On 2013-07-09 22:35, Gilboa Davara wrote:
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Neal Becker
wrote:
Just want to say I updated 2 machines using fedup, and everything
seems to have
gone perfectly.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
> Just want to say I updated 2 machines using fedup, and everything seems to
> have
> gone perfectly.
>
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
I second the above.
Thus f
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 11:42:48PM -0300, Sergio Belkin wrote:
> Just in case, let's say we have the package foo-1.0 if I make a scratch
> build of package foo-1.1, that doesn't count at all, isn't it?
> I mean can I send an update foo-.1.1 completely different of the foo-1.1
> sent as a scratch b
On 2013-07-09 17:36, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Adam Williamson (awill...@redhat.com) said:
I've had an entry on my todo list _forever_ to complete the
'deliverables SOP' I started several releases ago:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_releng_SOP_deliverables
(I don't really like
On Tue, 2013-07-09 at 23:42 -0300, Sergio Belkin wrote:
> Just in case, let's say we have the package foo-1.0 if I make a
> scratch build of package foo-1.1, that doesn't count at all, isn't
> it?
> I mean can I send an update foo-.1.1 completely different of the
> foo-1.1 sent as a scratch bui
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 02:54:53PM -0400, Jonathan Masters wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > This doesn't make it seem like the ARM port currently has sufficient
> > developer expertise involved, and I'd really like to hear what the plans
> > are for (a) fixing the existing problems, and (b) en
Hi folks,
Just in case, let's say we have the package foo-1.0 if I make a scratch
build of package foo-1.1, that doesn't count at all, isn't it?
I mean can I send an update foo-.1.1 completely different of the foo-1.1
sent as a scratch build, can't I?
Thanks in advance
--
--
Sergio Belkin ht
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 04:37:40PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 05:26:19PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > A package I maintain (mc) has two rarely-used
>> > python scripts.
>> >
>> > Since the
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> When reading media articles about SB, bear in mind they're usually wildly
> inaccurate. For the straight dope, apply to mjg59, pjones, or if neither of
> them is available, me (but remember I'm just the monkey).
You can ask me as well. I w
Adam Williamson (awill...@redhat.com) said:
> I've had an entry on my todo list _forever_ to complete the
> 'deliverables SOP' I started several releases ago:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_releng_SOP_deliverables
>
> (I don't really like the current layout, I was plannin
On 2013-07-09 6:00, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
= Proposed System Wide Change: ARM as primary Architecture =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ARM_as_Primary
The kernel is now a multi platform unified ARMv7 kernel supporting a
number of
SoCs with support expanding with each new upstream releas
On 2013-07-09 10:53, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Matthew Garrett
wrote:
llvmpipe has been known to be broken for months, and nobody on the ARM
team appears capable of fixing it. As a result, ARM shipped in F19
without any out of the box support for running our defaul
On Tue, 2013-07-09 at 14:54 -0400, Jonathan Masters wrote:
> We'll be looking into LLVM in due course. There are a few of us
> capable of fixing the issue (that you were noted as being extremely
> concerned about on IRC at the time - we will be happy to send you
> updates on this) but we balance t
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 03:00:05PM +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>> = Proposed System Wide Change: ARM as primary Architecture =
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ARM_as_Primary
>>
>> Change owner(s): Dennis Gilmore , Peter Robinson
>>
>
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 03:00:05PM +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> = Proposed System Wide Change: ARM as primary Architecture =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ARM_as_Primary
>
> Change owner(s): Dennis Gilmore , Peter Robinson
>
>
> Make ARM a primary architecture. Add armv7hl to the
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 06:50:07PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> llvmpipe has been known to be broken for months, and nobody on the ARM
> team appears capable of fixing it. As a result, ARM shipped in F19
> without any out of the box support for running our default desktop.
>
> This doesn't ma
On Tuesday, July 9, 2013, Jonathan Masters wrote:
> Matthew,
>
> We'll be looking into LLVM in due course. There are a few of us capable
of fixing the issue (that you were noted as being extremely concerned about
on IRC at the time - we will be happy to send you updates on this) but we
balance thi
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 06:56:03PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-07-09 at 18:06 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> > and where the sources of the script can be found.
> That would be there:
> https://github.com/pypingou/fedora-owner-change
Thank you. Have you considered moving this to th
On Ter, 2013-07-09 at 20:35 +0200, Jochen Schmitt wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 06:48:17PM +0200, Mattia Verga wrote:
>
> > There's nothing to be changed in spec file, just a rebuild is needed
> > (and to push the update to stable or creating an override in koji).
> > Is there any provenpackag
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 07:01:12PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-07-09 at 18:23 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 10:00:04AM +, nob...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
> > > Change in ownership over the last 168 hours
> >
> > How about changing the report time to to
Matthew,
We'll be looking into LLVM in due course. There are a few of us capable of
fixing the issue (that you were noted as being extremely concerned about on IRC
at the time - we will be happy to send you updates on this) but we balance this
with other priorities (as well as a desire not to g
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 06:48:17PM +0200, Mattia Verga wrote:
> There's nothing to be changed in spec file, just a rebuild is needed
> (and to push the update to stable or creating an override in koji).
> Is there any provenpackager that can take care of this?
I have create an update request and
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 06:48:17PM +0200, Mattia Verga wrote:
> I need lazarus in F19 to be rebuilt because the current version was
> built against an old Free Pascal Compiler version and doesn't work
> with the newer.
I have take this task.
Best Regards:
Jochen Schmitt
--
devel mailing list
de
Summary of changes:
638d8c6... Update to 0.021 (*)
3532187... Update to 0.022 (*)
d060950... Update to 0.023 (*)
3d58630... Update to 0.024 (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 10:53:39AM -0700, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
> Does the secureboot situation on arm mean that this primary architecture
> will eventually be un-bootable for people running a non-redhat signed kernel?
That's unsupported hardware, in the same way that ipads are.
--
Matthew G
On 07/09/2013 10:53 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Does the secureboot situation on arm mean that this primary architecture
will eventually be un-bootable for people running a non-redhat signed kernel?
No. We do not support secure boot on ARM in any way. Only devices
which ship without secure bo
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> llvmpipe has been known to be broken for months, and nobody on the ARM
> team appears capable of fixing it. As a result, ARM shipped in F19
> without any out of the box support for running our default desktop.
>
> This doesn't make it seem
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 06:49:10PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> That's correct and you'll find that that's what I've been doing for
> 2.5+ years now, but we're talking about Primary here... and in primary
> it's everyone's responsibility...
That's the point. You don't get to be a primary archit
llvmpipe has been known to be broken for months, and nobody on the ARM
team appears capable of fixing it. As a result, ARM shipped in F19
without any out of the box support for running our default desktop.
This doesn't make it seem like the ARM port currently has sufficient
developer expertise
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 06:33:53PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
>
>> There's a number of people working on this but ultimately like all
>> problems we can handle as much as possible but we also need assistance
>> by the package maintainers t
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 06:33:53PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> There's a number of people working on this but ultimately like all
> problems we can handle as much as possible but we also need assistance
> by the package maintainers themselves.
No, that's not how it works. While you're a second
On Tue, 2013-07-09 at 18:31 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > How do we treat "Desktop" items where the package compiles fine but does not
> > run well without external drivers (the GNOME on ARM conversation earlier )
> > Or am I misreading that conversation.
>
> The same way as we do now. In some
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 01:00:27PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> >> = Proposed System Wide Change: ARM as primary Architecture =
>> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ARM_as_Primary
>> >
>> > How many F19 packages currently fail to build
> On 9 July 2013 10:57, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>> > nnnOn Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Jaroslav Reznik
>> > wrote:
>> >> = Proposed System Wide Change: ARM as primary Architecture =
>> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ARM_as_Pri
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 01:00:27PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >> = Proposed System Wide Change: ARM as primary Architecture =
> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ARM_as_Primary
> >
> > How many F19 packages currently fail to build (or are excluded but
> > shouldn't be) on ARM? How do we st
On 9 July 2013 10:57, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > nnnOn Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Jaroslav Reznik
> wrote:
> >> = Proposed System Wide Change: ARM as primary Architecture =
> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ARM_as_Primary
> >
>
On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 21:25 +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-01 at 20:48 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 18:14:46 + (UTC), nobody fedoraproject org wrote:
> >
> > > 9 packages were orphaned
> >
> > > php-pecl-apc [devel] was orphaned by remi
> > >
On Tue, 2013-07-09 at 18:06 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 10:00:04AM +, nob...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
> > Change in ownership over the last 168 hours
> > ===
>
> To whoever is creating these messages:
> Please add a message about wh
On Tue, 2013-07-09 at 18:23 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 10:00:04AM +, nob...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
> > Change in ownership over the last 168 hours
>
> How about changing the report time to to last 48-216 hours, then ongoing
> ownership transfers would be recognised as
On Ter, 2013-07-09 at 18:48 +0200, Mattia Verga wrote:
> Hi,
> I need lazarus in F19 to be rebuilt because the current version was
> built against an old Free Pascal Compiler version and doesn't work with
> the newer.
+1
I need it too
> There's nothing to be changed in spec file, just a rebu
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> nnnOn Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>> = Proposed System Wide Change: ARM as primary Architecture =
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ARM_as_Primary
>
> How many F19 packages currently fail to build (or are exc
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> nnnOn Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>> = Proposed System Wide Change: ARM as primary Architecture =
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ARM_as_Primary
>
> How many F19 packages currently fail to build (or are excl
On Tue, 2013-07-09 at 18:06 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 10:00:04AM +, nob...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
> > Change in ownership over the last 168 hours
> > ===
>
> To whoever is creating these messages:
That would be me (and infra)
>
nnnOn Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> = Proposed System Wide Change: ARM as primary Architecture =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ARM_as_Primary
How many F19 packages currently fail to build (or are excluded but
shouldn't be) on ARM? How do we stand against the ot
Hi,
I need lazarus in F19 to be rebuilt because the current version was
built against an old Free Pascal Compiler version and doesn't work with
the newer.
There's nothing to be changed in spec file, just a rebuild is needed
(and to push the update to stable or creating an override in koji). I
Note: As of this writing, the agenda for this week is very light. The one
known agenda item is waiting on information which hasn't been submitted yet.
If you have something to discuss, please reply to this e-mail ASAP so we
can discuss it in the meeting. If we don't get more information on the on
On 07/09/2013 05:26 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
Since they have #!/usr/bin/python header, build machinery
automatically adds python dependency.
But I don't want this to happen - the program is very much
usable without python too. Requiring python pulls in a top
of other stuff which isn't needed.
On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 10:00:04AM +, nob...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
> Change in ownership over the last 168 hours
How about changing the report time to to last 48-216 hours, then ongoing
ownership transfers would be recognised as long as they happen within 48
hours.
Regards
Till
--
devel m
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 04:37:40PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 05:26:19PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > A package I maintain (mc) has two rarely-used
> > python scripts.
> >
> > Since they have #!/usr/bin/python header, build machinery
> > automatical
On 2013-07-06 8:20 PM, Marcelo Barbosa - Fedora Ambassador wrote:
Stewart,
I can keep these packages, how to apply ? How should I proceed ?
Regards
Marcelo Barbosa
Hi Marcelo,
Great! Please sign-in to the Package DB and claim ownership of the package's
branches you wish to maintain.
On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 10:00:04AM +, nob...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
> Change in ownership over the last 168 hours
> ===
To whoever is creating these messages:
Please add a message about who is responsible for these reports, where
to report bugs and whe
Hi Nico,
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 06:06:38AM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> I've been active enough that an intro probably isn't needed, but I've
> not successfully worked my way through the Fedora access to manage
> particular packages nor have I gotten koji access. I'd particularly
> like to
On 07/09/2013 05:30 PM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> On 07/09/2013 05:26 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>> Since they have #!/usr/bin/python header, build machinery
>> automatically adds python dependency.
>>
>> But I don't want this to happen - the program is very much
>> usable without python too. Requirin
On 07/09/2013 12:16 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 8.7.2013 12:00, nob...@fedoraproject.org napsal(a):
ruby-mysql [devel] was orphaned by orion
A Ruby interface to MySQL
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/ruby-mysql
Was this intentional? There is no replacement to this pa
Summary of changes:
638d8c6... Update to 0.021 (*)
3532187... Update to 0.022 (*)
d060950... Update to 0.023 (*)
3d58630... Update to 0.024 (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 05:26:19PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A package I maintain (mc) has two rarely-used
> python scripts.
>
> Since they have #!/usr/bin/python header, build machinery
> automatically adds python dependency.
>
> But I don't want this to happen - the program is ver
Hi,
A package I maintain (mc) has two rarely-used
python scripts.
Since they have #!/usr/bin/python header, build machinery
automatically adds python dependency.
But I don't want this to happen - the program is very much
usable without python too. Requiring python pulls in a top
of other stuff w
Excellent proposal. I of course think this would be just awesome!
--
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 9, 2013, at 15:37, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> = Proposed System Wide Change: ARM as primary Architecture =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ARM_as_Primary
>
> Change owner(s): Dennis Gilmore ,
On Tue, 2013-07-09 at 09:12 +0200, Mario Ceresa wrote:
> Hi Ankur,
> I'll take it!
Thanks Mario!
Labyrinth has been re-added to the repositories. I'll push builds soon.
--
Thanks,
Warm regards,
Ankur (FranciscoD)
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha
Join Fedora! Come talk to us!
http:
= Proposed System Wide Change: ARM as primary Architecture =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ARM_as_Primary
Change owner(s): Dennis Gilmore , Peter Robinson
Make ARM a primary architecture. Add armv7hl to the i686 and x86_64 as arches
that we build and support. This will mean that all p
On 09.07.2013 15:30, Kai Engert wrote:
> A manual page is now available that describes the new
> Shared-System-Certificates feature.
>
> It's contained in this new build for F19:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ca-certificates-2012.87-10.4.fc19
> (and in rahide, too).
>
> man update-ca-
A manual page is now available that describes the new
Shared-System-Certificates feature.
It's contained in this new build for F19:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ca-certificates-2012.87-10.4.fc19
(and in rahide, too).
man update-ca-trust
Please let us know if you have feedback.
Thanks
Compose started at Tue Jul 9 08:15:03 UTC 2013
Broken deps for x86_64
--
[derelict]
derelict-tcod-3-20.20130626gite70c293.fc20.i686 requires tcod
derelict-tcod-3-20.20130626gite70c293.fc20.x86_64 requires tcod
derelic
Hi, folks.
I've been active enough that an intro probably isn't needed, but I've
not successfully worked my way through the Fedora access to manage
particular packages nor have I gotten koji access. I'd particularly
like to get the old "mkrdns" tool into Fedora and EPEL, since it's a
personal favo
Hi,
- Original Message -
> From: Florian Weimer
> Subject: Re: About libcurl, pthreads, ssl and SIGPIPE
> The proper fix is to use sendmsg and MSG_NOSIGNAL in the TLS
> implementation (in this case, NSS).
Yeah, mostly fix has to go into SSL or NSS library, but that doesn't seem like
- Original Message -
> From: Mathieu Bridon
> Subject: Re: About libcurl, pthreads, ssl and SIGPIPE
> It would seem curl is built using NSS rather than OpenSSL?
Yep, I wasn't sure if NSS is replacement for openSSL, got tricked by libssh2.
Thank you!
---
Regards
-Prasad
http://fe
- Original Message -
> From: Anish Patil
> Subject: Re: About libcurl, pthreads, ssl and SIGPIPE
> I think if you ignore SIGPIPE it produces EPIPE, try setting error no EPIPE.
Nope, I see -> Program received signal SIGPIPE, Broken pipe.
Thank you.
---
Regards
-Prasad
http://feedm
On 07/09/2013 08:42 AM, P J P wrote:
Till the time the new fixed version - 7.31.0 - is packaged and available,
solution is for
applications to ignore SIGPIPE signal.
+signal(SIGPIPE, SIG_IGN);
The proper fix is to use sendmsg and MSG_NOSIGNAL in the TLS
implementation (in this case, NSS
Hi Ankur,
I'll take it!
Best,
Mario
On 8 July 2013 15:37, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to re-add labyrinth to Fedora. It was deprecated due to
> multiple FTBFS bugs, but seems to build just right with the new upstream
> release.
>
> I'd be happy to swap reviews with someone to ge
On Tue, 2013-07-09 at 14:42 +0800, P J P wrote:
> Does libcurl in Fedora use OpenSSL or a different
> library for secure connections?
The command you quote below seems to answer that question:
> $ curl-config --configure
>... '--with-libssh2' '--without-ssl' '--with-nss' ...
It would seem
70 matches
Mail list logo
