On Mon, 2012-03-19 at 23:06 -0500, Mike Chambers wrote:
> Does setting emails in your inbox folder to junk working automatically?
> It seem it doesn't do it automatically and I have to keep selecting them
> and manually marking them junk.
>
> On a fresh install (such as this one), I do a restore
Josh Boyer wrote on 20.03.2012 02:26:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>> * #830 F18 Feature: ARM as Primary Arch --
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FedoraARM (limburgher,
>> 18:44:13)
>> * LINK:
>>
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Machine_Resources_For_
Hi,
I noticed that the versions of python-celery (2.2.8 vs. 2.5.1) and
django-celery (2.2.7 vs. 2.5.1) in rawhide/F17 are both far behind
the current version. Is there a technical reason for this?
--
--Jos Vos
--X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV | Phone: +31 20 6938364
--Amsterdam
As http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/RPM4.10 got accepted in
yesterday's FESCo meeting, here come the bits.
For details see http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.10.0, but the bottom line
is that for business-as-usual operations you shouldn't really notice
much anything at all. Well, apart fro
Hi,
I filed a ticket 2 months ago, it requires a few dependencies to be
updated too (besides some of them brings python3 support)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785607
best regards,
H.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listin
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:54:41AM +0100, 80 wrote:
> I filed a ticket 2 months ago, it requires a few dependencies to be
> updated too (besides some of them brings python3 support)
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785607
OK, I filed bugs too now (for python-celery, django-celery, an
On 03/20/2012 11:52 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
As http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/RPM4.10 got accepted in
yesterday's FESCo meeting, here come the bits.
For details see http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.10.0, but the bottom line
is that for business-as-usual operations you shouldn't really
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 13:08 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> So... first hickup that broke koji: the buildroot now requires deltarpm
> which needs rebuilding due to to the soname bump before we can proceed.
> I dont recall this being an issue before but I guess that's called
> progress :)
Why do
Hi,
Does someone know how to contact lkundrak ? I have requested a jgraphx
update (scilab dependency) for months.
Account Name:
lkundrak
Full Name:
Lubomir Rintel
Email:
lkund...@v3.sk
IRC Nick:
lkundrak
Account Status:
Active
Bug: (open 2011-10-15, ping 2011-10-24, 2011-12-1
On 03/20/2012 01:06 AM, Mike Chambers wrote:
Does setting emails in your inbox folder to junk working automatically?
It seem it doesn't do it automatically and I have to keep selecting them
and manually marking them junk.
On a fresh install (such as this one), I do a restore from a backup file
a
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 13:37 +0100, Clément David wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Does someone know how to contact lkundrak ?
$ ./fedora_active_user.py --user lkundrak --email lkund...@v3.sk
Last login in FAS:
lkundrak 2012-03-20
Last action on koji:
Tue, 21 Feb 2012 package list entry created: perl-OpenOf
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 13:37 +0100, Clément David wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Does someone know how to contact lkundrak ?
>
> $ ./fedora_active_user.py --user lkundrak --email lkund...@v3.sk
> Last login in FAS:
> lkundrak 2012-03-20
> Last act
Hi,
Right, it was busy. I got the ACLs for co-maintaining jgraphx now.
PS: that was just a gentle ACLs reminder :)
Clément
Le 20/03/2012 13:50, Jon Ciesla a écrit :
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 13:37 +0100, Clément David wrote:
>>> Hi
Hello Folks,
Students are starting inquiring about the GSOC project ideas we listed
on the wiki[0].
But unfortunately some idea dont have a primary mentor.
If any one is interested in following idea[1] which is dealing with
networking, please take it.
Please treat this request as urgent. The list
On 3/19/12 11:42 PM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
Before I file a bug for this, I need to figure out which component may
be doing this. If one creates a large file (several GB) in /dev/shm and
shuts down, the system will take many minutes to shut down. Last message
before hang is "Disabling swap".
Not s
Adam Jackson wrote:
>Presumably because that file got paged out.
>
>Think about it. Disabling swap doesn't know that the file exists only
>on a RAM-based file system, and even if it did, doesn't know that we're
>
>about to shut down. So swapoff has to assume that any pages currently
>in the s
Adam Jackson wrote:
> Now as to why we disable swap on shutdown, I'm not really sure. It
> certainly seems like useless work to me.
We want to be sure we'll be able to stop/disassemble any block
devices that are underneath it (RAID arrays etc.).
Sure, if it's a simple partition, the work is usel
On 03/19/2012 03:28 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
On 03/19/2012 10:36 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Daniel J Walsh wrote:
We could put the info into systemd-journal.
Back when sendmail and logwatch were part of the default install,
it would have been nice to have SELinux activity reported in it.
On 03/20/2012 01:49 PM, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 13:08 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
So... first hickup that broke koji: the buildroot now requires deltarpm
which needs rebuilding due to to the soname bump before we can proceed.
I dont recall this being an issue before but I
On 3/20/12 9:19 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
Adam Jackson wrote:
Now as to why we disable swap on shutdown, I'm not really sure. It
certainly seems like useless work to me.
Would it help if all memory based file systems got unmounted before
swap gets disabled? That would kill these files, right?
I added myself as a mentor
-- Dan
On 03/20/2012 08:58 AM, Buddhike Kurera wrote:
> Hello Folks,
>
> Students are starting inquiring about the GSOC project ideas we listed
> on the wiki[0].
> But unfortunately some idea dont have a primary mentor.
>
> If any one is interested in following idea[1
hi,
after reading this
http://www.pyside.org/2012/03/pyside-becomes-a-qt-add-on/
how is this going to affect fedora ?
do we have PyQt4 apps in our repos ?
are we going to patch them to be
import PySide as PyQt4
or something like that
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 03:00:39AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Josh Boyer wrote:
> > It's fairly disappointing this was discussed during this meeting without
> > being on the agenda that was sent out. This is a rather large item that
> > needs a lot of discussion among the various groups in Fedor
Muayyad AlSadi wrote:
> after reading this
>
> http://www.pyside.org/2012/03/pyside-becomes-a-qt-add-on/
>
> how is this going to affect fedora ?
Not at all. (Well, it does mean that PySide is no longer dead, which is
good. But otherwise it doesn't really change anything.)
> do we have PyQt4 a
Adam Williamson wrote:
> If you think ARM's a small niche, you may have some large surprising
> coming your way over the next few years...
Then we can discuss making it a primary architecture in a few years. Now it
just doesn't make sense.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 16:15 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 03/20/2012 01:49 PM, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 13:08 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> >> So... first hickup that broke koji: the buildroot now requires deltarpm
> >> which needs rebuilding due to to the soname bump
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 03:05:07PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> However you are right that (a) ARM is slow and (b) making ARM a
> secondary arch
Erm, s/secondary/PRIMARY/.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-top is 'top' for virtual
Well, speaking for myself only, I read this as pretty much a "Lets
begin discussions on it". There's no way a short bit at the end of a
meeting is going to allow enough discussion.
So, this is just to start the ball rolling and collect feedback from
everyone. No need to feel bad about not being t
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 08:24:09 +0100
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Josh Boyer wrote on 20.03.2012 02:26:
> > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Jon Ciesla
> > wrote:
> >> * #830 F18 Feature: ARM as Primary Arch --
> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FedoraARM (limburgher,
> >> 18:44:13)
> >
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 09:12 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Well, speaking for myself only, I read this as pretty much a "Lets
> begin discussions on it". There's no way a short bit at the end of a
> meeting is going to allow enough discussion.
>
> So, this is just to start the ball rolling and coll
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 08:04 +0100, Milan Crha wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-03-19 at 23:06 -0500, Mike Chambers wrote:
> > Does setting emails in your inbox folder to junk working automatically?
> > It seem it doesn't do it automatically and I have to keep selecting them
> > and manually marking them junk
This is very much a draft, but I'd like to start a discussion regarding
what we expect from primary architectures. Feedback not only welcome,
but actively desired.
-
Secondary architectures in Fedora are subject to looser c
Once upon a time, Kevin Fenzi said:
> Well, speaking for myself only, I read this as pretty much a "Lets
> begin discussions on it". There's no way a short bit at the end of a
> meeting is going to allow enough discussion.
>
> So, this is just to start the ball rolling and collect feedback from
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 03:19:35PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> This is very much a draft, but I'd like to start a discussion regarding
> what we expect from primary architectures. Feedback not only welcome,
> but actively desired.
I think the speed of the build hardware should be also part o
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 15:19 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> This is very much a draft, but I'd like to start a discussion regarding
> what we expect from primary architectures. Feedback not only welcome,
> but actively desired.
> In order to ensure that these expectations are met, secondary
>
On 03/20/2012 05:10 PM, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 16:15 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On 03/20/2012 01:49 PM, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 13:08 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
So... first hickup that broke koji: the buildroot now requires deltarpm
which needs
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 15:19 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> This is very much a draft, but I'd like to start a discussion regarding
>> what we expect from primary architectures. Feedback not only welcome,
>> but actively desired.
>
>> In order
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 04:37:17PM +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 15:19 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > 4) All supported platforms must have kernels built from the Fedora
> > kernel SRPM and enabled by default in the spec file. Each kernel must be
> > built in a timely manner
Jon, Brendan,
In yesterday's FESCo meeting I told you I'd make a list of specific issues
I have with the current proposal for ARM as a primary archictecture. There
are some places where I think the current proposal fails to deal with some
necessary aspects of becoming a primary architecture, and
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
> Jon, Brendan,
>
> In yesterday's FESCo meeting I told you I'd make a list of specific issues
> I have with the current proposal for ARM as a primary archictecture. There
> are some places where I think the current proposal fails to deal with s
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 04:37:17PM +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote:
>> On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 15:19 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > 4) All supported platforms must have kernels built from the Fedora
>> > kernel SRPM and enabled by default in the
Am Montag, den 19.03.2012, 14:46 -0500 schrieb Jon Ciesla:
> * #824 F18 Feature: Rework Package Groups --
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ReworkPackageGroups
> (limburgher, 18:10:57)
> * AGREED: F18 Rework Package Groups is passed (+6,-:0,0:2)
> (limburgher, 18:12:42)
Did FES
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:55:41AM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> Matthew, can you add your initial list to the ticket as well, so we
> have these starting places to refer to?
I was planning to after we'd had some discussion here, just to make sure
I wasn't proposing anything too unreasonable.
--
On 03/20/2012 08:24 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
I think the speed of the build hardware should be also part of the criteria,
as all primary architectures are built synchronously. GCC on x86_64/i686
currently builds often in 2 hours, sometimes in 4 hours if a slower or more
busy box is chosen, but o
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:55:41AM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>
>> Matthew, can you add your initial list to the ticket as well, so we
>> have these starting places to refer to?
>
> I was planning to after we'd had some discussion here, just
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 03/20/2012 08:24 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> I think the speed of the build hardware should be also part of the
>> criteria,
>> as all primary architectures are built synchronously. GCC on x86_64/i686
>> currently builds often in 2
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 03/20/2012 08:24 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> I think the speed of the build hardware should be also part of the
>> criteria,
>> as all primary architectures are built synchronously. GCC on x86_64/i686
>> currently builds often in 2
On 03/20/2012 11:52 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
> In yesterday's FESCo meeting I told you I'd make a list of specific issues
> I have with the current proposal for ARM as a primary archictecture. There
> are some places where I think the current proposal fails to deal with some
> necessary aspects of b
Christoph Wickert (christoph.wick...@googlemail.com) said:
> Does anybody - except Notting and David Lehman
> actually know what this feature is and how it impacts package
> maintainers or the spins SIG?
package maintainers: it won't, barring the creation of some new metadata
for optional package
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 08:58:45AM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 03/20/2012 08:24 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >I think the speed of the build hardware should be also part of the criteria,
> >as all primary architectures are built synchronously. GCC on x86_64/i686
> >currently builds often in 2
- Original Message -
> From: "Josh Boyer"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Cc: "Jakub Jelinek" , second...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 March, 2012 4:08:16 PM
> Subject: Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements
>
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 a
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 10:21:01 -0500
Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Kevin Fenzi said:
> > Well, speaking for myself only, I read this as pretty much a "Lets
> > begin discussions on it". There's no way a short bit at the end of a
> > meeting is going to allow enough discussion.
> >
> > S
On 03/20/2012 04:58 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 03/20/2012 08:24 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
I think the speed of the build hardware should be also part of the
criteria,
as all primary architectures are built synchronously. GCC on x86_64/i686
currently builds often in 2 hours, sometimes in 4 hour
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:09:22PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 03/20/2012 11:52 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
>
> > In yesterday's FESCo meeting I told you I'd make a list of specific issues
> > I have with the current proposal for ARM as a primary archictecture. There
> > are some places where I thin
Hi again,
I want to thank you, and everyone else in FESCo for talking with us
yesterday, and for looking over the proposal. Bear in mind, it's a work
in progress. We intend to have broader conversations over the coming
months and F18 is an optimistic goal. Nonetheless, I feel it is
achievable (we'
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 03/20/2012 08:24 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> I think the speed of the build hardware should be also part of the
>> criteria,
>> as all primary architectures are built synchronously. GCC on x86_64/i686
>> currently builds often in 2 h
On 03/20/2012 09:21 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
That said, I considera cross-building environment for secondary arch to
be inevitable, which would at least help for the class of issues, I am
referring to above.
I'm a big fan of cross compilation, but introducing it into Fedora in
order to suppor
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> I want to thank you, and everyone else in FESCo for talking with us
> yesterday, and for looking over the proposal. Bear in mind, it's a work
> in progress. We intend to have broader conversations over the coming
> months and F18
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 03/20/2012 09:21 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>
>> That said, I considera cross-building environment for secondary arch to
>> be inevitable, which would at least help for the class of issues, I am
>> referring to above.
>
>
> I'm a big fan
On 03/20/2012 08:47 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
There's nothing blocking ARM from building multiple kernels in that
requirement. They just need to all be enabled in the SRPM that gets sent
to koji for the build. We do this for 32-bit x86 already by building both
the normal and PAE i686 variants. The
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 08:58:45AM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 03/20/2012 08:24 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >I think the speed of the build hardware should be also part of the criteria,
> >as all primary architectures are built synchronously. GCC on x86_64/i686
> >currently builds often in 2
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 05:37:10PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> > On 03/20/2012 09:21 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >>
> >> That said, I considera cross-building environment for secondary arch to
> >> be inevitable, which would at least help for t
On 03/20/2012 09:37 AM, drago01 wrote:
I'm a big fan of cross compilation, but introducing it into Fedora in order
to support ARM seems unlikely to succeed for too many reasons to go into.
The reasons are?
Okay, why not?
The ones off the top of my head, and this is by no means exhaustiv
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 05:37:10PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
>> > On 03/20/2012 09:21 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> >>
>> >> That said, I considera cross-building environment for sec
Hello,
On 03/20/2012 12:37 PM, drago01 wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
>> On 03/20/2012 09:21 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>
>>> That said, I considera cross-building environment for secondary arch to
>>> be inevitable, which would at least help for the class of is
On 03/20/2012 09:50 AM, drago01 wrote:
I don't know about the details there but that does not sound like
unfixable to be.
I'd even say that fixing that is a prerequisite to allow secondary
archs that run on "slow" hardware to become primary.
Please, please, no. Cross compilation for Fedora can
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> This is very much a draft, but I'd like to start a discussion regarding
> what we expect from primary architectures. Feedback not only welcome,
> but actively desired.
So, first of all, I disagree that there should be a process for promoting an
architecture to primary in
On 03/20/2012 12:56 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 03/20/2012 09:50 AM, drago01 wrote:
>> I don't know about the details there but that does not sound like
>> unfixable to be.
>> I'd even say that fixing that is a prerequisite to allow secondary
>> archs that run on "slow" hardware to become prima
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 03/20/2012 09:37 AM, drago01 wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm a big fan of cross compilation, but introducing it into Fedora in
>>> order
>>> to support ARM seems unlikely to succeed for too many reasons to go into.
>>
>>
>> The reasons are?
>
>
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 03/20/2012 12:56 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
>> On 03/20/2012 09:50 AM, drago01 wrote:
>>> I don't know about the details there but that does not sound like
>>> unfixable to be.
>>> I'd even say that fixing that is a prerequisite to allow sec
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> I think the speed of the build hardware should be also part of the
> criteria, as all primary architectures are built synchronously. GCC on
> x86_64/i686 currently builds often in 2 hours, sometimes in 4 hours if a
> slower or more busy box is chosen, but on ARM it regularly
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Looking at last gcc build times (not unusual, though I really remember
> arm taking much longer than that, e.g. 4.7.0-0.11.fc17 took almost 17
> hours on both arm architectures), from
> http://*koji.fedoraproject.org/packages/gcc/4.7.0/0.20.fc17/data/logs/*/state.log
> :
> i
Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> Our current build systems can turn GCC 4.7 around in about 24 hours.
> The enterprise hardware we anticipate using will take that down to about
> 12 hours. If speed of build hardware is a consideration, where do you
> draw the line?
IMHO, at MOST 50% longer (factor 1.5) b
Kevin Kofler wrote:
But IMHO ARM doesn't have the market share either.
Kevin, you don't know what you are talking about. Every cell phone has
an ARM cpu in it. Smart phone or otherwise. Almost every HDTV has an ARM
cpu in it. Almost every tablet has an ARM cpu in it. What do people buy
these
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 18:08 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Looking at last gcc build times (not unusual, though I really remember
> > arm taking much longer than that, e.g. 4.7.0-0.11.fc17 took almost 17
> > hours on both arm architectures), from
> > http://*koji.fedoraprojec
Tomas Mraz wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 15:19 +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> 4) All supported platforms must have kernels built from the Fedora
>> kernel SRPM and enabled by default in the spec file. Each kernel must be
>> built in a timely manner for every SRPM upload.
>
> I do not like this
drago01 píše v Út 20. 03. 2012 v 17:57 +0100:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> > On 03/20/2012 09:37 AM, drago01 wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I'm a big fan of cross compilation, but introducing it into Fedora in
> >>> order
> >>> to support ARM seems unlikely to succeed for too m
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Brendan Conoboy wrote:
>> Our current build systems can turn GCC 4.7 around in about 24 hours.
>> The enterprise hardware we anticipate using will take that down to about
>> 12 hours. If speed of build hardware is a consideration, where do y
drago01 wrote:
> I don't know about the details there but that does not sound like
> unfixable to be.
In theory yes, in practice I don't think this will be fixed any time soon,
yet…
> I'd even say that fixing that is a prerequisite to allow secondary
> archs that run on "slow" hardware to become
Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> In couple years the hardware is going to be surprisingly comparable or
> exceed to what you're see on x86, especially as the number of cores
> skyrockets while the GHz continue to climb.
Then let's rediscuss making ARM a primary architecture when that happens.
Right now t
drago01 wrote:
> qemu? Should be still faster then doing the whole build on arm.
LOL, no!
qemu software emulation slows down by a factor of ~50! Right now ARM is
slower "only" by a factor of ~12.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproj
On 3/20/12 8:10 AM, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
Ok, in F16 (and I'm assuming this is also true in Rawhide; unfortunately
I don't have a Rawhide tree here to test), fedpkg is in the srpm-build
group, and it requires pyrpkg which requires mock which requires
createrepo which requires deltarpm.
I don't
On 03/20/2012 12:30 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> I want to thank you, and everyone else in FESCo for talking with us
> yesterday, and for looking over the proposal. Bear in mind, it's a work
> in progress. We intend to have broader conversations over the coming
> months and F18 is an opt
Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> Please, please, no. Cross compilation for Fedora cannot and will not
> ever get a secondary arch to primary. We're talking man-decades of
> engineering time to solve all the problems. Decades.
Possible. That just means ARM cannot become a primary architecture any time
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:54:36PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> > The hardware is way slower ... so we can just build on faster hardware
> > (x86_64). Which is the only sane way to do it.
> > Trying to build on ARM directly is kind of a gimmick but nothing one
> > can seriously use to build a wh
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 03/20/2012 09:50 AM, drago01 wrote:
>>
>> I don't know about the details there but that does not sound like
>> unfixable to be.
>> I'd even say that fixing that is a prerequisite to allow secondary
>> archs that run on "slow" hardware to
Jon Masters wrote:
> On 03/20/2012 11:52 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
>> 7) it can't be a serious maintenance burdon due to build related issues.
>>We need a couple of groups to sign off that builds are fast enough, not
>>just on a "full distro rebuild" (throughput) level, but also on a
>>"doesn't destr
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 06:44:43PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jon Masters wrote:
>
> > Sure. Absolutely is a concern for us, as you can see from my other
> > comments above about the kernel, for example, but not just that.
>
> Sorry, but I don't think this is fixable any time soon. Come back wh
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 09:50 -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> 1. Fedora Policy (Which I imagine is based on the technical foundation
> of the following 5+ points and others I'm unaware of).
>
> 2. Many packages assume a native execution environment which will not
> exist. Incredible undertaking t
Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Kevin, you don't know what you are talking about. Every cell phone has
> an ARM cpu in it. Smart phone or otherwise. Almost every HDTV has an ARM
> cpu in it. Almost every tablet has an ARM cpu in it.
Several of those are not suitable devices to run a general purpose G
On 03/20/2012 10:27 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Then let's rediscuss making ARM a primary architecture when that happens.
Right now the speed is just not acceptable.
Really? You're going to base your entire opinion on build time data on
inappropriate hardware for one package without knowing even w
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 06:29:13PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> drago01 wrote:
> > qemu? Should be still faster then doing the whole build on arm.
>
> LOL, no!
>
> qemu software emulation slows down by a factor of ~50! Right now ARM is
> slower "only" by a factor of ~12.
Meh, at least you got s
Simo Sorce wrote:
> Can you define what market you refer to ?
Anything which can be reasonably called a "computer".
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Jon Ciesla wrote:
> Only if you assume that high clock speed workloads are the only
> important workloads. For highly parallellizable tasks, an ARM system
> with tons of slower cores is a powerhouse. Think a db server serving
> huge numbers of queries.
Unfortunately, our builds are not that para
On 03/20/2012 10:44 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
Please, please, no. Cross compilation for Fedora cannot and will not ever
get a secondary arch to primary. We're talking man-decades of engineering
time to solve all the problems. Decades.
Sorry
On 03/20/2012 11:58 AM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 03/20/2012 08:24 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> I think the speed of the build hardware should be also part of the criteria,
>> as all primary architectures are built synchronously. GCC on x86_64/i686
>> currently builds often in 2 hours, sometimes
drago01 wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
>> On 03/20/2012 09:50 AM, drago01 wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't know about the details there but that does not sound like
>>> unfixable to be.
>>> I'd even say that fixing that is a prerequisite to allow secondary
>>> archs that r
On 3/20/12 9:30 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
Hi again,
I want to thank you, and everyone else in FESCo for talking with us
yesterday, and for looking over the proposal. Bear in mind, it's a work
in progress. We intend to have broader conversations over the coming
months and F18 is an optimistic goal.
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 03/20/2012 10:44 AM, drago01 wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
>>>
>>> Please, please, no. Cross compilation for Fedora cannot and will not
>>> ever
>>>
>>> get a secondary arch to primary. We're tal
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Meh, at least you got something to _boot_ in qemu-system-arm.
Actually, I haven't tried qemu-system-arm. The ~50 factor I quoted comes
from my past experiences running qemu-system-x86_64 on a 32-bit machine to
build x86_64 RPMs (before I got the Core 2 Duo notebook).
1 - 100 of 210 matches
Mail list logo
