9:32 a.m.
Folks -
Looks like RHEL 8.2 will have python 3.8 in addition to python 3.6. From
the 8.2 beta:
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 for x86_64 - AppStream Beta (RPMs)
Name Stream Profiles Summary
python27 2.7 [d][e] common [d] Python programming
language, version 2.7
python36 3.6 [d][e] build, common [d] Python programming
language, version 3.6
python38 3.8 [d][e] build, common [d] Python programming
language, version 3.8
Currently, %python_pkgversion is set to 3 in
/usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.python-srpm from python-srpm-macros.
python3-devel is still provided only by python36-devel, so presumably all
EPEL8 python packages will continue to be built against python 3.6. But I
imagine that people will soon be asking for python 3.8 versions of EPEL
packages. How can we provide those? Does this have to be done in some
modular fashion - which seems to come back to the discussion of whether or not
every package has to become its own module or whether to group them together
somehow. Or since both python modules are "default" modules and we can
install both python36-devel and python38-devel at the same time, perhaps we
can define the python3_other* macros again for python38 and just go that way?
Thoughts?
--
Orion Poplawski
Manager of NWRA Technical Systems 720-772-5637
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 https://www.nwra.com/
9:39 a.m.
On 30. 01. 20 16:32, Orion Poplawski wrote:
Folks -
Looks like RHEL 8.2 will have python 3.8 in addition to python 3.6. From
the 8.2 beta:
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 for x86_64 - AppStream Beta (RPMs)
Name Stream Profiles Summary
python27 2.7 [d][e] common [d] Python programming
language, version 2.7
python36 3.6 [d][e] build, common [d] Python programming
language, version 3.6
python38 3.8 [d][e] build, common [d] Python programming
language, version 3.8
Currently, %python_pkgversion is set to 3 in
/usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.python-srpm from python-srpm-macros.
python3-devel is still provided only by python36-devel, so presumably all
EPEL8 python packages will continue to be built against python 3.6. But I
imagine that people will soon be asking for python 3.8 versions of EPEL
packages. How can we provide those? Does this have to be done in some
modular fashion - which seems to come back to the discussion of whether or not
every package has to become its own module or whether to group them together
somehow. Or since both python modules are "default" modules and we can
install both python36-devel and python38-devel at the same time, perhaps we
can define the python3_other* macros again for python38 and just go that way?
Thoughts?
The idea is that the versions fo stuff we build in RHEL for different python
versions is different and I'd like to keep that idea in EPEL as well. Building a
python38-foo package from it's own spec should work as follows:
BR python38-rpm-macros
BR python38-devel
BR python38-bar etc...
Regular specfile follows.
You can even have a single specfile that build for different Python version
based on local override of %python_pkgversion in the buildroot.
Building both versions from single spec file---single build would require a new
set of macros, yes (or hardcoding stuff). However I'd not call them
python3_other* unless you want to end up with python3_other_other* the next time
this happens.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
9:44 a.m.
On 1/30/20 9:32 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
Folks -
Looks like RHEL 8.2 will have python 3.8 in addition to python 3.6. From
the 8.2 beta:
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 for x86_64 - AppStream Beta (RPMs)
Name Stream Profiles Summary
python27 2.7 [d][e] common [d] Python programming
language, version 2.7
python36 3.6 [d][e] build, common [d] Python programming
language, version 3.6
python38 3.8 [d][e] build, common [d] Python programming
language, version 3.8
Currently, %python_pkgversion is set to 3 in
/usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.python-srpm from python-srpm-macros.
python3-devel is still provided only by python36-devel, so presumably all
EPEL8 python packages will continue to be built against python 3.6. But I
imagine that people will soon be asking for python 3.8 versions of EPEL
packages. How can we provide those? Does this have to be done in some
modular fashion - which seems to come back to the discussion of whether or not
every package has to become its own module or whether to group them together
somehow. Or since both python modules are "default" modules and we can
install both python36-devel and python38-devel at the same time, perhaps we
can define the python3_other* macros again for python38 and just go that way?
Thoughts?
While I lack good answers, perhaps another question. What a the
thoughts on using python `.pth` files for python modules that work in
multiple interpreters?
In theory this would permit bit for bit identical libraries in multiple
interpreters at once?
Pat
--
Pat Riehecky
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
www.fnal.gov
www.scientificlinux.org
9:47 a.m.
On 30. 01. 20 16:44, Pat Riehecky wrote:
While I lack good answers, perhaps another question. What a the
thoughts on
using python `.pth` files for python modules that work in multiple interpreters?
In theory this would permit bit for bit identical libraries in multiple
interpreters at once?
Where would you put the files on the filesystem level?
How would we handle different bytecode caches and extension modules?
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
9:52 a.m.
On 1/30/20 9:47 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 30. 01. 20 16:44, Pat Riehecky wrote:
> While I lack good answers, perhaps another question. What a the
> thoughts on using python `.pth` files for python modules that work in
> multiple interpreters?
>
> In theory this would permit bit for bit identical libraries in
> multiple interpreters at once?
Where would you put the files on the filesystem level?
How would we handle different bytecode caches and extension modules?
Perhaps something like /usr/lib/python-epel? I thought python 3.6+ used
the __pycache__ directory that was able to distinguish between the
various python bytecodes.
I believe extension modules must be compiled for a specific
interpreter... I could be wrong there... I don't recall ever building
one myself.
Pat
--
Pat Riehecky
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
www.fnal.gov
www.scientificlinux.org
10:20 a.m.
On 30. 01. 20 16:52, Pat Riehecky wrote:
On 1/30/20 9:47 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 30. 01. 20 16:44, Pat Riehecky wrote:
>> While I lack good answers, perhaps another question. What a the thoughts on
>> using python `.pth` files for python modules that work in multiple interpreters?
>>
>> In theory this would permit bit for bit identical libraries in multiple
>> interpreters at once?
>
> Where would you put the files on the filesystem level?
>
> How would we handle different bytecode caches and extension modules?
>
Perhaps something like /usr/lib/python-epel? I thought python 3.6+ used the
__pycache__ directory that was able to distinguish between the various python
bytecodes.
Yes, but do we always ship all possible versions?
I believe extension modules must be compiled for a specific
interpreter... I
could be wrong there... I don't recall ever building one myself.
That is the case, exactly.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
10:18 p.m.
On 1/30/20 8:39 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 30. 01. 20 16:32, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> Folks -
>
> Looks like RHEL 8.2 will have python 3.8 in addition to python
> 3.6. From
> the 8.2 beta:
>
> Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 for x86_64 - AppStream Beta (RPMs)
> Name Stream Profiles Summary
> python27 2.7 [d][e] common [d] Python programming
> language, version 2.7
> python36 3.6 [d][e] build, common [d] Python programming
> language, version 3.6
> python38 3.8 [d][e] build, common [d] Python programming
> language, version 3.8
>
> Currently, %python_pkgversion is set to 3 in
> /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.python-srpm from python-srpm-macros.
>
> python3-devel is still provided only by python36-devel, so presumably all
> EPEL8 python packages will continue to be built against python 3.6.
> But I
> imagine that people will soon be asking for python 3.8 versions of EPEL
> packages. How can we provide those? Does this have to be done in some
> modular fashion - which seems to come back to the discussion of
> whether or not
> every package has to become its own module or whether to group them
> together
> somehow. Or since both python modules are "default" modules and we can
> install both python36-devel and python38-devel at the same time,
> perhaps we
> can define the python3_other* macros again for python38 and just go
> that way?
>
> Thoughts?
The idea is that the versions fo stuff we build in RHEL for different
python versions is different and I'd like to keep that idea in EPEL as
well. Building a python38-foo package from it's own spec should work as
follows:
BR python38-rpm-macros
BR python38-devel
BR python38-bar etc...
Regular specfile follows.
You can even have a single specfile that build for different Python
version based on local override of %python_pkgversion in the buildroot.
Building both versions from single spec file---single build would
require a new set of macros, yes (or hardcoding stuff). However I'd not
call them python3_other* unless you want to end up with
python3_other_other* the next time this happens.
This along with some more info from rhel 8.2 beta yields more questions
for me. While I do agree that building the python38 packages from
separate specs probably is the best route (biggest reason being it
allows for updating of individual module versions) I'm hoping we can
brainstorm ways to make this less onerous on individual packagers.
Looks like python38-devel is a module in RHEL 8.2 that provides a bunch
of stuff needed for building modules (python38-devel, python38-pytest, etc):
Red Hat CodeReady Linux Builder Beta for RHEL 8 x86_64 (RPMs)
Name Stream Profiles Summary
python38-devel 3.8 [e] Python
programming language, version 3.8
Since this isn't a default module, does this again mean the python38
packages in EPEL 8 need to be modules as well? Or can we provide a
buildroot that enables this module?
My current pie-in-the-sky idea is that we could do:
- create a epel8-python38 branch for all of the python-* packages with
epel8 branches.
- epel8-python38 buildroot would enable python38-devel and install
python38-rpm-macros and define python3_pkgversion to 38.
- This would imply an epel8-python38 repo. It's possible that some
packages from epel8-python38 wouldn't be able to be installed unless the
python38-devel module was enabled.
- This might lead to an explosion of repos if we try to work around
other modules in RHEL8 like this (php 7.3, perl, ruby 2.6)
Otherwise I think we will need python38 packages in EPEL8 to be modular.
If the module route is the way to go, I really do think that we should
try to not have every package be its own module, though the other
extreme (all packages in one module) probably is untenable as well. In
any case, this will require a lot more coordination among packagers (not
necessarily a bad thing).
Thoughts? Plans?
--
Orion Poplawski
Manager of NWRA Technical Systems 720-772-5637
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 https://www.nwra.com/
3:21 a.m.
On 2/13/20 5:18 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
On 1/30/20 8:39 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 30. 01. 20 16:32, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>> Folks -
>>
>> Looks like RHEL 8.2 will have python 3.8 in addition to python
>> 3.6. From
>> the 8.2 beta:
>>
>> Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 for x86_64 - AppStream Beta (RPMs)
>> Name Stream Profiles Summary
>> python27 2.7 [d][e] common [d] Python
>> programming
>> language, version 2.7
>> python36 3.6 [d][e] build, common [d] Python
>> programming
>> language, version 3.6
>> python38 3.8 [d][e] build, common [d] Python
>> programming
>> language, version 3.8
>>
>> Currently, %python_pkgversion is set to 3 in
>> /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.python-srpm from python-srpm-macros.
>>
>> python3-devel is still provided only by python36-devel, so
>> presumably all
>> EPEL8 python packages will continue to be built against python 3.6.
>> But I
>> imagine that people will soon be asking for python 3.8 versions of EPEL
>> packages. How can we provide those? Does this have to be done in some
>> modular fashion - which seems to come back to the discussion of
>> whether or not
>> every package has to become its own module or whether to group them
>> together
>> somehow. Or since both python modules are "default" modules and we
can
>> install both python36-devel and python38-devel at the same time,
>> perhaps we
>> can define the python3_other* macros again for python38 and just go
>> that way?
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> The idea is that the versions fo stuff we build in RHEL for different
> python versions is different and I'd like to keep that idea in EPEL
> as well. Building a python38-foo package from it's own spec should
> work as follows:
>
> BR python38-rpm-macros
> BR python38-devel
> BR python38-bar etc...
>
> Regular specfile follows.
>
> You can even have a single specfile that build for different Python
> version based on local override of %python_pkgversion in the buildroot.
>
> Building both versions from single spec file---single build would
> require a new set of macros, yes (or hardcoding stuff). However I'd
> not call them python3_other* unless you want to end up with
> python3_other_other* the next time this happens.
>
This along with some more info from rhel 8.2 beta yields more
questions for me. While I do agree that building the python38
packages from separate specs probably is the best route (biggest
reason being it allows for updating of individual module versions) I'm
hoping we can brainstorm ways to make this less onerous on individual
packagers.
Looks like python38-devel is a module in RHEL 8.2 that provides a
bunch of stuff needed for building modules (python38-devel,
python38-pytest, etc):
Hi!
Just a little correction, despite the name suggesting otherwise, the
"python38-devel" package is not in the python38-devel module, but in the
python38 module itself, which has a default stream.
The python38-devel module contains only python38-pytest and it's
dependencies (pyparsing, atomicwrites, attrs, packaging, py,
more-itertools, pluggy, wcwidth). And the reason it's not default is not
an intention but a current technical limitation of the automatically
generated "-devel" modules shipped in the CRB.
Red Hat CodeReady Linux Builder Beta for RHEL 8 x86_64 (RPMs)
Name Stream Profiles Summary
python38-devel 3.8 [e] Python
programming language, version 3.8
Since this isn't a default module, does this again mean the python38
packages in EPEL 8 need to be modules as well? Or can we provide a
buildroot that enables this module?
My current pie-in-the-sky idea is that we could do:
- create a epel8-python38 branch for all of the python-* packages with
epel8 branches.
- epel8-python38 buildroot would enable python38-devel and install
python38-rpm-macros and define python3_pkgversion to 38.
- This would imply an epel8-python38 repo. It's possible that some
packages from epel8-python38 wouldn't be able to be installed unless
the python38-devel module was enabled.
- This might lead to an explosion of repos if we try to work around
other modules in RHEL8 like this (php 7.3, perl, ruby 2.6)
Otherwise I think we will need python38 packages in EPEL8 to be
modular. If the module route is the way to go, I really do think that
we should try to not have every package be its own module, though the
other extreme (all packages in one module) probably is untenable as
well. In any case, this will require a lot more coordination among
packagers (not necessarily a bad thing).
Thoughts? Plans?
Since pytest is usually a build dependency, then theoretically you could
have non-modular python38 packages in EPEL, since all the important
stuff is in python38 with a default stream.
Tomas
_______________________________________________
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproj...
3:14 p.m.
On 2/13/20 02:21, Tomas Orsava wrote:
On 2/13/20 5:18 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> On 1/30/20 8:39 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>> On 30. 01. 20 16:32, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>>> Folks -
>>>
>>> Looks like RHEL 8.2 will have python 3.8 in addition to python 3.6.
From
>>> the 8.2 beta:
>>>
>>> Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 for x86_64 - AppStream Beta (RPMs)
>>> Name Stream Profiles Summary
>>> python27 2.7 [d][e] common [d] Python programming
>>> language, version 2.7
>>> python36 3.6 [d][e] build, common [d] Python programming
>>> language, version 3.6
>>> python38 3.8 [d][e] build, common [d] Python programming
>>> language, version 3.8
>>>
>>> Currently, %python_pkgversion is set to 3 in
>>> /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.python-srpm from python-srpm-macros.
>>>
>>> python3-devel is still provided only by python36-devel, so presumably all
>>> EPEL8 python packages will continue to be built against python 3.6. But I
>>> imagine that people will soon be asking for python 3.8 versions of EPEL
>>> packages. How can we provide those? Does this have to be done in some
>>> modular fashion - which seems to come back to the discussion of whether or
>>> not
>>> every package has to become its own module or whether to group them together
>>> somehow. Or since both python modules are "default" modules and we
can
>>> install both python36-devel and python38-devel at the same time, perhaps we
>>> can define the python3_other* macros again for python38 and just go that
way?
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>
>> The idea is that the versions fo stuff we build in RHEL for different
>> python versions is different and I'd like to keep that idea in EPEL as
>> well. Building a python38-foo package from it's own spec should work as
>> follows:
>>
>> BR python38-rpm-macros
>> BR python38-devel
>> BR python38-bar etc...
>>
>> Regular specfile follows.
>>
>> You can even have a single specfile that build for different Python version
>> based on local override of %python_pkgversion in the buildroot.
>>
>> Building both versions from single spec file---single build would require a
>> new set of macros, yes (or hardcoding stuff). However I'd not call them
>> python3_other* unless you want to end up with python3_other_other* the next
>> time this happens.
>>
>
> This along with some more info from rhel 8.2 beta yields more questions for
> me. While I do agree that building the python38 packages from separate
> specs probably is the best route (biggest reason being it allows for
> updating of individual module versions) I'm hoping we can brainstorm ways to
> make this less onerous on individual packagers.
>
> Looks like python38-devel is a module in RHEL 8.2 that provides a bunch of
> stuff needed for building modules (python38-devel, python38-pytest, etc):
Hi!
Just a little correction, despite the name suggesting otherwise, the
"python38-devel" package is not in the python38-devel module, but in the
python38 module itself, which has a default stream.
The python38-devel module contains only python38-pytest and it's dependencies
(pyparsing, atomicwrites, attrs, packaging, py, more-itertools, pluggy,
wcwidth). And the reason it's not default is not an intention but a current
technical limitation of the automatically generated "-devel" modules shipped
in the CRB.
>
> Red Hat CodeReady Linux Builder Beta for RHEL 8 x86_64 (RPMs)
> Name Stream Profiles Summary
> python38-devel 3.8 [e] Python programming
> language, version 3.8
>
> Since this isn't a default module, does this again mean the python38
> packages in EPEL 8 need to be modules as well? Or can we provide a
> buildroot that enables this module?
>
> My current pie-in-the-sky idea is that we could do:
>
> - create a epel8-python38 branch for all of the python-* packages with epel8
> branches.
> - epel8-python38 buildroot would enable python38-devel and install
> python38-rpm-macros and define python3_pkgversion to 38.
> - This would imply an epel8-python38 repo. It's possible that some packages
> from epel8-python38 wouldn't be able to be installed unless the
> python38-devel module was enabled.
> - This might lead to an explosion of repos if we try to work around other
> modules in RHEL8 like this (php 7.3, perl, ruby 2.6)
>
>
> Otherwise I think we will need python38 packages in EPEL8 to be modular. If
> the module route is the way to go, I really do think that we should try to
> not have every package be its own module, though the other extreme (all
> packages in one module) probably is untenable as well. In any case, this
> will require a lot more coordination among packagers (not necessarily a bad
> thing).
>
> Thoughts? Plans?
Since pytest is usually a build dependency, then theoretically you could have
non-modular python38 packages in EPEL, since all the important stuff is in
python38 with a default stream.
Tomas
Except that we are going to need python38-pytest, etc. in the EPEL8 buildroot
if we are going to build (most of) the packages in the first place. That's
the problem I'm running into now trying to build python38-jmespath:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=83570866
DEBUG util.py:444: No matching package to install: 'python38-pytest'
So I'm back to my original questions:
* Do we just make EPEL python38- packages as modules or try to hack up some
kind of build system support for it?
* If modules, every package a module or one (or a few) modules?
--
Orion Poplawski
IT Systems Manager 720-772-5637
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 https://www.nwra.com/
3:56 p.m.
On 3/2/22 14:14, epel-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
Except that we are going to need python38-pytest, etc. in the EPEL8
buildroot
if we are going to build (most of) the packages in the first place. That's
the problem I'm running into now trying to build python38-jmespath:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=83570866
DEBUG util.py:444: No matching package to install: 'python38-pytest'
So I'm back to my original questions:
* Do we just make EPEL python38- packages as modules or try to hack up some
kind of build system support for it?
* If modules, every package a module or one (or a few) modules?
I have been told that the lack of python38-pytest is an issue with the
buildroot generation and so have filed:
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10679
Hopefully this will make everything simpler as nothing has to be a module or
special in any way.
--
Orion Poplawski
IT Systems Manager 720-772-5637
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 https://www.nwra.com/
8:43 a.m.
On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 at 17:00, Orion Poplawski <orion(a)nwra.com> wrote:
On 3/2/22 14:14, epel-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
> Except that we are going to need python38-pytest, etc. in the EPEL8
buildroot
> if we are going to build (most of) the packages in the first place.
That's
> the problem I'm running into now trying to build python38-jmespath:
>
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=83570866
> DEBUG util.py:444: No matching package to install: 'python38-pytest'
>
> So I'm back to my original questions:
>
> * Do we just make EPEL python38- packages as modules or try to hack up
some
> kind of build system support for it?
> * If modules, every package a module or one (or a few) modules?
I have been told that the lack of python38-pytest is an issue with the
buildroot generation and so have filed:
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10679
Hopefully this will make everything simpler as nothing has to be a module
or
special in any way.
So this problem seems to be something with koji and that set of packages in
that sub-directory. I tested this with the following:
1. koji mock-config --tag epel8-next-build --arch x86_64 > e8-next.cfg
2. cp e8-next.cfg e8-next-infra.cfg
3. change `
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/repos/epel8-next-build/4499598/x86_64`
to `
https://infrastructure-iad.fedoraproject.org/repo/centos/stream8-kojitarg...
in the infra one. This points to the core repo that koji will try to import
as a buildroot.
4. `mock -r e8-next.cfg --enable-network --install dnf; mock -r e8-next.cfg
--enable-network --shell`
```
# dnf list python38-py*
Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:04 ago on Fri Mar 4 09:37:44 2022.
Available Packages
python38-PyMySQL.noarch 0.10.1-1.module_el8.4.0+677+b84873a2 build
python38-pycparser.noarch 2.19-3.module_el8.4.0+647+0ba99ce8
build
python38-pysocks.noarch 1.7.1-4.module_el8.4.0+665+abc3a503
build
python38-pytz.noarch 2019.3-3.module_el8.4.0+647+0ba99ce8
build
python38-pyyaml.x86_64 5.4.1-1.module_el8.6.0+929+89303463
build
```
5. Do the same with the other config so we see what the main is presenting
to koji:
```
# dnf list python38-py*
Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:01 ago on Fri Mar 4 09:39:58 2022.
Available Packages
python38-PyMySQL.noarch 0.10.1-1.module_el8.4.0+677+b84873a2 build
python38-py.noarch 1.8.0-8.module_el8.5.0+742+dbad1979
build
python38-pycparser.noarch 2.19-3.module_el8.4.0+647+0ba99ce8
build
python38-pyparsing.noarch 2.4.5-3.module_el8.5.0+742+dbad1979
build
python38-pysocks.noarch 1.7.1-4.module_el8.4.0+665+abc3a503
build
python38-pytest.noarch 4.6.6-3.module_el8.5.0+742+dbad1979
build
python38-pytz.noarch 2019.3-3.module_el8.4.0+647+0ba99ce8
build
python38-pyyaml.x86_64 5.4.1-1.module_el8.6.0+929+89303463
build
```
Notice the differing packages. For some reason part of koji is seeing some
problem with the packages in a set of directories and is not allowing
access to them.
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
Let us be kind to one another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle.
-- Ian MacClaren
777
days inactive
1541
days old
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
10 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Miro Hrončok -
Orion Poplawski -
Pat Riehecky -
Stephen John Smoogen -
Tomas Orsava