I just git a "broken dependencies" notice for a package that I maintain.
The reason is that "pdftk" got retired just the other day.
I may have missed a corresponding post on fedora-devel, but I think a
heads up notice to maintainers of depending packages may be in order
before you retire a package, as a general idea.
You see, unretiring a package is so much more work than changing
As for pdftk: I see 2 failed builds for version 1.45 and none for the
current version 2.02 (which probably breaks the api anyways). What are
the plans? Retire pdftk completely? Start fresh with pdftk2?
pdflabs, the maker of pdftk, provide binary as well as source rpms for
pdftk 2.02, by the way. I might even look into packaging it but don't
want to duplicate any existing efforts.
I just had to setup a new machine, and new ssh keys.
I chose my new id_rsa.pub to upload.
But I get:
git push --verbose
Pushing to ssh://firstname.lastname@example.org/mercurial
Permission denied (publickey).
fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly
Phoronix recently release article about Intel's Clear Linux with some
cool graphs showing nice performance gain compared to Xubuntu.
I didn't have time to dig in and look how it's performing against Fedora,
but I'd assume Fedora can be compared to Xubuntu in terms of compiler
I think i'll be interesting to look into it and find out if Fedora can't
tweak compiler settings (eg use LTO for critical things like Mesa, Kernel,
...). I think it could be interesting fo Fedora users to have this enabled
if there are not any disadvantages other than compile time, compile memory
usage and so on.
What do you think?
Best regards / S pozdravem,
I just submitted a review request  for kcov  that I recently
discovered. It has no relation to Linux's kcov and is more akin to
lcov, except that all it needs is a binary with DWARF debuginfo
instead of requiring compile-time instrumentation.
I came across kcov when I was looking for a way to measure code
coverage in a Rust project and I'm impressed. It supposedly has a low
overhead, but so far I've been monitoring small single-threaded
programs so I can't really tell. I haven't tested python and shell
support, although I have cases where it would be relevant, but I don't
have time yet.
build on all main platforms so I may have to be granted an exception
from some group starting with an F. Been busy lately, I'm a little
behind on anything Fedora. If that's the case, please RTFM me a link
to the wiki, and if you want to take the review I'll gladly take one
While working on adding CI tests  using the Standard Test
Interface a need arose to have a shared git repository where tests
could be stored:
* A large number of test files makes a dist-git repository more
difficult to maintain
* Tests might follow a different branching pattern than the
dist-git repo, leading to code duplication
* Shared maintenance for tests sometimes benefits from different
access levels than the release dist-git repository
The plan is to create a new “tests” namespace in Fedora git/pagure
dedicated to storing the shared test code. To enable execution of
these tests by the CI pipeline, tests.yml file in dist-git will be
used to link the tests in the standard way as defined by the
Standard Test Interface .
This approach should help to efficiently maintain tests & minimize
test code duplication. Using a dedicated git repo for test code
also means to keep dist-git more as a place for storing metadata
only: Build metadata (spec file = how to build the package) and
test metadata (tests.yml = how to test the package) rather than
mixing spec files with test code itself.
Please note that this does not mean that all tests should now go
into this new namespace. You can still link tests directly from
upstream (like GitHub) or any other source. Also, for unit tests
it makes more sense to be kept directly with the project source
and executed there. Shared tests namespace in Fedora will be
suitable especially for functional and integration testing which
should help to continuously ensure the OS works as a whole.
For more detailed motivation and real-life examples see the Share
Test Code proposal on the Fedora CI list . If you have any
questions or comments feel free to share them here or in the
pagure issue requesting the new namespace:
I am proposing for inclusion a set of rpm technical files aimed at automating the packaging of forge-hosted projects.
- Packaging draft: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/More_Go_packaging
- go-srpm-macros RFE with the technical files: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1526721
This proposal is integrated with and depends on the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forge-hosted_projects_packaging_automation draft
It builds on the hard work of the Go SIG and reuses the rpm automation of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Go when it exists, and produces compatible packages.
What it does:
- drastically shorter spec files, up to 90% in some cases, often removing hundreds of lines per spec.
- simple, packager-friendly spec syntax
- automated package naming derived from the native identifier (import path). No more packages names without any relation with current upstream naming.
- working Go autoprovides. No forgotten provides anymore.
- working Go autorequires. No forgotten requires anymore.
- strict automated directory ownership (used by autorequires and autoprovides).
- centralized computation of source URLs (via Forge-hosted projects packaging automation). No more packages lacking guidelines. No more broken guidelines no one notices.
- easy switch between commits, tags and releases (via Forge-hosted projects packaging automation). No more packages stuck on commits when upstream starts releasing.
- guidelines-compliant automated snapshot naming, including snapshot timestamps (via Forge-hosted projects packaging automation). No more packages stuck in 2014.
- guidelines-compliant bootstraping.
- systematic use of the Go switches defined by the Go maintainer. Easy to do changes followed by a mass rebuild.
- flexibility, do the right thing transparently by default, leave room for special cases and overrides.
- no bundling (a.k.a. vendoring) due to the pain of packaging one more Go dependency.
- centralized Go macros that can be audited and enhanced over time.
- aggressive leverage of upstream unit tests to detect quickly broken code.
Please consult packaging draft for full information.
The proposal has been tested in Rawhide and EL7 over a set of ~ 140 Go packages. This set is a mix of current Fedora packages, bumped to a more recent version, rewrites of Fedora packages, and completely new packages.
I hope posting the second part of the automation will answer some questions people had on the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forge-hosted_projects_packaging_automation draft