Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

2014-02-28 Thread Chris Adams
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

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

2014-02-28 Thread Chris Murphy
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

copr epel-7-ppc64?

2014-02-28 Thread Orion Poplawski
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

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

2014-02-28 Thread Chris Murphy
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

Re: Server Technical Specification: Agenda and First Draft

2014-02-28 Thread Lennart Poettering
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

[Test-Announce] 2014-03-03 @ 16:00 UTC - Fedora QA Meeting

2014-02-28 Thread Adam Williamson
# 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

Fwd: [CMake] CMake 3.0-rc1 now ready for testing!

2014-02-28 Thread Orion Poplawski
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

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Wiki pages: Missing tests in %check and missing upstream test suites

2014-02-28 Thread Orion Poplawski
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

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

2014-02-28 Thread Adam Williamson
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

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

2014-02-28 Thread Josh Boyer
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

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

2014-02-28 Thread Adam Williamson
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

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

2014-02-28 Thread Bill Nottingham
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

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

2014-02-28 Thread Josh Boyer
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

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

2014-02-28 Thread Josh Boyer
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 >>

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

2014-02-28 Thread Adam Williamson
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

Re: Server Technical Specification: Agenda and First Draft

2014-02-28 Thread Daniel J Walsh
-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

Re: libgcrypt soname bump in rawhide

2014-02-28 Thread Dan Horák
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

Re: libgcrypt soname bump in rawhide

2014-02-28 Thread Richard Hughes
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

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

2014-02-28 Thread Adam Williamson
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

Re: Wiki pages: Missing tests in %check and missing upstream test suites

2014-02-28 Thread Adam Williamson
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

Re: [Base] Fedora Base Design Working Group (2014-02-28) meeting minutes and logs

2014-02-28 Thread Matthew Miller
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

Re: libgcrypt soname bump in rawhide

2014-02-28 Thread Simo Sorce
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

Re: libgcrypt soname bump in rawhide

2014-02-28 Thread Richard Hughes
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

Re: F21 System Wide Change: System-wide crypto policy

2014-02-28 Thread Omair Majid
* 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

Re: F21 System Wide Change: System-wide crypto policy

2014-02-28 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
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

Re: F21 System Wide Change: System-wide crypto policy

2014-02-28 Thread Bill Nottingham
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

Re: libgcrypt soname bump in rawhide

2014-02-28 Thread Michael Cronenworth
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

libgcrypt soname bump in rawhide

2014-02-28 Thread Tomas Mraz
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

[Base] Fedora Base Design Working Group (2014-02-28) meeting minutes and logs

2014-02-28 Thread Phil Knirsch
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

Re: Wiki pages: Missing tests in %check and missing upstream test suites

2014-02-28 Thread Cole Robinson
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

Re: Fedora.NEXT Products and the fate of Spins

2014-02-28 Thread Peter Robinson
> > 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

[perl-Net-FTPServer] Created tag perl-Net-FTPServer-1.125-1.el7

2014-02-28 Thread Paul Howarth
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

Re: LVMthinp (was: default file system - Comparison to Workstation TS)

2014-02-28 Thread Miloslav Trmač
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

PHP 5.6.0

2014-02-28 Thread Remi Collet
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

Re: lvresize and XFS, was: default file system

2014-02-28 Thread Zdenek Kabelac
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.

Re: lvresize and XFS, was: default file system

2014-02-28 Thread Eric Sandeen
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

Re: lvresize and XFS, was: default file system

2014-02-28 Thread Eric Sandeen
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

Re: Server Technical Specification: Agenda and First Draft

2014-02-28 Thread drago01
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

[Base] Base Design WG agenda meeting 28. Feb 2014 15:00 UTC on #fedora-meeting

2014-02-28 Thread Phil Knirsch
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

Re: lvresize and XFS, was: default file system

2014-02-28 Thread Zdenek Kabelac
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

[Bug 1071324] New: perl-Data-Peek-0.40 is available

2014-02-28 Thread bugzilla
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

Fwd: Server Technical Specification: Agenda and First Draft

2014-02-28 Thread Stephen Gallagher
-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

[Bug 1064271] perl-Net-SSLeay tests failing on s390(x) with glibc-2.18.90-21.fc21

2014-02-28 Thread bugzilla
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

Re: lvresize and XFS, was: default file system

2014-02-28 Thread Chris Murphy
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

Re: Wiki pages: Missing tests in %check and missing upstream test suites

2014-02-28 Thread Alexander Todorov
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.

Re: F21 System Wide Change: System-wide crypto policy

2014-02-28 Thread Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
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

Re: F21 System Wide Change: System-wide crypto policy

2014-02-28 Thread Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
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 =

Re: F21 System Wide Change: System-wide crypto policy

2014-02-28 Thread Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
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

Re: F21 System Wide Change: System-wide crypto policy

2014-02-28 Thread Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
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

Re: lvresize and XFS, was: default file system

2014-02-28 Thread Zdenek Kabelac
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