Re: F42 Change Proposal: Fedora Plasma Workstation (System-Wide)

On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 at 19:44, Richard Hughes wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 at 10:40, Aoife Moloney wrote: > > Switch the default desktop experience for Workstation to KDE Plasma. > > The GNOME desktop is moved to a separate spin / edition, retaining > > release-blocking status. > > If this is an

Re: just to let you know FESCo agreed to a preliminary injunction while we consider this issue

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 14:55, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > I have just found another essential feature that is missing in Plasma > Wayland: The big one for me is that Synergy and similar tools barrier and input-leap don't work under Wayland. I don't see that mentioned at

Re: HELP! What's up with OpenVDB?

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 at 13:03, Richard Shaw wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 4:16 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> >> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 at 15:18, Richard Shaw wrote: >> > >> > Well I upped the memory to 10GB and got it to build but the issue on i686 >>

Re: SWIG 4.2 Python transition

On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 at 12:29, Florian Weimer wrote: > In the past, this kind of problem would have just compiled and resulted > in a run-time error when the Python extension module is loaded. In some > cases, issues went completely unnoticed because the Python bindins were > unused. But with GCC

Re: HELP! What's up with OpenVDB?

On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 at 15:18, Richard Shaw wrote: > > Well I upped the memory to 10GB and got it to build but the issue on i686 > with the wrong tbb package being pulled in has not been corrected by any of > the 4 maintainers of the package. I fixed tbb to stop installing tbb32.pc so the

Re: HEADSUP boost and tbb rebuilds starting in a side tag

On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 at 13:24, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 at 12:10, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > > > On Saturday, 20 January 2024 at 17:59, Tom Hughes via devel wrote: > > > On 20/01/2024 16:07, Jerry James wrote: > > >

Re: HEADSUP boost and tbb rebuilds starting in a side tag

On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 at 12:10, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > On Saturday, 20 January 2024 at 17:59, Tom Hughes via devel wrote: > > On 20/01/2024 16:07, Jerry James wrote: > > > > > Upstream has this in src/tbb/CMakeLists.txt: > > > > > > if (CMAKE_SIZEOF_VOID_P EQUAL 8) > > >

Re: HEADSUP boost and tbb rebuilds starting in a side tag

Richard Shaw who was puzzled by the same thing. > I’m posting about this in part just to explain the problem in case anyone > else is encountering something similar. > > – Ben Beasley (FAS music) > > [1] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=111976337 > > &g

Re: HEADSUP boost and tbb rebuilds starting in a side tag

On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 at 01:27, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > On Fri, 2024-01-19 at 00:21 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 at 00:10, Jonathan Wakely > > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 at 19:07, Jonathan Wakely > > > wrote

Re: HEADSUP boost and tbb rebuilds starting in a side tag

On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 at 00:10, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 at 19:07, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > I'll be building boost, tbb, and the packages that depend on them in > > the f40-build-side-81691 > > side tag over the next few hours (in advanc

Re: HEADSUP boost and tbb rebuilds starting in a side tag

On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 at 19:07, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > I'll be building boost, tbb, and the packages that depend on them in > the f40-build-side-81691 > side tag over the next few hours (in advance of the mass rebuild tomorrow). > > If your package gets a "Rebuilt fo

Re: HEADSUP boost and tbb rebuilds starting in a side tag

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 at 22:15, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > heaptrack > Could NOT find Libunwind (missing: LIBUNWIND_HAS_UNW_BACKTRACE) This one's already fixed in dist-git! (thanks, aleasto) -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproje

Re: HEADSUP boost and tbb rebuilds starting in a side tag

On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 at 19:07, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > I'll be building boost, tbb, and the packages that depend on them in > the f40-build-side-81691 > side tag over the next few hours (in advance of the mass rebuild tomorrow). > > If your package gets a "Rebuilt fo

Re: [Fedora-packaging] BuildrootError: could not init mock buildroot ... see root.log ...

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 at 06:43, Mamoru TASAKA wrote: > > Brad Bell wrote on 2024/01/18 14:00: > > I got the Result in the subject above for the following build: > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=111912575 > > > > Looking at the corresponding root.log > >

HEADSUP boost and tbb rebuilds starting in a side tag

I'll be building boost, tbb, and the packages that depend on them in the f40-build-side-81691 side tag over the next few hours (in advance of the mass rebuild tomorrow). If your package gets a "Rebuilt for Boost 1.83.0" comment, please don't rebuild it in rawhide, we're building it in the side

Re: Should we retire the mailx package?

On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 at 12:03, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 18:47, Adam Williamson > wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2023-12-08 at 10:38 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > I'm definitely in favor. I hit this broken step a while back myself. ;( >

Re: Should we retire the mailx package?

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 18:47, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Fri, 2023-12-08 at 10:38 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > I'm definitely in favor. I hit this broken step a while back myself. ;( > > > > Hopefully the current maintainers are on board with this? > > Yeah, honestly, I'm not sure a Change is

Should we retire the mailx package?

Today I learned (the hard way) that Fedora's mailx package (aka Heirloom mailx) is ancient and buggy. Upstream has been dead for over a decade and features documented in its man page don't work. The good news is that Fedora (and RHEL and CentOS) already have s-nail, which was forked from it ages

Re: Making -Wmissing-include-dirs an error?

On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 at 12:17, Ian McInerney via devel wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 11:59 AM Neal Gompa wrote: >> >> Hey all, >> >> Recently, one of the folks working on packaging stuff in Fedora KDE >> nearly missed an issue caused by GCC emitting a warning about missing >> include

Re: Does a change approved for f39 need reapproval for f40?

3 at 3:16 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 10:55 AM Jonathan Wakely >> wrote: >> > >> > On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 at 14:24, Ian McInerney via devel >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Mon, Oc

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2023-09-21)

> On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 02:21:38PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > Yes, exactly. We have no idea if this will be picked up again (either by > trodgers or by somebody else), so it seems better to drop it than to pretend > that we expect it to happen for F40. Well I had said publicly I was

Re: Does a change approved for f39 need reapproval for f40?

On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 at 14:24, Ian McInerney via devel wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 2:06 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> >> Well it looks like I took too long to do the deferral to F40, and so >> FESCO dropped the change: >> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue

Re: Does a change approved for f39 need reapproval for f40?

PM Ben Cotton wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 2:56 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > > > This change got approved for f39 but couldn't be done in time: > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F39ModernizeTBB > > > > > > Does it

Does a change approved for f39 need reapproval for f40?

This change got approved for f39 but couldn't be done in time: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F39ModernizeTBB Does it need to be re-proposed and approved for f40, or can we just do it now? (in a side tag, as planned, of course). ___ devel

Re: Modernize Thread Building Blocks for Fedora 39

On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 at 15:15, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 at 11:46, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > Oops, I meant to CC the package-ow...@fedoraproject.org addresses for > > the packages I'll be changing (see below). > > > > For blender, gazeb

Re: Modernize Thread Building Blocks for Fedora 39

On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 at 11:46, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > Oops, I meant to CC the package-ow...@fedoraproject.org addresses for > the packages I'll be changing (see below). > > For blender, gazebo, opencascade, and opensubdiv, it's a one line > change to the spec fi

Re: rawhide build errors on i686

On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 at 13:29, Felix Wang wrote: > > I also had the build error of `BuildrootError: could not init mock buildroot, > mock exited with status 30`. [1, 2] May I ask how to resubmit the build? Just repeat exactly the steps you did to submit it the first time. Probably something like

Re: Modernize Thread Building Blocks for Fedora 39

On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 at 12:43, Richard Shaw wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 5:41 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> >> > >> > Wouldn't it be better to just update OpenCascade to its new upstream >> > version in that sidetag as well instead of doing a com

Re: Modernize Thread Building Blocks for Fedora 39

On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 at 11:46, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > Oops, I meant to CC the package-ow...@fedoraproject.org addresses for > the packages I'll be changing (see below). Which should be package-matinain...@fedoraproject.org nowadays. Doh. > > For blender, gazebo, opencascade,

Re: Modernize Thread Building Blocks for Fedora 39

for me to push that and rebuild the package as provenpackager, let me know and I won't bother you with a pull request. For USD there's a change needed to FindTBB.cmake, so it's slightly more complex (but only slightly). On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 at 11:11, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > This is a

Re: Modernize Thread Building Blocks for Fedora 39

On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 at 11:21, Ian McInerney via devel wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 11:12 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> >> This is a status update for >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F39ModernizeTBB >> >> The tbb2020.3 compat packa

Modernize Thread Building Blocks for Fedora 39

This is a status update for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F39ModernizeTBB The tbb2020.3 compat package has now been added to rawhide: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-15ccd1cedb It doesn't include the docs or python modules (you can use the main tbb package for

Re: Red Hat & Fedora -- largely stepping out of this ecosystem

On Sat, 1 Jul 2023 at 20:34, Piotr Szubiakowski wrote: > I think we all have a problem understanding what this announcement > means. I do believe CentOS Stream is awesome software. It has to be > since it's close to what RHEL is. My problem with CentOS Stream is that > it's not a distribution of

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Allow Removal of tzdata (System-Wide)

On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 at 16:38, Ian Pilcher wrote: > Rather than expecting runtimes and applications to be fixed to work > without any timezone information, perhaps the best way forward would be > to create a tzdata-utc (and similar Java and Python packages). > > (Sorry if this has already been

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Allow Removal of tzdata (System-Wide)

On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 at 19:10, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > Hello Patsy, > > On 26. 06. 23 17:54, Aoife Moloney wrote: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/AllowRemovalOfTzdata > > > > == Summary == > > Allow the removal of tzdata especially on containers in order to minimize > > size. > > ... >

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 39 Python 3.12 rebuilds to start in a side tag this week

On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 at 07:50, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 13. 06. 23 14:02, Tomas Hrnciar wrote: > > Hello, > > > > in order to deliver Python 3.12, we are running a coordinated rebuild in a > > side > > tag. > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Python3.12 > >

Re: SPDX Statistics - stilus annunciationis edition

On Monday, March 27, 2023, Andreas Schneider wrote: > On Sunday, 26 March 2023 01:56:32 CEST Miroslav Suchý wrote: >> Two weeks ago we had: >> > * 23107 spec files in Fedora >> > >> > * 29503license tags in all spec files >> > >> > * 20302 tags have not been converted to SPDX yet >> > >> > * 8096

Re: Strange problem: Builds in container, not on machine

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 at 14:10, Ron Olson wrote: > Hey all- > > I got this issue in my GH account I use for building Swift for Fedora: > https://github.com/tachoknight/swift-lang-packaging-fedora/issues/2. The > TL;DR is that the person was trying to build Swift on Rawhide which he > moved to from

Re: Heads-up: abseil-cpp 20230125.1 coming to Rawhide/F39

happening, how, and why, and I’m still happy to consider any > proposals to proceed differently. > Agreed. We know why it's needed now, and so can explain it to any maintainers of packages that need to move to C++17. Thanks for humouring my curiosity about it! > On 3/15/23 6:29 PM, Jonat

Re: Heads-up: abseil-cpp 20230125.1 coming to Rawhide/F39

On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 at 22:17, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 at 22:14, Ben Beasley wrote: > >> Thank you for prompting me to look at this more closely. A quick >> investigation reveals: >> >> “Abseil libraries require C++14 as the curren

Re: Heads-up: abseil-cpp 20230125.1 coming to Rawhide/F39

On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 at 22:14, Ben Beasley wrote: > Thank you for prompting me to look at this more closely. A quick > investigation reveals: > > “Abseil libraries require C++14 as the current minimum standard. When > compiled with C++17 (either because it is the compiler's default or >

Heads-up: abseil-cpp 20230125.1 coming to Rawhide/F39

On Wednesday, March 15, 2023, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > On Wednesday, March 15, 2023, Ben Beasley wrote: >> In one week (2023-03-22), or slightly later, I plan to update abseil-cpp[1] in Rawhide/F39 to the latest LTS release, which is currently 20230125.1. Release notes

Heads-up: abseil-cpp 20230125.1 coming to Rawhide/F39

On Wednesday, March 15, 2023, Ben Beasley wrote: > In one week (2023-03-22), or slightly later, I plan to update abseil-cpp[1] in Rawhide/F39 to the latest LTS release, which is currently 20230125.1. Release notes are available[2]. > > The most significant breaking change is that dependent

Re: Update of catch to Catch2 v3

On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 at 08:20, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > On 24/02/2023 09:06, Benson Muite wrote: > > No. There are incompatibilities. Maybe it is better to keep the old > > name, and use Catch2v3 as a new name, so packages can update more easily > > when they are ready to do so? > >

Re: Some boost breakage in Fedora Rawhide

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 at 18:23, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > Dne 23. 02. 23 v 12:41 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 12:28:48PM +0100, Kalev Lember wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 12:17 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek < > >> zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: > >> I think

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 39 Boost 1.81 rebuilds starting Monday 2022-02-20

On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 at 20:52, Thomas Rodgers wrote: > > The f39-boost side tag builds have finished. > > The following packages are new FTBFS likely due to the Boost update - [...] > - usd > [[https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5975/97845975/build.log][build.log]] The correct log for

Re: Some boost breakage in Fedora Rawhide

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 at 13:03, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > Do you know anything about what's happening with Ceph? No idea, sorry. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Some boost breakage in Fedora Rawhide

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 at 11:41, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 12:28:48PM +0100, Kalev Lember wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 12:17 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek < > > zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: > > I think you got something wrong with your repoquery. Perhaps it

Re: FTBFS bug filed, build already deleted

On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 at 14:21, Scott Talbert wrote: > > On Wed, 22 Feb 2023, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > > Julian Sikorski wrote: > >> FTBFS bug was filed against mame [1]. Unfortunately, the corresponding > >> build [2] has already been deleted. This is not ideal from maintainer > >>

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 39 Boost 1.81 rebuilds starting Monday 2022-02-20

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 at 11:10, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 23. 02. 23 11:50, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 at 09:34, Miro Hrončok wrote: > >> > >> On 23. 02. 23 2:37, Thomas Rodgers wrote: > >>> imath is listed as a prerequisite for Open

Re: Some boost breakage in Fedora Rawhide

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 at 11:29, Kalev Lember wrote: > I think you got something wrong with your repoquery. Perhaps it picked up > older packages from a published rawhide compose that were still linked with > older boost? > > My list of things needing rebuild is much shorter: This list is what

Re: Some boost breakage in Fedora Rawhide

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 at 11:33, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 at 10:49, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > > boost 1.81.0 (side tag f39-boost) was merged into Fedora earlier this week: > > > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/k

Re: Some boost breakage in Fedora Rawhide

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 at 10:49, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > boost 1.81.0 (side tag f39-boost) was merged into Fedora earlier this week: > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=1074 > > These are the builds in the side tag: > > >

Fwd: fedmsg notification

What does this notification mean, and how do I turn it off? The filter UI for notifications is impossible to understand. -- Forwarded message - From: Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 at 10:25 Subject: fedmsg notification Notification time stamped 2023-02-23 10:25:03 UTC

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 39 Boost 1.81 rebuilds starting Monday 2022-02-20

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 at 09:34, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 23. 02. 23 2:37, Thomas Rodgers wrote: > > imath is listed as a prerequisite for OpenImageIO, but not openvdb. Fixed > > now. > > Listed where? It's not necessary to construct a dependency tree, it was > entirely possible to keep restarting

Re: Fedora 38 mass rebuild is finished

On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 at 22:53, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 7:29 AM Jeff Law wrote: > > > On 1/24/23 00:16, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > See > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-13/porting_to.html#header-dep-changes > > > Some libstdc++ headers included in older versions > > >

Re: Fedora 38 mass rebuild is finished

On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 at 07:29, Jeff Law wrote: > > > > On 1/24/23 00:16, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 10:00:47AM +0300, Vascom wrote: > >> I have some packages failed. > >> One of them libtins. Problem is that: > >> > >> error: 'uint32_t' is not a member of 'std'; > >> > >> Is

Re: Fedora 38 mass rebuild is finished

On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 at 07:01, Vascom wrote: > > I have some packages failed. > One of them libtins. Problem is that: > > error: 'uint32_t' is not a member of 'std'; > > Is it normal? Is it GCC 13 change? > > I must patch sources now? > sed -i 's|stdint.h|cstdint|' include/tins/ip_address.h

Re: SPECfiles - conditionals with EOLed Fedora releases - any value in keeping them ?

On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 at 10:52, Michal Schorm wrote: > > Hello, > While playing around with Sourcegraph, which indexed all Fedora > package repositories, I was able to craft a query listing all '%if' > conditionals referencing Fedora releases that reached EOL. > >

Re: vtk build failure with gcc 13.0.0 - enum class

On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 at 09:04, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 09:36:39PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote: > > elaborated-type-specifier for a scoped enum must not use the 'class' keyword > >33 | enum class EndiannessType : std::uint8_t > > | ^ > > The actual bug is

Re: F38 proposal: Shorter Shutdown Timer (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 at 16:36, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 06:16:07PM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > Ok, but it seems safer to just add timeouts to things that take too long > > and can safely be killed off rather than lowering the timeout for > > everything and

Re: Schedule for Tuesday's FESCo Meeting (2023-01-03)

On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 at 17:47, Demi Marie Obenour wrote: > > On 1/5/23 11:08, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > > > >> Of course, but the benefit is to fix performance bugs in applications > >> or maybe the desktop itself. [...] > > > >>> Let's be firm in testing this empirically rather than

Re: Schedule for Tuesday's FESCo Meeting (2023-01-03)

On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 at 09:39, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > = New business = > > #2923 Re-vote for Change proposal: Add -fno-omit-frame-pointer to default > compilation flags > https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2923 Given the controversial nature of this one, why was it re-litigated at short notice when a

Re: F40 proposal: Porting Fedora to Modern C (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Wed, 26 Oct 2022 at 13:24, Milan Crha wrote: > Looking into the db.h file, it has there a comment that it can add the > `u_int`, when the system doesn't provide it, but that related block is > empty in Fedora. More interestingly, even when I add `#define > __USE_MISC 1` at the very top of the

Re: Troubleshooting EPEL 8 build

On Fri, 9 Sept 2022 at 13:58, Ron Olson wrote: > > Hey all- > > I’m having an issue trying to get Swift 5.6.3 built on EPEL-8, even though it > builds fine for everything else (Rawhide, F36, F35, EPEL-9): “undefined > reference to 'std::__throw_bad_array_new_length()’”. That symbol was added

Unretire pstreams-devel

I didn't notice that this package got orphaned then retired. I plan to maintain it (I'm the author of the code, but somebody else added it to Fedora so I just let them do the maintenance, which never really needed any work). I've submitted a ticket to unretire it.

Re: F37 proposal: RPM Macros for Build Flags (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 at 09:32, Florian Weimer wrote: > >>> With these new macros, the examples from above could be re-written as: > >>> > >>> compiler-rt: %global _pkg_extra_cflags -D_DEFAULT_SOURCE > >>> julia: %global _flag_glibcxx_assertions %{nil} > >> Do you have some

Re: You can't be serious! you want to remove mesa-libGL.i686 support?

On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 at 11:04, Jiri Vanek wrote: > > Hi All! > > On 7/6/22 01:24, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 06. 07. 22 1:17, Miro Hrončok wrote: > >> On 06. 07. 22 0:14, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > >>> Stephen Smoogen wrote: > Hyperbole aside, it isn't a joke. Looking at the chain we see

Re: Once again, more than 8 days delayed notifications

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 at 15:06, Stephen Smoogen wrote: > That said, IRC is actually one of the fastest ones we can push to. Is https://apps.fedoraproject.org/notifications/ really still sending notifications to freenode though? Hasn't everybody moved to libera?

Re: You can't be serious! you want to remove mesa-libGL.i686 support?

On Tue, 5 Jul 2022 at 23:15, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > Stephen Smoogen wrote: > > Hyperbole aside, it isn't a joke. Looking at the chain we see a common > > problem where subversion relies on java-11-openjdk and without it is going > > to cause a lot of packages to be removed. Either

Re: F37 proposal: Add -fno-omit-frame-pointer to default compilation flags (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Wed, 6 Jul 2022 at 15:57, Jeff Law wrote: > > > > On 7/6/2022 8:20 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 6 2022 at 08:06:45 AM -0600, Jeff Law > > wrote: > >> If I'm understanding things correctly, the original proposal is trying > >> to make a very special case of profiling work

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 37 Boost 1.78 rebuilds starting in a side tag

On Thu, 5 May 2022 at 09:46, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 04. 05. 22 1:34, Thomas Rodgers wrote: > > We are starting the rebuilds for > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F37Boost178 > > in the f37-boost > > side tag. > > > > If your

Re: mingw-gcc-12.0.1 and mingw-binutils-2.38 coming to rawhide

On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 at 08:49, Sandro Mani wrote: > > > On 14.03.22 23:50, Sandro Mani wrote: > > Hi > > > > As per [1] I'll be landing mingw-gcc-12.0.1 and mingw-binutils-2.38 > > towards the end of the week. I've completed test-builds here [2]. > > Looks like there is an ABI incompatibility

Re: FESCo wants to know what you use i686 packages for

On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 at 14:25, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 09:54:12AM -0400, David Cantrell wrote: > > If you use i686 packages for something now, please respond to this thread. > > I use {glibc{,-devel,-static},{gmp,mpfr,libmpc}{,-devel}}.i686 for > development and testing of

Re: Problem with cmake 3.23.0

On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 at 14:26, Steven A. Falco wrote: > > There is a new FTBFS for KiCad [1]. I filed an issue with KiCad [2] and got > a comment from the project leader: > > This looks like cmake issue to me. For some reason cmake is creating an > incorrect build folder: > > -- Build

Re: Fedora 36 Mass Branching

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 at 18:14, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 03:30:52PM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > I can't see how "rawhide/f36 has been completely isolated from > > previous releases" can be interpreted to mean that :-) &

Re: Fedora 36 Mass Branching

On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 at 18:15, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 06:26:44PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 6:12 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 at 20:40, Tomas Hrcka wrote: > > > > > &g

Re: How to clone by fedpkg ?

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 at 09:20, Miao, Jun wrote: > > Hi developer, > > I want to clone the rpms through fedpkg, but failed log like this: > > > > jmiao@fedora36:temp$ fedpkg clone tboot > > Cloning into 'tboot'... > > miaojun0...@pkgs.fedoraproject.org: Permission denied (publickey). > > fatal:

Re: Fedora 36 Mass Branching

On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 at 20:40, Tomas Hrcka wrote: > > Hi All, > > Fedora 36 has now been branched, please be sure to do a git pull > --rebase to pick up the new branch, as an additional reminder > rawhide/f36 has been completely isolated from previous releases, so What does this mean? > this

Re: F36 Change: Wayland by Default for SDDM (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 at 11:00, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 5:24 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 at 14:30, Ben Cotton wrote: > > > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/WaylandByDefaultForSDDM >

Re: F36 Change: Wayland by Default for SDDM (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 at 14:30, Ben Cotton wrote: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/WaylandByDefaultForSDDM > > = Wayland by Default for SDDM = > > == Summary == > Change the default display server mode for SDDM to use a Wayland-based > greeter rather than an X11-based one. > > == Owner ==

Re: F37 Change: MinGW UCRT target (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 at 17:10, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 11:20 AM Kevin Kofler via devel > wrote: > > > > Marc-André Lureau wrote: > > > Release build should be tested on Windows. It is easy to build and test > > > natively with msys2 nowadays, or build for other targets. Why not

Re: Weirdness with clang and stdatomic.h on Rawhide

2022, at 13:35, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 at 20:27, Ron Olson wrote: > >> > >> Here’s a question: what if the following was added to stdatomic.h at the > >> end of the file: > >> > >> #else > >> #include_nex

Re: Weirdness with clang and stdatomic.h on Rawhide

On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 at 20:27, Ron Olson wrote: > > Here’s a question: what if the following was added to stdatomic.h at the end > of the file: > > #else > #include_next > #endif // C++23 > > Since the rest of the file is gated by C++23, this allows C++ programs that > reference this header to

Re: Weirdness with clang and stdatomic.h on Rawhide

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 at 15:00, Ron Olson wrote: > > Well, yes and no. The code I linked to in the pastebin is what demonstrates > the issue. The code in question is Apple’s libdispatch which I package > separately as well as part of Swift. In that situation they’re using a C++ > file that uses

Re: Uninitialized variables and F37

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 at 12:03, Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Jonathan Wakely: > > > Vitaly, it looks like you didn't respond to this. I'm also curious why > > this change would lead to crashes. Are we missing something? > > I've seen cases where access to uninitia

Re: Announcing LLVM Snapshot Packages for Fedora Linux

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 at 11:25, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 16:29, José Abílio Matos wrote: > > > > On Thursday, 27 January 2022 16.14.36 WET José Abílio Matos wrote: > > > > > $ src/lyx > > > > > > > > > > [1] 61

Re: Announcing LLVM Snapshot Packages for Fedora Linux

On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 16:29, José Abílio Matos wrote: > > On Thursday, 27 January 2022 16.14.36 WET José Abílio Matos wrote: > > > $ src/lyx > > > > > > [1] 61542 > > > > > > src/lyx: /lib64/libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.30' not found (required > > > by src/lyx) > > > > > > > > > Any help

Re: Uninitialized variables and F37

On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 at 14:58, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 12:36:01PM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > On 21/01/2022 19:04, Steve Grubb wrote: > > >Uninitialized variables are a big problem. > > > > Yes, but as a package maintainer, I don't want to deal with

Re: Uninitialized variables and F37

On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 at 16:40, Steve Grubb wrote: > > >> Of course gcc -fsanitize=undefined cannot be used on production code. > > > > Why not? Will it find too many errors? > > This discussion is at least 5 years old: > > https://seclists.org/oss-sec/2016/q1/363 > > I don't know if the problems

Re: Weirdness with clang and stdatomic.h on Rawhide

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 at 09:15, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 22:45, Ron Olson wrote: > > > > Hey all, > > > > I’m troubleshooting an issue and came up with this sample program: > > https://pastebin.com/g9S8Z64q to demonstrate the problem.

Re: Weirdness with clang and stdatomic.h on Rawhide

On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 at 09:15, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 22:45, Ron Olson wrote: > > > > Hey all, > > > > I’m troubleshooting an issue and came up with this sample program: > > https://pastebin.com/g9S8Z64q to demonstrate the problem.

Re: Weirdness with clang and stdatomic.h on Rawhide

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 22:45, Ron Olson wrote: > > Hey all, > > I’m troubleshooting an issue and came up with this sample program: > https://pastebin.com/g9S8Z64q to demonstrate the problem. Basically, clang > 13, on Rawhide, won’t compile that program, while on Fedora 35 it does. > > The

Re: F36 Change: GNU Toolchain Update (gcc 12, glibc 2.35) (late System-Wide Change proposal)

On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 at 11:51, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 at 10:52, Andreas Schneider wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 7:00:22 PM CET Steve Grubb wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 5:05:26

Re: F36 Change: GNU Toolchain Update (gcc 12, glibc 2.35) (late System-Wide Change proposal)

On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 at 10:52, Andreas Schneider wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 7:00:22 PM CET Steve Grubb wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 5:05:26 PM EST Ben Cotton wrote: > > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GNUToolchainF36 > > > > > > == Summary == >

Re: Build failure in Clementine due to GCC 12

On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 at 17:42, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 at 16:37, Robert-André Mauchin wrote: > > > > On 1/21/22 14:46, Robert-André Mauchin wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > So I built Clementine last week with no issue

Re: Build failure in Clementine due to GCC 12

On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 at 16:37, Robert-André Mauchin wrote: > > On 1/21/22 14:46, Robert-André Mauchin wrote: > > Hello, > > > > So I built Clementine last week with no issue, but it failed during > > the mass rebuild with the folloing error: > > > > In file included from > >

Re: gcc-12.0.0-0.4.fc36 in rawhide

On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 at 13:05, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 at 12:54, Kaleb Keithley wrote: > > > > > > I thought I'd solved all my gcc-12-isms in ceph by running --scratch > > --arch-override=x86_64 builds, so I tried a full build and

Re: gcc-12.0.0-0.4.fc36 in rawhide

On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 at 12:54, Kaleb Keithley wrote: > > > I thought I'd solved all my gcc-12-isms in ceph by running --scratch > --arch-override=x86_64 builds, so I tried a full build and ran into this on > aarch64. :-( > > /usr/bin/g++ -DBOOST_ASIO_DISABLE_THREAD_KEYWORD_EXTENSION >

Re: gcc-12.0.0-0.4.fc36 in rawhide

On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 at 11:01, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 at 14:01, Ben Beasley wrote: > >> Skimming through Koschei, here are a sampling of regressions that seem >> to be associated with GCC 12. Some of these are in packages I maintain >> d

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >