Re: Gitlab Ask Me Anything - Sept 10th, 13:30 UTC

2020-09-04 Thread John M. Harris Jr
On Friday, September 4, 2020 8:27:55 AM MST Aoife Moloney wrote: > Good Morning folks, > > As you likely remember, a little while ago now, was announced the decision > to move dist-git to a gitlab instance. This decision was the results of > different factors which included a wish for Red Hat to h

Re: fedbot spamming in #fedora

2020-09-04 Thread Germano Massullo
Il 19/07/20 19:41, Kevin Fenzi ha scritto: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 05:34:13PM +0200, Germano Massullo wrote: >> Is it necessary to have in #fedora IRC channel, fedbot spamming 48 times >> per day about Fedora respins update? >> >> [16:51] *** F32-20200715 updated lives available: >> https://tiny

Re: F32 ppc64le build failure: ImportError: /lib64/libgomp.so.1: cannot allocate memory in static TLS block

2020-09-04 Thread Elliott Sales de Andrade
On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 18:03, Ankur Sinha wrote: > > Hello folks, > > I'm seeing this error that causes a test failure on F32 for a noarch > python package. It builds in mock on my x86_64 here, but on koji it gets > a ppc64le builder and fails with this error. It's built fine on F33 and > rawhide.

Re: F32 ppc64le build failure: ImportError: /lib64/libgomp.so.1: cannot allocate memory in static TLS block

2020-09-04 Thread Jerry James
On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 4:03 PM Ankur Sinha wrote: > I'm seeing this error that causes a test failure on F32 for a noarch > python package. It builds in mock on my x86_64 here, but on koji it gets > a ppc64le builder and fails with this error. It's built fine on F33 and > rawhide. Would anyone know

F32 ppc64le build failure: ImportError: /lib64/libgomp.so.1: cannot allocate memory in static TLS block

2020-09-04 Thread Ankur Sinha
Hello folks, I'm seeing this error that causes a test failure on F32 for a noarch python package. It builds in mock on my x86_64 here, but on koji it gets a ppc64le builder and fails with this error. It's built fine on F33 and rawhide. Would anyone know what may be causing this? This is the build

Re: Fedora 33 blocker status

2020-09-04 Thread Ben Cotton
The Go/No-Go meeting is Thursday! Action summary Accepted blockers - 1. libreport — abrt-server errors when processing zstd compressed core dumps produced by systemd-246~rc1-1.fc33 — POST ACTION: msuchy to get retrace server back in service 2. sddm — login st

Claiming ownership of retired package: bygfoot

2020-09-04 Thread Tom Stellard
Hi, I would like to claim ownership of the retired package bygfoot. Since it has been retired for more than 8 weeks, I've submitted a new review request here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875972. -Tom ___ devel mailing list -- devel@l

Fedora-IoT-34-20200904.0 compose check report

2020-09-04 Thread Fedora compose checker
Missing expected images: Iot dvd aarch64 Iot dvd x86_64 Failed openQA tests: 2/16 (x86_64) Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-34-20200903.0): ID: 655569 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/655569 ID: 655575 Test: x86_64 IoT-

Re: Release criteria proposal: first boot experience

2020-09-04 Thread Adam Williamson
On Fri, 2020-09-04 at 11:16 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2020-09-04 at 12:12 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 12:57 pm, Kamil Paral wrote: > > > Overall I find the criterion reasonable and useful and I'm +1 to > > > incorporating it. Its current phrasing seems

Re: Release criteria proposal: first boot experience

2020-09-04 Thread Adam Williamson
On Fri, 2020-09-04 at 12:12 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 12:57 pm, Kamil Paral wrote: > > Overall I find the criterion reasonable and useful and I'm +1 to > > incorporating it. Its current phrasing seems fine to me. > > So how does the process of adding the new criter

Re: Non-responsive maintainer: tmoertel

2020-09-04 Thread Robbie Harwood
Thomas Moertel writes: > Hi Robbie, > > I'm sorry to say that I can no longer maintain emacs-magit. Please > remove me as a maintainer. Appreciate the response, and your past work! Thanks, --Robbie signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ devel

Re: Release criteria proposal: first boot experience

2020-09-04 Thread Michael Catanzaro
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 12:57 pm, Kamil Paral wrote: Overall I find the criterion reasonable and useful and I'm +1 to incorporating it. Its current phrasing seems fine to me. So how does the process of adding the new criterion work? I guess we should leave the weekend for additional comment, i

Gitlab Ask Me Anything - Sept 10th, 13:30 UTC

2020-09-04 Thread Aoife Moloney
Good Morning folks, As you likely remember, a little while ago now, was announced the decision to move dist-git to a gitlab instance. This decision was the results of different factors which included a wish for Red Hat to have a consistent tooling and experience across the different distribution i

Fedora-33-20200904.n.0 compose check report

2020-09-04 Thread Fedora compose checker
No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 9/181 (x86_64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-33-20200903.n.0): ID: 655448 Test: x86_64 universal support_server URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/655448 ID: 655510 Test: x86_64 universal install_iscsi URL: https:

Next Open NeuroFedora Meeting: 1300 UTC on Monday, 7th September

2020-09-04 Thread Ankur Sinha
Hello everyone, Please join us at the next Open NeuroFedora team meeting next week on Monday at 1300UTC in #fedora-neuro on IRC (Freenode). The meeting is a public meeting, and open for everyone to attend. https://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=#fedora-neuro The channel is bridged to Telegram, s

Fedora 33 compose report: 20200904.n.0 changes

2020-09-04 Thread Fedora Rawhide Report
OLD: Fedora-33-20200903.n.0 NEW: Fedora-33-20200904.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 0 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 0 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 0 B Size of dropped packages:0 B Size of upgraded

Re: About the Future of Communishift

2020-09-04 Thread Leigh Griffin
On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 12:17 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 7:10 AM clime wrote: > > > > On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 12:59, clime wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 12:48, Aoife Moloney > wrote: > > > > > > > > Good Morning Everyone, > > > > > > > > I wanted to share with you so

Re: About the Future of Communishift

2020-09-04 Thread Tomasz Torcz
On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 02:08:02PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > > I don't really expect an answer. From my experience, it's impossible > > to get straight, yes/no, binary answer from lawyers. > > Thus the slow process :( > The goal of the email was to inform about the current situation

Re: About the Future of Communishift

2020-09-04 Thread Mauricio Tavares
On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 7:48 AM Tomasz Torcz wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 07:16:02AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 7:10 AM clime wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 12:59, clime wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 12:48, Aoife Moloney wrote: > > > > > >

Re: About the Future of Communishift

2020-09-04 Thread Pierre-Yves Chibon
On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 01:47:58PM +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote: > On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 07:16:02AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 7:10 AM clime wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 12:59, clime wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 12:48, Aoife Moloney wrote: > >

Re: About the Future of Communishift

2020-09-04 Thread Tomasz Torcz
On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 07:16:02AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 7:10 AM clime wrote: > > > > On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 12:59, clime wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 12:48, Aoife Moloney wrote: > > > > > > > > However, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) [3] and

Re: About the Future of Communishift

2020-09-04 Thread Petr Pisar
On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 11:13:19AM +0100, Aoife Moloney wrote: > However, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) [3] and the California > Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) [4] basically makes the Fedora Infrastructure team > (and thus Red Hat) responsible for the content hosted by any services run

Fedora-Rawhide-20200904.n.0 compose check report

2020-09-04 Thread Fedora compose checker
No missing expected images. Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check! 1 of 43 required tests failed openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING** below Failed openQA tests: 11/181 (x86_64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20200902.n.1): ID:

Re: About the Future of Communishift

2020-09-04 Thread Neal Gompa
On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 7:10 AM clime wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 12:59, clime wrote: > > > > On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 12:48, Aoife Moloney wrote: > > > > > > Good Morning Everyone, > > > > > > I wanted to share with you some information regarding the current > > > state and future of Communish

Re: About the Future of Communishift

2020-09-04 Thread clime
On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 12:59, clime wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 12:48, Aoife Moloney wrote: > > > > Good Morning Everyone, > > > > I wanted to share with you some information regarding the current > > state and future of Communishift. The infrastructure team presented on > > this project back

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20200904.n.0 changes

2020-09-04 Thread Fedora Rawhide Report
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20200902.n.1 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20200904.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 8 Added packages: 23 Dropped packages:1 Upgraded packages: 295 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 1.51 GiB Size of dropped packages

Re: About the Future of Communishift

2020-09-04 Thread clime
On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 12:48, Aoife Moloney wrote: > > Good Morning Everyone, > > I wanted to share with you some information regarding the current > state and future of Communishift. The infrastructure team presented on > this project back in 2019 during Nest [1] [2], and since then, we have > dep

About the Future of Communishift

2020-09-04 Thread Aoife Moloney
Good Morning Everyone, I wanted to share with you some information regarding the current state and future of Communishift. The infrastructure team presented on this project back in 2019 during Nest [1] [2], and since then, we have deployed it, started using it and had to shut it down for the colo-

Fedora-Cloud-31-20200904.0 compose check report

2020-09-04 Thread Fedora compose checker
No missing expected images. Passed openQA tests: 7/7 (x86_64) -- Mail generated by check-compose: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedorap

Re: Is s390 (32-bit) relevant for Fedora alt arch ?

2020-09-04 Thread Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
On Friday, 04 September 2020 at 11:00, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > I'm looking at cleaning up some parts of the QEMU spec and we have > conditionals in there testing for s390 arch (aka 32-bit). IIRC it > was previously a secondary arch, at least back in the Fedora 22-ish > timeframe. I'm not seeing

Re: New segfault with flexiblas/openblaso

2020-09-04 Thread Iñaki Ucar
On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 at 11:16, Susi Lehtola wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 10:57:13 +0200 > Iñaki Ucar wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Strange... Let me bring this upstream to see whether this is > > flexiblas' or openblas' fault. In the meanwhile, exporting > > FLEXIBLAS=netlib before the tests makes use of

Re: New segfault with flexiblas/openblaso

2020-09-04 Thread Susi Lehtola
On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 10:57:13 +0200 Iñaki Ucar wrote: > Hi, > > Strange... Let me bring this upstream to see whether this is > flexiblas' or openblas' fault. In the meanwhile, exporting > FLEXIBLAS=netlib before the tests makes use of the reference > implementation, so everything should be slower b

Fedora-Cloud-32-20200904.0 compose check report

2020-09-04 Thread Fedora compose checker
No missing expected images. Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-32-20200903.0): ID: 654635 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://openqa.fedoraproj

Re: Is s390 (32-bit) relevant for Fedora alt arch ?

2020-09-04 Thread Dan Horák
On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 10:00:11 +0100 Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > I'm looking at cleaning up some parts of the QEMU spec and we have > conditionals in there testing for s390 arch (aka 32-bit). IIRC it > was previously a secondary arch, at least back in the Fedora 22-ish > timeframe. I'm not seeing it

Is s390 (32-bit) relevant for Fedora alt arch ?

2020-09-04 Thread Daniel P . Berrangé
I'm looking at cleaning up some parts of the QEMU spec and we have conditionals in there testing for s390 arch (aka 32-bit). IIRC it was previously a secondary arch, at least back in the Fedora 22-ish timeframe. I'm not seeing it listed in the alternative arch list currently though: https://fedo

Re: New segfault with flexiblas/openblaso

2020-09-04 Thread Iñaki Ucar
Hi, Strange... Let me bring this upstream to see whether this is flexiblas' or openblas' fault. In the meanwhile, exporting FLEXIBLAS=netlib before the tests makes use of the reference implementation, so everything should be slower but safer. And if this starts happening in the wild, we can change

Re: F34 Change: Reduce installation media size by improving the compression ratio of SquashFS filesystem (Self-Contained Change)

2020-09-04 Thread Kamil Paral
On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 6:17 AM John Reiser wrote: > On 2020-09-01 at 12:13 UTC, Kamil Paral wrote: > [[snip]] > > I'd like to ... hugely speed up the installation instead > [[snip]] > > Zstd is faster than xz at de-compression, but a much larger speed > improvement > would be to parallel