On Tue, 8 Nov 2022, 19:22 Vitaly Zaitsev via devel, <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On 08/11/2022 19:53, Naheem Zaffar wrote:
> > Has there been any consideration to turn on frame pointers for atleast
> > dev releases?
>
>
> Fedora has no dev releases. Mass rebuild is a huge pain for mai
On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 7:45 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 2:05 PM Maxwell G via devel
> wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone know how to reach prodsec about this?
>
> I'll reach out to the people I know and see what the best way to get
> them in this conversation is.
>
>
Has this conversat
On 11/8/22 18:46, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Demi Marie Obenour writes:
>
>> Three other options I can think of:
>> [...]
>
> Another one:
>
> 4. Speed up out-of-context backtracer(s), possibly consuming
> kernel-perf-ringbuffer stack dumps, or possibly using another
> event source t
On Wed, 2022-11-09 at 07:47 +1100, Ian Laurie wrote:
> On 11/9/22 01:18, Fedora Rawhide Report wrote:
> > OLD: Fedora-37-20221107.n.0
> > NEW: Fedora-37-20221108.n.0
> [big snip]
>
> This seems to have all the gnome fixes, plus a load of KDE fixes, and
> the 6.0.7 ker
Demi Marie Obenour writes:
> Three other options I can think of:
> [...]
Another one:
4. Speed up out-of-context backtracer(s), possibly consuming
kernel-perf-ringbuffer stack dumps, or possibly using another
event source to trigger and work via ptrace and /proc/$pid/mem
- FChE
___
On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 03:09:46PM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 1:34 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, was going to try and work it out with them (which I have not yet
> > done). Where's the best place to engage with them these days?
>
> I'd start with either Discussion[1]
On 08. 11. 22 20:45, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2022-11-08 at 08:11 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2022-11-08 at 13:32 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
But I don't know the slightest thing about ansible, beyond a very rough
idea of what kind of tool it is. Just understanding what exact
On Tue Nov 8, 2022 at 12:13 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Thought I'd try to get on with the times and do the Sequoia change via a
> PR instead of just pushing as we've traditionally done. So far so good,
> but it throws up an error which I have no idea how to debug:
>
> https://artifact
On 11/9/22 01:18, Fedora Rawhide Report wrote:
OLD: Fedora-37-20221107.n.0
NEW: Fedora-37-20221108.n.0
[big snip]
This seems to have all the gnome fixes, plus a load of KDE fixes, and
the 6.0.7 kernel shouldn't this be a release candidate?
--
Ian Laurie
FAS: nixuser | IRC: nixus
Looking here, I don't see any activity in the last year:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/user/guidograzioli
I have not gotten any response to BZs for yaml-cpp.
Does anyone know how to contact them?
Thanks,
Richard
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.f
On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 1:34 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> Yeah, was going to try and work it out with them (which I have not yet
> done). Where's the best place to engage with them these days?
I'd start with either Discussion[1] or chat[2]. There are a couple of
Pagure repos as well, but the new work
On Tue, 2022-11-08 at 08:11 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-11-08 at 13:32 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> >
> > But I don't know the slightest thing about ansible, beyond a very rough
> > idea of what kind of tool it is. Just understanding what exactly it's
> > trying to do here wo
On 08/11/2022 19:53, Naheem Zaffar wrote:
Has there been any consideration to turn on frame pointers for atleast
dev releases?
Fedora has no dev releases. Mass rebuild is a huge pain for maintainers
due to FTBFS issues, and doing it multiple times is unacceptable.
If someone needs extended
On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 06:53:46PM +, Naheem Zaffar wrote:
> Has there been any consideration to turn on frame pointers for atleast dev
> releases?
>
> AFAIK the kernel already has a separate configuration during the
> development phase of the distro-cycle
This practice already causes problem
Has there been any consideration to turn on frame pointers for atleast dev
releases?
AFAIK the kernel already has a separate configuration during the
development phase of the distro-cycle
Can this be extended for rebuilds of alpha and beta releases in rawhide to
turn on frame pointers as an inter
On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 10:21:43AM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 10:10 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
> >
> > Initial images are produced for x86_64 and aarch64 mobile devices
> > using the Phosh desktop.
>
> Is the plan to add these images to an existing website or a new one?
The new
Meeting was cancelled due to lack of quorum. I'll chair the next meeting.
Minutes:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2022-11-08/fesco.2022-11-08-17.00.html
Minutes (text):
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2022-11-08/fesco.2022-11-08-17.00.txt
Log:
https://meetbot.
On Tue, 2022-11-08 at 13:32 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>
> But I don't know the slightest thing about ansible, beyond a very rough
> idea of what kind of tool it is. Just understanding what exactly it's
> trying to do here would go a long way, I think. But either it's not in
> the logs, or I
On Tue, 2022-11-08 at 13:32 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 11/8/22 13:05, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 08. 11. 22 11:13, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > > Hey,
> > >
> > > Thought I'd try to get on with the times and do the Sequoia change via
> > > a PR instead of just pushing as we've traditionally
On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 10:10 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> Initial images are produced for x86_64 and aarch64 mobile devices
> using the Phosh desktop.
Is the plan to add these images to an existing website or a new one?
Or are you going to work that out with the Websites & Apps team? (Note
that they'
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MobilityPhoshImage
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved
by the Fedora Engineering Steering Commi
Hi folks,
Would someone like to swap reviews please? I'd like to get
python-formulaic reviewed and included in Fedora[1]. It's required to
update python-pybids to the latest version[2]
It should be a straightforward review. Unofficial reviews from candidate
package maintainers looking for review
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the
FESCo meeting Tuesday at 17:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on
irc.libera.chat.
To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto
or run:
date -d '2022-11-08 17:00 UTC'
Links to all issues to be di
OLD: Fedora-37-20221107.n.0
NEW: Fedora-37-20221108.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 1
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 314
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 656.34 KiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of
On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 09:45:57AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Should new package reviews (for Rawhide) now be rejected if they don't
> have SPDX tags?
Yes, new packages going forward should use SPDX expressions in the License
tag.
--
David Cantrell
Red Hat, Inc. | Boston, MA | EST5EDT
_
In one week (2022-11-15), or slightly later, I will update python-pgspecial
from 1.13.1 to 2.0.1[1] in Rawhide. The new version switches from psycopg2 to
psycopg3, which is a breaking change. The sole dependent package is pgcli. I
have coordinated with its maintainer and will update it to 3.5.0[
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20221107.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20221108.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 2
Added packages: 8
Dropped packages:2
Upgraded packages: 121
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 1.30 MiB
Size of dropped packages
On 11/8/22 13:05, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 08. 11. 22 11:13, Panu Matilainen wrote:
Hey,
Thought I'd try to get on with the times and do the Sequoia change via
a PR instead of just pushing as we've traditionally done. So far so
good, but it throws up an error which I have no idea how to debug:
Hi!
On Monday, 07 November 2022 at 21:12, Hans de Goede wrote:
[...]
> If you want to help test please run the tests from the second blogpost:
>
> https://hansdegoede.livejournal.com/27130.html
>
> which is about trying to re-introduce the 6.1 change in a different
> form. Note you can run the r
On Tuesday, 8 November 2022 09:43:40 GMT Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 01:44:41PM +0100, Petr Menšík wrote:
>
> > If there are binaries with different build results, I think some
> > code should be refactored out of the binary itself. The common parts
> > can remain, but hard
On 08. 11. 22 11:13, Panu Matilainen wrote:
Hey,
Thought I'd try to get on with the times and do the Sequoia change via a PR
instead of just pushing as we've traditionally done. So far so good, but it
throws up an error which I have no idea how to debug:
https://artifacts.dev.testing-farm.io
Hey,
Thought I'd try to get on with the times and do the Sequoia change via a
PR instead of just pushing as we've traditionally done. So far so good,
but it throws up an error which I have no idea how to debug:
https://artifacts.dev.testing-farm.io/700d486d-d409-44fe-b7c3-01634243558e/
> Unk
V Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 06:46:26PM +0100, Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
> 8.
>
>After you migrate your SPEC file, please add the string “SPDX” to the
> entry of the packages’ %changelog. This is the
>easiest way to detect the migration has been done. The second best option
> is to add it to t
Should new package reviews (for Rawhide) now be rejected if they don't
have SPDX tags?
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual mac
On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 01:44:41PM +0100, Petr Menšík wrote:
> If there are binaries with different build results, I think some
> code should be refactored out of the binary itself. The common parts
> can remain, but hardware specific parts should be moved to
> dynamically loaded *.so files. The co
35 matches
Mail list logo
