Re: koschei/koji build failures

On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 20:19:26 -0700 Orion Poplawski wrote: > On 11/07/2015 08:15 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 19:55:56 -0700 > > Orion Poplawski wrote: > > > >> I'm starting to see koschei build failures, but no particular info > >> as to why it failed. See: > >> https://kojipk

Re: packaging golang guidelines (like etcd, consul)

On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 10:11:08AM -0500, Jakub Cajka wrote: > - Original Message - > > From: "Adam Goode" > > To: devel at lists.fedoraproject.org > > Cc: "Matthew Miller" > > Sent: Friday, November 6, 2015 3:47:42 PM > > Subject: Re: packaging golang guidelines (like etcd, consul) > >

Re: koschei/koji build failures

On 11/07/2015 08:15 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 19:55:56 -0700 Orion Poplawski wrote: I'm starting to see koschei build failures, but no particular info as to why it failed. See: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/work/tasks/9874/11749874/root.log DEBUG util.py:393: Running tr

Re: koschei/koji build failures

On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 19:55:56 -0700 Orion Poplawski wrote: > I'm starting to see koschei build failures, but no particular info as > to why it failed. See: > https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/work/tasks/9874/11749874/root.log > > DEBUG util.py:393: Running transaction > DEBUG util.py:515: Chi

koschei/koji build failures

I'm starting to see koschei build failures, but no particular info as to why it failed. See: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/work/tasks/9874/11749874/root.log DEBUG util.py:393: Running transaction DEBUG util.py:515: Child return code was: 1 DEBUG util.py:172: kill orphans -- Orion Popl

Re: COPR for ARM?

On 7 November 2015 at 17:51, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Stephen John Smoogen > wrote: >> >> >> On Nov 7, 2015 13:50, "Neal Gompa" wrote: >> > >> > Why don't we do emulated builds (like how OBS does it for ARM)? >> > >> > >> >> The attempts at emulated builds have usually

Re: COPR for ARM?

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On Nov 7, 2015 13:50, "Neal Gompa" wrote: > > > > ​Why don't we do emulated builds (like how OBS does it for ARM)?​ > > > > > > The attempts at emulated builds have usually been slower than the hardware > builds > ​Are they unusable

Re: Retire a package from Fedora i686 (not x86_64)

Reindl Harald wrote: > frankly whatever somebody has run on a 10 years old machine can be > easily virtualized and i doubt that many people have a 10 years old > computer as their only device, as far there is something with a core2 or > newer in the house you can virtualize the other machine and sa

Re: Retire a package from Fedora i686 (not x86_64)

Reindl Harald wrote: > frankly whatever somebody has run on a 10 years old machine can be > easily virtualized and i doubt that many people have a 10 years old > computer as their only device, as far there is something with a core2 or > newer in the house you can virtualize the other machine and sa

Re: Retire a package from Fedora i686 (not x86_64)

Am 08.11.2015 um 00:56 schrieb Kevin Kofler: Reindl Harald wrote: if there would be no difference kernel upstream won't invest that much time for runtime-cpu-detection (look at the bootlog on different hardware) Exactly BECAUSE performance-critical software normally does runtime detection (e

Re: Retire a package from Fedora i686 (not x86_64)

Reindl Harald wrote: > if there would be no difference kernel upstream won't invest that much > time for runtime-cpu-detection (look at the bootlog on different hardware) Exactly BECAUSE performance-critical software normally does runtime detection (except where upstream is really really lazy), h

Re: COPR for ARM?

On Nov 7, 2015 13:50, "Neal Gompa" wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >> >> On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 11:19:00 -0600 (CST) >> Jerry Vonau wrote: >> >> > Hi All, >> > >> > I really like being able to use COPR to build rpms, what a great >> > tool. Be nice to have a one stop sh

Re: COPR for ARM?

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 11:19:00 -0600 (CST) > Jerry Vonau wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > I really like being able to use COPR to build rpms, what a great > > tool. Be nice to have a one stop shop under one roof for all the > > supported arches. Give

Re: Oprhaned EPEL7 branch of Quassel

Hi, I've taken quassel now as I use it on EPEL7 and I found that there was a security fix release in 0.11.x series. Greetings, Christian On 10/30/2015 06:00 PM, Adam Miller wrote: > Hello all, > I have orphaned the EPEL7 branch of Quassel as I have stopped > using it long ago and no longer

Re: Retire a package from Fedora i686 (not x86_64)

Am 07.11.2015 um 20:36 schrieb drago01: On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: the point is compile a single application with new features won#t gain that muc 8until you do the same with most libraries used by the software) but having the whole distribution is a summary with a c

Re: Retire a package from Fedora i686 (not x86_64)

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 07.11.2015 um 19:27 schrieb drago01: >> >> On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Reindl Harald >> wrote: >>> >>> maybe you did not get "not that i say Fedora should go ahead and build >>> with >>> -mavx" but we talk about SSE3 >> >> >> Compi

Re: COPR for ARM?

On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 11:19:00 -0600 (CST) Jerry Vonau wrote: > Hi All, > > I really like being able to use COPR to build rpms, what a great > tool. Be nice to have a one stop shop under one roof for all the > supported arches. Given that 'armhfp' is now a primary arch are there > any plans in the

Re: DNF is completly unable to act with local packages

On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 17:20:25 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > but after nearly 10 years "yum update *.rpm" or "yum localupdate *.rpm" > i have zero understanding for "dnf update *.rpm" not working properly > over months and releases That doesn't surprise me. I don't understand those half-hearted at

Re: Retire a package from Fedora i686 (not x86_64)

Am 07.11.2015 um 19:27 schrieb drago01: On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: maybe you did not get "not that i say Fedora should go ahead and build with -mavx" but we talk about SSE3 Compiling everything with sse3 does have a cost (dropping support for some hardware) but wha

Re: Retire a package from Fedora i686 (not x86_64)

Am 07.11.2015 um 19:26 schrieb Neal Gompa: On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Reindl Harald that must be why Redhat dropped i686 completly with RHEL7... BTW: you converting of plaintext mails to HTML and place a few lines below a full quote is annoying 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one tr

Re: Retire a package from Fedora i686 (not x86_64)

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 07.11.2015 um 19:01 schrieb Kevin Kofler: >> >> Reindl Harald wrote: >>> >>> well, who's to say that we stay forever on a level of CPU >>> feature-support while there are instruction sets available for a whole >>> decade which improve p

Re: Retire a package from Fedora i686 (not x86_64)

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 07.11.2015 um 19:01 schrieb Kevin Kofler: > >> Reindl Harald wrote: >> >>> well, who's to say that we stay forever on a level of CPU >>> feature-support while there are instruction sets available for a whole >>> decade which improve pe

Re: Retire a package from Fedora i686 (not x86_64)

Am 07.11.2015 um 19:01 schrieb Kevin Kofler: Reindl Harald wrote: well, who's to say that we stay forever on a level of CPU feature-support while there are instruction sets available for a whole decade which improve performance, save power in case you need fewer instructions doing the same wor

Re: Retire a package from Fedora i686 (not x86_64)

Reindl Harald wrote: > well, who's to say that we stay forever on a level of CPU > feature-support while there are instruction sets available for a whole > decade which improve performance, save power in case you need fewer > instructions doing the same work? > > not that i say Fedora should go ah

Re: Retire a package from Fedora i686 (not x86_64)

Am 07.11.2015 um 18:30 schrieb Kevin Kofler: Felix Miata wrote: I have a computer without SSE3. It runs Fedora just fine. I initially had 1 GiB of RAM in it, I upgraded it to 3 GiB. I have approximately 40 Fedora installations on 32 bit CPUs. About half of those are on Prescotts. I'm unable

Re: Unexpected NIC naming f23 firewall implications

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015, 12:28 Christopher wrote: I recently updated my desktop to f23, and it went smoothly, for the most part. However, it broke my mediatomb server because the NIC changed from em1 to eno1. Is this something that was expected? It certainly surprised me. In addition to the mediato

Re: Retire a package from Fedora i686 (not x86_64)

Felix Miata wrote: >> I have a computer without SSE3. It runs Fedora just fine. I initially had >> 1 GiB of RAM in it, I upgraded it to 3 GiB. > > I have approximately 40 Fedora installations on 32 bit CPUs. About half of > those are on Prescotts. I'm unable to notice that those with more than 1G

Unexpected NIC naming f23 firewall implications

I recently updated my desktop to f23, and it went smoothly, for the most part. However, it broke my mediatomb server because the NIC changed from em1 to eno1. Is this something that was expected? It certainly surprised me. In addition to the mediatomb configuration needing to be changed, I also n

COPR for ARM?

Hi All, I really like being able to use COPR to build rpms, what a great tool. Be nice to have a one stop shop under one roof for all the supported arches. Given that 'armhfp' is now a primary arch are there any plans in the works to offer 'armhfp' chroots in COPR? Thanks in advance, JerryV --

Re: F24: no rsyslog forwarding

On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 01:31:11PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 07.11.2015 um 12:59 schrieb Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek: > >On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 06:20:39PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > >> > >> > >>Am 06.11.2015 um 18:15 schrieb Subhendu Ghosh: > >>> > >>>On Nov 6, 2015 9:52 AM, "Reind

Re: DNF is completly unable to act with local packages

Am 07.11.2015 um 17:11 schrieb Michael Schwendt: On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 16:35:41 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: simple example: * on my machines i try to uninstall all unneeded stuff * koji download for testing * a dozen of subpackages * instead compare 5 minutes which one i need click on all 5

Re: DNF is completly unable to act with local packages

On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 16:35:41 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > simple example: > > * on my machines i try to uninstall all unneeded stuff > * koji download for testing > * a dozen of subpackages > * instead compare 5 minutes which one i need click >on all 5 downloadlinks and "dnf update *.rpm" >

Re: DNF is completly unable to act with local packages

On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 17:18:14 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: > Frankly I didn't even realize the 0.rc1.X scheme was against the > guidelines since to me this is the (obviously) correct way to do it with > predictable pre-release names (its predictable when you're the one doing > the upstream tarba

Re: Retire a package from Fedora i686 (not x86_64)

Am 07.11.2015 um 16:40 schrieb Felix Miata: Reindl Harald composed on 2015-11-07 16:12 (UTC+0100): Felix Miata composed: Any demarcation that is calendar based is purely arbitrary. 64 bit was introduced far more than 10 years ago. There is plenty of 32 bit hardware perfectly capable of doing

Re: Retire a package from Fedora i686 (not x86_64)

Reindl Harald composed on 2015-11-07 16:12 (UTC+0100): > Felix Miata composed: >> Kevin Kofler composed on 2015-11-07 14:05 (UTC+0100): >>> Reindl Harald wrote: come on and don't tell me 99% of i686 users have machines older than 10 years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSE3 because "nt

Re: DNF is completly unable to act with local packages

Am 07.11.2015 um 16:24 schrieb Michael Schwendt: On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 15:48:20 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: Fedora 23 was *released* with rpm-4.13.0-0.rc1.3.fc23.x86_64.rpm Yes. Multiple people have touched the package, keeping this different versioning scheme. It's a lost cause. your compla

Re: DNF is completly unable to act with local packages

On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 15:48:20 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > Fedora 23 was *released* with rpm-4.13.0-0.rc1.3.fc23.x86_64.rpm Yes. Multiple people have touched the package, keeping this different versioning scheme. It's a lost cause. > your complaints have *nothing* to do with teh fact that DNF is

Re: DNF is completly unable to act with local packages

On 11/07/2015 04:41 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 13:20:03 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: Error: nothing provides rpm-libs(x86-64) = 4.13.0-0.rc1.5.fc23 needed 0.rc1.5.fc23 ??? *sigh* My motivation to do package reviews is hurt a lot by bad examples like that. It's as if some

Re: Retire a package from Fedora i686 (not x86_64)

Am 07.11.2015 um 16:01 schrieb Felix Miata: Kevin Kofler composed on 2015-11-07 14:05 (UTC+0100): Reindl Harald wrote: come on and don't tell me 99% of i686 users have machines older than 10 years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSE3 because "ntel introduced SSE3 in early 2004 with the Presc

Re: Retire a package from Fedora i686 (not x86_64)

Kevin Kofler composed on 2015-11-07 14:05 (UTC+0100): > Reindl Harald wrote: >> come on and don't tell me 99% of i686 users have machines older than 10 >> years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSE3 because "ntel introduced SSE3 >> in early 2004 with the Prescott revision of their Pentium 4 CPU" An

Re: DNF is completly unable to act with local packages

Am 07.11.2015 um 15:41 schrieb Michael Schwendt: On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 13:20:03 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: Error: nothing provides rpm-libs(x86-64) = 4.13.0-0.rc1.5.fc23 needed 0.rc1.5.fc23 ??? *sigh* My motivation to do package reviews is hurt a lot by bad examples like that. It's as if some

Re: DNF is completly unable to act with local packages

On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 13:20:03 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > Error: nothing provides rpm-libs(x86-64) = 4.13.0-0.rc1.5.fc23 needed 0.rc1.5.fc23 ??? *sigh* My motivation to do package reviews is hurt a lot by bad examples like that. It's as if some people put a lot of effort into trying to ignore t

Fedora Rawhide 20151107 compose check report

Missing expected images: Cloud disk raw i386 Cloud disk raw x86_64 Cloud_atomic disk raw x86_64 Generic boot i386 Generic boot x86_64 Images in this compose but not Rawhide 20151106: Workstation disk raw armhfp Soas disk raw armhfp No images in Rawhide 20151106 but not this. Failed openQA test

Re: Retire a package from Fedora i686 (not x86_64)

Oh, and I forgot (sorry for replying to the same mail twice): Ralf Corsepius wrote: > ACK. Does anybody know if there are any x86_64/64bit-CPUs which do not > support sse3? The first Athlon64 CPUs did not support SSE3. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org ht

Re: Retire a package from Fedora i686 (not x86_64)

Germano Massullo wrote: > [09:22] basically, at this point, DT makes no sense on x86, > except maybe dt-cli Well, I think that, in the absence of a real portability fix, building the package (with SSE3, or in general the minimum instruction set it supports) is better than ExcludeArch. The goal

Re: Retire a package from Fedora i686 (not x86_64)

Reindl Harald wrote: > come on and don't tell me 99% of i686 users have machines older than 10 > years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSE3 because "ntel introduced SSE3 > in early 2004 with the Prescott revision of their Pentium 4 CPU" > > those machines would not be able to run a recent Fedora due

Re: Retire a package from Fedora i686 (not x86_64)

Ralf Corsepius wrote: > Exactly - That's the actual problem. Upstream does not care and Fedora > seems unable to address this issue. I think the only way to really fix this package would be to track down and add patches reverting all commits like these: http://redmine.darktable.org/projects/darkt

Re: F24: no rsyslog forwarding

Am 07.11.2015 um 12:59 schrieb Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek: On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 06:20:39PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 06.11.2015 um 18:15 schrieb Subhendu Ghosh: On Nov 6, 2015 9:52 AM, "Reindl Harald" mailto:h.rei...@thelounge.net>> wrote: who is responsible that nothing is forw

DNF is completly unable to act with local packages

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263888 Error: nothing provides rpm-libs(x86-64) = 4.13.0-0.rc1.5.fc23 needed *what* is that hard to solve the dependencies of packages given with * on the commandline when yum does that fine for a decade, frankly if you are trying to early test fedo

Re: F24: no rsyslog forwarding

On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 06:20:39PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 06.11.2015 um 18:15 schrieb Subhendu Ghosh: > > > >On Nov 6, 2015 9:52 AM, "Reindl Harald" >> wrote: > > > > > > who is responsible that nothing is forwarded to the traditional syslog? > > > sy

Re: Retire a package from Fedora i686 (not x86_64)

Am 07.11.2015 um 05:41 schrieb Ralf Corsepius: On 11/07/2015 05:03 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 07.11.2015 um 05:00 schrieb Luya Tshimbalanga: On 06/11/15 07:29 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: But if upstream doesn't care, it's going to be a problem. :-( Exactly - That's the actual problem. Upstr

Re: Retire a package from Fedora i686 (not x86_64)

Am 07.11.2015 um 05:25 schrieb Ralf Corsepius: On 11/07/2015 04:55 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 06.11.2015 um 20:11 schrieb Germano Massullo: For example, SSE3 instructions set is one of the minimum requirements and 99% of 32 bit only CPUs do not support it. Only Pentium 4 >= Prescott archite

rawhide report: 20151107 changes

Compose started at Sat Nov 7 05:15:03 UTC 2015 Broken deps for i386 -- [IQmol] IQmol-2.3.0-9.fc24.i686 requires libboost_serialization.so.1.58.0 IQmol-2.3.0-9.fc24.i686 requires libboost_iostreams.so.1.58.0 IQmol-2.3.0

Re: Retire a package from Fedora i686 (not x86_64)

07.11.2015, 12:19, "Germano Massullo" : > [10:11] Germano: also feel free to refer those guys here to > us if they have questions. seems to me that some direct contact may be > better. What those guys? The only one who wants to kill off darktable is you, Germano. You almost succeeded last time

Re: Retire a package from Fedora i686 (not x86_64)

A few lines of IRC chat, Freenode #darktable. Hanatos is Darktable project founder. [09:17] ``requiring SSE3 is not really allowed '' [09:17] so much bundled cluelessness :/ [09:19] Germano: re 32-bit [09:19] the sse thing is one thing [09:20] the other is the very limited virtual address sp

Re: Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:23:49 +0100 > Petr Spacek wrote: > >> On 3.11.2015 01:56, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> > And with my proposed change to the release >> > policy (slip = unfreeze, sync all updates, refreeze), you could >> > also use the time to g