On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> [...]
> In the US instead patents have their root in a specific constitutional
> provision that says that this kind of monopoly can only be granted if it
> promotes innovation, this means there is no specific ban on software
> patents but given
On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 00:12 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Mar 21, 2012, at 12:08 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> > It seems reasonable to consider this a grubby bug, yes?
>
>
> Considering grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/grub2/grub.cfg produces the exact
> correct result, guess I'm not understanding the p
On Mar 21, 2012, at 12:08 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> It seems reasonable to consider this a grubby bug, yes?
Considering grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/grub2/grub.cfg produces the exact correct
result, guess I'm not understanding the purpose of grubby. Are we in transition?
Chris Murphy
--
devel ma
On Mar 20, 2012, at 11:53 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>
> The yum update didn't update grub, but it did update the kernel. This is
> the first time you have done a kernel update via yum with the new grub2.
>
> grubby updates the grub.cfg file.
It seems reasonable to consider this a grubby bug, y
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> which (right now) has precisely one other hit on Google.
If you search for the demangled symbol, there are more references:
v8::internal::I18NExtension::get()
-Cam
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://adm
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 23:43 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Mar 20, 2012, at 8:56 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > I'm guessing it's the new grub2. I think I've seen another report of
> > problems installing new kernels after the grub2 update, but I don't see
> > any bug filed. Can someone file a bug
On Mar 20, 2012, at 11:43 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> Only other thing I can think of is that there was something wonky that got
> stuffed into grub.env
/boot/grub2/grubenv has a modification time of 24 hours ago. So I don't think
that's it. Maybe there's something important stuffed into the gr
On Mar 20, 2012, at 8:56 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I'm guessing it's the new grub2. I think I've seen another report of
> problems installing new kernels after the grub2 update, but I don't see
> any bug filed. Can someone file a bug on this, please?
When I boot from Fedora-17-Beta-TC2-x86_64-
On 03/20/2012 06:24 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> After a yum update a few minutes ago, GRUB's kinda messed up. Anyone else?
Yes, it happened to me, too, after booting an up-to-the-minute anaconda install
DVD
for _update_ (not fresh install). I built the DVD to test the changes that are
claimed to
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 19:24 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> After a yum update a few minutes ago, GRUB's kinda messed up. Anyone
> else?
>
> Right off the bat I get these two (2nd is a continuation of the 1st):
>
> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3253801/first.png
> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3253801/second.pn
On 03/21/2012 07:59 AM, Fedora Video wrote:
> In any case. This argument is moot. Fedora will distribute H.264 because it
> will be part of Firefox.
Actually no. You don't understand the situation. Firefox does not
include H.264 at all. Firefox will play H.264 if the underlying
platform includ
On 03/21/2012 07:59 AM, Fedora Video wrote:
> In any case. This argument is moot. Fedora will distribute H.264 because it
> will be part of Firefox.
Actually no. You don't understand the situation. Firefox does not
include H.264 at all. Firefox will play H.264 if the underlying
platform includ
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 22:29 -0400, Fedora Video wrote:
> In any case. This argument is moot. Fedora will distribute H.264
> because it will be part of Firefox.
No, it won't. You persist in misunderstanding this, though it has been
explained to you. Firefox will take advantage of a system h264 cod
On 03/21/2012 07:59 AM, Fedora Video wrote:
>
> The document is quite clear that Debian will not distribute software which
> only they can distribute or which can only be distributed
> non-commercially.
That may be the policy but the difference is that Debian is free to
interpret decoding as non
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Fedora Video wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>
>> Note that Debian does include a decoder by default for both MP3 and
>> H.264 but they can only do so because they are a non-profit and the
>> worst case scenario is a injunction u
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 13:39 -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
> >> 4) when milestones occur, arm needs to be just as testible as other
> >> primary architectures
> >
> > So we have a new hire (hi Paul) who is looking at autoqa, and we're
> > going to pull together as much as we can here. It would hel
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Note that Debian does include a decoder by default for both MP3 and
> H.264 but they can only do so because they are a non-profit and the
> worst case scenario is a injunction until they remove the infringing
> parts so realistically noone
On Mon, 2012-03-19 at 21:23 -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> So according to the Wiki, naming hasn't started yet, but it is also
> almost over :-)
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Name_suggestions_for_Fedora_18
>
> Naming Period: 13 March 13 through 20 March
>
> So when does it really start?
Be
On 03/21/2012 06:56 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 01:46 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Avi אבי Alkalay אלקלעי wrote:
>>> What are the legal tools that Ubuntu uses so it can ship H.264 ?
>>
>> It's based on the Isle of Man, not in the USA.
>
> Regardless, as far as I know, Ubun
On Mar 20, 2012, at 7:58 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> In the US instead patents have their root in a specific constitutional
> provision that says that this kind of monopoly can only be granted if it
> promotes innovation, this means there is no specific ban on software
> patents but given they argu
On Mon, 2012-03-19 at 15:44 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
> On 03/19/2012 02:32 PM, Nikos Roussos wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Alec Leamas
> > wrote:
> > On 03/19/2012 12:50 PM, Nikos Roussos wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm trying to build a package.
On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 01:46 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Avi אבי Alkalay אלקלעי wrote:
> > What are the legal tools that Ubuntu uses so it can ship H.264 ?
>
> It's based on the Isle of Man, not in the USA.
Regardless, as far as I know, Ubuntu does not ship h.264 encoding or
decoding support in
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 16:36 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
[lots elided]
> I was asked to reconsider my "invention" under another light: I was
> using captors to the external world. My prediction had an impact on a
> hardware product. In fact, every software patent you can think of can
> be
> reco
On 20/03/12 02:23 PM, Fedora Video wrote:
Why is Mozilla doing this? It is clear enough: Non-support of H.264
is making them irrelevant. They've gone from the #1 browser to the #4
directly as a result of not adopting H.264. H.264 is the only video
that is good enough for the web and the al
OK so I figured I'd give grub2-mkconfig a shot:
[root@f17v chris]# grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/grub2/grub.cfg
Generating grub.cfg ...
Found linux image: /boot/vmlinuz-3.3.0-1.fc17.x86_64
Found initrd image: /boot/initramfs-3.3.0-1.fc17.x86_64.img
Found linux image: /boot/vmlinuz-3.3.0-0.rc7.git0.3.fc1
After a yum update a few minutes ago, GRUB's kinda messed up. Anyone else?
Right off the bat I get these two (2nd is a continuation of the 1st):
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3253801/first.png
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3253801/second.png
Which apparently fails, because I then get this:
http://dl.dropb
Fedora Video gmail.com> writes:
> As everyone probably knows, Mozilla has chosen to adopt H.264. They will be
doing this by finally utilizing OS codecs instead of embedding their own. They
have been quite clear that Linux would be supported too, so obviously this means
H.264 in Fedora. With Firefo
Avi אבי Alkalay אלקלעי wrote:
> What are the legal tools that Ubuntu uses so it can ship H.264 ?
It's based on the Isle of Man, not in the USA.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
I actually support this idea.
What are the legal tools that Ubuntu uses so it can ship H.264 ?
Em terça-feira, 20 de março de 2012, Fedora Video
escreveu:
>
> As everyone probably knows, Mozilla has chosen to adopt H.264. They will
be doing this by finally utilizing OS codecs instead of embedding
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Peter Jones wrote:
>> In yesterday's FESCo meeting I told you I'd make a list of specific issues
>> I have with the current proposal for ARM as a primary archictecture. There
>> are some places where I think the current proposal fails to deal
On 3/20/12 5:14 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
But sure, in theory, we can do just about anything for a secondary arch
that we do for a primary arch, I don't think there's any technical
barrier to us doing update karma for ARM and test days for ARM and a
release validation process for ARM and all the
On Tuesday, March 20, 2012, 7:21:25 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/20/2012 05:46 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 05:37:10PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 03/20/2012 09:21 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> T
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 13:03 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > Subject
> > to applicability, the same QE mechanisms being employed.
>
> I don't see SA/PA mattering as much here. It's up to QE what they want
> to take on and what they point automated tooling at.
In theory...yeah. In boring every d
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 13:50 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Brendan Conoboy said:
> > Indeed, targeting mobile devices on day 1 is beyond the scope of the
> > proposal. The first step is the eat-our-own-dogfood target, which is
> > self-hosting ARM servers. Mobile devices are a n
On 03/20/2012 04:43 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
ARMv8 will be 64-bit and faster:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture#ARMv8_and_64-bit
http://www.arm.com/files/downloads/ARMv8_Architecture.pdf
It should be ready for servers and desktops, maybe, in three-four years.
But not today.
AR
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 12:08 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> 2) Updates. Submitting updates requires the entire build to be complete
> which means you have to wait for the slowest thing to finish. Having to
> wait for 12 hours effectively means you can't even test your update until
> the next day, and
Chris Adams wrote:
> Okay, but how many ARM servers are in widespread use? For the resources
> required as a primary arch, there should be a large expected user base.
> The first sentence of the detailed description on the feature page is
> "ARM processors are the most popular CPUs in the world."
On 03/20/2012 07:05 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 03/20/2012 10:44 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
Please, please, no. Cross compilation for Fedora cannot and will not
ever
get a secondary arch to primary. We're talking man-decades of
engineering
time
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 22:48 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:27:28PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Patent-encumbered codecs are evil and it is time to embrace
> > Free codecs.
>
> Actually, government-granted monopolies are the problem. The codecs
> and software run
Peter Jones wrote:
> In yesterday's FESCo meeting I told you I'd make a list of specific issues
> I have with the current proposal for ARM as a primary archictecture. There
> are some places where I think the current proposal fails to deal with some
> necessary aspects of becoming a primary archite
On 03/20/2012 05:46 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 05:37:10PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 03/20/2012 09:21 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
That said, I considera cross-building environment for secondary arch to
be inevitab
On 03/20/2012 03:33 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
You haven't answered his question: why would ARM-as-primary come before
Fedora-on-tablets and Fedora-on-cellphones? Those can be perfectly supported
using the secondary architecture infrastructure (or if not, we need to
improve that infrastructure).
T
On 03/20/2012 03:33 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
So in principle, do you object to the same koji hub being used for ARM
if ARM is still SA?
I'm not really sure how to process that question. As a current secondary
arch, the primary hub is still the trigger point for the vast majority
of the builds t
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:27:28PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Patent-encumbered codecs are evil and it is time to embrace
> Free codecs.
Actually, government-granted monopolies are the problem. The codecs
and software run just fine, over here in a free(-er) country.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones,
The lightweight tag 'perl-IO-Socket-SSL-1.60-1.fc18' was created pointing to:
8d02977... Update to 1.60
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-dev
The lightweight tag 'perl-IO-Socket-SSL-1.60-1.fc17' was created pointing to:
8d02977... Update to 1.60
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-dev
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:42:26PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 10:55:25AM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
> > On 03/19/2012 07:49 AM, Matej Cepl wrote:
> > > On 18.3.2012 21:38, Antonio Trande wrote:
> > >> So to install this web browser you could try:
> > >>
> > >> # yum
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 10:55:25AM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
> On 03/19/2012 07:49 AM, Matej Cepl wrote:
> > On 18.3.2012 21:38, Antonio Trande wrote:
> >> So to install this web browser you could try:
> >>
> >> # yum install libsrtp
> >> # yum --disablerepo=* --enablerepo=fedora-chromium-stable
Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 03/20/2012 12:03 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
>> Okay, but why is ARM-as-primary-arch an early step, and not near the
>> end? Increasing the developer and engineering burden across the whole
>> project should not be done for a small target audience.
>
> Really there is no b
On 3/20/12 2:33 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 03/20/2012 01:03 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
As an example, the same koji server handling x86 builds handling ARM
builds.
Only the koji hub would be the same, the arm builders would be different
machines. This isn't all that different from having the
Fedora Video wrote:
> It is time for Fedora to stop promoting low quality, proprietary, and
> unlicensed video like WebM and Theora and adopt the industry standard
> x264. Our political preferences are worthless if Fedora is irrelevant.
> It is time to regain relevance!
Fedora will never ship pa
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 02:33:57PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> The sense I'm getting from your reply is that the PA/SA designation
> is almost decorative, that a secondary can do anything a primary
> can, except inhibit the progress of builds. So, if the Fedora ARM
> team fixes all broken bui
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 17:23 -0400, Fedora Video wrote:
>
> As everyone probably knows, Mozilla has chosen to adopt H.264. They
> will be doing this by finally utilizing OS codecs instead of embedding
> their own. They have been quite clear that Linux would be supported
> too, so obviously this mea
On 03/20/2012 01:03 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
As an example, the same koji server handling x86 builds handling ARM
builds.
Only the koji hub would be the same, the arm builders would be different
machines. This isn't all that different from having the primary hub
trigger the arm hub to start a b
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Fedora Video wrote:
>
> As everyone probably knows, Mozilla has chosen to adopt H.264. They will be
> doing this by finally utilizing OS codecs instead of embedding their own.
> They have been quite clear that Linux would be supported too, so obviously
> this mean
Fedora Video (fedoravi...@gmail.com) said:
> As everyone probably knows, Mozilla has chosen to adopt H.264. They will be
> doing this by finally utilizing OS codecs instead of embedding their own.
> They have been quite clear that Linux would be supported too, so obviously
> this means H.264 in Fe
As everyone probably knows, Mozilla has chosen to adopt H.264. They will be
doing this by finally utilizing OS codecs instead of embedding their own.
They have been quite clear that Linux would be supported too, so obviously
this means H.264 in Fedora. With Firefox's adoption there will be no web
b
On 03/20/2012 01:48 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I would suggest -- in order to move the present discussion on -- that
you try using various methods to speed up an ARM build of (eg) glibc.
distcc, some sort of demo cross-compilation, etc. What works, what
doesn't work, what needs more work?
D
On 03/20/2012 01:32 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
Is cross-compile an option? if it is, how long does it take to
cross-compile in an x86_64 environment?
Discussed elsewhere in this thread. Not an option.
--
Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / b...@redhat.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fed
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:05:20AM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 03/20/2012 10:44 AM, drago01 wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> >>Please, please, no. Cross compilation for Fedora cannot and will not ever
> >>get a secondary arch to primary. We're talking ma
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 06:54:07PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> > Kevin, you don't know what you are talking about. Every cell phone has
> > an ARM cpu in it. Smart phone or otherwise. Almost every HDTV has an ARM
> > cpu in it. Almost every tablet has an ARM cpu in it.
On 03/20/2012 12:15 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Looking at last gcc build times (not unusual, though I really remember
arm taking much longer than that, e.g. 4.7.0-0.11.fc17 took almost 17 hours
on both arm architectures), from
http://*koji.fedoraproject.org/packages/gcc/4.7.0/0.20.fc17/data/logs/*
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 10:17 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> But it still seems to me like disabling
> swap on shutdown is useless work.
So, do I file this against initscripts or something else?
--
Bojan
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/
On 03/20/2012 01:14 PM, Andy Grover wrote:
Can Koji use distcc for ARM arches? Would that speedup be enough to make
ARM build competitive with others?
I believe this is a non-starter for rel-eng. The ARM team are not
recommending this path.
--
Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / b...@redhat.c
On 03/20/2012 09:15 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Looking at last gcc build times (not unusual, though I really remember
> arm taking much longer than that, e.g. 4.7.0-0.11.fc17 took almost 17 hours
> on both arm architectures), from
> http://*koji.fedoraproject.org/packages/gcc/4.7.0/0.20.fc17/data/l
On Mar 20, 2012, at 1:52 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
>>
>
> Yes, the all-or-nothing mindset between secondary and primary is almost
> certainly the root of the problem.
Well that and I think there's some resistance at the notion that for the
massive consumer market, the desktop is a dead pla
On 3/20/12 12:32 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 03/20/2012 12:19 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
What does "better than secondary arch" mean to you? I'm really
struggling here.
As an example, the same koji server handling x86 builds handling ARM
builds.
Only the koji hub would be the same, the arm b
On Mar 20, 2012, at 1:14 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>
>
> It doesn't make sense to discuss requirements for becoming a primary
> architecture without discussing whether it should be considered in the first
> place.
Seems requirements are needed to have the discussion, to have metrics based
rat
- Original Message -
> From: "Brendan Conoboy"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 9:14:11 PM
> Subject: Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements
>
> On 03/20/2012 12:05 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > So if you're willing to live like that, I mu
On 03/20/2012 03:32 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 03/20/2012 12:19 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> What does "better than secondary arch" mean to you? I'm really
>> struggling here.
>
> As an example, the same koji server handling x86 builds handling ARM
> builds. The same facilities providing power
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 16:35:19 +0100, ML (Miroslav) wrote:
> If you find a suspicious action, please let us know at
> crash-catc...@lists.fedorahosted.org or file a ticket at
> https://fedorahosted.org/abrt.
That list requires a subscription, so my earlier message had bounced.
Here's another susp
Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
If you find a suspicious action, please let us know at
crash-catc...@lists.fedorahosted.org or file a ticket at
https://fedorahosted.org/abrt.
What about bugs that your script did not catch?
Bug 752238[1] has about 100 dupes against it that I just wore out after
a han
On 03/20/2012 12:44 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
But this *requirements* thread is about acclimation, planning and anticipating
the challenges of the climb. Serious climbs may involve days or months of this.
So if the analogy holds, a lot of advance work has to be done before ARM
actually is promot
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=773044
abrt-...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
> If you find a suspicious action, please let us know at
> crash-catc...@lists.fedorahosted.org or file a ticket at
> https://fedorahosted.org/abrt.
>
> [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ABRTBacktraceDeduplication
>
Well,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/698426#c5
| Backtrace analysis foun
On Mar 20, 2012, at 1:03 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> I hate analogies, but no, the first step is working out in a gym to make sure
> you're in fit enough shape to go up the mountain.
As a distractor from long, heated threads, and mountain person - gym bunnies
get to altitude and implode routinel
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 20:14:14 +0100
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> It doesn't make sense to discuss requirements for becoming a primary
> architecture without discussing whether it should be considered in
> the first place. I don't see ANY reasons why it's needed. And as I
> wrote in my first reply in thi
On 03/20/2012 12:19 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
What does "better than secondary arch" mean to you? I'm really
struggling here.
As an example, the same koji server handling x86 builds handling ARM
builds. The same facilities providing power, cooling, storage. Subject
to applicability, the same
On 03/20/2012 01:42 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:54:36PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> > > The hardware is way slower ... so we can just build on faster hardware
> > > (x86_64). Which is the only sane way to do it.
> > > Trying to build on ARM directly is kind of a gimmick bu
On 03/20/2012 12:03 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Okay, but why is ARM-as-primary-arch an early step, and not near the
end? Increasing the developer and engineering burden across the whole
project should not be done for a small target audience.
Really there is no beginning and no end, so we're somewh
On Mar 20, 2012, at 12:52 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> Proposed as blocker, F17 Final.
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805272
Just mentioned in the bug report, but failed to mention here upon discovery.
The Windows Vista installer, presumably also Windows 7, but no idea about XP,
wi
On 3/20/12 12:14 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 03/20/2012 12:05 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
So if you're willing to live like that, I must ask again, what do you
think you'll be getting out of being a primary arch?
I'm willing to temporarily do better than secondary and worse than
primary on the
Chris Tyler píše v Út 20. 03. 2012 v 14:40 -0400:
> On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 18:21 +0100, Dan Horák wrote:
> > drago01 píše v Út 20. 03. 2012 v 17:57 +0100:
> > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> > > > On 03/20/2012 09:37 AM, drago01 wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I'm a big fan
On 3/20/12 12:05 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
IIf there is some sane way to distribute a single armv7hl or armv5tel
build across multiple builders that may be an interesting avenue to
pursue (Sanity tbd by releng:-). The builders we expect to see this
year have 4 cores, but if we could realistica
Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> This was one of the points raised by FESCo yesterday, and it's a fine
> question that we'll be answering better, elsewhere, in due course. That
> said, where does this question lead? If we explain what we're trying to
> get to, will it somehow overcome the objections rais
On 03/20/2012 12:05 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
So if you're willing to live like that, I must ask again, what do you
think you'll be getting out of being a primary arch?
I'm willing to temporarily do better than secondary and worse than
primary on the road to becoming primary. This is a huge tr
On 03/20/2012 11:37 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
We had something like this where i586 and i686 were considered different
arches, at least for the kernel, and those two builds would happen in
parallel often on different machines. Perhaps the same could be done for
the arm variants as well.
Right no
On 3/20/12 11:59 AM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
I haven't run this by anybody yet, so if it's nonsense just say so, but...
Would it be reasonable to, even amongst primary architectures, allow
these steps to go forward even if one arch fails while another succeeds?
Let's say we have arch-groups in
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 03/20/2012 11:16 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>>
>> You are materially impacted. AutoQA won't run until the entire build is
>> complete. Updates cannot be prepared until the entire build is complete.
>> Buildroots won't be updated with the b
Once upon a time, Brendan Conoboy said:
> Believe me, I want to target those CPUs, but no single proposal can
> include all the steps necessary to get there. Think of ARM-on-primary
> as the first of many steps designed to get us there. If you've ever
> climbed a mountain you'll know that the
On 3/20/12 11:54 AM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
Believe me, I want to target those CPUs, but no single proposal can
include all the steps necessary to get there. Think of ARM-on-primary
as the first of many steps designed to get us there. If you've ever
climbed a mountain you'll know that the trick
On 3/20/12 11:50 AM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 03/20/2012 11:20 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
Honestly I've yet to see a succinct list of reasons why secondary arch
is no longer good enough for the ARM effort, for at least the next few
releases. I may have missed it in the flurry of emails and debate
On 03/20/2012 11:16 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
You are materially impacted. AutoQA won't run until the entire build is
complete. Updates cannot be prepared until the entire build is complete.
Buildroots won't be updated with the build results until the entire
build is complete. You won't know if yo
On 03/20/2012 11:50 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
Okay, but how many ARM servers are in widespread use? For the resources
required as a primary arch, there should be a large expected user base.
The first sentence of the detailed description on the feature page is
"ARM processors are the most popular CP
Proposed as blocker, F17 Final.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805272
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 03/20/2012 11:20 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
Honestly I've yet to see a succinct list of reasons why secondary arch
is no longer good enough for the ARM effort, for at least the next few
releases. I may have missed it in the flurry of emails and debate,
anybody care to recap it for clarity?
Thi
Once upon a time, Brendan Conoboy said:
> Indeed, targeting mobile devices on day 1 is beyond the scope of the
> proposal. The first step is the eat-our-own-dogfood target, which is
> self-hosting ARM servers. Mobile devices are a natural direction for
> Fedora ARM, of course, but as with eve
On 03/20/2012 11:39 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
And how many cell phones, tablets, and TVs is Fedora ARM planning to
target? It doesn't sound like that's the target market (at least at
this time).
Indeed, targeting mobile devices on day 1 is beyond the scope of the
proposal. The first step is the
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 18:21 +0100, Dan Horák wrote:
> drago01 píše v Út 20. 03. 2012 v 17:57 +0100:
> > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> > > On 03/20/2012 09:37 AM, drago01 wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm a big fan of cross compilation, but introducing it into Fedora in
> > >>
Once upon a time, Michael Cronenworth said:
> Kevin, you don't know what you are talking about. Every cell phone has
> an ARM cpu in it. Smart phone or otherwise. Almost every HDTV has an ARM
> cpu in it. Almost every tablet has an ARM cpu in it. What do people buy
> these days? Phones, tablets
1 - 100 of 210 matches
Mail list logo
