Re: NeuroFedora review swaps
by Ankur Sinha
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 15:47:00 +0100, J. Scheurich wrote:
>
> > I'd like to get this package reviewed please:
> >
> > - python-pyscaffold: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1669913#
> >
> > Would anyone like to swap reviews?
>
> I would review it for wdune sponsoring.
Sorry---I'm not current with the wdune scenario. I assumed you meant
that you'd review it unofficially as part of the work to get sponsored
to the packagers group:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_gro...
I'm not a sponsor yet so I cannot sponsor you to the group myself, but
once you've done a few reviews, a sponsor will be happy to take a look
at them and guide you through the sponsorship process.
If you've submitted a review ticket for wdune already, I will be happy
to review it and provide comments.
--
Thanks,
Regards,
Ankur Sinha
https://ankursinha.in
Time zone: Europe/London
3 years, 3 months
Headsup: dbus 1.12.10-1.fc29 is missing systemd dbus.service file,
breaking almost everything
by Hans de Goede
Hi All,
Just a quick headsup for users following Fedora 29, the
dbus 1.12.10-1.fc29 build is missing the systemd dbus.service
file, breaking almost everything.
Instead it contains a dbus-daemon.service file, but the
dbus.socket file expects a matching dbus.service, not
dbus-daemon.service.
So either hold of on applying updates until this is fixed
or exclude dbus.
Regards,
Hans
3 years, 8 months
Ditch RPM in favor of DPKG
by Dridi Boukelmoune
Greetings packagers,
I know how important RPM is to the Fedora Project, but it breaks
everything downstream and we'd be better off using DPKG as we should
have from day one.
I'm calling this initiative fedpkg: Fedora Embraces DPKG.
A bit of background here: I build both RPMs and DEBs for $DAYJOB and
until recently my workflow was quite painful because I needed extra steps
between git checkout and git push that involves a VM, because what we
ship as apt is in reality apt-rpm.
It finally got enough on my nerves to locally build the things I needed and
after a month I have already amortized my efforts with the time I save not
having to deal with needless extra hoops.
In order to successfully build debs on Fedora I needed 4 packages that
I'm now submitting for review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=gnu-config
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=strip-nondeterminism
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=sbuild
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=apt
I need more than reviews here.
Three of those packages are heavy on Perl code, and I'm not a Perl
Monk. I tried to CC perl-sig as per the guidelines [1] (also tried with
the mailing list address) but bugzilla replied kindly:
CC: perl-sig did not match anything
Apt is a mix of C, Perl and C++ code, so I would be reassured if I
could have a C++ co-maintainer too. I'm only a C developer so if
something goes wrong outside of the C realm that would be helpful.
Two of those packages should be runtime dependencies of debhelper.
The current apt package should be renamed to apt-rpm, I will look up
the procedure for that to happen. I understand that when someone sees
they should run "apt-get install foo" somewhere on the web it's
helpful for non-savvy users that this JustWorks(tm) [2], but apt-rpm is
dead upstream and it shouldn't be advertised as apt.
I hope I CC'd everyone that should get this heads up, and hope to find
help for the reviews and co-maintainership. The packaging does nothing
fancy, there are quirks here and there but overall it was rather easy
to put together. And of course I would be happy to help with reviews
too in exchange.
And thanks again to the mock developers, its design is so much better
than either sbuild or pdebuild that I barely have pain points left when it
comes to RPM packaging.
Thanks,
Dridi
[1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Perl/#_perl_sig
[2] I'm not against apt-rpm in the base install for example
3 years, 9 months
Default editor for LXQt spin
by Raphael Groner
Hi,
writing to general devel list intentionally. No idea if all members of lxqt-sig list can read here, too and especially @zsun.
Is there any sense why @lxqt-sig is member of packaging for featherpad? LXQt SIG decided to have enki in the spin as the default editor. Featherpad is not part of LXQt upstream.
@lupinix Could you remove lxqt-sig from the members in pagure?
Regards, Raphael
3 years, 9 months
python-pep8 is orphaned
by iliana weller
Hello,
I've orphaned python-pep8. pep8 was renamed to pycodestyle in 2016; it
received its last release in 2017. It should be removed from Fedora in a
future release.
I unfortunately don't have time to proceed with the full retirement
process myself. If somebody would like to pick it up:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Orphaned_package_that_need_new_maintainers...
$ dnf repoquery --whatrequires python2-pep8
python2-autopep8-0:1.2.4-9.fc29.noarch
python2-pytest-pep8-0:1.0.6-15.fc29.noarch
python2-spyder-0:3.3.1-3.fc29.noarch
$ dnf repoquery --whatrequires python3-pep8
python3-autopep8-0:1.2.4-9.fc29.noarch
python3-hacking-0:1.1.0-3.fc29.noarch
python3-pytest-pep8-0:1.0.6-15.fc29.noarch
python3-spyder-0:3.3.1-3.fc29.noarch
See also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1667200's dependent
bugs.
(Please CC me on replies that need my attention.)
--
iliana weller <ilianaw(a)buttslol.net>
3 years, 11 months
Release rpkg-1.58 fedpkg-1.37
by Ondrej Nosek
Hi all,
a new version rpkg-1.58 and fedpkg-1.37 is released.
Currently, Fedora 30 packages are in the stable repository, feel free to
try other waiting distributions in Bodhi.
Numerous features and improvements (as well as bugfixes) includes:
(For "rpkg")
- Improvements for scratch module builds
- Allow passing arguments to “mbs-manager build_module_locally”
- Remove the ability to parse a module’s branch
- Permit setting arbitrary rpm macros during build
- Ignore specific files in a cloned repository
- Pass specific arguments to “mock”
- Added “depth” argument to "git clone"
- Watch multiple module builds
- Show module build links in output from command module-build
- Add the ability to configure multiple regex expressions
- Add “retire” command supporting both packages and modules
- Import srpm without uploading sources
- Ignore any specified profile when finding the Flatpak build target
- Added update-docs script
- And other fixes and small improvements
(For "fedpkg")
- Ignore files in a cloned repository
- Enable shell completion for module scratch builds
- Show hint when Pagure token expires
- Include possible distprefix in “–define dist” for Forge-based packages
- Other small fixes
More specific changelog (web documentation):
https://docs.pagure.org/rpkg/releases/1.58.html
https://docs.pagure.org/fedpkg/releases/1.37.html
Updates:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?builds=rpkg-1.58-1.el6&builds=rp...
Alternative link:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=rpkg&page=1
rpkg is available from PyPI.
Thanks to all contributors.
Regards
4 years, 1 month
fedora-gpg-keys not updated yet again
by Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
This seems to repeat every 6 months: rawhide mock is broken on stable
Fedora, people are scrambling to install the right gpg keys, dnf reports
unsigned packages.
Looking at https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=fedora-repos,
there is still no F30 package with the right keys.
Can we *please* send out the FN+1 and FN+2 keys a month before branching,
to *all* releases of Fedora, so we can avoid this pointless scramble?
Zbyszek
4 years, 1 month
