Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2024-09-10)

On Sat, Sep 14, 2024 at 12:49 PM Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > Josh Boyer wrote: > > Yes, but people could just use HTML mail as well. I'm far too lazy to > > deal with multiple syncs across devices and phones, and other online > > clients suffer from the same

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2024-09-10)

On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 4:50 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > Dne 12. 09. 24 v 1:00 Josh Boyer napsal(a): > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2024, 3:49 PM Adam Williamson > wrote: >> >> On Wed, 2024-09-11 at 19:02 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: >> > As I said, I

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2024-09-10)

On Wed, Sep 11, 2024, 3:49 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2024-09-11 at 19:02 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > As I said, I have no option to *not* send it with wrapped lines ... > > sorry about that. > > You can use real mail clients (Thunderbird, Evolution) with gmail and > they let you w

Re: Schedule for Tuesday's FESCo Meeting (2024-07-23)

On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 6:31 AM Joe Orton wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 08:01:11PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > FESCo is an elected body. If people aren't happy with how they are being > > represented, I would encourage them to find candidates they feel will > &

Re: Schedule for Tuesday's FESCo Meeting (2024-07-23)

On Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 6:38 PM Kevin Kofler via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > #3242 Change: Opt-In Metrics for Fedora Workstation > > https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3242 > > APPROVED (+6, 0, 0) > > And this one is yet another case of FESCo rub

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2024-07-16)

On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 3:17 PM Michel Lind wrote: > > = > # #meeting:fedoraproject.org: fesco > = > > Meeting started by @salimma:fedora.im at 2024-07-16 17:00:25 > > > > Meeting summary > --- > * TOPIC: Init Proc

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2024-07-09)

On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 12:08 PM Stephen Smoogen wrote: > > On Thu, 11 Jul 2024 at 11:34, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 12:46 PM Daniel P. Berrangé > > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 09:36:35AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher w

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2024-07-09)

On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 12:46 PM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 09:36:35AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > I'm guessing Josh's response was an attempt to use AI to generate a > > summary. In the future, please label it as such, so people will read > > it with a critical

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2024-07-09)

ine: Yep, because the summary from the tool was pointless. If I do this again, I'll label it as such. Thank you for the additional context. I think it helps the community understand the issues at hand better. > On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 6:56 AM Josh Boyer wrote: > > > > On Tue

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2024-07-09)

On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 3:14 PM Josh Stone wrote: > > Text Log: > https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2024-07-09/fesco.2024-07-09-17.00.log.txt > HTML Log: > https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2024-07-09/fesco.2024-07-09-17.00.log.html

Re: Guidance on individual packages requiring x86_64-v2 baseline ?

On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 7:30 AM Stephen Smoogen wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 at 16:23, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 8:40 PM Peter Robinson wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 at 19:13, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 19 Ju

Re: Schedule for Monday's FESCo Meeting (2024-06-17)

On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 1:13 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 12:30:23PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 8:25 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 03:2

Re: Schedule for Monday's FESCo Meeting (2024-06-17)

On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 8:25 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 03:20:07PM +0300, Otto Liljalaakso wrote: > > Stephen Gallagher kirjoitti 17.6.2024 klo 23.07: > > > = > > > # #meeting:fedoraproject.org: fesco > > >

Re: [Node.js] Stepping down as Node.js Maintainer in Fedora

On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 11:32 AM Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > tl;dr: I'll be stepping down from maintaining the nodejs22, nodejs20 > and nodejs16 packages in Fedora, effective June 30, 2024. I will > continue to maintain libuv. > > > > It's been a hard decision to come to, but I think this is the

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2023-11-09)

On Thu, Nov 16, 2023, 9:05 AM Stephen Smoogen wrote: > > > On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 at 07:46, Kevin Kofler via devel < > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > >> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: >> > This is called "shooting the messenger". >> >> It is not. See my reply to Fabio. >> >> > LSB requi

Re: An update on RHEL moving to issues.redhat.com

On Sat, Sep 9, 2023 at 4:17 AM Sandro wrote: > > On 09-09-2023 05:33, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 7:34 PM Maxwell G wrote: > > > >> 2023-09-09T01:05:39Z Brendan Conoboy : > >> > >>> All new issues found or desired in RHEL (Or CentOS Stream) need to be > >>> filed on issues.r

Re: List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in August

On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 11:44 AM Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Josh Boyer: > > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 10:53 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > >> > >> On 25. 07. 23 16:42, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> > * Miro Hrončok: > >> > > >> >

Re: List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in August

On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 10:53 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 25. 07. 23 16:42, Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Miro Hrončok: > > > >> glibc32 codonell, fweimer, jakub, mcermak > > > > Is this about FTBFS issues? There isn't any recent build failure in > > Koji, so I d

Re: What is Fedora?

On Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 3:20 PM Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Fri, Jun 23 2023 at 01:27:24 PM -0400, Josh Boyer > wrote: > > Which means equivalent fixes are in CentOS Stream and anyone wanting > > to recreate exactly what is in RHEL is welcome to backport that code > &g

Re: What is Fedora?

On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 9:35 AM Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 23 2023 at 01:07:39 PM +0200, Vít Ondruch > wrote: > > Please understand that (speaking of the user space packages, I cannot > > speak for kernel) there are no other sources then the sources in > > GitLab, > > which is publi

Re: CentOS Stream, RHEL, and Fedora [was Re: What is Fedora?]

On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 5:02 AM Matthew Miller wrote: > > >> ELN is a build of (some) Fedora packages with EL-specific options, so > >> it requires Fedora. > > ELN can exist off an internal non fedora tree. Just depends who is > > updating the tree. > > Sure, but... that's the _opposite_ of the di

Re: F39 Proposal: Make Toolbx a release-blocking deliverable and have release-blocking test criteria (System-Wide Change)

On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 6:28 AM Debarshi Ray via devel wrote: > > Hey, > > I wanted to wrap up this sub-thread on-list, after Owen and I chatted > about it off-list. > > I am fine with having the fedora-toolbox OCI images being defined as > kickstart files in the Fedora infrastructure and built by

Re: Using AI/Machine Learning with rpmautospec?

On Sat, Jun 3, 2023 at 4:06 PM Reon Beon via devel wrote: > > How far along is this? Possible in the next 5-10 years or so? What do you want it to actually do? josh ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: LibreOffice packages

On Sat, Jun 3, 2023 at 3:56 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > On 03/06/2023 02:46, Leslie Satenstein via devel wrote: > > No LibreOffice, no continuation with Fedora. LO better be there with > > F39. Without it, all you have is Firefox. It is not enough to keep > > Fedora Diehards from jumpin

Re: Election Status?

On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 7:58 AM Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > Joe Doss wrote: > > On 5/24/23 4:49 PM, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > >> Wait, what?? Someone at RH wakes up in the morning and decides to cut > >> one of the key roles (or better, THE) of Fedora community and this goes > >> compl

Re: Election Status?

On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 9:34 PM Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > > On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 9:50 PM Mattia Verga via devel > wrote: > > > Wait, what?? Someone at RH wakes up in the morning and decides to cut > > one of the key roles (or better, THE) of Fedora community and this goes > > completely unannou

Re: Election Status?

On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 3:23 PM Tom Stellard wrote: > > On 5/24/23 12:19, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 2:55 PM Peter Boy wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> Am 24.05.2023 um 20:30 schrieb Chris Murphy : > >>> > >>

Re: Election Status?

On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 2:55 PM Peter Boy wrote: > > > > > Am 24.05.2023 um 20:30 schrieb Chris Murphy : > > > > I'm pretty sure we no longer have a program manager? > > What’s that about? Red Hat recently announced a round of layoffs[1] and the Fedora Program Manager role was impacted. Ben post

Re: It’s time to transform the Fedora devel list into something new

On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 8:43 AM Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > Josh Boyer wrote: > > Ah. May or may not. That gives me hope at least. > > Well, considering that we have hundreds of existing contributors, who all > may or may not be willing to adapt to a platfor

Re: It’s time to transform the Fedora devel list into something new

On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 10:42 PM Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > Josh Boyer wrote: > > I want to make sure I understand that statement. You're saying you > > will actively walk away from Fedora because you would have to change > > the manner in which you discuss

Re: It’s time to transform the Fedora devel list into something new

On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 10:21 PM Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > Kamil Paral wrote: > > I've spent more than a decade perfecting my email filters and I have a > > setup that works for me very well. I dislike certain aspects of mailing > > lists (cross-posting, top-posting, reply-to, etc, which j

Re: Retiring Bottles in favor of Flatpak provided by upstream

On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 5:56 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: > > I am not user of Bottles so I won't complain about this particular case, > but the push towards (upstream) Flatpaks is unfortunate :/ Can you elaborate on why you feel that way? josh ___ devel mail

Re: List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in February

On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 2:02 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 11. 01. 23 17:52, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > > Il 11/01/23 13:58, Miro Hrončok ha scritto: > >> sigulkevin, mitr > > > > Retiring this would blow up Fedora infrastructure... the FTB/FTI is >

Re: RISC-V -- are we ready for more, and what do we need to do it?

On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 5:11 AM David Abdurachmanov wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 3:22 PM Josh Boyer wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 9:15 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 8:47 AM Josh Boyer > > > wrote: > &g

Re: RISC-V -- are we ready for more, and what do we need to do it?

On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 9:15 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 8:47 AM Josh Boyer wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jan 8, 2023 at 2:42 AM David Abdurachmanov > > wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 8, 2023 at 2:28 AM Jeff Law wrote: > > &g

Re: RISC-V -- are we ready for more, and what do we need to do it?

On Sun, Jan 8, 2023 at 2:42 AM David Abdurachmanov wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 8, 2023 at 2:28 AM Jeff Law wrote: > > > > > > > > On 1/6/23 23:41, David Abdurachmanov wrote: > > > > > > Summary from multi-year discussions/feedback on this: > > > - We don't have proper hardware to put into the data cen

Re: F38 proposal: Rpmautospec by Default (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 5:11 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 4:02 PM Josh Boyer wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 3:30 AM Petr Pisar wrote: > > > > > > V Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 02:10:52PM -0500, Neal Gompa napsal(a): > > > >

Re: F38 proposal: Rpmautospec by Default (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 3:30 AM Petr Pisar wrote: > > V Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 02:10:52PM -0500, Neal Gompa napsal(a): > > Have we made sure that when Red Hat forks Fedora packages for RHEL > > that they don't truncate or eliminate the Git history anymore? Because I > > would > > personally be very

Re: F38 proposal: Rpmautospec by Default (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 5:56 AM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > On Monday, 02 January 2023 at 09:57, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > Dne 02. 01. 23 v 9:38 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski napsal(a): > > > produces bogus changelog messages and artificially > > > inflates Release counters. > > > >

Re: F38 proposal: Rpmautospec by Default (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 4:43 AM Maxwell G via devel wrote: > > On Mon Jan 2, 2023 at 09:57 +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > Dne 02. 01. 23 v 9:38 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski napsal(a): > > > produces bogus changelog messages and artificially > > > inflates Release counters. > > > > I always wond

Re: F38 proposal: Rpmautospec by Default (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 5:17 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 4:48 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 02:10:52PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 2:02 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Rp

Re: Policy on supporting old and external software packages and compat RPMS

On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 2:01 PM Stephen Smoogen wrote: > > > > On Tue, 6 Dec 2022 at 13:50, Josh Boyer wrote: >> >> On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 11:27 AM Neal Gompa wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 7:54 AM Josh Boyer >> > wrote: >>

Re: Policy on supporting old and external software packages and compat RPMS

On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 11:27 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 7:54 AM Josh Boyer wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 1:43 AM Terry Barnaby wrote: > > > > > > On 05/12/2022 16:00, Jarek Prokop wrote: > > > > > > > >

Re: Policy on supporting old and external software packages and compat RPMS

On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 1:43 AM Terry Barnaby wrote: > > On 05/12/2022 16:00, Jarek Prokop wrote: > > > On 12/5/22 14:57, Peter Robinson wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 12:01 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel > wrote: > > On 05/12/2022 12:39, Terry Barnaby wrote: > > I am wondering what Fedora's polic

Re: Replacing GNOME Disks with Blivet GUI in comps' admin-tools?

On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 9:37 AM Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 09, 2022 at 05:17:29AM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > IMHO, we need a proper solution for the general comps issue rather than that > > half-baked compromise that does not really improve the situation. KDE Plasma > > I

Re: Copr delete-by-default expiration policy still unacceptable

On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 11:04 AM Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 2:25 PM Josh Boyer wrote: > > > Would you be willing to pay for that feature? > > A "freemium" COPR service? > > I suspect that that would be such a > niche service

Re: Copr delete-by-default expiration policy still unacceptable

On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 10:48 AM Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > Josh Boyer wrote: > > Would you be willing to pay for that feature? > > Probably not, because at that point, it would probably be cheaper to just > set up a mirror or even a full-fledged build system on a VPS

Re: Copr delete-by-default expiration policy still unacceptable

On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 8:41 AM Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > Dne 13. 10. 22 v 6:12 Kevin Kofler via devel napsal(a): > >> I am really angry at Copr's expiration policy once again. It looks like I > >> missed the deadline to renew the expired chroots (I still do not g

Re: F39 proposal: Replace DNF with DNF5 (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 2:29 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ReplaceDnfWithDnf5 > > This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes > process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive > community feedback. This proposal will only be imp

Re: proposal idea: EOL notifications

On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 6:29 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 06:34:16PM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > Dne 08. 07. 22 v 4:59 Stewart Smith via devel napsal(a): > > > > Another - what do we do about, e.g., Fedora IoT and Fedora CoreOS, > > > > which have their ow

Re: proposal idea: EOL notifications

On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 2:46 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Mon, 2022-07-11 at 07:02 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 12:34 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > > > > > Dne 08. 07. 22 v 4:59 Stewart Smith via devel napsal(a): > > > > >

Re: proposal idea: EOL notifications

On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 12:34 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > Dne 08. 07. 22 v 4:59 Stewart Smith via devel napsal(a): > > Another - what do we do about, e.g., Fedora IoT and Fedora CoreOS, > which have their own somewhat different release/life cycles? What about > module lifecycles? What is it about

Re: proposal idea: EOL notifications

On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 12:21 PM Lennart Poettering wrote: > > On Mi, 06.07.22 18:15, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote: > > > I'm aware of the release schedule ;) > > The date would only need to be set (at most) twice: > > - once before the release of Fn > > - after Fn+2 is rel

Re: proposal idea: EOL notifications

On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 11:49 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 11:45 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > In https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2803 Artem asked for a user-visible > > notification when a Fedora stops being supported. Various proposals > > for onlin

Re: [Container-sig] About Fedora containers

On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 3:42 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 08:21:48AM +0200, Lumír Balhar wrote: > > Because we had a lot of troubles with Fedora infra for container > > images (I can provide more details, if you want), we have decided to > > move our containers to https://q

Re: exploded git tree for kernel-5.17.4-200.fc35

On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 2:39 AM Laszlo Ersek wrote: > > Hi, > > where can I find the exploded git tree for "kernel-5.17.4-200.fc35"? > > The tree at > is > no good; it does not have tags beyond .fc33. I'm going to delete this tr

Re: [CentOS-devel] [EPEL-devel] RHEL moving to issues.redhat.com only long term

On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 1:42 AM Thomas Stephen Lee wrote: > > The package I need is redhat-lsb-core. We have no plans to add redhat-lsb-core at this time. Most users are able to port their software to use the fields in /etc/os-release. josh > On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 1:57 AM Josh Boy

Re: [CentOS-devel] [EPEL-devel] RHEL moving to issues.redhat.com only long term

On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 4:11 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 07:37:46AM +0200, Branislav Náter wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 4:15 AM Thomas Stephen Lee > > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I am trying to request a package for RHEL 9, but I cannot find RHEL > > >

Re: F37 Change: Deprecate Legacy BIOS (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 7:08 AM Richard Hughes wrote: > > On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 at 11:20, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski > wrote: > > > and on its way out. As it ages, maintainability has decreased, and > > > the status quo of maintaining both stacks in perpetuity is not viable > > > for those curre

Re: Landing a larger-than-release change (distrusting SHA-1 signatures)

On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 7:05 AM Alexander Sosedkin wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 12:51 AM Josh Boyer wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 1:40 PM Alexander Sosedkin > > wrote: > > > > > > Hello, community, I need your wisdom for planning a di

Re: Landing a larger-than-release change (distrusting SHA-1 signatures)

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 1:40 PM Alexander Sosedkin wrote: > > Hello, community, I need your wisdom for planning a disruptive change. > > Fedora 28 had https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/StrongCryptoSettings > Fedora 33 had https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/StrongCryptoSettings2 > I believe

Re: FESCo wants to know what you use i686 packages for

On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 1:37 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 12:54:23PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 11:55 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 09:54:12AM -04

Re: FESCo wants to know what you use i686 packages for

On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 11:55 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 09:54:12AM -0400, David Cantrell wrote: > > If you use i686 packages for something now, please respond to this thread. > > I use i686 versions of libraries to do local 32-bit builds of C > software I'm

Re: RHEL moving to issues.redhat.com only long term

On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 2:59 PM Dan Čermák wrote: > > Hi Adam, > > Adam Williamson writes: > > > snip > > > That could obviously have pretty significant consequences for Fedora. > > Bugzilla isn't only an issue tracker for Fedora; we run some > > significant processes through it, notably the Chan

Re: RHEL moving to issues.redhat.com only long term

On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 11:12 AM Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Mon, 2022-03-07 at 12:44 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > Hi Fedora, CentOS, and EPEL Communities! > > > > As part of our continued 3 year major Red Hat Enterprise Linux release > > cadence, RHEL 9 developme

Re: [CentOS-devel] [EPEL-devel] RHEL moving to issues.redhat.com only long term

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 5:05 PM Davide Cavalca via CentOS-devel wrote: > > On Mon, 2022-03-07 at 12:44 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > Hi Fedora, CentOS, and EPEL Communities! > > > > As part of our continued 3 year major Red Hat Enterprise Linux > > release >

RHEL moving to issues.redhat.com only long term

Hi Fedora, CentOS, and EPEL Communities! As part of our continued 3 year major Red Hat Enterprise Linux release cadence, RHEL 9 development is starting to wrap up with the spring 2022 release coming soon. That means planning for the next release will start in earnest in the very near future. As

Re: Dropping 32bit arches from pypy2.7?

On Thu, Mar 3, 2022, 1:21 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > Hello. > > pypy 2.7 fails to build with GCC 12 on 32 bit arches. > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2046857 > > Instead of investigating this and trying to fix this, I wonder if I can > just > excludearch %ix86 and %arm32. No other F

Re: Workflow and other problems with the Fedora container infrastructure

On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 8:40 AM Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 08:42:30AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > >On Sat, Jan 15, 2022, 6:57 PM Kevin Fenzi <[1]ke...@scrye.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 02:14:19PM -0500, Neal Gompa wr

Re: Workflow and other problems with the Fedora container infrastructure

On Sat, Jan 15, 2022, 6:57 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 02:14:19PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > One of the things that has recently happened in the Koji space is the > > addition of a kiwi-build task to build images using the KIWI tool[1]. > > > > KIWI supports building all

Re: F36 Change: Enable fs-verity in RPM (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 1:15 PM Davide Cavalca wrote: > > On Thu, 2021-12-02 at 19:10 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 2, 2021, 5:33 PM Davide Cavalca via devel > > wrote: > > > > > Correct, XFS doesn't support fs-verity at the moment (though it &

Re: F36 Change: Enable fs-verity in RPM (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 7:27 PM Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: > > Hello, > > On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 07:10:32PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 2, 2021, 5:33 PM Davide Cavalca via devel < > > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > > > > O

Re: F36 Change: Enable fs-verity in RPM (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Thu, Dec 2, 2021, 5:33 PM Davide Cavalca via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Thu, 2021-12-02 at 13:09 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 02:36:51PM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote: > > ...snip... > > > > > > In the context of rpm, there are two parts to this: > > >

Re: Onboarding package

On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 11:27 AM Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 09:17:30PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > >Is this really necessary? > > > > Yes. Because anyone can add something like this: > > %post > > rm -rf / > > > > And it will destroy the installed system or eve

Re: Onboarding package

On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 1:10 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 10:57:42AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Thoughts? > > I like the idea! It's indeed a good idea. > We can block such a package from ever appearing in a compose in pungi. You'd need to block it from ever appearing in t

Re: I think we should stop building i686 packages we're not shipping

On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 12:54 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > > This is an off-shoot thought of the 32-bit ARM conversation. Right now, we > build stuff like libreoffice for i686, but then (mostly) don't ship it. > This seems like a waste of resources and time. > > I know it's somewhat complicated (for

Re: Where has the kernel-doc package gone?

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 1:44 PM Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On Mon, 30 Aug 2021 at 13:07, Nils K wrote: > > > > I recently had to perform a bit of development/research where I often had > > to take a look in the kernel documentation. > > > > Most of the time was spend offline so I wanted to

Re: building against epel8 modules

On Wed, Jun 23, 2021, 4:58 AM Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 1:25 PM Jiri Vanek wrote: > > > > > > > > On 6/22/21 7:08 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > > Welcome to RHEL-8 modularity and the joy it brings anyone trying to > > > port software to 8. The problem is not with

Re: Fedora Source-git SIG report #1 (June 2021)

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021, 8:52 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 3:43 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 03:49:23AM +, Dan Čermák wrote: > > > > > > > > > On June 24, 2021 9:22:51 PM UTC, "Miro Hrončok" > wrote: > > > >On 24. 06. 21 23:07, Miros

Re: What are https://src.fedoraproject.org/container ?

On Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 8:01 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 7:54 AM Josh Boyer > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2021, 8:35 AM Stephen Gallagher > wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 5:51 AM Richard W.M. Jones > w

Re: What are https://src.fedoraproject.org/container ?

On Thu, Jun 10, 2021, 8:35 AM Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 5:51 AM Richard W.M. Jones > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 09:39:38AM +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 09:02:47 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > > > > > > This appeared yesterday:

Re: Fedora 34 Change: Signed RPM Contents (late System-Wide Change)

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021, 3:47 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 3:44 PM Matthew Miller > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:44:05AM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > * Try and change the storage format of the signatures to not take up > > > tons of room. I guess this would be in i

Re: Fedora 34 Change: Golang 1.16 (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 2:40 PM Robbie Harwood wrote: > > Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek writes: > > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 03:19:16PM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote: > >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/golang1.16 > >> > >> == Summary == > >> Rebase of Golang package to upcoming version 1.16 in F

Re: Fedora 34 Change: Signed RPM Contents (late System-Wide Change)

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:39 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:05 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Signed_RPM_Contents > > > > Note that this change was submitted after the deadline, but since it can be > > shipped in an complete state, I am stil

Re: What is the most time consuming task for you as packager?

On Tue, Dec 15, 2020, 5:29 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > I am looking for challenges for upcoming year - what I and my team should > enhance. I have some ideas, but I want to hear > yours. > > What you - as Fedora packager - find most time consuming on packaging? > Where you will welcome more simpli

Re: End of CentOS Linux: What about Fedora?

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 8:12 AM Sergio Belkin wrote: > > > > El jue, 10 dic 2020 a las 9:52, Josh Boyer () > escribió: >> >> On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 7:55 AM Sergio Belkin wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > El mié, 9 dic 2020 a las 9:28, Pe

Re: End of CentOS Linux: What about Fedora?

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 7:55 AM Sergio Belkin wrote: > > > > El mié, 9 dic 2020 a las 9:28, Peter Robinson () > escribió: >> >> On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 11:12 AM Christoph Karl wrote: >> > >> > Hello! >> > >> > On 09.12.20 04:26, Sergio Belkin wrote: >> > > How does this (https://blog.centos.org/20

Re: The future of Fedora Server (was Re: Fedora 34 Change: Make Fedora CoreOS a Fedora Edition (System-Wide Change))

On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 2:33 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 07:53:12PM +0100, p...@uni-bremen.de wrote: > > I’m not a maintainer but I use Fedora Server for a lot of our university > > research institutions infrastructure (and I’m a dormant member of Fedora > > docs). > > > >

Re: Fedora 34 Change: Make Fedora CoreOS a Fedora Edition (System-Wide Change)

On Thu, Dec 3, 2020, 4:11 PM Colin Walters wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2020, at 2:14 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > This seems more split on the OS consumption model to me, rather than > > the tools to make it. The end user shouldn't care at all about what > > t

Re: Fedora 34 Change: Make Fedora CoreOS a Fedora Edition (System-Wide Change)

On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 1:59 PM Colin Walters wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2020, at 12:19 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > > > What does the question "is Fedora CoreOS 34 ready to go" even mean, in > > the context of how CoreOS is built and released? What set of bits will > > we be deciding to ship

Disabling armv7hl in ELN

Hi All, When originally conceived, ELN followed all architectures that Fedora builds for. The intention here was good but we have discovered that it is causing some burden for maintainers and there is no underlying reason for this in the Enterprise context. I've filed https://github.com/fedora-e

Re: btrfs and default page sizes (4k vs 64k)

of switching to > > > 64k pages for ARM and POWER. We got that change in Fedora for POWER > > > but not ARM. It has led to all kinds of unfortunate problems that are > > > gradually being worked on and fixed upstream. > > > > Sub-page block support in filesystem

Re: question about ELN builds of glusterfs and ceph?

On Tue, Sep 8, 2020, 9:16 AM Kaleb Keithley wrote: > I confess I'm a bit ignorant about how the ELN builds are going to be > used. Especially the ELN builds of glusterfs and ceph. > > That aside— > > Red Hat ships GlusterFS and Ceph (RHGS and RHCS respectively) as products, > and generally speaki

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:21 AM Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 2:31 PM Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 8:01 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > What makes RHEL so different that the failure is not relevant to it? Is > > > it the >

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 10:14 AM Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 08:30:37AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 8:01 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > > > > On 22. 06. 20 21:36, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > >> I'd

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:42 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 23. 06. 20 14:30, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 8:01 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > >> > >> On 22. 06. 20 21:36, Josh Boyer wrote: > >>>> I'd like to ask whether RHEL 9 has d

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 8:01 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 22. 06. 20 21:36, Josh Boyer wrote: > >> I'd like to ask whether RHEL 9 has decided for default modular streams > >> despite > >> their failure in Fedora, whether this decision is final and

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 7:56 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 23. 06. 20 13:43, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 7:36 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > >> > >> On 23. 06. 20 13:29, Josh Boyer wrote: > >>>> (It*may* be possible

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 7:36 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 23. 06. 20 13:29, Josh Boyer wrote: > >>(It*may* be possible to automatize this, but not as easily as with > >>singular packages. And considering that non-modularized packages > >>need to

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 5:14 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 03:36:30PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > We know within RHEL we have teams that will likely continue using > > default streams. We also know that some teams will not. Further we &

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >