Fedora-Cloud-30-20200122.0 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: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Tue, 2020-01-21 at 17:04 -0500, Michael Watters wrote: > On 1/21/20 4:59 PM, Felix Schwarz wrote: > > (Though > > I somehow got used to pagure and getting the gitlab integration to the same > > level as pagure currently will be a lot of work for sure.) > > Maybe I'm just a grumpy old system adm

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020, 21:32 Michael Catanzaro, wrote: So if we can agree on that much, then we can avoid wasting time by > including GitHub in the list of options. That would bring us to a > choice between GitLab CE and Pagure. (Are there any other serious > options?) In the blog post they state

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 22:32, 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.

Several packages looking for new maintainer

Hi, Yesterday, after short email exchange with Bryan Kearney, he orphaned all his packages due to lack of time for their proper maintenance. Therefore, several packages are free to take: java-augeas rubygem-pam sugar-moon sugar-turtleart Vít ___ d

Fedora-Cloud-31-20200122.0 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: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 08:40:54AM +, Peter Oliver wrote: >On Tue, 21 Jan 2020, 21:32 Michael Catanzaro, <[1]mcatanz...@gnome.org> >wrote: > > So if we can agree on that much, then we can avoid wasting time by > including GitHub in the list of options. That would bring us to

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 08:40 +, Peter Oliver wrote: > On Tue, 21 Jan 2020, 21:32 Michael Catanzaro, wrote: > > So if we can agree on that much, then we can avoid wasting time by > > including GitHub in the list of options. That would bring us to a > > choice between GitLab CE and Pagure. (Are

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 10:01 +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > IIRC phabricator does not issue tracking which mean it would not fit the > use-case of FESCo, FPC and other groups that are mostly using pagure as a > ticketing system. Sure it does, we used to use it for this. It calls them 'tasks'

ppc64le builds of Python failing with: Assembler messages: redefined symbol cannot be used on reloc

https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/python39 https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/build/7756857 /tmp/cc7LZ1xH.s: Assembler messages: /tmp/cc7LZ1xH.s:91549: Error: redefined symbol cannot be used on reloc /tmp/cc7LZ1xH.s:275099: Error: redefined symbol cannot be used on reloc lto-wrapper: fatal

Re: Blanket approval for EPEL packages

Dne 21. 01. 20 v 22:50 Stephen John Smoogen napsal(a): > On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 04:35, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> 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. >

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 1:05 AM Peter Robinson wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:59 AM Dan Čermák > wrote: > > > > Felix Schwarz writes: > > > > > Am 21.01.20 um 21:48 schrieb Guido Aulisi: > > >> I totally agree with Fabio, I can’t think of a single reason we should > > >> dismiss > > >> pa

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

* Felix Schwarz: > Personally I guess github would attract most contributions for Fedora > from new contributors but it is closed source so I'd prefer gitlab for > Fedora. I don't think Github allows disabling pull requests for projects. This means that a ptoential Fedora Github service would ho

Re: Copr Build System - review of 2019 and vote for features in 2020

Jakub Kadlcik wrote: > I am truly sorry to hear that. I am afraid, that there is no way to > recover those data. Thank you for reporting it though, I have investigated > the issue and did as much as I could to prevent it from happening in the > future. > > I wrote some unit tests for the feature a

Re: Bubblemail: looking for package maintainer

Hello Razer, You've made quite some progress since the fork, well done! I have come to rely heavily on mailnag and for a while now it seemed that it was going the way of the dodo. I could take up packaging, but for the time being I am in desperate need of 48-hour days and can't really add more to

Re: Copr Build System - review of 2019 and vote for features in 2020

Kevin Kofler wrote: > IMHO, this whole "delete by default" concept is inherently flawed and > dangerous and cannot be fixed. Notification e-mails can be lost in so many > ways (wrong Fedora notification settings, e-mail provider issues, spam > filter false positives, out-of-quota mailbox, etc.) or

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 05:00 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > On top of that Gitlab is a huge Ruby on Rails application and (at least > > > I have the feeling that) the Fedora community doesn't have so many Ruby > > > developers in comparison to Python developers, so implementing something > > > co

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:48 AM Clement Verna wrote: > > > > On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 22:32, 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: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 6:04 AM Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 05:00 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > > > On top of that Gitlab is a huge Ruby on Rails application and (at least > > > > I have the feeling that) the Fedora community doesn't have so many Ruby > > > > developers in

Re: Bubblemail: looking for package maintainer

Hello Razer, I just joined the devel lists a few days ago and I could take up packaging if you want to. Regards, Javier From: Alexander Ploumistos Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 12:00 PM To: Development discussions related to Fedora Subject: Re: Bubblemai

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

Miro Hrončok wrote: > 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 included by several files it results in > multiple definitions of the same variabl

Re: Copr Build System - review of 2019 and vote for features in 2020

On 22. 01. 20 12:03, Kevin Kofler wrote: Kevin Kofler wrote: IMHO, this whole "delete by default" concept is inherently flawed and dangerous and cannot be fixed. Notification e-mails can be lost in so many ways (wrong Fedora notification settings, e-mail provider issues, spam filter false positi

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 6:06 AM Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:48 AM Clement Verna > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 22:32, Michael Catanzaro > > wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 4:04 pm, Neal Gompa wrote: > >> > And any discussion of GitHub isn

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 11:02, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 1:05 AM Peter Robinson > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:59 AM Dan Čermák > > wrote: > > > > > > Felix Schwarz writes: > > > > > > > Am 21.01.20 um 21:48 schrieb Guido Aulisi: > > > >> I totally agree with Fabio

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

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:12 PM Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Miro Hrončok wrote: > > 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 included by se

Re: ppc64le builds of Python failing with: Assembler messages: redefined symbol cannot be used on reloc

Build 40639489 is green, build 40790556 is red. One interesting difference is GCC 9.2.1 upgraded to GCC 10.0.1. I reported the bug to GCC: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93384 "redefined symbol cannot be used on reloc" smells like a GCC internal error, rather than a bug in the Pytho

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On 22. 01. 20 12:19, Neal Gompa wrote:>> We do need a better discoverability and visibility in the generic development community. But it is a solvable task: we can create a read-only mirror of our code on every common platform out there. We can use it as an opportunity to show what we do, but als

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:20 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 6:06 AM Aleksandra Fedorova > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:48 AM Clement Verna > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 22:32, Michael Catanzaro > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> On Tue, Jan

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

Heya, Currently we have two different pagure instances that hosts different use cases on them, and different use cases means different requirements, so first of all, about what use cases we are talking about? we have src.fp.o for distgit, some pagure.io projects that hosts actual code develo

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

On 22. 01. 20 12:33, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:12 PM Kevin Kofler wrote: Miro Hrončok wrote: 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 h

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 12:38, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 22. 01. 20 12:19, Neal Gompa wrote:>> We do need a better > discoverability and > visibility in the generic > >> development community. But it is a solvable task: we can create a > >> read-only mirror of our code on every common platform out

Re: Copr Build System - review of 2019 and vote for features in 2020

Miro Hrončok wrote: > Do you realize that copr is a free service (as in free beer in this > argument)? So is Fedora as a whole, yet it does not completely delete EOL releases, but puts them on archive.fedoraproject.org. Gratuity (the state of being free as in beer) is no excuse for deliberate d

Re: Copr Build System - review of 2019 and vote for features in 2020

On 22. 01. 20 13:05, Kevin Kofler wrote: Miro Hrončok wrote: Do you realize that copr is a free service (as in free beer in this argument)? So is Fedora as a whole, yet it does not completely delete EOL releases, but puts them on archive.fedoraproject.org. Gratuity (the state of being free as

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

* Aleksandra Fedorova: > If we go for splitting up use cases, than I'd like to highlight one thing: > > src.fedoraproject.org is not a GitForge, it is a centrally managed > code-review platform > > Git Forges play a lot with the idea of users being able to create > their own forks of the repos

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:38 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 22. 01. 20 12:19, Neal Gompa wrote:>> We do need a better discoverability > and > visibility in the generic > >> development community. But it is a solvable task: we can create a > >> read-only mirror of our code on every common platform

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On 22. 01. 20 13:12, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: I think that it would be more productive if you try to rationalize this opinion. I don't want to argue about the feeling you have, but I would be interested in comparing notes on what exactly "Gerrit workflow" means to you, and whether or not it is

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

Hello, Thanks for the thread. Lots of good stuff there. Would it be also OK to add a non technical requirement into the mix: - whatever we do choose, we stick to it for N years. I add this because an important reason for moving away from Pagure seems to be that we don't have the man-power to kee

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

* Aleksandra Fedorova: >> I even think sending patches over e-mail is probably better. > > I think that it would be more productive if you try to rationalize > this opinion. Gerrit makes it really hard to figure out your open tasks. You can see a list of the reviews you have “started” (unfortuna

Re: Copr Build System - review of 2019 and vote for features in 2020

On 2020-01-22 12:03, Kevin Kofler wrote: Kevin Kofler wrote: IMHO, this whole "delete by default" concept is inherently flawed and dangerous and cannot be fixed. Notification e-mails can be lost in so many ways (wrong Fedora notification settings, e-mail provider issues, spam filter false posi

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

* Miro Hrončok: > On 22. 01. 20 13:12, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: >> I think that it would be more productive if you try to rationalize this >> opinion. >> I don't want to argue about the feeling you have, but I would be >> interested in comparing notes on what exactly "Gerrit workflow" means >>

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On 22. 01. 20 11:21, Florian Weimer wrote: * Felix Schwarz: Personally I guess github would attract most contributions for Fedora from new contributors but it is closed source so I'd prefer gitlab for Fedora. I don't think Github allows disabling pull requests for projects. This means that a

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 1:25 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 22. 01. 20 13:12, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > I think that it would be more productive if you try to rationalize this > > opinion. > > I don't want to argue about the feeling you have, but I would be > > interested in comparing notes o

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

* Miro Hrončok: > On 22. 01. 20 11:21, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Felix Schwarz: >> >>> Personally I guess github would attract most contributions for Fedora >>> from new contributors but it is closed source so I'd prefer gitlab for >>> Fedora. >> >> I don't think Github allows disabling pull requ

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On 22. 01. 20 14:12, Florian Weimer wrote: * Miro Hrončok: On 22. 01. 20 11:21, Florian Weimer wrote: * Felix Schwarz: Personally I guess github would attract most contributions for Fedora from new contributors but it is closed source so I'd prefer gitlab for Fedora. I don't think Github a

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On 22. 01. 20 14:03, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: can we have the power, scalability and feature-richness of a platform like Gerrit, but (optionally) hidden under the hood so that there is a "simple mode" for people who just need a one-time contribution? I won't go there, becasue I don't think we

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

* Miro Hrončok: >> The red X isn't a relevant indicator. This commit was merged and has it, >> too: >> >> > > The red X doesn't mean “CLA not signed”, it means any CI has > failed. CPython allows merges with some CI failed, they have

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

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:42 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 22. 01. 20 12:33, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:12 PM Kevin Kofler > > wrote: > >> > >> Miro Hrončok wrote: > >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-10/porting_to.html#common > >>> > >>> "Default to -fno-common > >>> > >>> A

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 2:21 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 22. 01. 20 14:03, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > can we have the power, scalability and feature-richness of a platform > > like Gerrit, but (optionally) hidden under the hood so that there is a > > "simple mode" for people who just need a

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

On 22. 01. 20 14:34, Justin Forbes wrote: On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:42 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: On 22. 01. 20 12:33, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:12 PM Kevin Kofler wrote: Miro Hrončok wrote: https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-10/porting_to.html#common "Default to -fno-common A

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 05:00 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > And then there's the issue that we are not upstream and might > > > have to > > > maintain the integration as a downstream patch forever as > > > upstream might > > > not want it. > > > > They've provided pretty good support to various oth

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:08 AM Ernestas Kulik wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 05:00 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > And then there's the issue that we are not upstream and might > > > > have to > > > > maintain the integration as a downstream patch forever as > > > > upstream might > > > > not

Re: Copr Build System - review of 2019 and vote for features in 2020

On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 1:05:45 PM CET Kevin Kofler wrote: > Miro Hrončok wrote: > > Do you realize that copr is a free service (as in free beer in this > > argument)? > > So is Fedora as a whole, yet it does not completely delete EOL releases, > but puts them on archive.fedoraproject.org. >

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 09:12 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:08 AM Ernestas Kulik > wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 05:00 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > > And then there's the issue that we are not upstream and might > > > > > have to > > > > > maintain the integration as a

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 15:37, Ernestas Kulik wrote: > On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 09:12 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:08 AM Ernestas Kulik > > wrote: > > > On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 05:00 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > > > And then there's the issue that we are not upstream and

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:43 PM Clement Verna wrote: > > > > On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 15:37, Ernestas Kulik wrote: >> >> On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 09:12 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: >> > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:08 AM Ernestas Kulik >> > wrote: >> > > On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 05:00 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On 1/22/20 1:56 AM, Michal Konecny wrote: > If we go this way, in a few years we will end up in the same situation > as with Pagure today. We will have many custom patches (which we need > to take care of) and we will not have manpower to compete with the > features of other major git forges. Wh

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 10:22 AM Michael Watters wrote: > > > On 1/22/20 1:56 AM, Michal Konecny wrote: > > If we go this way, in a few years we will end up in the same situation > > as with Pagure today. We will have many custom patches (which we need > > to take care of) and we will not have man

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 13:51 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Miro Hrončok: > > > On 22. 01. 20 13:12, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > > I think that it would be more productive if you try to rationalize this > > > opinion. > > > I don't want to argue about the feeling you have, but I would be > >

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:00 am, Neal Gompa wrote: And there's this worry that GitLab will go the same path Transifex did. They have a ton of incentives to do so, and they already are starting to with the consideration of injecting nonfree JavaScript in all variants. Terrifying. Do you have a

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 10:46 AM Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:00 am, Neal Gompa wrote: > > And there's this worry that GitLab will go the same path Transifex > > did. They have a ton of incentives to do so, and they already are > > starting to with the consideration of i

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

> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 07:34:01 -0600 > From: Justin Forbes > Subject: Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of > ... > To: Development discussions related to Fedora > > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at

Package name

Hi all, I have a package [0] that requires python-magic [1]. During the review [3] the choosing of the package name 'python-python-magic' was questioned. The issue is that python-magic is already used by the binding for file. Are there any suggestions about the name of the package? Thanks. Kind

Re: Announcing multi-builds updates gating

On Tue, 2020-01-21 at 17:59 +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > Good Morning Everyone, > > We are pleased to announce that the work to gate rawhide packages has leveled > up! Cool! :) > > Back in July we announced the first phase where bodhi got the support to gate > single-build updates. We can n

Default bugzilla assignee

This documentation seems to be out of date: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/WhatHappenedToPkgdb#How_do_I_become_the_default_assignee_of_a_branch_in_bugzilla.3F I say that because the cited repository hasn't had commits since December 09. How do we set the default assignee of a bran

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:12 am, Neal Gompa wrote: I followed it pretty closely. In the GNOME case, you were willing to throw away Bugzilla, CGit, and older CI infrastructure to replace it with GitLab. To be clear, getting rid of Bugzilla was the goal, not a compromise. cgit is a nice interfa

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 11:37 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > they all picked GitLab CE. Hi, I do not want to pollute this thread with unrelated information, but for what it worth, I only recently realized that GitLab CE, the one hosted on GNOME, does not have searching working properly. I

Re: Announcing multi-builds updates gating

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 06:22:33PM +0100, Martin Kolman wrote: > On Tue, 2020-01-21 at 17:59 +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > Good Morning Everyone, > > > > We are pleased to announce that the work to gate rawhide packages has > > leveled > > up! > Cool! :) > > > > Back in July we announced

Re: Default bugzilla assignee

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:32:29PM -0500, Randy Barlow wrote: > This documentation seems to be out of date: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/WhatHappenedToPkgdb#How_do_I_become_the_default_assignee_of_a_branch_in_bugzilla.3F > > I say that because the cited repository hasn't had

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

Alexander Bokovoy writes: > On ti, 21 tammi 2020, Alex Scheel wrote: > >> For a period of time, IDM tried using Pagure for FreeIPA development. >> They filed a huge number of issues. Now we host issues on Pagure, and >> have moved development to GitHub. [*] I think we've mostly quit >> filing bug

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:58 PM Milan Crha wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 11:37 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > they all picked GitLab CE. > > Hi, > I do not want to pollute this thread with unrelated information, > but for what it worth, I only recently realized that GitLab CE, the

Re:gcc-10 Fortran argument mismatch issue

On Tue, 2020-01-21 at 20:41 +, devel- requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote: > -- > > Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 21:27:47 +0100 > From: Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski > Subject: Re: gcc-10 Fortran argument mismatch issue > To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Message-ID

1794117 – Disabling support for UDP for NFSv3

FYI... NFS over UDP will be deprecated in the 5.6 kernel. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1794117 Its not clear what or if any havoc this could cause but the commit (f745bfdc) has been accepted upstream. Just letting the community know... If by chance a bz is opened, please feel

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

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:42 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 22. 01. 20 12:33, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 12:12 PM Kevin Kofler > wrote: > >> > >> Miro Hrončok wrote: > >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-10/porting_to.html#common > >>> > >>> "Default to -fno-common > >>> > >>> A com

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

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 14:54, Christoph Junghans wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:42 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: >> >> jtaylornetsniff-ng ocaml-lablgtk suricata >> junghans gasnet > > Sorry, how do I install gcc10 on Rawhide? > "dnf upgrade --advisory=FEDORA-2020-a165791b6f" doesn't seem to

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

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 1:31 PM Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 14:54, Christoph Junghans > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:42 AM Miro Hrončok > wrote: > >> > > >> jtaylornetsniff-ng ocaml-lablgtk suricata > >> junghans gasnet > > > > Sorry, how do I install

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

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:58 PM Christoph Junghans wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 1:31 PM Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> >> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 14:54, Christoph Junghans wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:42 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: >> >> >> >> >> jtaylornetsniff-ng ocaml-l

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

On 1/21/20 6:35 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote: This is a known thing in gcc 10: https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-10/porting_to.html#common I have seen odd behavior in Wine with this change. Some code compiles successfully without requiring extern in x86 / x86_64 but the same code requires extern for armv7hl

Orphaning argyllcms

Hi all, I've orphaned argyllcms. The current version fails to build in Fedora 32 and I no longer use these tools. The Fedora package is also a few minor versions out of date. For anyone wanting to take over this package be aware upstream is pretty hostile for Linux packaging. For instance, you hav

[Test-Announce] Fedora 32 Rawhide 20200122.n.1 nightly compose nominated for testing

Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event for Fedora 32 Rawhide 20200122.n.1. Please help run some tests for this nightly compose if you have time. For more information on nightly release validation testing, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

Am 22.01.20 um 11:00 schrieb Neal Gompa: > Yes, but neither of those communities actually have terribly special > requirements. In fact, those communities either had *nothing* in terms > of infrastructure (FreeDesktop/Xorg) or were willing to throw > everything away for GitLab (GNOME). We would no

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:21 PM Felix Schwarz wrote: > > > Am 22.01.20 um 11:00 schrieb Neal Gompa: > > Yes, but neither of those communities actually have terribly special > > requirements. In fact, those communities either had *nothing* in terms > > of infrastructure (FreeDesktop/Xorg) or were w

Re: cjdns with gcc-10 in Fedora

On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 22:03 +, devel- requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote: > Send devel mailing list submissions to > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via email, send a message with subject or > body 'help' to > devel-requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org >

FedoraRespin-31-updates-20200122.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 2/35 (x86_64) ID: 512521 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso base_reboot_unmount URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/512521 ID: 512539 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso base_reboot_unmount URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/512539

Fedora-Rawhide-20200122.n.1 compose check report

No missing expected images. Compose PASSES proposed Rawhide gating check! All required tests passed Failed openQA tests: 14/158 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm) ID: 512575 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_cockpit_updates URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/512575 ID: 512586 Test: x86_64 S

Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 32 Rawhide 20200122.n.1 nightly compose nominated for testing

You can see all results, find testing instructions and image download locations, and enter results on the Summary page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_32_Rawhide_20200122.n.1_Summary On x86_64 the package gcc-c++ is available only at version 9.2.1-1.fc32.3 whose installation

Fedora-Cloud-30-20200123.0 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