Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: CompilerPolicy Change

On 06/05/2020 12:09 AM, Igor Raits wrote: > On Thu, 2020-06-04 at 16:30 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: >> 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 Cl

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: CompilerPolicy Change

On 06/05/2020 03:42 AM, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > On 04.06.2020 22:30, Ben Cotton wrote: >> Fedora 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 compil

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: CompilerPolicy Change

On 06/05/2020 08:05 AM, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 10:24 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 08:27:13AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 8:26 AM Neal Gompa wrote: On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 6:47 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrot

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: CompilerPolicy Change

On 06/05/2020 09:15 AM, Steven Munroe wrote: > I would also add that Clang/LLVM is missing some of the newer C > language revisions at least for the pppc64le target. > > Both IEEE/ISO _Float128 and _Decimalxx support is missing. Ie the > type is not supported or if supported basic arithmetic and

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Use %make_build and %make_install macros

On 06/19/2020 03:17 PM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 22:20, Ben Cotton > wrote: > [..] > > The %make_build macro enables parallel make builds using the -j option. > In case a package does not build correctly with parallel make, then parallel > m

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Use %make_build and %make_install macros

On 06/19/2020 03:37 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 19. 06. 20 23:11, Ben Cotton wrote: >> All make invocations in spec files that don't use the install target will be >> modified to use the %make_build macro > > Many Python packages build Sphinx documentation with variant of "make html". > Such in

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Use %make_build and %make_install macros

On 06/20/2020 02:18 PM, Björn Persson wrote: > Miro Hrončok wrote: >> On 19. 06. 20 23:11, Ben Cotton wrote: >>> All make invocations in spec files that don't use the install target will >>> be >>> modified to use the %make_build macro >> >> Many Python packages build Sphinx documentation with

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Use %make_build and %make_install macros

BuildInstallMacro >>> >>> == Summary == >>> This change will update all spec files in Fedora that use make and replace >>> the make invocations with either the %make_build or %make_install macros. >>> >>> == Owner == >>> * Name: [[User:

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Use %make_build and %make_install macros

On 06/20/2020 11:14 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 05:11:43PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: >> The %make_build macro enables parallel make builds using the -j option. In >> case a package does not build correctly with parallel make, then parallel >> make will be disabl

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Use %make_build and %make_install macros

On 06/20/2020 11:20 AM, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 2:16 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 05:11:43PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: >>> The %make_build macro enables parallel make builds using the -j option. In >>> case a package does not build corre

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Use %make_build and %make_install macros

On 06/20/2020 05:11 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Ben Cotton wrote: >> == Summary == >> This change will update all spec files in Fedora that use make and replace >> the make invocations with either the %make_build or %make_install macros. >> >> == Owner == >>

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Use %make_build and %make_install macros

On 06/22/2020 10:00 AM, Björn Persson wrote: > Tom Stellard wrote: >> The reason I put in the proposal that all make invocations would be updated, >> is because this is easier to script and it would be hard for someone who >> doesn't know the package to make the call abo

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Use %make_build and %make_install macros

On 06/22/2020 10:14 AM, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 11:51 AM Tom Stellard wrote: >> >> On 06/20/2020 11:20 AM, Neal Gompa wrote: >>> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 2:16 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> O

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Use %make_build and %make_install macros

On 06/22/2020 10:54 AM, Björn Persson wrote: > Tom Stellard wrote: >> On 06/22/2020 10:00 AM, Björn Persson wrote: >>> Tom Stellard wrote: >>>> The reason I put in the proposal that all make invocations would be >>>> updated, >>>> is bec

Re: Fedora Packager Dashboard available for testing

On 06/23/2020 09:28 AM, Josef Skladanka wrote: > Hi, > > We'd like to announce public testing of the Packager Dashboard - a new > service for Fedora package maintainers aiming to provide all relevant > data: FTBFS/FTI status (from both Bugzilla, Koschei and health check), > orphan warnings, bugzil

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Use %make_build and %make_install macros

es in Fedora that use make and replace >> the make invocations with either the %make_build or %make_install macros. >> >> == Owner == >> * Name: [[User:tstellar| Tom Stellard]] >> * Email: mailto:tstel...@redhat.com>> >> >> >> == Detailed Description

Re: Bundled compiler conundrum

On 06/25/2020 08:01 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > Hi, > > Wine has soft-dependencies on two additional pieces of software to provide a > "full" experience. > > * wine-gecko - Gecko web browser engine for Wine > * wine-mono - .NET for Wine > > I package both for Wine. They're typically update

Re: Bundled compiler conundrum

On 06/26/2020 10:01 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > On 6/25/20 11:45 PM, Tom Stellard wrote: >> Are you tying to build with mingw-gcc? What errors are you getting? > > Yes, mingw-gcc, as we do not ship the Clang based MinGW toolchain in Fedora. > > Here's a s

Re: ERROR: No build ID note found in

On 04/13/2017 11:59 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > I'm trying to compile native LLVM support into American Fuzzy Lop. > Unfortunately debuginfo generation fails with: > > + /usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh --strict-build-id -m --run-dwz > --dwz-low-mem-die-limit 1000 --dwz-max-die-limit 11

Migrating sub-package to a different package: How to resolve file conflicts

Hi, I'm working on moving the llvm-devel sub-package from the llvm package to a new llvm4.0 package, however, when I upgrade from the llvm sub-package to the llvm4.0 sub-package, I am getting file conflicts. This can be reproduced on rawhide with these commands: [root@746864b6a202 /]# dnf insta

Re: Migrating sub-package to a different package: How to resolve file conflicts

On 06/12/2017 05:22 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 05:01:19PM -0400, Tom Stellard wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm working on moving the llvm-devel sub-package from the llvm package to >> a new llvm4.0 package, however, when I upgrade from the llvm s

Re: Migrating sub-package to a different package: How to resolve file conflicts

On 06/12/2017 05:41 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Tom Stellard wrote: >> On 06/12/2017 05:22 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 05:01:19PM -0400, Tom Stellard wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I'm

Re: Migrating sub-package to a different package: How to resolve file conflicts

On 06/13/2017 10:25 AM, Rex Dieter wrote: > Rex Dieter wrote: > >> Tom Stellard wrote: >> >>> I'm working on moving the llvm-devel sub-package from the llvm package to >>> a new llvm4.0 package, however, when I upgrade from the llvm sub-package >>

Re: Migrating sub-package to a different package: How to resolve file conflicts

On 06/13/2017 02:51 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 02:40:27PM -0400, Tom Stellard wrote: >>>>> Error: Transaction check error: >>>>> file /usr/include/llvm from install of llvm-devel-4.0.0-13.fc27.x86_64 >>>>> conflicts with

Re: Migrating sub-package to a different package: How to resolve file conflicts

On 06/13/2017 02:51 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 02:40:27PM -0400, Tom Stellard wrote: >>>>> Error: Transaction check error: >>>>> file /usr/include/llvm from install of llvm-devel-4.0.0-13.fc27.x86_64 >>>>> conflicts with

Re: Packages still using %{?_smp_mflags} manually?

On 05/21/2020 07:57 AM, Richard Shaw wrote: > Not really a big deal but %build_make has been available for quite a while. I > noticed a few of my packages still supply _smp_mflags manually. > > Is this worth a script and automatic BZ? Probably not, but I think there is > an intrinsic value to co

Re: Packages still using %{?_smp_mflags} manually?

On 05/27/2020 05:19 AM, Richard Shaw wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 10:12 PM Tom Stellard <mailto:tstel...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > On 05/21/2020 07:57 AM, Richard Shaw wrote: > > Not really a big deal but %build_make has been available for quite a > w

Re: Packages still using %{?_smp_mflags} manually?

On 05/27/2020 07:47 AM, Richard Shaw wrote: > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 9:44 AM Tom Stellard <mailto:tstel...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > > Also, I used to use %make_build without the {}, but someone suggested[1] I > add the {} in case the macro ever became a

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Stop shipping individual component libraries in clang-libs package

On 12/12/2019 03:32 PM, Dan Čermák wrote: > Ben Cotton writes: > > [snip] >> >> == Dependencies == >> The following packages depend on clang-libs and will need to be updated: >> >> * bcc >> * bpftrace >> * castxml >> * ccls > > ccls has already been fixed upstream to support building against > l

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Use update-alternatives for /usr/bin/cc and /usr/bin/c++

in/c++ >> symlinks are managed by update-alternatives. >> >> == Owner == >> * Name: [[User:tstellar| Tom Stellard]] >> * Email: >> >> == Detailed Description == >> The gcc package currently installs symlinks to /usr/bin/cc and >> /usr/bin/c++ which po

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Use update-alternatives for /usr/bin/cc and /usr/bin/c++

in/c++ >> symlinks are managed by update-alternatives. >> >> == Owner == >> * Name: [[User:tstellar| Tom Stellard]] >> * Email: >> >> == Detailed Description == >> The gcc package currently installs symlinks to /usr/bin/cc and >> /usr/bin/c++

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Use update-alternatives for /usr/bin/cc and /usr/bin/c++

On 12/20/2019 05:27 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 03:47:13PM -0600, Neal Gompa wrote: >>> == Release Notes == >>> The user /usr/bin/cc and /usr/bin/c++ symlinks are now managed by >>> update-alternatives. If you would like to change these symlinks to >>> point to

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Use update-alternatives for /usr/bin/cc and /usr/bin/c++

On 12/20/2019 02:01 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 3:24 PM Tom Stellard wrote: >> >> On 12/20/2019 03:33 AM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: >>> Le jeu. 19 déc. 2019 à 22:44, Ben Cotton a écrit : >>>> >>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wik

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Use update-alternatives for /usr/bin/cc and /usr/bin/c++

On 12/20/2019 03:20 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 5:19 PM Tom Stellard wrote: >> >> On 12/20/2019 02:01 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 3:24 PM Tom Stellard wrote: >>>> >>>> On 12/20/2019 03:33 AM, Nicolas Chauve

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Use update-alternatives for /usr/bin/cc and /usr/bin/c++

On 12/21/2019 02:30 PM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > > > On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 at 00:37, Neal Gompa > wrote: > [..] > > I believe it's also used by the %cmake and %meson macros. > > > Yep. > Look on the output of the “rpm -E %cmake” and you will find that to switch to

Re: are the ppc64le builders healthy?

On 07/23/2019 11:36 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> "KK" == Kaleb Keithley writes: > > KK> I built the latest ceph-14 (14.2.2) on rawhide successfully two days > KK> ago. Two different builds on f30 built or are building fine on > KK> x86_64, i686, and aarch64, but failed with different e

Re: Major update to LLVM appearing in F31 without any communication, appears to violate update policy

On 09/26/2019 11:03 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > We are currently in the "Beta to Pre Release" phase of the release > cycle. The updates policy for this phase - > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Beta_to_Pre_Release - > says: > > "From this point onwards maintainers MUST[1]: > >

Re: Major update to LLVM appearing in F31 without any communication, appears to violate update policy

On 09/26/2019 11:24 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2019-09-26 at 11:20 -0700, Tom Stellard wrote: >> On 09/26/2019 11:03 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: >>> We are currently in the "Beta to Pre Release" phase of the release >>> cycle. The updat

Re: Major update to LLVM appearing in F31 without any communication, appears to violate update policy

On 09/26/2019 01:21 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2019-09-26 at 20:55 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Hi Tom, >> >> On 26-09-2019 20:47, Tom Stellard wrote: >>> On 09/26/2019 11:24 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: >>>> On Thu, 2019-09-26 at 11:20 -0700,

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Use update-alternatives for /usr/bin/cc and /usr/bin/c++

On 12/23/2019 11:59 AM, Tom Stellard wrote: > On 12/21/2019 02:30 PM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 at 00:37, Neal Gompa > <mailto:ngomp...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> [..] >> >> I believe it's also used by the %cmake and %

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Use update-alternatives for /usr/bin/cc and /usr/bin/c++

Jan 8, 2020, 23:53 Tom Stellard <mailto:tstel...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > On 12/23/2019 11:59 AM, Tom Stellard wrote: > > On 12/21/2019 02:30 PM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 at 00:37, Neal G

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Use update-alternatives for /usr/bin/cc and /usr/bin/c++

On 01/08/2020 11:28 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 08. 01. 20 23:47, Tom Stellard wrote: >> I suspect that if I can find some way to set the CC and CXX environment >> variables for all builds, not just ones using autoconf, cmake or meson, >> that might help cut down on the nu

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Use update-alternatives for /usr/bin/cc and /usr/bin/c++

On 01/13/2020 06:20 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Dne 11. 01. 20 v 5:46 Tom Stellard napsal(a): >> On 01/08/2020 11:28 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote: >>> On 08. 01. 20 23:47, Tom Stellard wrote: >>>> I suspect that if I can find some way to set the CC and CXX environment &

Re: Announcing multi-builds updates gating

On 01/21/2020 08:59 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > Good Morning Everyone, > > We are pleased to announce that the work to gate rawhide packages has leveled > up! > Thank you to everyone who worked on this. This is great! -Tom > Back in July we announced the first phase where bodhi got the su

Looking for a proven packager to help merge some spec file cleanups

Hi, Is there a proven packager available to help me merge these: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/blktrace/pull-request/2 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-lsb/pull-request/4 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dmidecode/pull-request/2 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fxload/pull-reque

Re: Looking for a proven packager to help merge some spec file cleanups

On 02/04/2020 06:07 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 9:02 PM Tom Stellard wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Is there a proven packager available to help me merge these: >> >> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/blktrace/pull-request/2 >> https

Re: What to do with simple-koji-ci?

On 02/07/2020 06:30 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > Good Morning Everyone, > > I while back I wrote a small service named simple-koji-ci, which reacts to > every pull-request opened on dist-git and fires a (scratch) build of the > package > with the proposed changes merged, and report the outcome

Orphaning llvm8.0 and clang8.0 compatibility packages

Hi, I am orphaning the llvm8.0 and clang8.0 compatibility packages. -Tom ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/

Re: Multilib inconsistencies between fedora/updates/updates-testing composes

On 12/12/2018 02:32 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > We have seen reports that glibc-headers.i686 comes and goes from the > x86_64 updates compose. Previously, we have seen this only for the > updates-testing compose: > > This leads to a very bad update experience

Re: clang and Fedora's default C/CXX flags

On 01/03/2019 12:28 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On 1/3/19 2:49 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: >> Part of Fedora's default C/CXX flags include -fstack-clash-protection >> but clang does not support this flag and has until a few weeks ago[1] >> silently ignored the flag. >> >> What are clang apps wh

Re: AMD ROCm

On 01/09/2019 02:50 AM, Germano Massullo wrote: > Hello, > AMD ROCm - Open Source Platform for HPC and Ultrascale GPU Computing[1] > is packaged by upstream only for RHEL/CentOS and Ubuntu. > Is anybody working on packaging it for Fedora? If not, is anybody > interested in setting up a team to work

Re: AMD ROCm

On 01/13/2019 03:32 AM, Felix Schwarz wrote: > > Am 10.01.19 um 03:28 schrieb Tom Stellard: >> hsakmt and the rocm-runtime are currently packaged in Fedora, but aren't >> up-to-date with upstream. I've wanted to package hip as well, but I've >> been wai

Orphaning: llvm5.0, clang5.0, llvm6.0, clang6.0

Hi, I am orphaning the llvm and clang compatibility packages for versions 5.0 and 6.0. We are about to push LLVM 8.0 into rawhide, so I will no longer maintain these older versions. There are still a few users of these packages, so the package owners can either rebuild their packages for LLVM 7/

Re: Orphaning: llvm5.0, clang5.0, llvm6.0, clang6.0

spc -Tom > You can use > https://pagure.io/fedora-misc-package-utilities/blob/master/f/find-package-maintainers > for finding maintainers. > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 11:42 PM Tom Stellard wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I am orphaning the llvm and clang compatibility

Re: Orphaning: llvm5.0, clang5.0, llvm6.0, clang6.0

On 01/28/2019 04:30 PM, Tom Stellard wrote: > On 01/28/2019 02:47 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: >> It would be great if you would include list of dependent packages + >> their maintainers. >> > > Here is the list of dependent packages: > > Maintainers by package: >

Re: F31 System-Wide Change proposal: Automatic strict inter-package dependencies

On 02/18/2019 12:18 PM, Ben Cotton wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Automatic_strict_inter-package_dependencies > > = Automatic strict inter-package dependencies = > > == Summary == > Implement feature in RPM which will enforce strict dependencies > between subpackages automaticall

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal: Gating Rawhide - Single package updates

On 03/01/2019 01:19 PM, Ben Cotton wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GatingRawhideSinglePackageUpdates > > == Summary == > We want to gate packages on test results before they can land in > rawhide. This will reduce the amount of broken dependency, > uninstallable packages and broken

Re: clang segmentation fault on armv7hf

On 03/31/2019 07:31 AM, Richard Shaw wrote: > I'm working on building PySide2 for Fedora and have a problem with clang > segfaulting only on armv7hf[1]... > > The source package has shiboken2, pyside2, and pyside2-tools in one big > archive but I am building shiboken2 and pyside2-tools with GCC

Re: Fedora 30 System-Wide Change proposal: Remove the Group: Tag From All Packages

On 08/22/2018 01:28 PM, Ben Cotton wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_Group_Tag > > == Summary == > Remove the Group: tag from over 9000 source packages. > > == Owner == > * Name: Jason Tibbitts (tibbs) > * Email: ti...@math.uh.edu > > == Detailed Description == > I will remo

Why is i686 package missing from x86_64 updates repo?

Hi, I'm trying to resolve https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1615016 and can't figure out why the i686 package is missing from the x86_64 updates repo. It is present in the fedora repo, so it seems like this issue is specific to updates. Does anyone know why this might be happening? Be

Re: Fedora 30 Self-Contained Change proposal: Make ambiguous python shebangs error

On 08/22/2018 11:58 AM, Ben Cotton wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Make_ambiguous_python_shebangs_error > > == Summary == > The /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-mangle-shebangs buildroot > policy script will be changed to make the build fail when it sees an > ambiguous python shebang, such

Orphaning pocl

Hi, I'm orphaning the pocl package. I'm not interested in maintaining it any more, and it's been FTBFS for the last 2 releases. -Tom ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraprojec

Election Status?

Hi, According to the schedule[1], the voting period was supposed to begin on Friday, but elections.fedoraproject.org does not list any open elections yet. Does anyone have an ETA for when voting will start? Thanks, Tom [1] https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-38/f-38-elections-tasks.html

Re: Election Status?

On 5/24/23 12:19, Josh Boyer wrote: On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 2:55 PM Peter Boy wrote: Am 24.05.2023 um 20:30 schrieb Chris Murphy : I'm pretty sure we no longer have a program manager? What’s that about? Red Hat recently announced a round of layoffs[1] and the Fedora Program Manager rol

Re: Election Status?

On 5/24/23 12:31, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 7:23 PM Tom Stellard wrote: What's the process for selecting a new Program Manager? From the words that have been shared at: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/council/fpgm/ the position itself has been elimi

Re: Election Status?

On 5/24/23 13:00, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 12:36:58PM -0700, Tom Stellard wrote: On 5/24/23 12:31, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 7:23 PM Tom Stellard wrote: What's the process for selecting a new Program Manager? From the words that have been shar

Re: libnfs soname bump

On 6/1/23 00:33, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 09:05:23AM +0200, Xavier Bachelot wrote: Hi, I've updated libnfs from version 4.0.0 to version 5.0.2 in rawhide, which implies a soname bump. The build was done in f39-build-side-68410 sidetag. The following packages need to b

Re: F39 Change Proposal: LLVM 17 (System-Wide)

. This proposal will only be implemented if approved by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee. == Summary == Update all llvm sub-projects in Fedora Linux to version 17. == Owner == * Name: [[User:tstellar| Tom Stellard]] * Email: == Detailed Description == All llvm sub-projects in Fedora will

Re: F39 Change Proposal: LLVM 17 (System-Wide)

On 6/26/23 12:50, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: On 26/06/2023 18:12, Aoife Moloney wrote: Update all llvm sub-projects in Fedora Linux to version 17. Please include iwyu and pocl packages to the side-tag rebuild too. I will update pocl to version 4.0 soon in Rawhide. For this update, we'

Re: F39 Change Proposal: LLVM 17 (System-Wide)

On 6/26/23 22:44, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: On 26/06/2023 18:12, Aoife Moloney wrote: * The Clang Resource Directory will be moved from /usr/lib64/clang/17/ to /usr/lib/clang/17/ this is the location of clang's internal headers and runtime libraries like libomp and compiler-rt. Why? /usr

Re: F39 Change Proposal: LLVM 17 (System-Wide)

On 6/27/23 04:00, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: On 27/06/2023 03:19, Tom Stellard wrote: We're trying to be more consistent with gcc and also upstream clang. gcc installs some of these same libraries and some equivalent ones into /usr/lib as well (/usr/lib/gcc/$TRIPLE/$MAJOR_VERSON).

Re: F39 Change Proposal: LLVM 17 (System-Wide)

On 6/27/23 04:06, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: On 27/06/2023 03:21, Tom Stellard wrote: For this update, we're going to let package maintainers be responsible for rebuilding their own packages if they are unable to use the compat libraries for some reason.  We can try to send an announc

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Build JDKs once, repack everywhere (System-Wide) - Proposal Addendum

On 6/26/23 09:21, Aoife Moloney wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BuildJdkOncePackEverywhere#including_portable_srpms_in_release_(improving_of_step_6) This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive comm

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Build JDKs once, repack everywhere (System-Wide) - Proposal Addendum

moreover necessary for proper srpm rebuil. TYVM! J. On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 at 21:31, Tom Stellard wrote: On 6/26/23 09:21, Aoife Moloney wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BuildJdkOncePackEverywhere#including_portable_srpms_in_release_(improving_of_step_6) This document represents a

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Build JDKs once, repack everywhere (System-Wide) - Proposal Addendum

different packages. java-xy-openjdk-portable and java-xy-openjdk. Where java-xy-openjdk is the one that gets shipped in Fedora and java-xy-openjdk-portable lives only in the side-tags. -Tom Tahnx! On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 at 19:14, Tom Stellard wrote: On 6/29/23 09:52, Jiri Vanek wrote: Hi Tom

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Build JDKs once, repack everywhere (System-Wide) - Proposal Addendum

s shipped on f38. Are the bits inside the package exactly the same? -Tom On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 at 21:16, Tom Stellard wrote: On 6/29/23 11:06, Jiri Vanek wrote: Nope, xy stands for 1.8.0, 11, 17 and latest. It is enumerated several time in the proposal. Still the https://fedorapr

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Build JDKs once, repack everywhere (System-Wide) - Proposal Addendum

On 6/29/23 10:42, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 10:14:31AM -0700, Tom Stellard wrote: On 6/29/23 09:52, Jiri Vanek wrote: Hi Tom! Thanx a lot of for input. Although I did my bes with the tagging, it will be learning on the go. I had adapted https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes

Re: Is there a chance to phase out `/lib64` directory?

On 6/30/23 07:45, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho wrote: Kevin Kofler via devel writes: Carlos O'Donell wrote: And assembling those sysroots is not straight forward. The easiest way is to unpack a live image. If you are targeting an Arch- based or similar distro, you will probably get away

Re: FESCo revote on "Add -fno-omit-frame-pointer" Change proposal [was Re: Schedule for Tuesday's FESCo Meeting (2023-01-03)]

On 1/9/23 11:18, Neal Gompa wrote: On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 2:11 PM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 11:47:54AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: On Sun, Jan 08, 2023 at 06:06:47PM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: PS: The impression I get is that everything was deliberately rig

Re: FESCo revote on "Add -fno-omit-frame-pointer" Change proposal [was Re: Schedule for Tuesday's FESCo Meeting (2023-01-03)]

On 1/9/23 08:47, Matthew Miller wrote: It might be useful to improve both the documented policies. The Changes policy has nothing about reconsidering Changes in the current cycle that I can see. (Or, actually, for that matter, for resubmitting in future cycles either, unless i'm missing somethin

Re: FESCo revote on "Add -fno-omit-frame-pointer" Change proposal [was Re: Schedule for Tuesday's FESCo Meeting (2023-01-03)]

On 1/9/23 12:27, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: Am Montag, 9. Jänner 2023 21:02:48 CET schrieb Tom Stellard: I think a good solution would be to move the proposal submission deadlines a month earlier in the schedule.  There's only 3 weeks between the "Changes Requiring Mass Rebuild&quo

Re: LLVM support for '-Wl,-WX'

On 1/16/23 20:49, Michael Cronenworth wrote: Hi, Wine 8.0 is checking for support for the '-Wl,-WX' flag in LLVM and it is showing as not supported in Rawhide (LLVM 15). LLVM is used to cross-compile ARM 64-bit binaries of Wine. Wine 7.22 configure check: checking whether clang supports -tar

Re: LLVM support for '-Wl,-WX'

On 1/17/23 06:17, Michael Cronenworth wrote: On 1/16/23 11:30 PM, Tom Stellard wrote: -WX means treat warnings as errors.  It's possible the configure check is failing for other reasons.  Is that the first check run with -target aarch64-windows?  Do you have the full config.log? Yes.

Re: LLVM support for '-Wl,-WX'

On 1/17/23 07:57, Tom Stellard wrote: On 1/17/23 06:17, Michael Cronenworth wrote: On 1/16/23 11:30 PM, Tom Stellard wrote: -WX means treat warnings as errors.  It's possible the configure check is failing for other reasons.  Is that the first check run with -target aarch64-windows?  D

Re: LLVM support for '-Wl,-WX'

On 1/17/23 09:48, Michael Cronenworth wrote: On 1/17/23 10:15 AM, Tom Stellard wrote: It sounds like the option is not relevant for Windows.  See https://reviews.llvm.org/D116484 Thanks, Tom. Do you think modifying the wine configure to not use -Wl,WX is the best option? Yes, I think

Re: Proposal: explicitly require full process to resubmit rejected proposals to FESCo

On 1/31/23 14:00, Ben Cotton wrote: As a result of concerns about how the re-vote on the frame pointers Change, it makes sense to clarify the requirements for FESCo re-considering rejected proposals. FESCo #action bcotton'ed in the 10 January meeting[1] to develop a proposal. I have drafted a pr

Re: F37 proposal: RPM Macros for Build Flags (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 2/10/23 00:07, Florian Weimer wrote: I want to add documentation for this change, and found this proposal self-contradictory. == Summary == Create a corresponding macro for each compiler flag in the redhat-rpm-config macro file and create "extra flag" macros to make it easier for packages to

Re: Release rpkg-1.66 and fedpkg-1.44

On 3/8/23 00:29, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 08:13:57AM +0100, Ondrej Nosek wrote: Hi all, a new version rpkg-1.66 together with fedpkg-1.44 are released containing both features and bugfixes. Currently, only Fedora 37 (and Rawhide) packages are present in stable r

Re: Flaws detected by static analyzers in Fedora 41 Critical Path Packages

On 7/5/24 17:05, Siteshwar Vashisht wrote: Hello, I am writing this message to get feedback from the community on possibly new defects identified by static analyzers in Critical Path Packages that have changed in Fedora 41. For context, please see my previous email[1]. TLDR: This report[2] co

Re: aarch64 builds failing due to use of undeclared identifier '__NR_newfstatat'

On 8/5/24 09:57, Ron Olson wrote: Hey all- All my swift-lang builds are failing on aarch64 due to the error above. I noticed this was referenced on the kernel mailing list: https://lore.kernel.org/all/838053e0-b186-4e9f-9668-9a3384a71...@app.fastmail.com/. It’s noted that Arnd Bergmann will b

Re: How to use llvm15 for building a package

On 7/3/23 11:31, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: Hello team, I attempt to build openshadinglanguage with llvm15 as upstream has yet to support LLVM 16. Can someone have a pointed how to set a cmake parameter for llvm15 and its bitecode validation? See the spec file on: https://src.fedoraproject.org

Re: How to use llvm15 for building a package

On 7/3/23 19:37, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: On 2023-07-03 17:08, Tom Stellard wrote: On 7/3/23 11:31, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: Hello team, I attempt to build openshadinglanguage with llvm15 as upstream has yet to support LLVM 16. Can someone have a pointed how to set a cmake parameter for

Re: F39 Change Proposal: LLVM 17 (System-Wide)

On 7/6/23 10:14, Alessandro Astone wrote: Is there any interest in providing the full older clang binary instead of just compat libraries? In my case, I'm working on an LLVM pass currently targeting LLVM15, and i can use the llvm15 rpm to build it. But then I don't have a way to compile a C so

Schedule for Thursday's FESCo Meeting (2023-07-27)

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo meeting Thursday at 17:00UTC in #fedora-meeting-2 on irc.libera.chat. To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto or run: date -d '2023-07-27 17:00 UTC' Links to all issues to be

Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2023-07-27)

= #fedora-meeting-2: FESCO (2023-07-27) = Meeting started by tstellar at 17:00:28 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2023-07-27/fesco.2023-07-27-17.00.log.html . Meeting

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2023-07-27)

On 7/27/23 11:03, Tom Stellard wrote: = #fedora-meeting-2: FESCO (2023-07-27) = Meeting started by tstellar at 17:00:28 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2023-07-27

Re: SPDX Statistics - Passenger pigeon edition

Hi, What does this message mean: "python-lit warning: valid as old and new and no changelong entry, please check" -Tom On 9/1/23 01:33, Miroslav Suchý wrote: Two weeks ago we had: * 23030 spec files in Fedora * 29469license tags in all spec files * 16716 tags have not been converted to SP

Orphaning old llvm, clang, and lld compat packages

Hi, I'm orphaning the following llvm, clang, and lld compat packages: llvm12, llvm13 clang11, clang13 lld13 -Tom ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of

Schedule for Thursday's FESCo Meeting (2023-10-26)

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo meeting Thursday at 17:00UTC in #fedora-meeting-2 on irc.libera.chat. To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto or run: date -d '2023-10-26 17:00 UTC' Links to all issues to be

Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2023-10-26)

= #fedora-meeting-2: FESCO (2023-10-26) = Meeting started by tstellar at 17:00:37 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2023-10-26/fesco.2023-10-26-17.00.log.html . Meeting

  1   2   3   >