Once upon a time, Chris Murphy said:
> There are good reasons to use XFS by default for Server.
Are they listed somewhere?
--
Chris Adams
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org
On Feb 28, 2014, at 1:46 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> Can you elaborate on how that's eases the test matrix?
>
> As I said in a conversation with Stephen yesterday, I don't think it's
> the case that a common layout in partitions/fs is actually reducing
> the test load. From a component standpoin
Is there any chance of being able to do epel-7-ppc64 copr builds anytime
in the near future? I'd to test if a particular fix to gcc will fix an
ICE I'm seeing while compiling eigen3. copr seems to be the only tool
that could be available to me to do so, but alas no epel-7-ppc64 target
at the mome
On Feb 28, 2014, at 1:45 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 23:16 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> It's XFS vs ext4 and Server WG has agreed on XFS on LVM.
>
> As a server WG member I voted +1 on XFS as I have no particular
> objection to XFS as a filesystem, but I do think it se
On Fri, 28.02.14 15:37, Daniel J Walsh (dwa...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > sgallagh: "systemd-nspawn will be used to manage containerization
> > capabilities. " did I miss something or doesn't upstream say that it should
> > not be used for anything that needs secruity? drago01: Last I
> > heard, the
# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting
# Date: 2014-03-03
# Time: 16:00 UTC
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto)
# Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net
Greetings testers!
It's meeting time again on Monday! The .next Working Groups are expected
to have their technical spec
I've updated rawhide to cmake 3.0.0-rc1. That's a good place to look first if
your cmake build start failing suddenly.
- Orion
Original Message
Subject: [CMake] CMake 3.0-rc1 now ready for testing!
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 14:28:55 -0500
From: Robert Maynard
To: CMake Develope
On 02/27/2014 06:55 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
Hi folks,
thanks for your feedback in the last few days. I've created two wiki pages
about packages which don't execute their tests in %check:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Testing_in_check
and another one for packages which don't seem to have
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 14:31 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Chris Murphy
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2014-02-27/fedora-meeting-1.2014-02-27-15.00.log.html
> >>
> >> OK
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Josh Boyer (jwbo...@fedoraproject.org) said:
>> > Basically, what I'm saying is that if Desktop would be OK with using
>> > xfs-on-LVM as default with all choices demoted to custom partitioning
>> > (no dropdown), as Server has currently ag
On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 15:46 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 11:56 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> >> Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com) said:
> >> > Directed more broadly at all three products:
> >> >
> >> > Formal p
Josh Boyer (jwbo...@fedoraproject.org) said:
> > Basically, what I'm saying is that if Desktop would be OK with using
> > xfs-on-LVM as default with all choices demoted to custom partitioning
> > (no dropdown), as Server has currently agreed on, that'd be great. Or if
> > we could otherwise achiev
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 23:16 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> On Feb 27, 2014, at 11:07 PM, James Wilson Harshaw IV
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I apologize, I guess I did not get the whole background out of it.
>> >
>> > What filesystems are we conside
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 11:56 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>> Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com) said:
>> > Directed more broadly at all three products:
>> >
>> > Formal proposal (for discussion): All three products agree to use ext4
>>
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 23:16 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2014, at 11:07 PM, James Wilson Harshaw IV
> wrote:
>
> > I apologize, I guess I did not get the whole background out of it.
> >
> > What filesystems are we considering?
>
> It's XFS vs ext4 and Server WG has agreed on XFS on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/28/2014 08:56 AM, drago01 wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Stephen Gallagher
> wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>
>>
>> For the sake of keeping people in the loop, here's a first pass at the
>> Fedora Server t
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 20:29:12 +
Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 28 Feb 2014 19:51
> > OTOH important libraries that still break soname instead of using
> > symbol versioning in 2014 really make me frown loudly..
>
> Is there a best practice guide here? I'm guilty of breaking soname in
> my stuff e
On 28 Feb 2014 19:51
> OTOH important libraries that still break soname instead of using symbol
> versioning in 2014 really make me frown loudly..
Is there a best practice guide here? I'm guilty of breaking soname in my
stuff every few years...
Richard
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedorapro
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 11:56 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com) said:
> > Directed more broadly at all three products:
> >
> > Formal proposal (for discussion): All three products agree to use ext4
> > for /boot and XFS-on-LVM for all other partitions in the "g
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 15:55 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> Hi folks,
> thanks for your feedback in the last few days. I've created two wiki pages
> about
> packages which don't execute their tests in %check:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Testing_in_check
>
> and another one for packages
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 05:17:23PM +0100, Phil Knirsch wrote:
> We'll be revisiting the Tech Specs of Server and Workstation next
> week and if it's available the Cloud one as well.
We don't have one for cloud yet, although I think our PRD actually goes into
a little more detail along these lines
On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 19:37 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 28 February 2014 15:38, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> > This should not break builds of any reasonably current software.
>
> libgcrypt.so.11()(64bit) is needed by (installed)
> google-chrome-stable-33.0.1750.117-1.x86_64
>
> I guess not much we
On 28 February 2014 15:38, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> This should not break builds of any reasonably current software.
libgcrypt.so.11()(64bit) is needed by (installed)
google-chrome-stable-33.0.1750.117-1.x86_64
I guess not much we can do there, other than maintain a compat package
-- right? :(
Richa
* Jaroslav Reznik [2014-02-27 11:25]:
> = Proposed System Wide Change: System-wide crypto policy =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CryptoPolicy
>
> An idea of how this will be implemented is to have each Fedora
> application's configuration file or compilation option will set a
> system
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:52 AM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 10:58 -0700, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>
>>
>> - LEVEL-256 provides well under 256-bit security.
>> - This is fine because no one actually needs 256-bit security.
>>
>> So *why on earth* would it make sense to
Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos (n...@redhat.com) said:
> On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 11:52 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > > == Detailed Description ==
> > > The idea is to have some predefined security levels such as LEVEL-80,
> > > LEVEL-128, LEVEL-256,
> > > or ENISA-LEGACY, ENISA-FUTURE, SUITEB-128, SUI
Tomas Mraz wrote:
I'm rebasing libgcrypt in rawhide to libgcrypt-1.6.1. The new upstream
release contains many improvements over the old one especially in terms
of new crypto algorithm support and performance improvements.
Unfortunately the rebase bumps soname to libgcrypt.so.20 due to dropping
I'm rebasing libgcrypt in rawhide to libgcrypt-1.6.1. The new upstream
release contains many improvements over the old one especially in terms
of new crypto algorithm support and performance improvements.
Unfortunately the rebase bumps soname to libgcrypt.so.20 due to dropping
some long-ago deprec
Great discussion today about the current Tech spec for Server. Sgallagh
was present as well and provided great feedback on some of the point and
questions we had.
We'll be revisiting the Tech Specs of Server and Workstation next week
and if it's available the Cloud one as well.
Thanks & rega
On 02/27/2014 09:18 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 03:55:02PM +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>> thanks for your feedback in the last few days. I've created two wiki
>> pages about packages which don't execute their tests in %check:
>> https://fedoraproject.org
> > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Christian Schaller <
cscha...@redhat.com >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > The difference here is that the resources for GNOME (or anything else
Red Hat
> > needs for future versions of RHEL) are
> > provided by Red Hat. So if you want the spins to the logically the
The lightweight tag 'perl-Net-FTPServer-1.125-1.el7' was created pointing to:
be0e20b... Update to 1.125
--
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-de
2014-02-28 0:21 GMT+01:00 Chris Murphy :
> > 15:48:19 (Again, having a per-directory instead of per-user
> quotas would be rather beneficial here)
>
> A related item that came up is quotas. XFS supports project quotas. So
> that's possible in the case where you're on the fence if something should
Hi,
PHP 5.6.0 will be soon in "beta" stage.
(5.6.0alpha3 is available and should be the last alpha)
So I start working on PHP 5.6 packaging.
For those interested, for now, this happens in my personal repository
(remi-dev).
Fedora 20: http://rpms.famillecollet.com/fedora/20/devs/x86_64/repoview
Dne 28.2.2014 15:12, Eric Sandeen napsal(a):
On 2/28/14, 7:54 AM, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
Dne 28.2.2014 14:37, Chris Murphy napsal(a):
On Feb 28, 2014, at 1:33 AM, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
fsadm failed: 3
man fsadm
DIAGNOSTICS
On successful completion, the status code is 0.
On 2/28/14, 8:12 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> However, I see that (at least my copy of) fsadm requires xfs_check,
> which has been deprecated upstream in favor of xfs_repair -n.
> xfs_check doesn't scale, and xfs_repair -n performs the same
> tasks.
>
>> XFS_CHECK=xfs_check
>
> so I guess I should
On 2/28/14, 7:54 AM, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
> Dne 28.2.2014 14:37, Chris Murphy napsal(a):
>>
>> On Feb 28, 2014, at 1:33 AM, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
>>
>>
> fsadm failed: 3
>>>
>>
>>> man fsadm
>>>
>>> DIAGNOSTICS
>>>On successful completion, the status code is 0. A status code of
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> For the sake of keeping people in the loop, here's a first pass at the
> Fedora Server technical specification that we will be discussing in a
> meeting in #fedora-meeting-1 in about 7
Agenda:
- Discussion of Server Tech Spec[1]
- Open Floor
Thanks & regards, Phil
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Technical_Specification
--
Philipp Knirsch | Tel.: +49-711-96437-470
Manager Core Services| Fax.: +49-711-96437-111
Red Hat GmbH | E
Dne 28.2.2014 14:37, Chris Murphy napsal(a):
On Feb 28, 2014, at 1:33 AM, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
fsadm failed: 3
man fsadm
DIAGNOSTICS
On successful completion, the status code is 0. A status code of 2
indicates the operation was interrupted by the user. A
status
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1071324
Bug ID: 1071324
Summary: perl-Data-Peek-0.40 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-Data-Peek
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee: jples...@red
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
For the sake of keeping people in the loop, here's a first pass at the
Fedora Server technical specification that we will be discussing in a
meeting in #fedora-meeting-1 in about 75 minutes.
If you can't attend, please make comments on the
ser...@lis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064271
--- Comment #11 from Dan Horák ---
and fails too with glibc-2.18.90-22.fc21
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=PRxLh4hAol&a=cc_unsubs
On Feb 28, 2014, at 1:33 AM, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
>>> fsadm failed: 3
>
> man fsadm
>
> DIAGNOSTICS
> On successful completion, the status code is 0. A status code of 2
> indicates the operation was interrupted by the user. A
> status code of 3 indicates the requested ch
На 27.02.2014 18:14, Christopher Meng написа:
Interesting :
fedora-release-notes
***-fonts
Can someone point me how to test them?
See amiri-fonts, gnu-free-fonts and thai-scalable-fonts. These appear to have
some sort of testing available in the source and all three seem to be different.
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 11:52 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > == Detailed Description ==
> > The idea is to have some predefined security levels such as LEVEL-80,
> > LEVEL-128, LEVEL-256,
> > or ENISA-LEGACY, ENISA-FUTURE, SUITEB-128, SUITEB-256. These will be the
> > security levels
> > that t
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 10:37 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> In that case, why not give full control:
> allowed_ciphers = AES-192, AES-256, Salsa20/12, Salsa20/20
> allowed_groups = modp >= 2048, P-256, Curve25519
> allowed_hashes = SHA-3, ...
> allowed_modes = CTR, OCB, XTS, GCM
> allowed_macs =
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 17:59 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > How is an admin supposed to know what levels such as the above are, and why
> > they might choose a particular one?
> Supplemental question:
> Why wouldn't you always want to choose the most secure one?
>
> I believe the proposal is
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 10:58 -0700, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> >> For reference, there isn't a well-established, widely accepted
> >> symmetric cipher with 256-bit security. AES-256 is weak [1] and
> >> should probably not be used at all, let alone by anyone who wants a
> >> 256-bit security level
Dne 28.2.2014 00:02, Eric Sandeen napsal(a):
On 2/27/14, 4:40 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:02 PM, Jochen Schmitt wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 04:08:46PM -0500, James Wilson Harshaw IV wrote:
A question I have is XFS wor
50 matches
Mail list logo