On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 07:33 +, devel-requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
> --
>
> Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2020 09:16:21 +0200
> From: Frantisek Zatloukal
> Subject: Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: CompilerPolicy
>
On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 14:38 +, devel-requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
>
> Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2020 15:23:57 +0100
> From: "Richard W.M. Jones"
> Subject: Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: CompilerPolicy
> Change
> To: Development discussions related to Fedora
>
> Cc:
On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 12:27 +, devel-requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 10:14 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On 04/06/20 16:30 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CompilerPolicy
> > [snip]
> > > == Documentation ==
> > > Severa
On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 12:27 +, devel-requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
>
> Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2020 08:26:04 -0400
> From: Neal Gompa
> Subject: Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: CompilerPolicy
> Change
> To: Development discussions related to Fedora
>
> Cc: Vitaly Zai
gt;
>1. Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: CompilerPolicy Change
> (Mark Wielaard)
>2. Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: CompilerPolicy Change
> (Josh Boyer)
>3. Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: swap on zram
> (Igor Raits)
&g
On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 10:51 +, devel-requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
> Send devel mailing list submissions to
>
> Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2020 12:42:03 +0200
> From: Florian Weimer
> Subject: Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: CompilerPolicy
> Change
> To: Igor Raits
> Cc: Dev
On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 10:51 +, devel-requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
>
> Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2020 12:42:30 +0200
> From: Vitaly Zaitsev
> Subject: Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: CompilerPolicy
> Change
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Message-ID: <08a3d005-da6e-248f
On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 16:23 +, devel-requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
> Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:15:39 -0500
> From: Steven Munroe
> Subject: Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: CompilerPolicy
> Change
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type
On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 10:22 +, devel-requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
> Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:19:54 +0200
>
> From: Jakub Jelinek
>
> Subject: Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: CompilerPolicy
>
> Change
>
> To: Development discussions related to Fedora
>
>
a has historically forced packages to build with GCC unless the
> > > upstream project for the package only supported Clang/LLVM. This
> > > change proposal replaces that policy with one where compiler selection
> > > for Fedora follows the package's upstream preferen
On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 14:57 +, devel-requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
> Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2020 07:56:57 -0700
>
> From: Tom Stellard
>
> Subject: Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: CompilerPolicy
>
> Change
>
> To: Development discussions related to Fedora
>
>
On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 14:11 +, devel-requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
> Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2020 14:16:58 +0100
>
> From: Ian McInerney
>
> Subject: Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: CompilerPolicy
>
> Change
>
> To: Development discussions related to Fedora
>
>
l replaces that policy with one where compiler selection
> > for Fedora follows the package's upstream preferences.
> >
> > == Owner ==
> > * Name: Jeff Law
> > * Email: l...@redhat.com
>
> I am opposed to this change. Chromium and Firefox build fine with
On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 19:23 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Jeff Law:
>
> > I'm not suggesting switching the default. I'm suggesting the compiler
> > choice be made by the upstream projects. Some prefer LLVM, others
> > prefer GCC. Fedora should get out
On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 19:31 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Ben Cotton:
>
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CompilerPolicy
> >
> > == Summary ==
> > Fedora has historically forced packages to build with GCC unless the
> > upstream project for the package only supported Clang/LLVM. This
On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 20:51 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Jeff Law:
>
> > As we both know, GCC has had ABI bugs as well. Both compilers strive
> > to be ABI compatible with each other and we should continue to work
> > together to find and address such issues.
> On Thu, 2020-06-04 at 16:30 -0400, Igor Raits wrote:
> ...
>
> Sadly some upstreams insist on clang just because they like it more,
> without any technical reason. The question that comes to my mind:
> Should we still try to convince upstreams to use GCC in such cases or
> not?
It happens (choos
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 09:52 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> ...
>
> Since I was not sure if clang is supported by Red Hat Toolchain team in
> the same way as GCC, I've asked this in my reply. If they are supported
> in the same manner (maintain
> On 05/06/20 10:26 +0200, Igor Raits wrote:
> ...
> > Well, upstreams are not necessarily enabling many security features
> > or
> > optimizations. So you are effectively saying "upstream knows better"
> > where I would have to disagree with you.
>
> Yes, this is a very good point.
>
> Many of
On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 21:18 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 9:11 PM Jeff Law wrote:
> > Yes. I thought we bumped up that bug in the database so that it'd get some
> > attention in the gcc-10 cycle. But I couldn't follow it myself, so I don'
On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 22:07 +0200, Igor Raits wrote:
>
> Just curious, how is it done in RHEL? Just some kind of CI that
> analyses all builds or?
So we have a step that sits between the build phase and when the resultant
packages land in the distro which runs annocheck to validate options used, C
On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 16:09 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 13:58 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 21:18 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 9:11 PM Jeff Law wrote:
> > > > Yes. I thought we bumped up that bu
On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 22:22 +0200, Igor Raits wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 14:16 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 22:07 +0200, Igor Raits wrote:
> > > Just curious, how is it done in RHEL? Just some kind of CI that
> > > analyses all builds or?
>
On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 21:51 +0200, Igor Raits wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 13:36 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2020-06-04 at 16:30 -0400, Igor Raits wrote:
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Sadly some upstreams insist on clang just because they like it
> &g
On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 19:31 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Ben Cotton:
>
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CompilerPolicy
> >
> > == Summary ==
> > Fedora has historically forced packages to build with GCC unless the
> > upstream project for the package only supported Clang/LLVM. This
On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 15:04 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 11:19 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 09:52:09AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > > I do not see why we should allow yet another special case for Firefox,
> > > nor
> > > why we should let random
On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 09:59 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 05/06/20 10:23 +0200, Tomáš Popela wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 9:56 AM Kevin Kofler
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I am opposed to this change. Chromium and Firefox build fine with GCC. I
> > > think that a distribution should be built w
On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 21:49 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 01:36:37PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2020-06-04 at 16:30 -0400, Igor Raits wrote:
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Sadly some upstreams insist on clang just because they li
On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 16:47 -0500, Steven Munroe wrote:
> Jeff Law wrote:
> > I'd respectfully disagree. There are certain features that GCC supports
> > that Clang does not
> > and vice-versa. But broadly they are comparable. What this means is some
> > projects
On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 10:14 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 04/06/20 16:30 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CompilerPolicy
> [snip]
> > == Documentation ==
> > Several years ago Red Hat's tools team championed for Fedora policy to
> > strongly
> > discourage t
On Sat, 2020-06-06 at 07:58 +0200, Igor Raits wrote:
> The big problem then becomes getting packagers to address the
> > diagnostics. I've
> > been disappointed at how many packages are ignoring diagnostics
> > (particularly
> > those with security implications) and I'm actively looking at schemes
On Sun, 2020-06-07 at 13:07 -0700, stan via devel wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 16:30:09 -0400
> Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CompilerPolicy
> > An obvious example is Firefox. Upstream, the Firefox project builds
> > primarily with Clang/LLVM. Yet we force the Fe
On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 23:04 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 10:07 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 15:56 +, devel-requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > wrote:
> > > One issue I am concerned about here is d
On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 21:49 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 01:36:37PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2020-06-04 at 16:30 -0400, Igor Raits wrote:
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Sadly some upstreams insist on clang just because they li
On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 23:16 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 03:03:18PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > Clang/LLVM and GCC are ABI compatible (with the known exception of the
> > alignment
> > issue for atomics) and one should be able to mix and match libra
On Mon, 2020-06-08 at 12:21 -0400, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> Igor Raits writes:
>
> > On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 23:11 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 10:14 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > > > On 04/06/20 16:30 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > &
On Tue, 2020-06-09 at 08:57 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le lundi 08 juin 2020 à 09:48 -0600, Jeff Law a écrit :
> > I put faith in both the upstreams and packagers to do the right thing
> > for their project. Right now Fedora policy does exactly the opposite
> > by forcin
On Fri, 2020-07-24 at 10:31 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm starting to see various very strange kinds of build failures in
> rawhide, that seem to have started with either of these updates (or a
> combination of them):
>
> - annobin 9.21-1.fc33 → 9.22-1.fc33
> - binutils 2.34.0-6
On Fri, 2020-07-24 at 17:44 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 5:11 PM Jeff Law wrote:
> > > One error I've seen in libreoffice is a gcc / annobin segfault:
> > >
> > > [build CXX] vcl/unx/gtk3/gtk3gtkinst.cxx
> > > *** WARNING
On Fri, 2020-07-24 at 17:59 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 5:48 PM Jeff Law wrote:
> > On Fri, 2020-07-24 at 17:44 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 5:11 PM Jeff Law wrote:
> > > > > One error I've seen in l
On Fri, 2020-07-24 at 20:52 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> The LTO break Ruby on various platforms.
>
>
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=47582573
>
> vs
>
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=47621733
>
> (Note these are my experimental builds testing single
On Fri, 2020-07-24 at 19:12 +, Artem Tim wrote:
> Hi. In rare cases building packages with LTO producing binaries or libraries
> which have bigger size then if they have built without LTO. For example
> 'kitty' package:
>
> * with LTO:
> - koji task https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/task
On Fri, 2020-07-24 at 13:15 -0600, Jerry James wrote:
> I will soon push a change to the z3 package, in Rawhide only, which
> will result in an soname bump. The actual contents of libz3 will not
> change, however. The only Fedora consumer outside of the z3 package
> itself is cppcheck, which curr
On Fri, 2020-07-24 at 22:24 +0200, Igor Raits wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-07-24 at 13:29 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On Fri, 2020-07-24 at 19:12 +, Artem Tim wrote:
> > > Hi. In rare cases building packages with LTO producing binaries or
> > > libraries which have bigger s
On Fri, 2020-07-24 at 22:30 +0200, Igor Raits wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-07-24 at 14:27 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On Fri, 2020-07-24 at 22:24 +0200, Igor Raits wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2020-07-24 at 13:29 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2020-07-24 at 19:12 +, Art
On Fri, 2020-07-24 at 15:00 -0600, Jerry James wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 2:49 PM Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > Hm, is this related? (libtool segfault building xfsprogs)
> >
> > https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9149/47779149/build.log
> >
> > /bin/sh ../libtool --quiet --tag=CC --
On Fri, 2020-07-24 at 22:29 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Just upgraded a development machine to:
>
> binutils-2.34.0-10.fc33.x86_64
> gcc-10.1.1-2.fc33.x86_64
> glibc-2.31.9000-21.fc33.x86_64
>
> and a very simple C compile (non-LTO) is now segfaulting:
>
> make[3]: Entering directory '/ho
On Fri, 2020-07-24 at 22:40 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 03:37:05PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > Hmm, what's interesting here is that it's binutils-2.34, so it's not
> > the update that Nick was doing to do today. I've seen a couple
On Fri, 2020-07-24 at 22:40 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 03:37:05PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > Hmm, what's interesting here is that it's binutils-2.34, so it's not
> > the update that Nick was doing to do today. I've seen a couple
On Fri, 2020-07-24 at 17:55 -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 17:51, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On Fri, 2020-07-24 at 22:40 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 03:37:05PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > > Hmm, what&#
On Fri, 2020-07-24 at 17:55 -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 17:51, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On Fri, 2020-07-24 at 22:40 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 03:37:05PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > > Hmm, what&#
On Fri, 2020-07-24 at 22:29 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Just upgraded a development machine to:
>
> binutils-2.34.0-10.fc33.x86_64
> gcc-10.1.1-2.fc33.x86_64
> glibc-2.31.9000-21.fc33.x86_64
>
> and a very simple C compile (non-LTO) is now segfaulting:
>
> make[3]: Entering directory '/ho
On Sat, 2020-07-25 at 10:46 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 10:35 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
> > Hey all,
> >
> > So I was trying to update libseccomp last night, and I was able to
> > build it for everything except aarch64 on Rawhide because it says the
> > compiler can't build
On Sun, 2020-07-26 at 09:39 -0600, Jerry James wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 6:41 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 04:55:31PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > What would help would be if someone could untag that version of binutils
> > > so that
>
On Sun, 2020-07-26 at 09:39 -0600, Jerry James wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 6:41 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 04:55:31PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > What would help would be if someone could untag that version of binutils
> > > so that
>
On Mon, 2020-07-27 at 08:39 -0400, Alex Scheel wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Dan Čermák"
> > To: "Alex Scheel" , "Development discussions related to
> > Fedora"
> > Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 8:25:27 AM
> > Subject: Re: [pam_radius] aarch64 GCC failures during ./configure's w
On Mon, 2020-07-27 at 13:32 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 11:03:58PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On Sun, 2020-07-26 at 09:39 -0600, Jerry James wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 6:41 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Ju
On Mon, 2020-07-27 at 18:20 +0200, Nikola Forró wrote:
> On Sat, 2020-07-25 at 01:11 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > So at a high level ar makes a call to lrealpath. That naturally goes
> > through the
> > PLT. The PLT stub loads the value out of the GOT and jumps to it. The
&
On Fri, 2020-07-24 at 13:39 -0600, Jerry James wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 1:35 PM Jeff Law wrote:
> > Just a note on z3.
> >
> > I've been trying to track down what I think is an uninstantiated template
> > issue
> > that's exposed by LTO. I
On Tue, 2020-07-28 at 14:51 -0500, Brandon Nielsen wrote:
> I've been seeing build failures for Fedora 32[0][1][2], always the same
> failure: "xgcc: fatal error: Killed signal terminated program cc1plus"
>
> I can't find any more detail than that. These builds succeed locally
> with mock. The c
On Tue, 2020-07-28 at 15:29 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 2:01 pm, Jeff Law wrote:
> > If this is a new failure (say in the last week), it could be an out
> > of memory
> > scenario. Try disabling LTO. The standard way to do that is
> &g
On Tue, 2020-07-28 at 16:26 -0600, Jerry James wrote:
> Here's a bit of fallout from the mass rebuild. The alt-ergo build failed:
>
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1548139
[ ... ]
You might try without LTO. I'm just shooting in the dark, but LTO does have a
significant im
On Wed, 2020-07-29 at 14:13 +0100, ser...@serjux.com wrote:
> Hello opencv [1] build also failed around LTO
> What is your advise ? What is your advice?
In general I want to have a very good indicator the issue is LTO related before
I
disable. THe build you referenced doesn't have any good indica
On Wed, 2020-07-29 at 13:15 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=48101965 fails
> with:
>
> error: Empty %files file
> /builddir/build/BUILD/hevea-2.34/debugsourcefiles.list
>
> However it works when I build locally:
>
> $ rpm -qlp
> /home/
On Wed, 2020-07-29 at 09:16 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 02:40:18PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > qemu is uninstallable at the moment because ceph is uninstallable
> > because fmt was upgraded from 6 to 7 in the middle of the build
> > (resulting in an soname bump - it
On Wed, 2020-07-29 at 09:19 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 10:31:32AM -0400, Scott Talbert wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Jul 2020, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >
> > > libnbd failed in the mass rebuild. I kicked off a second build by
> > > hand, and it failed in the exact same way:
>
On Wed, 2020-07-29 at 14:24 -0500, Brandon Nielsen wrote:
> On 7/28/20 4:39 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On Tue, 2020-07-28 at 15:29 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 2:01 pm, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > > If this is a new failure (say in the
On Wed, 2020-07-29 at 20:39 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-07-29 at 12:19 -0500, Steven Munroe wrote:
> > Jeff Law wrote:
> >
> > > For ppc64le is that the build was done with p8, but there is one
> > > function (__builtin_altivec_vadub) that req
On Wed, 2020-07-29 at 17:14 -0500, Brandon Nielsen wrote:
> On 7/29/20 4:40 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> > ACK. I don't see msp430-development-tools in the standard fedora repos.
> > So I'll
> > leave it to you to fix the package in whatever repo it lives in.
> >
On Thu, 2020-07-30 at 11:06 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I just disabled LTO for qemu.
>
> It caused what are best described as "weird" assert failures
> in the test suite.
>
> For comparison here's a good build (without LTO):
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=48188577
>
On Thu, 2020-07-30 at 13:48 +0200, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 12:25 PM 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 infinit
On Wed, 2020-07-29 at 10:11 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 10:25:24AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On Wed, 2020-07-29 at 09:19 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 10:31:32AM -0400, Scott Talbert wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 29 Jul
On 07/12/2017 06:10 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 09:36:28PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On 07/06/2017 09:15 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/28/Schedule
>>
>> I encourage Jeff Law and Jakub Jelin
On 07/12/2017 02:54 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 04:45:56PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 04:30:12PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>>> So, "one week earlier than last time" would be January 31st. (Or 30th?
>>> Depends if we want that on a Tuesday like
On 07/13/2017 09:01 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 03:14:24PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> LGTM.
>> Likewise. We should keep this schedule in mind as we work our way
>> through stage3 into stage4. Ideally Marek would start the test builds
>> prio
On 07/13/2017 09:27 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 09:23:58AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>> Likewise. We should keep this schedule in mind as we work our way
>>>> through stage3 into stage4. Ideally Marek would start the test builds
>>>>
On Wed, 2019-12-11 at 14:53 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Hello,
>
> what are the gcc 10 plans for Fedora 32? Will there be a change
> proposal for
> that? Is Fedora 32 the target for gcc 10?
Plan is for gcc-10 to be the compiler for F32. We coordinate with the
Fedora leaders on this each year as
On Thu, 2019-12-19 at 21:56 +, devel-
requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
>
Neal,
>
> I'm generally happy with this idea. I'm one of the maintainers of
> rpm-config-SUSE (the equivalent of redhat-rpm-config for SUSE
> distributions) and I somewhat saw the development of this feature
> a
On Thu, 2019-12-19 at 22:14 +, devel-
requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
Igor,
> Send devel mailing list submissions to
>
> It would be very nice to get more specific analysis data. Like running
> some benchmarks of big applications, size comparisons (of binaries and
> libraries) and comp
On Thu, 2019-12-19 at 16:24 -0600, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 4:14 PM Jeff Law wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-12-19 at 21:56 +, devel-
> > requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
> >
> > Neal,
> >
> >
> > > I'm generall
On Fri, 2019-12-20 at 11:52 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 19. 12. 19 22:41, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LTOByDefault
> >
> > == Contingency Plan ==
> > * Contingency mechanism: Revert the LTO flags injection
> > * Contingency deadline: Beta freeze, but shooting for prior
On Fri, 2019-12-20 at 12:59 -0500, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When replying to digests, I'd appreciate if you could please make an
> effort to have the posts thread properly for the rest of us. Fedora
> mailing list guidance on this:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines#R
On Sat, 2019-12-21 at 10:52 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 5:48 PM Jeff Law wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-12-19 at 16:24 -0600, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 4:14 PM Jeff Law wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2019-12-19 at 21
On Thu, 2020-01-02 at 19:48 +, devel-
requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
> Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2020 12:52:03 -0500
> From: Kaleb Keithley
> Subject: Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: GCC10
> To: Development discussions related to Fedora
>
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-T
>
>
>
> 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
>
> --
>
>
> 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
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
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
> 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
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
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
> 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
.fedoraproject.org
> Message-ID: <20200121202747.ga5...@sakura.greysector.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> 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 g
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
>
On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 16:11 -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> 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,
On Thu, 2020-01-23 at 17:23 -0500, Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 1:52:54 PM EST Jeff Law wrote:
> > > > > That was the idea. Provide a trivial opt-out so that upstreams had
> > > > > time to fix properly. I even volunteered to add t
On Mon, 2020-01-27 at 16:34 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:25:50AM -0500, Mohan Boddu wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Per the Fedora 32 schedule[1] we will be starting a mass rebuild for
> > Fedora 32 today. We are doing a mass rebuild for Fedora 32 for all the
> > changes:
>
On Mon, 2020-01-27 at 21:23 +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 4:46 PM Jeff Law wrote:
> > On Mon, 2020-01-27 at 16:34 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:25:50AM -0500, Mohan Boddu wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > >
On Mon, 2020-02-24 at 13:02 +, devel-
requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
>
> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 12:10:49 +0100
> From: Miro Hrončok
> Subject: Re: Non-responsive maintainer check for libffi maintainer
> To: Anthony Green
> Cc: Development discussions related to Fedora
>
> Mess
On 4/11/23 19:14, przemek klosowski via devel wrote:
On 4/4/23 10:28, Dan Čermák wrote:
Chris Adams writes:
Yeah, it'd be back to the i386/i586/i686 days... which was a bit of a
PITA sometimes. But cramming multiple architectures of core libraries
into a single RPM would be bad for disk sp
1 - 100 of 267 matches
Mail list logo
