Re: automated packaging

On Mon, 2017-03-27 at 12:26 +, Petr Pisar wrote: > Or are these test failures expected to be delivered through FMN only? This is currently how they are handled. I have my FMN settings configured to send these to me over IRC and that works well for me. However, I don't believe that is the

Re: automated packaging

On 2017-03-24, Randy Barlow wrote: > The JavaScript that loads the taskotron results from resultsdb is in > Bodhi, not taskotron: > You are right. It looks like NoScript Firefox extensions blocks AJAX requests too. Maybe because the response contains a javascript

Re: automated packaging

On Fri, 2017-03-24 at 13:38 +, Petr Pisar wrote: > third-party == from different host (bodhi.fedoraproject.org. != > taskotron.fedoraproject.org.). The JavaScript that loads the taskotron results from resultsdb is in Bodhi, not taskotron:

Re: automated packaging

On 2017-03-24, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 09:11:22AM +, Petr Pisar wrote: >> > It would be under the "Automated Test Results", >> >> So this the stuff loaded by a third-party javascript code that I have >> disabled. That explains why I wasn't

Re: automated packaging

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 09:11:22AM +, Petr Pisar wrote: > > It would be under the "Automated Test Results", > > So this the stuff loaded by a third-party javascript code that I have > disabled. That explains why I wasn't able to see it anywhere. I don't think we use any "third-party"

Re: automated packaging

On 2017-03-24, Dan Horák wrote: > On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 07:10:47 + (UTC) > Petr Pisar wrote: > >> On 2017-03-23, Michael Catanzaro wrote: >> > On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 06:32 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: >> >> That's not true, there are

Re: automated packaging

On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 09:54 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 09:20 +0100, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: > > > > > FWIW, I would be *extremely* reluctant to use something that big > > > that's > > > a) written in shell script (ugh) and b) has no tests. > > > > How did you

Re: automated packaging

On Fri, 2017-03-24 at 08:27 +0100, Dan Horák wrote: > On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 07:10:47 + (UTC) > Petr Pisar wrote: > > > On 2017-03-23, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > > On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 06:32 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > > > That's not true,

Re: automated packaging

On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 07:10:47 + (UTC) Petr Pisar wrote: > On 2017-03-23, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 06:32 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > >> That's not true, there are ABI checks in the sidebar on koji. > > > > Sorry, in the

Re: automated packaging

On 2017-03-23, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 06:32 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: >> That's not true, there are ABI checks in the sidebar on koji. > > Sorry, in the sidebar in *Bodhi*. Could you be more specific (URL or so)? I cannot find it on Bodhi web

Re: automated packaging

On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 09:20 +0100, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: > > > FWIW, I would be *extremely* reluctant to use something that big > > that's > > a) written in shell script (ugh) and b) has no tests. > > How did you figure the (b) part? The package itself has extensive > tests. I meant

Re: automated packaging

On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 06:32 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > That's not true, there are ABI checks in the sidebar on koji. Sorry, in the sidebar in *Bodhi*. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: automated packaging

On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 09:20 +0100, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: > Unless you mean about fedora testing in general. It is true fedora > provides no practical infrastructure for testing. Even basic checks > like ABI checks for libraries are missing on updates; that's sad but > shouldn't stop

Re: automated packaging

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 11:02:28AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017, at 06:00 AM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: > > Hi, > > For several packages it is possible to automate build, test and > > package updating on multiple fedora releases (+epel) in a single > > keypress

Re: automated packaging

rced tool for all Fedora contributors. Note that this is not my tool, and my post is not about imposing any specific tool. What I'm trying to suggest here is to move to automated packaging, not talk about using a tool. That is, being able to tie certain packages to certain upstream streams per re

Re: automated packaging

Dne 23.3.2017 v 09:23 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos napsal(a): > What I was > interested is whether there is plan or intention of improving the > fedora infrastructure for packagers by making these part of our daily > work-flow. It depends. :) I use Tito daily and it saves me a lot of time. However

Re: automated packaging

On Wed, 2017-03-22 at 11:36 +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Dne 22.3.2017 v 11:00 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos napsal(a): > > Hi, > >  For several packages it is possible to automate build, test and > > package updating on multiple fedora releases (+epel) in a single > > keypress using the cockpituous

Re: automated packaging

On Wed, 2017-03-22 at 08:51 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2017-03-22 at 11:00 +0100, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: > > Hi, > >  For several packages it is possible to automate build, test and > > package updating on multiple fedora releases (+epel) in a single > > keypress using the

Re: automated packaging

On 22-03-17 19:18, Matthew Miller wrote: On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 04:22:08PM +0100, Patrick Laimbock wrote: Thanks for compiling that list. The Tito link gave a 404 so I edited it to point to https://github.com/dgoodwin/tito and also added centpkg which is used by CentOS. Does centpkg fit in

Re: automated packaging

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 04:22:08PM +0100, Patrick Laimbock wrote: > Thanks for compiling that list. The Tito link gave a 404 so I edited > it to point to https://github.com/dgoodwin/tito and also added > centpkg which is used by CentOS. Does centpkg fit in this category? Isn't it basically just

Re: automated packaging

On Wed, 2017-03-22 at 11:00 +0100, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: > Hi, > For several packages it is possible to automate build, test and > package updating on multiple fedora releases (+epel) in a single > keypress using the cockpituous (sic) tools [0]. These tools hide quirks > and requirements

Re: automated packaging

On 22-03-17 16:02, Colin Walters wrote: On Wed, Mar 22, 2017, at 06:00 AM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: Hi, For several packages it is possible to automate build, test and package updating on multiple fedora releases (+epel) in a single keypress using the cockpituous (sic) tools [0]. These

Re: automated packaging

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017, at 06:00 AM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: > Hi, > For several packages it is possible to automate build, test and > package updating on multiple fedora releases (+epel) in a single > keypress using the cockpituous (sic) tools [0]. These tools hide quirks > and

Re: automated packaging

Dne 22.3.2017 v 11:00 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos napsal(a): > Hi, > For several packages it is possible to automate build, test and > package updating on multiple fedora releases (+epel) in a single > keypress using the cockpituous (sic) tools [0]. These tools hide quirks > and requirements of the

automated packaging

Hi, For several packages it is possible to automate build, test and package updating on multiple fedora releases (+epel) in a single keypress using the cockpituous (sic) tools [0]. These tools hide quirks and requirements of the fedora tooling, and allow a very efficient orchestration of package