On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 3:48 AM Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > To make things even more interesting, the non-modular Java stack has
> > almost reached parity with what's available from the shiny module
> > branches, except a handful of packages that require more work than a
> >
Fabio Valentini wrote:
> To make things even more interesting, the non-modular Java stack has
> almost reached parity with what's available from the shiny module
> branches, except a handful of packages that require more work than a
> simple "bump version and build" (for example, the rebase from ma
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 12:19 AM Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> > I'm quite certain that forbidding people to move to module-only would mean
> > that we would not only not have a Java stack in Fedora but also no Java
> > module too.
>
> I think that banning module-only packages w
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> He might also say that Java is a curse and if it went away.. that
> would just mean people would go back to coding in C++ as they should.
> However that is speculation on my part.
I actually need Java for work, but I don't really need anything beyond
java-1.8.0-openj
Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> I'm quite certain that forbidding people to move to module-only would mean
> that we would not only not have a Java stack in Fedora but also no Java
> module too.
I think that banning module-only packages would actually get Java back to
non-modular-only, since the goal of
On 9/19/19 10:44 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
Randy Barlow wrote:
It is a disservice to our users to provide them with unmaintained
packages,
It is a disservice to our users to NOT provide them with unmaintained
packages. If, as a user, you NEED a package, you w
On Thu, 2019-09-19 at 21:56 -0700, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 9/19/19 9:28 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Please note, I'm not sure if you're aware, but it's certainly not the
> > case that Kevin "contribute[s] nothing in return". He's worked on
> > Fedora packaging, especially around KDE, for many
On 9/19/19 9:28 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Please note, I'm not sure if you're aware, but it's certainly not the
case that Kevin "contribute[s] nothing in return". He's worked on
Fedora packaging, especially around KDE, for many years.
I was thinking about users in general, in response to Kevi
On Thu, 2019-09-19 at 20:36 -0700, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 9/19/19 7:12 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > It is absolutely not realistic to expect all end users to become package
> > maintainers.
>
> Sure, isn't it also unrealistic to expect to receive a massive library
> of software and contribute
On 9/19/19 7:12 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
It is absolutely not realistic to expect all end users to become package
maintainers.
Sure, isn't it also unrealistic to expect to receive a massive library
of software and contribute nothing in return? Do you have an inherent
right to the product of
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
> Randy Barlow wrote:
> > It is a disservice to our users to provide them with unmaintained
> > packages,
>
> It is a disservice to our users to NOT provide them with unmaintained
> packages. If, as a user, you NEED a package, you would rather have it
> pres
We had Java in Fedora long before modules, but not having a Java module would
certainly be the case in that scenario, and that'd be fine. We've been able to
install multiple different Java versions on the same Fedora install for some
time now, something which is not possible with modules.
On Se
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 16:46, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
>
> * Kevin Kofler [19/09/2019 16:12] :
> >
> > That could have been prevented by policy, but deliberately was not, because
> > the people behind Modularity had exactly this (moving random packages to
> > module-only) as their hidden agenda.
>
>
Randy Barlow wrote:
> It is a disservice to our users to provide them with unmaintained
> packages,
It is a disservice to our users to NOT provide them with unmaintained
packages. If, as a user, you NEED a package, you would rather have it
present but unmaintained than not have it at all!
* Kevin Kofler [19/09/2019 16:12] :
>
> That could have been prevented by policy, but deliberately was not, because
> the people behind Modularity had exactly this (moving random packages to
> module-only) as their hidden agenda.
I'm quite certain that forbidding people to move to module-only wo
* John M. Harris, Jr. [17/09/2019 21:27] :
>
> I can provide a link to the vendor's website when I get home.
I'm interested in this.
Emmanuel
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedor
On Wed, 2019-09-18 at 23:24 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> And if an otherwise maintained package FTBFS, if it does not actually
> need
> any change, I don't see how this is even an issue at all.
FTBFS packages can get CVEs filed against them and then they can be
difficult to fix. There are a few p
Neal Gompa wrote:
> This is true for building locally for i686. You cannot do 32-bit
> development with multilib x86_64 content.
Yes, that is my point. Well, actually, you can do some amount of 32-bit
development with multilib -devel packages, but mock RPM builds require a
complete 32-bit chroot
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 5:25 PM Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > So... building multilib packages is still very much supported. You cannot
> > *run* a pure-i686 environment, but you can 32 bit development.
>
> You have to configure a slow, non-mirrored repository for
On 9/18/19 17:41, Petr Pisar wrote:
On 2019-09-18, Kalev Lember wrote:
Hm, did perl get moved to the modular repo? That sounds like it is going
to cause more issues than solve as it's not a leaf package. Why can't it
stay as a regular package?
Perl is still a regular package and until Fedora
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> So... building multilib packages is still very much supported. You cannot
> *run* a pure-i686 environment, but you can 32 bit development.
You have to configure a slow, non-mirrored repository for that instead of
just using the same mirrored URL pattern (with
I want to keep "old" stuff in, because there's no reason to drop the support
for systems that we already support, if we can do so without breaking anything.
On September 18, 2019 7:07:30 PM UTC, "Anderson, Charles R"
wrote:
>So, not only do you want to keep "old" stuff in Fedora (i686), but now
So, not only do you want to keep "old" stuff in Fedora (i686), but now you want
to revert/remove "new" stuff (modules) too? I'm beginning to think that Fedora
just isn't a good fit for you.
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 06:22:52PM +, John M. Harris, Jr. wrote:
> Removing modules is a potential so
On 9/18/19 1:38 PM, John M. Harris, Jr. wrote:
Thank you for this link, looks like there's not a lot of issues, and most are
closed.
Don't assume closed = fixed. You'll see some of them are closed due to lack of input
from the reporter and some are closed due to being reported against EOL ver
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 14:32, John M. Harris, Jr. wrote:
>
> These "obsolete" stacks you refer to can easily coexist with newer software,
> or newer hardware. They currently do, for example. I really don't understand
> why there is so much hostility against anything perceived as being old here.
Thank you for this link, looks like there's not a lot of issues, and most are
closed.
On September 18, 2019 4:59:33 PM UTC, Michael Cronenworth
wrote:
>On 9/17/19 7:01 PM, John M. Harris, Jr. wrote:
>> The thing is, i686 still works. The kernel still builds as well,
>without issue. I
>> have n
These "obsolete" stacks you refer to can easily coexist with newer software, or
newer hardware. They currently do, for example. I really don't understand why
there is so much hostility against anything perceived as being old here.
On September 18, 2019 10:24:31 AM UTC, "Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szm
Agreed, especially when there is little to no call for such a thing.
For example, Python 2 and Python 3 can and do coexist. i686 builds can coexist
with x86_64 builds.
On September 18, 2019 9:56:49 AM UTC, Kevin Kofler
wrote:
>John M. Harris, Jr. wrote:
>> These are generic servers. I can prov
Removing modules is a potential solution to this, as it would simplify package
management.
On September 18, 2019 8:29:49 AM UTC, Petr Pisar wrote:
>On 2019-09-18, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> Error:
>> Problem 1: package crypto-utils-2.5-4.fc29.x86_64 requires
>> libperl.so.5.28()(64bit), but no
On 9/17/19 7:01 PM, John M. Harris, Jr. wrote:
The thing is, i686 still works. The kernel still builds as well, without issue. I
have no idea what the issues that have been mentioned are, and I've kept asking.
Nobody has given me an answer. Nobody has pointed me to an issue, or I'd be
working o
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 10:06:21AM -0400, Randy Barlow wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-09-17 at 19:15 -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > fork it and make Memdora for low memory systems.
>
> If you make Memdora, then you will also need to think of four values
> that start with M:
>
> Mriends
> Mreedom
>
On 2019-09-18, Kalev Lember wrote:
> Hm, did perl get moved to the modular repo? That sounds like it is going
> to cause more issues than solve as it's not a leaf package. Why can't it
> stay as a regular package?
>
Perl is still a regular package and until Fedora allows modules in
a build root
On Wed, 2019-09-18 at 09:15 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 9/17/19 4:04 PM, Mohan Boddu wrote:
>
> > Since this is a Beta release, we expect that you may encounter bugs or
> > missing features. To report issues encountered during testing, contact the
> > Fedora QA team via the mailing list or i
On Wed, 2019-09-18 at 12:11 +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
> On 9/18/19 10:29, Petr Pisar wrote:
> > On 2019-09-18, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > - package perl-libs-4:5.28.2-439.module_f31+6019+b24e098f.x86_64 is
> > > excluded
> >
> > Funnily DNF finds out that you could actually get that package
On Tue, 2019-09-17 at 19:15 -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> fork it and make Memdora for low memory systems.
If you make Memdora, then you will also need to think of four values
that start with M:
Mriends
Mreedom
Mirst
Meatures
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message
> Featuritis? Actually, do not see any usefulness in any module.
*any* module ?
Maybe you just haven't met the right use case yet.
I maintain packages of MariaDB and MySQL projects. There's no better
way I can imagine, to develop two version of the packages of the DB,
than modules.
Fedora have Mar
On 9/18/19 12:11 PM, Kalev Lember wrote:
On 9/18/19 10:29, Petr Pisar wrote:
On 2019-09-18, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
- package perl-libs-4:5.28.2-439.module_f31+6019+b24e098f.x86_64 is
excluded
Funnily DNF finds out that you could actually get that package satisfied
if you enabled a modula
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 11:56:49AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> John M. Harris, Jr. wrote:
> > These are generic servers. I can provide a link to the vendor's website
> > when I get home. It is not Dell, Lenovo or similar, those are currently
> > selling mostly x86_64. Additionally, many users don'
On 9/18/19 10:29, Petr Pisar wrote:
On 2019-09-18, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
- package perl-libs-4:5.28.2-439.module_f31+6019+b24e098f.x86_64 is
excluded
Funnily DNF finds out that you could actually get that package satisfied
if you enabled a modular Perl. Unfortunatelly DNF does not report
John M. Harris, Jr. wrote:
> These are generic servers. I can provide a link to the vendor's website
> when I get home. It is not Dell, Lenovo or similar, those are currently
> selling mostly x86_64. Additionally, many users don't want to buy a new
> computer just because a software project made th
On 2019-09-18, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Error:
> Problem 1: package crypto-utils-2.5-4.fc29.x86_64 requires
> libperl.so.5.28()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>- package crypto-utils-2.5-4.fc29.x86_64 requires
> perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.28.0), but none of the providers can
On 9/17/19 4:04 PM, Mohan Boddu wrote:
Since this is a Beta release, we expect that you may encounter bugs or
missing features. To report issues encountered during testing, contact the
Fedora QA team via the mailing list or in #fedora-qa on Freenode.
Some not so pleasant results:
# dnf system
Hi John,
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 2:02 AM John M. Harris, Jr.
wrote:
>
> The thing is, i686 still works. The kernel still builds as well, without
> issue. I have no idea what the issues that have been mentioned are, and I've
> kept asking. Nobody has given me an answer. Nobody has pointed me to
On Tue, 2019-09-17 at 21:27 +, John M. Harris, Jr. wrote:
>
> Also, what issues have you run into with x86 other than issues with
> the memory limit? Most of my systems do not have more than 4 GiB of
> memory to begin with. My laptop is, perhaps, the only exception among
> my personal hardware
The thing is, i686 still works. The kernel still builds as well, without issue.
I have no idea what the issues that have been mentioned are, and I've kept
asking. Nobody has given me an answer. Nobody has pointed me to an issue, or
I'd be working on that in my free time.
LibreOffice and Firefox
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 at 17:28, John M. Harris, Jr. wrote:
>
> These are generic servers. I can provide a link to the vendor's website when
> I get home. It is not Dell, Lenovo or similar, those are currently selling
> mostly x86_64. Additionally, many users don't want to buy a new computer just
x86_64
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraprojec
These are generic servers. I can provide a link to the vendor's website when I
get home. It is not Dell, Lenovo or similar, those are currently selling mostly
x86_64. Additionally, many users don't want to buy a new computer just because
a software project made the decision to randomly drop supp
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 at 16:53, John M. Harris, Jr. wrote:
>
> I do mean 32 bit. Contrary to what is published in the Magazine article, x86
> systems are still produced to this day, and are not unpopular. I have 14 of
> such systems, 4 produced within the last year.
>
Popularity is a loaded word
On 9/17/19 1:52 PM, John M. Harris, Jr. wrote:
I do mean 32 bit. Contrary to what is published in the Magazine article,
x86 systems are still produced to this day, and are not unpopular. I
have 14 of such systems, 4 produced within the last year.
Do you have a link to one of those? What do yo
I do mean 32 bit. Contrary to what is published in the Magazine article, x86
systems are still produced to this day, and are not unpopular. I have 14 of
such systems, 4 produced within the last year.
On September 17, 2019 8:50:23 PM UTC, Samuel Sieb wrote:
>On 9/17/19 1:48 PM, John M. Harris, J
On 9/17/19 1:48 PM, John M. Harris, Jr. wrote:
I have 14 systems that failed to update to F31 (predictably so). These
are x86 systems, which previously had no major issues. I have reverted
to a previous snapshot using a recovery disk.
Predictably? Do you have more details than that? Or by x8
I have 14 systems that failed to update to F31 (predictably so). These are x86
systems, which previously had no major issues. I have reverted to a previous
snapshot using a recovery disk.
On September 17, 2019 2:04:37 PM UTC, Mohan Boddu wrote:
>Fedora 31 Beta Released
>
What architecture are you running?
On September 17, 2019 8:19:03 PM UTC, sixpack13 wrote:
>just upgraded from F30 to F31 Beta *WITHOUT* any errors !
>
>neat !
>
>thanks Fedora People !!!
>___
>devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>To un
just upgraded from F30 to F31 Beta *WITHOUT* any errors !
neat !
thanks Fedora People !!!
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.f
Fedora 31 Beta Released
--
We're excited to announce the release of Fedora 31 Beta.
A short list of highlights:
* GNOME 3.34 (As part of updates)
* Farewell to bootable i686
* AArch64 Xfce Desktop image
* And more...
For more details about the release, read th
56 matches
Mail list logo
