On Tuesday, January 26, 2021 9:46:49 PM CET Neal Gompa wrote:
> Yes. This is breaking *everything*. Regardless of whether the plugin
> is installed, RPM now thinks the generated packages are invalid and
> cannot do anything with them. This has also broken package builds on
> COPR and the openSUSE B
On Tuesday, January 26, 2021 7:44:05 PM CET Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> * Get rpm updated at least in all Fedora's / active RHEL's to be able to
> handle rpms with the signatures. I don't know how likely this is for
> rhel7, but 8 and fedora 32 should hopefully not be hard.
Yes, no need to fix RHEL 7 --
On Fri, 2021-01-15 at 05:52 -0500, PGNet Dev wrote:
> dhcpcd client pkgs @Fedora
>
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dhcpcd
>
> are years out of date, currently versioned at
>
> Fedora 33 dhcpcd-6.11.3-11.fc33
> Fedora 32 dhcpcd-6.11.3-10.fc32
>
> as pe
On Mon, 2021-01-25 at 11:40 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 04:43:21PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > But that would involve at least six new steps that would've to be
> > automated: 1) Creating a fork on src.fp.o (plus error handling
> > around
> > already existing forks)
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021, 3:47 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 3:44 PM Matthew Miller
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:44:05AM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > * Try and change the storage format of the signatures to not take up
> > > tons of room. I guess this would be in i
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 4:16 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 03:46:49PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:44:05AM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > > * Try and change the storage format of the signatures to not take up
> > > > tons of room. I guess this w
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 03:46:49PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:44:05AM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > * Try and change the storage format of the signatures to not take up
> > > tons of room. I guess this would be in ima tools and sigul?
> >
> > Is this an immediate issu
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 3:44 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:44:05AM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > * Try and change the storage format of the signatures to not take up
> > tons of room. I guess this would be in ima tools and sigul?
>
> Is this an immediate issue given that
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:44:05AM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> * Try and change the storage format of the signatures to not take up
> tons of room. I guess this would be in ima tools and sigul?
Is this an immediate issue given that it only affects systems where the
plugin is enabled?
> * Get rpm
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:44:05AM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> So, the thread here kind of fell quiet with everything else going on.
>
> It seems clear there's issues to address here before this change might
> get approved. Here's my list:
>
> * Try and change the storage format of the signatur
On Tue, 2021-01-26 at 10:32 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> you may want to ask the respins sig if they have old versions
>
> around anywhere? I think you can find them in #fedora-respins
> freenode
>
> channel.
yeah , in topic of the fedora-respins channel show a link for some old
respins .
Thank
On Tue, 2021-01-26 at 10:32 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:50:33AM +, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > So to save storage maybe just archive 2 or 3 Respins: workstation ,
> > KDE
> > and XFCE and specially not archive source repsin , we can get the
> > sources by other means
>
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 1:45 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> It seems clear there's issues to address here before this change might
> get approved. Here's my list:
>
Given the schedule, it seems like this should be retargeted for F35.
I'm not sure if your list has that assumption in mind.
> * Get rpm u
So, the thread here kind of fell quiet with everything else going on.
It seems clear there's issues to address here before this change might
get approved. Here's my list:
* Try and change the storage format of the signatures to not take up
tons of room. I guess this would be in ima tools and si
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 01:18:37PM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
> There are no nominated bugs. We will review the following accepted
> prioritized bugs:
I've got an internal all-day meeting (whee) and may or may not make this
depending on what is going on during that hour.
--
Matthew Miller
Fedora
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:50:33AM +, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> So to save storage maybe just archive 2 or 3 Respins: workstation , KDE
> and XFCE and specially not archive source repsin , we can get the
> sources by other means
So... you may want to ask the respins sig if they have old versio
Dne 26. 01. 21 v 18:32 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 03:59:18PM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 25/01/21 19:58 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 25. 01. 21 19:32, Robbie Harwood wrote:
It seems to me that this problem would be better solved by making
rebuilds sma
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:52 AM Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 4:47 PM Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
> >
> > On 25/01/21 15:16 +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > >On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 5:10 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 02:17:28PM -0500, Mohan Bod
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 6:08 AM wrote:
>
> You are kindly invited to the meeting:
>Prioritized bugs and issues on 2021-01-27 from 11:00:00 to 12:00:00
> America/Indiana/Indianapolis
>At fedora-meet...@irc.freenode.net
>
> More information available at:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fe
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 07:24:35AM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> This build appears to have failed due to build disk space issues:
>
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1677212
>
> {standard input}: Fatal error: can't close .libs/cpl_google_cloud.o: No
> space left on device
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 02:34:57PM +0100, Kamil Paral wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 1:49 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel <
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
> > On 26.01.2021 13:24, Honggang LI wrote:
> > > What is the rule to concurrently select both x86_64 and i686 build
> > > for Fedora
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 01:24:28PM +0100, Kamil Paral wrote:
>
> Here's one:
> https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issue/849
>
> Here's a second one, but yesterday I found out that there was a related PR
> merged, so I updated it:
> https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issue/811
>
> A third one:
> https://
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:51:13AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>
> Did those machines have zram, zswap, and/or normal swap enabled?
> (I looked at the dmesg attached in bugzilla, and it's only mentions
> zswap being loaded...)
The f33 ones had zram... but I also tried disabling it a
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 03:59:18PM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 25/01/21 19:58 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >On 25. 01. 21 19:32, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> >>It seems to me that this problem would be better solved by making
> >>rebuilds smarter. Instead of building tip of dist-git (which might
On Thu, 2021-01-07 at 09:25 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hey folks!
>
> So here's an idea I was thinking about over the RH shutdown: I propose
> we gate stable release critical path updates on the openQA tests.
A further update on this: FESCo has voted on it and approved it:
https://pagure.io/
On 1/26/21 9:13 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 26/01/21 16:52 +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 4:47 PM Jonathan Wakely
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 25/01/21 15:16 +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
>>> >On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 5:10 PM Jakub Jelinek
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, J
On 26/01/21 16:52 +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 4:47 PM Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
On 25/01/21 15:16 +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 5:10 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 02:17:28PM -0500, Mohan Boddu wrote:
>> > We are delaying
On 26/01/21 03:12 +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
Miro Hrončok wrote:
1. Untested changes
Packager pushes a "simple update" to dist git without checking if it even
builds. It doesn't. Packager has no time to fix this, so they move on for
now. Or they submit a build but never check if it ac
On 25/01/21 11:40 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 04:43:21PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
But that would involve at least six new steps that would've to be
automated: 1) Creating a fork on src.fp.o (plus error handling around
already existing forks), 2) Cloning the fork ins
On 25/01/21 19:58 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 25. 01. 21 19:32, Robbie Harwood wrote:
It seems to me that this problem would be better solved by making
rebuilds smarter. Instead of building tip of dist-git (which might
never have been build), rebuild the last thing that *was* successfully
bui
On 25/01/21 13:42 -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 13:30, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 07:19:45PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 25. 01. 21 19:03, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 03:59:43PM +0100, Miro Hrončo
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 4:47 PM Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
>
> On 25/01/21 15:16 +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> >On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 5:10 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 02:17:28PM -0500, Mohan Boddu wrote:
> >> > We are delaying the mass rebuild by a day as of now due
On 25/01/21 15:16 +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 5:10 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 02:17:28PM -0500, Mohan Boddu wrote:
> We are delaying the mass rebuild by a day as of now due to bugs in gcc
> and dwz. As of now, we are expecting to start mass rebuil
On 26. 01. 21 15:52, Alexander Scheel wrote:
Well, I understand your sentiment against mass spec changes, but there are
cases, where it currently cannot be avoided (e.-g. when a targeted mass rebuild
is needed for a soname bump). W.g. when we update Python from 3.9 to 3.10 we
will need to rebuild
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 4:45 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 26. 01. 21 3:12, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> > Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >> 1. Untested changes
> >>
> >> Packager pushes a "simple update" to dist git without checking if it even
> >> builds. It doesn't. Packager has no time to fix this,
The subject, of course, should have read *two* weeks. My coffee intake
has been adjusted accordingly.
--
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
___
devel-announce mailing list --
This build appears to have failed due to build disk space issues:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1677212
{standard input}: Fatal error: can't close .libs/cpl_google_cloud.o: No
space left on device
make[1]: *** [../GDALmake.opt:652: cpl_google_cloud.lo] Error 1
make: ***
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 12:57 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 11:36:09AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > Hello packagers,
> >
> > if you have rpmdevtools-9.3-2.fc33 (or .fc34) installed and you run
> > `spectool -g` on spec files with remote text sources/patches, s
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 01:53:53PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 06:58:28AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> > I've linked my
> > https://github.com/projectatomic/rpmdistro-gitoverlay/blob/master/doc/reworking-fedora-releng.md
> > plan a few times.
>
> It's an interesting
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 06:58:28AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> I've linked my
> https://github.com/projectatomic/rpmdistro-gitoverlay/blob/master/doc/reworking-fedora-releng.md
> plan a few times.
It's an interesting proposal. I do have a couple of questions
or points of view though:
How large
Hi,
as there is a small problem with pinephones and grub2-efi, heres how to
fix it:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919907
Problem:
[root@fedorapine boot]# rpm -U
/var/cache/dnf/rawhide-135a69fc59e3201d/packages/grub2-efi-aa64-2.04-34.fc34.aarch64.rpm
Fehler: Entpacken des Arch
* Kevin Kofler via devel:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
>> This is currently not a major consideration for system call design. We
>> can't add this downstream from the kernel if support just isn't there.
>> You have to solve these issues for porting to other architectures
>> anyway.
>
> So the upstream
The change complete (testable) deadline for Fedora 34 changes is
Tuesday 9 February. At this point, changes should be in a testable
state. Please indicate this by setting the tracker bug for your change
to MODIFIED.
Other upcoming schedule milestones:
* 2021-02-09 — Fedora 34 branches from Rawhide
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 1:49 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On 26.01.2021 13:24, Honggang LI wrote:
> > What is the rule to concurrently select both x86_64 and i686 build
> > for Fedora X86_64 platform?
>
> Fedora ships only i686 packages for multilib support
Florian Weimer wrote:
> This is currently not a major consideration for system call design. We
> can't add this downstream from the kernel if support just isn't there.
> You have to solve these issues for porting to other architectures
> anyway.
So the upstream Linux kernel does not care about se
On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 at 07:00, Colin Walters wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021, at 6:27 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 03:12:50AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> > > IMHO, the real issue is the one Robbie Harwood pointed out: It should
> NOT be
> > > a common occu
On 26.01.2021 13:24, Honggang LI wrote:
What is the rule to concurrently select both x86_64 and i686 build
for Fedora X86_64 platform?
Fedora ships only i686 packages for multilib support (e.g. Wine and Steam).
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:10 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> For rawhide, and branched (prerelease) yes, changes likely would need to
> be there.
> For updates its the infrastructure ansible repo.
>
Sigh.
So, IMHO, tickets for this should be filed as releng tickets
> and folks should note which they a
Hi,
https://mirrors.tuna.tsinghua.edu.cn/fedora/releases/33/Everything/x86_64/os/Packages/r/
Let take packages start with 'r' for example. There are 841 x86_64
packages and 247 i686 packages availeble for Fedora-33. That means
only 29% components have x86_64 and i686 build available at the same
t
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021, at 6:27 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 03:12:50AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> > IMHO, the real issue is the one Robbie Harwood pointed out: It should NOT
> > be
> > a common occurrence for a provenpackager to have to rebuild a package, a
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 11:36:09AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Hello packagers,
>
> if you have rpmdevtools-9.3-2.fc33 (or .fc34) installed and you run
> `spectool -g` on spec files with remote text sources/patches, such
> as git(hub|lab)/pagure patches, or signatures/keys:
>
> Patch1: https://
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 03:12:50AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> IMHO, the real issue is the one Robbie Harwood pointed out: It should NOT be
> a common occurrence for a provenpackager to have to rebuild a package, and
> in particular, provenpackagers should NOT do scripted mass changes.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 10:35:44AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 10:31 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >
> > On 25. 01. 21 16:19, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > > I'm fully in favor of this and I'd really like to see us add some
> > > degree of CI gating to support it.
> >
> > N
On 26. 01. 21 11:46, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 25. 01. 21 v 23:20 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
I wonder if related to this, we couldn't make koschei opt-out only.
ie, just add everything to it and ask people who don't want to to
specifically opt out.
+1. What do we need for this to make it happen. M
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 01:59:59PM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 12:19:13PM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 8:55 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 08:21:48PM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 7:54 PM
On Mon, 2021-01-25 at 08:43 -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 06:03, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > On Sun, 2021-01-24 at 17:45 -0800, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> >
> > > On 1/24/21 5:40 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> >
> > > > On Sun, 2021-01-24 at 16:42 -0800, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> >
>
Dne 25. 01. 21 v 23:20 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
I wonder if related to this, we couldn't make koschei opt-out only.
ie, just add everything to it and ask people who don't want to to
specifically opt out.
+1. What do we need for this to make it happen. Mikolaj, any thoughts?
Vít
OpenPGP_0
Hello packagers,
if you have rpmdevtools-9.3-2.fc33 (or .fc34) installed and you run `spectool
-g` on spec files with remote text sources/patches, such as git(hub|lab)/pagure
patches, or signatures/keys:
Patch1: https://pagure.io/rpmdevtools/pull-request/77.patch
Patch2: https://github.com/
On 26. 01. 21 3:12, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
Miro Hrončok wrote:
1. Untested changes
Packager pushes a "simple update" to dist git without checking if it even
builds. It doesn't. Packager has no time to fix this, so they move on for
now. Or they submit a build but never check if it actuall
Dne 19. 01. 21 v 19:37 Kalev Lember napsal(a):
On 1/19/21 18:03, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 5:43 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
For issues that are not Fedora-specific, the best place to report
issues and reach developers is usually at
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME
What is the b
60 matches
Mail list logo
