completely delete EOL releases, but puts them on archive.fedoraproject.org. Gratuity (the state of being free as in beer) is no excuse for deliberate

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 12:38, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 22. 01. 20 12:19, Neal Gompa wrote:>> We do need a better > discoverability and > visibility in the generic > >> development community. But it is a solvable task: we can create a > >> read-only mirror of our code on every common platform out

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of ...

On 22. 01. 20 12:33, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:12 PM Kevin Kofler wrote: Miro Hrončok wrote: https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-10/porting_to.html#common "Default to -fno-common A common mistake in C is omitting extern when declaring a global variable in a header file. If the

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

Heya, Currently we have two different pagure instances that hosts different use cases on them, and different use cases means different requirements, so first of all, about what use cases we are talking about? we have src.fp.o for distgit, some pagure.io projects that hosts actual code

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:20 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 6:06 AM Aleksandra Fedorova > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:48 AM Clement Verna > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 22:32, Michael Catanzaro > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> On Tue, Jan

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On 22. 01. 20 12:19, Neal Gompa wrote:>> We do need a better discoverability and visibility in the generic development community. But it is a solvable task: we can create a read-only mirror of our code on every common platform out there. We can use it as an opportunity to show what we do, but

Re: ppc64le builds of Python failing with: Assembler messages: redefined symbol cannot be used on reloc

Build 40639489 is green, build 40790556 is red. One interesting difference is GCC 9.2.1 upgraded to GCC 10.0.1. I reported the bug to GCC: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93384 "redefined symbol cannot be used on reloc" smells like a GCC internal error, rather than a bug in the

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of ...

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:12 PM Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Miro Hrončok wrote: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-10/porting_to.html#common > > > > "Default to -fno-common > > > > A common mistake in C is omitting extern when declaring a global variable > > in a header file. If the header is included by

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 11:02, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 1:05 AM Peter Robinson > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:59 AM Dan Čermák > > wrote: > > > > > > Felix Schwarz writes: > > > > > > > Am 21.01.20 um 21:48 schrieb Guido Aulisi: > > > >> I totally agree with

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 6:06 AM Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:48 AM Clement Verna > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 22:32, Michael Catanzaro > > wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 4:04 pm, Neal Gompa wrote: > >> > And any discussion of GitHub

Re: Copr Build System - review of 2019 and vote for features in 2020

On 22. 01. 20 12:03, Kevin Kofler wrote: Kevin Kofler wrote: IMHO, this whole "delete by default" concept is inherently flawed and dangerous and cannot be fixed. Notification e-mails can be lost in so many ways (wrong Fedora notification settings, e-mail provider issues, spam filter false

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of ...

Miro Hrončok wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-10/porting_to.html#common > > "Default to -fno-common > > A common mistake in C is omitting extern when declaring a global variable > in a header file. If the header is included by several files it results in > multiple definitions of the same

Re: Bubblemail: looking for package maintainer

Hello Razer, I just joined the devel lists a few days ago and I could take up packaging if you want to. Regards, Javier From: Alexander Ploumistos Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 12:00 PM To: Development discussions related to Fedora Subject: Re:

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 6:04 AM Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 05:00 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > > > On top of that Gitlab is a huge Ruby on Rails application and (at least > > > > I have the feeling that) the Fedora community doesn't have so many Ruby > > > > developers in

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:48 AM Clement Verna wrote: > > > > On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 22:32, Michael Catanzaro wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 4:04 pm, Neal Gompa wrote: >> > And any discussion of GitHub isn't going to involve self-hosted, it's >> > going to involve GitHub.com, which means

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 05:00 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > On top of that Gitlab is a huge Ruby on Rails application and (at least > > > I have the feeling that) the Fedora community doesn't have so many Ruby > > > developers in comparison to Python developers, so implementing something > > >

Re: Copr Build System - review of 2019 and vote for features in 2020

Kevin Kofler wrote: > IMHO, this whole "delete by default" concept is inherently flawed and > dangerous and cannot be fixed. Notification e-mails can be lost in so many > ways (wrong Fedora notification settings, e-mail provider issues, spam > filter false positives, out-of-quota mailbox, etc.) or

Re: Bubblemail: looking for package maintainer

Hello Razer, You've made quite some progress since the fork, well done! I have come to rely heavily on mailnag and for a while now it seemed that it was going the way of the dodo. I could take up packaging, but for the time being I am in desperate need of 48-hour days and can't really add more to

Re: Copr Build System - review of 2019 and vote for features in 2020

Jakub Kadlcik wrote: > I am truly sorry to hear that. I am afraid, that there is no way to > recover those data. Thank you for reporting it though, I have investigated > the issue and did as much as I could to prevent it from happening in the > future. > > I wrote some unit tests for the feature

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

* Felix Schwarz: > Personally I guess github would attract most contributions for Fedora > from new contributors but it is closed source so I'd prefer gitlab for > Fedora. I don't think Github allows disabling pull requests for projects. This means that a ptoential Fedora Github service would

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 1:05 AM Peter Robinson wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:59 AM Dan Čermák > wrote: > > > > Felix Schwarz writes: > > > > > Am 21.01.20 um 21:48 schrieb Guido Aulisi: > > >> I totally agree with Fabio, I can’t think of a single reason we should > > >> dismiss > > >>

Re: Blanket approval for EPEL packages

Dne 21. 01. 20 v 22:50 Stephen John Smoogen napsal(a): > On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 04:35, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> Hi, >> >> There used to be page with blanket approval for EPEL packages. Is there >> still something like this? It is tiring to respond all the EPEL request >> I don't really care about.

[Bug 1793917] New: perl-Test-mysqld-1.0012-4.fc32 FTBFS: DBI connect('dbname=mysql;mysql_socket=/tmp/B_Fm_kLtjo/tmp/mysql.sock;user=root','',...) failed: Access denied for user 'root'@'localhost' at /

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793917 Bug ID: 1793917 Summary: perl-Test-mysqld-1.0012-4.fc32 FTBFS: DBI connect('dbname=mysql;mysql_socket=/tmp/B_Fm_kLtjo/tmp /mysql.sock;user=root','',...) failed: Access denied

[Bug 1793916] New: perl-CGI-SpeedyCGI-2.22-39.fc32 FTBFS: /usr/bin/ld: speedy_perl.o: /builddir/build/BUILD/CGI-SpeedyCGI-2.22/speedy_backend/../src/speedy_perl.h:24: multiple definition of `my_perl'

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793916 Bug ID: 1793916 Summary: perl-CGI-SpeedyCGI-2.22-39.fc32 FTBFS: /usr/bin/ld: speedy_perl.o: /builddir/build/BUILD/CGI-SpeedyCGI-2.22/speedy_backen

ppc64le builds of Python failing with: Assembler messages: redefined symbol cannot be used on reloc

https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/python39 https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/build/7756857 /tmp/cc7LZ1xH.s: Assembler messages: /tmp/cc7LZ1xH.s:91549: Error: redefined symbol cannot be used on reloc /tmp/cc7LZ1xH.s:275099: Error: redefined symbol cannot be used on reloc lto-wrapper:

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 10:01 +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > IIRC phabricator does not issue tracking which mean it would not fit the > use-case of FESCo, FPC and other groups that are mostly using pagure as a > ticketing system. Sure it does, we used to use it for this. It calls them

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 08:40 +, Peter Oliver wrote: > On Tue, 21 Jan 2020, 21:32 Michael Catanzaro, wrote: > > So if we can agree on that much, then we can avoid wasting time by > > including GitHub in the list of options. That would bring us to a > > choice between GitLab CE and Pagure. (Are

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 08:40:54AM +, Peter Oliver wrote: >On Tue, 21 Jan 2020, 21:32 Michael Catanzaro, <[1]mcatanz...@gnome.org> >wrote: > > So if we can agree on that much, then we can avoid wasting time by > including GitHub in the list of options. That would bring us to

  1   2   >