Postings by Dridi Boukelmoune

Non-responsive maintainer: dridi

Greetings fellow package maintainers,

I'm starting the non-responsive maintainer process on myself because
the time I can dedicate to Fedora will significantly drop for the next
3 months. It wasn't that much to begin with...

I don't think I will be able to follow up on anything, especially
bugzillas, at best I plan to keep on reading what's going on on the
devel list. All my packages are rather low traffic and don't require
much maintenance.

Signing key for f31?


I was browsing looking for the f31 PGP key that DNF is
currently prompting me to accept or reject.

bootctl: no entry could be determined as default (Was: Upgrade to F30 gone wrong)

On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 1:45 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
< ... at in dot> wrote:

Catch 22 in epel7 for %selinux_requires


I maintain an selinux module package for el7, and recently came across
interesting macros [1] and in particular %selinux_requires that hides
the dirty detail and especially one that I missed when I set this up
back then.

Unfortunately, it appears to be provided by one of the packages it
BuildRequires itself:

VirtualBox 6 and Vagrant in Fedora 29


If like me you use Vagrant with VirtualBox, you may see an update to
version 6 from RPM Fusion free for f29.

Broken dependency for devscripts in f29


Somehow this slipped through the cracks:

I tried this too but no luck there:


Ditch RPM in favor of DPKG

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 m

Listing maintainers vs packages vs dependencies


I'm planning to work on the python packages I maintain to move them to
python 3 only as per the python 2 deprecation in f30.

I would like to find all the dependencies of my packages of interest,
but couldn't find an off-the-shelf script I would feed SRPM names that
would recursively repoquery their resulting RPMs provides to finally
find whatever requires them. Do we have that in stock?

Building Steam Proton on Fedora


Following the discussion on raising the fileno limit to make Steam
Proton [1] work well on Fedora I was wondering if anyone managed to
build it and document it somewhere. I believe someone did it since
they reported completely stable compatibility [2] on Fedora 28 but
couldn't find build instructions.

I tried and spent a fair amount of cycles on this before giving up and
it appears to me that the situation is quite the mess.

Fedora first.

I didn't manage to use schroot that Proton relies on according to its
README because the apt package in Fedora is in fact apt-rpm.

Mostly spam on the mips list

Hi there,

I'm not sure where it's best to report but today I wanted to probe the
progress of Fedora MIPS [1] but since I'm not registered to this list
I opted for the web archive. The first non-spam message [2] I could
find is from March, everything after that is just noise.

I suppose members of the list don't see them in their mail clients,
but the archive is a bit encumbered. Looking at the web archives of
mailing lists I subscribed to, there doesn't seem to be much noise (I
searched a couple classic spammy phrases in each).

Many directories without owning packages


I was surprised to see /usr/share/texlive on my system although I
remembered very well removing it months ago.

Review swaps


I have two pending reviews that I believe should be very simple to
perform, because both packages are quite small C libraries. I worked
upstream to make them packaging-friendly.

<a href="" title=""></a>
<a href="" title=""></a>


CLI tools in Gnome Software?


RichiH, author of vcsh (one of my packages) and Debian contributor
asked my whether we could upstream Fedora packaging (more precisely
any packaging metadata). I simply showed him where the package's git
repo and we agreed I would notify him when I commit stuff. Btw, is there
a simple way to subscribe without a FAS account?

It occurred to me that we are encouraged to upstream Gnome Software
app metadata, but I don't use Gnome. Are CLI tools welcome in Gnome

I guess I could contribute a French translation, and we could take
screenshots of Gnome's terminal.

Running docker in a mock chroot


I haven't really tried, I only wanted to look at fig 1.0 currently in
f21 updates-testing.

review swap: python-funcparserlib and python-webcolors


I've recently solved problems *easily* thanks to python (I'm not yet a
python person) so I thought I would give it some love and pick a
python package from the wish list.

I've chosen blockdiag, which I actually might start using (along with
its friends seqdiag, actdiag and nwdiag) so first, let's start with
blockdiag's dependencies :)

<a href="" title=""></a>
<a href="" title=""></a>

Good news, those packages are already python3-ready, as are blockdiag
and its friends.

Best Regards,

[1] <a href="http://blockd" title="http://blockd">http://blockd</a>

review swap: ShellCheck


Anyone interested in reviewing ShellCheck ? Thanks to the Haskell SIG,
it was only a matter of minutes to get a working spec !

<a href="" title=""></a>


Duplicate review request for rubygem-vagrant


I'm on the CC list of the review request for rubygem-vagrant [1] and
randomly found a new review request for vagrant [2]. The two packages
are AFAICT the same, and the former is stalled due to missing
dependencies, the last one being rubygem-log4r [3].

Ironically, the two submitters (CC'ed) met on the rubygem-log4r review

Fonts rendering and hinting

Hi all,

I'm reading a blog called bad concurrency, and I didn't expect a post
on Fedora[1] yesterday.

Since I'm not really into eye-candy (running xfce since fc16, started
with Fedora on a gnome fc15), I've never really tried to tweak my
desktop that much (I do a few things though).

What really caught my attention here is that he mentions an expired
patent, and I was wondering why it's only available on rpm fusion.

My guesses:
- there are other legal issues
- interested parties missed/forgot it
- interested parties are working on it

Does anyone know about this ?

numatop: %{optflags} fail the 32bit build


I have my first packaging issue on the numatop package[1].

During the review it appeared that I forgot the %{optflags}, and that
adding them breaks the i686 build. The upstream dev is very patient
and willing to help me, but I feel I have wasted enough of his time.

The guilty gcc flag seems to be:
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 [2]

I can (hopefully) easily reproduce the failure with just mock on my
machine, but right now I can't figure out how to solve this.

Late introduction

Hi everyone,

I am new to this list, and I'm a Fedora user for a little less than
two years. Recently I've become a full-time Fedora user since I've
installed it on my laptop for work.

I'm a developer, and I usually work for companies that use RHEL in