[Test-Announce] 2017-01-09 @ 17:00 UTC - Fedora 26 Blocker Review

# F26 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2017-01-09 # Time: 17:00 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net Hi folks! We currently have 4 proposed Alpha blockers, 1 proposed Beta blocker and 1 proposed Final blocker to review, so it seems like a good time to have the first Fedora 26 b

[Test-Announce] 2017-01-09 @ 16:00 UTC - Fedora QA Meeting

# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting # Date: 2017-01-09 # Time: 16:00 UTC (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto) # Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net Greetings testers! It's time for the first meeting of 2017 tomorrow! Let's check in on all our current work areas as we

Re: F26 System Wide Change: Golang 1.8

Brilliant! I was thinking about creating a proof of concept a posting it as a change myself. However, I'm really busy with other projects, so I might miss F26. Brad's suggestion made me happy, that's why I close the issue. Though, I would not name the flag 'abrt' but 'tracebackcrash' or so

Re: Proposal: Rethink Fedora multilib support (Take Two!)

Matthew Miller wrote: > But if that's *all* we do, we're going to be a footnote in history. I don't buy this sort of alarmist bulldung that keeps being claimed with no evidence whatsoever to justify radical changes to what Fedora is all about, such as: * promoting proprietary drivers (making the

Re: Changing default "docker" storage to to Overlay2 in Fedora 26

Hi! Is there a local convention that discussion about containers is using top-posting? "Curious" --alec On 06/01/17 23:12, Vivek Goyal wrote: There is more conversation on this issue here. https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/186 I wished there was a single thread of conversation on this ins

Re: Changing default "docker" storage to to Overlay2 in Fedora 26

There is more conversation on this issue here. https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/186 I wished there was a single thread of conversation on this instead of separate conversation for per product variant. Thanks Vivek On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 02:05:49PM -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > Upstream docke

Re: Changing default "docker" storage to to Overlay2 in Fedora 26

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:29 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DockerOverlay2 Thanks! Note, that you will need to send it for wrangler. > > > On 01/06/2017 02:27 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > Shouldn't this be submitted as a change? > > This would bring much more vis

Re: Fedora Linux subsystem on Windows machine

Nice!! On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 1:47 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > Dne 6.1.2017 v 10:03 Martin Bříza napsal(a): > > On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 10:01:01 +0100, Vít Ondruch > > wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> Dne 5.1.2017 v 20:11 M. Edward (Ed) Borasky napsal(a): > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> And speaking of Wine

Re: Proposal: Rethink Fedora multilib support (Take Two!)

On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 07:14:58PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > This is a good point; we're already pretty much awful on this point, > > and let's not make it worse. (On the other hand, modularity has the > > potential to help significantly on this point, as you should't need > > detailed metadat

Re: Changing default "docker" storage to to Overlay2 in Fedora 26

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DockerOverlay2 On 01/06/2017 02:27 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > Shouldn't this be submitted as a change? > > This would bring much more visibility to users of Fedora and even outside. > > -Igor Gnatenko > > On Jan 6, 2017 8:13 PM, "Daniel J Walsh"

Re: Changing default "docker" storage to to Overlay2 in Fedora 26

Shouldn't this be submitted as a change? This would bring much more visibility to users of Fedora and even outside. -Igor Gnatenko On Jan 6, 2017 8:13 PM, "Daniel J Walsh" wrote: > Upstream docker is moving to overlay2 by default for its storage. We > plan on following suit. Their are some p

Re: Applications with AppData and not visible in the software center

On 6 January 2017 at 02:16, Ben Rosser wrote: > It turns out that I am very silly, and, when writing the appstream > file for tilp2, never changed "comical.desktop" in the template here > [1] to "tilp.desktop". > ...whoops! I can, uh, fix that. :) > However, interestingly, it seems that "appstre

Re: Changing default "docker" storage to to Overlay2 in Fedora 26

On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 02:05:49PM -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > Upstream docker is moving to overlay2 by default for its storage. We > plan on following suit. Their are some performance advantages of > overlay2 over devicemapper in memory sharing, which we would like to > take advantage of. W

Changing default "docker" storage to to Overlay2 in Fedora 26

Upstream docker is moving to overlay2 by default for its storage. We plan on following suit. Their are some performance advantages of overlay2 over devicemapper in memory sharing, which we would like to take advantage of. We now have SELinux support for Overlay file systems, so the security sh

Re: Proposal: Rethink Fedora multilib support (Take Two!)

On 01/06/2017 08:14 AM, Neal Gompa wrote: [snip] Much of what I would have said has been said by Oron (some of this I've said in earlier parts of this thread, as well). But the bigger thing is that it makes it much easier to bootstrap new architectures for Fedora, too, as we can start from libra

Re: Proposal: Rethink Fedora multilib support (Take Two!)

Matthew Miller wrote: > This is a good point; we're already pretty much awful on this point, > and let's not make it worse. (On the other hand, modularity has the > potential to help significantly on this point, as you should't need > detailed metadata about what's _inside_ a module at runtime in n

Re: Proposal: Rethink Fedora multilib support (Take Two!)

Stephen Gallagher wrote: > As Bill pointed out, things "just work" for users right now and that's > something we'd like to avoid breaking. However, that does *not* mean that > it is trivial to do on the build side. We're currently building out an > entirely new infrastructure to support modules; we

Re: Proposal: Rethink Fedora multilib support (Take Two!)

Oron Peled wrote: > * With old, non-multiarch scheme: >- Library packages compiled natively on ARM would be under /usr/lib. >- But they cannot be installed on the build machine, so I can > cross-compile applications against them. >- The workaround was to unpack them, relocate the

Re: Proposal: Rethink Fedora multilib support (Take Two!)

Neal Gompa wrote: > I'd be happier if we just moved 32-bit libraries into /usr/lib32. That > way /usr/lib can be only noarch libs (like noarch Python things, and > stuff). Noarch stuff should NOT be in /usr/lib to begin with! True noarch stuff should be in /usr/share. Arch-colored binaries should

Re: Proposal: Rethink Fedora multilib support (Take Two!)

On 06/01/17 13:33, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On 01/06/2017 08:04 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 03:08:21PM -0800, Brendan Conoboy wrote: For anyone who isn't familiar with this topic, you might find Debian's documentation useful: https://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch One could t

ZoneMinder retired from Fedora, moving to RPM Fusion.

I have now retired zoneminder in master and fixed the depencency bug for F25. The zmrepo maintainer has joined Fedora and RPM Fusion and will be maintaining the package in RPM Fusion. Review requests and relevent bugs here: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4393 https://bugzilla.red

Re: Packages seeking new point of contact

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Greetings. > > rpms/php-pear-OLE -- Package for reading and writing OLE containers ( > master f25 f24 el6 el5 ) > > > kevin > > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsu

Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2017-01-06)

=== #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2017-01-06) === Meeting started by jwb at 16:00:18 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2017-01-06/fesco.2017-01-06-16.00.log.html . Meeting summary -

Packages seeking new point of contact

Greetings. Per: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1657 there's a number of packages that are looking for a new maintainer now: rpms/blktap -- Blktap Userspace Tools + Library ( el6 ) rpms/ehcache-parent -- Ehcache Parent ( master f25 f24 ) rpms/ehcache-sizeof-agent -- Ehcache Size Of A

Re: Proposal: Rethink Fedora multilib support (Take Two!)

On Jan 6, 2017 5:16 PM, "Neal Gompa" wrote: On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Oron Peled wrote: > On Friday, 6 January 2017 03:51:42 IST Kevin Kofler wrote: > >> ... > >> * I do not see any practical advantage of Debian multiarch over FHS > >> multilib. > > > > Good question, multiarch is a huge

Re: Proposal: Rethink Fedora multilib support (Take Two!)

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Oron Peled wrote: > On Friday, 6 January 2017 03:51:42 IST Kevin Kofler wrote: > >> ... > >> * I do not see any practical advantage of Debian multiarch over FHS > >> multilib. > > > > Good question, multiarch is a huge win for *embedded* developers. > > > > Let me

Re: Proposal: Rethink Fedora multilib support

On 5 January 2017 at 19:29, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Japheth Cleaver > wrote: >> On 1/5/2017 9:12 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>> >>> On 05/01/17 09:56 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: Teamviewer comes in an i686 only package for Fedora. So is there going to be

Re: Best practices for getting CFLAGS/LDFLAGS etc.

On Friday, January 6, 2017 3:24:46 PM CET Florian Weimer wrote: > On 01/06/2017 03:20 PM, Pavel Raiskup wrote: > > On Friday, January 6, 2017 3:02:22 PM CET Florian Weimer wrote: > >>> Wouldn't it suffice to put PYTHON= at the end? autotools' configure > >>> scripts accept such assignments (and eve

Re: Proposal: Rethink Fedora multilib support (Take Two!)

On Friday, 6 January 2017 03:51:42 IST Kevin Kofler wrote: > ... > * I do not see any practical advantage of Debian multiarch over FHS > multilib. Good question, multiarch is a huge win for *embedded* developers. Let me give real life example from my $day job: * We build stuff for arm and x86_

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20170106.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20170105.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20170106.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 2 Added packages: 9 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 89 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 53.09 MiB Size of dropped packages

Re: Best practices for getting CFLAGS/LDFLAGS etc.

On 01/06/2017 03:20 PM, Pavel Raiskup wrote: On Friday, January 6, 2017 3:02:22 PM CET Florian Weimer wrote: Wouldn't it suffice to put PYTHON= at the end? autotools' configure scripts accept such assignments (and even remember them in config.status etc). Indeed, this looks like a reasonable s

Re: Best practices for getting CFLAGS/LDFLAGS etc.

On Friday, January 6, 2017 3:02:22 PM CET Florian Weimer wrote: > > Wouldn't it suffice to put PYTHON= at the end? autotools' configure > > scripts accept such assignments (and even remember them in > > config.status etc). > > Indeed, this looks like a reasonable solution. Is %configure only for

Re: Best practices for getting CFLAGS/LDFLAGS etc.

On 01/06/2017 01:59 PM, Thomas Moschny wrote: 2017-01-05 14:01 GMT+01:00 Florian Weimer : On 01/05/2017 11:58 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 00:58:00 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: It would also be nice if: PYTHON=/usr/bin/python3 %configure didn't (silently) do the wro

Re: Proposal: Rethink Fedora multilib support (Take Two!)

On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 02:45:15PM +0100, drago01 wrote: > because out of sync repositories. + Minor annoyances like additional > (duplicated) meta data that you have to deal with (bandwidth, time to > install packages / updates). This is a good point; we're already pretty much awful on this point

Re: Proposal: Rethink Fedora multilib support (Take Two!)

On 01/06/2017 08:45 AM, drago01 wrote: > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> On 01/06/2017 08:07 AM, drago01 wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Stephen Gallagher >>> wrote: On 01/06/2017 01:08 AM, drago01 wrote: > > Two suggestions were raised as

Re: Proposal: Rethink Fedora multilib support (Take Two!)

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On 01/06/2017 08:07 AM, drago01 wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Stephen Gallagher >> wrote: >>> On 01/06/2017 01:08 AM, drago01 wrote: Two suggestions were raised as alternatives to the container approach: >>

Re: Proposal: Rethink Fedora multilib support (Take Two!)

On 01/06/2017 08:04 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 03:08:21PM -0800, Brendan Conoboy wrote: >> On 01/05/2017 02:08 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> [snip] >>> == multi-arch layout == >>> * Moving the locations of all of the system libraries would potentially >>> still >>> break

Re: Debugging random suspend?

On 01/04/2017 06:55 AM, John Reiser wrote: > One of the causes of Suspend is the hardware generating the signal for > "the laptop lid has been closed." Look at the boot messages ("dmesg" > or "journalctl -b") for info on the power switch, the lid switch, etc. > Or low battery level. If the batt

Re: Proposal: Rethink Fedora multilib support (Take Two!)

On 01/06/2017 08:07 AM, drago01 wrote: > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> On 01/06/2017 01:08 AM, drago01 wrote: >>> >>> Two suggestions were raised as alternatives to the container approach: >>> >>> * Switch to using the Debian style of multi-arch layout, which

Re: Build of asgp failed since update to libclaw-1.7.4-16.fc25

don't know if this output is importend ? [root@fc25 tmp]# claw-config --libs -L/usr/lib64/ [root@fc25 tmp]# claw-config application --libs -L/usr/lib64/ -lclaw_application -lclaw_logger [root@fc25 tmp]# claw-config dynamic_library --libs -L/usr/lib64/ -lclaw_dynamic_library -ldl [root@fc25 tmp

Re: Proposal: Rethink Fedora multilib support (Take Two!)

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On 01/06/2017 01:08 AM, drago01 wrote: >> >> Two suggestions were raised as alternatives to the container approach: >> >> * Switch to using the Debian style of multi-arch layout, which instead of >> /usr/lib and /usr/lib64 uses

Re: Proposal: Rethink Fedora multilib support

On 01/06/2017 07:33 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 05/01/17 14:42 -0500, Randy Barlow wrote: >> On Thu, 2017-01-05 at 17:02 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>> Which definitely changes how software is built. >> >> Containers also change the way software must be written in some cases, >> since they e

Re: Proposal: Rethink Fedora multilib support (Take Two!)

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 03:08:21PM -0800, Brendan Conoboy wrote: >> On 01/05/2017 02:08 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> [snip] >> > == multi-arch layout == >> > * Moving the locations of all of the system libraries would potentially >> > stil

Re: Proposal: Rethink Fedora multilib support (Take Two!)

On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 03:08:21PM -0800, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > On 01/05/2017 02:08 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > [snip] > > == multi-arch layout == > > * Moving the locations of all of the system libraries would potentially > > still > > break third-party applications that were compiled to ex

Re: Best practices for getting CFLAGS/LDFLAGS etc.

2017-01-05 14:01 GMT+01:00 Florian Weimer : > On 01/05/2017 11:58 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: >> >> On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 00:58:00 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> >>> It would also be nice if: >>> >>> PYTHON=/usr/bin/python3 %configure >>> >>> didn't (silently) do the wrong thing by default. Fo

Re: Proposal: Rethink Fedora multilib support (Take Two!)

On 01/06/2017 01:08 AM, drago01 wrote: > > Two suggestions were raised as alternatives to the container approach: > > * Switch to using the Debian style of multi-arch layout, which instead of > /usr/lib and /usr/lib64 uses /usr/lib/$ARCH-linux-gnu. Benefits to this > would > incl

Re: Proposal: Rethink Fedora multilib support (Take Two!)

On 01/05/2017 10:35 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com) said: >> The main reason for this is trying to simplify the module-building process. >> We >> really don't want to attempt to build both arches within the same buildroot >> for >> most of the reasons we've e

Re: Proposal: Rethink Fedora multilib support

- Original Message - > On 05/01/17 14:42 -0500, Randy Barlow wrote: > >On Thu, 2017-01-05 at 17:02 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >> Which definitely changes how software is built. > > > >Containers also change the way software must be written in some cases, > >since they expect there to

Re: Proposal: Rethink Fedora multilib support

On 05/01/17 14:42 -0500, Randy Barlow wrote: On Thu, 2017-01-05 at 17:02 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: Which definitely changes how software is built. Containers also change the way software must be written in some cases, since they expect there to be one main process and don't expect that mai

Re: Build of asgp failed since update to libclaw-1.7.4-16.fc25

On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 09:07:55 -, Martin Gansser wrote: > See koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=17175933 > > An update of libclaw had to be done because of a problem with mock, see > Https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread

Re: Fedora Linux subsystem on Windows machine

Dne 6.1.2017 v 10:03 Martin Bříza napsal(a): > On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 10:01:01 +0100, Vít Ondruch > wrote: > >> >> >> Dne 5.1.2017 v 20:11 M. Edward (Ed) Borasky napsal(a): >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> And speaking of Wine, how come the Windows 10 Linux subsystem only >>> runs Ubuntu? Why can't I run a Fedo

Build of asgp failed since update to libclaw-1.7.4-16.fc25

See koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=17175933 An update of libclaw had to be done because of a problem with mock, see Https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/JKVA4N45H5U2VNZ5KALSP6QNNA44V6H3/ error message: [ 5%] Linking C

Re: Fedora Linux subsystem on Windows machine

On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 10:01:01 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 5.1.2017 v 20:11 M. Edward (Ed) Borasky napsal(a): And speaking of Wine, how come the Windows 10 Linux subsystem only runs Ubuntu? Why can't I run a Fedora Linux subsystem on my Windows machine? Just FYI: http://stackoverfl

Fedora Linux subsystem on Windows machine

Dne 5.1.2017 v 20:11 M. Edward (Ed) Borasky napsal(a): > > > > > And speaking of Wine, how come the Windows 10 Linux subsystem only > runs Ubuntu? Why can't I run a Fedora Linux subsystem on my Windows > machine? Just FYI: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/38802362/windows-10-wsl-with-fedora