Re: Intel's Clear Linux optimizations

Good to here there haven't been any breakages. I will look into the swapper process issue asap. On Thu, 19 Jul 2018, 10:38 Rajeesh K V, wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 10:33 PM Manas Mangaonkar < > manasmangaon...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The Actual Url >>

Re: Intel's Clear Linux optimizations

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 10:33 PM Manas Mangaonkar wrote: > The Actual Url > > FYI, have been running kernel 4.18.0-0.rc0.git10.1.fc28.x86_64 since a day, haven't noticed any breakages :-) But

[Fedora-packaging] Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2018-07-19 16:00 UTC)

  Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2018-07-19 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net.   Local time information (via. uitime): = Day: Thursday == 2018-07-19 09:00 PDT  US/Pacific

Re: Understanding popd pushd usage in RPM spec file

Germano Massullo wrote: > Hi, I need some help in understanding how popd and pushd work in rpm > files creation. Those commands are shell commands, not specific to RPM. They maintain a stack (una pila) of directories, so you can temporarily switch to a directory and then switch back.

glibc-2.27.9000 and struct statx_timestamp

Hi I'm hitting the following with qt5-qtbase: /usr/include/linux/stat.h:56:8: error: redefinition of 'struct statx_timestamp' struct statx_timestamp { ^~~ In file included from /usr/include/sys/stat.h:446, from

Re: Updating R-qvalue and R-xtable

Hi Pierre, > Good Morning Everyone, > > A few days ago, I sent this to the r-sig-fedora(a)r-project.org list but > without > reactions, so I'm sending it here as well in case there are more people > interested here :) > > Thanks, > > Pierre > > -- > > Good Morning Everyone, > > I was

Re: dnf history - change in how rpmdb checksum is computed

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 6:02 PM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 03:24:54PM +0200, Daniel Mach wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > The DNF team is currently reviewing DNF compatibility with YUM 3 and we'd > > like to get feedback on this one: > >

[Bug 1597400] Update to 1.75

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1597400 --- Comment #4 from Richard Grainger --- I see this has passed testing. Can we get it pushed into epel main? :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___

F29 Self-Contained Change: GnuTLS enables TLS 1.3 by default

== Summary == This change enables TLS 1.3 (draft28) support on the gnutls crypto library. == Owner == * Name: Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos == Detailed Description == This change will enable the TLS 1.3 protocol (draft28) on the gnutls library. TLS 1.3 is the latest version of the TLS protocol which

F29 Self-Contained Change: Basic FPGA Support

== Summary == A number of devices like Xilinx ZYNQ based devices such as the 96boards Ultra96 and the Intel based UP² have onboard FPGAs. FPGA manager is a vendor-neutral framework that has been upstream in the kernel since 4.4. This is the initial support for FPGAs in Fedora using open source

F29 Self-Contained Change: Basic FPGA Support

== Summary == A number of devices like Xilinx ZYNQ based devices such as the 96boards Ultra96 and the Intel based UP² have onboard FPGAs. FPGA manager is a vendor-neutral framework that has been upstream in the kernel since 4.4. This is the initial support for FPGAs in Fedora using open source

[EPEL-devel] Re: python2-jenkins-job-builder package version

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 2:29 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> "KD" == Ken Dreyer writes: > > KD> I've always thought it's the other way around, that EPEL moves > KD> faster than RHEL, > > Well, what I said didn't contradict that, so... I guess I don't > understand what you're trying to

[EPEL-devel] Re: python2-jenkins-job-builder package version

On 18 July 2018 at 14:19, Ken Dreyer wrote: > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:36 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III > wrote: >>> "RI" == Roman Iuvshyn writes: >> >> Maintainers are generally going to be very reluctant to update a package >> in EPEL without some pressing need. Not generally as reluctant

Re: Fixing KeepassXC missing Gnome tray icon

On mercredi 18 juillet 2018 21:20:33 CEST Germano Massullo wrote: > A user filled the following bugreport > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1601033 > concerning KeepassXC from Fedora repository missing the Gnome tray icon. > He states that the upstream AppImage build instead is not

Re: Fixing KeepassXC missing Gnome tray icon

On 7/18/18 9:57 PM, Robert-André Mauchin wrote: > Also if you're looking to fix your FTBFS after the mass rebuild, look at this > bug > https://github.com/keepassxreboot/keepassxc/issues/2048 Thank you! ___ devel mailing list --

Re: Fixing KeepassXC missing Gnome tray icon

On mercredi 18 juillet 2018 21:20:33 CEST Germano Massullo wrote: > A user filled the following bugreport > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1601033 > concerning KeepassXC from Fedora repository missing the Gnome tray icon. > He states that the upstream AppImage build instead is not

Re: Fixing KeepassXC missing Gnome tray icon

On 07/18/2018 12:54 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 07/18/2018 12:20 PM, Germano Massullo wrote: A user filled the following bugreport https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1601033 concerning KeepassXC from Fedora repository missing the Gnome tray icon. He states that the upstream AppImage

Re: Fixing KeepassXC missing Gnome tray icon

On 07/18/2018 12:20 PM, Germano Massullo wrote: A user filled the following bugreport https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1601033 concerning KeepassXC from Fedora repository missing the Gnome tray icon. He states that the upstream AppImage build instead is not affected by this problem.

Re: Release criteria proposal: installing / removing software

On Wed, 2018-07-18 at 08:49 +0200, drago01 wrote: > On Wednesday, July 18, 2018, Chris Murphy wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Adam Williamson > > wrote: > > > On Tue, 2018-07-17 at 14:48 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > I instinctively like the non-split form here because, to

Re: Release criteria proposal: installing / removing software

On Wed, 2018-07-18 at 14:56 +, Jeff Johnson wrote: > There is also historical precedent in open source software for using > the terms "recommended" and "suggested" rather than "appropriate". Those have specific meanings in RPM terms which are not at all what the release criterion is about. It

some trac plugins looking for point of contacts

Hey all. I have: trac-bazaar-plugin trac-git-plugin trac-iniadmin-plugin trac-mercurial-plugin trac-ticketdelete-plugin Which are all FTBFS (likely due to unversioned python2 use). I don't use trac anymore, so I am going to orphan these, unless anyone would like to take

Re: Understanding popd pushd usage in RPM spec file

pushd and popd are bash commands (man pushd) On Wed, 2018-07-18 at 22:17 +0300, Vascom wrote: > It is same as cd > ... > cd .. > > But build/install can finish in some internal directory and not exit > to top level. So pushd popd always work properly. > > ср, 18 июл. 2018 г., 22:10 Germano

Fixing KeepassXC missing Gnome tray icon

A user filled the following bugreport https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1601033 concerning KeepassXC from Fedora repository missing the Gnome tray icon. He states that the upstream AppImage build instead is not affected by this problem. The spec file seems to be fine so I don't

Re: Understanding popd pushd usage in RPM spec file

It is same as cd ... cd .. But build/install can finish in some internal directory and not exit to top level. So pushd popd always work properly. ср, 18 июл. 2018 г., 22:10 Germano Massullo : > Hi, I need some help in understanding how popd and pushd work in rpm > files creation. > Today I

Understanding popd pushd usage in RPM spec file

Hi, I need some help in understanding how popd and pushd work in rpm files creation. Today I started working on enhancing darktable spec file [1] in order to add basecurve-tool and noise-tool subpackages, and I had some difficulties in understanding popd/pushd usage in that spec file. Despite is a

Updating R-qvalue and R-xtable

Good Morning Everyone, A few days ago, I sent this to the r-sig-fed...@r-project.org list but without reactions, so I'm sending it here as well in case there are more people interested here :) Thanks, Pierre -- Good Morning Everyone, I was going through my list of FTBFS packages today

Re: python 2 retirement commo efforts

> accurate count released today tomorrow arrived on me, but here are the promised report and links to the results and the generator script [/share/MD0_DATA/Mirror/lftp] # time ./stats.sh # packages starting with target: python # but NOT python3 # collated from a mirror: 20180718

[EPEL-devel] Re: python 2 retirement commo efforts

> accurate count released today tomorrow arrived on me, but here are the promised report and links to the results and the generator script [/share/MD0_DATA/Mirror/lftp] # time ./stats.sh # packages starting with target: python # but NOT python3 # collated from a mirror: 20180718

[EPEL-devel] Re: python2-jenkins-job-builder package version

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:36 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> "RI" == Roman Iuvshyn writes: > > Maintainers are generally going to be very reluctant to update a package > in EPEL without some pressing need. Not generally as reluctant as Red Hat > would > be for a package in RHEL7 proper

Re: dnf history - change in how rpmdb checksum is computed

> If a user migrates from RHEL 7 to the next version of RHEL (or CentOS), > there will be continuity in used algorithm and history db checksums. > It's important to some enterprise customers to keep the history db in a > good shape. > Fedora users don't care about that much in general. I care

Re: F29 Mass rebuild - Help needed to fix failed build

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 3:18 PM, Mattias Ellert wrote: > ons 2018-07-18 klockan 15:23 +0200 skrev Zoltan Kota: >> Hi All, >> >> The Mass rebuild of pybliographer failed. See below: >> >> Fwd: releng's pybliographer-1.2.18-4.fc29 failed to build >> >> Notification time stamped 2018-07-15

[EPEL-devel] Re: python2-jenkins-job-builder package version

Hello, On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 6:36 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > "RI" == Roman Iuvshyn writes: > > RI> I have a question related to *python2-jenkins-job-builder > RI> *package, who maintains this? > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-jenkins-job-builder shows all > of the

[EPEL-devel] Re: python2-jenkins-job-builder package version

> "RI" == Roman Iuvshyn writes: RI> I have a question related to *python2-jenkins-job-builder RI> *package, who maintains this? https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-jenkins-job-builder shows all of the maintainers. RI> currently available version in epel is pretty old and I wonder if

Re: dnf history - change in how rpmdb checksum is computed

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:02 AM Daniel Mach wrote: > If a user migrates from RHEL 7 to the next version of RHEL (or CentOS), > there will be continuity in used algorithm and history db checksums. > It's important to some enterprise customers to keep the history db in a good > shape. > Fedora

Re: dnf history - change in how rpmdb checksum is computed

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 05:01:14PM +0200, Daniel Mach wrote: > > > > What's the benefit in changing to be compatible with YUM as opposed > > to stickin with current alogorithm ? > > > If a user migrates from RHEL 7 to the next version of RHEL (or CentOS), > there will be continuity in used

Re: dnf history - change in how rpmdb checksum is computed

> > What's the benefit in changing to be compatible with YUM as opposed > to stickin with current alogorithm ? > If a user migrates from RHEL 7 to the next version of RHEL (or CentOS), there will be continuity in used algorithm and history db checksums. It's important to some enterprise customers

Re: Release criteria proposal: installing / removing software

There is also historical precedent in open source software for using the terms "recommended" and "suggested" rather than "appropriate". Installing/upgrading licensed software is never appropriate. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: dnf history - change in how rpmdb checksum is computed

Regarding these two questions: Are there any concerns about such change? >> I believe that >90% users wouldn't notice anything as it's related to the >> history database only. > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:01 AM Igor Gnatenko < > ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Since we've changed

Audit-3.0 pre-release coming to rawhide

Hello, This is to let everyone know that audit-3.0 pre-release is coming to rawhide. The big change that is prompting this email is that there is a config change that people might need to be aware of. One of the improvements is to drop audispd (realtime audit event dispatcher) and merge its

jaxen license correction

jaxen license was corrected from: BSD to: BSD and W3C Michael ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html

Re: F29 Mass rebuild - Help needed to fix failed build

ons 2018-07-18 klockan 15:23 +0200 skrev Zoltan Kota: > Hi All, > > The Mass rebuild of pybliographer failed. See below: > > Fwd: releng's pybliographer-1.2.18-4.fc29 failed to build > > Notification time stamped 2018-07-15 03:04:40 UTC > > releng's pybliographer-1.2.18-4.fc29 failed to

Re: dnf history - change in how rpmdb checksum is computed

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 3:35 PM Daniel Mach wrote: > Hi everyone, > The DNF team is currently reviewing DNF compatibility with YUM 3 and we'd > like to get feedback on this one: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1120253 > > rpmdb checksum is a checksum of all installed RPMs > It has

Re: dnf history - change in how rpmdb checksum is computed

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 03:24:54PM +0200, Daniel Mach wrote: > Hi everyone, > The DNF team is currently reviewing DNF compatibility with YUM 3 and we'd > like to get feedback on this one: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1120253 > > rpmdb checksum is a checksum of all installed RPMs

[Bug 1602758] perl-Thread-Queue-3.13 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1602758 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Thread-Queue-3.13-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-4a9eacc23e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the

[Bug 1602758] perl-Thread-Queue-3.13 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1602758 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Thread-Queue-3.13-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-7410f335d2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the

dnf history - change in how rpmdb checksum is computed

Hi everyone, The DNF team is currently reviewing DNF compatibility with YUM 3 and we'd like to get feedback on this one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1120253 rpmdb checksum is a checksum of all installed RPMs It has no cryptographical value, it's just an unique ID of RPMs on a

F29 Mass rebuild - Help needed to fix failed build

Hi All, The Mass rebuild of pybliographer failed. See below: Fwd: releng's pybliographer-1.2.18-4.fc29 failed to build Notification time stamped 2018-07-15 03:04:40 UTC releng's pybliographer-1.2.18-4.fc29 failed to build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1121364

[Bug 1602758] perl-Thread-Queue-3.13 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1602758 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In Version|

[Bug 1602758] New: perl-Thread-Queue-3.13 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1602758 Bug ID: 1602758 Summary: perl-Thread-Queue-3.13 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-Thread-Queue Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee:

[EPEL-devel] python2-jenkins-job-builder package version

Hello, I have a question related to *python2-jenkins-job-builder *package, who maintains this? currently available version in epel is pretty old and I wonder if there any plans to update it to the recent version? Or maybe there any issues with updating it, like incompatible changes or something

License tags of lm_sensors corrected

Hi, I've reviewed the licensing of lm_sensors and found the License tags to be incorrect, so I corrected it. Previously the License tags of all the subpackages was: LGPLv2+ and GPLv3+ and GPLv2+ and Verbatim and Public Domain Now the License tags read as follows. lm_sensors: GPLv2+ and Verbatim

Re: Release criteria proposal: installing / removing software

On Wednesday, July 18, 2018, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Adam Williamson > wrote: > > On Tue, 2018-07-17 at 14:48 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > >> I instinctively like the non-split form here because, to me, it > >> emphasizes more clearly that "appropriately"