Postings by =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Petr_Stod=F9lka?=

what to do when original upstream recover from death?

Hi guys,
I have one curious question about the current situation around git-remote-hg.
To put you into the context, the solution was originally part of the git
upstream itself and several years ago has been split into the own upstream [0].

After a time, the upstream[0] did last commit in Sep27 2016 and since the date
Jan 24 2018 the account has been no active till this april. After a long time
has been started discussion about change to new upstream [1] which was active
and responding.

mercurial v4.7 in rawhide

Hi guys,
mercurial has been rebased to v4.7 which would be incompatible
with RPMs mentioned below. As F30 will be released in winter,
there is a lot of time to find any issues and make other RPMs
working again.

Here is the list of components that depends on mercurial:
- git-cinnabar
- gitifyhg
- git-remote-hg
- golang
- gwsmhg
- hg-git
- hgsubversion
- hgsvn
- hgview
- python-anyvc
- python-hgapi
- python-hghooks
- python-vcstools
- python-wstool
- pyvcs
- qct
- rabbitvcs
- rbm
- tortoisehg
- trac-mercurial-plugin


mercurial rebase for F29

Hi folks,
we want to do rebase of mercurial for F29 before beta freeze yet. Currently
we have version v4.4.2 which is already old. Few days ago there have been
release new stable version v4.7. But many applications would be broken because
of changed API (as it is with every bump of minor version). From this point,
I would like to do rebase to v4.5.3 (or v4.6) as I believe that apps with
living upstream (and which requires mercurial) are already compatible with
those versions of mercurial.

mercurial: look for testers and karma

Hi folks,
I have there builds of mercurial in testing that fixes few CVEs.
Someone who uses mercurial and want to test it yet?

removable setup rpm?!

Hi folks,

I found now that the setup rpm is removable from the system,
which leads to unusable system, because of missing important files,
like /etc/shadow, ....

Could you anyone say why that? I heard something about dependency hell, so
in that case, the packages should be at least protected like dnf, systemd, etc.

One possible way would be the config file for dnf in downstream, like
echo setup > /etc/yum/protected.d/setup.conf

Any better idea before I create bugzilla?

heads up: planned changes of Git (split, credentials replacements) in rawhide

we are planning some changes in Git in rawhide according to some
changes in upstream. I want to apply all changes during this week
yet, but in case you have some recommendation or propmts to planned
changes, you can yet give me feedback before we will do that.
Briefly, changes what would be interesting for you:

- Move gnome-keyring credential helper from git-core to separate
subpackage git-gnome-keyring.

etc syslog symlink to file which doesn't exist (rsyslog is not installed)

Hi folks,
I just installed fedora custom installation of rawhide and found that there is created
symlink */etc/system/systemd/syslog.service* to */usr/lib/systemd/system/rsyslog*,
however rsyslog isn't installed. I guess that there is missing dependency on the package.

But I don't know who is responsible for creating of the file. Do You know someone about
this more?


Update Gzip to v1.7 - GZIP envar is obsolescent

Here are the current NEWS entries:
** Changes in behaviour

The GZIP environment variable is now obsolescent; gzip now warns if
it is used, and rejects attempts to use dangerous options or operands.
You can use an alias or script instead.

** New features

gzip now accepts the --synchronous option, which causes it to use
fsync and similar primitives to transfer output data to the output
file's storage device when the file system supports this.

python-cheat + MIT & GPLv3 combination

I need an advice/feedback about licenses. I want to add package **python-cheat** to F25 (and maybe to F24 too).
However, the project is now under MIT + GLPv3 licenses - not only some parts, it is meaned by upstream
as whole project is MIT and GPLv3. From my point of view, there is not problem, if I uses just GPLv3 license
in spec file - and append only GPLv3 license in the package. Can anyone (with better knowledge around licensing)
give me feedback about this?

Looking for co-maintainer of git

Hi folks,

I would like some help with maintainance of git package mainly - I have not so much
time due to combination of school & work and I plan add another package into Fedora
soon, so some another comaintainer will be welcomed.


- move /bin/sed -> /usr/bin/sed

Hi folks,
after years /bin/sed move to /usr/bin/sed. I add provides of /bin/sed
so dependency list shouldn't be broken. However correct please your
specfiles too.

Packages which require /bin/sed binary:

Requesting provenpackager intervention

Hi folks,

can any provenpackager change dependency in meld package for F22? There's dependency on package
python-gobject (which doesn't exist) and there should be pygobject2 probably.

: added support of non-unicode & non-latin encoded filenames

Hi folks,
if you someone use unzip and some special encodings on your system,
check please
if everything is ok in rawhide for you. It should be fine, but some
feedback from
someone else could be helpful. In the case, that you find some bug,
please send me
the archive with used encodings. I don't plan update in older releases
now. Thanks


git perl-less build?

Hi folks,

I have this request on bugzilla [0] for perl-less build of git due to
large dependency on Perl modules, which is unwanted for atomic.

I am not sure that's good idea.
With this change we will create places for error messages about missing
perl modules and that's something what we don't want.

E.g. missing git-add--interactive will bring one unusable option which
will cause error message like this. I have two other bugs where I solve
similar troubles. Separate whole git-add doesn't make sense.

unzip - support of segmented archives - look for volunteers for testings

Hi folks,
I work on patch for support of segmented archives on unzip. It's created
alpha patch, which will be modified in future
and probably (that's perhaps certainty ) it still contains bugs.

git - possible rebase on F21

Hi guys,
I have this request [0] for rebase of git from version 2.1.0 to 2.2.2
for Fedora 21. Can I do this? Do you know someone about any
incompatibilities? For me there are not so big changes but I have not
problem with this. We have now version 2.3.0 on rawhide. In the case
that yo prefer rebase to 2.2.2 or even to 2.3.0?

Thanks for responses :-)

[0] <a href="" title=""></a>

remove git-bzr from rawhide?

Hi folks,
I think about removal of git-bzr package in rawhide, which is actualy
non-functional - contains only file with warning message
about replacement by git-remote-bzr package - which actualy replace
git-bzr in f21 too. Are you OK with it? I didn't remove any
package earlier, but after short discussion I want to remove it from
specfile of git only and add Provides/Obsoletes
into the git-remote-bzr. Is there anything else what should I do?

zip - test suite

I write test suite for zip. If you want add your hands and help me with
writing of tests, give me some suggestions or tips for other tests, I
will be glad. I create repo on github [0]. There are only basic tests now.

[0] <a href="" title=""></a>