Re: Ditch RPM in favor of DPKG

On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 06:29, John M. Harris Jr wrote: > On Friday, July 17, 2020 10:20:54 PM MST Anthony F McInerney wrote: > > On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 04:19, John M. Harris Jr > > > > wrote: > > > On Thursday, July 16, 2020 3:11:19 AM MST Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > > > > there was no reason

Re: Ditch RPM in favor of DPKG

On Friday, July 17, 2020 10:20:54 PM MST Anthony F McInerney wrote: > On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 04:19, John M. Harris Jr > > wrote: > > On Thursday, July 16, 2020 3:11:19 AM MST Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > > > there was no reason not to replac it with regular apt > > > > Nico touched on these

Re: Ditch RPM in favor of DPKG

On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 04:19, John M. Harris Jr wrote: > On Thursday, July 16, 2020 3:11:19 AM MST Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > > there was no reason not to replac it with regular apt > > Nico touched on these already, but that's simply not possible. Rather, > it's > possible, but would

[389-devel] 389 DS nightly 2020-07-18 - 95% PASS

https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2020/07/18/report-389-ds-base-1.4.4.4-20200717git654d0ff.fc32.x86_64.html ___ 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: Orphaning a number of Lua-related packages

On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 1:05:33 PM MST Tim Niemueller wrote: > Dear Fedora Community. > > Things have changed and I can no longer perform all maintainer duties. I > have just orphaned several packages. I have given packages which had a > co-maintainer to them (Thank you! Many already acted as

Re: Ditch RPM in favor of DPKG

On Thursday, July 16, 2020 3:11:19 AM MST Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > there was no reason not to replac it with regular apt Nico touched on these already, but that's simply not possible. Rather, it's possible, but would immediately break your system upon installing software using apt. -- John

Re: Btrfs in Silverblue

On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 12:39:01 AM MST Lennart Poettering wrote: > > Why at boot time? Well if your default subvolume contains a recent > > update that for some reason renders it unbootable, it might be nice to > > be able to pick a prior snapshot. That's how they do this. It isn't > > how we

Re: F33 Change proposal: Replace Linux kernel with BSD kernel

On Thursday, July 16, 2020 2:37:55 PM MST Ben Cotton wrote: > > F33 Change proposal: Replace Linux kernel with BSD kernel - System-Wide Well, which BSD kernel? ;) This email just serves as a neat example of that potential new format for Change proposals. -- John M. Harris, Jr.

Re: Enable EarlyOOM on Fedora KDE - Fedora 33 Self-Contained Change proposal

On Friday, July 17, 2020 10:06:53 AM MST Benjamin Berg wrote: > On Fri, 2020-07-17 at 09:12 -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 1:18:08 AM MST Benjamin Berg wrote: > > > So, we don't want to get the kernel into the situation where it must > > > remove

[EPEL-devel] Re: clusterssh for EPEL 8

Certainly!  Done.  Thanks for the polite pointer. On 7/17/20 9:01 AM, Patrick Riehecky wrote: > Can you open a bugzilla requesting this be added to EPEL8? > > Pat > > On Thu, 2020-07-16 at 22:01 -0400, Chris Schanzle wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Clusterssh is a nice tool to send input to multiple ssh

Re: How do Fedora developers get access to devtoolset for testing.

On 7/17/20 3:03 PM, Steven Munroe wrote: So my project (pveclib) was requested for el7/8 which means building with devtoolset-9. With a spec file enabled for el7, the local rpmbuild's fail if you don't have devtoolset installed. The error message was less than helpful. So if you can use

[Test-Announce] 2020-07-20 @ 16:00 UTC - Fedora 33 Blocker Review Meeting

# F33 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2020-07-20 # Time: 16:00 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net Hi folks! We have 5 proposed Beta blockers, 1 proposed Beta freeze exception and 2 proposed Final blockers to review, so let's have a Fedora 33 blocker review meeting on

[Test-Announce] 2020-07-20 @ 15:00 UTC - Fedora QA Meeting

# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting # Date: 2020-07-20 # Time: 15:00 UTC (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto) # Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net Greetings testers! We didn't meet for a couple of weeks and some Big Changes (tm) are landing in Fedora 33 right now,

[Bug 1857787] perl-LWP-Protocol-https-6.09 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1857787 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #2 from

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing report

The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing: Age URL 12 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-13c6cbc484 python-gnupg-0.4.6-1.el8 12 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-2f1d845c76 python-rsa-3.4.2-15.el8 12

Re: Koji oops

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 02:25:32PM +0200, Dan Horák wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 15:15:00 +0300 > Евгений Пивнев wrote: > > > What’s wrong with koji? > > Yet another maintenance jobs that I missed? > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=47345974 > >

Re: Removing packages from module

On 7/17/20 1:50 PM, Daniel Mach wrote: > > > Dne 17. 07. 20 v 14:15 Aleksei Bavshin napsal(a): >> On 7/17/20 3:27 AM, Daniel Mach wrote: >>> Dne 17. 07. 20 v 11:04 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): If the package was part of the module during the release of Fedora 32, dnf will see 2

How do Fedora developers get access to devtoolset for testing.

So my project (pveclib) was requested for el7/8 which means building with devtoolset-9. With a spec file enabled for el7, the local rpmbuild's fail if you don't have devtoolset installed. The error message was less than helpful. So if you can use fedpkg scratch-build devtoolset is preinstalled.

Re: Removing packages from module

Dne 17. 07. 20 v 14:15 Aleksei Bavshin napsal(a): On 7/17/20 3:27 AM, Daniel Mach wrote: Dne 17. 07. 20 v 11:04 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): If the package was part of the module during the release of Fedora 32, dnf will see 2 versions/builds of the module-stream:   - the one that existed

[Bug 1858361] perl-App-Cme-1.032 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1858361 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Fixed In Version|

[Bug 1857787] perl-LWP-Protocol-https-6.09 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1857787 --- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-949a75223b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-949a75223b -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list

Re: Enable EarlyOOM on Fedora KDE - Fedora 33 Self-Contained Change proposal

> And this will turn bad quickly, as it will eventually > include the executables/libraries that must be loaded as they are doing > work! > So, we don't want to get the kernel into the situation where it must > remove executables/libraries from main memory. If that happens, you can > end up

[Bug 1858048] rt-5.0.0 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1858048 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On|1858360 |1858381 Referenced Bugs:

Re: Enable EarlyOOM on Fedora KDE - Fedora 33 Self-Contained Change proposal

On Fri, 2020-07-17 at 09:12 -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote: > On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 1:18:08 AM MST Benjamin Berg wrote: > > So, we don't want to get the kernel into the situation where it must > > remove executables/libraries from main memory. If that happens, you can > > end up hitting the

[Bug 1858048] rt-5.0.0 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1858048 Ralf Corsepius changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Depends On|

[Bug 1858361] New: perl-App-Cme-1.032 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1858361 Bug ID: 1858361 Summary: perl-App-Cme-1.032 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-App-Cme Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

Re: Self Introduction Ludovic Hirlimann

Welcome here Ludovic :) On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 7:14 PM Ludovic Hirlimann via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Hi, > > > I'm ludo. I've been involved with opensource for a long time now (using > my first linux in 1996). I have been a mozilla employee for 10 years (as > the

Re: Enable EarlyOOM on Fedora KDE - Fedora 33 Self-Contained Change proposal

On Tuesday, July 14, 2020 1:18:08 AM MST Benjamin Berg wrote: > So, we don't want to get the kernel into the situation where it must > remove executables/libraries from main memory. If that happens, you can > end up hitting the disk for *every* function call. If this is true, then we shouldn't

Re: Upcoming Fedora 33 Change proposal deadlines

Hi, On 7/17/20 9:07 AM, Ben Cotton wrote: This is the final reminder of the Fedora 33 Change proposal deadlines: * 2020-07-21: Proposal deadline for Self-Contained Changes The mass rebuild is scheduled to begin next week as well. For the full schedule, see

Re: Self Introduction Ludovic Hirlimann

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 04:14:19PM +0200, Ludovic Hirlimann via devel wrote: > I'm ludo. I've been involved with opensource for a long time now (using > my first linux in 1996). I have been a mozilla employee for 10 years (as > the Thunderbird QA lead and then as an IT staffer). I'm back to linux

fedbot spamming in #fedora

Is it necessary to have in #fedora IRC channel, fedbot spamming 48 times per day about Fedora respins update? [16:51] *** F32-20200715 updated lives available: https://tinyurl.com/Live-respins2 Built by the Fedora Respin Sig more info #fedora-respins ***

Self Introduction Ludovic Hirlimann

Hi, I'm ludo. I've been involved with opensource for a long time now (using my first linux in 1996). I have been a mozilla employee for 10 years (as the Thunderbird QA lead and then as an IT staffer). I'm back to linux since 2015 (used FreeBSD and MacOSX since 2000). I choose Fedora as my

Re: Upcoming Fedora 33 Change proposal deadlines

This is the final reminder of the Fedora 33 Change proposal deadlines: * 2020-07-21: Proposal deadline for Self-Contained Changes The mass rebuild is scheduled to begin next week as well. For the full schedule, see https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-33/f-33-key-tasks.html -- Ben

Re: Upcoming Fedora 33 Change proposal deadlines

This is the final reminder of the Fedora 33 Change proposal deadlines: * 2020-07-21: Proposal deadline for Self-Contained Changes The mass rebuild is scheduled to begin next week as well. For the full schedule, see https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-33/f-33-key-tasks.html -- Ben

[EPEL-devel] Re: clusterssh for EPEL 8

Can you open a bugzilla requesting this be added to EPEL8? Pat On Thu, 2020-07-16 at 22:01 -0400, Chris Schanzle wrote: > Hi, > > Clusterssh is a nice tool to send input to multiple ssh sessions > simultaneously -- handy for managing a cluster of systems. I don't > know if there is much other

Re: Fedora in 6th gear

Thx to everybody who submitted the change proposal. It is nice that people follow the process instead of just pushing something into Fedora without sharing with wider audience. Vít Dne 16. 07. 20 v 19:52 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): > In the FESCo meeting summary email sent out today

Re: Koji oops

On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 15:15:00 +0300 Евгений Пивнев wrote: > What’s wrong with koji? > Yet another maintenance jobs that I missed? > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=47345974 > this is a packaging bug, from

Koji oops

What’s wrong with koji? Yet another maintenance jobs that I missed? https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=47345974 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=47346270

Re: Removing packages from module

On 7/17/20 3:27 AM, Daniel Mach wrote: > Dne 17. 07. 20 v 11:04 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): >> If the package was part of the module during the release of Fedora 32, >> dnf will see 2 versions/builds of the module-stream: >> >>   - the one that existed during the release (containing the package) >>   

matroska stack update (soname bumps)

Hello, I'm updating the matroska stack to the latest upstream versions, including stable branches as the libraries are security sensitive. libebml and libmatroska come with soname bumps but no incompatible API changes. I tested the rebuilds in copr in advance. I'm rebuilding all dependent

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20200717.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20200715.n.2 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20200717.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:10 Dropped images: 3 Added packages: 8 Dropped packages:3 Upgraded packages: 95 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 6.61 MiB Size of dropped packages

[Bug 1857787] perl-LWP-Protocol-https-6.09 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1857787 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED CC|

Review swap

Hello, I have a package rpm-git-tag-sort for a review. Can I swap it with somebody? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1858256 clime ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: Claim delve

On Thursday, 16 July 2020 19:38:22 CEST Alejandro Saez Morollon wrote: > Hi there, folks. > > Delve[0] (a Golang debugger) was retired due to the impossibility of > building a new version of delve for dependencies issues. I would like > to claim the package and fix the situation. I already have

[Test-Announce] Fedora 33 Rawhide 20200717.n.0 nightly compose nominated for testing

Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event for Fedora 33 Rawhide 20200717.n.0. 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

Re: Removing packages from module

Dne 17. 07. 20 v 11:04 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): On 17. 07. 20 6:47, Aleksei Bavshin wrote: In an optimistic case I'd like to believe that once the package is removed from the modulemd file and a new module update is published, the override magic hacked into dnf would stop masking package from

[Bug 1858226] New: perl-Mojolicious-8.57 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1858226 Bug ID: 1858226 Summary: perl-Mojolicious-8.57 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-Mojolicious Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

Re: [fedora-java] Re: Mass rebuild for f33-java11 side tag completed

On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 at 11:19, Dan Horák wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 10:42:45 +0200 > Iñaki Ucar wrote: > > > Could someone with superpowers cancel the following task for me? > > Thanks. > > done, it has already failed on i686 Yeah, that's why I wanted to cancel it. The task was launched

Re: FlexiBLAS as BLAS/LAPACK manager - Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal

On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 at 11:19, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > On Friday, 17 July 2020 at 10:25, Dave Love wrote: > > There will be hoops to jump through to get packages to configure when > > they don't know about the library. > > From what I understand from the proposal, FlexiBLAS looks

Re: FlexiBLAS as BLAS/LAPACK manager - Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal

On Friday, 17 July 2020 at 10:25, Dave Love wrote: > [I found I hadn't sent this earlier, as I should have.] > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FlexiBLAS_as_BLAS/LAPACK_manager > > > > == Summary == > > BLAS/LAPACK packages will be compiled against the FlexiBLAS wrapper > > library,

Re: [fedora-java] Re: Mass rebuild for f33-java11 side tag completed

On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 10:42:45 +0200 Iñaki Ucar wrote: > Could someone with superpowers cancel the following task for me? > Thanks. done, it has already failed on i686 Dan > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=47330918 > > On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 at 09:44, Fabio

Re: Removing packages from module

On 17. 07. 20 6:47, Aleksei Bavshin wrote: In an optimistic case I'd like to believe that once the package is removed from the modulemd file and a new module update is published, the override magic hacked into dnf would stop masking package from non-modular repository. NEVRA would be the only

Re: FlexiBLAS as BLAS/LAPACK manager - Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal

On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 at 10:34, Dave Love wrote: > > [I found I hadn't sent this earlier, as I should have.] > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FlexiBLAS_as_BLAS/LAPACK_manager > > > > == Summary == > > BLAS/LAPACK packages will be compiled against the FlexiBLAS wrapper > > library, which

Re: [fedora-java] Re: Mass rebuild for f33-java11 side tag completed

Could someone with superpowers cancel the following task for me? Thanks. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=47330918 On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 at 09:44, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 5:55 PM Mat Booth wrote: > > Any update? Any thoughts on when you want to merge

Re: Ditch RPM in favor of DPKG

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 3:15 AM Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > > > Oddly, the subject of the original post infers getting rid of rpm but > > the post itself sounds like it's proposing something different and > > that's why I decided to speak up. > > Yes, poor joke of mine, keeps hitting home though

Re: Mass rebuild for f33-java11 side tag completed

> Hello! > > toatal packages: 610 > passed: 427 > failed: 176 > > From the failures, there is 29 which passed in the copr before, and now are > thus failing > from two > reasons - unrelated change, or non-intel64-arch failure. I will put this to > FTBF bugs for > those 29 > pacakges, > > >

Re: FlexiBLAS as BLAS/LAPACK manager - Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal

[I found I hadn't sent this earlier, as I should have.] > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FlexiBLAS_as_BLAS/LAPACK_manager > > == Summary == > BLAS/LAPACK packages will be compiled against the FlexiBLAS wrapper > library, which will set OpenBLAS as system-wide default backend, and > at the

Re: [fedora-java] Re: Mass rebuild for f33-java11 side tag completed

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 5:55 PM Mat Booth wrote: > Any update? Any thoughts on when you want to merge the f33-java11 side tag > back into rawhide? I second this, please don't wait two weeks [0] for merging the side tag, it's only going to cause merge conflict problems with packages that get

Re: Ditch RPM in favor of DPKG

> Oddly, the subject of the original post infers getting rid of rpm but > the post itself sounds like it's proposing something different and > that's why I decided to speak up. Yes, poor joke of mine, keeps hitting home though :) Ditching RPM in favor of DPKG was never meant to be a system-wide

[EPEL-devel] clusterssh for EPEL 8

Hi, Clusterssh is a nice tool to send input to multiple ssh sessions simultaneously -- handy for managing a cluster of systems.  I don't know if there is much other interest for clusterssh, but I wanted to share my experience on building it and it seems like it would be fairly low effort to