Dne 19. 01. 21 v 19:37 Kalev Lember napsal(a):
On 1/19/21 18:03, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 5:43 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
For issues that are not Fedora-specific, the best place to report
issues and reach developers is usually at
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME
What is the b
On 26. 01. 21 3:12, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
Miro Hrončok wrote:
1. Untested changes
Packager pushes a "simple update" to dist git without checking if it even
builds. It doesn't. Packager has no time to fix this, so they move on for
now. Or they submit a build but never check if it actuall
Hello packagers,
if you have rpmdevtools-9.3-2.fc33 (or .fc34) installed and you run `spectool
-g` on spec files with remote text sources/patches, such as git(hub|lab)/pagure
patches, or signatures/keys:
Patch1: https://pagure.io/rpmdevtools/pull-request/77.patch
Patch2: https://github.com/
Dne 25. 01. 21 v 23:20 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
I wonder if related to this, we couldn't make koschei opt-out only.
ie, just add everything to it and ask people who don't want to to
specifically opt out.
+1. What do we need for this to make it happen. Mikolaj, any thoughts?
Vít
OpenPGP_0
On Mon, 2021-01-25 at 08:43 -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 06:03, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > On Sun, 2021-01-24 at 17:45 -0800, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> >
> > > On 1/24/21 5:40 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> >
> > > > On Sun, 2021-01-24 at 16:42 -0800, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> >
>
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 01:59:59PM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 12:19:13PM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 8:55 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 08:21:48PM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 7:54 PM
On 26. 01. 21 11:46, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 25. 01. 21 v 23:20 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
I wonder if related to this, we couldn't make koschei opt-out only.
ie, just add everything to it and ask people who don't want to to
specifically opt out.
+1. What do we need for this to make it happen. M
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 10:35:44AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 10:31 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >
> > On 25. 01. 21 16:19, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > > I'm fully in favor of this and I'd really like to see us add some
> > > degree of CI gating to support it.
> >
> > N
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 03:12:50AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> IMHO, the real issue is the one Robbie Harwood pointed out: It should NOT be
> a common occurrence for a provenpackager to have to rebuild a package, and
> in particular, provenpackagers should NOT do scripted mass changes.
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 11:36:09AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Hello packagers,
>
> if you have rpmdevtools-9.3-2.fc33 (or .fc34) installed and you run
> `spectool -g` on spec files with remote text sources/patches, such
> as git(hub|lab)/pagure patches, or signatures/keys:
>
> Patch1: https://
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021, at 6:27 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 03:12:50AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> > IMHO, the real issue is the one Robbie Harwood pointed out: It should NOT
> > be
> > a common occurrence for a provenpackager to have to rebuild a package, a
Hi,
https://mirrors.tuna.tsinghua.edu.cn/fedora/releases/33/Everything/x86_64/os/Packages/r/
Let take packages start with 'r' for example. There are 841 x86_64
packages and 247 i686 packages availeble for Fedora-33. That means
only 29% components have x86_64 and i686 build available at the same
t
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:10 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> For rawhide, and branched (prerelease) yes, changes likely would need to
> be there.
> For updates its the infrastructure ansible repo.
>
Sigh.
So, IMHO, tickets for this should be filed as releng tickets
> and folks should note which they a
On 26.01.2021 13:24, Honggang LI wrote:
What is the rule to concurrently select both x86_64 and i686 build
for Fedora X86_64 platform?
Fedora ships only i686 packages for multilib support (e.g. Wine and Steam).
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 at 07:00, Colin Walters wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021, at 6:27 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 03:12:50AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> > > IMHO, the real issue is the one Robbie Harwood pointed out: It should
> NOT be
> > > a common occu
Florian Weimer wrote:
> This is currently not a major consideration for system call design. We
> can't add this downstream from the kernel if support just isn't there.
> You have to solve these issues for porting to other architectures
> anyway.
So the upstream Linux kernel does not care about se
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 1:49 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On 26.01.2021 13:24, Honggang LI wrote:
> > What is the rule to concurrently select both x86_64 and i686 build
> > for Fedora X86_64 platform?
>
> Fedora ships only i686 packages for multilib support
The change complete (testable) deadline for Fedora 34 changes is
Tuesday 9 February. At this point, changes should be in a testable
state. Please indicate this by setting the tracker bug for your change
to MODIFIED.
Other upcoming schedule milestones:
* 2021-02-09 — Fedora 34 branches from Rawhide
* Kevin Kofler via devel:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
>> This is currently not a major consideration for system call design. We
>> can't add this downstream from the kernel if support just isn't there.
>> You have to solve these issues for porting to other architectures
>> anyway.
>
> So the upstream
Hi,
as there is a small problem with pinephones and grub2-efi, heres how to
fix it:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919907
Problem:
[root@fedorapine boot]# rpm -U
/var/cache/dnf/rawhide-135a69fc59e3201d/packages/grub2-efi-aa64-2.04-34.fc34.aarch64.rpm
Fehler: Entpacken des Arch
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 06:58:28AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> I've linked my
> https://github.com/projectatomic/rpmdistro-gitoverlay/blob/master/doc/reworking-fedora-releng.md
> plan a few times.
It's an interesting proposal. I do have a couple of questions
or points of view though:
How large
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 01:53:53PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 06:58:28AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> > I've linked my
> > https://github.com/projectatomic/rpmdistro-gitoverlay/blob/master/doc/reworking-fedora-releng.md
> > plan a few times.
>
> It's an interesting
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 12:57 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 11:36:09AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > Hello packagers,
> >
> > if you have rpmdevtools-9.3-2.fc33 (or .fc34) installed and you run
> > `spectool -g` on spec files with remote text sources/patches, s
This build appears to have failed due to build disk space issues:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1677212
{standard input}: Fatal error: can't close .libs/cpl_google_cloud.o: No
space left on device
make[1]: *** [../GDALmake.opt:652: cpl_google_cloud.lo] Error 1
make: ***
The subject, of course, should have read *two* weeks. My coffee intake
has been adjusted accordingly.
--
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
___
devel-announce mailing list --
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 4:45 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 26. 01. 21 3:12, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> > Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >> 1. Untested changes
> >>
> >> Packager pushes a "simple update" to dist git without checking if it even
> >> builds. It doesn't. Packager has no time to fix this,
On 26. 01. 21 15:52, Alexander Scheel wrote:
Well, I understand your sentiment against mass spec changes, but there are
cases, where it currently cannot be avoided (e.-g. when a targeted mass rebuild
is needed for a soname bump). W.g. when we update Python from 3.9 to 3.10 we
will need to rebuild
On 25/01/21 15:16 +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 5:10 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 02:17:28PM -0500, Mohan Boddu wrote:
> We are delaying the mass rebuild by a day as of now due to bugs in gcc
> and dwz. As of now, we are expecting to start mass rebuil
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 4:47 PM Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
>
> On 25/01/21 15:16 +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> >On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 5:10 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 02:17:28PM -0500, Mohan Boddu wrote:
> >> > We are delaying the mass rebuild by a day as of now due
On 25/01/21 13:42 -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 13:30, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 07:19:45PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 25. 01. 21 19:03, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 03:59:43PM +0100, Miro Hrončo
On 25/01/21 19:58 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 25. 01. 21 19:32, Robbie Harwood wrote:
It seems to me that this problem would be better solved by making
rebuilds smarter. Instead of building tip of dist-git (which might
never have been build), rebuild the last thing that *was* successfully
bui
On 25/01/21 11:40 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 04:43:21PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
But that would involve at least six new steps that would've to be
automated: 1) Creating a fork on src.fp.o (plus error handling around
already existing forks), 2) Cloning the fork ins
On 26/01/21 03:12 +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
Miro Hrončok wrote:
1. Untested changes
Packager pushes a "simple update" to dist git without checking if it even
builds. It doesn't. Packager has no time to fix this, so they move on for
now. Or they submit a build but never check if it ac
On 26/01/21 16:52 +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 4:47 PM Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
On 25/01/21 15:16 +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 5:10 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 02:17:28PM -0500, Mohan Boddu wrote:
>> > We are delaying
On 1/26/21 9:13 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 26/01/21 16:52 +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 4:47 PM Jonathan Wakely
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 25/01/21 15:16 +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
>>> >On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 5:10 PM Jakub Jelinek
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, J
On Thu, 2021-01-07 at 09:25 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hey folks!
>
> So here's an idea I was thinking about over the RH shutdown: I propose
> we gate stable release critical path updates on the openQA tests.
A further update on this: FESCo has voted on it and approved it:
https://pagure.io/
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 03:59:18PM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 25/01/21 19:58 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >On 25. 01. 21 19:32, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> >>It seems to me that this problem would be better solved by making
> >>rebuilds smarter. Instead of building tip of dist-git (which might
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:51:13AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>
> Did those machines have zram, zswap, and/or normal swap enabled?
> (I looked at the dmesg attached in bugzilla, and it's only mentions
> zswap being loaded...)
The f33 ones had zram... but I also tried disabling it a
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 01:24:28PM +0100, Kamil Paral wrote:
>
> Here's one:
> https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issue/849
>
> Here's a second one, but yesterday I found out that there was a related PR
> merged, so I updated it:
> https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issue/811
>
> A third one:
> https://
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 02:34:57PM +0100, Kamil Paral wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 1:49 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel <
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
> > On 26.01.2021 13:24, Honggang LI wrote:
> > > What is the rule to concurrently select both x86_64 and i686 build
> > > for Fedora
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 07:24:35AM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> This build appears to have failed due to build disk space issues:
>
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1677212
>
> {standard input}: Fatal error: can't close .libs/cpl_google_cloud.o: No
> space left on device
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 6:08 AM wrote:
>
> You are kindly invited to the meeting:
>Prioritized bugs and issues on 2021-01-27 from 11:00:00 to 12:00:00
> America/Indiana/Indianapolis
>At fedora-meet...@irc.freenode.net
>
> More information available at:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fe
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:52 AM Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 4:47 PM Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
> >
> > On 25/01/21 15:16 +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > >On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 5:10 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 02:17:28PM -0500, Mohan Bod
Dne 26. 01. 21 v 18:32 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 03:59:18PM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 25/01/21 19:58 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 25. 01. 21 19:32, Robbie Harwood wrote:
It seems to me that this problem would be better solved by making
rebuilds sma
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:50:33AM +, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> So to save storage maybe just archive 2 or 3 Respins: workstation , KDE
> and XFCE and specially not archive source repsin , we can get the
> sources by other means
So... you may want to ask the respins sig if they have old versio
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 01:18:37PM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
> There are no nominated bugs. We will review the following accepted
> prioritized bugs:
I've got an internal all-day meeting (whee) and may or may not make this
depending on what is going on during that hour.
--
Matthew Miller
Fedora
So, the thread here kind of fell quiet with everything else going on.
It seems clear there's issues to address here before this change might
get approved. Here's my list:
* Try and change the storage format of the signatures to not take up
tons of room. I guess this would be in ima tools and si
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 1:45 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> It seems clear there's issues to address here before this change might
> get approved. Here's my list:
>
Given the schedule, it seems like this should be retargeted for F35.
I'm not sure if your list has that assumption in mind.
> * Get rpm u
On Tue, 2021-01-26 at 10:32 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:50:33AM +, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > So to save storage maybe just archive 2 or 3 Respins: workstation ,
> > KDE
> > and XFCE and specially not archive source repsin , we can get the
> > sources by other means
>
On Tue, 2021-01-26 at 10:32 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> you may want to ask the respins sig if they have old versions
>
> around anywhere? I think you can find them in #fedora-respins
> freenode
>
> channel.
yeah , in topic of the fedora-respins channel show a link for some old
respins .
Thank
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:44:05AM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> So, the thread here kind of fell quiet with everything else going on.
>
> It seems clear there's issues to address here before this change might
> get approved. Here's my list:
>
> * Try and change the storage format of the signatur
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:44:05AM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> * Try and change the storage format of the signatures to not take up
> tons of room. I guess this would be in ima tools and sigul?
Is this an immediate issue given that it only affects systems where the
plugin is enabled?
> * Get rpm
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 3:44 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:44:05AM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > * Try and change the storage format of the signatures to not take up
> > tons of room. I guess this would be in ima tools and sigul?
>
> Is this an immediate issue given that
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 03:46:49PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:44:05AM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > * Try and change the storage format of the signatures to not take up
> > > tons of room. I guess this would be in ima tools and sigul?
> >
> > Is this an immediate issu
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 4:16 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 03:46:49PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:44:05AM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > > * Try and change the storage format of the signatures to not take up
> > > > tons of room. I guess this w
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021, 3:47 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 3:44 PM Matthew Miller
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:44:05AM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > * Try and change the storage format of the signatures to not take up
> > > tons of room. I guess this would be in i
On Mon, 2021-01-25 at 11:40 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 04:43:21PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > But that would involve at least six new steps that would've to be
> > automated: 1) Creating a fork on src.fp.o (plus error handling
> > around
> > already existing forks)
On Fri, 2021-01-15 at 05:52 -0500, PGNet Dev wrote:
> dhcpcd client pkgs @Fedora
>
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dhcpcd
>
> are years out of date, currently versioned at
>
> Fedora 33 dhcpcd-6.11.3-11.fc33
> Fedora 32 dhcpcd-6.11.3-10.fc32
>
> as pe
On Tuesday, January 26, 2021 7:44:05 PM CET Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> * Get rpm updated at least in all Fedora's / active RHEL's to be able to
> handle rpms with the signatures. I don't know how likely this is for
> rhel7, but 8 and fedora 32 should hopefully not be hard.
Yes, no need to fix RHEL 7 --
On Tuesday, January 26, 2021 9:46:49 PM CET Neal Gompa wrote:
> Yes. This is breaking *everything*. Regardless of whether the plugin
> is installed, RPM now thinks the generated packages are invalid and
> cannot do anything with them. This has also broken package builds on
> COPR and the openSUSE B
60 matches
Mail list logo
