Here is a proof-of-concept one-liner (split up a bit for readability purposes):
```fish
#!/usr/bin/fish
function get_dependent_pkgs
dnf -q repoquery --repo=koji --qf='%{sourcerpm}' --whatrequires $argv[1]
end
function parse_names
get_dependent_pkgs | rev | cut -d/ -f1 | cut -d- -f3- | re
[…]
This is getting out of hand, so I logged straight into the web client.
> Ok, I understand what's happening. Your email client doesn't recognize
> the in-reply-to option from the url.
Exactly; I will enquire and send a bug report.
> Why are replying from there instead of using your email cli
> From: Samuel Sieb
> […]
> Are you actually using the Pandora email client? It's still being =
> developed? Unfortunately, it appears to not create any of the proper =
> headers.
No, I am not using that.
The thing is, any post at lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/… has a clickable
“⤣ Reply” U
> From: Samuel Sieb
> […]
> Please fix your email client. Every reply you send starts a new thread.
I saw that, my apologies.
> Are you actually using the Pandora email client? It's still being =
> developed? Unfortunately, it appears to not create any of the proper =
> headers.
No, I am not u
> > On 12/05/2020 15:06, virgo wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Let’s say I want to compile `pandoc` with modifications of my own and
> >
> > many non-
> >
> > default compiler options. At the same time, on the same machine, I still
> >
> On Di, 12.05.20 14:21, Fedora Development ML
> (devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org) wrote:
>
> ...
>
> cgroupsv2 is built around a single-writer scheme. That means any
> section of the tree shall only have a singler writer, i.e. one
> subsystem 'owning' it. On systemd systems the root of the tree
> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 12:47:51PM +0000, virgo wrote:
> ...
>
> > I recommend you to ask the question about v2 support on Fedora
>
> Bugzilla for=
>
> > the
> >
> > libcgroup package
> > <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi
> On 12/05/2020 14:13, Petr Pisar wrote:
> ...
>
> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 12:47:51PM +, virgo wrote:
> >> I recommend you to ask the question about v2 support on Fedora Bugzilla
> >> for=
> >>
> >> the
> >>
> >&g
> Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 13:00:13 +0200
> From: Petr Pisar
> Subject: Re: Transitioning scripts relying on libcgroup-tools to the
> cgroup’s unified hierarchy (v2)
>
[…]
> cgcreate tool comes from libcgroup-tools-0:0.42.2-1.fc32 package that comes
> from libcgroup project sources, and libcgroup
Greetings,
I am very aware this is not the place for user questions. This is also where
the likelihood of an answer /at all/ are the highest. So, please bear with me;
at the bottom[fn:1] are all the other places where I tried to find hints
before posting here.
The issue is that I upgraded my c
Thanks to everybody for the quick response. As you'll see in the ticket thread,
the maintainer is now handling the update.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora
Greetings,
The sole purpose of this thread is to bring attention to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1646930
Unreliable time on the system is a daily annoyance that will be easily fixed by
aligning the Fedora version with the upstream's. Could someone ping the package
maintainer? Al
> So what? Why is that a problem?
> Does the libc++abi have better performance for exception handling?
> Smaller footprint for RTTI?
> More new features, such as C++17's std::uncaight_exceptions()?
> Just because there's a different low-level C++ runtime library
> available doesn't mean that using
> I'll take on the review,
Thank you so much for stepping in, this is mostly appreciated.
> but you really should consider becoming
> involved in Fedora as a packager, as any packager can review another
> packagers packages proposed for inclusion into Fedora.
I am a slow learner, but there is some
>> Alas, clang++ now needs to link against the GCC ABI to successfully compile.
> what actual problem is caused by that?
Please read instead “Alas, clang++ currently needs to link against the GCC ABI
to successfully compile.”
The problem is that one might want to use libstdc++ (GCC) and libc++ (L
> I'm not sure if I follow. Supporting multiple C++ ABIs would make
> things more complicated for developers because they now have to figure
> out which ABI their project needs and if all the libraries they want to
Greetings,
The LLVM project has been providing a C++ ABI for a while [1]. A naive user
like I'm would presume Fedora easily ships with that, as the saying goes:
“Fedora is a developer-friendly distro.” Unfortunately, that isn't the case for
this instance and if one is using clang++, they have t
17 matches
Mail list logo
