devel June 2018

devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

199 participants
244 discussions

upgrading RH 9 system->Fedora with iso files and apt only
by Didier Casse 17 Jan '22

17 Jan '22

I have the yarrow's iso files on my HD in a RH9 system. Let's say I want to upgrade selected packages using an "apt-get install" pointing to my iso-mounted files, how do I do it? i.e I mount the iso into some /mnt/yarrow1, /mnt/yarrow 2 etc.. Then what is the complete procedure to make my apt look into my own HD to upgrade packages. Can anybody redirect me to the correct resource or some literature hanging on the web? Thanks. Assume also that I do not wish to burn CDs! I do not want to use apt-cdrom. Thanks. With kind regards, Didier. --- PhD student Singapore Synchrotron Light Source (SSLS) 5 Research Link, Singapore 117603 Email: slsbdfc at nus dot edu dot sg \or\ didierbe at sps dot nus dot edu dot sg Website: http://ssls.nus.edu.sg

6 9

pdftk retired?
by Michael J Gruber 08 Sep '21

08 Sep '21

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 maintainership. 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. Michael

17 26

Remove old GPG keys?
by Miroslav Suchý 04 May '21

04 May '21

I just stumbled upon https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/400634/does-anyone-bother-to-remov… with the nice link to: https://blog.laimbock.com/2014/05/02/how-to-remove-an-imported-gpg-key-from… And I wonder: is it a good idea to keep old gpg keys in RPM db? Or should we automate the removal of old keys? Mirek

15 29

git push permission denied
by Neal Becker 10 Feb '21

10 Feb '21

I just had to setup a new machine, and new ssh keys. I visited https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/user/edit/xxxx I chose my new id_rsa.pub to upload. But I get: git push --verbose Pushing to ssh://nbecker@pkgs.fedoraproject.org/mercurial Permission denied (publickey). fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly Hints?

4 5

Adding Obsoletes to generated -debuginfo packages ?
by Daniel P. Berrangé 04 Jun '20

04 Jun '20

In libvirt we recently deleted a driver for the legacy Xen toolstack. This was shipped in a libvirt-daemon-driver-xen RPM. I am able to add an "Obsoletes: libvirt-daemon-driver-xen < 4.3.0" line to the libvirt-daemon-driver-libxl RPM, which gives clean upgrade path for users. If they have the libvirt-daemon-driver-xen-debuginfo RPM installed though that still breaks the upgrade. How can I get the auto-generated libvirt-daemon-driver-libxl-debuginfo RPM to have an "Obsoletes: libvirt-daemon-driver-xen-debuginfo < 4.3.0" statement ? It seems impossible, meaning users with debuginfo have a broken upgrade path. An unfortunate consequence of switching to seprate -debuginfo per sub-RPM. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|

7 12

Orphaning pykka
by Jonathan Dieter 05 Jan '20

05 Jan '20

I've just orphaned pykka (https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package /rpms/pykka/) as I'm no longer using it. Jonathan

3 4

Nonresponsive maintainer: salimma
by Miro Hrončok 27 May '19

27 May '19

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1589077 Does anyone know how to contact the maintainer? -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok

4 4

Proposal: Abandon v8 package
by Tom Callaway 07 Mar '19

07 Mar '19

Background: I made the original v8 Fedora package many moons ago, when I was more optimistic about the possibility of separating the useful components inside of chromium. Since that point, it has become clear that while v8 is useful software, the following facts are also true: 1. The v8 upstream is entirely disinterested in the concept of maintaining any sort of ABI/API consistency between releases. 2. The v8 that is used in chromium is not necessarily compatible with the upstream v8, as they have a history of picking and choosing code changes (and even applying chromium specific changes locally). 3. Virtually all consumers of v8 (including chromium) take a git checkout (not a specific one, just whatever they decided to code to) and use that revision, often creating a local fork of v8 from that revision, as they are either unwilling or unable to track v8 upstream. 4. Since v8 has no concept of a "stable" release that I can see, they simply do security fixes to the master branch, which, combined with the code changing violently, makes it very difficult to backport security fixes. This means that other than plv8 (which is currently unable to build against the current v8 package in Fedora), I do not see any consumers of the Fedora v8 package (chromium has long since abandoned any possibility of using it). It does contain a "d8" binary, which is a javascript CLI debugger, but it is not clear to me that this is widely used, or that the benefit of its inclusion in Fedora outweighs the pain of maintaining this package. Thus, I propose that the v8 package be abandoned/orphaned/taken to the farm upstate to run and play with the other dogs. If you disagree, or are crazy enough to want to take it over, speak now. ~tom P.S. I'll still maintain v8-314 as best I can, since there are actually users of that. The irony of that really ancient version being considered stable (and thus, used by other software) as a result of Fedora sticking on that version of v8 for so many releases is not lost on me.

4 7

Intel's Clear Linux optimizations
by František Zatloukal 08 Feb '19

08 Feb '19

Hi, Phoronix recently release article[1] 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 settings. 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? [1] http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel-clr-opengl&num=1 -- Best regards / S pozdravem, František Zatloukal Project Coordinator Red Hat

15 50

Python3 will be in next major RHEL release, please adjust %if statements accordingly
by Troy Dawson 04 Oct '18

04 Oct '18

Hello, Python3 will be in the next major RHEL release. I don't mean RHEL 7.6, but with numbers higher than 7. There are many, many packages with something like the following if 0%{?fedora} %define with_python3 1 %endif If you have something like that, please change it to something like this. if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?rhel} > 7 %define with_python3 1 %endif Thank You

21 40

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

devel June 2018