На 12.05.2016 в 15:32, Phil Sutter написа:
Hi,
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 02:47:19PM +0300, Alexander Todorov wrote:
# cat /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-enp1s0f0
Generated by dracut initrd
The line above is supposed to be a comment.
OK, fixed that then I got:
# systemctl status
Hi guys,
I'm having trouble starting a network bridge from a script without restarting
the server.
I am following this doc in order to configure a bridged network on a Fedora 23
Server host:
https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html/Networking_Guide/sec-Ne
Hello everyone,
I'm working on beginner QA and Automation training curricula for a local hack
school in Sofia (https://github.com/atodorov/QA-101). I'm looking for examples
of badly written bug reports which students can read and discuss what
information is missing from them (e.g. why are they
На 18.09.2015 в 03:15, Steve Grubb написа:
I think Florian answered this. Indeed, the --debug-dump option does
find these strings, but they are mixed in with other data. I think that
if there is no canary and flags were passed, its not a problem. If the
flags are absent, the build scripts are su
На 17.09.2015 в 16:24, Ben Boeckel написа:
Ben,
is there any way this CMake property be turned on globally ?
When a target is made, the POSITION_INDEPENDENT_CODE property is set to
the value of CMAKE_POSITION_INDEPENDENT_CODE and may then be overridden
manually. Anything that turns it or the p
На 17.09.2015 в 12:26, Richard W.M. Jones написа:
As far as I can see most of them report "Partial RELRO" which may
well be fixed as you propose below. If not I can easily exclude
them.
They're intermediate files used by developers. They aren't runnable
binaries. I think everything in %{libdi
На 17.09.2015 в 13:34, Steve Grubb написа:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 11:07:37 +0300
Alexander Todorov wrote:
Can somebody comment on the -fstack-protector-all vs
-fstack-protector-strong issue ? Do we want to change the default for
%__global_cflags in /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/macros ?
-all is not
На 17.09.2015 в 06:28, Jerry James написа:
I am baffled as to why some of my packages show up on this list, as
they use %configure or invoke gcc with both $RPM_OPT_FLAGS and
$RPM_LD_FLAGS. For example, memtailor, which I just built yesterday,
shows as lacking a canary, but it uses the %configure
На 17.09.2015 в 06:28, Jerry James написа:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
Please let me know which packages need to genuinely be excluded and what
should we do with these packages ? Some will probably be fixed once they are
rebuilt but that may take a while.
Some
На 16.09.2015 в 22:59, Richard W.M. Jones написа:
The majority of the packages of mine on this list fall into
three groups:
- erlang packages
- mingw packages
- ocaml packages
I'm pretty sure mingw packages should all be excluded. Who knows what
Windows uses (and who cares).
Hi Rich
На 16.09.2015 в 23:05, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY написа:
On 09/16/2015 01:19 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"AT" == Alexander Todorov writes:
AT> offending packages. You can find links to the script and execution
AT> log here:
AT> http://atodorov.org/blog/2015/09/16/4000-bugs
На 16.09.2015 в 21:56, Adam Jackson написа:
On Wed, 2015-09-16 at 18:26 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
What is the proper fix to these issues? Having fixed some myself and
ajax having looked at a bunch of them I don't think it's as simple as
just mass rebuilding the packages.
A lot of it is lib
На 17.09.2015 в 08:33, Ben Boeckel написа:
On Wed, 16 Sep, 2015 at 16:24:02 GMT, Alexander Todorov wrote:
Please let me know which packages need to genuinely be excluded and what should
we do with these packages ? Some will probably be fixed once they are rebuilt
but that may take a while.
Any
Including fedora-devel on this topic.
На 12.09.2015 в 08:48, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski написа:
Question is how to deal with these because they appear to be in the hundreds ?
How many, exactly? We have around 2 SRPMs in the distribution.
From today's Rawhide snapshot my script cou
На 5.03.2014 14:12, Stanislav Ochotnicky написа:
Why are you filing bugs (with patches) you don't understand then?
This is a foolish statement to make without knowing what I do and don't know or
understand.
Patch which contains text which you haven't verified is
correct. Quoting:
+%chec
На 4.03.2014 20:36, Mat Booth написа:
On 25 February 2014 11:19, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
On 02/25/2014 11:45 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
3) Another proposal (sorry don't remember who proposed it) was to have
%check with a comment why the test suite is not executed (e.g. requires
ne
На 27.02.2014 18:14, Christopher Meng написа:
Interesting :
fedora-release-notes
***-fonts
Can someone point me how to test them?
See amiri-fonts, gnu-free-fonts and thai-scalable-fonts. These appear to have
some sort of testing available in the source and all three seem to be different.
На 27.02.2014 16:18, Richard W.M. Jones написа:
Attached is a proposed patch to the spec file. I ran this under
auto-buildrequires to see if it would need any extra BRs, but auto-br
didn't find any.
Richard,
can you point me to what auto-buildrequires is, where it lives and how do I use
it?
Hi folks,
thanks for your feedback in the last few days. I've created two wiki pages about
packages which don't execute their tests in %check:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Testing_in_check
and another one for packages which don't seem to have test suites at all:
https://fedoraproject.org/w
На 26.02.2014 15:56, David Howells написа:
Alexander Todorov wrote:
How about making %check a packaging requirement in all cases - run tests or
add a comment explaining why not, how to run them (e.g. make test) or why
there are no tests for this package.
Does %check install the package and
На 26.02.2014 13:00, Tim Lauridsen написа:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:
Bitbucket has downloads support.
Also you can get the tarball from the tags.
What's the problem?
The problem with this project is that there is no release tags, so you cant
get a specific
На 26.02.2014 12:11, Tim Lauridsen написа:
Seems like bitbucket uses unversioned tar ball, not the best approch
https://bitbucket.org/yarosla/httpress/get/tip.tar.gz
I would make my own tarball from the git checkout and document in the
spec how to make it
For example:
https://bitbucket.org/
На 25.02.2014 13:57, Michael Schwendt написа:
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:47:01 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
https://github.com/atodorov/fedora-scripts/blob/master/sample-data/fedora-20/srpms-with-tests-WITHOUT-check-in-fedora-20-dvd
Could you add a short classifier to each src.rpm name
На 25.02.2014 13:40, Michael Schwendt написа:
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:45:11 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
Hi guys,
I have identified 551 packages on the Fedora 20 source DVD which are missing a
%check section in their spec files but are very likely to have a test suite. See
https://github.com
Hi guys,
I have identified 551 packages on the Fedora 20 source DVD which are missing a
%check section in their spec files but are very likely to have a test suite. See
https://github.com/atodorov/fedora-scripts/blob/master/sample-data/fedora-20/srpms-with-tests-WITHOUT-check-in-fedora-20-dvd
F
На 21.02.2014 17:16, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski написа:
On Friday, 21 February 2014 at 16:08, Alexander Todorov wrote:
[...]
Guys I can do both.
1) Report packages which *have* test suites but they are *not* executed in
%check
2) Report packages which *don't* have any tes
Looks like reporting missing test suites in Bugzilla is not accepted. I guess
it's just me who prefers Bugzilla compared to other media.
I *will use the Wiki* for this.
On the topic of tests not executed in %check I *will use Bugzilla* but Alexander
Kurtakov brings up another angle - tests ex
На 21.02.2014 16:58, Tom Hughes написа:
On 21/02/14 14:57, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:53:55PM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 21/02/14 14:51, Alexander Todorov wrote:
I want to track which packages *DO NOT* have any tests and later be able
to focus on creating them (be
На 21.02.2014 16:55, Daniel P. Berrange написа:
If you have code that can fairly reliably detect whether a test suite
exists in the source tar.gz, then I think you would be justified
in filing bugs for spec files which have not enabled the test suite.
At present I'm aware of 11 different loca
На 21.02.2014 16:53, Tom Hughes написа:
Why would you file a bug in the Fedora bug tracker when the package has no test
suite upstream? That makes no sense - if the upstream package has no tests then
the bug belongs upstream not in Fedora.
Same reason you file kernel bugs in Bugzilla.redhat
На 21.02.2014 16:54, Stephen Gallagher написа:
Please do not file hundreds of bugs that will be closed WONTFIX. It's
a waste of everyone's time.
Hi Stephen,
how do you propose to track this then? I don't think a wiki page is more
comfortable than Bugzilla.
And why the heck would you CLOSE
На 21.02.2014 16:27, Richard W.M. Jones написа:
Is it correct that you're only going to be filing bugs when upstream
tarballs already contain test suites, but they are just not enabled in
the Fedora package?
Hi Richard,
I meant just the opposite. However I will also do what you suggest but this
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Please make sure to follow
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mass_bug_filing to the letter. If you
do not, it will make life very difficult.
Thanks, I'll take a look at it and follow it when it comes to mass filing of
bugs.
На 21.02.20
Hi guys,
(note: devel, packaging and test lists) previously I've done a little experiment
and counted how many packages are likely to have upstream test suites and how
many don't:
http://atodorov.org/blog/2013/12/24/upstream-test-suite-status-of-fedora-20/
In general around 35% do have test su
34 matches
Mail list logo
