# F22 Blocker Review meeting
# Date: 2015-03-16
# Time: 1600 UTC
# Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net
It's coming up to that time of the week again: Blocker Review! Currently
we have 5/1 proposed blockers for Beta and Final. Again, we're meeting
at 1600 UTC right after the QA mee
On 03/12/2015 12:00 PM, Dave Love wrote:
> Sandro Mani writes:
>
>>> openmpi seems to be using
>>>
>>> /usr/lib64/openmpi/bin/
>>> /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/
>>>
>>> so perhaps the "mpich" option is better than a generic "mpi"?
>>>
>> Yes, and this is the way it was before. I'd say this is just an
>
On 03/13/2015 01:58 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 07:46:04 +0100
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/12/2015 05:06 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Well, all I can say, building rawhide packages (esp. C++) seems to
have evolved into a lottery and rendered working one Fedora
packages into an ad
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Don't use __attribute__((alias(foo_gmp))), use asm("foo_gmp"), as per:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.9.2/gcc/Asm-Labels.html
We need both names available, the "_gmp"-suffixed version for
polymake, and the standard version for everyth
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 07:46:04 +0100
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/12/2015 05:06 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> > Well, all I can say, building rawhide packages (esp. C++) seems to
> > have evolved into a lottery and rendered working one Fedora
> > packages into an adventure.
> >
> > E.g. I am faci
Thanks Patrick.
On 03/13/2015 12:02 AM, Patrick Uiterwijk wrote:
golang-googlecode-gcfg: http//code.google.com/p/gcfg
golang-googlecode-go-crypto: https//code.google.com/p/go.crypto
golang-googlecode-go-exp: http//code.google.com/p/go.exp
golang-googlecode-gomock: http//code.google.com/p/gomock
Do you like regular expressions? Do you like regular expressions which
are not regular any more? Do you think PCRE library API looks like
a zombie from previous milenium? Do you want to have a fresh new one in
Fedora?
Whatever your answer to these questions is, PCRE development team
has already re
On 03/12/2015 03:41 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> We may want to revisit this, honestly. The actual proposal was just to
> build executables as PIE, right? Forcing -z now is a bit more than
> maybe was expected.
People tell conflicting things about PIE. I have asked essentially the
same thing, and
On 03/13/2015 10:14 AM, Moez Roy wrote:
> I added the above information to the wiki as requested:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Harden_all_packages_with_position-independent_code#Detailed_Harden_Flags_Description
I think people who can read GCC specs file syntax will not have to
consul
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
wrote:
> I think it is important to document what a hardened build means, in the
> change request as well as provide a pointer from the packaging
> guidelines. It's no much point mentioning hardened builds but no-one can
> find out what are
On 03/13/2015 03:11 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> dnf update --refresh might be what you are looking for
--best sometimes reveal newer packages as well.
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCE, RHCDS
Red Hat, Senior Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproje
On Thu, 2015-03-12 at 18:49 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 10:41:49AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
>
> > We may want to revisit this, honestly. The actual proposal was just to
> > build executables as PIE, right? Forcing -z now is a bit more than
> > maybe was expected.
> Yes, i
12 matches
Mail list logo
