On 10/15/2013 02:27 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 02:16:28PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> There is no effective security difference between accessing the randomized
>> stack guard value from a global variable or a value stored in the dynamic
>> thread vector.
>>
>> It is on
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 02:16:28PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> There is no effective security difference between accessing the randomized
> stack guard value from a global variable or a value stored in the dynamic
> thread vector.
>
> It is only a performance optimization. The choice of a glob
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 02:16:28PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> Pointer mangling is useful, but we can roll that change into an update
> and it should not in my opinion block F20.
>
> I've filed:
> Bug 1019452 - [ARM] Backport pointer mangling support from upstream.
> https://bugzilla.redhat.c
On 10/15/2013 12:53 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:42:44PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On 10/14/2013 10:55 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> Did the arm32 portions of this end up being completed for F20?
>>
>> For 32-bit ARM on f20:
>>
>> - Stack guard:
>> - Existing gl
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:42:44PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 10/14/2013 10:55 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Did the arm32 portions of this end up being completed for F20?
>
> For 32-bit ARM on f20:
>
> - Stack guard:
> - Existing glibc support provides stack guard value in global
>
On 10/14/2013 10:55 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 01:39:21AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>
>> Next steps:
>> - Verify libssp works correctly on 32-bit ARM.
>> - Look at enhancing the existing support in glibc.
>> - Add TLS stack guard.
>> - Add TLS pointer guard.
>>
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 01:39:21AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> Next steps:
> - Verify libssp works correctly on 32-bit ARM.
> - Look at enhancing the existing support in glibc.
> - Add TLS stack guard.
> - Add TLS pointer guard.
> - Add pointer mangle/demangle support.
> - Enhance aarch6
On Wed, 2013-07-17 at 15:18 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Following today's FESCo decision, I have created a QA trac ticket to
> co-ordinate this:
>
> https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/393
>
> interested parties please feel free to CC yourselves and contribute any
> suggested changes /
On Wed, 2013-07-10 at 23:25 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-07-10 at 23:18 -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> > On 07/10/2013 10:12 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > As I said elsewhere in the thread, the criteria should be subsidiary to
> > > the primary arch designation. If we decide we
On 17 Jul 2013 18:18, "Brendan Conoboy" wrote:
>
> On 07/17/2013 09:53 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>>
>> As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I'd rather have community
accessible machines.
>> And I'm not really comfortable manipulating build images from 4000 miles
away if
>> I haven't been able to
On 07/17/2013 09:53 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I'd rather have community accessible
machines.
And I'm not really comfortable manipulating build images from 4000 miles away if
I haven't been able to test them in the slightest locally.
Sure, community accessi
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 12:53:18 -0400 (EDT)
Bastien Nocera wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Koji/BuildingImages says:
> "
> koji grant-permission : grant the permission to build
> an image type to a user. "
>
> Is that not correct?
Yeah, I guess it is now. We don't currently grant anyone b
- Original Message -
> On 07/16/2013 05:28 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > All the remix images to date have been created on the users own
> > devices. If you are internal to Red Hat there's process to get access
> > to internal infrastructure...
>
> There are 3 things I would like to add
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:18:26 -0700
Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 07/16/2013 05:28 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > All the remix images to date have been created on the users own
> > devices. If you are internal to Red Hat there's process to get
> > access to internal infrastructure...
>
> There are
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 08:12:42PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> There probably is a minimal packageset, though. the kernel, glibc, gcc,
>> and rpm would all be on my list. Given that fesco has a policy about the
>> package depsolver ha
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 3:53 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 07:33:48PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
>> On 07/16/2013 07:16 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> >For instance, it seems to be missing both the stack protector and
>> >llvmpipe issues.
>>
>> Finishing scope of stack p
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 07:33:48PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 07/16/2013 07:16 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >For instance, it seems to be missing both the stack protector and
> >llvmpipe issues.
>
> Finishing scope of stack protector issue- it'll be there in a day or
> so. Idea is to get
On 07/16/2013 07:16 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 12:16:04AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 04:07:39PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
I don't want to move the goalposts on the ARM effort, but I t
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 12:16:04AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Matthew Miller
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 04:07:39PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> >> >I don't want to move the goalposts on the ARM effort, but I think it's
> >> >reasonable to expect t
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 04:07:39PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
>> >I don't want to move the goalposts on the ARM effort, but I think it's
>> >reasonable to expect that a list of "Known Broken/Deficient items" be
>> >available. Does such a
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 22:42 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 09:17 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>> >
>> >> > I'm afraid I can't agree. I like the s
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 04:07:39PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> >I don't want to move the goalposts on the ARM effort, but I think it's
> >reasonable to expect that a list of "Known Broken/Deficient items" be
> >available. Does such a list exist?
> The list of outstanding ARM bugs is tracked her
On 07/16/2013 11:36 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Well, what else is broken?
It's a matter of approach - you seem to be saying "what are the minimum
requirements, listed so that we can meet them". In terms of a minimum
viable platform, for all its faults, the interfaces specified by the LSB
might
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 22:42 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 09:17 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> >
> >> > I'm afraid I can't agree. I like the simplicity of the model you're
> >> > proposing, but from a pract
On 07/16/2013 05:28 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
All the remix images to date have been created on the users own
devices. If you are internal to Red Hat there's process to get access
to internal infrastructure...
There are 3 things I would like to add here:
1. As Peter mentioned elsewhere in his
On 07/16/2013 01:49 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
I'm interested in Fedora on phones, tablets, tiny dongly media centers, set-top
boxes, Wi-Fi routers and eBook readers.
Personally, I'm interested in running Fedora on ARM everywhere, so if
you want to contribute toward the above, by all means do
Brendan Conoboy (b...@redhat.com) said:
> Hypothetically speaking, if libGL is fixed in the next few days, do
> you have any objections to armv7hl being moved to primary koji? Or
> is that the tip of the iceberg?
>
> >And I'm saying that threshold should be that the major libraries work. That
>
On 07/16/2013 11:01 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Brendan Conoboy (b...@redhat.com) said:
If not now, when? When libGL is ready to go?
... when someone fixes it?
Hypothetically speaking, if libGL is fixed in the next few days, do you
have any objections to armv7hl being moved to primary koji?
Brendan Conoboy (b...@redhat.com) said:
> On 07/15/2013 11:09 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> >If I'm understanding you, you would prefer that ARM be blessed with the
> >stamp of being a 'primary' arch at the cost of dropping release targets,
> >images, and featuresets that are made by and for the co
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 7:00 AM, drago01 wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Monday, July 15, 2013, Rob Clark wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Peter Robinson
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 07/11/201
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 7:00 AM, drago01 wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, July 15, 2013, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Peter Robinson
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 07/11/2013 10:41 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>
> Kernel, glibc
>> Any image that wants to use a kernel that is a non upstream mainline
>> Fedora kernel ships as a remix.
>
> This is the rootfs for F18 (I started work on that before F19 got out):
We no longer support a rootfs tarball because it caused more problems
than it solved.
>> I'm happy to create a rem
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 13:00 +0200, drago01 wrote:
>
>> > It is getting a bit off the topic, but this it isn't really a
>> problem
>> > with mesa. But rather that we have non-gallium closed src drivers
>> > from the GPU vendors in the ARM spac
- Original Message -
> >> They're not the primary focus of mainline Fedora either. We're
> >> CURRENTLY focusing on development boards (100s of examples), desktop
> >> like systems (Trimslice and other similar systems), netbooks/laptop
> >> style systems and the various media centre style d
On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 13:00 +0200, drago01 wrote:
> > It is getting a bit off the topic, but this it isn't really a
> problem
> > with mesa. But rather that we have non-gallium closed src drivers
> > from the GPU vendors in the ARM space, which only support GLES. And
> > most/all of the desktop
>> They're not the primary focus of mainline Fedora either. We're
>> CURRENTLY focusing on development boards (100s of examples), desktop
>> like systems (Trimslice and other similar systems), netbooks/laptop
>> style systems and the various media centre style devices (STB/media
>> sticks etc), and
- Original Message -
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > If phones and tablets aren't the primary focus, what is? Development
> > boards, for the sake of running Fedora ARM on something? Server systems
> > that don't exist yet (or aren't widely available[1])?
>
>
On Monday, July 15, 2013, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Peter Robinson
wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
>>> On 07/11/2013 10:41 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Kernel, glibc, all the core library stacks. And I would argue that yes,
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> If phones and tablets aren't the primary focus, what is? Development boards,
> for the sake of running Fedora ARM on something? Server systems that don't
> exist yet (or aren't widely available[1])?
They're not the primary focus of mainli
If phones and tablets aren't the primary focus, what is? Development boards,
for the sake of running Fedora ARM on something? Server systems that don't
exist yet (or aren't widely available[1])?
I'm interested in Fedora on phones, tablets, tiny dongly media centers, set-top
boxes, Wi-Fi routers
Just in case anyone wanted a different view of the time differences for the F19
build tasks (PA vs ARM):
http://scotland.proximity.on.ca/~jon/koji.times.html
Source code is here based off of DJ Delorie's original work/script:
http://scotland.proximity.on.ca/~jon/koji-times.txt
Jon Chiappetta
That's the point. You don't get to be a primary architecture until
you've demonstrated that doing so won't slow down the other
architectures
>>> Is that "you don't get to be a primary architecture unless you have
>>> demonstrated that nobody outside of the ARM SIG needs to do any wor
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 02:17:28PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>> 1. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949328
>> 2. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869540
>
> Often, people maintain a package because it's requ
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 1:08 PM, David Tardon wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 06:06:04PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>> On 07/11/2013 02:04 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>> >On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:56 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
>> > wrote:
>> >>Each sub-community ( be it spins be it vari
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 22:07 -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>> Adam Williamson writes:
>>
>> > [...] "Primary Architectures : These are architectures with the
>> > majority of the users, the most common architectures. [...]
>>
>> By that s
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:32 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:58:08PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:50:24PM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> > > Or does it mean x86 as PA is out of line? There are a lot more people
>> > > with ARM devices than x8
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
>> On 07/11/2013 10:41 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>>
>>> Kernel, glibc, all the core library stacks. And I would argue that yes,
>>> this
>>> *includes* libGL. So llvmpipe needs fixed
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 09:17 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>
>> > I'm afraid I can't agree. I like the simplicity of the model you're
>> > proposing, but from a practical point of view, there is still a commonly
>> > held perception
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>> Adam Jackson (a...@redhat.com) said:
>>> If we really wanted to talk about graphics on arm, we'd be talking about
>>> writing drivers for GPUs.
>>
>> Is there any use to shipping fr
On 07/15/2013 11:09 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
If I'm understanding you, you would prefer that ARM be blessed with the
stamp of being a 'primary' arch at the cost of dropping release targets,
images, and featuresets that are made by and for the community now.
I wouldn't put it like that. The A
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 07/11/2013 10:41 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>
>> Kernel, glibc, all the core library stacks. And I would argue that yes,
>> this
>> *includes* libGL. So llvmpipe needs fixed, outside of any desktops.
>> Should
>> we define the core func
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:58:59AM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
>
>> Security features are implemented and working- except
>> evidently pointer guards, which we found out about *yesterday*.
>
> The point of this isn't just that it was broken,
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 07/11/2013 08:46 AM, Till Maas wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 07:48:50AM -0400, Jonathan Masters wrote:
>>>
>>> And following the legitimate concerns about stack-protector this was
>>> raised by ARM into core Linaro as an urgent ac
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Adam Jackson (a...@redhat.com) said:
>> If we really wanted to talk about graphics on arm, we'd be talking about
>> writing drivers for GPUs.
>
> Is there any use to shipping freedreno and similar projects in Fedora ARM
> before they get to
On 07/15/2013 06:09 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Brendan Conoboy (b...@redhat.com) said:
On 07/11/2013 12:37 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Well, as I said (and you cut out)
...
I do know what some people want ARM to be in terms of dense
hypserscale servers (32/64-bit)... but the community that would
Brendan Conoboy (b...@redhat.com) said:
> On 07/11/2013 12:37 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> >Well, as I said (and you cut out)
> >...
> >I do know what some people want ARM to be in terms of dense
> >hypserscale servers (32/64-bit)... but the community that would be using
> >Fedora ARM does seem to
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 10:28 -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 07/15/2013 10:15 AM, Chris Tyler wrote:
> > I think that's s/Arndale/Chromebook/
>
> Same SoC, different peripherals sticking out.
Right -- but also different boot processes. I was just noting that the
image for which you provided th
On 07/15/2013 10:15 AM, Chris Tyler wrote:
I think that's s/Arndale/Chromebook/
Same SoC, different peripherals sticking out.
--
Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / b...@redhat.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 10:07 -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> Some requisite patches weren't upstream in time for Fedora 19's 3.9 GA
> kernel, but are in the 3.10 update. This means Arndale should be fully
> supportable in Fedora 20. Meanwhile, there is an F19 remix for Arndale
> using a later k
On 07/15/2013 04:13 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:
Agree, I have 2 Arndale now, its performance can beats any other v7
devices.
But. I'm not sure if A15 can be fully supported. Currently I only see
many A9 hardwares.
Some requisite patches weren't upstream in time for Fedora 19's 3.9 GA
kernel,
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:00:32AM +0200, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
> > S, speaking of which:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/VisibleCloud
> I think this is mixing up things together a bit. I don't think no one
> thinks we can create an ISO that would work perfectly for all uses
> (deskt
For the record: this is my last reply in this thread. I have better
things to do...
D.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:49:21AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 07/15/2013 07:42 AM, David Tardon wrote:
> >On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 02:17:28PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> >>On 07/12/2013 12:08 PM, David Tardon wrote:
> >
> >>I still think...
> >>
> >>We should limit the nu
On 07/15/2013 07:42 AM, David Tardon wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 02:17:28PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 07/12/2013 12:08 PM, David Tardon wrote:
I dont argue that this should be a blocker for architectures quite
the opposite as far as I see it the only requirement for an
archit
在 2013-7-11 AM4:43，"Richard W.M. Jones" 写道：
> I appreciate that some people cannot or don't want to buy hardware,
> but if you did have roughly $300 available, then you should probably
> get the Oct 2012 Samsung Chromebook or the Arndale development board.
> The Chromebook has the advantage IMHO th
On 07/11/2013 03:33 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 04:01:15PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> That's the point. You don't get to be a primary architecture until
>>> you've demonstrated that doing so won't slow down th
Matthew Miller píše v Pá 12. 07. 2013 v 23:24 -0400:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:53:23PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > "What do we talk about when we talk about Fedora?" :)
> > Well, we just did a major release. Go look on news.google.com for
> > "Fedora 19", or search for "Fedora 19 review",
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 02:17:28PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 07/12/2013 12:08 PM, David Tardon wrote:
> >>I dont argue that this should be a blocker for architectures quite
> >>>the opposite as far as I see it the only requirement for an
> >>>architecture to be come a "primary" ( t
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 11:50:40AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jul 2013 11:36:00 +0200
> Till Maas wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 02:06:12PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> >
> > > we have a kernel and initramfs, that can be pxe booted or you can
> > > boot and load, however w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 13 Jul 2013 11:36:00 +0200
Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 02:06:12PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>
> > we have a kernel and initramfs, that can be pxe booted or you can
> > boot and load, however we have not made it the primary
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 02:06:12PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> we have a kernel and initramfs, that can be pxe booted or you can boot
> and load, however we have not made it the primary mathod of
> install for boards because they generally can only boot and run from a
> sdcard you would need to
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:53:23PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> "What do we talk about when we talk about Fedora?" :)
> Well, we just did a major release. Go look on news.google.com for
> "Fedora 19", or search for "Fedora 19 review", or just poke through a
> few popular tech sites and forums.
>
> Also, I'm running the script now, I'll post results when it
> finishes, let's not ALL hit the koji database at the same time ;-)
Results here:
http://www.delorie.com/arm/f19-times.html
includes the raw time data from koji
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 18:40:21 +0200
Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 09:03:24AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>
> > As for the anaconda install support, my images will be a copy of:
> > Fedora-XFCE-armhfp-19-1-sda.raw.xz with the kernel and u
The stack-protector issue has been raised to priority number one for the
library folks within the Linaro toolchain group. I have followed up with
members of the toolchain and steering committees as appropriate to ensure this
is going to be taken care of extremely swiftly.
Next!
--
Sent from m
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 09:03:24AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> As for the anaconda install support, my images will be a copy of:
> Fedora-XFCE-armhfp-19-1-sda.raw.xz with the kernel and uboot replaced
> + some other tweaks, but otherwise unmodified. So if that image can
> do anaconda installs, m
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:50:00AM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 07/11/2013 11:38 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> >https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865022
> >It is currently closed, because I did not re-test anymore after it was
> >announced that the device won't be supported anymore soon.
>
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 11:05:49 -0400
DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> > > http://www.delorie.com/arm/koji-compare-build-times.tar.gz
> >
> > HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 403 Forbidden
> > 2013-07-12 08:53:13 ERROR 403: Forbidden.
>
> "wget" is blocked unless you're clueful enough to use the -U f
> i will look at throwing together a script to give us some comparisons
> between the build times on the different arches.
> I've already done this, last time it came up...
> http://www.delorie.com/arm/koji-compare-build-times.tar.gz
Also, I'm running the script now, I'll post results when it fi
> > http://www.delorie.com/arm/koji-compare-build-times.tar.gz
>
> HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 403 Forbidden
> 2013-07-12 08:53:13 ERROR 403: Forbidden.
"wget" is blocked unless you're clueful enough to use the -U flag.
Consider it a spot check for "smart enough to not recursively do
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 10:52:15 -0400
DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> > i will look at throwing together a script to give us some
> > comparisons between the build times on the different arches.
>
> I've already done this, last time it came up...
>
> http://www.delorie.com/arm/koji-compare-build-times.tar.
> i will look at throwing together a script to give us some comparisons
> between the build times on the different arches.
I've already done this, last time it came up...
http://www.delorie.com/arm/koji-compare-build-times.tar.gz
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:37:41AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 02:17:28PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> > 1. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949328
> > 2. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869540
>
> Often, people maintain a package becaus
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 02:17:28PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> 1. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949328
> 2. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869540
Often, people maintain a package because it's required for a certain use
case they have not necessarily for parti
On 07/12/2013 12:08 PM, David Tardon wrote:
I dont argue that this should be a blocker for architectures quite
>the opposite as far as I see it the only requirement for an
>architecture to be come a "primary" ( thou arguably those are
>outdated concepts as well ) is that all package currently bui
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 06:06:04PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 07/11/2013 02:04 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:56 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> > wrote:
> >>Each sub-community ( be it spins be it various arch ) should need to provide
> >>the necessary QA/Relen
On 07/11/2013 07:53 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
What's your definition of what people perceive Fedora to be?
"What do we talk about when we talk about Fedora?":)
Well, we just did a major release. Go look on news.google.com for
"Fedora 19", or search for "Fedora 19 review", or just poke through
On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 22:07 -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Adam Williamson writes:
>
> > [...] "Primary Architectures : These are architectures with the
> > majority of the users, the most common architectures. [...]
>
> By that standard, PA treatment of ARM seems way premature.
XO 1.75, /en
Hi,
On 07/11/2013 08:38 PM, Till Maas wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 08:58:11AM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
vnc installs if you want graphics. Or kickstart installs if you
want automation.
This sounds promising. Are there remix-anaconda images that can be used
to test this on a Cubiebo
- Original Message -
> From: "Dennis Gilmore"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 9:02:48 AM
> Subject: Re: F20 System Wide Change: ARM as primary Architecture
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
&g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 10:23:50 -0700
Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 07/11/2013 03:55 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > I will note that it is not x86 alone. If one is simply going by "as
> > close to the current Fedora experience the current Primary offers",
> >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 07:34:49 +0200
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 12:36:16AM -0400, Jonathan Masters wrote:
> > Note that there are teams within Linaro doing benchmarking and
> > driving such. And once the specific stack protector is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 00:47:03 -0400
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 23:50:24 -0400
> > Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >
> >
> > > False marketing. Majority of ARM devices ou
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 12:36:16AM -0400, Jonathan Masters wrote:
> Note that there are teams within Linaro doing benchmarking and driving
> such. And once the specific stack protector issue was raised, I poked
> Marcus in person and he escalated it such that it will be looked at this
> next engin
Hi
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 23:50:24 -0400
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>
> > False marketing. Majority of ARM devices out there don't run Fedora
> > and never will.
>
> Well, the same could be said for most x86 machines. ;)
>
> Not really. If one
On Jul 12, 2013, at 5:32, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:58:08PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:50:24PM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Or does it mean x86 as PA is out of line? There are a lot more people
with ARM devices than x86. Sorry
Note that there are teams within Linaro doing benchmarking and driving such.
And once the specific stack protector issue was raised, I poked Marcus in
person and he escalated it such that it will be looked at this next engineering
cycle. In general we can plan ahead if we know there are issues.
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:58:08PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:50:24PM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > > Or does it mean x86 as PA is out of line? There are a lot more people
> > > with ARM devices than x86. Sorry everybody, we're going to have to demote
> > > x86.
>
> On
>> Or does it mean x86 as PA is out of line? There are a lot more people
>> with ARM devices than x86. Sorry everybody, we're going to have to demote
>> x86. ;-)
>>
>
> False marketing. Majority of ARM devices out there don't run Fedora and
> never will.
Exactly, and the market of this
On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 23:50:24 -0400
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
>
> > On
> > Or does it mean x86 as PA is out of line? There are a lot more
> > people with ARM devices than x86. Sorry everybody, we're going to
> > have to demote x8
1 - 100 of 256 matches
Mail list logo
