Re: Packages FTBFS with Python 3.6

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 08:14:36PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 08:29:16AM -0700, Jerry James wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 7:08 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > > wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:27:19PM -0800, Adam

Re: Packages FTBFS with Python 3.6

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 08:29:16AM -0700, Jerry James wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 7:08 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:27:19PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > >> On Tue, 2017-01-17 at 05:33 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: >

Re: Packages FTBFS with Python 3.6

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:27:19PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2017-01-17 at 05:33 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 05:29:35AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 04:28:18AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > >

Re: Packages FTBFS with Python 3.6

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 04:28:18AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > python3-sympy-0:1.0-3.fc25.noarch > Pfff, it still fails in the test suite :( I'm chipping away at this one. There are some failing python2 tests which I had to disable, but it seems that things are mostly with

Re: Packages FTBFS with Python 3.6

On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 21:26:03 -0800 Adam Williamson wrote: > On Sat, 2017-01-07 at 13:00 +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > python-gensim > > Our version of this is very old. The current upstream version looks > closer to being buildable, but requires the 'smart_open'

Re: Packages FTBFS with Python 3.6

On Sat, 2017-01-07 at 13:00 +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > python-gensim Our version of this is very old. The current upstream version looks closer to being buildable, but requires the 'smart_open' library, which isn't packaged for Fedora yet. I'm not really interested in packaging that just to

Re: Packages FTBFS with Python 3.6

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 03:58:18AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 03:38:59AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > PS. What's the status of the python3.6 rebuild? Can somebody post > > a list of work-needing packages? > > I guess that the right

Re: Packages FTBFS with Python 3.6

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 03:38:59AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > PS. What's the status of the python3.6 rebuild? Can somebody post > a list of work-needing packages? I guess that the right invocation: $ dnf repoquery --whatrequires 'python(abi) = 3.5'

Re: Packages FTBFS with Python 3.6

On Sat, 2017-01-07 at 13:00 +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > python-deap    zbyszek This one needed some pandoc packages rebuilt. I have done all of that, and the python-deap build basically works now (and I enabled the test suite for it too), but my Rawhide build failed because

Re: Packages FTBFS with Python 3.6

On Sat, 2017-01-07 at 13:00 +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > python-sphinxcontrib-programoutput itamarjp >    zbyszek I sent an email about this one the other day. It's been abandoned upstream for many years and both the things we package that used it (python-acme and

Re: Packages FTBFS with Python 3.6

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote: >> Hi all, >> We've recently tried to rebuild all Python packages with Python 3.6. >> However, we currently have bunch of packages that simply

Re: Packages FTBFS with Python 3.6

On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Jerry James wrote: > Awesome! Thanks, Toshio! Unfortunately, sympy still won't build in Rawhide, now due to a newer matplotlib. Upstream bug report: https://github.com/sympy/sympy/issues/11691 -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/

Re: Packages FTBFS with Python 3.6

On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 02:33:29PM -0700, Pete Zaitcev wrote: > On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 00:18:47 +0100 > Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > I've attached the list of failed packages (failed.txt). You can search > > python-ceilometerclient > python-keystoneclient > python-manilaclient >

Re: Packages FTBFS with Python 3.6

On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Toshio built the new python-sphinx last night... please retry. ;) Awesome! Thanks, Toshio! -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/ ___ devel mailing list --

Re: Packages FTBFS with Python 3.6

On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 14:02:44 -0700 Jerry James wrote: > On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Adam Williamson > wrote: > > texlive is *built*, but there's a koji problem with getting it > > tagged: > > > > https://pagure.io/koji/issue/259 > > A

Re: Packages FTBFS with Python 3.6

On Wed, 2016-12-21 at 00:18 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > libproxy The test suite for this is failing (one of the tests triggers an exception) on ppc64, ppc64le and aarch64. Not yet sure why. We might want to ask the arch teams. It passes on x86_64, i686 and armv7hl. This still happens with the

Re: Packages FTBFS with Python 3.6

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > texlive is *built*, but there's a koji problem with getting it tagged: > > https://pagure.io/koji/issue/259 A big "thank you" to everybody who worked on fixing the texlive issue. Unfortunately, sympy still

Re: Packages FTBFS with Python 3.6

ons 2016-12-28 klockan 20:25 +0100 skrev Igor Gnatenko: > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Miro Hrončok > wrote: > > Hi all, > > We've recently tried to rebuild all Python packages with Python 3.6. > > However, we currently have bunch of packages that simply fail to build. >

Re: Packages FTBFS with Python 3.6

On Wed, 2016-12-28 at 12:56 -0700, Jerry James wrote: > On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > Attaching current rawhide/koji packages which depend on python 3.5 > > instead of 3.6 still. > > Sympy needs texlive to build, so it can't be fixed until

Re: Packages FTBFS with Python 3.6

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > Attaching current rawhide/koji packages which depend on python 3.5 > instead of 3.6 still. Sympy needs texlive to build, so it can't be fixed until texlive can be built in Rawhide again. -- Jerry James

Re: Packages FTBFS with Python 3.6

On Wed, 2016-12-28 at 20:25 +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > Hi all, > > We've recently tried to rebuild all Python packages with Python 3.6. > > However, we currently have bunch of packages that simply fail to build. > >

Re: Packages FTBFS with Python 3.6

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote: > Hi all, > We've recently tried to rebuild all Python packages with Python 3.6. > However, we currently have bunch of packages that simply fail to build. > > As the list contains >200 packages, it would be very helpful,

Re: Packages FTBFS with Python 3.6

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote: > Hi all, > We've recently tried to rebuild all Python packages with Python 3.6. > However, we currently have bunch of packages that simply fail to build. > > As the list contains >200 packages, it would be very helpful,

Re: Packages FTBFS with Python 3.6

On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 00:18:47 +0100 Miro Hrončok wrote: > python-xlwt Fixed Cheers! --alec ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Packages FTBFS with Python 3.6

On Fri, 2016-12-23 at 14:33 -0700, Pete Zaitcev wrote: > On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 00:18:47 +0100 > Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > I've attached the list of failed packages (failed.txt). You can search > > python-ceilometerclient > python-keystoneclient > python-manilaclient >

Re: Packages FTBFS with Python 3.6

On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 00:18:47 +0100 Miro Hrončok wrote: > I've attached the list of failed packages (failed.txt). You can search python-ceilometerclient python-keystoneclient python-manilaclient python-swiftclient These are victims of python-oslo-sphinx, needs a new

Re: Packages FTBFS with Python 3.6

On 21.12.2016 00:18, Miro Hrončok wrote: Hi all, We've recently tried to rebuild all Python packages with Python 3.6. However, we currently have bunch of packages that simply fail to build. As the list contains >200 packages, it would be very helpful, if you (package maintainers) could help us

Re: Packages FTBFS with Python 3.6

On 21.12.2016 14:52, Zdenek Dohnal wrote: On 12/21/2016 02:39 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 21.12.2016 14:11, Zdenek Dohnal wrote: I think I encountered same issue with libpython3.5m.so.1.0: Example: Error: nothing provides libpython3.5m.so.1.0 needed by python3-cups-1.9.72-9.fc25.i686. nothing

Re: Packages FTBFS with Python 3.6

On 21.12.2016 14:11, Zdenek Dohnal wrote: I think I encountered same issue with libpython3.5m.so.1.0: Example: Error: nothing provides libpython3.5m.so.1.0 needed by python3-cups-1.9.72-9.fc25.i686. nothing provides libpython3.5m.so.1.0 needed by unbound-libs-1.5.10-1.fc26.i686 Translates

Re: Packages FTBFS with Python 3.6

On 21.12.2016 09:53, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:18:47AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: libguestfs As should be obvious from the (multiple) build failures when you've been trying to build it over the past few days, this fails because of: DEBUG util.py:426: Error:

Re: Packages FTBFS with Python 3.6

On 21.12.2016 07:41, Pavel Raiskup wrote: On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 12:18:47 AM CET Miro Hrončok wrote: Hi all, We've recently tried to rebuild all Python packages with Python 3.6. However, we currently have bunch of packages that simply fail to build. ... Everything currently happens in

Re: Packages FTBFS with Python 3.6

On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 12:18:47 AM CET Miro Hrončok wrote: > Hi all, > We've recently tried to rebuild all Python packages with Python 3.6. > However, we currently have bunch of packages that simply fail to build. > ... > Everything currently happens in a side tag. I will notify you when

Packages FTBFS with Python 3.6

Hi all, We've recently tried to rebuild all Python packages with Python 3.6. However, we currently have bunch of packages that simply fail to build. As the list contains >200 packages, it would be very helpful, if you (package maintainers) could help us solve the issues, as we cannot go one