On 01/14/2016 07:37 AM, Roman Tsisyk wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Fedora enables hardened builds [1] by default.
> This implies -fomit-frame-pointer -fstack-protector and -fPIE.
>
> [1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#PIE
>
> How it is supposed to be debugged by upstream developers?
W
On 13.1.2016 13:48, Florian Festi wrote:
> On 01/11/2016 03:57 PM, Dan Horák wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 15:46:27 +0100
>> Jan Kurik wrote:
>>
>>> = Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat =
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NewRpmDBFormat
>>>
>>> Change owner(s
Hi,
Fedora enables hardened builds [1] by default.
This implies -fomit-frame-pointer -fstack-protector and -fPIE.
[1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#PIE
How it is supposed to be debugged by upstream developers?
It would be nice to have **at least** a proper backtrace for
I was working on packaging rr [1] and one of the tests [2] fails to build
when optimizations are turned on. I've reduced it to the following and
still been able to reproduce the issue:
static const float xmm0 = 10;
int main() {
__asm__ __volatile__(
#if __i386__
"movss xmm0, %xmm0\n\t"
#e
On 01/13/2016 09:30 PM, Greg Hellings wrote:
I'm working with a package (rubygem-minitest) which already exists in
the core EL packages on the 4.x series. In order to enable a whole
slew of new packages to be created in EPEL7, it will be necessary to
package the 5.x series. However, since we don'
I'm working with a package (rubygem-minitest) which already exists in
the core EL packages on the 4.x series. In order to enable a whole
slew of new packages to be created in EPEL7, it will be necessary to
package the 5.x series. However, since we don't want to mask the EL
package it has been propo
> "AT" == Andrew Toskin writes:
AT> Is there a way to convert tags like "BuildRequires:" into %macros so
AT> that they *can* be indented?
Sure there is, but please don't actually try to do that in Fedora
packages. There are cases where such things might be easier to read,
but in general
On 13/01/16 23:19 -, Andrew Toskin wrote:
Is there a way to convert tags like "BuildRequires:" into %macros so that they
*can* be indented?
That would be highly unconventional, and so unlikely to make the .spec
file easier to follow.
If it's really a problem you could use comments:
%if %
On 13/01/16 15:36 +0100, Kalev Lember wrote:
Also, GCC 6 that is going to land in F24 in 2 or 3 weeks is going to
switch the global default to -std=gnu++14 or -std=c++14, I've forgotten
which.
gnu++14
Currently the default is gnu++98, so we're only changing 98 -> 14, not
c++ -> gnu++ (i.e. GNU
That's unfortunate. The spec file I've forked has certain tags *inside* of %if
blocks. Things like this:
%if %{?system_cairo}
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(cairo) >= %{cairo_version}
%endif
In some of the longer blocks, no indentation makes it much harder to tell where
the %if begins and ends.
Is
rpm flags shared libraries of ELFCLASS64 with '(64bit)' on all architectures
except Alpha (which thankfully we don't support). My question is, are
ELFCLASS64 libraries always installed in /usr/lib64 on all Fedora platforms,
or am I going to have to read the elf class of the file to be sure?
--
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 08:59:09AM +0100, Jiří Konečný wrote:
> On Sat, 2016-01-09 at 23:36 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 10:33:01 +0100,
> > Jiří Konečný wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2015-12-11 at 10:44 +0100, Jiří Konečný wrote:
> > > > Hello all,
> > > >
> > > > it was so
On 01/13/2016 09:44 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> On 01/12/2016 03:42 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>> - Dropping the python3-pkgversion-macros package, replaced with
>> python-srpm-macros from above and required by redhat-rpm-config (in Fedora)
>> and epel-rpm-macros (in EPEL).
>
> Rawhide now has re
I'll be updating hdf5 to 1.8.16 and netcdf to 4.4.0 in rawhide tomorrow.
These include soname bumps and I'll be rebuilding all deps.
bes-3.14.0-8.fc24.src.rpm
CBFlib-0.9.5.14-1.fc24.src.rpm
cgnslib-3.2.1-5.fc23.src.rpm
dx-4.4.4-36.fc23.src.rpm
engrid-2.0.0-0.8.gitbaef0ce.fc24.src.rpm
Field3D-1.6.1
On 01/13/2016 11:58 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> License for python-coverage changed from BSD and (MIT or GPLv2) to ASL 2.0.
>
> Not sure when this change actually occurred (I'm not the maintainer), but at
> least with version 4.
>
>
And updated again to:
ASL 2.0 and MIT and (MIT or GPL)
due
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2016-01-14 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.freenode.net.
Local time information (via. rktime):
2016-01-14 09:00 Thu US/Pacific PST
2016-01-14 12:00 Thu US/Eastern EST
2016-01-14 1
Hi
take this package please
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they
are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure
that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life
Note: If y
License for python-coverage changed from BSD and (MIT or GPLv2) to ASL 2.0.
Not sure when this change actually occurred (I'm not the maintainer), but at
least with version 4.
--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 30
I'm planning to bump glew to 1.13.0 in the next day or so. This will
require rebuilding roughly 43 dependent packages (see list below). I'm
running through a mass mockchain of that locally, I'll kick off
rebuilds in koji once that's complete and assuming things mostly
rebuild successfully.
The fol
in my opinion lacks the two applications is lxqt-admin obconf-qt
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Neal,
I've tried reaching him at the email address listed on his account, which is
via a public provider. I was unaware of his website. I will try reaching out
across that medium as well. Thanks.
--Greg
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lis
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Eric Griffith wrote:
>
> On Jan 12, 2016 15:03, "Josh Boyer" wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Mattia Verga
>> wrote:
>> > Il 07/01/2016 20:30, Tomasz Torcz ha scritto:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 01:33:22PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> >>>
>>
Have you tried contacting him by strzi...@strzibny.name (his email
address on his website)?
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Greg Hellings wrote:
> I've been trying to reach jstribny(
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/user/view/jstribny) for a few
> weeks regarding commit privileges on
On 01/12/2016 03:42 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> - Dropping the python3-pkgversion-macros package, replaced with
> python-srpm-macros from above and required by redhat-rpm-config (in Fedora)
> and epel-rpm-macros (in EPEL).
Rawhide now has redhat-rpm-config requiring python-srpm-macros. So we now
I've been trying to reach jstribny(
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/user/view/jstribny) for a few
weeks regarding commit privileges on EPEL7 to several packages in
pkgdb. Most notable among those are:
rubygem-minitest
rubygem-i18n
rubygem-tzinfo
As yet, I have been unable to produce a res
Missing expected images:
Kde disk raw armhfp
No images in this compose but not Rawhide 20160112
No images in Rawhide 20160112 but not this.
Failed openQA tests: 4 of 66
ID: 3055Test: x86_64 kde_live default_install@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/3055
ID: 3054T
The Fedora 24 schedule [1] is winding up, and it's time we started
thinking about what we'd want to have a test day for. There are several
changes accepted already for F24, and the window for proposals is still
open so more may come. You can find the list of accepted Changes here:
http://fedorapro
On Jan 12, 2016 15:03, "Josh Boyer" wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Mattia Verga
wrote:
> > Il 07/01/2016 20:30, Tomasz Torcz ha scritto:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 01:33:22PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> The 4.3.3 kernel has been pushed to updates-te
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 01:30:59PM +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 13 January 2016 at 13:13, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > so there is no justification to declare one need to install from scratch
> > just because rpm which works for many years fine changes it's storage format
>
> I don't think anyon
On 01/13/2016 03:21 PM, Björn Esser wrote:
Am 13.01.2016 um 15:06 schrieb Ankur Sinha:
On Wed, 2016-01-13 at 13:08 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Yes.
Thanks Michael. Follow up question:
What is the cleanest way of doing this - replacing -ansi with
-std=c++11 in %{_optflags} while using the
- Original Message -
> From: "Florian Weimer"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 9:46:15 AM
> Subject: Re: F24 System Wide Change: Golang 1.6
>
> On 01/13/2016 12:56 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Matthew Miller
> > wro
Am 13.01.2016 um 15:06 schrieb Ankur Sinha:
On Wed, 2016-01-13 at 13:08 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Yes.
Thanks Michael. Follow up question:
What is the cleanest way of doing this - replacing -ansi with
-std=c++11 in %{_optflags} while using the %configure macro?
You can do it the follow
On 01/11/2016 05:08 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016, at 09:46 AM, Jan Kurik wrote:
>> = Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat =
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NewRpmDBFormat
>
> It'd be interesting to know the technical details, worth rep
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 02:01:23PM +0100, Florian Festi wrote:
> On 01/11/2016 09:06 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 03:46:27PM +0100, Jan Kurik wrote:
> >> = Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat =
> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/New
On Wed, 2016-01-13 at 13:08 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Yes.
Thanks Michael. Follow up question:
What is the cleanest way of doing this - replacing -ansi with
-std=c++11 in %{_optflags} while using the %configure macro?
--
Thanks,
Regards,
Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD"
http://fedoraproject.org/
- Original Message -
> From: "Orion Poplawski"
> To: python-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org, python-ow...@fedoraproject.org,
> python3-ow...@fedoraproject.org,
> "Development discussions related to Fedora"
> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 11:42:13 PM
> Subject: python-rpm-macros - splitti
On 01/13/2016 02:36 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 13.01.2016 um 14:30 schrieb Richard Hughes:
>> On 13 January 2016 at 13:13, Reindl Harald
>> wrote:
>>> so there is no justification to declare one need to install from scratch
>>> just because rpm which works for many years fine changes it's
Am 13.01.2016 um 14:30 schrieb Richard Hughes:
On 13 January 2016 at 13:13, Reindl Harald wrote:
so there is no justification to declare one need to install from scratch
just because rpm which works for many years fine changes it's storage format
I don't think anyone said there was a need t
On 13 January 2016 at 13:13, Reindl Harald wrote:
> so there is no justification to declare one need to install from scratch
> just because rpm which works for many years fine changes it's storage format
I don't think anyone said there was a need to reinstall from scratch.
Richard
--
devel maili
Am 13.01.2016 um 14:01 schrieb Florian Festi:
On 01/11/2016 09:06 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 03:46:27PM +0100, Jan Kurik wrote:
= Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NewRpmDBFormat
Details of th
On 01/11/2016 09:06 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 03:46:27PM +0100, Jan Kurik wrote:
>> = Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat =
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NewRpmDBFormat
>
> Details of the format?
>
> What forward and backward
On 01/11/2016 03:57 PM, Dan Horák wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 15:46:27 +0100
> Jan Kurik wrote:
>
>> = Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat =
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NewRpmDBFormat
>>
>> Change owner(s):
>> * Florian Festi < ffesti AT redhat DOT com
On 01/11/2016 05:26 PM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> On 01/11/2016 03:46 PM, Jan Kurik wrote:
>> = Proposed System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat =
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NewRpmDBFormat
>>
>> Change owner(s):
>> * Florian Festi < ffesti AT redhat DOT com >
>>
>>
>> Cha
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 12:03:06 +, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> Hiya,
>
> The subtitleeditor package seems to require C++11 enabled to build.
> Here's an error in the mock log[1] for the latest failed build[2] for
> example:
>
> /usr/include/glibmm-2.4/glibmm/error.h:41:20: note: C++11 'noexcept'
> onl
Hiya,
The subtitleeditor package seems to require C++11 enabled to build.
Here's an error in the mock log[1] for the latest failed build[2] for
example:
/usr/include/glibmm-2.4/glibmm/error.h:41:20: note: C++11 'noexcept'
only available with -std=c++11 or -std=gnu++11
Can I enable C++11 to get i
On 13/01/16 11:07 +0200, Kari Koskinen wrote:
I don't see need for Keepass 0.4 package for Fedora 23. A COPR for
those who need it for compatibility would be enough at this point.
Agreed, that can be found here:
https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/jwakely/keepassx1/
Though, Fedora 22 keepass
On 13/01/16 10:16 +0100, Juan Orti Alcaine wrote:
Could you please rename the package to keepassx1? I wish them to be
installed in parallel.
It's not as simple as renaming the package.
It would mean renaming the binary and everything under /usr/share,
which I don't have time to do, sorry.
--
d
Compose started at Wed Jan 13 05:15:02 UTC 2016
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
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 06:18:31 -, Andrew Toskin wrote:
> > error: line 102: Unknown tag: Source1: firefox-45.0a2.tar.bz2
>
> ...and removing the leading whitespace removes the error.
If you test with elemental tags, such as Name, Version and Release, you
can observe that they are not recogni
Apologies for spamming this thread with multiple copies. I was having some
problems with Claws Mail SMTP settings.
2016-01-13 11:16 GMT+02:00 Juan Orti Alcaine :
> 2016-01-13 2:13 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Wakely :
> > On 12/01/16 22:59 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >>
> >> The old version could be ad
Am 13.01.2016 um 01:25 schrieb Nico Kadel-Garcia:
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Sex, 2016-01-08 at 08:54 -0500, Jaroslav Mracek wrote:
Hi everybody,
I would like to set following packages as Orphan due to that upstream
is dead or maintainers do not respond:
repov
2016-01-13 2:13 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Wakely :
> On 12/01/16 22:59 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> The old version could be added as keepassx1, or just via COPR, for
>> those who still want it.
>
>
> I've created a COPR with keepassx 0.4.4 builds for F22 and F23:
> https://copr.fedoraproject.org/c
2016-01-13 0:59 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Wakely :
> So how should the maintainer proceed?
>
> The policy was violated, but it's done now. F23 has already been
> updated, F22 has an update in testing now (with negative karma).
>
> The old version could be added as keepassx1, or just via COPR, for
> thos
On 01/13/2016 12:56 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Matthew Miller
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 01:31:30AM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>> Will there be an ABI guaranteed beta or RC so that this can be
>>> complete before branching as per the schedule [1]? All
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Dne 6.1.2016 v 01:07 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
>
> If you have a way to contact this maintainer, please let them
> know that we'd appreciate knowing what to do with their packages.
> Thanks!
>
> * jklimes - former email: jkli...@redhat.com
>
>
Not su
56 matches
Mail list logo
