devel February 2016

devel@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org

236 participants
277 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

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

Rstudio
by Steve Grubb 20 Jan '18

20 Jan '18

Hello, I like to have everything on my system in a package. So, I looked around and found no recipe or rpm for Rstudio. This is really a shame because every tutorial on R kinda tells you to install it. Even the Coursera classes in the Data Science track make you install it and send a screenshot to prove it. So, I spent some time getting it packaged and working. I am placing the spec file and necessary patch here so that google finds it and saves other people the trouble. I'm not wanting to submit the package to Fedora because its more work than I have time for. If anyone else wants to take it from here and submit and/or maintain it, feel free. http://people.redhat.com/sgrubb/files/Rstudio/ Enjoy... -Steve

11 10

apitrace, bundled libbacktrace
by Sandro Mani 17 Dec '17

17 Dec '17

Hi, apitrace 5.0 bundles libbacktrace, which looks like is living within the gcc sources. libbacktrace is not build as a shared library from the gcc sources, and not packaged. Is it feasible to build libbacktrace as a shared library and ship it in a corresponding package? Or should I rather go for a bundling exception request? Thanks, Sandro

8 9

Xulrunner - intent to remove from Fedora 24
by Martin Stransky 27 Jun '17

27 Jun '17

Hi, does anyone use the xulrunner package? (and gecko-devel actually). Mozilla does not maintain it any more and the XUL as technology is going to be removed/deprecated. I'd like to remove the package from Fedora 24. ma.

21 30

whatever happened to yum + btrfs snapshotting?
by Neal Becker 13 Mar '17

13 Mar '17

Some time back there was discussion of being able to rollback yum updates via btrfs snapshotting. As I recall, it turned out that the default btrfs install was not setup correctly to make this feasible (I had briefly tested it on my machine). I haven't heard anything since - this seems like a great idea. -- -- Those who don't understand recursion are doomed to repeat it

7 7

GPG2 as default /usr/bin/gpg
by Christopher 21 Jul '16

21 Jul '16

I just ran into this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309175 It's not a huge deal (and there are several workarounds, for git and for other tools which default ot using 'gpg'), but it highlights the mismatch between the default /usr/bin/gpg running gpg1, when other tools, like gpg-agent, are tailored for gpg2. RHEL/CentOS has shipped /usr/bin/gpg with gnupg2 since at least sometime in RHEL6. I'm not saying we shouldn't continue to ship gnupg1, but can we at least rename it, so gnupg package is version 2, and gnupg1 provides /usr/bin/gpg1 instead? This seems overdue. Is there any reason not to do this?

12 21

Validity of i686 as a release blocker
by Josh Boyer 23 Apr '16

23 Apr '16

Hello, Over the past week, we've been dealing with a kernel bug[1] that prevents i686 machines from booting. Help was requested and given, and it has been excellent and most welcome. This email has no reflection on that, and is instead focused on the reality of where i686 stands today. In February[2] we sent out an email highlighting that the kernel team was not going to treat i686 bugs as a priority. Since that time, we have held true to our word and have not focused on fixing i686 bugs at all. It seems that the wider community is also treating i686 similarly. The kernel bug that was made automatic blocker because of existing criteria was present in Fedora since the 4.1-rc6 kernel, which was released May 31. It has been in every boot.iso created since that date. Not a single person reported this issue until last week. That is a timespan of two months. The kernel team has autotesting for i686 kernels, but the environment there does not utilize boot.iso so it did not detect this. The QA team has automated testing for some of this, but nothing for the i686 architecture at all. It is not a priority there either. Perhaps it is time that we evaluate where i686 stands in Fedora more closely. For a starting suggestion, I would recommend that we do not treat it as a release blocking architecture. This is not the same as demotion to secondary architecture status. That has broader implications in both buildsys and ecosystem. My suggestion is narrowly focused so that builds still proceed as today, but if there is something broken for i686 it does not block the release of whatever milestone we are pursuing. (To be clear, I would support a move to secondary arch status for i686, but I am not suggesting it at this time.) Making i686 non-release blocking would actually match reality. None of the Fedora Editions appear at all concerned with i686. Cloud is demoting[3] i686 from its offering. Workstation has been fairly ambivalent about it and recommends x86_64. Server does the same. Given the lack of focus on it, and the fact that the broader community is not testing the development releases for i686, I believe this would be a good first step. josh [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247382 [2] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2015-February/208368.html [3] https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/106

15 20

Updating gsl to 2.1 in Rawhide on Monday
by Orion Poplawski 20 Apr '16

20 Apr '16

I'll be updating gsl to 2.1 in Rawhide on Monday and rebuilding dependent packages. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276893 for some tracking info. A fair amount of work was done to get everything ready for this update, but there may be a couple stragglers. -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)cora.nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com

2 1

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

devel February 2016