Postings by Hedayat Vatankhah

os-prober updates are blocked by missing grub tool, but the maintainer doesn't respond

Dear Peter (which most likely won't read) and all,

I've opened a but more than a year ago about missing grub tool in

and I've even emailed Peter directly, but there is no response. Upstream

now requires grub2-mount to function, and therefore Fedora os-prober is

not maintained. It even have started to fail on my own system.

I kindly ask someone to do something about it.

Bodhi doesn't recognize new packages when creating a new update

Dear all,
I've recently added 2 new packages, but when I tried to add them to
F27/F26 updates, it doesn't recognize them in the "Packages" box and
says: "Unable to find any packages that match the current query". BTW, I
can create the desired update, the only inconvenience is that Bodhi
doesn't provide any auto-completion assists.

I guess it is not the expected behaviour. You can try
'golang-github-dchest-siphash' as an example.


Is it possible to upload new sources of a package from a URL?

Dear all,
Currently, AFAIK, the suggested method to upload new sources for a
package is using 'fedpkg new-sources' which uploads new sources from
your local system. I wonder if there is a method to upload new sources
from a URL rather than your local filesystem? It is specially useful for
large packages.


Proposal to (formally/easily) allowing multiple versions of the same library installable

Dear all,
I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I didn't find any.

Summary: I have a proposal to make it easier for maintainers to have
multiple versions of the same library in distro (by making it
*naturally* possible) (and with minimal maintenance overhead), and for
users/developers to get their desired version(s) installed. Proposal in
brief: instead of packaging libfoo as libfoo, the maintainer *can*
package it as libfooVER (e.g. libfoo2) and create libfoo/libfoo-devel
package which depends on libfoo2/libfoo2-devel.

Yet another frustration with Fedora package management

Summary: Try to prevent a package from being updated/installed from
repositories regardless of the package management tool you use. As it
seems, then only way you can do this is to exclude it from the
repositories themselves inside their configuration file in
/etc/yum.repos.d/, because these are the only common settings between
all three (yum/dnf/PackageKit). TBH, I'm not sure about PackageKit, but
I feel that it don't read /etc/dnf/dnf.conf as it doesn't use DNF but
its backends.

F21 downloads repository metadata in 3 places!

I noticed that F21 can potentially download repository metadata 3 times:
1. Yum cache 2. DNF cache 3. PackageKit cache! It really hurts to see
how Fedora ignorance towards different kind of users is being increased
as time passes. If Fedora is an international distro, it should try to
consider condition of different users, not just a portion of them.
Fedora repository metadata format was already hostile, it wastes
bandwidth considerably downloading mostly useless data repeatedly.

Review Request!

Hi all,
I have 3 review requests waiting for someone to take over for about 2

Confused with budhi: my package is pushed to stable, but resides in updates-testing!?!

Hi all,
According to [1], my updated simspark package has been pushed to stable;
but it is not! The package is available in updates-testing. I wonder if
it is expected considering the new updating criteria or it is a bug.
Anyway, it is confusing. What's happening?

Finally a question: this update is simply a rebuild of the package and I
wanted it to reside in updates repository ASAP (For whatever reason, the
previous build causes an application using this library to crash; but it
is fixed with a rebuild of the packages.