From xen-devel list.
How can I downgrade my Fedora 16 kernel to get around this kernel bug
identified by Konrad?
Yum does not list any other kernels other than 3.2.10.
Original Message
Subject:Re: [Xen-devel] Fedora 16 w/encrypted filesystem: unable to
boot Xen
On 03/21/2012 11:18 AM, drago01 wrote:
But there seems to be a huge oppositions against that in Fedora.
How does Ubuntu build there ARM builds? Native or using cross compilers?
Native.
--
Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / b...@redhat.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 12:02 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mar 21, 2012, at 9:17 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
We definitely want to keep using grubby instead of running grub2-mkconfig
and
clobbering whatever's in your
On 03/21/2012 07:51 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 3/21/12 2:04 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
as I assume createrepo (and thus deltarpm) doesn't actually get invoked
in the srpm creation phase, right?
That's correct. fedpkg is used to do the fedpkg sources call which
downloads the tarball from
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 14:53:27 -0400,
Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
From xen-devel list.
How can I downgrade my Fedora 16 kernel to get around this kernel bug
identified by Konrad?
Yum does not list any other kernels other than 3.2.10.
Normally you will have three install and can
On 03/21/2012 03:24 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 14:53:27 -0400,
Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
From xen-devel list.
How can I downgrade my Fedora 16 kernel to get around this kernel bug
identified by Konrad?
Yum does not list any other kernels other than
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 19:36:00 -0700
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 13:39 -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
4) when milestones occur, arm needs to be just as testible as
other primary architectures
So we have a
Orion Poplawski wrote:
Keeps forgetting about that. Messes up --qf though:
# repoquery --whatrequires libMagickCore.so.4 --source --qf '%{NAME}' | sort -u
ale-0.9.0.3-6.fc17.src.rpm
autotrace-0.31.1-26.fc15.1.src.rpm
calibre-0.8.39-1.fc17.src.rpm
converseen-0.4.9-2.fc17.src.rpm
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
From xen-devel list.
How can I downgrade my Fedora 16 kernel to get around this kernel bug
identified by Konrad?
Yum does not list any other kernels other than 3.2.10.
Unless you've done something odd, the previous 2
On Mar 21, 2012, at 12:38 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
yeah, I have to admit I get the feeling we're kind of swimming against
the tide, now. I'm not sure it would be so terrible to just decide to go
with the upstream design, run grub2-mkconfig any time grub2.cfg needs
updating, and tell people
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 15:31:01 -0400,
Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
On 03/21/2012 03:24 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 14:53:27 -0400,
Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
From xen-devel list.
How can I downgrade my Fedora 16 kernel to get around this kernel bug
On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 09:01 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Has somebody filed a bz about this issue? I haven't seen one referenced in
the
thread.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805310
I haven't yet managed to reproduce, though. I'm running grub2 '1.99-19',
I installed a
On 03/21/2012 03:40 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
From xen-devel list.
How can I downgrade my Fedora 16 kernel to get around this kernel bug
identified by Konrad?
Yum does not list any other kernels other than 3.2.10.
Hi,
I am running an F-17 x86_64 guest on an F-16 x86_64 host here. I have
realised that mouse input is not working anymore since a few days.
I have tried
# yum downgrade xorg-x11-*
in the guest so far, but this did not help. Any ideas where to look
next, or how to take a more educated approach to
On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 15:14 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 12:02 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mar 21, 2012, at 9:17 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
We definitely want to keep using grubby instead of
On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 21:25 +0100, Julian Sikorski wrote:
Hi,
I am running an F-17 x86_64 guest on an F-16 x86_64 host here. I have
realised that mouse input is not working anymore since a few days.
I have tried
# yum downgrade xorg-x11-*
in the guest so far, but this did not help. Any
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Brendan Conoboy b...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/21/2012 11:18 AM, drago01 wrote:
But there seems to be a huge oppositions against that in Fedora.
How does Ubuntu build there ARM builds? Native or using cross compilers?
Native.
As do Debian I believe. I think,
On 03/21/2012 02:13 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
As do Debian I believe. I think, but aren't 100% sure, that all major
distributions except suse build as native.
At the last Linaro Connect the Debian guys said they're building
natively on i.MX53 boards (Which are cool because they have real
W dniu 21.03.2012 22:06, Adam Jackson pisze:
On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 21:25 +0100, Julian Sikorski wrote:
Hi,
I am running an F-17 x86_64 guest on an F-16 x86_64 host here. I have
realised that mouse input is not working anymore since a few days.
I have tried
# yum downgrade xorg-x11-*
in the
On 03/21/2012 01:40 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
Orion Poplawski wrote:
Keeps forgetting about that. Messes up --qf though:
# repoquery --whatrequires libMagickCore.so.4 --source --qf '%{NAME}' | sort -u
ale-0.9.0.3-6.fc17.src.rpm
autotrace-0.31.1-26.fc15.1.src.rpm
Hi, folks - it's Beta blocker bugging time again!
We've had a giant buttload of bugs to fix, mainly with the 'noloader'
change in anaconda, but it's looking like Will has actually managed to
squish them all, amazingly. So we're looking fairly good right now. What
we do need is blocker status
Actually debian hfp is built on efika smart tops. They have a 8gb ssd attached
using pata and 512mb ram.
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Brendan Conoboy b...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/21/2012 02:13 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
As do Debian I believe. I think,
On Sat, 17.03.12 11:41, Tom Lane (t...@redhat.com) wrote:
Tomasz Torcz to...@pipebreaker.pl writes:
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 10:32:22AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I have a shell script that needs to dig the values of a couple of
Environment= settings out of a systemd service file. Currently
On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 15:43 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Hi, folks - it's Beta blocker bugging time again!
Here's one addendum: we now have one more blocker fixing update that
needs testing + karma -
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/NetworkManager-0.9.3.997-1.git20120321.fc17
.
If you
Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de writes:
On Sat, 17.03.12 11:41, Tom Lane (t...@redhat.com) wrote:
Tomasz Torcz to...@pipebreaker.pl writes:
You can try
systemctl show -p Environment unit
[ experiments with that ... ] Hm, the output format seems pretty
ill-designed, but I guess I
drago01 wrote:
Those numbers look way better then Kevin's 50x slower without any
citation ... thanks for getting this numbers.
I'm surprised emulating ARM in QEMU is so much faster than qemu-system-
x86_64 (which was how I measured the 50 times). Are they really using QEMU
for everything or
Jesse Keating wrote:
Arm emulation would go a long way toward validating produced install
images too. Those of us that validate x86 images depend heavily on KVM
and the like.
But full system emulation is slower by a LARGE factor, not merely the 2 to 4
Jaroslav quoted for OBS, which
Peter Robinson wrote:
Yes, I agree. In the initial phase we were looking at supporting the
development boards so this is basically a small number of devices
(TrimSlice, PanadaBoard, BeagleBoard, Origen, Snowball and Freescale)
that have completely open stacks including unaccelerated graphics.
On Wed, 21.03.12 20:39, Tom Lane (t...@redhat.com) wrote:
Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de writes:
On Sat, 17.03.12 11:41, Tom Lane (t...@redhat.com) wrote:
Tomasz Torcz to...@pipebreaker.pl writes:
You can try
systemctl show -p Environment unit
[ experiments with that ... ]
Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de writes:
On Wed, 21.03.12 20:39, Tom Lane (t...@redhat.com) wrote:
... what I find systemctl show producing is a line like
Environment=PGPORT=5432 PGDATA=/var/lib/pgsql/data PGPORT=5433
So I have to pick this apart, understanding that later entries
Andrew Haley wrote:
I'm trying to figure out what this means. Do you mean that any
primary architecture must be as fast as x86 is today, or that it must
be as fast as its contemporary version of the x86? So, if the x86 got
faster but ARM didn't, then ARM would be dropped?
Good question. I
Peter Robinson wrote:
How was this handled in the case of PPC? My understanding is that due
to legal reasons the Fedora Project never officially provided access
to PPC machines. There were a number of machines that users could get
access to that were provided by individuals but these were
Peter Robinson wrote:
Sorry, by only 3 I meant 3 core GPU platforms ie ATI / Intel / nVidia.
But those 3 have almost 100% market share.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at writes:
IMHO, if even in the future only x86 will fit the speed criteria to be a
primary architecture for Fedora, then so be it. I do not see a need for any
other primary architecture(s). Why do we absolutely have to support an
architecture with inferior
Peter Robinson wrote:
Exactly! Ultimately what we need is FESCo to document what are the
requirements of being promoted to a primary architecture and then it's
the ARM SIGs job of ensuring they adhere to the requirements, provide
viable workable alternatives that are acceptable to FESCo, or
Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
The only thing we can do here is to make it easier for people to
get these not nice codecs if they demand the support. Maybe in the
same way as with Fluendo MP3 long time ago? If you want it, take
the risks on you and pay the licence fees...
As far as I know, Fluendo
On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 02:38 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
And finally, for our build speed issue, the practical consideration will be
whether the parallelism will actually speed our builds up. Right now our
builds are either serial or have portions parallelized with make -j, which
assumes a
Chris Tyler wrote:
On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 02:38 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
And finally, for our build speed issue, the practical consideration will
be whether the parallelism will actually speed our builds up. Right now
our builds are either serial or have portions parallelized with make
-j,
On 03/21/2012 07:00 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
ARM should most definitely NOT be approved as a primary architecture before
all the requirements are actually met!
The dynamics of when are very much open to discussion, not to mention
what that will mean. We need a path to get from secondary to
On 03/21/2012 07:50 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
But there are x86 CPUs with more than 4 cores, and multi-CPU SMP systems
which still present themselves as one (multi-CPU/core) computer. IIRC, our
x86 Koji builders have 16 cores per machine (might be even more by now, not
sure).
Hypothetically
Tom Lane wrote:
To put it as succinctly as possible: monocultures are bad.
That's what secondary architectures are for.
Do you really think that x86 will be the most desirable architecture
forever? Things change fast in this business, and that arch is weighted
down by enough bad ancient
Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 03/21/2012 07:00 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
We have seen what happened when the EU took Greece's word on the promise
that they'd eventually meet the Maastricht criteria. Let's not do the
same mistake in Fedora!
What?
The Maastricht criteria are the requirements
On 03/21/2012 08:13 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
The Maastricht criteria are the requirements countries had to fulfill to get
accepted into the Eurozone (i.e. to use the Euro as their currency). Greece
was accepted into the Eurozone without fulfilling those criteria because
they promised they'd fix
Brendan Conoboy wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, if presented with an ARM system that builds
packages, on average, 3x faster than x86, will you advocate that x86 be
dropped to secondary and ARM be PA exclusively?
Not if most computers (which to me means desktops, notebooks, maybe
netbooks, but
Brendan Conoboy wrote:
I know what's happening in Greece. I don't know why you're bringing it
up here.
I'm bringing it up here as an example (by analogy) of what happens when you
let a country (an architecture) such as Greece (ARM) enter the Eurozone (the
primary Fedora architectures)
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
I thought it was a serious error to drop PPC from primary-arch status.
I think it was one of the best decisions Fedora ever made. I'm glad I don't
have to deal with slow PPC builders anymore, nor to fix build errors for
such an
On 03/21/2012 08:28 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I'm bringing it up here as an example (by analogy) of what happens when you
let a country (an architecture) such as Greece (ARM) enter the Eurozone (the
primary Fedora architectures) without fulfilling the required criteria (at
the time of the
On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 03:00 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Peter Robinson wrote:
Exactly! Ultimately what we need is FESCo to document what are the
requirements of being promoted to a primary architecture and then it's
the ARM SIGs job of ensuring they adhere to the requirements, provide
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 02:02:59 +0100
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
Arm emulation would go a long way toward validating produced install
images too. Those of us that validate x86 images depend heavily on
KVM and
I think Fedora's perl (and the rest of the distribution for that matter)
should be built against libdb (db5) rather than db4, at least in
Rawhide, so as to avoid problems like:
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/768846
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/712943
Changed the BR: of db4-devel to libdb-devel is
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 09:27:01AM +, Paul Howarth wrote:
I think Fedora's perl (and the rest of the distribution for that
matter) should be built against libdb (db5) rather than db4, at
least in Rawhide, so as to avoid problems like:
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/768846
On 03/21/2012 10:27 AM, Paul Howarth wrote:
I think Fedora's perl (and the rest of the distribution for that matter)
should be built against libdb (db5) rather than db4, at least in
Rawhide, so as to avoid problems like:
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/768846
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/712943
On 03/21/2012 10:22 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
On 03/21/2012 10:27 AM, Paul Howarth wrote:
I think Fedora's perl (and the rest of the distribution for that matter)
should be built against libdb (db5) rather than db4, at least in
Rawhide, so as to avoid problems like:
On 03/21/2012 11:28 AM, Paul Howarth wrote:
On 03/21/2012 10:22 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
On 03/21/2012 10:27 AM, Paul Howarth wrote:
I think Fedora's perl (and the rest of the distribution for that matter)
should be built against libdb (db5) rather than db4, at least in
Rawhide, so as to
Summary of changes:
fc4da89... Drop tests subpackage and clean up (*)
(*) 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
Summary of changes:
1ff121e... - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_17_Mass (*)
fc4da89... Drop tests subpackage and clean up (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
Summary of changes:
e0a557d... Perl mass rebuild (*)
1ff121e... - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_17_Mass (*)
fc4da89... Drop tests subpackage and clean up (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
The lightweight tag 'perl-Test-Perl-Critic-1.02-7.fc15' was created pointing to:
fc4da89... Drop tests subpackage and clean up
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
The lightweight tag 'perl-Test-Perl-Critic-1.02-7.fc16' was created pointing to:
fc4da89... Drop tests subpackage and clean up
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
The lightweight tag 'perl-Test-Perl-Critic-1.02-7.fc17' was created pointing to:
fc4da89... Drop tests subpackage and clean up
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
The lightweight tag 'perl-Test-Perl-Critic-1.02-7.fc18' was created pointing to:
fc4da89... Drop tests subpackage and clean up
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
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=746941
Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org
changed:
What|Removed
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=803000
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
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=247250
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary of changes:
42abd26... Initial import (#605674). (*)
(*) 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
101 - 165 of 165 matches
Mail list logo
