[rpms/perl-Sys-Virt-TCK] PR #1: SELinux policy for Libvirt-TCK

berrange closed without merging a pull-request against the project: `perl-Sys-Virt-TCK` that you are following. Closed pull-request: `` SELinux policy for Libvirt-TCK `` https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Sys-Virt-TCK/pull-request/1 -- ___

[rpms/perl-Sys-Virt-TCK] PR #1: SELinux policy for Libvirt-TCK

berrange commented on the pull-request: `SELinux policy for Libvirt-TCK ` that you are following: `` Closing since this never merged upstream `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Sys-Virt-TCK/pull-request/1 -- ___

[rpms/perl-Sys-Virt] PR #1: Package tests

berrange commented on the pull-request: `Package tests` that you are following: `` Why did you just merge this when I did not agree to it ? `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Sys-Virt/pull-request/1 ___ perl-devel

[rpms/perl-Sys-Virt] PR #1: Package tests

berrange commented on the pull-request: `Package tests` that you are following: `` I don't find this change desirable because it is impacting the user facing RPM packaging to satisfy non-user facing CI. I don't see much value in this CI either because it is just repeating tests that have

[rpms/perl-Sys-Virt-TCK] PR #1: SELinux policy for Libvirt-TCK

berrange commented on the pull-request: `SELinux policy for Libvirt-TCK ` that you are following: `` Thanks for this, however, we have a strictly upstream-first policy for libvirt, so can't take this kind of thing as a Fedora patch. Please can you send it upstream as a patch to the real

[rpms/perl-Glib-Object-Introspection] PR #1: Update to 0.048 (#1782378)

berrange commented on the pull-request: `Update to 0.048 (#1782378)` that you are following: `` Merged `` To reply, visit the link below https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Glib-Object-Introspection/pull-request/1 ___ perl-devel mailing list --

[rpms/perl-Glib-Object-Introspection] PR #1: Update to 0.048 (#1782378)

berrange closed without merging a pull-request against the project: `perl-Glib-Object-Introspection` that you are following. Closed pull-request: `` Update to 0.048 (#1782378) `` https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Glib-Object-Introspection/pull-request/1

Re: koschei interpertation; was: Re: -z defs linker flag activated in Fedora rawhide

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 02:06:15PM -0500, R P Herrold wrote: > On Tue, 23 Jan 2018, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > What needs to be done for this ? I see my package "libvirt" present > > in its UI > > > > https://apps.fedoraproject.org/kosc

Re: -z defs linker flag activated in Fedora rawhide

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 05:56:47PM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 23/01/18 15:38 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > > We could deactivate -z defs for F28 and reactivate it after the branch > > for F29, giving packagers more time to fix issues. > > I think that might be a good idea (given how late

Re: -z defs linker flag activated in Fedora rawhide

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 02:04:26PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 01/23/2018 01:49 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 04:24:31PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > I updated redhat-rpm-config to instruct ld to reject linking shared > > > o

Re: -z defs linker flag activated in Fedora rawhide

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 04:24:31PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > I updated redhat-rpm-config to instruct ld to reject linking shared objects > with undefined symbols. Such undefined symbols break symbol versioning > because the are not necessarily bound to the correct symbol version at run >

Re: [HEADS UP] Manging shebangs in Rawhide

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 08:55:03AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 05:36:56PM +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > * Removes exectuable bit (and shows warning) for files where there are no > > shebang > > The way this is written implies that ordinary (eg ELF) executables >

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 01:19:26PM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 18 December 2017 at 13:08, Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 09:55:26AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > >> I think we should be concerned by this kind of behaviour on the part of >

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:42:17AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 12:34 -0600, Chris Adams wrote: > > Once upon a time, Adam Williamson said: > > > As part of a tie-in with an American TV show, Mozilla thought it'd be a > > > great idea to

Re: Firefox "Looking Glass" fiasco

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:34:46PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Adam Williamson said: > > As part of a tie-in with an American TV show, Mozilla thought it'd be a > > great idea to silently install a cryptically-named addon in all(?) > > Firefox

Re: RFC: -Wl,--as-needed by default (and glibc ldconfig file trigger)

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 05:22:32PM +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > On 11/21/2017 04:12 PM, David Tardon wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 01:54:13PM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > > > On 21 November 2017 at 10:43, Igor Gnatenko > > > wrote: > > > > -BEGIN

Re: RFC: -Wl,--as-needed by default

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:52:14AM +0100, Björn 'besser82' Esser wrote: > Am Montag, den 13.11.2017, 11:02 +0100 schrieb Igor Gnatenko: > > Hello, > > > > I'm interested why we still don't have this flag in our CFLAGS? It > > seems that > > other distributions like openSUSE enable it by default

Re: CUPS will change license since 2.3 version - now incompatible with GPLv2

On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 04:17:20PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 08-11-17 16:06, Solomon Peachy wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 03:53:32PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > >I don't think static linking against libcups is common enough to be a > > > >serious concern - CUPS

Re: CUPS will change license since 2.3 version - now incompatible with GPLv2

On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 08:32:50AM -0500, Solomon Peachy wrote: > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 07:45:28AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > It will. Previously, it was licensed under GPLv2 + LGPLv2 with Apple > > exceptions. Now it is ASL 2.0 across the board. GPLv2 projects can not > > link to the newer

Verifying sources against gpg signature during RPM build ?

A number of packages that I maintain have GPG signatures provided alongside the sources for new releases. Is there any best pratice approach / RPM macro magic for verifying the GPG signature of sources during build, or are packagers just (re)inventing the wheel each time ? Regards, Daniel --

Re: are the armv7hl builders healthy?

On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 08:17:11AM -0400, Kaleb Keithley wrote: > > I'm trying to build ceph-12.2.0 for f28, So far the build has failed twice > on armv7hl during %install trying to install a file that was seeminlyly > successfully built. > > That's two different files. The first time it was

Re: Mass package change (python2- binary package renaming)

On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 10:17:34PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 04:08:35PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 04:48:42PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 10:14:26PM +, Zbi

Re: Mass package change (python2- binary package renaming)

On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 10:14:26PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > Hello Fedora Python package maintainers! > > This is an announcement of a mass package renaming: > Python 2 binary packages will be renamed to python2-*. > > This will happen soon after the F27 branching on August

ceph build stuck in f27-pending for 12+ hours

This ceph build finished building in koji 12+ hours ago: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=942742 but it still in f27-pending. Is there something stuck that prevents it going into f27, and thus inherited into f27-build ? Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com

Re: Recompiling/relinking dependent applications/libraries on DSO change

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 01:39:50PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > binutils 2.29 introduced an optimization which requires that in the > general case, applications and libraries linking against a DSO will have > to be rebuilt when the DSO change the implementation of functions (i.e., > changes to a

Re: armv7hl builds running out of memory

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 12:57:32PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY > wrote: > > trying to build ceph-12 on f27 armv7hl. > > > > It builds on everything x86_64, aarch64, s390x, and i686 (w/o java), but > > on armv7hl the

Re: F27 System Wide Change: Graphical Applications as Flatpaks

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:45:27PM +0200, Michael Stahl wrote: > On 16.07.2017 14:10, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Debarshi Ray wrote: > >> How about reliable online updates of running applications as a > >> benefit? > > > > Upgrading RPM applications online just works. I do it all the time. The KDE

Re: F27 System Wide Change: Graphical Applications as Flatpaks

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 05:17:44PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 03:42:15PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 03:31:30PM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: > > > On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 00:46 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: >

Re: F27 System Wide Change: Graphical Applications as Flatpaks

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 01:29:01PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > If I look at this from my POV as the upstream maintainer of a graphical > > application wishing to make it widely available to users of many distros. > > The question is whether it

Re: F27 System Wide Change: Graphical Applications as Flatpaks

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 03:31:30PM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: > On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 00:46 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > > > = System Wide Change: Graphical Applications as Flatpaks = > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Graphical_Applications_as_Fl > > > atpaks >

Mingw RPM deps broken [Re: Fedora rawhide compose report: 20170708.n.0 changes]

On Sat, Jul 08, 2017 at 02:40:42PM +, Fedora Rawhide Report wrote: > Broken deps for x86_64 > -- > [mingw-atkmm] > mingw32-atkmm-2.24.2-3.fc26.noarch requires mingw32(libglibmm-2.4-1.dll) > mingw64-atkmm-2.24.2-3.fc26.noarch

Re: floppy-support being retired (was: Retiring Packages with Broken Dependencies in branched (2017-06-26))

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 11:03:09AM +0200, Björn Persson wrote: > t...@fedoraproject.org wrote: > > floppy-support bruno 162 weeks ago > > So are floppies now definitely a thing of the past according to Fedora? This message is simply Fedora is saying that

Re: /usr/bin/qemu-kvm symlink

On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 05:25:18PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > Hi, > > I was told [1] that /usr/bin/qemu-kvm is obsolete, and that the right > thing is to use 'qemu-system-x86_64 -enable-kvm', and that Arch and > Gentoo and qemu upstream don't support /usr/bin/qemu-kvm. Fedora

Re: Rawhide: where for art thou? (why no rawhide composes recently)

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 07:11:21AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Greetings. > > Some folks may have noticed that there have been no completed rawhide > composes in a while (13 days as of today). > > This has been due to a variety of bugs and issues, along with pungi now > failing composes that

Re: mp3 encoding now ok

On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 09:07:25AM -0400, Christian Schaller wrote: > Hi, not sure why Spot hasn't chimed in, but yes this > has been run through legal. Tom and I where on the same > email thread with the laywers. For clarity someone with authority presumably ought to remove "MP3 Support" from

Re: Deprecated net-tools? Mass bug filing?

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 11:29:42PM +0100, James Hogarth wrote: > Hi, > > It was pointed out on IRC to me tonight that there are actually a > reasonable number of packages that still depend on net-tools[0]. > > This has been deprecated for a long time now and we really should > strive to have

Re: What is your opinion on "sudo pip" fix for Fedora 27?

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 11:48:06PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 27 April 2017 at 23:04, Daniel P. Berrange <berra...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 04:32:09PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: > >> Their approach means that any harm caused by "sudo pip ins

Re: What is your opinion on "sudo pip" fix for Fedora 27?

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 04:32:09PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 27 April 2017 at 11:47, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Charalampos Stratakis > >> At the present time, running sudo pip3 in Fedora is not safe. > >> Pip shares its installation

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 01:16:56PM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On 20 March 2017 at 09:50, Daniel P. Berrange <berra...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > I've already described this multiple times trying to use different > > > descriptions/analogies about well known *g

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 01:38:31AM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On 18 March 2017 at 22:26, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > I read through the whole thread and I still don't understand why > > packaging glibc-static in Fedora is not a good thing. > > > > I've already

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 09:56:50AM -0700, Josh Stone wrote: > On 03/14/2017 05:05 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > If glibc-static was removed from Fedora and that change propagated to > > RHEL I know of companies that might stop being customers of Red Hat. > > Even if Fedora removed it, we could

Re: Default permissions on /dev/kvm

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:32:35AM -0400, Dusty Mabe wrote: > > > On 03/15/2017 05:17 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > > Sure, if udev maintainers are willing to ship the kvm rule by default, > > that's fine with me for reason you suggest. I simply don't thin

Re: Default permissions on /dev/kvm

M, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > >>>> On 03/14/2017 04:29 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >>>> I guess if you volume/bind mount the device into the container you could > >>>> see an issue, > >>>> but most containers that deal with /dev/kvm are go

Re: Default permissions on /dev/kvm

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:38:51PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 08:29:00PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 08:09:00PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > Re: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_

Re: Default permissions on /dev/kvm

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 08:09:00PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > Re: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1431876 > > Currently if you install a minimal-ish, non-"Virtualization Host" > Fedora, then the permissions on the /dev/kvm device are: > > crw---. 1 root root 10, 232 Mar

Re: Packages dropping anything in /etc/systemd/system

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 06:31:46AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > Hello, > as per subject, what is the stance on dropping anything there from a > rpm ? Either marked as %{config} or not ? > > My naive reading of the Packaging guidelines is that nothing should be > dropped in there by a package, but

Re: policy on changes in or introduction of new dependencies

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 04:24:16PM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > On Friday, 24 February 2017 at 15:31, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 08:48:43AM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > On 23 February 2017 at 12:24, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierze

Re: policy on changes in or introduction of new dependencies

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 08:48:43AM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 23 February 2017 at 12:24, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski > wrote: > > On Thursday, 23 February 2017 at 14:23, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > I have nothing against delivering latest and greatest software

Re: Is it possible to manually insert shared library deps in an RPM?

On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 02:45:08PM +, David Howells wrote: > Hi, > > gcc and cross-gcc currently dynamically load the isl-0.14 shared library - > which means that rpm-build doesn't automagically detect a: > > libisl.so.13()(64bit) > > but, rather, the gcc binary rpm must include a: >

Re: How to build both python 2 and 3 bindings from autotools?

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 09:10:30AM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote: > Before I start hacking up something nasty I figured it's better to ask: how > do I build both py2 and py3 bindings from a package using autotools (i.e. > AM_PATH_PYTHON)? > > So far my idea revolves around installing both

Re: Is there something wrong with the Koji builders?

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:55:38AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 07:22:49 -0500 (EST) > Charalampos Stratakis wrote: > > > Python 3 started failing on i686, x86_64 and arm only. > > > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=17313924 > > > >

Re: Proposal: Rethink Fedora multilib support

On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 11:03:50AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > # Overview > > For many years, Fedora has supported multilib by carrying parallel-installable > libraries in /usr/lib[64]. This was necessary for a very long time in order to > support 32-bit applications running on a 64-bit

Re: Proposal: Rethink Fedora multilib support

On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 11:56:28AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > It might be different if we could build 32-bit sub-packages in the 64-bit mock > environment, but the tools are *really* not equipped to handle that today (in > particular because Fedora doesn't do cross-compilation; we just

Re: Support for older kernels

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:19:06AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > Do we need to support running current Fedora releases in kernels which are > older than the initial Fedora kernel for that release? That is important if we wish to allow a Fedora container of version X to be run on a host with

Re: Packagers - Flag day 2016 Important changes

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 12:19:45PM +0200, Alexander Bokovoy wrote: > On ti, 13 joulu 2016, Alexander Bokovoy wrote: > > On ti, 13 joulu 2016, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dne 12.12.2016 v 16:02 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a): > > > > On 12/12/2016 04:53 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > > > So

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 03:13:51PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 09:11:06AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > I expect we'd also rebase the virtualization stack in any .1 release, > > or even in the middle of a release if Fedora switched to a yearly &g

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 06:41:27PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Michael Catanzaro > wrote: > > On Mon, 2016-12-05 at 16:10 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > >> It was by design, though — for a while, when a schedule slipped, we > >> planned the

Re: including EOL and vulnerable software in Fedora

On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 11:32:43AM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > On Monday, 10 October 2016 at 11:07, Florian Weimer wrote: > > On 10/07/2016 06:43 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > > > > I was made aware that EOL software with known security bugs that will > > > not

Re: DNF skipping packages with conflicts in koji

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:01:56AM +0200, Michael Šimáček wrote: > Hi, > > I recently got a few failed build alerts with suspicious errors about > missing commands/libs in the buildroot, despite the builddep step had > succeeded. The root.log always contains "Skipping packages with conflicts" >

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:00:32AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > Hi, > > To be clear, the problem is that a small handful of package maintainers > (including Bastien) are collectively "responsible" for all of the GNOME > and freedesktop components in Fedora (including fprintd), and it's >

Re: Proposed mass bug filing for webkitgtk/webkitgtk3 package removal

On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 09:01:27AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 07:34:04AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I propose to carry out a mass bug filing with the bug title: "Remove > > webkitgtk/webkitgtk3 dependency" (depending on which package is > >

Re: Maintainer notification of package-related activity (was: Re: Fedora Account System (FAS) security issue)

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 12:27:33PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 08/08/2016 09:23 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > For example, activities related > > to package content in dist-git generate notices to maintainers, and > > the discovered flaw would not allow an attacker to circumvent these or >

Re: Packaging FPGA bitstreams

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 02:19:49AM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Solomon Peachy wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:19:07PM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > >> Still not reasonable for Fedora, I think. Red Hat, and RHEL, can > >> manage

Re: g++ __VA_ARGS__ error

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 02:09:24PM +0200, Jan Synacek wrote: > Hello, > > I'm trying to compile the latest version of Warzone2100 on rawhide, > but I'm getting this error: > > g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -DYY_NO_INPUT -D_REENTRANT > -I/usr/include/SDL2 -I/usr/include/libpng16

Re: RFC: static builds for user emulators in Fedora QEMU RPMs

On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 09:48:24AM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote: > "Daniel P. Berrange" <berra...@redhat.com> writes: > > > More typical though is that you have a directory containing an fullish > > install tree of a non-native architecture and you just want t

Re: i686 as secondary arch?

On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 12:10:03PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > > On 07/05/2016 10:57 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > >> If you need to run an i686 virtual machine based on Rawhide, my > >> experience is that it's

Re: autoconf test for deprecated readdir_r

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 11:30:38AM -0400, Kaleb KEITHLEY wrote: > > Hi, > > Does anyone have a good/working autoconf test for checking for > deprecated readdir_r (for Fedora 25) ? > > I'm not having much luck. (Have tried AC_COMPILE_IFELSE, among other > things.) > > Alternatively it would be

Re: RFC: static builds for user emulators in Fedora QEMU RPMs

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 10:21:18AM +0200, Michal Schmidt wrote: > On 06/29/2016 12:03 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > The change to introduce a qemu-binfmt package has small upgrade > > implications since anyone with qemu-user installed today, will loose > > the binar

Re: RFC: static builds for user emulators in Fedora QEMU RPMs

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 04:54:42PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 06/29/2016 12:34 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:15:02PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > On 06/29/2016 12:03 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > > Debian handles this

Re: RFC: static builds for user emulators in Fedora QEMU RPMs

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 06:45:36AM -0700, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 3:03 AM, Daniel P. Berrange <berra...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > For those who aren't familiar, QEMU actually provides two completely > > different sets of emulators > > > >

Re: RFC: static builds for user emulators in Fedora QEMU RPMs

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 09:39:11AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Wed, 2016-06-29 at 11:34 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:15:02PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > On 06/29/2016 12:03 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > > Debian

Re: RFC: static builds for user emulators in Fedora QEMU RPMs

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:15:02PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 06/29/2016 12:03 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > Debian handles this by having several packages [1] > > > > - qemu-user - the dynamic linked qemu user binaries > > - qemu-binfmt - binfmt rules reg

RFC: static builds for user emulators in Fedora QEMU RPMs

For those who aren't familiar, QEMU actually provides two completely different sets of emulators - system emulators - they emulate a full virtual machine and thus run a full guest OS. - user emulators - they emulate the Linux userspace ABI letting you run non-native arch executables

Re: First stage of glibc recvmsg/sendmsg ABI revert landed in rawhide

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 07:09:33AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > glibc upstream, during development of the 2.24 release, introduced new > symbol versions recvmsg@GLIBC_2.24, sendmsg@GLIBC_2.24 (and > recvmmsg@GLIBC_2.24, sendmmsg@GLIBC_2.24 on 64-bit architectures), in order > to fix some minor

Re: Hardened build breaks gperftools / tcmalloc on 32 bit ARM

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 01:41:20PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > Anyone understand what's going on here? Any program at all (even > trivial ones) linked to tcmalloc crash during startup on ARM 32 bit. > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1312462 > > At Tom's recommendation,

Re: GCC 6 -Wnonnull is too aggressive

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 05:43:51PM +0100, Petr Spacek wrote: > Hello, > > I'm facing problems with new behavior in GCC 6. > > Let's assume we have trivial program like this: > > $ cat assert.c > #include > #include > > __attribute__((nonnull)) > int f(char *txt) { > assert(txt !=

Re: F24 System Wide Change: Change Proposal Name NewRpmDBFormat

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 01:30:59PM +, Richard Hughes wrote: > On 13 January 2016 at 13:13, Reindl Harald wrote: > > so there is no justification to declare one need to install from scratch > > just because rpm which works for many years fine changes it's storage format

Re: Changes in F24 schedule - two weeks slip

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 09:02:08AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 8:58 AM, David Howells wrote: > > Jan Kurik wrote: > > > >> let me inform you about changes in Fedora 24 schedule. > >> > >> There is a will to accommodate GCC6 compiler

Re: F24 Self Contained Change: Astronomy Spin

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 12:19:24PM +0100, Jan Kurik wrote: > = Proposed Self Contained Change: Astronomy Spin = > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Astronomy_Spin > > Change owner(s): > * Christian Dersch > > A Fedora Spin providing a complete toolchain for both amateur and > professional

Re: Do we need the Fedora 'virt' mailing list?

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 12:45:28PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > Crickets ... https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/virt/ > > The virt list has long been in an odd place. Fedora has best in class > virt support, because so many virt developers use it. It also follows > upstream very

Re: Do we need the Fedora 'virt' mailing list?

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 01:20:49PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 12:45:28PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > > Crickets ... https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/virt/ > > > > The virt list has long been in an odd place. Fedora

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:25:00AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 16:04 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > > > > > I would like to propose that the no-bundled-libraries policy be > > > > > amended as follows: "Any package that has an existing > > > > > mechanism to > > > > >

Re: Do you know how many 64-bit architectures Fedora has?

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 09:18:16AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: ​Oh, yes! I was trying to find something like this all weekend for my Copr for reprepro. I have to make a patch to access apt-methods in /usr/lib64 on 64-bit systems, but on 32-bit systems it should remain /usr/lib. You just made

Re: and legacy software Re: pyorbit

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 02:07:50PM +0200, Matěj Cepl wrote: On 2015-07-29, 10:47 GMT, Michael Schwendt wrote: As I have thought for some time, I think we should have a team to keep packages and make migrations like gtk2 to gkt3, libgnome2, pyorbit, gnome-python2, pyhton2 to python3 , qt3

Re: Hosting End-Of-Life Fedora Base images?

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 11:05:19AM -0500, Adam Miller wrote: On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote: Isn't it true the install media ISOs are available indefinitely? And if so the security cat is already out of the bag, so that's not a very good

API change + soname bump of libvirt-sandbox 0.6.0

The new libvirt-sandbox release 0.6.0 pushed to rawhide has a minor API change and corresponding soname bump of the library. I'll likely push this update to stable branches too, as it fixes a number of problems and I think its unlikely there are downstream apps linking to its library beyond the

[perl-Net-DBus/f22] Update to 1.1.0 release

Summary of changes: d06f9cb... Update to 1.1.0 release (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[perl-Net-DBus] Update to 1.1.0 release

commit d06f9cb378e024e546fa5dea2faa0ca407251652 Author: Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com Date: Mon Mar 16 20:48:11 2015 + Update to 1.1.0 release .gitignore | 6 -- perl-Net-DBus.spec | 11 +++ sources| 2 +- 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 7

File Net-DBus-1.1.0.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by berrange

A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Net-DBus: da44a16f8abf1db76f5ccf50d9926944 Net-DBus-1.1.0.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

File Sys-Virt-1.2.13.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by berrange

A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Sys-Virt: 80bd23071fbbe62c4c8c47c8770c48a9 Sys-Virt-1.2.13.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[perl-Sys-Virt] Update to 1.2.13 release

commit 1f6dbba6c910217bf378fd8d94f72ac46559184d Author: Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com Date: Fri Mar 6 10:45:57 2015 + Update to 1.2.13 release perl-Sys-Virt.spec | 5 - sources| 2 +- 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/perl-Sys

[perl-Sys-Virt/f22] Update to 1.2.13 release

Summary of changes: 1f6dbba... Update to 1.2.13 release (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Firefox addon signing

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:47:27PM +0100, drago01 wrote: On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Nikos Roussos comzer...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 6:30 AM, Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com wrote: I'm sure those that need to know, know, but for those that haven't

Re: Firefox addon signing

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 09:54:16AM -0500, Miloslav Trmač wrote: or simply exempt signature checking if the extension is on disk. They should check on download only. That would defeat the entire purpose; malware is very commonly sideloading extensions. If we only exempt extensions

[perl-Sys-Virt] Update to 1.2.12 release

commit a946705bcb65263b7bf43dda6b80c57e94aefbaf Author: Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com Date: Tue Jan 27 11:18:05 2015 + Update to 1.2.12 release perl-Sys-Virt.spec |5 - sources|2 +- 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) --- diff --git

File Sys-Virt-1.2.12.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by berrange

A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Sys-Virt: 6b88d53b940998cc8bec755108d2cea5 Sys-Virt-1.2.12.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Python 3 as a Default - Status

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 08:22:25AM -0500, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: Hi all, since the Python 3 as a Default change [1] has been accepted a while ago and is scheduled for F22, I'd like to share with you the status. The proposed change [1] mentions several goals that should be reached to

[perl-Sys-Virt] Update to 1.2.11 release

commit 66c057970a6e2c4c7951ed0391f1438e6ab2c7f5 Author: Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com Date: Mon Dec 15 15:39:00 2014 + Update to 1.2.11 release perl-Sys-Virt.spec |5 - sources|2 +- 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) --- diff --git

File Sys-Virt-1.2.11.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by berrange

A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Sys-Virt: 366672f8ac4abd2cc814a32fb10fa929 Sys-Virt-1.2.11.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Poll: How users use DNF

On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 12:28:54PM -0500, Radek Holy wrote: Please share with me the use cases, not the description of the install command. Think twice before you share something because I believe it's not as easy as it might seem. As an example I think it might be something like: - I call

  1   2   3   4   5   >