On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Jan Zelený wrote:
>> Name them please. Or better yet, report them.
>
> Any plans for local repository support in DNF.
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991014
I'm working on this plugin.
>
> --
Dne Čt 22. ledna 2015 14:54:47, Adam Williamson napsal(a):
> On Wed, 2015-01-21 at 13:40 +0100, Jan Zelený wrote:
> > On 21. 1. 2015 at 11:07:31, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > > > > > 1) DNF will be the default package manager for F22 [2], so
> > > > > > everything is
> > > > > > ok here.
> > > > >
>
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 07:45:21PM -0500, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> > On Jan 21, 2015, at 8:00, Jan Zelený wrote:
> > Also I'd like to point out that if two packages offer the same provide, by
> > definition it means they are 100% exchangeable from the perspective of that
> > functionality.
>
>> current kernels being removed
>
> This was fixed almost a year ago
>
>> and other such issues
>
> Name them please. Or better yet, report them.
That issue about removing core packages isn't fixed properly. I said I
would do some testing and had a little bit of spare time today so did
some testi
Dne 22.1.2015 v 15:30 Jan Zelený napsal(a):
> On 22. 1. 2015 at 15:06:34, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 09:33:31 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>> Dne 20.1.2015 v 14:22 Bohuslav Kabrda napsal(a):
1) DNF will be the default package manager for F22 [2], so everything is
ok here
On Wed, 2015-01-21 at 13:40 +0100, Jan Zelený wrote:
> On 21. 1. 2015 at 11:07:31, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > > > > 1) DNF will be the default package manager for F22 [2], so
> > > > > everything is
> > > > > ok here.
> > > >
> > > > I really wonder what is the state here. This is on my rawhide:
>
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 04:18:15PM +0100, Jan Zelený wrote:
> No problem, IIRC every package can declare itself protected by
> dropping a file into /etc/dnf/protected.d/
A good example of DNF developers listening to user concerns and
adjusting plans, by the way.
> wrong with discussions on devel@
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 01:56:23PM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > I am confident that we will have everything ready at the right
> > time. The way I read it, the change deadline is about testability
> > and general availability of the feature - that's ok for us. At that
> > point we will be ready
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 01:13:51PM +0100, Jan Zelený wrote:
> > The onus in Fedora has _ALWAYS_ been to prove that the new feature is
> > complete and ready to replace the existing working solution, not for
> > everyone else to prove that it's not.
> I'm not so sure about that. Off the top of my he
On Thu, 2015-01-22 at 17:00 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 21.1.2015 v 17:12 Dennis Gilmore napsal(a):
> > On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 11:13:24 +0100
> > Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2015-01-21 at 11:02 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > >> I am using mock for Fedora development with DNF enabled by def
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dne 21.1.2015 v 17:12 Dennis Gilmore napsal(a):
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 11:13:24 +0100
> Mathieu Bridon wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2015-01-21 at 11:02 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >> Dne 21.1.2015 v 10:35 Peter Robinson napsal(a):
> >>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 a
On 22. 1. 2015 at 15:06:34, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 09:33:31 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > Dne 20.1.2015 v 14:22 Bohuslav Kabrda napsal(a):
> > > 1) DNF will be the default package manager for F22 [2], so everything is
> > > ok here.>
> > I really wonder what is the state her
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 09:33:31 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 20.1.2015 v 14:22 Bohuslav Kabrda napsal(a):
> > 1) DNF will be the default package manager for F22 [2], so everything is ok
> > here.
>
> I really wonder what is the state here. This is on my rawhide:
> # dnf remove yum
> python3-c
> On Jan 21, 2015, at 8:00, Jan Zelený wrote:
> Also I'd like to point out that if two packages offer the same provide, by
> definition it means they are 100% exchangeable from the perspective of that
> functionality.
This is very, very wrong. Even minor differences in packaging and API c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 11:13:24 +0100
Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-01-21 at 11:02 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > Dne 21.1.2015 v 10:35 Peter Robinson napsal(a):
> > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Miroslav Suchý
> > > wrote:
> > >> On 01/21/2
-- snip --
> >> The onus in Fedora has _ALWAYS_ been to prove that the new feature is
> >> complete and ready to replace the existing working solution, not for
> >> everyone else to prove that it's not.
> >
> > I'm not so sure about that. Off the top of my head, I can think of
> > rpm-4.12, UsrMo
On St, 2015-01-21 at 11:13 +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> The onus in Fedora has _ALWAYS_ been to prove that the new feature is
> complete and ready to replace the existing working solution, not for
> everyone else to prove that it's not. Given the number of issues I see
> reported with dnf regard
On 01/21/2015 03:47 PM, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
>> Any plans for local repository support in DNF.
>> >
>> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991014
> Good that I did not saw that bug before I switched mock to dnf locally.
>
> This is how I use local repo (created with createrepo) wit
W dniu 21.01.2015 o 13:22, Sudhir Khanger pisze:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Jan Zelený wrote:
>> Name them please. Or better yet, report them.
>
> Any plans for local repository support in DNF.
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991014
Good that I did not saw that bug befor
On 01/21/2015 01:31 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> If they build with yum why is it a bug in the packaging?
It is similar as those times when x86_64 was added.
My package fails on x86_64, but succeed on i386 so it must be compiler problem.
:)
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCE, RHCDS
Red Hat, Senior Software
>> >> > Name them please. Or better yet, report them.
>> >>
>> >> Any plans for local repository support in DNF.
>> >>
>> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991014
>> >
>> > Yes, porting plugins from yum-utils is high on our priority list. Most of
>> > the plugins will be ported over th
>> Isn't it? In the build system I suspect you'd either get:
>> 1) a failed build
>> 2) a package without ruby features
>> 3) something unexpected
>>
>> It might not be a show stopper for a standard package install but it
>> is for reproducible builds
>
> Why wouldn't you get reproducible builds? T
On 21. 1. 2015 at 13:42:01, drago01 wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Peter Robinson
wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >> Dne 21.1.2015 v 12:34 Peter Robinson napsal(a):
> >>> Are we expected to cross referencing previous logs to see if there's
> >>> chang
On 21. 1. 2015 at 12:44:38, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Jan Zelený wrote:
> > On 21. 1. 2015 at 17:52:09, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Jan Zelený wrote:
> >> > Name them please. Or better yet, report them.
> >>
> >> Any plans for local
-- snip --
> > 1) It is not show stopper
>
> Isn't it? In the build system I suspect you'd either get:
> 1) a failed build
> 2) a package without ruby features
> 3) something unexpected
>
> It might not be a show stopper for a standard package install but it
> is for reproducible builds
Why wou
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Jan Zelený wrote:
> On 21. 1. 2015 at 17:52:09, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Jan Zelený wrote:
>> > Name them please. Or better yet, report them.
>>
>> Any plans for local repository support in DNF.
>>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/s
>> >> I really wonder what is the state here. This is on my rawhide:
>> > We strongly believe all the major problems will be resolved in time. Also,
>> > as of last week we have one person dedicated to helping people with
>> > porting their application and the rest of the developers focus mainly on
On 21. 1. 2015 at 17:52:09, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Jan Zelený wrote:
> > Name them please. Or better yet, report them.
>
> Any plans for local repository support in DNF.
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991014
Yes, porting plugins from yum-utils
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> Dne 21.1.2015 v 12:34 Peter Robinson napsal(a):
>>> Are we expected to cross referencing previous logs to see if there's
>>> changes or if it's the same and provide you that informatio
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Jan Zelený wrote:
> On 21. 1. 2015 at 11:13:28, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> > But I'm really interested in state of DNF as default too. Should I
>> > switch mock to use DNF as default? For me there is still lot of
>> > unfinished tasks. E.g. documenting w
On 21. 1. 2015 at 11:07:31, Peter Robinson wrote:
> >> > 1) DNF will be the default package manager for F22 [2], so everything
> >> > is
> >> > ok here.
> >>
> >> I really wonder what is the state here. This is on my rawhide:
> > We strongly believe all the major problems will be resolved in time.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 21.1.2015 v 12:34 Peter Robinson napsal(a):
>> Are we expected to cross referencing previous logs to see if there's
>> changes or if it's the same and provide you that information? We
>> already have too much to do so it's easier to stick
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> But I'm really interested in state of DNF as default too. Should I
>> switch mock to use DNF as default?
>> For me there is still lot of unfinished tasks. E.g. documenting what
>> --installroot should actually do [BZ 1163
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Jan Zelený wrote:
> Name them please. Or better yet, report them.
Any plans for local repository support in DNF.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991014
--
Regards,
Sudhir Khanger,
sudhirkhanger.com,
github.com/donniezazen,
5577 8CDB A059 085D 1D60
On 21. 1. 2015 at 11:13:28, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > But I'm really interested in state of DNF as default too. Should I
> > switch mock to use DNF as default? For me there is still lot of
> > unfinished tasks. E.g. documenting what --installroot should actually
> > do [BZ 1163028]>
Dne 21.1.2015 v 12:34 Peter Robinson napsal(a):
> Are we expected to cross referencing previous logs to see if there's
> changes or if it's the same and provide you that information? We
> already have too much to do so it's easier to stick with yum where we
> know what the outcome is. Sorry, not go
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 21.1.2015 v 12:04 Peter Robinson napsal(a):
> But I'm really interested in state of DNF as default too. Should I switch
> mock to use DNF as default?
> For me there is still lot of unfinished tasks. E.g. documenting what
Dne 21.1.2015 v 12:04 Peter Robinson napsal(a):
But I'm really interested in state of DNF as default too. Should I switch
mock to use DNF as default?
For me there is still lot of unfinished tasks. E.g. documenting what
--installroot should actually do [BZ 1163028]
>>> I don't
> But I'm really interested in state of DNF as default too. Should I switch
> mock to use DNF as default?
> For me there is still lot of unfinished tasks. E.g. documenting what
> --installroot should actually do [BZ 1163028]
I don't think it's ready, it might be useful to hav
>> > 1) DNF will be the default package manager for F22 [2], so everything is
>> > ok here.
>> I really wonder what is the state here. This is on my rawhide:
>
> We strongly believe all the major problems will be resolved in time. Also, as
> of last week we have one person dedicated to helping peop
>>> But I'm really interested in state of DNF as default too. Should I switch
>>> mock to use DNF as default?
>>> For me there is still lot of unfinished tasks. E.g. documenting what
>>> --installroot should actually do [BZ 1163028]
>> I don't think it's ready, it might be useful to have an optio
Dne 21.1.2015 v 11:13 Mathieu Bridon napsal(a):
> On Wed, 2015-01-21 at 11:02 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> Dne 21.1.2015 v 10:35 Peter Robinson napsal(a):
>>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
On 01/21/2015 09:33 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> It is surprising to see so man
On Wed, 2015-01-21 at 11:02 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 21.1.2015 v 10:35 Peter Robinson napsal(a):
> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> >> On 01/21/2015 09:33 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >>> It is surprising to see so many packges depending on yum. Yes, there is
> >>> stu
Dne 21.1.2015 v 10:57 Jan Zelený napsal(a):
> On 21. 1. 2015 at 09:33:31, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> Dne 20.1.2015 v 14:22 Bohuslav Kabrda napsal(a):
>>> 1) DNF will be the default package manager for F22 [2], so everything is
>>> ok here.
>> I really wonder what is the state here. This is on my rawhide
Dne 21.1.2015 v 10:35 Peter Robinson napsal(a):
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>> On 01/21/2015 09:33 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>> It is surprising to see so many packges depending on yum. Yes, there is
>>> stuff like rpm-build and mock,
>> And mock can live without yum. If
On 21. 1. 2015 at 09:33:31, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 20.1.2015 v 14:22 Bohuslav Kabrda napsal(a):
> > 1) DNF will be the default package manager for F22 [2], so everything is
> > ok here.
> I really wonder what is the state here. This is on my rawhide:
We strongly believe all the major problems wi
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> On 01/21/2015 09:33 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> It is surprising to see so many packges depending on yum. Yes, there is
>> stuff like rpm-build and mock,
>
> And mock can live without yum. If we only had weak deps allowed in Fedora
> mock.spe
On 01/21/2015 09:33 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> It is surprising to see so many packges depending on yum. Yes, there is
> stuff like rpm-build and mock,
And mock can live without yum. If we only had weak deps allowed in Fedora
mock.spec would have
Recommends: yum
But I'm really interested in stat
On Wednesday 21 of January 2015 09:33:31 Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 20.1.2015 v 14:22 Bohuslav Kabrda napsal(a):
> > 1) DNF will be the default package manager for F22 [2], so everything is
> > ok here.
> I really wonder what is the state here. This is on my rawhide:
...
> It is surprising to see so
On 21/01/15 08:33, Vít Ondruch wrote:
It is surprising to see so many packges depending on yum. Yes, there is
stuff like rpm-build and mock, but why ABRT, plenty of perl and python
modules, etc.
Well according to the manual page clean_requirements_on_remove defaults
to enabled, which means it
Dne 20.1.2015 v 14:22 Bohuslav Kabrda napsal(a):
> 1) DNF will be the default package manager for F22 [2], so everything is ok
> here.
I really wonder what is the state here. This is on my rawhide:
# dnf remove yum
Dependencies resolved.
=
51 matches
Mail list logo
