On Mon, 2017-07-31 at 22:51 -0400, Randy Barlow wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-07-31 at 22:13 -0400, Ben Rosser wrote:
> > 2. If we do implement this, could we consider not batching new
> > package
> > updates in addition to security and "urgent" updates? New package
> > updates wouldn't get downloaded onto
Greetings!
Today, on 2017-Aug-01, we have reached Fedora 27 Change
Checkpoint:Completion deadline (testable) [1].
At this point, all accepted changes [2] should be substantially
complete, and testable. Additionally, if a change is to be enabled by
default, it must be enabled at Change Completion
Keep in mind that GNOME Software already only checks for non-security
updates weekly. So it will actually take as much as two weeks for the
update to reach users once it enters batched, which I suspect may not
have been intended. We are really looking at weekly updates with an
additional one-we
On 07/11/2017 10:26 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I ran into this unannounced change:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Stop_Building_i686_Kernels
>
> If this is accepted, all x86 hardware on which Fedora can run will
> support SSE2, and we should reflect that in the i686 build flags.
C
I'm going to remove libwbxml-compat package from Fedora 27. The package
was forked from libwbxml six years ago to provide an old API for
packages that required libwbxml < 0.11.0.
Because there is no such package in Fedora anymore, I will remove
libwbxml-compat package.
-- Petr
__
On 29.7.2017 01:27, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 11:11:05PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 28.7.2017 22:44, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 05:51:39PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 28 July 2017 at 03:15, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote
We still build a special glibc variant for Xen which avoids certain
segment-relative accesses which are difficult to emulate with
paravirtualization..
Is this still needed? Can we drop it?
Thanks,
Florian
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedorapro
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 07/11/2017 10:26 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> I ran into this unannounced change:
>>
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Stop_Building_i686_Kernels
>>
>> If this is accepted, all x86 hardware on which Fedora can run will
>> support
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 08:26:04AM +0100, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> Keep in mind that GNOME Software already only checks for
> non-security updates weekly. So it will actually take as much as two
Doesn't it check daily but only *alert* weekly? AFAIK there's no way to
just ask our servers for secu
On 08/01/2017 03:20 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> I don't think it's worth fixing GCC because i386 support is legacy only
>> anyway, so I'd suggest to leave things as they are (and even scale back
>> the SSE2 use within glibc).
>
> I thin
On 08/01/2017 02:35 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 08:26:04AM +0100, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>> Keep in mind that GNOME Software already only checks for
>> non-security updates weekly. So it will actually take as much as two
>
> Doesn't it check daily but only *alert* weekly?
I'm an inexperienced high school student interested in poping some packages off
the package maintainer wishlist (and hopefully learn to read others source
codes more efficiently) during this summer vacation.
This is the bugzilla page of my first review request:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 09:19:47AM +0200, Jan Kurik wrote:
> At this point, all accepted changes [2] should be substantially
> complete, and testable. Additionally, if a change is to be enabled by
> default, it must be enabled at Change Completion deadline as well.
It's worth noting that with the
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 7:25 PM, Jan Kurik wrote:
> The Nomination period of Elections to Council [1], FESCo [2] and
> FAmSCo [3] is now over.
> The list of nominees follows:
>
> == Council (1 open seat) ==
> * Justin W. Flory (jwf / jflory7)
> * Langdon White (langdon)
> * Nick Bebout (nb)
> * De
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 09:19:47AM +0200, Jan Kurik wrote:
>> At this point, all accepted changes [2] should be substantially
>> complete, and testable. Additionally, if a change is to be enabled by
>> default, it must be enabled at Change Co
Hi,
On 07/27/2017 04:13 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 2017-07-25 at 01:49 -0400, David Airlie wrote:
So, should this package be added to base-x ? Should something depend on
it? Should X actually start up without libEGL.so.1, and I should file
*that* as a bug? Thanks!
Hans might answer this
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 02:41:57PM +0100, Kalev Lember wrote:
> >> Keep in mind that GNOME Software already only checks for
> >> non-security updates weekly. So it will actually take as much as two
> > Doesn't it check daily but only *alert* weekly? AFAIK there's no way to
> > just ask our servers
On 08/01/2017 03:58 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 02:41:57PM +0100, Kalev Lember wrote:
Keep in mind that GNOME Software already only checks for
non-security updates weekly. So it will actually take as much as two
>>> Doesn't it check daily but only *alert* weekly? A
Planned Outage: koji database server - 2017-08-01 21:00:00 UTC
There will be an outage starting at 2017-08-01 21:00:00 UTC,
which will last approximately 1 hour.
To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto
or run:
date -d '2017-08-01 2
El mar, 01-08-2017 a las 08:26 +0100, Michael Catanzaro escribió:
> Keep in mind that GNOME Software already only checks for non-security
> updates weekly. So it will actually take as much as two weeks for the
> update to reach users once it enters batched, which I suspect may not
> have been inte
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:45 PM, Cheng Ye wrote:
> I'm an inexperienced high school student interested in poping some
> packages off the package maintainer wishlist (and hopefully learn to read
> others source codes more efficiently) during this summer vacation.
>
> This is the bugzilla page of my
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1473460
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|perl-C
> "MH" == Miro Hrončok writes:
MH> I just had a discussion with Tomáš Orsava and Petr Viktorin on
MH> #fedora-python. Rather than asking FESCo now to allow mass
MH> fully-automated spec changing, we'll open bugs as planned, but we'll
MH> attach patches generated by your script to them.
It's
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 11:29:30AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > "MH" == Miro Hrončok writes:
>
> MH> I just had a discussion with Tomáš Orsava and Petr Viktorin on
> MH> #fedora-python. Rather than asking FESCo now to allow mass
> MH> fully-automated spec changing, we'll open bugs a
Hi,
Are there any plans to add Ring (https://ring.cx/en) to Fedora?
Cheers,
--
--Jos Vos
--X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV | Office: +31 20 6938364
--Amsterdam, The Netherlands| Mobile: +31 6 26216181
___
devel mailing list -
Hi
I periodically give it a try, but so far it was too unstable. My specs
are here [1] if you want to give it a try.
Sandro
[1] https://smani.fedorapeople.org/ring/
On 01.08.2017 19:47, Jos Vos wrote:
Hi,
Are there any plans to add Ring (https://ring.cx/en) to Fedora?
Cheers,
--
--J
Looking at https://ring.cx/en/about/technical the requirement of ffmpeg and
patented codecs is likely why it's not in fedora and would be difficult to add.
Just needs someone to figure it out and do the work.
Dennis
On 1 August 2017 12:47:12 pm GMT-05:00, Jos Vos wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Are there any p
On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 08:26 +0100, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> Also, if I mark a security update as low priority, that means it
> really is low priority. There's no need for many security updates to
> skip batched. Many are e.g. minor DoS vulnerabilities that are
> unlikely to be exploited ever, let
On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 11:02 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> I would really like to see us have a single unified
> view on update management at a distro level and not having different
> tools implementing their own behaviours.
I agree with Dennis here - not all users of Fedora use the Gnome
Software
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 03:09:22PM -0400, Randy Barlow wrote:
> > Also, if I mark a security update as low priority, that means it
> > really is low priority. There's no need for many security updates to
> > skip batched. Many are e.g. minor DoS vulnerabilities that are
> > unlikely to be exploited
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Randy Barlow
wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 11:02 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>> I would really like to see us have a single unified
>> view on update management at a distro level and not having different
>> tools implementing their own behaviours.
>
> I agree with
As a maintainer of Fedora Design Suite, the state of sparkleshare brought
attention with these outstanding report:
* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1375789
* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151172
Considering the critical vulnerability of the dependent package webkitgtk,
On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 15:31 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> (Hmmm. And should enhancement
> and new packages _get_ a severity option? Maybe that should be locked
> to "unspecified"?)
Hahaha, "This newpackage update is urgently severe! Have some severe
new features!"
signature.asc
Description: This
On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 15:31 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> I think this is why we don't just automatically make security fixes
> all
> high priority but instead have a separate field. Many security
> updates
> fix problems which only happen in unlikely configurations, or have
> extremely minor cons
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 8:46 PM, Luya Tshimbalanga
wrote:
> As a maintainer of Fedora Design Suite, the state of sparkleshare brought
> attention with these outstanding report:
> * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1375789
> * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151172
>
> Consi
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 03:50:45PM -0400, Randy Barlow wrote:
> > (Hmmm. And should enhancement
> > and new packages _get_ a severity option? Maybe that should be locked
> > to "unspecified"?)
> Hahaha, "This newpackage update is urgently severe! Have some severe
> new features!"
Yeah, exactly. D
On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 16:11 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Yeah, exactly. Do you want a new RFE issue for this?
Sure, it makes sense to me. Though I will say that there probably isn't
much tangible harm done leaving it as it is, even though it doesn't
make sense.
signature.asc
Description: This i
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 04:34:34PM -0400, Randy Barlow wrote:
> > Yeah, exactly. Do you want a new RFE issue for this?
> Sure, it makes sense to me. Though I will say that there probably isn't
> much tangible harm done leaving it as it is, even though it doesn't
> make sense.
What about the opposi
On Tuesday, 01 August 2017 at 14:19, Florian Weimer wrote:
> We still build a special glibc variant for Xen which avoids certain
> segment-relative accesses which are difficult to emulate with
> paravirtualization..
>
> Is this still needed? Can we drop it?
What is the performance difference bet
On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 16:47 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> What about the opposite? Should we require classification for bugfix
> and security updates?
I'd say it wouldn't hurt to require it. It always makes data nice if
the parser of the data can know that a field is guaranteed to exist so
they d
On 1 August 2017 at 17:38, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <
domi...@greysector.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 01 August 2017 at 14:19, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > We still build a special glibc variant for Xen which avoids certain
> > segment-relative accesses which are difficult to emulate with
> > para
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:59:58AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> The thing that jumps out immediately is that respondents _really_
> prefer the "dnf module install httpd" syntax — 73% love or like that,
> while 7% dislike or hate it. 21% love or like "dnf install httpd" for
> installing
> modules
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 11:47 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:59:58AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> The thing that jumps out immediately is that respondents _really_
>> prefer the "dnf module install httpd" syntax — 73% love or like that,
>> while 7% dislike or hate it. 21%
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 11:56:38PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> How does it distinguish between comps groups and modules, how does it
> resolve conflcits between the two? I think a designator makes sense
> but I don't think that should be @
In my imagination, we'd supplant comps groups entirely,
> "AP" == Alexander Ploumistos writes:
AP> As far as I can tell that change went mostly unnoticed, given that
AP> most of our packages still install addon metadata in
AP> %{_datadir}/appdata/. I visited the relevant wiki page[1] which
AP> %still
AP> lists the old location, but I could not edi
Hi all,
I booted a Fedora 26 live image and tried to upgrade with the custom
built anaconda rpms (anaconda, anaconda-core, anaconda-gui,
anaconda-tui and anaconda-widgets). They were successful in
installing, I could see with "rpm -q" that the rpms are the ones I
built. However when I started inst
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 6:48 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:59:58AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> The thing that jumps out immediately is that respondents _really_
>> prefer the "dnf module install httpd" syntax — 73% love or
Well done on Boltron - still kicking the tires.
I for one, still want multi-version install capability for full modularity
scl, docker, flatpacks are journeys towards that destination - backend
build infra just has to be a lot smarter.
-subhendu
___
48 matches
Mail list logo
