date:20090612

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 01:48:15PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
 In file included from /usr/include/sys/capability.h:23,
 from myinclude.c:1:
 /usr/include/stdint.h:41: error: conflicting types for ?int64_t?
 /usr/include/linux/types.h:98: note: previous declaration of ?int64_t?  
 was here
 /usr/include/stdint.h:56: error: conflicting types for ?uint64_t?
 /usr/include/linux/types.h:96: note: previous declaration of ?uint64_t?  
 was here
 make: *** [myinclude] Error 1


sys/capability.h is /still/ broken. there was a bug filed against the
kernel, but the problem is actually the userspace header, which 'cheats'
the preprocessor rather badly:

#include linux/types.h
#include stdint.h

/*
 * Make sure we can be included from userland by preventing
 * capability.h from including other kernel headers
 */
#define _LINUX_TYPES_H
#define _LINUX_FS_H
#define __LINUX_COMPILER_H
#define __user

typedef unsigned int __u32;
typedef __u32 __le32;

#include linux/capability.h

nasty...

cheers, kyle

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: unable to include capability.h

2009-06-12 Thread Ondřej Vašík

Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
 On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 01:48:15PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
  Is there a trick for that or is it a bug ?
 
 Adding  #include sys/types.h  seems to fix it, so I reckon its a bug in
 libcap-devel's header files.

Actually already reported and closed rawhide, so it should be fixed
there...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483548


Greetings,
 Ondřej Vašík


signature.asc
Description: Toto je digitálně	 podepsaná část	 zprávy
-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Thorsten Leemhuis

On 12.06.2009 13:33, Christoph Höger wrote:
 Am Freitag, den 12.06.2009, 19:55 +1000 schrieb Eric Springer:
 2009/6/12 Christoph Höger choe...@cs.tu-berlin.de:
 Could you explain why mp3 (or ogg) encoding is not a real world
 benchmark? I do this quite often.
 Because they are comparing file system on what is a CPU bound test. Notice
 how all the file systems perform the same.
 
 That was their conclusion, too: Anyone who wants fastest possible
 encoding can use any filesystem.  But it has to be measured, as the
 difference in ogg encoding shows. 
 That's what makes up Real World tests IMO: To test even side effects
 no one would ever really think of. As in real world you will probably
 store your encoded files on your filesystem it is good to see that there
 are no regressions.

Doing such Real World test to find unexpected side effects is a good
thing in a lot of cases. But you don't have to publish the results on
hundreds of pages if the results are as expected and hence uninteresting.

IOW: a lot of those phoronix articles that contain benchmarks could be
half as long or even shorter if you rip out the results that are of no
value and replace them by No unexpected side effects could be found
when running tests foo, bar, baz, foobar, ...; We thus didn't publish
the results to not confuse and bore you.

Professional, printed computer magazine do things like that -- they have
to, because their space is quite limited. But that's not the case on the
web, where the methods to raise money make things even worse.

Cu
knurd


-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

rpmconf - tool to handle rpmnew and rpmsave files

2009-06-12 Thread Miroslav Suchý

I've been tired for some time of watching rpmnew and rpmsave files. I've 
been looking for some tool, but did not find any, so I wrote my own.


http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rpmconf/rpmconf

Before I spend more times on this script, I would like to hear your 
opinion. Do you find it useful? Did it already exists and I miss it in 
my search? Do you see any bugs there?


What it does:
- run rpmconf --help and you will see :)
- it search all config file of all installed packages and check if file 
with .rpmsave or .rpmnew exists.

- It allows you to see diff of this file against current file.
- It allows you to keep current version or the other one (rpmsave or 
rpmnew one).

- it deletes .rpmsave and .rpmnew files which are identical to current file
- after your choice it deletes the unwanted file.

And what it does not do:
- it do not delete anything. At least until you comment out DEBUG 
variable on begging of script.
- it does not search for *all* rpmsave and rpmnew files. It only search 
for installed configuration files. If package has been uninstalled and 
rpmsave has been left behind, then I do not care. If rpmsave or rpmnew 
has been created in past and now the config file is not presented in 
package any more, then I do not care too.


And before you comment out DEBUG variable, obvious question. Do you have 
backups? :)


--
Miroslav Suchy
Red Hat Satellite Engineering

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Fedora rawhide rebuild in mock status 2009-06-08 x86_64

2009-06-12 Thread Richard W.M. Jones

All the packages with my name against them should be fixed now.

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat  http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
Fedora now supports 75 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#)
http://cocan.org/getting_started_with_ocaml_on_red_hat_and_fedora

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: unable to include capability.h

2009-06-12 Thread Daniel Lezcano


Kyle McMartin wrote:

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 01:48:15PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
  

In file included from /usr/include/sys/capability.h:23,
from myinclude.c:1:
/usr/include/stdint.h:41: error: conflicting types for ?int64_t?
/usr/include/linux/types.h:98: note: previous declaration of ?int64_t?  
was here

/usr/include/stdint.h:56: error: conflicting types for ?uint64_t?
/usr/include/linux/types.h:96: note: previous declaration of ?uint64_t?  
was here

make: *** [myinclude] Error 1




sys/capability.h is /still/ broken. there was a bug filed against the
kernel, but the problem is actually the userspace header, which 'cheats'
the preprocessor rather badly:

#include linux/types.h
#include stdint.h

/*
 * Make sure we can be included from userland by preventing
 * capability.h from including other kernel headers
 */
#define _LINUX_TYPES_H
#define _LINUX_FS_H
#define __LINUX_COMPILER_H
#define __user

typedef unsigned int __u32;
typedef __u32 __le32;

#include linux/capability.h
  


Grumf ! that's annoying :(

Thank you very much for your quick answer ! :)

As I only need the CAP_SYS_BOOT, I will define it manually in the source 
code and will remove the include, that's ugly but anyway... :/


As I understood, the fix in the kernel conflicts with the workaround in 
userspace, right ?
I was wondering if I should notify this to the maintainer of the libcap 
or is it already known ?


Thanks
 -- Daniel

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Harald Hoyer


On 06/11/2009 10:41 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:

Eric Sandeen wrote:


I don't know much about apache but I bet a default ./configure winds up
with different builds depending on the build environment, which in this
case is probably dictated by whatever the default generic OS intall
contains.

And this is useful how?  Geez.

Me, I'd rather know how -Fedora's- httpd fares against -Ubuntu's- httpd,
but maybe I'm just nuts.


I did *basic* ebizzy[1] tests on f10/f11, and f11 is 1/2 worse.
To compare run also against je[2], it is FreeBSD malloc.


...

Nice find!

Maybe we can run the real world test suite (benchmark) before the next 
release and try to straighten out such odds.


Most of the benchmark results they post are not showing scientific results, only 
when something is really odd, like here, they have their use.


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Signing server? (Re: Updates testing for F-11)

2009-06-12 Thread Seth Vidal




On Fri, 12 Jun 2009, Luke Macken wrote:


On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 08:54:19PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Christoph
Wickertchristoph.wick...@googlemail.com wrote:

need it because things need to be predictable for package maintainers.
Some updates are processed after a day, others not for two weeks.


I'm a bit confused where your date is coming from.  2 weeks seems
wrong lately.  In fact, since I took over the push stuff, it's
normally done daily or as often as the composes allow.  Right now, the
compose for f11-updates alone is 7-8 hours, so doing it daily often
just doesn't work out.  But 2 weeks seems wrong.


Actually, mashing f11-updates last week took 11 hours.

The entire push took about 22.


seems like that is a creating prestodelta.xml bug that we're working on 
now.


-sv

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: unable to include capability.h

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 03:02:39PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
 Grumf ! that's annoying :(

 Thank you very much for your quick answer ! :)

 As I only need the CAP_SYS_BOOT, I will define it manually in the source  
 code and will remove the include, that's ugly but anyway... :/

 As I understood, the fix in the kernel conflicts with the workaround in  
 userspace, right ?
 I was wondering if I should notify this to the maintainer of the libcap  
 or is it already known ?


Someone else suggested including sys/types.h first, which should work
around it. That's what GNU coreutils did... (a change in the include
ordering broke it.)

Which release are you seeing this on... F-11?

cheers, Kyle

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 03:03:58PM +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
 Nice find!

 Maybe we can run the real world test suite (benchmark) before the 
 next release and try to straighten out such odds.

 Most of the benchmark results they post are not showing scientific 
 results, only when something is really odd, like here, they have their 
 use.


It's almost certainly attributable to the default install using audit.
Roland and various others have done a lot of work improving things, but
there is always going to be a per-syscall overhead to this kind of
thing. A few extra usec a syscall adds up after a few hundred thousand
calls...

regards, Kyle

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Signing server? (Re: Updates testing for F-11)

Josh Boyer wrote:
 No.  It simply is not possible.  See my (and Luke's) email on how long
 a single push takes.

Seth says the 22-hour run is a bug. If a run can be done in ~8 hours, that
means an automated update procedure could do about 3 per day.

But of course, if it takes one day, then let's do one per day. I'm not
asking for the impossible. ;-)

Kevin Kofler

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread James Hubbard

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Thorsten Leemhuisfed...@leemhuis.info wrote:
 IOW: a lot of those phoronix articles that contain benchmarks could be
 half as long or even shorter if you rip out the results that are of no
 value and replace them by No unexpected side effects could be found
 when running tests foo, bar, baz, foobar, ...; We thus didn't publish
 the results to not confuse and bore you.

You mean like clicking the link to the last page and reading the
summary there? I do that for every review that I read. I always read
the summary at the end after getting through the introductory
material.   I don't even look at the graphs unless they mention some
issue at the end.  The better sites don't require you to read the all
of material between the beginning and the end of a review.

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Signing server? (Re: Updates testing for F-11)

2009-06-12 Thread Josh Boyer

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Kevin Koflerkevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
 Josh Boyer wrote:
 No.  It simply is not possible.  See my (and Luke's) email on how long
 a single push takes.

 Seth says the 22-hour run is a bug. If a run can be done in ~8 hours, that
 means an automated update procedure could do about 3 per day.

Theoretically, yes.  In reality, probably not.  At least not until we
get some of the other items in place that would even make this
remotely possible.  Also, we need to fix the failure paths, which make
things indeterminably slower.

 But of course, if it takes one day, then let's do one per day. I'm not
 asking for the impossible. ;-)

I WAS doing one a day.  In fact, until a week ago I was doing them as
often as possible.  I plan to pick that back up on Monday, as I'm only
able to be online for about 5 min at a time until then.

josh

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

Eric Springer wrote:
 Especially  considering how many people will use these benchmarks to make
 conclusions about Fedora, we should make sure it presents as best as it
 can.

I think we should rather do an informative press campaign on the lines
of Why Phoronix benchmarks are utter bullsh*t.

Kevin Kofler

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: unable to include capability.h

2009-06-12 Thread Daniel Lezcano


Kyle McMartin wrote:

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 03:02:39PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
  

Grumf ! that's annoying :(

Thank you very much for your quick answer ! :)

As I only need the CAP_SYS_BOOT, I will define it manually in the source  
code and will remove the include, that's ugly but anyway... :/


As I understood, the fix in the kernel conflicts with the workaround in  
userspace, right ?
I was wondering if I should notify this to the maintainer of the libcap  
or is it already known ?





Someone else suggested including sys/types.h first, which should work
around it. That's what GNU coreutils did... (a change in the include
ordering broke it.)
  

Ah yes, I prefer this workaround, it is cleaner.
Thanks for the the trick, I tested it and that solved the issue.

Which release are you seeing this on... F-11?
  
Correct. I tried with different distro lenny, ubuntu 8.04, fedora 10, 
opensuse 11 and I hadn't this problem.


Thanks.
-- Daniel

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Casey Dahlin

On 06/12/2009 09:24 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
 Eric Springer wrote:
 Especially  considering how many people will use these benchmarks to make
 conclusions about Fedora, we should make sure it presents as best as it
 can.
 
 I think we should rather do an informative press campaign on the lines
 of Why Phoronix benchmarks are utter bullsh*t.
 
 Kevin Kofler
 

Because they gave us a bad grade and now we're butthurt and we're taking our 
ball and going home so there? Because that's what everyone's going to hear, 
even if its not what we say.

--CJD

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

On 06/12/2009 06:42 PM, Kyle McMartin wrote:

 It's almost certainly attributable to the default install using audit.
 Roland and various others have done a lot of work improving things, but
 there is always going to be a per-syscall overhead to this kind of
 thing. A few extra usec a syscall adds up after a few hundred thousand
 calls...

Is there a benefit to running audit by default? Is it worth the cost?

Rahul

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: unable to include capability.h

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 03:24:45PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
 Correct. I tried with different distro lenny, ubuntu 8.04, fedora 10,  
 opensuse 11 and I hadn't this problem.


It was a local Fedora patch that tickled it with recent kernels, Karsten
has sorted it out (but too late for Fedora 11 release... should be fixed
in updates?) Thanks for sorting it out Karsten.

* Mon Jun 08 2009 Karsten Hopp kars...@redhat.com 2.16-3
- disable headerfix patch (#503927)

cheers, kyle

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

system-config-firewall picking up slack where firestarter fell off

2009-06-12 Thread Adam Miller

I'm retired firestarter, I picked it up recently as it was orphaned
but as we are moving towards PolicyKit and there's no upstream to
assist with the port and after a discussion we had here on the list I
decided it was time to retire it.

Now, with that being said, I have some users on the firestarter-users
mailing list that have some features they would like to request and I
wanted to pose a couple questions here in respect to their requests
and find out if others feel that these requests are feasible and/or
are even in the scope of system-config-firewall.

1) Cisco VPN
I don't use this myself but I was told it just needs these rules, so I
don't see a big issue here:
$IPT -A FORWARD -i $IF -o $INIF -p udp --dport 500 -m state --state
NEW,ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
$IPT -A FORWARD -i $IF -o $INIF -p tcp --dport 500 -m state --state
NEW,ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
$IPT -A FORWARD -i $IF -o $INIF -p 50 -m state --state
NEW,ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
$IPT -A FORWARD -i $INIF -o $IF -p 50 -m state --state
NEW,ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT

2) Auto setup of Internet Sharing, so autoconfig of dhcpd and
providing a bridge between WAN and LAN. This is one that I'm not
entirely sure there is really in the scope of system-config-firewall
and might need to be its own utility.

Those are really the only two that have been reported to me, just
looking for advisement from the group before I go off and start trying
to hack something together.

Thanks,
-Adam

-- 
http://maxamillion.googlepages.com
-
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

Casey Dahlin wrote:
 Because they gave us a bad grade and now we're butthurt and we're taking
 our ball and going home so there? Because that's what everyone's going to
 hear, even if its not what we say.

If they love hearing bullsh*t, they should just go use a distro for bullsh*t
lovers, like the one which is spitting out marketing bullsh*t all the time,
it's their loss.

People who actually have a brain will get our message.

Kevin Kofler

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: unable to include capability.h

2009-06-12 Thread Bill Crawford


Kyle McMartin wrote:
...

Someone else suggested including sys/types.h first, which should work
around it. That's what GNU coreutils did... (a change in the include
ordering broke it.)


I'm surprised the man page for cap_get_flag etc don't show an include of 
sys/types.h before sys/capability.h ... many system call man pages 
do e.g. --


NAME
   open, creat - open and possibly create a file or device

SYNOPSIS
   #include sys/types.h
   #include sys/stat.h
   #include fcntl.h

   int open(const char *pathname, int flags);
   int open(const char *pathname, int flags, mode_t mode);

   int creat(const char *pathname, mode_t mode);

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Signing server? (Re: Updates testing for F-11)

2009-06-12 Thread Christoph Wickert

Am Freitag, den 12.06.2009, 05:34 +0200 schrieb Kevin Kofler:
 Christoph Wickert wrote:
  IMO this is something we should discuss on this list. We need to find a
  fine balance between pushing updates in time to make maintainers happy
  and not too many updates for the users. Maybe something like
  security/urgent updates daily, everything else once or twice a week. But
  this needs further discussion.
 
 I don't see what it buys our users if they get one big update over 2 small
 ones. 

In most cases the biggest part (consuming time and cpu cycles) of the
updates is not installing them but everything else like checking for new
packages, downloading the metadata, calculating dependencies,
downloading the packages and running the transaction test. Especially
for small updates this takes much more time than the actual rpm -U
part.

 Plus, it'd require us to distinguish urgent vs. not urgent updates,
 and causes big issues with urgent updates accidentally depending on
 non-urgent ones. 

Good point. I did not think of that because my updates usually are at
the end of a dependency chain and if not, I put all packages that
require each other into one big update. Maintainers should be smart
enough to do it that way.
Of course it would cause problems for people waiting for other
packager's updates, but IMO this is no difference to the current
situation: If you don't ask rel-eng for a build root overwrite, you have
to wait until the dependencies are pushed before you can build you
packages.

Of course it would require some automatic dependency check from bodhi,
but this is something we should look at anyway as the recent vte update
shows.

Regards,
Christoph

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: GDM Language list...

2009-06-12 Thread Bill Nottingham

Jens Petersen (peter...@redhat.com) said: 
 - Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote:
  Well, there are languages we would support fine that don't have a
  specific language-support group (most anything that uses a Latin-1
  like
  charset, and no specific input method.) Moreover, the groups that are
  installed aren't actually recorded anywhere on the installed system.
  (And having gdm attempt to discover/compute what groups are installed
  is completely impractical.)
 
 The YumLangpackPlugin Feature that I am planning to propose for F12 may help 
 with this providing langpack-support metapackages.
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/YumLangpackPlugin

My one concern with this is that the conditional stuff is also used on
the compose side when making LiveCDs, etc.  We need to make sure that
still works somehow.

Bill

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Signing server? (Re: Updates testing for F-11)

Christoph Wickert wrote:
 In most cases the biggest part (consuming time and cpu cycles) of the
 updates is not installing them but everything else like checking for new
 packages, downloading the metadata, calculating dependencies,
 downloading the packages and running the transaction test. Especially
 for small updates this takes much more time than the actual rpm -U
 part.

If you include just the urgent stuff in daily updates, those will still be
the same.

Kevin Kofler

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 19:01 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
 On 06/12/2009 06:42 PM, Kyle McMartin wrote:
 
  It's almost certainly attributable to the default install using audit.
  Roland and various others have done a lot of work improving things, but
  there is always going to be a per-syscall overhead to this kind of
  thing. A few extra usec a syscall adds up after a few hundred thousand
  calls...
 
 Is there a benefit to running audit by default? Is it worth the cost?

...and how does one disable it, so the people doing the benchmarks can
confirm that's the cause?

-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

On 06/12/2009 09:14 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
 On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 19:01 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
 On 06/12/2009 06:42 PM, Kyle McMartin wrote:

 It's almost certainly attributable to the default install using audit.
 Roland and various others have done a lot of work improving things, but
 there is always going to be a per-syscall overhead to this kind of
 thing. A few extra usec a syscall adds up after a few hundred thousand
 calls...

 Is there a benefit to running audit by default? Is it worth the cost?
 
 ...and how does one disable it, so the people doing the benchmarks can
 confirm that's the cause?

service auditd stop and chkconfig auditd off if you want that to be
permanent.

Rahul

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Signing server? (Re: Updates testing for F-11)

2009-06-12 Thread Toshio Kuratomi

On 06/12/2009 08:14 AM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
 Am Freitag, den 12.06.2009, 05:34 +0200 schrieb Kevin Kofler:

 I don't see what it buys our users if they get one big update over 2 small
 ones. 
 
 In most cases the biggest part (consuming time and cpu cycles) of the
 updates is not installing them but everything else like checking for new
 packages, downloading the metadata,

This portion of the list is saved.

 calculating dependencies,
 downloading the packages and running the transaction test. Especially
 for small updates this takes much more time than the actual rpm -U
 part.
 

But this portion of your list is dependent on the size of the
transaction so it isn't going to halve the time to go from two small
updates to a single large update here.

-Toshio



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Chris Adams

Once upon a time, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com said:
 On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 19:01 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
  Is there a benefit to running audit by default? Is it worth the cost?
 
 ...and how does one disable it, so the people doing the benchmarks can
 confirm that's the cause?

At the command-line as root, chkconfig auditd off will disable it for
the next boot and service auditd stop will stop it for the running
system.

Note that there used to be an issue with stopping autitd where auditing
wasn't actually turned off (just the daemon catching the logging).  You
had to manually turn off auditing with IIRC auditctl -e 0.  I don't
know if this has been addressed in newer versions.

For benchmarking, you'd probably be better off with disabling it with
chkconfig and doing a clean boot anyway.
-- 
Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: rpmconf - tool to handle rpmnew and rpmsave files

On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 14:30 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
I've been tired for some time of watching rpmnew and rpmsave files. I've
been looking for some tool, but did not find any, so I wrote my own.

http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rpmconf/rpmconf

Before I spend more times on this script, I would like to hear your
opinion. Do you find it useful? Did it already exists and I miss it in
my search?

http://learn.clemsonlinux.org/wiki/Gentoo:etc-update

That's etc-update, originates from Gentoo, and handles rpmnew/rpmsave
files (I think it just matches any filenames in /etc that look to be
variants of each other).

Mandriva has rather simple handling of these files in its graphical
package manager, rpmdrake:

http://svn.mandriva.com/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/soft/rpmdrake/trunk/Rpmdrake/rpmnew.pm?view=markup

it more or less just shows you a diff between the old and new configs,
and asks which you'd like to use. No editing / reconciliation is
possible. And it's in perl. =)

There may be others, but those are the ones that spring to mind.

(btw, if anyone's wondering why there's always a blank line above my sig
now, this appears to be a 'feature' of Evolution in Rawhide...it
includes a blank line before the separator in the signature block).

--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Xose Vazquez Perez

Adam Williamson wrote:

 On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 19:01 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
 Is there a benefit to running audit by default? Is it worth the cost?
 
 ...and how does one disable it, so the people doing the benchmarks can
 confirm that's the cause?

put selinux=0 audit=0 in kernel line at /boot/grub/grub.conf
then reboot

$ dmesg  | egrep -i audit|selinux
Kernel command line: ro root=UUID=c99c0f86-6ebc-4e0f-91ee-4a6ae7ae6aa9 vga=791 
selinux=0 audit=0
audit: disabled (until reboot)
SELinux:  Disabled at boot.


See what Torvalds says about audit and fedora kernel:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=124405016926339w=2

-- 
Polycommander, Erkowit, Urquiola, Andros Patria, Cason, Aegean Sea, Prestige, 
...

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

On 06/12/2009 09:35 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:

 put selinux=0 audit=0 in kernel line at /boot/grub/grub.conf
 then reboot
 
 $ dmesg  | egrep -i audit|selinux
 Kernel command line: ro root=UUID=c99c0f86-6ebc-4e0f-91ee-4a6ae7ae6aa9 
 vga=791 selinux=0 audit=0
 audit: disabled (until reboot)
 SELinux:  Disabled at boot.
 
 
 See what Torvalds says about audit and fedora kernel:
 http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=124405016926339w=2

Turning off audit doesn't turn off SELinux. Linus is wrong about that.

Rahul

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Joe Nall



On Jun 12, 2009, at 11:11 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:


On 06/12/2009 09:35 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:


put selinux=0 audit=0 in kernel line at /boot/grub/grub.conf
then reboot

$ dmesg  | egrep -i audit|selinux
Kernel command line: ro  
root=UUID=c99c0f86-6ebc-4e0f-91ee-4a6ae7ae6aa9 vga=791 selinux=0  
audit=0

audit: disabled (until reboot)
SELinux:  Disabled at boot.


See what Torvalds says about audit and fedora kernel:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=124405016926339w=2


Turning off audit doesn't turn off SELinux. Linus is wrong about that.


I think he was referring to building the kernel w/o audit.

joe


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Jeff Spaleta

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 5:28 AM, Casey Dahlincdah...@redhat.com wrote:
 Because they gave us a bad grade and now we're butthurt and we're taking our 
 ball and going home so there? Because that's what everyone's going to hear, 
 even if its not what we say.

What I have a problem with is the lack of information about
methodology that would allow me to interpret the result in comparison
to other results using slightly different methodology..

I don't have a problem getting a bad grade. I do have a general
problem with people who publish unexpected behavior regressions but
don't actually use the open development process to drive feedback
directly to developers.  If we deserve a black eye over it, fine I'll
stand up and take my punches. But the laypress can't seem to be
bothered to actually be a part of the development processes which
would actually drive solutions to problems..and that bothers
me..greatly.  For some reason, once you find yourself a soapbox to
stand on, you immune to actually reporting problems in the established
communication channels.

This is the sort of thing I would have love them to do at the alpha
and beta release points...open bug tickets about..and if the issue is
unsolved by release time..then so be it..just as long as they link to
the bug ticket and the technical discussion on the ticket when they
punch in the eye.  I know its a pipe dream...the laypress taking a
proactive interest in seeing problems resolved instead of just talking
about them.


-jef

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Strange /etc/fedora-release and smolt help

2009-06-12 Thread sankarshan

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:10 PM, Mike McGrathmmcgr...@redhat.com wrote:

 Can anyone with F11 installed look at what is in their /etc/fedora-release
 and tell me which one you have, and how you installed?  Also what version
 of fedora-release you have.

$ cat /etc/fedora-release
Fedora release 11 (Leonidas)

Installed via LiveUSB

$ rpm -qa | grep fedora-release
fedora-release-notes-11.0.0-2.fc11.noarch
fedora-release-11-1.noarch



-- 
http://www.gutenberg.net - Fine literature digitally re-published
http://www.plos.org - Public Library of Science
http://www.creativecommons.org - Flexible copyright for creative work

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Strange /etc/fedora-release and smolt help

2009-06-12 Thread Michael Cronenworth

Mike McGrath wrote:
 
 Can anyone with F11 installed look at what is in their /etc/fedora-release
 and tell me which one you have, and how you installed?  Also what version
 of fedora-release you have.
 

F10 to F11 system using preupgrade here.

$ cat /etc/fedora-release
Fedora release 11 (Leonidas)
$ rpm -q fedora-release
fedora-release-11-1.noarch

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Fedora rawhide rebuild in mock status 2009-06-08 x86_64

2009-06-12 Thread Ville Skyttä

On Thursday 11 June 2009, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le mercredi 10 juin 2009 à 17:06 -0500, Matt Domsch a écrit :
  Fedora Rawhide-in-Mock Build Results for x86_64
  using the first rawhide of the Fedora 12 development cycle, cut on
  6/8/2008.
 
  Full logs at http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/
 
  Of those expected to have worked...
  Without a bug filed: 313
  --
 
  levien-inconsolata-fonts-1.01-3.fc11 (build/make) kevin

 ...

 This one and probably other font packages use a pattern like

 %_font_pkg -f %{fontconf} *.ttf
 %doc *.pdf

 For some reason the %_font_pkg macro call is eating the EOL, so %doc
 *.pdf ends up at the end of the last line of the macro output and not
 on the next line.

 This is probably a bug or quirk in rpm.

Untested, but it might not be an entirely new thing - I remember seeing 
various issues like that with multiline macro definitions that do not have 
%{nil} as their last line and the fontpackages macros don't appear to have 
that.  IIRC one such thing I fixed (and probably also initially broke) is 
%jpackage_script in /etc/rpm/macros.jpackage.  See other examples in 
/usr/lib/rpm/{,redhat}/macros.


-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Strange /etc/fedora-release and smolt help

2009-06-12 Thread Michael Cronenworth

Michael Cronenworth wrote:
 
 F10 to F11 system using preupgrade here.
 
 $ cat /etc/fedora-release
 Fedora release 11 (Leonidas)
 $ rpm -q fedora-release
 fedora-release-11-1.noarch
 

When I brought up smolt the OS is Fedora 11 Leonidas so is this a
smolt issue?

It seems smolt is under stress at the moment. It's difficult to access
my smolt page (had to refresh 3 times).

[1] http://www.smolts.org/show?uuid=pub_484ec5f5-9136-44ba-b878-7d7af96160f2

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: rpmconf - tool to handle rpmnew and rpmsave files

2009-06-12 Thread Frank Murphy


On 12/06/09 17:00, Adam Williamson wrote:

On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 14:30 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:

I've been tired for some time of watching rpmnew and rpmsave files. I've
been looking for some tool, but did not find any, so I wrote my own.

http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rpmconf/rpmconf

Before I spend more times on this script, I would like to hear your
opinion. Do you find it useful? Did it already exists and I miss it in
my search?






There is something similar in Fedora,
yum-plugin-merge-conf (not installed by default)

currently is supports vi(m)

Now if you could modify this to use Meld lets say:
meld-1.2.1-3.fc11.noarch : Visual diff and merge tool
there would be a gui version.


But, what I would say is,
if you want go ahead, that is the beauty of F\l\OSS
*choice*

Maybe with your also Meld as a frontend?

Frank

--
jabber | msn | google-talk | skype: frankly3d
(Skype will be scrapped 1st July 2009)
http://www.frankly3d.com
Mailing-List Reply to: Mailing-List

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Plan for tomorrow's (20090612) FESCo meeting

2009-06-12 Thread Jarod Wilson

On Thursday 11 June 2009 17:04:03 Jon Stanley wrote:
 Here's a list of topics for tomorrow's FESCo meeting, taking place in
 #fedora-meeting on freenode at 17:00UTC.
 
 160   Announce EOL date for F-9
 162   Milestone Adjustment Proposal
 161   Proposal for fedora-release version-release naming for rawhide
 
 For more complete details, please visit each individual ticket.  The
 report of the agenda items can be found at
 https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9
 
 If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can reply to
 this e-mail, file a new ticket at https://fedorahosted.org/fesco,
 e-mail me directly, or bring it up at the end of the meeting, during
 the open floor.

Arch support in F12. During F11, we went from i386-i586, while there
was a lot of desire to go straight to i686. The sooner we can make a
go/no-go call if we're moving F12 to i686, the better... Not sure if
there is a formal feature page for this yet or not...

-- 
Jarod Wilson
ja...@redhat.com

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Casey Dahlin

On 06/12/2009 12:44 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
 I don't have a problem getting a bad grade. I do have a general
 problem with people who publish unexpected behavior regressions but
 don't actually use the open development process to drive feedback
 directly to developers.  If we deserve a black eye over it, fine I'll
 stand up and take my punches. But the laypress can't seem to be
 bothered to actually be a part of the development processes which
 would actually drive solutions to problems..and that bothers
 me..greatly.  For some reason, once you find yourself a soapbox to
 stand on, you immune to actually reporting problems in the established
 communication channels.
 

You may or may not have misunderstood my point. I feel that attempting to 
protest any aspect of the benchmark without a lot of care paid to tone will 
lead to accusations of oh Fedora's just mad because they're slow. That's not 
true, we're happy to have people test the distro, its just what it looks like.

 This is the sort of thing I would have love them to do at the alpha
 and beta release points...open bug tickets about..and if the issue is
 unsolved by release time..then so be it..just as long as they link to
 the bug ticket and the technical discussion on the ticket when they
 punch in the eye.  I know its a pipe dream...the laypress taking a
 proactive interest in seeing problems resolved instead of just talking
 about them.
 

I think the press gets more flack than they deserve about this, simply because 
the press is a bit of a big, monolithic term thats easy to demonize. Let's 
look at it on another scale: should every person who ever blogs about a bad 
experience with fedora file bugs? Probably, but that also doesn't happen much.

Another part of it is a dated model of how to report on software. If they were 
benchmarking, say, Windows vs OSX, you wouldn't expect bug reports. They're 
just treating us the way they'd treat any other proprietary product. Press 
mentality just hasn't caught up to open source.

--CJD

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

2009-06-12 Thread Bastien Nocera

Heya,

I've added a patch to bluetoothd in F-12 to support being started via
udev, on-demand. bluetoothd will now only start up when you have a
Bluetooth adapter plugged, and will exit 30 seconds after the last one
went away.

The only purpose of the bluetooth initscript is now to switch HID proxy
adapters into Bluetooth mode (on Macs, and some Logitech and Dell
keyboard/mouse combos). That'll probably go away as well, and into udev.

File bugs against bluez if you encounter any problems with bluetoothd
being in the wrong state (ie. started with no Bluetooth hardware, and
not running when you have Bluetooth hardware).

Cheers

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:05:39PM +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
 I've added a patch to bluetoothd in F-12 to support being started via
 udev, on-demand. bluetoothd will now only start up when you have a
 Bluetooth adapter plugged, and will exit 30 seconds after the last one
 went away.
 
 The only purpose of the bluetooth initscript is now to switch HID proxy
 adapters into Bluetooth mode (on Macs, and some Logitech and Dell
 keyboard/mouse combos). That'll probably go away as well, and into udev.
 
 File bugs against bluez if you encounter any problems with bluetoothd
 being in the wrong state (ie. started with no Bluetooth hardware, and
 not running when you have Bluetooth hardware).
 

I've been hoping to find some time to do a big review of system startup
for F-12, but haven't as yet found the time...

How does this actually work? At what stage of boot does udev attempt to
start bluetoothd?

One of my ideas(I guess?) for F-12 is to filter modules loaded at boot
by udev, and defer things that aren't needed for startup until either
idle, or they are needed. (Why do we need sound modules loaded before we
mount root rw? :) I've got a couple hacks from LPC last year I need to
polish and submit for cups to make it somewhat more sensible...

Pardon my curiosity, this is a big step towards better boot up. Thanks
for doing this!

cheers, Kyle

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

2009-06-12 Thread drago01

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Kyle McMartink...@mcmartin.ca wrote:
 On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:05:39PM +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
 I've added a patch to bluetoothd in F-12 to support being started via
 udev, on-demand. bluetoothd will now only start up when you have a
 Bluetooth adapter plugged, and will exit 30 seconds after the last one
 went away.

 The only purpose of the bluetooth initscript is now to switch HID proxy
 adapters into Bluetooth mode (on Macs, and some Logitech and Dell
 keyboard/mouse combos). That'll probably go away as well, and into udev.

 File bugs against bluez if you encounter any problems with bluetoothd
 being in the wrong state (ie. started with no Bluetooth hardware, and
 not running when you have Bluetooth hardware).


 I've been hoping to find some time to do a big review of system startup
 for F-12, but haven't as yet found the time...

 How does this actually work? At what stage of boot does udev attempt to
 start bluetoothd?

 One of my ideas(I guess?) for F-12 is to filter modules loaded at boot
 by udev, and defer things that aren't needed for startup until either
 idle, or they are needed. (Why do we need sound modules loaded before we
 mount root rw? :) I've got a couple hacks from LPC last year I need to
 polish and submit for cups to make it somewhat more sensible...

 Pardon my curiosity, this is a big step towards better boot up. Thanks
 for doing this!

 cheers, Kyle

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484345

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

2009-06-12 Thread Bastien Nocera

On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 20:20 +0200, drago01 wrote:
 On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Kyle McMartink...@mcmartin.ca wrote:
  On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:05:39PM +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
  I've added a patch to bluetoothd in F-12 to support being started via
  udev, on-demand. bluetoothd will now only start up when you have a
  Bluetooth adapter plugged, and will exit 30 seconds after the last one
  went away.
 
  The only purpose of the bluetooth initscript is now to switch HID proxy
  adapters into Bluetooth mode (on Macs, and some Logitech and Dell
  keyboard/mouse combos). That'll probably go away as well, and into udev.
 
  File bugs against bluez if you encounter any problems with bluetoothd
  being in the wrong state (ie. started with no Bluetooth hardware, and
  not running when you have Bluetooth hardware).
 
 
  I've been hoping to find some time to do a big review of system startup
  for F-12, but haven't as yet found the time...
 
  How does this actually work? At what stage of boot does udev attempt to
  start bluetoothd?
 
  One of my ideas(I guess?) for F-12 is to filter modules loaded at boot
  by udev, and defer things that aren't needed for startup until either
  idle, or they are needed. (Why do we need sound modules loaded before we
  mount root rw? :) I've got a couple hacks from LPC last year I need to
  polish and submit for cups to make it somewhat more sensible...
 
  Pardon my curiosity, this is a big step towards better boot up. Thanks
  for doing this!
 
  cheers, Kyle
 
 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484345

Nope, that was the code that was in F-12 up until now, which I removed,
and replace with a better way. There's no initscripts needed anymore.

Cheers

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

2009-06-12 Thread drago01

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Bastien Nocerabnoc...@redhat.com wrote:
 On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 20:20 +0200, drago01 wrote:
 On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Kyle McMartink...@mcmartin.ca wrote:
  On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:05:39PM +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
  I've added a patch to bluetoothd in F-12 to support being started via
  udev, on-demand. bluetoothd will now only start up when you have a
  Bluetooth adapter plugged, and will exit 30 seconds after the last one
  went away.
 
  The only purpose of the bluetooth initscript is now to switch HID proxy
  adapters into Bluetooth mode (on Macs, and some Logitech and Dell
  keyboard/mouse combos). That'll probably go away as well, and into udev.
 
  File bugs against bluez if you encounter any problems with bluetoothd
  being in the wrong state (ie. started with no Bluetooth hardware, and
  not running when you have Bluetooth hardware).
 
 
  I've been hoping to find some time to do a big review of system startup
  for F-12, but haven't as yet found the time...
 
  How does this actually work? At what stage of boot does udev attempt to
  start bluetoothd?
 
  One of my ideas(I guess?) for F-12 is to filter modules loaded at boot
  by udev, and defer things that aren't needed for startup until either
  idle, or they are needed. (Why do we need sound modules loaded before we
  mount root rw? :) I've got a couple hacks from LPC last year I need to
  polish and submit for cups to make it somewhat more sensible...
 
  Pardon my curiosity, this is a big step towards better boot up. Thanks
  for doing this!
 
  cheers, Kyle

 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484345

 Nope, that was the code that was in F-12 up until now, which I removed,
 and replace with a better way. There's no initscripts needed anymore.

Oh, nice.

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

On 06/12/2009 11:35 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
 Heya,
 
 I've added a patch to bluetoothd in F-12 to support being started via
 udev, on-demand. bluetoothd will now only start up when you have a
 Bluetooth adapter plugged, and will exit 30 seconds after the last one
 went away.

Can you add these details to

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_12_Beta_release_notes

Rahul

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

2009-06-12 Thread Lennart Poettering

On Fri, 12.06.09 19:26, Bastien Nocera (bnoc...@redhat.com) wrote:

 Every time there's an add action for a Bluetooth device, udev will run
 bluetoothd --udev.
 
 bluetoothd will fail with an error if D-Bus isn't started (on bootup),
 and the udev coldplug (done in udev-post) will run the rule again.
 
 bluetoothd will silently fail when it's already running.
 
 bluetoothd will exit itself after 30 seconds when no adapters are
 present. There's a potential race if the udev add event happens in
 between the time the time the running bluetoothd reliquinshes its D-Bus
 service, and the new one starts up.

This could be fixed by first releasing the service name synchronously,
then processing all queued requests and only then closing/exiting.

Hmm, will bluetoothd also be started via bus activation? If so, it
wuld probably make sense to issue a StartByName D-Bus request from the
udev rule and let dbus handle all the ordering/synchronization issues
with starting up bluetoothd.

I know at least one application (PA) that wouldn't reconnect to coming
and going bluetoothd's, that's why I am asking.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart PoetteringRed Hat, Inc.
lennart [at] poettering [dot] net
http://0pointer.net/lennart/   GnuPG 0x1A015CC4

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Problem with the fedorapeople.org website

2009-06-12 Thread Patrick MONNERAT

Hi list,

Yesterday, when I pointed my browser to
http://monnerat.fedorapeople.org/, I got a directory index. Today, the
output is:
 

Forbidden
You don't have permission to access / on this server.
Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use
an ErrorDocument to handle the request.


I did not change anything to my public_html path permissions.
I can still access files in this directory, like
http://monnerat.fedorapeople.org/php-captchaphp.spec
I do not have a .htaccess file (neither did I yesterday!)
I do not have an index.* file neither.

What's wrong ? Did I missed something ?

Thanks in advance for help
Patrick

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

FESCo meeting summary for 2009-06-12

2009-06-12 Thread Jon Stanley

Here's the minutes and IRC log of today's FESCo meeting

Minutes: 
http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/fedora-meeting/2009/fedora-meeting.2009-06-12-17.01.html
Log: 
http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/fedora-meeting/2009/fedora-meeting.2009-06-12-17.01.log.html

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Problem with the fedorapeople.org website

2009-06-12 Thread Ricky Zhou

On 2009-06-12 08:46:48 PM, Patrick MONNERAT wrote:
 I did not change anything to my public_html path permissions.
 I can still access files in this directory, like
 http://monnerat.fedorapeople.org/php-captchaphp.spec
 I do not have a .htaccess file (neither did I yesterday!)
 I do not have an index.* file neither.
Strange, I'm not sure what happened either.  I just restarted apache,
which seemed to allow indexes again.  Please let us know if you see this
problem again.

Thanks,
Ricky


pgpVWUQYuPuP5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

2009-06-12 Thread Bastien Nocera

On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 14:39 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
 On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Bastien Nocerabnoc...@redhat.com wrote:
 
  bluetoothd will exit itself after 30 seconds when no adapters are
  present. There's a potential race if the udev add event happens in
  between the time the time the running bluetoothd reliquinshes its D-Bus
  service, and the new one starts up.
 
 We should support this I think.  I've added a bug here:
 
 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22258

We don't use D-Bus for that in-flight message.

The message is in-flight between the kernel and bluetoothd via netlink.

   1. running bluetoothd   2. adapter insertion

- last bt adapter gets removed
- timeout kicks in
   30 sec...
- we start processing shutdown
   - udev gets event from the kernel
   - udev rule is processed
   - bluetoothd is run with --udev
   - bluetoothd exits because the
 service is already running
- relinquish the D-Bus service
- bluetoothd exits

Something like that.

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

2009-06-12 Thread Lennart Poettering

On Fri, 12.06.09 20:10, Bastien Nocera (bnoc...@redhat.com) wrote:

  This could be fixed by first releasing the service name synchronously,
  then processing all queued requests and only then closing/exiting.
  
  Hmm, will bluetoothd also be started via bus activation? If so, it
  wuld probably make sense to issue a StartByName D-Bus request from the
  udev rule and let dbus handle all the ordering/synchronization issues
  with starting up bluetoothd.
 
 No, there's no service activation support. Would it be useful?

I think it would. Seems to me as if some of the BT functionality
(org.bluez.Manager, ...) might be useful even without having hw
plugged in.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart PoetteringRed Hat, Inc.
lennart [at] poettering [dot] net
http://0pointer.net/lennart/   GnuPG 0x1A015CC4

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Paul W. Frields

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:55:56PM +1000, Eric Springer wrote:
 I agree with the sentiment that phoronix reviews are lazy, poor, etc
 -- but that doesn't mean nothing is revealed by them. Especially
 considering how many people will use these benchmarks to make
 conclusions about Fedora, we should make sure it presents as best as
 it can. So I think it is important to establish why our apache
 result were so poor and what can be done to fix it.

Our Apache results on the Phoronix tests, AIUI, are from an Apache
they compiled, which is not what most people are going to use.
There's also no mention of whether they mitigated the way results
would have changed from our use of SELinux.

Just another couple of gripes here, but I do agree with a previous
poster that a well-thought out series of benchmarks and an explanation
of their meaning would be far preferable to what Phoronix publishes.

As a side note, (almost) anyone can take your blood and put it in a
centrifuge, but it takes a specialist to tell you what the results
mean for your health. ;-)

-- 
Paul W. Frieldshttp://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
  irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Chris Ball

Hi,

Our Apache results on the Phoronix tests, AIUI, are from an
Apache they compiled, which is not what most people are going to
use.

Do similar results occur when you compare the installed Apaches instead,
or does the discrepancy go away?

There's also no mention of whether they mitigated the way results
would have changed from our use of SELinux.

Why would you want to mitigate that, in a comparison of distributions
out-of-the-box?  (And, what would mitigate mean here?)

Just another couple of gripes here, but I do agree with a
previous poster that a well-thought out series of benchmarks and
an explanation of their meaning would be far preferable to what
Phoronix publishes.

I guess I feel pretty consequentialist about this -- if the discrepancy
they measured doesn't actually exist in a form that our users might
hit, then they were wrong to post a badly-designed benchmark.

If it does exist, on the other hand, they've done us a large favour
by pointing out something we didn't know about (which might even be a
large regression from F10), and I'd feel that we should (a) thank them
and encourage them to run benchmarks more often, (b) fix our bug, and
(c) tell them how to improve their benchmarks, with patches, so that
it doesn't take so long to work out whether there's a real problem
next time.

The question is, which is it?

- Chris.
-- 
Chris Ball   c...@laptop.org

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: Strange /etc/fedora-release and smolt help

2009-06-12 Thread Mathieu Bridon (bochecha)

 I'm trying to figure out whats going on here so I'm off to the list.

 Smolts.org is reporting people checking in with both:

 Fedora 11 Leonidas

 and

 Fedora release 11 (Leonidas)

 Can anyone with F11 installed look at what is in their /etc/fedora-release
 and tell me which one you have, and how you installed?  Also what version
 of fedora-release you have.


$ cat /etc/fedora-release
Fedora release 11 (Leonidas)

# smoltSendProfile
UUID: 8e71bd57-f8f2-4793-b68b-99bfee6f3aa2
SE: Fedora release 11 (Leonidas)
...

# rpm -q fedora-release
fedora-release-11-1.noarch

I installed it from Snapshot live CD, then updated.


--

Mathieu Bridon (bochecha)

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

EPEL Bug Day

2009-06-12 Thread Michael Stahnke

The EPEL SIG team is asking for your participation at the first EPEL
Bug Day.  Please step up and help make EPEL a successful supplement to
Enterprise Linux.


When:  July 11, 2009 00:00 UTC - 23:59 UTC.

Goal:  Squash (close) as many bugs as possible with proper solutions.


More Information:
*   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL_Bug_Day_July_2009
Current Bug List
*   http://tr.im/epelbugs


We'll send out some more information when it becomes available.

Thanks for your help,
stahnma

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: mount shows dm-* instead og dev/mapper/*

2009-06-12 Thread Laurent Jacquot

Hello,
I forgot to give my conf.
I run a fully updated fedora 10

[r...@jack ~]# uname -a
Linux jack.lutty.net 2.6.27.24-170.2.68.fc10.i686 #1 SMP Wed May 20
23:10:16 EDT 2009 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linu

If nobody has a clue about that, I will bug Zilla, probably under
device-mapper-1.02.27-7.fc10.i386

regards,
laurent


Le jeudi 11 juin 2009 à 23:32 +0200, Laurent Jacquot a écrit :
 Hello,
 I recently upgraded my raid array from 4 to 5 disks,
 and mount no longer shows lv names but is /dev/dm-* style instead.
 My setup is lvm on softraid
 
 blkid, cat /proc/mounts, df, etc.. are all affected
 
 How can I recover the normal behavior? Is it really caused by my
 upgrade?
 I recreated /etc/blkid, /etc/lvm/.cache.
 I straced blkid (with no cache): it reads directly the data
 from /proc/partitions.
 
 cat /proc/partitions shows (edited for simplicity)
 major minor  #blocks  name
 
8 0  390711384 sda
8 11020096 sda1
816  390711384 sdb
8171020096 sdb1
832  195360984 sdc
833  1 sdc1
848  195360984 sdd
849  1 sdd1
864  976762584 sde
865  1 sde1
9 1   78171648 md1
  253 02064384 dm-0
  253 12064384 dm-1
  253 2   10485760 dm-2
  253 3   12484608 dm-3
  253 44194304 dm-4
9 2   78171904 md2
9 01020032 md0
9 3   78171904 md3
  253 5  136314880 dm-5
  253 6   62914560 dm-6
  253 7   37748736 dm-7
  253 8   31457280 dm-8
  253 9   20971520 dm-9
 
 
 Should I file a bug? And if so, to which component
 
 example of output:
  FilesystemSize  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
  /dev/dm-0 2.0G  505M  1.4G  27% /
  /dev/md0  981M   40M  891M   5% /boot
  /dev/dm-2 9.9G  5.8G  3.7G  62% /usr
  /dev/dm-1 2.0G   38M  1.9G   2% /tmp
  /dev/dm-3  12G  994M   11G   9% /var
  /dev/dm-16 20G   12G  6.8G  64% /var/www/html
  /dev/dm-15 36G  3.6G   32G  11% /home
  /dev/dm-17 60G   38G   19G  67% /home/alex/Images
  /dev/dm-18 20G   15G  3.9G  80% /home/alex/Mp3
  /dev/dm-19 25G   21G  2.5G  90% /home/alex/vmware
  /dev/dm-11 20G   13G  6.7G  65% /backup/www
  /dev/dm-7  36G  3.6G   31G  11% /backup/home
  /dev/dm-6  60G   38G   19G  68% /backup/Images
  /dev/dm-9  20G   15G  3.8G  81% /backup/Mp3
  /dev/dm-10 25G  173M   24G   1% /backup/vmware
 
 instead of
 FilesystemSize  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
  /dev/mapper/rootvg-rootlv
2.0G  505M  1.4G  27% /
  /dev/md0  981M   40M  891M   5% /boot
  /dev/mapper/rootvg-usrlv
9.9G  5.8G  3.7G  62% /usr
  /dev/mapper/rootvg-tmplv
2.0G   38M  1.9G   2% /tmp
  /dev/mapper/rootvg-varlv
 12G  936M   11G   9% /var
  /dev/mapper/datavg-wwwlv
 20G   12G  6.8G  64% /var/www/html
  /dev/mapper/datavg-homelv
 36G  3.5G   32G  10% /home
  /dev/mapper/datavg-Imageslv
 60G   38G   19G  67% /home/alex/Images
  /dev/mapper/datavg-mp3lv
 20G   15G  3.9G  80% /home/alex/Mp3
  /dev/mapper/datavg-vmwarelv
 25G   21G  3.4G  86% /home/alex/vmware
  /dev/mapper/sauv2vg-mp3lv
 20G   15G  3.8G  81% /backup/Mp3
 
 Thank you in advance,
 Laurent
 
 


-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 15:24 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
 Eric Springer wrote:
  Especially  considering how many people will use these benchmarks to make
  conclusions about Fedora, we should make sure it presents as best as it
  can.
 
 I think we should rather do an informative press campaign on the lines
 of Why Phoronix benchmarks are utter bullsh*t.
 
 Kevin Kofler
 

Kevin,

I must admit that I didn't expect such childish reaction from someone
like you.

You don't like Phoronix' benchmark? Why? What should they have done
differently? Have you ever contacted Phoronix (E.g. Using their forums)
and tried to resolve these issues? Did they refuse?
Yes, encoding MP3 is rotten way to benchmark a file system, but some of
these benchmarks -do- show anomalies, and simply ignoring these
anomalies while FUD'ing the messenger (Phoronix in this case) is
childish.

Might I remind everyone here that Phoronix was the first to offer a
comprehensive benchmark suite to the OSS world. (Google back to 5-10
years ago and you'll see an assortment of half-backed benchmarks that
never really worked... and no, glxgears is not a benchmark!)
Instead of throwing mud at Phoronix, we (as in, all the people that have
grievances with this benchmark suite) -should- concentrate in trying
help Phoronix improve their benchmarking suite.

- Gilboa


-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 04:33 +0300, Gilboa Davara wrote:
 On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 15:24 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
  Eric Springer wrote:
   Especially  considering how many people will use these benchmarks to make
   conclusions about Fedora, we should make sure it presents as best as it
   can.
  
  I think we should rather do an informative press campaign on the lines
  of Why Phoronix benchmarks are utter bullsh*t.
  
  Kevin Kofler
  
 
 Kevin,
 
 I must admit that I didn't expect such childish reaction from someone
 like you.
 
 You don't like Phoronix' benchmark? Why? What should they have done
 differently? Have you ever contacted Phoronix (E.g. Using their forums)
 and tried to resolve these issues? Did they refuse?
 Yes, encoding MP3 is rotten way to benchmark a file system, but some of
 these benchmarks -do- show anomalies, and simply ignoring these
 anomalies while FUD'ing the messenger (Phoronix in this case) is
 childish.
 
 Might I remind everyone here that Phoronix was the first to offer a
 comprehensive benchmark suite to the OSS world. (Google back to 5-10
 years ago and you'll see an assortment of half-backed benchmarks that
 never really worked... and no, glxgears is not a benchmark!)
 Instead of throwing mud at Phoronix, we (as in, all the people that have
 grievances with this benchmark suite) -should- concentrate in trying
 help Phoronix improve their benchmarking suite.
 
 - Gilboa
 

I apologize in advance, for the overly harsh language. (Not specifically
directed at you, Kevin).

- Gilboa

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 00:47 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:

  I know its a pipe dream...the laypress taking a proactive interest in
  seeing problems resolved instead of just talking about them.
 
 I don't think it's ever going to happen. The laypress should just die,
 people need to go directly to the developers to get actual information.

Right, because developers are legendarily happy to spend their days
painstakingly explaining things to people with little clue. ;)

Seriously, I agree with many of your complaints about 'the
press' (especially the general interest tech press) when it comes to
'reviewing distributions', but I find it worthwhile to spend time wading
through the acres of reviews, because there is the occasional nugget of
useful feedback in there if you look hard enough, and if you spend some
time developing a relationship with the people who write the reviews,
you can a) get more useful information out of them to feed to developers
in a proper fashion, and b) subtly influence them towards producing
slightly nicer reviews in future, by making sure they have useful
information available and understand how certain things work when
they're writing their reviews. I've found quite a lot of reviewers are
actually quite smart and savvy guys (and even file bug reports - yes,
it's true!), but they're often working to word limits and writing for
audiences (and clueless editors...), and a detailed explanation of
complex issues doesn't play well in that context.

Of course, that's something that should more be done by
community/pr-focused people, not developers, probably. Developers have
more immediately valuable things to spend their time on, for which their
expertise is obviously much better suited. Which is all as it should be.
I would agree developers shouldn't spend too much time reading crappily
written reviews :) you guys have better things to do.

-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 04:33 +0300, Gilboa Davara wrote:

 You don't like Phoronix' benchmark? Why? What should they have done
 differently? Have you ever contacted Phoronix (E.g. Using their forums)
 and tried to resolve these issues? Did they refuse?

They should use distribution-compiled binaries - or at least record and
explain the fact that they don't, and check whether there are
significant differences between the compiled binaries they use on each
distro. And when they observe anomalies, they should try and do some
kind of research to confirm the result and figure out _why_, not just
note the fact of the anomaly.

Multiple people have pointed this out to them in the past, but they
haven't really made a concerted effort to change. I have a kind of
love/hate relationship with Phoronix - they're a popular site and do
some really good stuff, but they also make a lot of frustratingly lazy
mistakes and shorthand contractions in many articles.

-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 17:25 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
 On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:55:56PM +1000, Eric Springer wrote:
  I agree with the sentiment that phoronix reviews are lazy, poor, etc
  -- but that doesn't mean nothing is revealed by them. Especially
  considering how many people will use these benchmarks to make
  conclusions about Fedora, we should make sure it presents as best as
  it can. So I think it is important to establish why our apache
  result were so poor and what can be done to fix it.
 
 Our Apache results on the Phoronix tests, AIUI, are from an Apache
 they compiled, which is not what most people are going to use.
 There's also no mention of whether they mitigated the way results
 would have changed from our use of SELinux.

However, back a few posts, someone tested with the Fedora packaged
apache and reproduced the results - same result as Phoronix got, it was
slow. The current thread thinking is that audit is the cause of this.

-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 04:33 +0300, Gilboa Davara wrote:

 Kevin,
 
 I must admit that I didn't expect such childish reaction from someone
 like you.

BTW, I suspect that Kevin's position has a lot to do with the response
KDE 4 got in the press...which is understandable.

-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Gregory Maxwell

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Rahul
Sundaramsunda...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
 On 06/12/2009 06:42 PM, Kyle McMartin wrote:

 It's almost certainly attributable to the default install using audit.
 Roland and various others have done a lot of work improving things, but
 there is always going to be a per-syscall overhead to this kind of
 thing. A few extra usec a syscall adds up after a few hundred thousand
 calls...

 Is there a benefit to running audit by default? Is it worth the cost?

What percentage of users do you think need even a small fraction of
the raw http transaction rate fedora can provide?

Obviously people do run a lot of CPU heavy CGIs, but since those
generally spend time processing rather than just making syscalls they
won't be as impacted as this.

Anyone needing to handle thousands of small HTTP transactions
per-second is doing something fairly specialized.  They should be
quite capable of performing whatever performance tweaks are required.

For everyone else, and even many of the high performance shops, even a
modest security gain is 'worth the cost' of a pretty substantial loss
in peak http request rate. Even for small users the 'cost' of dealing
with even one security breach in, say, 10 years would easily pay for a
second CPU in the few cases where serving thousands of requests per
second is material.

Obviously you want to extract as much performance as possible, and
don't want to take a loss for no gain.  But if after fixing any bugs
Fedora is slower because of a security feature then that needs to be
touted as a *benefit* of fedora. From a marketing perspective people
are more likely to believe advantages when you couple them with a
negative in any case:

Furthermore, Fedora is more secure than other alternatives. Features
like X, Y, and Z make Fedora robust against even unforeseen attacks.
These features do result in a performance hit, for example 5,000 HTTP
requests per second vs 10,000, the impact is negligible on normal
workloads. Since some of the worlds largest websites only do 60,000
req/sec[1] (and have hundreds of servers), we think your time and
security should take precedence. Of course, these security features
can be disabled if your requirements dictate.

[1] http://www.nedworks.org/~mark/reqstats/reqstats-daily.png

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 19:08 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
 On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 04:33 +0300, Gilboa Davara wrote:
 
  Kevin,
  
  I must admit that I didn't expect such childish reaction from someone
  like you.
 
 BTW, I suspect that Kevin's position has a lot to do with the response
 KDE 4 got in the press...which is understandable.
 

Being a KDE(-redhat) user, I'm well aware of Kevin's contribution to
Fedora / KDE / etc, hence my (somewhat harsh) reaction to his OP.

- Gilboa

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 19:05 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
 On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 04:33 +0300, Gilboa Davara wrote:
 
  You don't like Phoronix' benchmark? Why? What should they have done
  differently? Have you ever contacted Phoronix (E.g. Using their forums)
  and tried to resolve these issues? Did they refuse?
 
 They should use distribution-compiled binaries - or at least record and
 explain the fact that they don't, and check whether there are
 significant differences between the compiled binaries they use on each
 distro.

Up until 30 minutes ago, I was unaware of the fact that they use
test-suite compiled binaries.
Though I'd imagine that in Phoronix' view, having (far) different
compile options in the distribution supplied binaries might generate
invalid results. (Due to missing features, non-standard optimization,
etc)

Of-cause, the best solution would have been to test -both- versions -
read: Phoronix-compiled binaries next to distribution supplied binaries
This should generate far cleaner (and far more interesting) results.

 And when they observe anomalies, they should try and do some
 kind of research to confirm the result and figure out _why_, not just
 note the fact of the anomaly.

I fear that you're expecting far too much from popular website.
I'd rather see an open dialog between Phoronix and the different
distributions an in effort to gain usable test-data out of their
benchmarks.

 Multiple people have pointed this out to them in the past, but they
 haven't really made a concerted effort to change.

Has anyone attempted to start an open dialog with them using their
forums? [1].
At least the past, Micheal (Phoronix founder) was very responsive.

 I have a kind of
 love/hate relationship with Phoronix - they're a popular site and do
 some really good stuff, but they also make a lot of frustratingly lazy
 mistakes and shorthand contractions in many articles.

I believe we should praise Phoronix for their work, even if we do not
agree with their methodology.
As I said in my previous post, Phoronix completely changed the landscape
of OSS websites and OSS benchmarking.

- Gilboa
[1] http://www.phoronix.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=49


-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

Gilboa Davara wrote:
 Might I remind everyone here that Phoronix was the first to offer a
 comprehensive benchmark suite to the OSS world.

On the other hand, they actively hurt Free Software by continuously
providing free advertising for the latest and greatest graphics hardware
with only proprietary drivers (at least for OpenGL), of course benchmarked
with the proprietary drivers and touting their features, while focusing
very little on Free drivers. There's the occasional article about Free
drivers, but even those are sometimes mixed articles like news from ATI
where it talks partly about the Free drivers and partly about
fglrx/Catalyst, and they regularly contain statements like While there has
been a lot of great news this week surrounding the open-source ATI graphics
stack on Linux, there is still a fair amount of work left and this work is
not immediately the miracle driver for ATI Radeon customers. which promote
proprietary driver use. And most importantly, there are also few to no
benchmarks with Free drivers. I'd really like comparative benchmarks of
graphics cards using exclusively Free drivers so I can choose the fastest
of those. (I only know of one site doing such a benchmark and they use
glxgears as their benchmark, so I don't trust their results at all.)

 and no, glxgears is not a benchmark!

Indeed, glxgears really sucks as as a benchmark, Phoronix's benchmark suite
(as imperfect as it is) is definitely more useful.

Kevin Kofler

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 05:43 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:

  and no, glxgears is not a benchmark!
 
 Indeed, glxgears really sucks as as a benchmark, Phoronix's benchmark suite
 (as imperfect as it is) is definitely more useful.

I keep meaning to file a feature request for glxgears - remove the FPS
display...if it's not a benchmark, let's not make it look like one.

-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

rpms/perl-Config-Auto/devel import.log, NONE, 1.1 perl-Config-Auto.spec, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.1, 1.2

Author: eseyman

Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Config-Auto/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv5709/devel

Modified Files:
.cvsignore sources 
Added Files:
import.log perl-Config-Auto.spec 
Log Message:
Initial import.


--- NEW FILE import.log ---
perl-Config-Auto-0_20-1_fc11:HEAD:perl-Config-Auto-0.20-1.fc11.src.rpm:1244790533


--- NEW FILE perl-Config-Auto.spec ---
Name:   perl-Config-Auto
Version:0.20
Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:Magical config file parser
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group:  Development/Libraries
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/Config-Auto/
Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/K/KA/KANE/Config-Auto-%{version}.tar.gz
BuildRoot:  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildArch:  noarch
BuildRequires:  perl(Config::IniFiles)
BuildRequires:  perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
BuildRequires:  perl(Test::More)
BuildRequires:  perl(YAML)
Requires:   perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo 
$version))

%description
This module was written after having to write Yet Another Config File
Parser for some variety of colon-separated config. It searches the filesystem
for the program's configuration file, basing itself on the program's name
and returns a data structure based on the file's contents.

%prep
%setup -q -n Config-Auto-%{version}

%build
%{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor
make %{?_smp_mflags}

%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

make pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT

find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} \;
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2/dev/null \;

%{_fixperms} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/*

%check
make test

%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc Changes README
%{perl_vendorlib}/*
%{_mandir}/man3/*

%changelog
* Mon Dec 22 2008 Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr 0.20-1
- Specfile autogenerated by cpanspec 1.77.


Index: .cvsignore
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Config-Auto/devel/.cvsignore,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -p -r1.1 -r1.2
--- .cvsignore  12 Jun 2009 04:29:39 -  1.1
+++ .cvsignore  12 Jun 2009 07:09:22 -  1.2
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Config-Auto-0.20.tar.gz


Index: sources
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Config-Auto/devel/sources,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -p -r1.1 -r1.2
--- sources 12 Jun 2009 04:29:39 -  1.1
+++ sources 12 Jun 2009 07:09:22 -  1.2
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+fadc11b8f908b3d2782849c5e2232585  Config-Auto-0.20.tar.gz

--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list

rpms/perl-Config-Auto/F-11 import.log, NONE, 1.1 perl-Config-Auto.spec, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.1, 1.2

Author: eseyman

Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Config-Auto/F-11
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv6495/F-11

Modified Files:
.cvsignore sources 
Added Files:
import.log perl-Config-Auto.spec 
Log Message:
Initial import.


--- NEW FILE import.log ---
perl-Config-Auto-0_20-1_fc11:F-11:perl-Config-Auto-0.20-1.fc11.src.rpm:1244790646


--- NEW FILE perl-Config-Auto.spec ---
Name:   perl-Config-Auto
Version:0.20
Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:Magical config file parser
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group:  Development/Libraries
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/Config-Auto/
Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/K/KA/KANE/Config-Auto-%{version}.tar.gz
BuildRoot:  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildArch:  noarch
BuildRequires:  perl(Config::IniFiles)
BuildRequires:  perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
BuildRequires:  perl(Test::More)
BuildRequires:  perl(YAML)
Requires:   perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo 
$version))

%description
This module was written after having to write Yet Another Config File
Parser for some variety of colon-separated config. It searches the filesystem
for the program's configuration file, basing itself on the program's name
and returns a data structure based on the file's contents.

%prep
%setup -q -n Config-Auto-%{version}

%build
%{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor
make %{?_smp_mflags}

%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

make pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT

find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} \;
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2/dev/null \;

%{_fixperms} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/*

%check
make test

%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc Changes README
%{perl_vendorlib}/*
%{_mandir}/man3/*

%changelog
* Mon Dec 22 2008 Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr 0.20-1
- Specfile autogenerated by cpanspec 1.77.


Index: .cvsignore
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Config-Auto/F-11/.cvsignore,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -p -r1.1 -r1.2
--- .cvsignore  12 Jun 2009 04:29:39 -  1.1
+++ .cvsignore  12 Jun 2009 07:11:34 -  1.2
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Config-Auto-0.20.tar.gz


Index: sources
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Config-Auto/F-11/sources,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -p -r1.1 -r1.2
--- sources 12 Jun 2009 04:29:39 -  1.1
+++ sources 12 Jun 2009 07:11:34 -  1.2
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+fadc11b8f908b3d2782849c5e2232585  Config-Auto-0.20.tar.gz

--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list

rpms/perl-Config-Auto/F-10 import.log, NONE, 1.1 perl-Config-Auto.spec, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.1, 1.2

Author: eseyman

Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Config-Auto/F-10
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv7062/F-10

Modified Files:
.cvsignore sources 
Added Files:
import.log perl-Config-Auto.spec 
Log Message:
Initial import.


--- NEW FILE import.log ---
perl-Config-Auto-0_20-1_fc11:F-10:perl-Config-Auto-0.20-1.fc11.src.rpm:1244790765


--- NEW FILE perl-Config-Auto.spec ---
Name:   perl-Config-Auto
Version:0.20
Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:Magical config file parser
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group:  Development/Libraries
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/Config-Auto/
Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/K/KA/KANE/Config-Auto-%{version}.tar.gz
BuildRoot:  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildArch:  noarch
BuildRequires:  perl(Config::IniFiles)
BuildRequires:  perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
BuildRequires:  perl(Test::More)
BuildRequires:  perl(YAML)
Requires:   perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo 
$version))

%description
This module was written after having to write Yet Another Config File
Parser for some variety of colon-separated config. It searches the filesystem
for the program's configuration file, basing itself on the program's name
and returns a data structure based on the file's contents.

%prep
%setup -q -n Config-Auto-%{version}

%build
%{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor
make %{?_smp_mflags}

%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

make pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT

find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} \;
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2/dev/null \;

%{_fixperms} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/*

%check
make test

%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc Changes README
%{perl_vendorlib}/*
%{_mandir}/man3/*

%changelog
* Mon Dec 22 2008 Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr 0.20-1
- Specfile autogenerated by cpanspec 1.77.


Index: .cvsignore
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Config-Auto/F-10/.cvsignore,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -p -r1.1 -r1.2
--- .cvsignore  12 Jun 2009 04:29:39 -  1.1
+++ .cvsignore  12 Jun 2009 07:13:10 -  1.2
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Config-Auto-0.20.tar.gz


Index: sources
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Config-Auto/F-10/sources,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -p -r1.1 -r1.2
--- sources 12 Jun 2009 04:29:39 -  1.1
+++ sources 12 Jun 2009 07:13:10 -  1.2
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+fadc11b8f908b3d2782849c5e2232585  Config-Auto-0.20.tar.gz

--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list

rpms/perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch/devel import.log, NONE, 1.1 perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch.spec, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.1, 1.2

Author: eseyman

Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv12180/devel

Modified Files:
.cvsignore sources 
Added Files:
import.log perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch.spec 
Log Message:
Initial import.


--- NEW FILE import.log ---
perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch-1_12-1_fc11:HEAD:perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch-1.12-1.fc11.src.rpm:1244791754


--- NEW FILE perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch.spec ---
Name:   perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch
Version:1.12
Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:Syntactic try/catch sugar for use with Exception::Class
License:ASL 2.0
Group:  Development/Libraries
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/Exception-Class-TryCatch/
Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/D/DA/DAGOLDEN/Exception-Class-TryCatch-%{version}.tar.gz
BuildRoot:  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildArch:  noarch
BuildRequires:  perl(Exception::Class) = 1.2
BuildRequires:  perl(Module::Build)
BuildRequires:  perl(Test::More) = 0.47
Requires:   perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo 
$version))

%description
Exception::Class::TryCatch provides syntactic sugar for use with
Exception::Class using the familiar keywords try and catch. Its primary
objective is to allow users to avoid dealing directly with $@ by ensuring
that any exceptions caught in an eval are captured as Exception::Class
objects, whether they were thrown objects to begin with or whether the
error resulted from die. This means that users may immediately use isa and
various Exception::Class methods to process the exception.

%prep
%setup -q -n Exception-Class-TryCatch-%{version}

%build
%{__perl} Build.PL installdirs=vendor
./Build

%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

./Build install destdir=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT create_packlist=0
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2/dev/null \;

%{_fixperms} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/*

%check
./Build test

%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc Changes LICENSE README Todo
%{perl_vendorlib}/*
%{_mandir}/man3/*

%changelog
* Mon Dec 22 2008 Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr 1.12-1
- Specfile autogenerated by cpanspec 1.77.


Index: .cvsignore
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch/devel/.cvsignore,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -p -r1.1 -r1.2
--- .cvsignore  12 Jun 2009 04:33:38 -  1.1
+++ .cvsignore  12 Jun 2009 07:29:43 -  1.2
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Exception-Class-TryCatch-1.12.tar.gz


Index: sources
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch/devel/sources,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -p -r1.1 -r1.2
--- sources 12 Jun 2009 04:33:38 -  1.1
+++ sources 12 Jun 2009 07:29:43 -  1.2
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+d9943ce5e251437312a11001b9531f43  Exception-Class-TryCatch-1.12.tar.gz

--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list

rpms/perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch/F-11 import.log, NONE, 1.1 perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch.spec, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.1, 1.2

Author: eseyman

Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch/F-11
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv12862/F-11

Modified Files:
.cvsignore sources 
Added Files:
import.log perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch.spec 
Log Message:
Initial import.


--- NEW FILE import.log ---
perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch-1_12-1_fc11:F-11:perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch-1.12-1.fc11.src.rpm:1244791858


--- NEW FILE perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch.spec ---
Name:   perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch
Version:1.12
Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:Syntactic try/catch sugar for use with Exception::Class
License:ASL 2.0
Group:  Development/Libraries
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/Exception-Class-TryCatch/
Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/D/DA/DAGOLDEN/Exception-Class-TryCatch-%{version}.tar.gz
BuildRoot:  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildArch:  noarch
BuildRequires:  perl(Exception::Class) = 1.2
BuildRequires:  perl(Module::Build)
BuildRequires:  perl(Test::More) = 0.47
Requires:   perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo 
$version))

%description
Exception::Class::TryCatch provides syntactic sugar for use with
Exception::Class using the familiar keywords try and catch. Its primary
objective is to allow users to avoid dealing directly with $@ by ensuring
that any exceptions caught in an eval are captured as Exception::Class
objects, whether they were thrown objects to begin with or whether the
error resulted from die. This means that users may immediately use isa and
various Exception::Class methods to process the exception.

%prep
%setup -q -n Exception-Class-TryCatch-%{version}

%build
%{__perl} Build.PL installdirs=vendor
./Build

%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

./Build install destdir=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT create_packlist=0
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2/dev/null \;

%{_fixperms} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/*

%check
./Build test

%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc Changes LICENSE README Todo
%{perl_vendorlib}/*
%{_mandir}/man3/*

%changelog
* Mon Dec 22 2008 Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr 1.12-1
- Specfile autogenerated by cpanspec 1.77.


Index: .cvsignore
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch/F-11/.cvsignore,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -p -r1.1 -r1.2
--- .cvsignore  12 Jun 2009 04:33:38 -  1.1
+++ .cvsignore  12 Jun 2009 07:31:35 -  1.2
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Exception-Class-TryCatch-1.12.tar.gz


Index: sources
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch/F-11/sources,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -p -r1.1 -r1.2
--- sources 12 Jun 2009 04:33:38 -  1.1
+++ sources 12 Jun 2009 07:31:35 -  1.2
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+d9943ce5e251437312a11001b9531f43  Exception-Class-TryCatch-1.12.tar.gz

--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list

rpms/perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch/F-10 import.log, NONE, 1.1 perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch.spec, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.1, 1.2

Author: eseyman

Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch/F-10
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv13634/F-10

Modified Files:
.cvsignore sources 
Added Files:
import.log perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch.spec 
Log Message:
Initial import.


--- NEW FILE import.log ---
perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch-1_12-1_fc11:F-10:perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch-1.12-1.fc11.src.rpm:1244791971


--- NEW FILE perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch.spec ---
Name:   perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch
Version:1.12
Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:Syntactic try/catch sugar for use with Exception::Class
License:ASL 2.0
Group:  Development/Libraries
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/Exception-Class-TryCatch/
Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/D/DA/DAGOLDEN/Exception-Class-TryCatch-%{version}.tar.gz
BuildRoot:  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildArch:  noarch
BuildRequires:  perl(Exception::Class) = 1.2
BuildRequires:  perl(Module::Build)
BuildRequires:  perl(Test::More) = 0.47
Requires:   perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo 
$version))

%description
Exception::Class::TryCatch provides syntactic sugar for use with
Exception::Class using the familiar keywords try and catch. Its primary
objective is to allow users to avoid dealing directly with $@ by ensuring
that any exceptions caught in an eval are captured as Exception::Class
objects, whether they were thrown objects to begin with or whether the
error resulted from die. This means that users may immediately use isa and
various Exception::Class methods to process the exception.

%prep
%setup -q -n Exception-Class-TryCatch-%{version}

%build
%{__perl} Build.PL installdirs=vendor
./Build

%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

./Build install destdir=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT create_packlist=0
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2/dev/null \;

%{_fixperms} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/*

%check
./Build test

%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc Changes LICENSE README Todo
%{perl_vendorlib}/*
%{_mandir}/man3/*

%changelog
* Mon Dec 22 2008 Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr 1.12-1
- Specfile autogenerated by cpanspec 1.77.


Index: .cvsignore
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch/F-10/.cvsignore,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -p -r1.1 -r1.2
--- .cvsignore  12 Jun 2009 04:33:38 -  1.1
+++ .cvsignore  12 Jun 2009 07:33:56 -  1.2
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Exception-Class-TryCatch-1.12.tar.gz


Index: sources
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch/F-10/sources,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -p -r1.1 -r1.2
--- sources 12 Jun 2009 04:33:38 -  1.1
+++ sources 12 Jun 2009 07:33:56 -  1.2
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+d9943ce5e251437312a11001b9531f43  Exception-Class-TryCatch-1.12.tar.gz

--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list

[Bug 503765] perl-File-Find-Rule is not available in EPEL4

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=503765





--- Comment #4 from Xavier Bachelot xav...@bachelot.org  2009-06-12 03:54:45 
EDT ---
My main point of interest is also EL5, but some guys here at work are stuck on
EL4, so I would be happy to take care of the EL4 branches of the packages I
requested you (and others) to rebuild. I'll check the ones who have no taker in
the dependency tree for perl-Log-Dispatch-FileRotate in a few days and request
commit rights for them in the pkgdb.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list

[Bug 505576] New: perl-PAR-Packer not built with $RPM_OPT_FLAGS

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: perl-PAR-Packer not built with $RPM_OPT_FLAGS

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505576

   Summary: perl-PAR-Packer not built with $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: medium
  Priority: low
 Component: perl-PAR-Packer
AssignedTo: mmasl...@redhat.com
ReportedBy: ville.sky...@iki.fi
 QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com, mmasl...@redhat.com
Blocks: 496968
Classification: Fedora


http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/perl-PAR-Packer/0.991/1.fc12/data/logs/x86_64/build.log

For example:

gcc -c -D_REENTRANT -D_GNU_SOURCE -DDEBUGGING -fno-strict-aliasing -pipe
-I/usr/local/include -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64
-I/usr/include/gdbm  -I/usr/lib64/perl5/5.10.0/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/CORE 
sha1.c

No $RPM_OPT_FLAGS there.  See bug 496968 for more info.

Also, while at it, any reason why parallel build is not used?  And why is the
test suite disabled?  If there are reasons for these, would be good to document
them in the specfile.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list

Heads up: perl readline $! no longer broken

2009-06-12 Thread Stepan Kasal

Hello,
  a long standing perl bug was recently fixed in Fedora.

Namely, perl-5.10.0-69 from Jun 3 fixes bug #221113, a.k.a.
http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=39060

The problem was that $! was incorrectly set to Bad file descriptor,
even though EOF was reached without any error.

The bug lived several years and tought people not to check $!.
Really nasty.
People should check always errno.  It is now possible!
Please help spread the word.

Alternatively, people might have written a code that _expects_ the
incorrect errno.  That code needs to be fixed.  For example:

 --- Data-Dump-Streamer-2.09/t/madness.t.orig  2009-06-12 16:50:09.343385762 
 +0200
 +++ Data-Dump-Streamer-2.09/t/madness.t   2009-06-12 16:50:19.376389596 
 +0200
 @@ -260,3 +260,3 @@ _EOF_FORMAT_
 PV8 = ab\ncd\x{20ac}\t,
 -   PVM = 'Bad file descriptor',
 +   PVM = '',
 RV  = \do { my $v = undef },

This is whet Iain Arnell had to do a few moments ago.
This commit made it clear to me that I have to write this
announcement.  Sorry, Iain and sorry to all others, that this has not
came to my mind earlier.

Have a nice day,
Stepan

--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list

Re: Heads up: perl readline $! no longer broken

2009-06-12 Thread Iain Arnell

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Stepan Kasalska...@redhat.com wrote:
 Hello,
  a long standing perl bug was recently fixed in Fedora.
[snip]

 This is whet Iain Arnell had to do a few moments ago.
 This commit made it clear to me that I have to write this
 announcement.  Sorry, Iain and sorry to all others, that this has not
 came to my mind earlier.

No apologies necessary - it was a valuable learning experience - I
feel suitably enriched by my efforts to track down the cause of my
problem.


-- 
Iain.

--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list

[Bug 431559] Circular build dependency

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431559


Ed Avis e...@membled.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution||NOTABUG




--- Comment #7 from Ed Avis e...@membled.com  2009-06-12 11:40:04 EDT ---
Closing this since it's not really a bug, just a philosophical issue.  I still
believe that putting in circular build deps is a bad idea (especially so if you
then have to manually comment and uncomment them in order to build the
packages) but it is best discussed on the mailing list.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list

[Bug 489228] Keyboard does not work in perl-Tk programs

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489228





--- Comment #13 from Patrick Laughton j...@jima.tk  2009-06-12 14:39:12 EDT 
---
Created an attachment (id=347645)
 -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=347645)
fix for bugs #489228  #491536

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list

[Bug 489228] Keyboard does not work in perl-Tk programs

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489228


Patrick Laughton j...@jima.tk changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||j...@jima.tk




--- Comment #14 from Patrick Laughton j...@jima.tk  2009-06-12 14:42:31 EDT 
---
Looks like the error from comment #8 is the same as from bug #491536, which
came to my attention because it was filed against clusterssh (which triggered
the error in perl-Tk).  Swiping Debian's patch for the matter (see
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=516201 ) seems to make it go
away for both Patrick's test case and for clusterssh.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list

[Bug 491536] cssh is broken

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491536





--- Comment #9 from Patrick Laughton j...@jima.tk  2009-06-12 14:55:44 EDT ---
This seems to be the same problem as described in bug #489228 comment #8.  I've
attached a patch there that seems to remedy both.  I think we can effectively
call one a duplicate of the other.  Comments?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.

--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list

rpms/perl-DBIx-Class-DateTime-Epoch/devel .cvsignore, 1.2, 1.3 perl-DBIx-Class-DateTime-Epoch.spec, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.2, 1.3

2009-06-12 Thread Chris Weyl

Author: cweyl

Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-DBIx-Class-DateTime-Epoch/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv21869

Modified Files:
.cvsignore perl-DBIx-Class-DateTime-Epoch.spec sources 
Log Message:
* Wed Jun 03 2009 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 0.05-1
- auto-update to 0.05 (by cpan-spec-update 0.01)
- altered br on perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) (0 = 6.42)
- altered br on perl(DBIx::Class) (0 = 0.08103)
- added a new br on perl(DBIx::Class::TimeStamp) (version 0.07)
- added a new br on perl(DBICx::TestDatabase) (version 0)



Index: .cvsignore
===
RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-DBIx-Class-DateTime-Epoch/devel/.cvsignore,v
retrieving revision 1.2
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -p -r1.2 -r1.3
--- .cvsignore  12 Apr 2009 19:30:29 -  1.2
+++ .cvsignore  12 Jun 2009 20:12:33 -  1.3
@@ -1 +1 @@
-DBIx-Class-DateTime-Epoch-0.03.tar.gz
+DBIx-Class-DateTime-Epoch-0.05.tar.gz


Index: perl-DBIx-Class-DateTime-Epoch.spec
===
RCS file: 
/cvs/extras/rpms/perl-DBIx-Class-DateTime-Epoch/devel/perl-DBIx-Class-DateTime-Epoch.spec,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -p -r1.1 -r1.2
--- perl-DBIx-Class-DateTime-Epoch.spec 12 Apr 2009 19:30:29 -  1.1
+++ perl-DBIx-Class-DateTime-Epoch.spec 12 Jun 2009 20:12:33 -  1.2
@@ -1,19 +1,19 @@
-Name:   perl-DBIx-Class-DateTime-Epoch 
-Version:0.03 
+Name:   perl-DBIx-Class-DateTime-Epoch
+Version:0.05
 Release:1%{?dist}
 # lib/DBIx/Class/DateTime/Epoch.pm - GPL+ or Artistic
-License:GPL+ or Artistic 
+License:GPL+ or Artistic
 Group:  Development/Libraries
-Summary:Automatic inflation/deflation of epoch-based DateTime objects for 
DBIx::Class 
-Source: 
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/B/BR/BRICAS/DBIx-Class-DateTime-Epoch-%{version}.tar.gz
 
+Summary:Automatic inflation/deflation of epoch-based DateTime objects for 
DBIx::Class
+Source: 
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/B/BR/BRICAS/DBIx-Class-DateTime-Epoch-%{version}.tar.gz
 Url:http://search.cpan.org/dist/DBIx-Class-DateTime-Epoch
-BuildRoot:  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) 
+BuildRoot:  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
 Requires:   perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo 
$version))
 BuildArch:  noarch
 
 BuildRequires: perl(DateTime)
-BuildRequires: perl(DBIx::Class)
-BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
+BuildRequires: perl(DBIx::Class) = 0.08103
+BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) = 6.42
 BuildRequires: perl(Module::Build::Compat)
 BuildRequires: perl(Test::More)
 BuildRequires: perl(Test::Pod)
@@ -21,6 +21,10 @@ BuildRequires: perl(Test::Pod::Coverage)
 
 Requires:  perl(DBIx::Class)
 
+### auto-added brs!
+BuildRequires:  perl(DBIx::Class::TimeStamp) = 0.07
+BuildRequires:  perl(DBICx::TestDatabase)
+
 %description
 This module automatically inflates/deflates DateTime objects
 corresponding to applicable columns. Columns may also be defined to
@@ -49,19 +53,25 @@ find %{buildroot} -depth -type d -exec r
 make test
 
 %clean
-rm -rf %{buildroot} 
+rm -rf %{buildroot}
 
 %files
 %defattr(-,root,root,-)
-%doc Changes README 
+%doc Changes README
 %{perl_vendorlib}/*
 %{_mandir}/man3/*.3*
 
 %changelog
+* Wed Jun 03 2009 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 0.05-1
+- auto-update to 0.05 (by cpan-spec-update 0.01)
+- altered br on perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) (0 = 6.42)
+- altered br on perl(DBIx::Class) (0 = 0.08103)
+- added a new br on perl(DBIx::Class::TimeStamp) (version 0.07)
+- added a new br on perl(DBICx::TestDatabase) (version 0)
+
 * Fri Apr 10 2009 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 0.03-1
 - update for submission
 
 * Fri Apr 10 2009 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 0.03-0
 - initial RPM packaging
 - generated with cpan2dist (CPANPLUS::Dist::RPM version 0.0.8)
-


Index: sources
===
RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-DBIx-Class-DateTime-Epoch/devel/sources,v
retrieving revision 1.2
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -p -r1.2 -r1.3
--- sources 12 Apr 2009 19:30:30 -  1.2
+++ sources 12 Jun 2009 20:12:34 -  1.3
@@ -1 +1 @@
-09506b137eee4050c8283dafbd3a98bb  DBIx-Class-DateTime-Epoch-0.03.tar.gz
+091a52906a005569f0a8711a4fc5baac  DBIx-Class-DateTime-Epoch-0.05.tar.gz

--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list

[Bug 491536] cssh is broken