On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:36 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Unfortunately this is blocked by failing:
>
> python-manuel
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=27740145
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1593132
I fixed and built python-manuel, then built python-ZODB,
python-zc
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 8:53 PM, Kyle Marek wrote:
> I've noticed that Windows 10 does MBR installs on BIOS, as well. I've
> always found that interesting because I have also found several laptops
> (I think most of them were HP) where the OEM installed a BIOS bootloader
> in addition to the EFI
On 06/21/2018 10:28 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM, Kyle Marek wrote:
>
>> If it helps, I've only ever used GRUB on GPT when installing to BIOS
>> systems. I haven't encountered *any* issues so far.
> It was always model specific. Maybe 1/2 dozen models were affected.
>
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM, Kyle Marek wrote:
> If it helps, I've only ever used GRUB on GPT when installing to BIOS
> systems. I haven't encountered *any* issues so far.
It was always model specific. Maybe 1/2 dozen models were affected.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755226
h
And I apologize, but I edited out, well, all of Gerald's message in my
reply. I didn't quite intend to trim _all_ of the context there.
- J<
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedor
> "GBC" == Gerald B Cox writes:
To me this doesn't make much sense in the context in which you have put
it. The existing hardware activation section is just this paragraph:
-
Hardware activation occurs when a service is installed but only turns on
if a certain type of hardware is instal
On 06/21/2018 05:19 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 2:28 PM, Kyle Marek wrote:
>> On 06/21/2018 03:07 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Kyle Marek wrote:
>>>
I would greatly appreciate a move to a uniform GPT+EF02+EF00
partitioning default w
> On 20.6.2018 19:24, Raphael Groner wrote:
>
> https://github.com/originell/jpype/pull/332
Thanks, jpype package is fixed with the patch included.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists
I opened a fecso ticket here: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1918
and it was suggested it would be better handled via FPC - so I've created a
draft.
I would appreciate feedback before I created the FPC ticket.
Adding the following paragraph to the Hardware Activation section:
https://fedoraproj
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 2:28 PM, Kyle Marek wrote:
> On 06/21/2018 03:07 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Kyle Marek wrote:
>>
>>> I would greatly appreciate a move to a uniform GPT+EF02+EF00
>>> partitioning default with a shared boot loader config.
>> An ESP on BIOS
On 06/21/2018 03:07 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Kyle Marek wrote:
>
>> I would greatly appreciate a move to a uniform GPT+EF02+EF00
>> partitioning default with a shared boot loader config.
> An ESP on BIOS is perhaps weird when making so much of this booting
> and
On Thu, 2018-06-21 at 12:40 -0700, stan wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 10:50:10 -0700
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2018-06-21 at 19:27 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > (Also, why is there a userspace component for this stuff in the
> > > first place? I mean streaming data from one c
On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 10:50:10 -0700
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-06-21 at 19:27 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > (Also, why is there a userspace component for this stuff in the
> > first place? I mean streaming data from one corner of the kernel to
> > another corner of the kernel is
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Kyle Marek wrote:
> I would greatly appreciate a move to a uniform GPT+EF02+EF00
> partitioning default with a shared boot loader config.
An ESP on BIOS is perhaps weird when making so much of this booting
and startup stuff user facing; but it's actually integra
On 06/21/2018 02:00 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
>
>> Just out of curiosity: when precisely is rngd supposed to be used? As
>> soon as there's a hardware RNG device /dev/hwrng? That should be
>> easy enough: ConditionFileExists=/dev/hwrng
On Thu, 21 Jun 2018, Antonio Trande wrote:
Hi all.
I'm confused...
Why recent python-biopython rebuild is still using Python 3.6.5 on rawhide?
Python 3.7 mass rebuild is happening in a side tag. See:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/AWSPEQS
Hi all.
I'm confused...
Why recent python-biopython rebuild is still using Python 3.6.5 on rawhide?
--
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x5E212EE1D35568BE
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP d
I just installed the cpuid package. Here is a portion of the output for my
processor. As you can see: RDRAND reported "= false" which means
my processor does not suppoprt the hardware random number generator feature.
feature information (1/ecx):
PNI/SSE3: Prescott New Instructions =
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
>
> Just out of curiosity: when precisely is rngd supposed to be used? As
> soon as there's a hardware RNG device /dev/hwrng? That should be
> easy enough: ConditionFileExists=/dev/hwrng... Or are there other
> cases when this is suppose
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:48 AM, Adam Williamson <
adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> I don't maintain any of these services, so your criticism is neither
> constructive nor accurate.
>
Then why are you inserting yourself into this conversation and looking for
ways to be offended?
It's not abo
On Thu, 2018-06-21 at 19:27 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Do, 21.06.18 10:07, Adam Williamson (adamw...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2018-06-21 at 09:46 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> > > Interesting... thanks Adam... but the way I read that is specifically
> > > tailored to "rel
On Thu, 2018-06-21 at 10:18 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:07 AM, Adam Williamson <
> adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2018-06-21 at 09:46 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> > > Interesting... thanks Adam... but the way I read that is specifically
> > > tailore
On Do, 21.06.18 10:07, Adam Williamson (adamw...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-06-21 at 09:46 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> > Interesting... thanks Adam... but the way I read that is specifically
> > tailored to "release criteria", not
> > design/implementation guidelines - i.e. to me t
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:07 AM, Adam Williamson <
adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-06-21 at 09:46 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> > Interesting... thanks Adam... but the way I read that is specifically
> > tailored to "release criteria", not
> > design/implementation guidelines -
On 06/21/2018 09:41 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> From my perspective (Fedora CoreOS developer) that straddles
>> both physical and cloud for the server case, the problem is that
>> the virtualized case, and in particular public cloud, and really
>> specifically EC2 - no one really cares ab
On Thu, 2018-06-21 at 09:46 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> Interesting... thanks Adam... but the way I read that is specifically
> tailored to "release criteria", not
> design/implementation guidelines - i.e. to me this says, don't hold up a
> release because someone
> screwed up and didn't conditio
I opened the ticket, it is here: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1918
Thanks again Stephen for the suggestion.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> Interesting... thanks Adam... but the way I read that is specifically
> tailored to "release criteria", not
> design/implementati
On 06/21/2018 06:26 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>> So, when we started looking at ways to provide alternative software, we
>>> determined that parallel-installation was a non-goal. Not needing to
>> solve
>>> an unsolvable problem meant that we could focus on the parts that really
>>> matter: all
Interesting... thanks Adam... but the way I read that is specifically
tailored to "release criteria", not
design/implementation guidelines - i.e. to me this says, don't hold up a
release because someone
screwed up and didn't conditionalize the process correctly.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 9:38 AM, Ad
On Thu, 2018-06-21 at 12:08 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 12:03 PM Gerald B. Cox wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 6:39 AM, Stephen Gallagher
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > I believe we're missing something fundamental here. If a
> > > > pr
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 11:56 AM Mikolaj Izdebski
wrote:
> On 06/20/2018 04:15 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:06 AM Mikolaj Izdebski
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 06/20/2018 02:30 PM, Petr Šabata wrote:
> >>> Parallel installation of streams on a single system indeed
> >>>
Stephen,
Yes, unfortunately, it appears that is needed. I'll create a ticket.
Thanks Stephen.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Stephen Gallagher
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 12:03 PM Gerald B. Cox wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 6:39 AM, Stephen Gallagher
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
On 06/21/2018 08:53 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-06-15 at 00:01 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 08:02:33AM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>>> On 06/14/2018 03:42 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
I know we never manage to motivate many people to vote, but 86
v
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:04:03AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018, at 9:41 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> >
> > Well, as *additional* variant it doesn't provide that much value. More
> > interesting would be to create all x86 cloud images that way, so they
> > boot just fine
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 11:53:13AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> It struck me that we could have "I Voted" badges in the Fedora badges
> subsystem, so I've filed:
> "Family of badges for voting in Fedora elections: "I Voted""
> https://pagure.io/fedora-badges/issue/626
> (possibly with an element
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 12:03 PM Gerald B. Cox wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 6:39 AM, Stephen Gallagher
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I believe we're missing something fundamental here. If a
>>> program/service etc. requires specific hardware to work
>>> and it can't gracefully handle situatio
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 6:39 AM, Stephen Gallagher
wrote:
>
>
>
>> I believe we're missing something fundamental here. If a program/service
>> etc. requires specific hardware to work
>> and it can't gracefully handle situations where that hardware is not
>> present - it shouldn't be a default.
>
On 06/20/2018 04:15 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:06 AM Mikolaj Izdebski
> wrote:
>
>> On 06/20/2018 02:30 PM, Petr Šabata wrote:
>>> Parallel installation of streams on a single system indeed
>>> isn't supported at this point and isn't planned anytime in the
>>> near
On Fri, 2018-06-15 at 00:01 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 08:02:33AM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> > On 06/14/2018 03:42 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > > I know we never manage to motivate many people to vote, but 86
> > > votes is really
> > > low, even for us:(
> >
>
On 06/21/2018 01:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
The kernel change that introduced the i686 build problem was just a
rebase between 2 arbitrary pre-release git snapshots. I don't really
a compelling justification to rebase to a known broken snapshot,
without allowing time for x86 SIG to resolve
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018, at 9:41 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>
> Well, as *additional* variant it doesn't provide that much value. More
> interesting would be to create all x86 cloud images that way, so they
> boot just fine on both bios and efi, and we don't have to bother
> creating two image varian
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 9:43 AM Stephen John Smoogen
wrote:
> On 21 June 2018 at 09:05, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 8:51 AM Petr Pisar wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2018-06-21, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:17 AM Kevin Kofler
> >> > wrote:
>
On 21 June 2018 at 09:05, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 8:51 AM Petr Pisar wrote:
>>
>> On 2018-06-21, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:17 AM Kevin Kofler
>> > wrote:
>> >> Will the repositories be enabled or disabled by default?
>> >>
>> >
>> > E
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1593698
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #4 from Fedo
Hi,
> From my perspective (Fedora CoreOS developer) that straddles
> both physical and cloud for the server case, the problem is that
> the virtualized case, and in particular public cloud, and really
> specifically EC2 - no one really cares about EFI to boot their VMs.
Indeed. And it sucks.
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 8:54 PM Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 3:26 PM, Adam Williamson <
> adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 13:15 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:34 PM Gerald B. Cox wrote:
>> >
>> > The proper behavior
>
> I think that might have a lot to do with the turnout, indeed. I believe
>> there's a general perception in the community that FESCo has been doing a
>> good job, and there's not really any significant issues involved in the
>> election.
>>
>
> But also, consider election burnout. FESCo, Mindsha
On 06/21/2018 01:46 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I did not, because I could not find any suitable candidates and did not see any
reason to vote.
Ralf,
It's great to see you. Every comment seems to be a polar opposite of anyone that has
a discussion.
You know you can vote "0" and no candidates
On 20.6.2018 19:24, Raphael Groner wrote:
FTBFS of jpype. Please be aware of PEP 432. No idea if upstream needs to
provide a fix.
https://github.com/originell/jpype/pull/332
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
devel mailing lis
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 8:51 AM Petr Pisar wrote:
> On 2018-06-21, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:17 AM Kevin Kofler
> wrote:
> >> Will the repositories be enabled or disabled by default?
> >>
> >
> > Enabled by default. Packaging policy will require that modules with a
On 2018-06-21, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:17 AM Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Will the repositories be enabled or disabled by default?
>>
>
> Enabled by default. Packaging policy will require that modules with a
> default stream may not override packages in the standard repo.
>
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:17 AM Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jan Kurik wrote:
> > In Fedora 28, the Server Edition debuted new modular functionality,
> > allowing end-users access to alternative versions of popular software.
> Due
> > to technical limitations with package-management software, it was not
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 4:50 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> Just wanted to bring this to wider attention:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1592374
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1593411
>
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/x...@lists.fedoraprojec
On 21.6.2018 06:12, Jerry James wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:36 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
Unfortunately this is blocked by failing:
python-manuel
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=27740145
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1593132
I had planned to look at that to
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018, at 3:30 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > And in my opinion, it's not simple to say: OK if you have this size
> > ESP to start, you get this layout, and if it's bigger you get this
> > other layout, and if it's BIOS you have this 3rd layout.
Chris, I have to say I'm g
Jan Kurik wrote:
> In Fedora 28, the Server Edition debuted new modular functionality,
> allowing end-users access to alternative versions of popular software. Due
> to technical limitations with package-management software, it was not
> available for non-Server deployments of Fedora. Beginning wit
Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> Having said all this, the message about brokenness on x86 SIG mailing
> list doesn't appear to be treated with the urgency I think it needs,
> givin the ripple effect it has from a critical path package. There were
> a few messages the day after it was reported, and then
[Dan & I were discussing this on IRC and how it affected our
own packages, hence the overlapping messages on the same subject ...]
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-p2v conv
Fedora rawhide has not had any kernel build available for i686 for a
week now. It was disabled in a rebase due to part of the build process
segfaulting.
commit 861ae54010f0dae5c988105b6179a8f2442851e7
Author: Laura Abbott
Date: Thu Jun 14 10:57:47 2018 -0700
Don't build for i686
Just wanted to bring this to wider attention:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1592374
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1593411
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/x...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/YCBS5Y33YFBN2NPNPRUH6YJQFB5CVQ4F/
There is no kernel being
= Proposed System Wide Change: IBus 1.5.19 =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/IBus_1.5.19
Owner(s):
* Takao Fujiwara
IBus 1.5.19 will have two features.
# Move the input entry on IBus emoji dialog to the input entry on each
application using IBus pre-edit text so that the focus event
On Mi, 20.06.18 19:28, Chris Murphy (li...@colorremedies.com) wrote:
> >> Except, it's not simple for installers to migrate to a new bigger ESP
> >> in the dual boot case. And having different layouts for UEFI and BIOS
> >> and whether there's dual boot or single boot, isn't simpler.
> >
> > Again
On Mi, 20.06.18 19:40, Chris Murphy (li...@colorremedies.com) wrote:
> > What's going on? What is this? Why is this called "Boot loader spec"
> > if it implements an entirely different logic, and misses the entire
> > point of the boot loader spec?
> >
> > Quite frankly, I am really surprised by t
Hi,
> Therefore, Option #2 will be extremely common. What percent of Fedora
> users dual boot? I have no empirical data. I'd guess 1/2.
Sure? I would expect in the age of virtualization people prefer
virtual machines, because you can run fedora and $someotheros at the
same time then.
The inst
Hi,
> And in my opinion, it's not simple to say: OK if you have this size
> ESP to start, you get this layout, and if it's bigger you get this
> other layout, and if it's BIOS you have this 3rd layout.
Well, for fresh installs[1] there is no reason to have efi and bios use
different layouts. Y
Hello,
A new open project has been created to collect the list of computer hardware
devices with poor Linux compatibility based on the Linux-Hardware.org data
within 4 years: https://github.com/linuxhw/HWInfo
There are about 29 thousands of depersonalized hwinfo reports
(https://github.com/ope
66 matches
Mail list logo
