Re: Self Introduction: Kairui Song

On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 2:33 AM, Kairui Song wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm working on submitting a package, it's my first package. So I want to > give a brief self-introduction here. > > My name is Kairui Song, I'm a software engineer at Red Hat, have been a Red > Hat employee for two years, and start

Re: OCaml 4.07.0 is now in Fedora 29

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 9:14 AM Jerry James wrote: > If I can, I will put my WIP mojo-executor, > string-template-maven-plugin, and antlr4 packages somewhere online so > any motivated souls can look at them while I am gone. One thing that > would help is to add a POM to the ant-contrib package; I

Re: Nonresponsive maintainer: thomasvs

On 12.7.2018 23:38, Thomas Vander Stichele wrote: For future reference, mail works great.  I've been behind due to travel and personal issues. While I think this was a little quick to make a decision personally, I'm fine with someone else stepping in and taking over. I followed a procedure

Re: Nonresponsive maintainer: thomasvs

For future reference, mail works great.  I've been behind due to travel and personal issues. While I think this was a little quick to make a decision personally, I'm fine with someone else stepping in and taking over. Thomas On 06/23/2018 07:37 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote: https://bugzilla.re

Re: Packages which use the BuildRoot: directive

> "MM" == Matthew Miller writes: MM> Yeah, this argument seems pretty compelling to me. I think that if MM> people want to maintain an outside spec file, they *must* also MM> respect changes made to the primary one in dist-git. I took a break from this discussion, but I did want to point out

Re: [HEADS UP] Removal of GCC from the buildroot

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 02:10:37PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote: > On 07/11/2018 04:37 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On 07/11/2018 12:57 PM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: > >> On 07/11/2018 09:26 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > >>> I don't see the cache=unsafe anywhere (although the name sure makes me > >>> want to

Re: Intel's Clear Linux optimizations

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:09 AM, Manas Mangaonkar wrote: > Rpm Generation Done, Sorry for the really long delay. Request someone to > test it out. > URL? -- Chris Murphy ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an

Re: Fedora c++ default build flags

Dan Horák píše v St 11. 07. 2018 v 14:12 +0200: > On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 14:00:40 +0200 > mskal...@redhat.com wrote: > > > Hi, > > during a discussion with upstream (MongoDB) they asked me about > > default Fedora C/C++ build flags. And I don't remember all Fedora > > System Wide changes where it was

Self Introduction: Kairui Song

Hi all, I'm working on submitting a package, it's my first package. So I want to give a brief self-introduction here. My name is Kairui Song, I'm a software engineer at Red Hat, have been a Red Hat employee for two years, and start working on kdump / kexec and related components recently. Have be

Re: [HEADS UP] Removal of GCC from the buildroot

On 07/11/2018 04:37 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On 07/11/2018 12:57 PM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: >> On 07/11/2018 09:26 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >>> On 07/11/2018 10:53 AM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: On 07/11/2018 07:31 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Mikolaj Izdebs

Re: Fedora 29 Mass Rebuild

Hi all, Things got fixed quicker than expected. The issues related to binutils is fixed with binutils-2.30.90-3.fc29 build. So, we will be starting mass rebuilds today, that is Jul 12th 2018. Fun note: Due to a day of delay in mass rebuilds, we were able to get OCaml 4.07 change into F29. Thank

Re: Packages which use the BuildRoot: directive

On Thu, 12 Jul 2018, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > The guidelines currently say: Are these Holy Writ, or just process, subject to amendment? > > > I think this guideline is bad and counterproductive, since many > > > packages clearly ignore it. There is a principle: Seek first to understan

Re: Packages which use the BuildRoot: directive

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Ben Rosser wrote: > We have been telling people for a while now that they don't "own" > their packages. Making it easier for people to maintain their packages > outside of dist-git and (effectively) ignore changes from > proven-packagers seems to take us in the op

Re: Haskell failures: relocation refers to local symbol "" [1], which is defined in a discarded section

On 07/12/2018 10:44 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: On 07/12/2018 02:04 AM, Elliott Sales de Andrade wrote: Does anyone know what's going on here? Is is annobin, new binutils, something else? The earliest failing build I can find is git-annex [3], and the dependency changes show annobin, binutils, an

Packages needlessly use __provides_exclude_from on python sitearch

There are 56 packages that use something like this: %global __provides_exclude_from ^(%{python_sitearch}/.*\\.so)$ %global __provides_exclude_from ^(%{python2_sitearch}/.*\\.so)$ %global __provides_exclude_from ^(%{python3_sitearch}/.*\\.so)$ %global __provides_exclude_from ^(%{python2_sitearch}

Re: Intel's Clear Linux optimizations

Rpm Generation Done, Sorry for the really long delay. Request someone to test it out. On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Manas Mangaonkar wrote: > Just a update,Ended up with a somewhat broken kernel that had performance > issues with the lts patches even after lot of tweaking.Apparently the cle

Re: [HEADS UP] Removal of GCC from the buildroot

On 07/11/2018 10:27 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > The effects of fsync are impossible to see unless you hard-reboot the > machine. (OK, strictly speaking, you can time the fsync call, but let's > ignore that). I'd be more worried about some side-effects of the way > that nosync is implem

Re: OCaml 4.07.0 is now in Fedora 29

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 8:42 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > OCaml 4.07.0 was released on Tuesday and it's in Fedora Rawhide today. > All packages that use OCaml have been recompiled except: > > - why3: "Error: Unbound module Stdlib" - probably needs an >upstream change > > If you see any othe

Re: OCaml 4.07.0 is now in Fedora 29

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 03:40:34PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > OCaml 4.07.0 was released on Tuesday and it's in Fedora Rawhide today. > All packages that use OCaml have been recompiled except: > > - why3: "Error: Unbound module Stdlib" - probably needs an >upstream change A couple mor

Re: Packages which use the BuildRoot: directive

On 12.7.2018 00:11, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 12:47:40PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: The guidelines currently say: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Spec_Maintenance_and_Canonicity "Fedora's git repository is the canonical location for Fedora sp

OCaml 4.07.0 is now in Fedora 29

OCaml 4.07.0 was released on Tuesday and it's in Fedora Rawhide today. All packages that use OCaml have been recompiled except: - why3: "Error: Unbound module Stdlib" - probably needs an upstream change If you see any other problems related to OCaml compilation with the new package then let m

Re: [HEADS UP] Removal of GCC from the buildroot

Once upon a time, Petr Pisar said: > On 2018-07-11, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > The effects of fsync are impossible to see unless you hard-reboot the > > machine. > > Are you sure non-fsynced changes are are guaranteed to be visible on > block cache level? E.g. if you mix read/write a

glassfish-el-javadoc license change

License of glassfish-el-javadoc package was changed from: CDDL-1.1 or GPLv2 with exceptions to: (CDDL or GPLv2 with exceptions) and ASL 2.0 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/glassfish-el/c/a6128b12aa9e18b5adc9701fcfe36d68b3c764b8 -- Mikolaj Izdebski Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat IRC: mizdeb

Fedora Rawhide-20180711.n.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 19/138 (x86_64), 23/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20180710.n.0): ID: 256995 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_firewall_default URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/256995 ID: 256998 Test: x8

Re: [HEADS UP] Removal of GCC from the buildroot

On Thu, 2018-07-12 at 07:32 +, Petr Pisar wrote: > On 2018-07-11, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > The effects of fsync are impossible to see unless you hard-reboot > > the > > machine. > > Are you sure non-fsynced changes are are guaranteed to be visible on > block cache level? E.g. if

Re: Packages which use the BuildRoot: directive

Simo Sorce wrote: > Isn't tooling in our dist-git commit hooks or push hooks that simply > reject commits that remove changelogs or re-add unwanted sections the > way to go here ? Removing changelog entries is necessary to bring diverged branches back into sync. I always destroy the branch change

Re: [HEADS UP] Removal of GCC from the buildroot

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 07:32:19AM +, Petr Pisar wrote: > On 2018-07-11, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > The effects of fsync are impossible to see unless you hard-reboot the > > machine. > > Are you sure non-fsynced changes are are guaranteed to be visible on > block cache level? E.g.

Re: Packages which use the BuildRoot: directive

On Wed, 2018-07-11 at 12:16 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:58 AM Igor Gnatenko > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 5:02 PM Josh Boyer > rg> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 10:40 AM Jason L Tibbitts III > > .uh.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > "JB" =

Re: Haskell failures: relocation refers to local symbol "" [1], which is defined in a discarded section

On 07/12/2018 02:04 AM, Elliott Sales de Andrade wrote: Does anyone know what's going on here? Is is annobin, new binutils, something else? The earliest failing build I can find is git-annex [3], and the dependency changes show annobin, binutils, and glibc (among others.) It's a change in the

Re: F29 Self Contained Change: Deprecate YUM 3

On 12/07/18 09:15, Daniel Mach wrote: On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 9:45 PM, Kevin Fenzi > wrote: koji is kinda important. I think this is meaning python2-koji? I would hope python3-koji/koji stays around? ditto I believe koji is only in the list because it has a req

Re: F29 Self Contained Change: Deprecate YUM 3

On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 9:45 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On 06/27/2018 03:18 AM, Lubomír Sedlář wrote: > > Removing Yyum would mean that there will no longer be /usr/bin/pungi > > available in Fedora. This is not a problem for any work done by release > > engineering, but it is still used by people c

Re: [HEADS UP] Removal of GCC from the buildroot

On 2018-07-11, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > The effects of fsync are impossible to see unless you hard-reboot the > machine. Are you sure non-fsynced changes are are guaranteed to be visible on block cache level? E.g. if you mix read/write and mmaped I/O from different processes? > I won

Re: Haskell failures: relocation refers to local symbol "" [1], which is defined in a discarded section

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 02:05 Elliott Sales de Andrade < quantum.anal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Does anyone know what's going on here? Is is annobin, new binutils, > something else? The earliest failing build I can find is git-annex [3], and > the dependency changes show annobin, binutils, and glibc