whta will be talked on your presentation about fedora workstation?

just a general talk - will share slides later, thanks

(:

Oh, nice. I'll love to see your slides :)

just a general talk - will share slides later, thanks

Thanks matey

(:

wow, Cambodia

good weather now

^^

Anyone have a website deface skill??

welcome

Hey, I have a question. How come that on the web (https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/python3-numpy) the package python3-numpy is listed as only being available in EPEL. However, on a F24 install, python3-numpy installs just fine?

welcome

Thanks.

That's a very good question @falta I always installed python3-numpy with a problem. But I know nothing about EPEL. Want me to ask in the dev list?

Let's better wait if somebody here knows something.

This is not the only package affected, by the way: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/nexuiz

okay

But in the history F24 & F25 do show up

Let me see if these packages aren't orphaned or having some kind of problem. I read something related to this in the list.

But if they were orphaned, they shouldn't be in F24!

How come the package manager can find them?

I don't know, give me a moment to search.

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python3-numpy/timeline

it's retired

But if they were orphaned, they shouldn't be in F24!

why not? :)

BTW, numpy is on repositories, for both versions Python 2 and Python 3, but Nexuiz isn't in repositories. Just checked.

why not? :)

Because nobody can fix critical vulnerabilities?

BTW, numpy is on repositories, for both versions Python 2 and Python 3, but Nexuiz isn't in repositories. Just checked.

OK, then I take back the Nexuiz one.

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python3-numpy/timeline

But it is still in F24, so why isn't it listed on https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/python3-numpy?

"Latest released version" says None.

However, here is proof that a version does exist in F24: http://ftp.halifax.rwth-aachen.de/fedora/linux/releases/24/Everything/x86_64/os/Packages/p/python3-numpy-1.11.0-4.fc24.x86_64.rpm

it's in repositories, what other proves you need?

What do you mean? I just provided proof.

I just checked and said "this is in repositories for both versions Python 2 &3, this another isn't"

Anyway, let me see. I think I saw something related, but I need to look up.

I just checked and said "this is in repositories for both versions Python 2 &3, this another isn't"

Yes I know, I said that too. But it's not really proof because we could be lying. But above I put a link to a Fedora mirror, which is definitely not lying.

Ah...

Well...

I see no reasons to lie. But you're right. That's the real proof.

Thanks

proof

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python3-numpy/timeline

Where does it says that is retired? Last item is "Approved".

There you have it, @falta

Where? I don't understand yet.

You corrected me a word so I edited the message

I'm searching in the mailing list, I'm sure I've seen something

Ah, I thought in the context of the package.

[athos@zephyr python3-numpy]$ git branch -a * master remotes/origin/HEAD -> origin/master remotes/origin/el6 remotes/origin/epel7 remotes/origin/master [athos@zephyr python3-numpy]$ ls dead.package

OK

But it's on repositories, how comes is dead?

Nevertheless a.fp.o should show the version that's in F24. I'd say this is a bug.

yes, I agree

But it's on repositories, how comes is dead?

It was retired... I believe it just means it is not in rawhide anymore

I guess it should show in a.fp.o though

bug?

Probably.

Can someone inform the correct mailing list?

I just sent a message to devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

oh

I just ping'd #fedora-apps :)

LOL

:)

ERROR: S client not available

Well, will get the answer pretty soon then.

yeah, lol

The python3-numpy rpm is provided by the numpy source rpm.

See https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/numpy

The python3-numpy rpm is provided by the numpy source rpm.

To clarify, this applies to Fedora only

Oh, thanks...

In EPEL, for whatever reason, python3-numpy is a completely different package.

Most likely because python2-numpy is provided by Red Hat

Most likely because python2-numpy is provided by Red Hat

That makes sense.

The python3-numpy rpm is provided by the numpy source rpm.

Doesn't explain python3-numpy not being shown in a.fp.o unfortunately.

It does, because apps.fedoraproject.org is organized by source rpm rather than binary rpm.

Ah, now I see...

See https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/numpy

If you go to this link, you should be able to find the python3-numpy rpm.

It does, because apps.fedoraproject.org is organized by source rpm rather than binary rpm.

That doesn't make sense. Why would it be organized that way?

The word apps implies individual software packages, not source packages.

Because that's how Fedora organizes its packages.

Isn't admin.fp.o/pkgdb supposed to be the more "backend" kind of thing for packagers, where it would make sense to organize software by source package? But apps.fp.o more user-side, where binary package sorting would make more sense?

Also, what if the source package foo version 1.2 provides the binary packages foo-bar version 1.2 and foo-baz version 1.3? How would you know that the version of foo-baz is not equal to the version of the foo source package? After all, neither pkgdb nor apps is sorted by binary packages.

Because that's how Fedora organizes its packages.

Well, if it's for that... it can be changed. "Apps" really suggests something that is program related instead of source packages.

Also, what if the source package foo version 1.2 provides the binary packages foo-bar version 1.2 and foo-baz version 1.3? How would you know that the version of foo-baz is not equal to the version of the foo source package? After all, neither pkgdb nor apps is sorted by binary packages.

All binaries built by a source rpm have the same version.

Oh?

I think in Debian, source and binary versions can differ, that's why I was confused.

http://migre.me/vq8XW

I think in Debian, source and binary versions can differ, that's why I was confused.

True.

Isn't admin.fp.o/pkgdb supposed to be the more "backend" kind of thing for packagers, where it would make sense to organize software by source package? But apps.fp.o more user-side, where binary package sorting would make more sense?

That might make sense, but you'd be best off talking to the devs.

Hello

Hi

Hi and welcome!

Tks!

My pleasure.

I am using Fedora 24 and I can not write the screen with Simplescreenrecorder, my graphics card is Intel, how to solve?