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:
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  (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) , 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.
 I'm not against apt-rpm in the base install for example
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?
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.
|: 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 :|
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
I unfortunately don't have time to proceed with the full retirement
process myself. If somebody would like to pick it up:
$ dnf repoquery --whatrequires python2-pep8
$ dnf repoquery --whatrequires python3-pep8
See also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1667200's dependent
(Please CC me on replies that need my attention.)
iliana weller <ilianaw(a)buttslol.net>
It's become clear that I haven't had the time I thought I'd have this past
year due to $life ...
These are in a bit of a broken state and right now I'd advise people that
need them to use upstream packages/containers.
I don't foresee sufficient time coming in the near future with family needs
in advance of hobbies like Fedora of course.
I'll give it a week or so for anyone to contact me who wants to pick them
up, otherwise I'll update pagure to assign them to "orphan"
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:
- 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
- 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):
rpkg is available from PyPI.
Thanks to all contributors.
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
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?
Il giorno gio 24 ott 2019 alle ore 19:28 Strahil <hunter86_bg(a)yahoo.com> ha
> Hi Sandro,All,
> Can I upgrade the tools on existing VM , or it requires a fresh one? Best
If you have oVirt windows guest tools already installed suggestion is to
uninstall it before installing this new installer.
> Best Regards,
> Strahil Nikolov
> On Oct 24, 2019 14:35, Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> as part of the work on oVirt 4.4, the team rewrote the VirtiIO Windows
> Drivers installer using the open source framework WiX.
> Thanks to the virtio-win maintainer, the new installer is not shipped
> anymore within oVirt Guest Tools ISO: it's shipped now directly into VirtIO
> Windows ISO
> Please give it a run on your testing environment / testing VMs and let us
> know about your experience at devel(a)ovirt.org.
> Sandro Bonazzola
> MANAGER, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, EMEA R&D RHV
> Red Hat EMEA <https://www.redhat.com/>
> <https://www.redhat.com/>*Red Hat respects your work life balance.
> Therefore there is no need to answer this email out of your office hours.*
MANAGER, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, EMEA R&D RHV
Red Hat EMEA <https://www.redhat.com/>
<https://www.redhat.com/>*Red Hat respects your work life balance.
Therefore there is no need to answer this email out of your office hours.