On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 2:57 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 08:18:21PM -0500, Langdon White wrote:
> > ## How to determine if you have an issue and how to fix it:
> >
> > run: ```sudo dnf list --installed *protobuf*```
> > if you get a result that looks like
> > `
Am 07.12.19 um 12:17 schrieb Miro Hrončok:
And disallow all the current default modular streams. Ship defaults as
traditional RPMs. Keep modularity for alternate versions.
+1
With the current tooling modularity must be optional as it requires manual
steps to fix packaging problems. With defau
On Sat, 2019-12-07 at 10:42 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > I really think we should recommend 'dnf distro-sync', assuming it
> > actually does the job, as that should return *all* installed packages
> > from the newly-disabled modules to the non-modular builds, not just
> >
- Original Message -
> From: "Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Saturday, December 7, 2019 2:55:30 PM
> Subject: Re: modular protobuf issue (Dec. 6, 2019) recap
>
> On Fri, Dec 06, 2019
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 08:18:21PM -0500, Langdon White wrote:
> ## How to determine if you have an issue and how to fix it:
>
> run: ```sudo dnf list --installed *protobuf*```
> if you get a result that looks like
> ```protobuf.x86_64 3.6.1-6.module_f31+6793+1c93c38```
>
> you have encountered
Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 07. 12. 19 10:44, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Langdon White wrote:
>>> ## What we can do going forward:
>>> * Increase the awareness of the policies for Fedora Modules
>>> * Investigate an "early warning system" that would indicate to packagers
>>> (modular and RPM) when they m
On 07. 12. 19 2:18, Langdon White wrote:
## How to determine if you have an issue and how to fix it:
run: ```sudo dnf list --installed *protobuf*```
if you get a result that looks like
```protobuf.x86_64 3.6.1-6.module_f31+6793+1c93c38```
you have encountered the problem. so please:
run: ```s
On 07. 12. 19 10:44, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Langdon White wrote:
## What we can do going forward:
* Increase the awareness of the policies for Fedora Modules
* Investigate an "early warning system" that would indicate to packagers
(modular and RPM) when they might be violating this policy
* Request
Adam Williamson wrote:
> I really think we should recommend 'dnf distro-sync', assuming it
> actually does the job, as that should return *all* installed packages
> from the newly-disabled modules to the non-modular builds, not just
> protobuf.
Unfortunately, you also need to "dnf module disable *
Langdon White wrote:
> ## What we can do going forward:
> * Increase the awareness of the policies for Fedora Modules
> * Investigate an "early warning system" that would indicate to packagers
> (modular and RPM) when they might be violating this policy
> * Request dnf notify the user when they are
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 8:19 PM Langdon White wrote:
> ## What happened:
> First and foremost, this issue appears to be caused by Modularity but, in
> fact, is just an example of a policy not being followed. When a module wishes
> to declare a "default stream"[1] it *must* not override a traditio
On 07. 12. 19 2:18, Langdon White wrote:
First and foremost, this issue appears to be caused by Modularity but, in fact,
is just an example of a policy not being followed. When a module wishes to
declare a "default stream"[1] it *must* not override a traditional RPM without
express permission f
On Fri, 2019-12-06 at 20:18 -0500, Langdon White wrote:
> ## How to determine if you have an issue and how to fix it:
>
> run: ```sudo dnf list --installed *protobuf*```
> if you get a result that looks like
> ```protobuf.x86_64 3.6.1-6.module_f31+6793+1c93c38```
>
> you have encountered the pro
## How to determine if you have an issue and how to fix it:
run: ```sudo dnf list --installed *protobuf*```
if you get a result that looks like
```protobuf.x86_64 3.6.1-6.module_f31+6793+1c93c38```
you have encountered the problem. so please:
run: ```sudo dnf module disable eclipse```
run: ```
14 matches
Mail list logo
