Am 12.09.2012 13:25, schrieb Michael Schwendt:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 23:50:15 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
>
>> Wouldn't it already help if the build system would just refuse to
>> build newer versions in branches than which are in rawhide at that
>> moment?
>
> That would be dangerous with regard t
Am 29.08.2012 00:43, schrieb Jerry James:
> First, systemd complained about being unable to find
> systemd-journal-flush.service. Sure enough, it wasn't in the
> initramfs. So I added
> "$systemdsystemunitdir/systemd-journal-flush.service" to
> /usr/lib/dracut/modules.d/98systemd/module-setup.sh,
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 23:50:15 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> Wouldn't it already help if the build system would just refuse to
> build newer versions in branches than which are in rawhide at that
> moment?
That would be dangerous with regard to security fixes, for example.
Rawhide buildroot contents
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Tue, 11.09.12 09:52, Kevin Fenzi (ke...@scrye.com) wrote:
>
>> > > This would give packagers much more flexibility about branching and
>> > > would also simplify our model as the master branch would just go
>> > > away... One branch l
On Tue, 11.09.12 09:52, Kevin Fenzi (ke...@scrye.com) wrote:
> > > This would give packagers much more flexibility about branching and
> > > would also simplify our model as the master branch would just go
> > > away... One branch less that can be confused is a win for
> > > everybody.
> >
> > I
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 15:29:36 -0700
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On 2012-09-10 15:22, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Mon, 10.09.12 15:14, Adam Williamson (awill...@redhat.com) wrote:
...snip...
> > What I am proposing is to get rid of the "master" branch, so that
> > people
> > can just branch off
On Monday 10 September 2012 15:14:26 Adam Williamson wrote:
> I don't think that's true, actually. There certainly are devs who take
> advantage of the model.
Exactly. Think glibc as another example. Back then when the glibc people did
their development work on Branched it was generally viewed as
On 2012-09-10 16:43, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 10 September 2012 17:16, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
On Mon, 10.09.12 15:51, Jesse Keating (jkeat...@j2solutions.net)
wrote:
On 09/10/2012 02:27 PM, Kalev Lember wrote:
>Can't we just change the branching to a later date?
When we used to do
On Mon, 10.09.12 17:43, Stephen John Smoogen (smo...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On 10 September 2012 17:16, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Mon, 10.09.12 15:51, Jesse Keating (jkeat...@j2solutions.net) wrote:
> >
> >> On 09/10/2012 02:27 PM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> >> >Can't we just change the branching
On 10 September 2012 17:16, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 10.09.12 15:51, Jesse Keating (jkeat...@j2solutions.net) wrote:
>
>> On 09/10/2012 02:27 PM, Kalev Lember wrote:
>> >Can't we just change the branching to a later date?
>>
>> When we used to do that, we frequently had destabilizing ch
On Mon, 10.09.12 15:51, Jesse Keating (jkeat...@j2solutions.net) wrote:
> On 09/10/2012 02:27 PM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> >Can't we just change the branching to a later date?
>
> When we used to do that, we frequently had destabilizing changes
> happening late in the development process, because th
On 2012-09-10 15:22, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 10.09.12 15:14, Adam Williamson (awill...@redhat.com) wrote:
On 2012-09-10 15:03, Kalev Lember wrote:
>
>The hard reality is that branched and rawhide are getting pretty
much
>the same set of packages currently. It's a very nice view to
On Mon, 10.09.12 15:14, Adam Williamson (awill...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On 2012-09-10 15:03, Kalev Lember wrote:
>
> >
> >The hard reality is that branched and rawhide are getting pretty much
> >the same set of packages currently. It's a very nice view to let
> >development go ahead in rawhide, an
On 2012-09-10 15:03, Kalev Lember wrote:
The hard reality is that branched and rawhide are getting pretty much
the same set of packages currently. It's a very nice view to let
development go ahead in rawhide, and to stabilize branched. But we
only
have so many developers and everyone is focus
On 09/10/2012 11:44 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 23:27:43 +0200,
> Kalev Lember wrote:
>>
>> Can't we just change the branching to a later date?
>
> Branching later results in rawhide being frozen during the alpha freeze
> which breaks things for people doing development
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 23:27:43 +0200,
Kalev Lember wrote:
Can't we just change the branching to a later date?
Branching later results in rawhide being frozen during the alpha freeze
which breaks things for people doing development. (Note that by alpha
people really should be stablizing
On 09/10/2012 10:30 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Anway, I still believe that the default approach to doing package
> development should be to focus on F18 as long as it isn't released,
> and only open F19 for a packge if the packager decides he is ready
> to. Right now we have the opposite wh
On Mon, 10.09.12 14:09, Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) wrote:
> Matthias Clasen (mcla...@redhat.com) said:
> > On Fri, 2012-09-07 at 11:54 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >
> > > Fedora 18 is basically closed for new feature work, and instead the
> > > focus needs to be on integration of th
On 09/10/2012 08:35 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Fri, 2012-09-07 at 11:54 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
Fedora 18 is basically closed for new feature work, and instead the
focus needs to be on integration of the existing feature set and
bugfixes. But as you state there is a large amount of time
Matthias Clasen (mcla...@redhat.com) said:
> On Fri, 2012-09-07 at 11:54 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
>
> > Fedora 18 is basically closed for new feature work, and instead the
> > focus needs to be on integration of the existing feature set and
> > bugfixes. But as you state there is a large am
On Fri, 2012-09-07 at 11:54 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Fedora 18 is basically closed for new feature work, and instead the
> focus needs to be on integration of the existing feature set and
> bugfixes. But as you state there is a large amount of time before F18
> releases, which means new f
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 03:33:01 +0100
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 07:43:32PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
...snip...
> >
> > It's a balancing act I fear, nothing will make everyone happy.
> >
> > Inheriting from updates-testing means rawhide can and will 'go
> > backwards' as
On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 19:43:32 -0600,
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 01:32:55 +0100
This actually has nothing to do with mass rebuilds (unless I am
misunderstanding). Mass rebuilds are done _before_ branching to avoid
problems like this. :)
Yeah this isn't as much of a problem as I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 01:58:35 +0200
Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Fri, 07.09.12 11:54, Jesse Keating (jkeat...@j2solutions.net)
> wrote:
>
> > On 09/07/2012 11:48 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > >Humm. I don't agree with this. As long as F18 is unr
On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 07:43:32PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> This actually has nothing to do with mass rebuilds (unless I am
> misunderstanding). Mass rebuilds are done _before_ branching to avoid
> problems like this. :)
Argh, sorry, I was confusing it with something unrelated. Yeah, not a
m
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 01:32:55 +0100
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 01:28:53AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> > Sure, and that's clearly the behaviour that Lennart wanted as well.
> > But instead there was a mass rebuild that bumped his rawhide nvr
> > and now he needs to do ra
On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 01:28:53AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Sure, and that's clearly the behaviour that Lennart wanted as well. But
> instead there was a mass rebuild that bumped his rawhide nvr and now he
> needs to do rawhide work manually. If development should be happening in
> rawhi
On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 02:42:20PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 09/07/2012 02:36 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >This makes sense, but it runs directly against the current
> >auto-inheritence behaviour. It's unsurprising that people end up with
> >different opinions of the right thing to do here.
On Fri, 07.09.12 11:54, Jesse Keating (jkeat...@j2solutions.net) wrote:
> On 09/07/2012 11:48 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >Humm. I don't agree with this. As long as F18 is unreleased Rawhide will
> >be basically untested and I also wonder what testing it at this point
> >would bring, given tha
On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 14:42:20 -0700,
Jesse Keating wrote:
I'm of the opinion that rawhide should be inheriting from the builds
of the previous release, so long as there haven't been any builds
directly on rawhide. I'm also of the opinion that the inheritance
should happen as early as p
On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 20:43:23 +,
"\"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\"" wrote:
As you know we ( QA Community ) want all the testing to be focused on
the release we are about to push out the door and we would like ( and
some expect ) that maintainers are keeping the same focus and give
what tim
On 09/07/2012 02:36 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 11:54:03AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
Fedora 18 is basically closed for new feature work, and instead the
focus needs to be on integration of the existing feature set and
bugfixes. But as you state there is a large amount
On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 11:54:03AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Fedora 18 is basically closed for new feature work, and instead the
> focus needs to be on integration of the existing feature set and
> bugfixes. But as you state there is a large amount of time before
> F18 releases, which means n
On 09/07/2012 06:54 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 09/07/2012 11:48 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Humm. I don't agree with this. As long as F18 is unreleased Rawhide will
be basically untested and I also wonder what testing it at this point
would bring, given that it right now is mostly F18 and ver
On Fri, 07.09.12 12:03, Kevin Fenzi (ke...@scrye.com) wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 19:16:39 +0200
> Lennart Poettering wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 07.09.12 11:00, Kevin Fenzi (ke...@scrye.com) wrote:
> >
> > > > I think our policy is that you should do rawhide builds, but at
> > > > least some signific
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 19:16:39 +0200
Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Fri, 07.09.12 11:00, Kevin Fenzi (ke...@scrye.com) wrote:
>
> > > I think our policy is that you should do rawhide builds, but at
> > > least some significant groups of packagers actively don't do
> > > rawhide builds. If that is g
On Fri, 07.09.12 11:51, Bruno Wolff III (br...@wolff.to) wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 18:30:10 +0200,
> Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >On Wed, 29.08.12 08:44, Jim Meyering (j...@meyering.net) wrote:
> >
> >So this happened because somebody updated the Rawhide package, which
> >disabled packag
On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 11:00:07 -0600,
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 11:51:57 -0500
I'd like to propose the opposite:
Lets drop any inheritance between branched and rawhide.
Will that really work as expected? The way we do branching has builds
effectively move out of the rawhide
On Fri, 07.09.12 11:00, Kevin Fenzi (ke...@scrye.com) wrote:
> > I think our policy is that you should do rawhide builds, but at least
> > some significant groups of packagers actively don't do rawhide
> > builds. If that is going to continue, we should consider having
> > rawhide inherit from upd
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 11:51:57 -0500
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
...snip...
> I actually wish people would stop doing updates just for branched and
> not doing new rawhide builds. This is especially bad during freezes
> (and the current one has been very long), as rawhide doesn't inherit
> from updates-
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 18:30:10 +0200,
> Lennart Poettering wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 29.08.12 08:44, Jim Meyering (j...@meyering.net) wrote:
>>
>> So this happened because somebody updated the Rawhide package, which
>> disabled package inhe
On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 18:30:10 +0200,
Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 29.08.12 08:44, Jim Meyering (j...@meyering.net) wrote:
So this happened because somebody updated the Rawhide package, which
disabled package inheritance from F18. I have now untagged the package
in Rawhide again, and a
On Wed, 29.08.12 08:44, Jim Meyering (j...@meyering.net) wrote:
> Jerry James wrote:
> > I've got two Rawhide VMs, one x86_64, one i686, both otherwise
> > identical. I last booted them yesterday and did a yum repo-sync.
> > Today, neither of them will boot.
> >
> > First, systemd complained abou
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 08:30:34 +0200
Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> Kevin Fenzi a écrit:
>
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847418
> >
> > downgrade to:
> >
> > systemd-188-3.fc18
> >
> > (NOTE: NOT fc19)
>
> Just so that I understand. What version of systemd and kernel should
> Rawhi
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> Kevin Fenzi a écrit:
>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847418
>>
>> downgrade to:
>>
>> systemd-188-3.fc18
>>
>> (NOTE: NOT fc19)
>
> Just so that I understand. What version of systemd and kernel should
> Rawhide users *not
Jerry James wrote:
> I've got two Rawhide VMs, one x86_64, one i686, both otherwise
> identical. I last booted them yesterday and did a yum repo-sync.
> Today, neither of them will boot.
>
> First, systemd complained about being unable to find
> systemd-journal-flush.service. Sure enough, it wasn
Kevin Fenzi a écrit:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847418
>
> downgrade to:
>
> systemd-188-3.fc18
>
> (NOTE: NOT fc19)
Just so that I understand. What version of systemd and kernel should
Rawhide users *not* use to avoid the issue?
I couldn't figure this out by reading the a
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Yes.
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847418
>
> downgrade to:
>
> systemd-188-3.fc18
>
> (NOTE: NOT fc19)
>
> then rebuild your initramfs with dracut
Thank you, Kevin! I was hunting through dracut bugs looking for this,
instea
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:43:14 -0600
Jerry James wrote:
> I've got two Rawhide VMs, one x86_64, one i686, both otherwise
> identical. I last booted them yesterday and did a yum repo-sync.
> Today, neither of them will boot.
...snip...
>
> Does anybody recognize the problem?
Yes.
https://bugz
I've got two Rawhide VMs, one x86_64, one i686, both otherwise
identical. I last booted them yesterday and did a yum repo-sync.
Today, neither of them will boot.
First, systemd complained about being unable to find
systemd-journal-flush.service. Sure enough, it wasn't in the
initramfs. So I add
50 matches
Mail list logo
