New protobuf blocked by old protobuf from module [f32]

I'm trying to install gmic on my Fedora 32 system, which requries opencv, which requires protobuf 3.11 DNF refuses to install any of them though, because protobuf 3.11 is blocked by modularity: - package protobuf-3.11.2-2.fc32.i686 is filtered out by modular filtering - package protobuf-3.11.

Re: New protobuf blocked by old protobuf from module [f32]

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 12:43:37PM +0200, Igor Raits wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > On Mon, 2020-06-15 at 11:31 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > I'm trying to install gmic on my Fedora 32 system, which requries > > opencv, >

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 11:28:58AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Dne 18. 06. 20 v 21:40 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a): > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 3:34 PM John M. Harris Jr > > wrote: > >> The issues I've seen so far affect both Fedora and RHEL, but have gotten a > >> bit > >> better in Fedora. F

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 02:32:19PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > On Friday, 19 June 2020 at 11:58, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > [...] > > I can only see this being solvable if non-default modules streams are > > required to be built into a unique

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 11:16:33AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 9:08 AM Martin Jackson wrote: > > > > I use flatpaks on Fedora (Discord and okular), and I've really enjoyed > > the experience with them. I'm not sure how well that would translate to > > the server en

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers (~200 nodejs packages to be retired in 2 days)

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 02:36:20PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they > are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure > that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason: > https://fed

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 04:58:19PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > On 26.06.2020 16:42, Ben Cotton wrote: > > For laptop and workstation installs of Fedora, we want to provide file > > system features to users in a transparent fashion. We want to add new > > features, while reducing the am

Re: The future of legacy BIOS support in Fedora.

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 04:00:00PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: > > > Given Hans proposal [1] introduced systemd/grub2/Gnome upstream > > changes it beg the question if now would not be the time to stop > > supporting booting in legacy bios mode and move to uefi only sup

Re: The future of legacy BIOS support in Fedora.

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 04:32:44PM +0200, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: > W dniu 30.06.2020 o 16:27, Daniel P. Berrangé pisze: > > > KVM virt on aarch64 and x86 can support EFI via AVMF / OVMF firmware > > built from the edk2 project from a technical POV. > > > > Th

Re: The future of legacy BIOS support in Fedora.

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 04:25:58PM +0200, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: > W dniu 30.06.2020 o 16:20, Tom Hughes via devel pisze: > > On 30/06/2020 15:00, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> * Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: > >> > >>> Given Hans proposal [1] introduced systemd/grub2/Gnome upstream > >>> changes it beg

Re: The future of legacy BIOS support in Fedora.

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 04:23:59PM +0200, Felipe Borges wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 4:01 PM Florian Weimer wrote: > > > > * Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: > > > > > Given Hans proposal [1] introduced systemd/grub2/Gnome upstream > > > changes it beg the question if now would not be the time to stop >

Re: The future of legacy BIOS support in Fedora.

On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 12:01:08PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > On 01.07.2020 11:28, Alexey A. wrote: > > Stop using the L-word, please: BIOS is not "legacy", it's just > > alternative way (one of many). > > Using BIOS boot on UEFI-compatible systems is a legacy, because it works > und

Re: The future of legacy BIOS support in Fedora.

On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 05:50:05PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > Red Hat probably doesn't care because most server users are not using > UEFI yet. That statement is false. UEFI is absolutely important to server users. > That proportion goes down a lot as people transition from on > premise

Re: booting successfully with read-only file system

On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 03:53:26PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > Hi, > > this is partially an outgrowth of the discussion about btrfs as > default, but makes sense independently too... > > It would be great if we could fairly reliably boot with a read-only > root file system, all th

Re: The future of legacy BIOS support in Fedora.

On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 02:17:53PM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote: > On Wednesday, July 8, 2020 10:04:01 AM MST Richard Hughes wrote: > > On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 16:48, John M. Harris Jr > > wrote: > > > needlessly disables a lot of kernel functionality > > > > > > It disables functionality which

Re: Heads up: changing the subject format of change proposal announcements

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 12:18:51PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Ben Cotton wrote: > > As noted by Milan Crha, the existing format can result in threads that > > are hard to distinguish when the subject is truncated by the width of > > the mail client window. Screens are often pretty wide these days

Re: mingw GCC help needed: -fstack-protector and -lssp, undefined reference to `__strcpy_chk'

On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 12:07:38AM +0200, Sandro Mani wrote: > Hi > > I'm working on updating the mingw toolchain [1], and am hitting the > situation [2] where I build with -fstack-protector in the ldflags, can > confirm that -lssp and -lssp_nonshared are automatically added to the > ldflags (seen

Re: Non responsive packager: amitshah

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 10:36:48AM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > Good Morning Everyone, > > I have been trying to contact packagers without a proper bugzilla account > associated with their FAS email for a while now. The first email to > devel-announce > is from June 13th [1]. > > This is a

Re: Non responsive packager: amitshah

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 11:23:08AM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 10:01:00AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 10:36:48AM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > > Good Morning Everyone, > > > > > > I h

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 07:31:30PM -, Tom Seewald wrote: > For example with virtualization I'd think that the changes would need > to happen around the level of libvirt, and not to specific a front-end > like GNOME boxes or virt-manager. It's also probably not sufficient to > just set nodatacow

Re: Can we use emulation of other architectures to run integration tests?

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 12:24:19PM +0200, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > Hi, all, > > I'd like to get some understanding on the current state of emulation > of other architectures. > > In the current CI infra we have infinite(*) access to x86_64 compute > resources, but we haven't yet got our hands

Re: Can we use emulation of other architectures to run integration tests?

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 01:38:41PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Daniel P. Berrangé: > > > I'm not familiar with what COPR is doing for s39x0 ? Is it using the > > simple QEMU linux-user syscall emulation, or is it running a proper > > QEMU s390x VM. > > &

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:17:21AM +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Thank you for your patience while the CPE Team worked through an incredible > number of requirements from multiple stakeholder sources. On Friday evening > we announced on the Community Blog >

Re: CPE Weekly: 2020-04-04

On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 09:35:58AM -0400, Alex Scheel wrote: > - Original Message - > > From: "Nicolas Mailhot via devel" > > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > > > > Cc: "Nicolas Mailhot" > > Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 9:10:56 AM > > Subject: Re: CPE Weekly: 2020-04-04

Re: RFC: Feature macros (aka USE flags)

On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 01:19:29PM +0200, Petr Šabata wrote: > Based on the recent discussions around %fedora/%rhel macros and ELN, > and %bcond generally being confusing to work with, I came up with a > distribution-wide feature that defines generic feature keywords and > associated helper macros

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers (anaconda also affected)

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 11:47:33AM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote: > > On 4/28/20 22:15, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 08:01:31AM +0200, Dan Čermák wrote: > > > Sérgio Basto writes: > > > > > > > On Mon, 2020-04-27 at 12:39 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > > > GConf2 > > > > > > > >

Re: Is dist-git a good place for work?

On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 09:42:22AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2020-05-05 at 17:45 +0200, Tomas Tomecek wrote: > > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 1:41 PM Petr Pisar wrote: > > > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 12:41:06PM +0200, Tomas Tomecek wrote: > > > > Petr, I should have probably stressed that ou

Re: LibRaw 0.20 Beta; soname bump

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 12:12:01AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 11. 05. 20 22:33, Gwyn Ciesla via devel wrote: > > I'm building LibRaw 0.20 Beta 1 for rawhide, along with all direct > > consumers, in a multi-stage chain build, today, including the following: > > > > deepin-image-viewer > > elem

Re: Old changelog entries removal

On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 09:23:16AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 9:21 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel > wrote: > > > > Hello all. > > > > Is it possible to remove old %changelog entries from SPECs? I can't find > > information about this in Fedora packaging guidelines. > > Yes. F

Re: Old changelog entries removal

On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 09:51:01AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 02:47:27PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > FWIW, my approach is to purge all changelog entries older than 2 years > > the first time I touch a package in January each year. Is there a

Re: Old changelog entries removal

On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 10:21:37AM -0400, David Cantrell wrote: > On 10/3/19 10:16 AM, Chris Adams wrote: > > Once upon a time, Matthew Miller said: > > > I think rather than this, we should bite the bullet and remove changelogs > > > entirely from spec files. > > > > I find "rpm -q --changelog"

Re: Old changelog entries removal

On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 09:37:31AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Daniel P. Berrangé said: > > Or just add some RPM metadata tags to record the upstream SCM type + URL + > > branch / release tag, etc. The user can thus easily find the upstream > > full commit

Re: Old changelog entries removal

On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 01:12:10PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > "MM" == Matthew Miller writes: > > MM> Whether or not it's documented policy (and I can't remember or find > MM> anything either), many packages have the practice of trimming very > MM> old entries. > > You can't alway

Re: List of Python 2 packages to be removed mid-November

On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 04:24:02PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > ## What exactly is happening? > > The formal change proposal is here: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RetirePython2 > > Packages requiring Python 2 will be removed starting November 15 (unless > they have an exception). > Co

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Build Python 3 to statically link with libpython3.8.a for better performance

On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 01:23:09PM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Dne 15. 11. 19 v 10:21 Victor Stinner napsal(a): > > I'm not sure if we need a Fedora change just for a compiler flag. Again, > > the only drawback is that we will no longer be able to override a symbol > > using LD_PRELOAD. Honest

Re: Modularity and the system-upgrade path

On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 02:53:08PM -, Petr Pisar wrote: > On 2019-11-15, John M. Harris Jr wrote: > > On Friday, November 15, 2019 6:32:21 AM MST Petr Pisar wrote: > >> Example: I have Perl 5.26 as a default version. I have Perl 5.30 as an > >> laternative version. Now I want to package Bugzil

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Build Python 3 to statically link with libpython3.8.a for better performance

On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 09:51:45AM -0500, David Malcolm wrote: > On Fri, 2019-11-15 at 12:31 +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 01:23:09PM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > > Dne 15. 11. 19 v 10:21 Victor Stinner napsal(a): > > > > I'm

Re: RFC: Branch requests from non-maintainers

On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 01:55:55PM +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > Hello, > > 3 months ago, Miro opened releng ticket[0] raising question whether > non-maintainers (of some specific packages) being able to request > branches. > > However, it never went anywhere outside of that ticket. > > I'd like

Re: Heads up: rdma-core dropped support for 32-bit arm

On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 11:04:53PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote: > FYI: > > rdma-core 26.1-1.fc32 dropped support for %arm: > > # 32-bit arm is missing required arch-specific memory barriers, > ExcludeArch: %{arm} > > This broke dependecies for the arm package of openmpi > (https://bugzilla.redh

Re: Heads up: rdma-core dropped support for 32-bit arm

On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:37:06AM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > On Tuesday, 10 December 2019 at 11:14, Honggang LI wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 09, 2019 at 02:40:29PM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' > > Mierzejewski wrote: > [...] > > > Thanks for the background. I'm not questioning your decis

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers

On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 11:01:33AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they > are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure > that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason: > https://fed

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: x86-64 micro-architecture update

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 08:25:59AM -0400, Solomon Peachy wrote: > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 11:05:59AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > assume. And if you ask me, we should just stick to SSE2 as the baseline. > > Ie the status quo. > > > What are the big gains to be had from SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, and

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers (75 to be retired)

On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 09:25:54AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On 7/26/19 4:25 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: > > Proposal to really fix this. We often say that people should not feel they > > own a package, but that this is all a team effort, hence we also promote > > co-maintainer ship, so I propose th

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change: glusterfs dropping 32-bit arches

On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 03:56:19PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 05. 08. 19 15:36, Kaleb Keithley wrote: > > There is a proposal[1] in upstream GlusterFS to drop 32-bit arches. > > > > The original proposal was to drop 32-bit with GlusterFS-7. GlusterFS-7 > > will land in Fedora 31/rawhide soon.

Re: seabios / seabios-bin split in Fedora - why?

On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 03:14:15PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > I'm trying to package OpenSBI RISC-V firmware for Fedora > (https://github.com/riscv/opensbi). It's a similar situation to > SeaBIOS and other architecture firmware. We have to cross-compile a > binary on potentially any Koji a

Re: seabios / seabios-bin split in Fedora - why?

On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 04:22:33PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 08/08/19 16:14, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > I'm trying to package OpenSBI RISC-V firmware for Fedora > > (https://github.com/riscv/opensbi). It's a similar situation to > > SeaBIOS and other architecture firmware. We have to cr

Re: Does anybody care about gettext?

On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 02:28:55PM +0200, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote: > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 9:27 AM Igor Gnatenko < > ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > > Well, it was retired because it did not built since F30 mass rebuild… > > > > I went ahead and built it with the testsuite disable

Re: Does anybody care about gettext?

On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 03:13:07PM +0200, Martin Kolman wrote: > On Fri, 2019-08-09 at 14:00 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 02:28:55PM +0200, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 9:27 AM Igor Gnatenko < > > > ignatenko

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 11:36:10AM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > Good Morning Everyone, > > At Flock, a few of us met to discuss a future vision of the packager workflow. > This discussion was triggered by the realization that a number of initiatives > are happening around packaging in Fedora

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 04:24:29PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 02:57:45PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 11:36:10AM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > > Good Morning Everyone, > > > > > > At Flock,

Impact of dropping QEMU emulation on 32-bit hosts ? (~Fedora 33)

The upstream QEMU community is raising the possibility of deprecating, and subsequently deleting, support for running emulation guests on 32-bit *hosts*. Running 32-bit guests would *not* be affected. See this thread: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-09/msg06168.html IOW, if

Re: Defining the future of the packager workflow in Fedora

On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 12:40:42PM +0200, Martin Kolman wrote: > On Thu, 2019-09-26 at 16:24 +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 02:57:45PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 11:36:10AM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: &g

Re: Impact of dropping QEMU emulation on 32-bit hosts ? (~Fedora 33)

On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 01:26:09PM +0200, Jun Aruga wrote: > > Does anyone know of, or have, any critical/important use cases that would > be disrupted by QEMU dropping 32-bit *host* support ? If so, let me know > here & I can forward feedback on. Or feel free to go direct to QEMU thread > upstream

Re: Impact of dropping QEMU emulation on 32-bit hosts ? (~Fedora 33)

On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 10:53:32AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 8:30 AM Daniel P. Berrangé > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 01:26:09PM +0200, Jun Aruga wrote: > > > > Does anyone know of, or have, any critical/important use case

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Enable fstrim.timer by default

On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 11:05:43AM -0500, Robbie Harwood wrote: > Nico Kadel-Garcia writes: > > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 2:48 PM Robbie Harwood wrote: > >> "John M. Harris Jr" writes: > >>> On Friday, December 20, 2019 10:59:52 AM MST Chris Murphy wrote: > >>> > Issuing the command once pe

Re: Ideas for better development processes when maintaining hundreds of packages

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 11:32:46AM +0100, Guido Aulisi wrote: > Il giorno mar 28 gen 2020 alle ore 10:04 Richard W.M. Jones > ha scritto: > > > > I always think that Fedora works fine if you maintain 1-5 packages. > > It's possible to maintain 20 with a lot of work. And if you want to > > maintai

Re: Ideas for better development processes when maintaining hundreds of packages

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 09:26:43AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 02:06:40PM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > My main concern is that we have been coming up with 'standard' > > proposals for 20 years and we can't seem to get more than any 4 > > maintainers to agree

Re: RFC: Security policy adjustments to make it easier to implement and more friendly to maintainers

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:20:48AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 08:39:05AM +0530, Huzaifa Sidhpurwala wrote: > > Do we want to continue the same condition as described here: > > https://mivehind.net/2020/01/28/Fedora-has-too-many-security-bugs/ > > Maybe? > > The pro

Re: RFC: Security policy adjustments to make it easier to implement and more friendly to maintainers

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 02:28:30PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > Ignoring low bugs also probably isn't a viable stragegy > > for EPEL, because that's a long life distro stream, and > > so won't automatically get low CVE fixes via a

Re: RFC: Security policy adjustments to make it easier to implement and more friendly to maintainers

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 08:46:55AM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote: > Not replying to anyone in particular but to the thead as a whole... > > 1. Nothing in the packager introduction process prepares a packager for > what to do when they get a CVE filed against one of their packages. I found > the whole

Re: Ceph license change

On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 11:26:46PM +0530, Kaleb Keithley wrote: > Coming in Ceph-15 (octopus) > > From: LGPL-2.1 and CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GPL-2.0 and BSL-1.0 and BSD-3-Clause > and MIT > To: LGPL-2.1 and LGPL-3.0 and CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GPL-2.0 and BSL-1.0 and > BSD-3-Clause and MIT Do you have inf

Re: Ceph license change

On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 03:39:14PM +0530, Kaleb Keithley wrote: > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 11:35 PM Daniel P. Berrangé > wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 11:26:46PM +0530, Kaleb Keithley wrote: > > > Coming in Ceph-15 (octopus) > > > > > > From: LGP

Re: Ceph license change

On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 01:01:24PM +, Sage Weil wrote: > On Tue, 4 Feb 2020, Kaleb Keithley wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 11:35 PM Daniel P. Berrangé > > wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 11:26:46PM +0530, Kaleb Keithley wrote: >

Re: swap-on-ZRAM by default

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 09:05:27PM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote: > On Monday, February 10, 2020 12:03:25 PM MST Robbie Harwood wrote: > > "John M. Harris Jr" writes: > > > On Saturday, January 25, 2020 2:52:05 PM MST Chris Murphy wrote: > > >> Question and (pre)proposal: > > >> > > >> Can Fedor

Re: Creation of pkgconfig file for libraries that do not ship one

On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 12:03:01PM +0100, Guido Aulisi wrote: > Hi, > can we create a pkgconfig file for libraries that do not ship one? > I did not find anything about that in our packaging policy. > > A bug was filed [0] about a missing pkgconfig file for zita-convolver > library and I'm thinkin

Re: GCC-10 is blocking tests on my package

On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 10:26:56AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 05. 03. 20 9:12, jkone...@redhat.com wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > > > I'm co-maintaining package of kakoune and this package have failing > > build on F32 and Rawhide because of tests. > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bu

Re: [HEADS UP] Ceph-14.x.x, dropping 32-bit archs

On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 08:45:19AM -0500, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote: > On 12/5/18 8:34 AM, Dan Horák wrote: > > On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 14:23:49 +0100 > > Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: > > > >> W dniu 05.12.2018 o 14:14, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY pisze: > >> > >>> Ceph 14.x.x (Nautilus) will no longer be built on i

Re: Fedora Lifecycles: imagine longer-term possibilities

On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 02:48:32PM +, Petr Pisar wrote: > On 2018-12-06, Florian Weimer wrote: > > In a sense, it's the old discussion between explicit rename recording > > and rename detection. I think it's clear by now that rename detection > > has won. > > > Can you give us some example of

Re: Unannounced soname bump: libcapstone.so.3 -> libcapstone.so.4

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 09:24:12AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 09:14:29AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1178711 > > > > This broke qemu, and indirectly libvirt. > > > > I will submit a new build for q

Re: Unannounced soname bump: libcapstone.so.3 -> libcapstone.so.4

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 09:30:29AM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 09:24:12AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 09:14:29AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > > > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koj

Re: Unannounced soname bump: libcapstone.so.3 -> libcapstone.so.4

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 09:40:59AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 09:30:29AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 09:24:12AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 09:14:29AM +, Richar

Re: Fw: Re: OUTAGE: Koji system 2019-01-11 -> 2019-01-14

On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 04:38:37PM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On 1/13/19 4:11 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 at 14:51, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > >> During this time the s390 builders will not be available and all > >> builds will be queued up until they are available and will n

Re: Fw: Re: OUTAGE: Koji system 2019-01-11 -> 2019-01-14

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 02:11:38PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Dne 14. 01. 19 v 13:59 Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a): > > On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 04:38:37PM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > >> On 1/13/19 4:11 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > >>> On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 at

Re: [Late] F30 System-Wide Change proposal: GCC9

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 03:16:56PM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote: > [This proposal was submitted after the deadline. I am announcing it > for community discussion and will leave the decision on whether or not > to grant an exception to FESCo] > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GCC9 > > == Summa

Re: [Late] F30 System-Wide Change proposal: GCC9

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 01:56:19PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 12:51:25PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > Libvirt has hit a problem with -Wjump-misses-init newly reporting bogus > > warnings for code using anonymous struct initializers dur

Re: [Late] F30 System-Wide Change proposal: GCC9

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 02:12:03PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 01:04:25PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > The variable was already initialized right at the start. The compound > > literal is just a short-hand for later changing the values in several &g

How to re-enable all languages in Fedora container images ?

The Fedora docker container images are built to exclude all gettext messages files except for the "en" locale. What is the "right" way to undo this restriction so that RPM installs the full RPM contents without stripping anything out. Just deleting /etc/rpm/macros.image-language-conf lets future

Re: FYI https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CGroupsV2

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 08:10:09AM -0500, Daniel Walsh wrote: > I have opened a Change Request to change the defaults for Fedora 31 to > Cgroups V2.  I am looking for what packages will be affected by this > change.   Basically any package that adjusts Cgroups via the CgroupFS, > my understanding i

Re: libvirt uninstallable in F30 Koji because of broken ceph dep

On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 08:29:52AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 08:02:00AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > DEBUG util.py:554: BUILDSTDERR: Error: > > DEBUG util.py:554: BUILDSTDERR: Problem: package > > libvirt-daemon-kvm-5.1.0-1.fc30.x86_64 requires > > lib

Re: On not bumping the epoch in ceph-14, f30 and f31/rawhide

On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 03:07:09PM -0500, Kaleb Keithley wrote: > The epoch was inadvertently bumped (not by me) when ceph was rebased to > 14.x in f30/rawhide. > > I reset it to 1 in subsequent builds. Now adamwill is running builds with > it bumped to 2 again. > > I would prefer that it not be

Re: On not bumping the epoch in ceph-14, f30 and f31/rawhide

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 09:29:52AM -0400, Kaleb Keithley wrote: > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 7:35 AM Daniel P. Berrangé > wrote: > > > The ability to have multiple different builds of the same software which > > users can choose between, sounds alot like the use case for mo

Re: Non-responsive maintainer Chris Lalancette (clalance)

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:11:01AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1659737 > > Anyone knows how to contact the maintainer? According to git history Chris hasn't touched that package in dist-git since the very first import in 2011, so is likely the wrong pe

Re: F31 System-Wide Change proposal: Enable Compiler Security hardening flags by default in G

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 01:56:14PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/HardenedCompiler > > == Summary == > By Default enable a few security hardening flags which are used with GCC. > > == Owner == > * Name: [[User:huzaifas|Huzaifa Sidhpurwala]] > * Email: huzai...@r

Re: F31 System-Wide Change proposal: Enable Compiler Security hardening flags by default in G

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 12:21:29PM +, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 13/03/2019 12:00, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 01:56:14PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > > > > > | 1 || -Wformat || Check calls to "printf" and "scanf", etc., to make

/dev/net/tun no longer exists in F31 rawhide ?

Historically in Fedora the /dev/net/tun device always existed, even if there is no 'tun' module currently loaded. Opening it then cause the 'tun' kernel module to autoload IIUC. In Fedora 31 rawhide this is no longer the case. The /dev/net/tun device node doesn't exist at all in a fresh install.

Re: /dev/net/tun no longer exists in F31 rawhide ?

On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 02:23:12PM +, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 18/03/2019 14:07, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > Historically in Fedora the /dev/net/tun device always existed, even if > > there is no 'tun' module currently loaded. Opening it then cause the > &g

Re: /dev/net/tun no longer exists in F31 rawhide ?

On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 02:33:20PM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 02:23:12PM +, Tom Hughes wrote: > > On 18/03/2019 14:07, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > > Historically in Fedora the /dev/net/tun device always existed, even if > &

Re: auto-starting libvirtd on Workstation

On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 09:14:18PM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: > On 4/9/19 1:00 PM, Cole Robinson wrote: > > On 4/9/19 2:20 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > On Di, 09.04.19 10:11, Adam Williamson (adamw...@fedoraproject.org) wrote: > > > > > > > Basically, anything that's part of the install

Re: Can we maybe reduce the set of packages we install by default a bit?

On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 02:55:51PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote: > On 4/9/19 2:24 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > On Di, 09.04.19 14:16, Cole Robinson (crobi...@redhat.com) wrote: > > > >> On 4/9/19 1:09 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > >>> On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 06:07:09PM +0200, Lennart

Re: Can we maybe reduce the set of packages we install by default a bit?

On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 03:57:30PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Do, 11.04.19 11:18, Daniel P. Berrangé (berra...@redhat.com) wrote: > > > > I don't know off hand of anything that would prevent it. Libvirt does > > > process events from running qemu VMs

Re: Autoconf help: missing X11 dependency

On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 02:11:14PM -, Lukas Zapletal wrote: > Hello, > > my package "workrave" won't build with Rawhide, configure script complains: > > checking for X... no > configure: error: X11 required on Unix platform > > However it keeps complaining even when I add BuildRequires: libX

Re: Can we maybe reduce the set of packages we install by default a bit?

On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 12:48:13PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 9, 2019, at 12:07 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > Heya, > > > > today I installed the current Fedora 30 Workstation beta on my new > > laptop. It was a bumpy ride, I must say (the partitioner (blivet?) > > crashed

Re: Can we maybe reduce the set of packages we install by default a bit?

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 10:38:18AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Di, 16.04.19 09:06, Adam Williamson (adamw...@fedoraproject.org) wrote: > > > > I think all of these are good ideas. "No udev-settle" seems like a nice > > > highlevel goal to shoot for. > > > > > > Another one I might add: "

Re: Can we maybe reduce the set of packages we install by default a bit?

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 10:55:58AM -0400, Steve Grubb wrote: > On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 4:38:18 AM EDT Lennart Poettering wrote: > > On Di, 16.04.19 09:06, Adam Williamson (adamw...@fedoraproject.org) wrote: > > > > > > > > I think all of these are good ideas. "No udev-settle" seems like a >

Re: On GCL and libselinux

On Sun, May 05, 2019 at 06:49:30PM -0600, Jerry James wrote: > Awhile back, I mentioned that GCL was building in mock on my local > machine, but was segfaulting on the koji builders. By dint of much > experimentation, I now know what is going on. For the enlightenment > of anybody who cares: > >

Re: [Late] F30 System-Wide Change proposal: GCC9

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 10:44:45PM +0200, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 7:57 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > > Sorry for digging up this thread, but since this is a recurring change > > > it appears that the mass rebuild is not enough by itself. As of today > > > lcov doesn't w

Re: Making Fedora secure - Package exit policy for security

On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 01:49:13PM +0530, Huzaifa Sidhpurwala wrote: > On 08/01/2018 01:19 PM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: > > On Tue, 2018-07-31 at 09:09 +0530, Huzaifa Sidhpurwala wrote: > >> Hi All, > >> > >> I was asked to bring this issue[1] to the developer community before > >> FESCO make

Re: Making Fedora secure - Package exit policy for security

On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 01:54:21PM +0530, Huzaifa Sidhpurwala wrote: > On 08/01/2018 02:16 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 10:40:20AM +0530, Huzaifa Sidhpurwala wrote: > >> On 07/31/2018 08:51 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > >>> Then, fro

Re: Library ABI change

On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 09:30:39AM +0200, Guido Aulisi wrote: > recently serd library changed its ABI adding 1 function without > bumping the soname. There's totally normal. It merely added to its ABI - it didn't change existing ABI so nothing will break. soname change is only for when the library

Re: Linking commits to builds on dist-git

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:00:46AM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > Good Morning Everyone, > > Since koji 1.15 released last December, koji has a dedicated field for each > build > storing the entire source URL with git hash, regardless of how the build was > started. > This allows us to know f

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >