Re: Broken gcc-c++?

On 22/03/17 11:47 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 08:48:42PM -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: >> I just hit an issue when scratch building embree on either rawhide and F26: >> >> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=18532546 >> >> Does anyone encounter similar probl

Re: fedora-review complains about gschema files in an RPM package

Just realized I never posted my final update to this thread, so in case anyone else ever wanders here looking for answers: Any precompiled glib schema file is not needed -- if the *.gschema.xml file(s) are moved to %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/glib-2.0/schemas/ at the end of the %install section

How risky is lm_sensors's sensors-detect nowadays?

I'm working on packaging Freon, a GNOME Shell extension that displays hardware temperature in the top bar. Freon relies on lm_sensors, and needs the `sensors-detect` command to be run before it will work. The interactive outpu

corsepiu pushed to perl-HTML-Selector-XPath (f25). "Update to 0.23. (..more)"

From 63ac7ccacc2fa1d76968d1771118f9f7bce80f04 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Ralf=20Cors=C3=A9pius?= Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 04:41:07 +0100 Subject: Update to 0.23. BR: %{__make}, %{__perl}. --- .gitignore| 2 +- perl-HTML-Selector-XPath.spec | 9 - sources

DNF package upgrade availability/discovery blocked by versionlocks

[mc-4.8.18 has been broken since release, so I locked 4.8.17] # grep RETT /etc/os-release PRETTY_NAME="Fedora 26 (Twenty Six)" # dnf versionlock list Last metadata expiration check: 1:33:30 ago on Thu Mar 23 16:44:17 2017 EDT. mc-1:4.8.17-2.fc25.* # dnf list mc Last metadata expiration check: 1:3

Re: Stuck maxima builds on aarch64

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 01:10:22PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > So, if someone could try on a fedora 25 host to setup a rawhide/f26 mock > chroot and try and build maxima in it, and see if it hangs installing > the buildsys packages (in particular the 'time' package) that would be > great. I tried

Fedora Rawhide-20170323.n.0 compose check report

Missing expected images: Workstation live i386 Workstation live x86_64 Failed openQA tests: 9/96 (x86_64), 3/17 (i386), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20170322.n.0): ID: 69570 Test: i386 Server-boot-iso install_default URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests

Fedora 26-20170323.n.0 compose check report

Missing expected images: Cloud_base qcow2 x86_64 Server dvd i386 Cloud_base raw-xz x86_64 Server boot i386 Failed openQA tests: 8/108 (x86_64), 1/2 (i386), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test did not fail in 26-20170322.n.0): ID: 69691 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_repository_nfs_vari

Re: Is Pagure slow for you too?

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On 03/23/2017 08:28 AM, Brian Exelbierd wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017, at 11:14 AM, Jiri Eischmann wrote: >>> Hi, >>> I wonder if it's just me or others also have problems with performance >>> of Pagure. Pagure is always slower for me than e.

Fedora 26 Alpha status is NO-GO

The result of the second Fedora 26 Alpha Go/No-Go Meeting is NO-GO. Due to blockers found during the last days [1] we have decided to delay the Fedora 26 Alpha release for one more week. There is going to be one more Go/No-Go meeting on the next Thursday, March 30th, 2017 at 17:00 UTC to verify we

Re: PSA - Kontact is royally screwed up

On Thursday, March 23, 2017 12:15:30 PM EDT Rex Dieter wrote: > Steve Grubb wrote: > > you have to reboot your system because it dies holding a video driver > > mutex > > If you happen to be using nouveau, I may be able to help with a workaround > to use software rendering in qt5-qtwebengine ins

Re: Stuck maxima builds on aarch64

Rex Dieter wrote: > Kevin Fenzi wrote: > >> On 03/21/2017 10:35 AM, Jeremy Linton wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 03/21/2017 07:33 AM, Jerry James wrote: On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Jerry James wrote: > I'm really not sure what to check next. If an aarch64 box for > packagers

Re: automated packaging

On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 09:20 +0100, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: > > > FWIW, I would be *extremely* reluctant to use something that big > > that's > > a) written in shell script (ugh) and b) has no tests. > > How did you figure the (b) part? The package itself has extensive > tests. I meant tha

Re: Stuck maxima builds on aarch64

Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On 03/21/2017 10:35 AM, Jeremy Linton wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 03/21/2017 07:33 AM, Jerry James wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Jerry James >>> wrote: I'm really not sure what to check next. If an aarch64 box for packagers will be available in the not to

MUMPS upgrade

Hi all. MUMPS rpms will be upgraded to the version 5.1.1 Please, be sure that all dependent packages are rebuilt.  repoquery --whatrequires MUMPS MUMPS-devel-0:5.0.2-5.fc25.i686 MUMPS-devel-0:5.0.2-5.fc25.x86_64 MUMPS-examples-0:5.0.2-1.fc25.x86_64 MUMPS-examples-0:5.0.2-5.fc25.x86_64 coin-or-B

Re: PSA - Kontact is royally screwed up

Steve Grubb wrote: > you have to reboot your > system because it dies holding a video driver mutex If you happen to be using nouveau, I may be able to help with a workaround to use software rendering in qt5-qtwebengine instead. -- Rex ___ devel maili

Schedule for Friday's FESCo Meeting (2017-03-24)

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo meeting Friday at 16:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net. To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto or run:   date -d '2017-03-24 16:00 UTC' Links to all issues below ca

Re: automated packaging

On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 06:32 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > That's not true, there are ABI checks in the sidebar on koji. Sorry, in the sidebar in *Bodhi*. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le

Re: Is Pagure slow for you too?

On 03/23/2017 08:28 AM, Brian Exelbierd wrote: > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017, at 11:14 AM, Jiri Eischmann wrote: >> Hi, >> I wonder if it's just me or others also have problems with performance >> of Pagure. Pagure is always slower for me than e.g. Github, but it's >> bearable. However, there are times wh

Re: Is Pagure slow for you too?

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017, at 11:14 AM, Jiri Eischmann wrote: > Hi, > I wonder if it's just me or others also have problems with performance > of Pagure. Pagure is always slower for me than e.g. Github, but it's > bearable. However, there are times when I have to wait easily 30-60 sec > to load a page w

Re: Is Pagure slow for you too?

Am 23.03.2017 um 12:26 schrieb Athos Ribeiro: On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:14:58AM +0100, Jiri Eischmann wrote: I wonder if it's just me or others also have problems with performance of Pagure. Pagure is always slower for me than e.g. Github, but it's bearable. However, there are times when I hav

Re: SELinux policy contibutions

On 03/23/2017 08:53 AM, Lukas Vrabec wrote: On 03/23/2017 01:12 PM, Robert Marcano wrote: Greetings. Is https://github.com/fedora-selinux/selinux-policy-contrib the right place to contribute to the Fedora SELinux policy? I added a pull request for a small update needed for a new release of cups

Re: SELinux policy contibutions

On 03/23/2017 01:12 PM, Robert Marcano wrote: Greetings. Is https://github.com/fedora-selinux/selinux-policy-contrib the right place to contribute to the Fedora SELinux policy? I added a pull request for a small update needed for a new release of cups-pdf, but I am not sure someone is monitoring

Re: SELinux policy contibutions

On 23 March 2017 at 12:12, Robert Marcano wrote: > Greetings. Is https://github.com/fedora-selinux/selinux-policy-contrib the > right place to contribute to the Fedora SELinux policy? > > I added a pull request for a small update needed for a new release of > cups-pdf, but I am not sure someone is

SELinux policy contibutions

Greetings. Is https://github.com/fedora-selinux/selinux-policy-contrib the right place to contribute to the Fedora SELinux policy? I added a pull request for a small update needed for a new release of cups-pdf, but I am not sure someone is monitoring that. There is another one from rhatdan the

Re: automated packaging

On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 09:20 +0100, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: > Unless you mean about fedora testing in general. It is true fedora > provides no practical infrastructure for testing. Even basic checks > like ABI checks for libraries are missing on updates; that's sad but > shouldn't stop packag

pghmcfc uploaded MetaCPAN-Client-2.008001.tar.gz for perl-MetaCPAN-Client

fc2c815db4106b4fe2cf951cd90acd26920fa148c475453a52eba0db0ed4da6f24d87b4fb639809a9904cf3868852b858baddeb11e1a036e3ab6c08b2d768da5 MetaCPAN-Client-2.008001.tar.gz https://src.fedoraproject.org/lookaside/pkgs/perl-MetaCPAN-Client/MetaCPAN-Client-2.008001.tar.gz/sha512/fc2c815db4106b4fe2cf95

Re: Is Pagure slow for you too?

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:14:58AM +0100, Jiri Eischmann wrote: > I wonder if it's just me or others also have problems with performance > of Pagure. Pagure is always slower for me than e.g. Github, but it's > bearable. However, there are times when I have to wait easily 30-60 sec > to load a page

[Bug 1435195] New: Upgrade perl-Image-Info to 1.40

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435195 Bug ID: 1435195 Summary: Upgrade perl-Image-Info to 1.40 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-Image-Info Keywords: FutureFeature Assignee: tcall...@redhat.com

Re: Is Pagure slow for you too?

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:14:58AM +0100, Jiri Eischmann wrote: > Hi, > I wonder if it's just me or others also have problems with performance > of Pagure. Pagure is always slower for me than e.g. Github, but it's > bearable. However, there are times when I have to wait easily 30-60 sec > to load a

Re: automated packaging

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 11:02:28AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017, at 06:00 AM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: > > Hi, > > For several packages it is possible to automate build, test and > > package updating on multiple fedora releases (+epel) in a single > > keypress usi

Is Pagure slow for you too?

Hi, I wonder if it's just me or others also have problems with performance of Pagure. Pagure is always slower for me than e.g. Github, but it's bearable. However, there are times when I have to wait easily 30-60 sec to load a page which makes Pagure almost impossible to work with. Jiri signature.

Re: Understanding the Fedora Modularity initiative (video + slides)

Nice feedback! I've managed to digest a half of it, so let me react to the first half and I will try to follow up with the rest later. :-) I don't know Solaris IPS (I'll definitely have a look), but from what I understood, it looks like they are delivering system components as multiple repositorie

Re: automated packaging

On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 09:35 +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Dne 23.3.2017 v 09:23 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos napsal(a): > > What I was > > interested is whether there is plan or intention of improving the > > fedora infrastructure for packagers by making these part of our > > daily > > work-flow. > >

Re: automated packaging

Dne 23.3.2017 v 09:23 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos napsal(a): > What I was > interested is whether there is plan or intention of improving the > fedora infrastructure for packagers by making these part of our daily > work-flow. It depends. :) I use Tito daily and it saves me a lot of time. However some

Re: automated packaging

On Wed, 2017-03-22 at 11:36 +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Dne 22.3.2017 v 11:00 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos napsal(a): > > Hi, > >  For several packages it is possible to automate build, test and > > package updating on multiple fedora releases (+epel) in a single > > keypress using the cockpituous (s

Re: automated packaging

On Wed, 2017-03-22 at 08:51 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2017-03-22 at 11:00 +0100, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: > > Hi, > >  For several packages it is possible to automate build, test and > > package updating on multiple fedora releases (+epel) in a single > > keypress using the cock

Re: Understanding the Fedora Modularity initiative (video + slides)

On Wed, 2017-03-22 at 13:59 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: [..] > This is a really nice, easy-to-understand presentation putting forward > the goals of the initiative, the current state, and where we hope to > have it for the upcoming Fedora 26 release and Fedora 27 later this > year. If you package