[Bug 1793203] perl-DBD-Pg-3.10.3 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793203 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Fixed In Version|

Re: Vague proposal: ship prebuilt initramfs images

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:57:50AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > 2) They contain machine-specific configuration. Some of this can be > passed on the kernel command line instead (eg, the machine ID), but we'd > need answers for the rest. I can think of a couple of solutions: > > a) Stick the c

Fedora-Cloud-30-20200121.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 1/1 (x86_64) ID: 511906 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/511906 -- Mail generated by check-compose: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose _

[Bug 1793152] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20200120 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793152 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED Fixed In Version|

Re: What would it take to drop release and changelog from our spec files? (and do we want to?)

On Friday, January 10, 2020 5:36:46 PM CET Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > Do we want to drop release and changelog from our spec file? No. People continuously tend to forget that '%changelog' is for end-users. Especially if some distributions already claim they can live fine without %changelog...

[Bug 1793152] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20200120 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793152 --- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-2d1d01a32a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-2d1d01a32a --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-159a57a

[Bug 1793152] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20200120 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793152 --- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-2d1d01a32a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-2d1d01a32a -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list f

Thank you for a way to requesting/merging side tags on demand.

Hi everybody, I just like to thank everybody, who helped to have the possibility to ask for side tag from fedpkg and allowed merging of the side tag via Bodhi. This will make Rawhide much better place. I encourage everybody, who is going to build more then just a few packages to use this feature.

Re: FYI: OCaml 4.10.0 beta1 will go into Fedora 32 soonish

Dne 21. 01. 20 v 7:59 Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a): > On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 03:53:51PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> Because this is blocking merge of the side tag [1], I am going to build >> them again. > Thanks - if there's still a problem after both tags are merged > then I'll build them again

Re: What would it take to drop release and changelog from our spec files? (and do we want to?)

Dne 21. 01. 20 v 9:36 Pavel Raiskup napsal(a): > On Friday, January 10, 2020 5:36:46 PM CET Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: >> Do we want to drop release and changelog from our spec file? > No. People continuously tend to forget that '%changelog' is for > end-users. Especially if some distributions al

Re: What would it take to drop release and changelog from our spec files? (and do we want to?)

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 09:36:27AM +0100, Pavel Raiskup wrote: > On Friday, January 10, 2020 5:36:46 PM CET Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > Do we want to drop release and changelog from our spec file? > > No. People continuously tend to forget that '%changelog' is for > end-users. Especially if so

Re: What would it take to drop release and changelog from our spec files? (and do we want to?)

On 1/20/20 7:03 PM, David Cantrell wrote: On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 04:28:56PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 1/15/20 3:33 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 15. 01. 20 v 13:33 Panu Matilainen napsal(a): On 1/15/20 2:13 PM, Miroslav Suchý wrote: Dne 13. 01. 20 v 14:05 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): %change

Blanket approval for EPEL packages

Hi, There used to be page with blanket approval for EPEL packages. Is there still something like this? It is tiring to respond all the EPEL request I don't really care about. Vít ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe se

Re: What would it take to drop release and changelog from our spec files? (and do we want to?)

On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 10:20:10 AM CET Vít Ondruch wrote: > I would expect that adding some keyword such as "[skip changelog]" (there are > quite commonly used similar hints for CI nowadays [1]) would instruct the > generator to leave the second commit out of the changelog, because it does no

Re: What would it take to drop release and changelog from our spec files? (and do we want to?)

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 4:39 AM Pavel Raiskup wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 10:20:10 AM CET Vít Ondruch wrote: > > I would expect that adding some keyword such as "[skip changelog]" (there > > are > > quite commonly used similar hints for CI nowadays [1]) would instruct the > > generato

Re: What would it take to drop release and changelog from our spec files? (and do we want to?)

On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 10:24:53 AM CET Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 09:36:27AM +0100, Pavel Raiskup wrote: > > On Friday, January 10, 2020 5:36:46 PM CET Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > > Do we want to drop release and changelog from our spec file? > > > > No. People co

Re: Vague proposal: ship prebuilt initramfs images

Hi, On 21-01-2020 01:57, Matthew Garrett wrote: Measured boot involves generating cryptographic measurements of boot components and configuration and using that to either control access to a local secret (in the case of sealing secrets to a TPM) or proving to another device (eg, a remote server

Fedora-Cloud-31-20200121.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Passed openQA tests: 1/1 (x86_64) -- Mail generated by check-compose: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedorap

Re: Thank you for a way to requesting/merging side tags on demand.

On Tuesday, 21 January 2020 at 09:53, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Hi everybody, > > I just like to thank everybody, who helped to have the possibility to > ask for side tag from fedpkg and allowed merging of the side tag via > Bodhi. This will make Rawhide much better place. > > I encourage everybody, w

Re: Thank you for a way to requesting/merging side tags on demand.

Dne 21. 01. 20 v 11:55 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski napsal(a): > On Tuesday, 21 January 2020 at 09:53, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> Hi everybody, >> >> I just like to thank everybody, who helped to have the possibility to >> ask for side tag from fedpkg and allowed merging of the side tag via >> Bodhi.

Re: Thank you for a way to requesting/merging side tags on demand.

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 11:55:27AM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > On Tuesday, 21 January 2020 at 09:53, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Hi everybody, > > > > I just like to thank everybody, who helped to have the possibility to > > ask for side tag from fedpkg and allowed merging of the sid

[Bug 1793185] perl-XXX-0.35 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793185 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1793436 Referenced Bugs: https:/

[Bug 1793185] perl-XXX-0.35 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793185 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Doc Type|---

[Bug 1793459] New: perl-ExtUtils-CBuilder-0.280234 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793459 Bug ID: 1793459 Summary: perl-ExtUtils-CBuilder-0.280234 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-ExtUtils-CBuilder Keywords: FutureFeatu

[Bug 1793459] perl-ExtUtils-CBuilder-0.280234 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793459 --- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- Created attachment 1654240 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1654240&action=edit [patch] Update to 0.280234 (#1793459) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on

[Bug 1793459] perl-ExtUtils-CBuilder-0.280234 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793459 --- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- the-new-hotness/release-monitoring.org's scratch build of perl-ExtUtils-CBuilder-0.280234-1.fc29.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=40815168 --

[Bug 1793463] New: Upgrade perl-Set-Object to 1.40

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793463 Bug ID: 1793463 Summary: Upgrade perl-Set-Object to 1.40 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-Set-Object Assignee: kra...@redhat.com Rep

Rawhide broken for aarch64 (arm_neon.h)

Is it a known issue ? /usr/lib/gcc/aarch64-redhat-linux/10/include/arm_neon.h:34612:10: fatal error: arm_bf16.h: No such file or directory Remi P.S. full build log on https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=40815537 ___ devel mailing l

[Bug 1793459] perl-ExtUtils-CBuilder-0.280234 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793459 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|jples...@redha

Re: Rawhide broken for aarch64 (arm_neon.h)

Le 21/01/2020 à 13:14, Remi Collet a écrit : > /usr/lib/gcc/aarch64-redhat-linux/10/include/arm_neon.h:34612:10: fatal > error: arm_bf16.h: No such file or directory Reported as https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1793471 ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fe

[Bug 1793459] perl-ExtUtils-CBuilder-0.280234 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793459 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In Version|

gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of ...

Hello, we try to rebuild all Python packages against Python 3.9 and report the failures. I've seen several similar failures in a row now that can be reproduced in Fedora rawhide with the new gcc version. ld errors on multiple definitions of ..., for example: ld: tests/bp_account.o:/builddir

Re: Vague proposal: ship prebuilt initramfs images

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:29:13AM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > What about the on-going cost: downloading ~80M initramfs for each kernel > update; systemd-analyze on NVMe says initrd time is 2.5s for a host-only > ~25M initramfs. No-host-only initramfs is about 3x bigger. If the size to > time re

Re: Vague proposal: ship prebuilt initramfs images

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 09:09:16AM +0100, Petr Pisar wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:57:50AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > Any thoughts on this? > > > Properly measured system must measure all inputs. If you move the varying > bits from initramfs to another file, a boot loader will have to

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of ...

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 1:35 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > Hello, Hi Miro, > we try to rebuild all Python packages against Python 3.9 and report the > failures. I've seen several similar failures in a row now that can be > reproduced > in Fedora rawhide with the new gcc version. > > ld errors on m

Re: Vague proposal: ship prebuilt initramfs images

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 11:25:29AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > For the size problem one approach which I think is worthwhile at least > for the x86/workstation case is making one initrd with the most common > stuff in there (say i915,nouveau and amd GPU drivers + NVME and AHCI > disk support, ma

[Bug 1793459] perl-ExtUtils-CBuilder-0.280234 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793459 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-cd3ff91cc7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-cd3ff91cc7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list f

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of ...

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 01:42:25PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > I've seen this issue pop up in some other packages, as well. > > My elementary-files package is affected, and I think it broke > rubygem-ffi, too (which is blocking the ruby 2.7 rebuild, breaking a > lot of ruby packages; though I

[Bug 1793459] perl-ExtUtils-CBuilder-0.280234 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793459 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-cb999ef990 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-cb999ef990 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list f

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of ...

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 7:36 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > ... glusterfs... > > glusterfs and nfs-ganesha are already fixed upstream. They'll be fixed in their next minor release before it becomes necessary, or I will respin with patches sooner. -- Kaleb ___

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of ...

On 21. 01. 20 13:47, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 01:42:25PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: I've seen this issue pop up in some other packages, as well. My elementary-files package is affected, and I think it broke rubygem-ffi, too (which is blocking the ruby 2.7 rebuild, breakin

Copr in 2020 - summary of votes

Here is the summary of recent voting: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DClOxQADo-KqC18KK-RPmz2awRNpRt1W5z_xnWfMFd8/edit?usp=sharing Quick summary - topics sorted by priority (higher got more votes for priority]: * better automatic builds triggered by github, gitlab... * More parallel

[modularity] Meeting Minutes - Jan 14, 2020

Minutes: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/modularity/modularity.2020-01-14-15.00.html Minutes (text): https://meetbot-raw.fedoraproject.org/teams/modularity/modularity.2020-01-14-15.00.txt Log: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/modularity/modularity.2020-01-14-15.00.log.html =

[modularity] Meeting on Jan 21, 2020 canceled ^z

As many of the people who would be at the meeting are tied up today, we are canceling. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedora

Re: Copr in 2020 - summary of votes

On 21. 01. 20 14:24, Miroslav Suchý wrote: max successful builds option This is already available. See previous thread. It is in chroot setting. AFAIK This is not available. max builds is, but not max successful builds. See https://pagure.io/copr/copr/issue/840 -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +4

Re: Copr in 2020 - summary of votes

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 2:30 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: (snip) > On 21. 01. 20 14:24, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > >> max successful builds option > > This is already available. See previous thread. It is in chroot setting. > > AFAIK This is not available. max builds is, but not max successful builds. Se

[Bug 1793081] Upgrade perl-Term-ANSIColor to 5.01

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793081 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Fixed In Version|

[Bug 1793505] New: perl-SOAP-WSDL-3.003-14.fc32 FTBFS: Failed test 'conversion with timezone' at t/SOAP/WSDL/XSD/Typelib/Builtin/dateTime.t line 35.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793505 Bug ID: 1793505 Summary: perl-SOAP-WSDL-3.003-14.fc32 FTBFS: Failed test 'conversion with timezone' at t/SOAP/WSDL/XSD/Typelib/Builtin/dateTime.t line 35. Product: Fedora

[Bug 1791320] perl-XML-LibXML-Simple-1.01 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1791320 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC|

[Bug 1772789] Upgrade perl-Type-Tiny to 1.008003

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1772789 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Fixed In Version|

[Bug 1788470] Upgrade perl-Data-ICal to 0.24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1788470 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Fixed In Version|

Re: FYI: OCaml 4.10.0 beta1 will go into Fedora 32 soonish

On 18. 01. 20 13:03, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: OCaml 4.10.0 beta1 was released upstream about a week ago (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1673688). I'm intending to build OCaml packages into a side tag starting today, and then if it seems to work well integrate it into F32. Hello.

Re: FYI: OCaml 4.10.0 beta1 will go into Fedora 32 soonish

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 04:20:48PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 18. 01. 20 13:03, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > >OCaml 4.10.0 beta1 was released upstream about a week ago > >(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1673688). I'm intending > >to build OCaml packages into a side tag starting to

[Bug 1793586] New: perl-PPIx-Regexp-0.068 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793586 Bug ID: 1793586 Summary: perl-PPIx-Regexp-0.068 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-PPIx-Regexp Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of ...

On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 7:35:03 AM EST Miro Hrončok wrote: > This is a known thing in gcc 10: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-10/porting_to.html#common > > "Default to -fno-common > > A common mistake in C is omitting extern when declaring a global variable > in a header file. If the header is

[Bug 1793586] perl-PPIx-Regexp-0.068 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793586 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|ppi...@redhat.

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of ...

On 21. 01. 20 17:05, Steve Grubb wrote: On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 7:35:03 AM EST Miro Hrončok wrote: This is a known thing in gcc 10: https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-10/porting_to.html#common "Default to -fno-common A common mistake in C is omitting extern when declaring a global variable in a hea

[Bug 1793586] perl-PPIx-Regexp-0.068 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793586 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In Version|

[Bug 1793586] perl-PPIx-Regexp-0.068 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793586 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-580bb5e256 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-580bb5e256 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list f

[Bug 1793586] perl-PPIx-Regexp-0.068 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793586 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-c76e5a5f53 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-c76e5a5f53 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list f

Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

Hey Everyone, On behalf of the CPE team I want to draw the communities attention to a recent blog post which you may be impacted by: https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/git-forge-requirements/ We will be seeking input and requirements in an open and transparent manner on the future of a git

Fedora 32 Self-Contained Change proposal: PostgreSQL 12

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/PostgreSQL_12 == Summary == Update of PostgreSQL (`postgresql` and `libpq` components) in Fedora from 11 to 12 version in the non-modular (main) builds. == Owner == * Name: [[User:panovotn| Patrik Novotny]] * Email: panov...@redhat.com == Detailed Descripti

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of ...

> > > > Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 11:05:37 -0500 > From: Steve Grubb > Subject: Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of > ... > To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Cc: Jakub Jelinek > Message-ID: <4127758.jL2Gs7s9Fr@x2> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > O

Announcing multi-builds updates gating

Good Morning Everyone, We are pleased to announce that the work to gate rawhide packages has leveled up! Back in July we announced the first phase where bodhi got the support to gate single-build updates. We can now officially announce that bodhi can gate multi-builds updates. This is achieved th

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 5:40 PM Leigh Griffin wrote: > > Hey Everyone, > > On behalf of the CPE team I want to draw the communities attention to a > recent blog post which you may be impacted by: > https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/git-forge-requirements/ > > We will be seeking input and r

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of ...

> > On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 7:35:03 AM EST Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > This is a known thing in gcc 10: > > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-10/porting_to.html#common > > > > > > "Default to -fno-common > > > > > > A common mistake in C is omitting extern when declaring a global variable > > > in

Re: Vague proposal: ship prebuilt initramfs images

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:57:50AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > a) Stick the config in UEFI variables. It's small enough that we > wouldn't run out. > b) Extend grub to read some config files and synthesise an initramfs > image for them. If we measure the paths that those images use

[EPEL-devel] [Fedocal] Reminder meeting : EPEL Steering Co

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: EPEL Steering Co on 2020-01-22 from 18:00:00 to 19:00:00 GMT At freenode@fedora-meeting The meeting will be about: This is the weekly EPEL Steering Committee Meeting. A general agenda is the following: #meetingname EPEL #topic Intro

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of

> > -- > > > Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 17:44:37 + > From: Peter Robinson > Subject: Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of > ... > To: l...@redhat.com, Development discussions related to Fedora

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of

On 21. 01. 20 19:04, Jeff Law wrote: -- Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 17:44:37 + From: Peter Robinson Subject: Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of ... To: l...@redhat.com, Development discus

Re: FYI: OCaml 4.10.0 beta1 will go into Fedora 32 soonish

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/xen > > I didn't try rebuilding this package. The link is a bit unclear, but > maybe try kicking off a rebuild, or would you like me to try? For xen it looks like it is mostly -Werror=discarded-qualifiers

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of

On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 1:16:00 PM EST Miro Hrončok wrote: > I proposed a change to redhat-rpm-config to handle this case by > >>> > >>> allowing package to add a single line to their .spec file to turn off > >>> the new common symbol handling. Igor rejected that change arguing that >

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of

On Tue, 2020-01-21 at 13:33 -0500, Steve Grubb wrote: > On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 1:16:00 PM EST Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > > > > I proposed a change to redhat-rpm-config to handle this case by > > > > > > > > > > allowing package to add a single line to their .spec file to turn off > > > > > t

make 4.3 - F32 or F33?

I've taken a look at the new make release, and updating Fedora's make won't be that tricky (aside from some noted backwards incompatibilities[1], who knows) but I see no reason to rush it into a last-minute update this close to branching F32. My current plan is to introduce it to rawhide just aft

Re: make 4.3 - F32 or F33?

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 2:03 PM DJ Delorie wrote: > > > I've taken a look at the new make release, and updating Fedora's make > won't be that tricky (aside from some noted backwards > incompatibilities[1], who knows) but I see no reason to rush it into a > last-minute update this close to branchin

Re: make 4.3 - F32 or F33?

* DJ Delorie: > * WARNING: Backward-incompatibility! > Number signs (#) appearing inside a macro reference or function invocation > no longer introduce comments and should not be escaped with backslashes: > thus a call such as: > foo := $(shell echo '#') > is legal. Previously the num

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 17:17 Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 5:40 PM Leigh Griffin wrote: > > > > Hey Everyone, > > > > On behalf of the CPE team I want to draw the communities attention to a > recent blog post which you may be impacted by: > > https://communityblog.fedoraprojec

Re: qpid-proton removal impact

I re-took the ownership of qpid-proton package yesterday, if this is not reflected in fedora package db, what do I need to do to hold on to it? On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 7:28 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 20. 01. 20 1:05, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 19. 01. 20 23:45, Miro Hrončok wrote: > >> On 13.

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of

On Tue, 2020-01-21 at 19:16 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 21. 01. 20 19:04, Jeff Law wrote: > > > -- > > > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 17:44:37 + > > > From: Peter Robinson > > > Subject: Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno

Re: Copr in 2020 - summary of votes

On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 2:39:32 PM CET Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 2:30 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > (snip) > > > On 21. 01. 20 14:24, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > >> max successful builds option > > > This is already available. See previous thread. It is in chroot setting.

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 8:30 PM Leigh Griffin wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 17:17 Fabio Valentini wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 5:40 PM Leigh Griffin wrote: >> > >> > Hey Everyone, >> > >> > On behalf of the CPE team I want to draw the communities attention to a >> > recent blog p

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of ...

> Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 14:00:30 +0100 > From: Miro Hrončok > Subject: Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of > ... > To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, Jakub Jelinek > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > On 21. 01. 20 13:47, Jak

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of ...

On Tue, 2020-01-21 at 13:47 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 01:42:25PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > I've seen this issue pop up in some other packages, as well. > > > > My elementary-files package is affected, and I think it broke > > rubygem-ffi, too (which is blocking

gcc-10 Fortran argument mismatch issue

So this is another issue that's going to be seen with gcc-10. I'd been hoping to get the time to fix packages correctly, but I think it's ultimately going to have to fall to the package maintainers. gcc has traditionally allowed certain type mismatches for arguments in Fortran code. GCC would

Re: Announcing multi-builds updates gating

On 1/21/20 10:59 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: We are pleased to announce that the work to gate rawhide packages has leveled up! Thanks for your hard work! ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-l

Re: gcc-10 Fortran argument mismatch issue

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 01:16:30PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > Starting with gcc-10, these are now fatal errors which look something > like this: > > > > Error: Rank mismatch in argument ‘array’ at (1) (rank-1 and scalar) Indeed, and https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-10/porting_to.html#argument-mismatch tal

Re: gcc-10 Fortran argument mismatch issue

Hi, Jeff. On Tuesday, 21 January 2020 at 21:16, Jeff Law wrote: > > > So this is another issue that's going to be seen with gcc-10. I'd been > hoping to get the time to fix packages correctly, but I think it's > ultimately going to have to fall to the package maintainers. > > gcc has tradition

Re: Self Introduction: Philip Matura

> Il giorno 5 dic 2019, alle ore 17:34, p...@tura-home.de ha scritto: > > Hello, > > my name is Philip Matura and I'm currently a student in mathematics. In > my freetime I'm doing audio/music and electronics stuff. I've been > converted to the Linux world with Fedora about 10 years ago and woul

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

> Il giorno 21 gen 2020, alle ore 18:15, Fabio Valentini > ha scritto: > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 5:40 PM Leigh Griffin > wrote: >> >> Hey Everyone, >> >> On behalf of the CPE team I want to draw the communities attention to a >> recent blog post which you may

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 20:02 Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 8:30 PM Leigh Griffin wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 17:17 Fabio Valentini > wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 5:40 PM Leigh Griffin > wrote: > >> > > >> > Hey Everyone, > >> > > >> > On behalf of

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 3:01 PM Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 8:30 PM Leigh Griffin wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 17:17 Fabio Valentini wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 5:40 PM Leigh Griffin wrote: > >> > > >> > Hey Everyone, > >> > > >> > On behalf o

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 10:02 PM Leigh Griffin wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 20:02 Fabio Valentini wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 8:30 PM Leigh Griffin wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 17:17 Fabio Valentini wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 5:40 PM Leigh Gr

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

I had replied to Fabio on IRC but... :-) - Original Message - > From: "Guido Aulisi" > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > > Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 3:48:31 PM > Subject: Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog > > > > > Il giorno 21 gen 2020,

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 2:04:33 PM MST Neal Gompa wrote: > Aside from GitLab being very anti-integration This is no longer the case, by the way. GitLab has recently made it easier to add plugins, with the new method not requiring patching the source tree. Even before that change, webhook in

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Tuesday, 21 January 2020 17:34:37 CET Leigh Griffin wrote: > Hey Everyone, > > On behalf of the CPE team I want to draw the communities attention to a > recent blog post which you may be impacted by: > https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/git-forge-requirements/ > > We will be seeking inpu

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 4:04 pm, Neal Gompa wrote: And any discussion of GitHub isn't going to involve self-hosted, it's going to involve GitHub.com, which means we're talking about losing more of our independence as a project. This is one of those things that I'm not sure is a wise move. Well

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 4:18 PM John M. Harris Jr wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 2:04:33 PM MST Neal Gompa wrote: > > Aside from GitLab being very anti-integration > > This is no longer the case, by the way. GitLab has recently made it easier to > add plugins, with the new method not requ

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On 1/21/20 4:31 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 4:04 pm, Neal Gompa wrote: >> And any discussion of GitHub isn't going to involve self-hosted, it's >> going to involve GitHub.com, which means we're talking about losing >> more of our independence as a project. This is one o

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

- Original Message - > From: "Michael Catanzaro" > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > > Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 4:31:47 PM > Subject: Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 4:04 pm, Neal Gompa wrote: > > And any di

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 2:33:11 PM MST Neal Gompa wrote: > Unfortunately, this is very difficult to manage with GitLab Omnibus > based deployments The new plugin interface makes it so that this is not the case. I make use of it on git.splentity.com, for example. -- John M. Harris, Jr. Sple

  1   2   >