Re: Problems with Automake 1.13 and 1.13.1

Kevin Fenzi wrote: Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com wrote: Of course (BTW the Automake maintainer now confirmed to me privately that he'd accept such a patch), though it would probably would make sense to put it in Fedora even before 1.13.2. I'll try to put together the patch tomorrow,

Re: PostgreSQL 9.3 in Fedora 20?

I know that currently Fedora 20 is in feature freeze state. But Alpha version is still not released and PosgreSQL developers released new latest and greates version http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/release-9-3.html with cool features. Are there chances to get this version for F20?

Re: PostgreSQL 9.3 in Fedora 20?

Yes, of course I can help with testing. Update is submitted here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/postgresql-9.3.0-1.fc20 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct:

Rebase of automake-1.13.4 to automake 1.14

Hello all, I would like to inform you that I plan to realize ${Subject} during Thursday Friday (#976973), if there are no objections. Even if it does not seem to be, it is just a minor version update, see NEWS file in tarball (new versioning scheme). To sum actual changes up for distro POV: no

Re: Rebase of automake-1.13.4 to automake 1.14

Hello all, I would like to inform you that I plan to realize ${Subject} during Thursday Friday (#976973), if there are no objections. Is this just for rawhide? It may not be the best timing for f20 as we are close to beta freeze and if there is a risk of breaking package builds, this

Re: Rebase of automake-1.13.4 to automake 1.14

Yes, I should have mentioned that. Thanks for comment. I mean, yes, it is mentioned to be rebased only in Rawhide. :) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: config.guess/config.sub for aarch64 (was Re: Mass Rebuild for Fedora 19)

On Friday, March 29, 2013 12:31:45 PM Frantisek Kluknavsky wrote: On 03/29/2013 11:22 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: What was the package? GMP with configure 2.69 (apparently). Autoreconf -fi in use for a long time. Thank you for the confirmation. What is the right course of action expected from

Re: Autoconf in rawhide broken?

That perl issue was fixed a while back. There's not enough info here for me to help you. I'm really curious what happens here also. Richard, could you specify more info? The 'repoquery -q --requires autoconf' correctly shows 'perl(Carp)' dependency in my rawhide mock instance. So it should

Re: Autoconf in rawhide broken?

Without the fix, `perl' package declared it provides Carp module on RPM level, which was not true on Perl code level, so while yum got satisfied with `perl' package, none Carp module was installed into the system and that made other Perl code using the Carp module, like autconf, unhappy. Well

Retiring packages automake1{4,7} _heads up_

Same as automake15 automake16 are, I would like to make automake{14,17} retired. I'll do so probably during the next week, if there are no objections (and once the already filled bugs against dependant packages gets resolved). Pavel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

PostgreSQL systemd config scheme change

Hello all, there is currently not so much things to configure in PostgreSQL from systemd's service point of view (not taking postgresql.conf into account), concretely, we configure PGPORT and PGDATA, from which the later is important (and often re-configured to point e.g. to some dedicated mount

Re: PostgreSQL systemd config scheme change

...@redhat.com On 06/23/2014 04:23 PM, Pavel Raiskup wrote: What seems to be better approach is to have real configuration file, such one for which '$ rpm -qc postgresql-server' would not be quiet. Lets say: $ cat /etc/postgresql/postgresql PGDATA=/some/other/place/than/default

Re: PostgreSQL systemd config scheme change

On Friday 04 of July 2014 00:09:03 Lennart Poettering wrote: On Mon, 23.06.14 16:23, Pavel Raiskup (prais...@redhat.com) wrote: $ cat /etc/postgresql/postgresql@com_example PGDATA=/some/path/pg/com_example PGPORT=@SOMEPORT@ $ systemctl start postgresql@com_example Would you

Re: PostgreSQL systemd config scheme change

On Monday 07 of July 2014 15:57:30 Lennart Poettering wrote: On Mon, 07.07.14 14:48, Pavel Raiskup (prais...@redhat.com) wrote: I'd always advise against inventing addition configuration files that are neither the daemons own, nor systemd's. I hope we can call this as a systemd's

upcoming libtool rebase (2.4.2 ~ 2.4.3)

Libtool upstream was able to cut the new release! I'll rebase the Rawhide package probably by the end of the next week or so, if there are no objections. Upstream maintainer calls this update fearless :) and that it needs a bit of luck [1] (asking for possible downstream cooperation); however

Re: upcoming libtool rebase (2.4.2 ~ 2.4.3)

On Wednesday 29 of October 2014 15:03:32 Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 03:20:31PM +0100, Pavel Raiskup wrote: Libtool upstream was able to cut the new release! I'll rebase the Rawhide package probably by the end of the next week or so, if there are no objections

Re: upcoming libtool rebase (2.4.2 ~ 2.4.3)

On Wednesday 29 of October 2014 15:51:12 Kalev Lember wrote: On 10/29/2014 03:20 PM, Pavel Raiskup wrote: Libtool upstream was able to cut the new release! Thanks Pavel for dealing with this! While you are at this, any chance you could try convincing upstream to add /usr/lib64

ping: rebase to xz-5.2.0 release + xz-compat-libs removal

Hello list, upstream (Lasse Collin), _thanks a lot_ BTW, was able to cut new xz (stable) release 5.2.0. I rather write here to inform you about upcoming rebase in Fedora Rawhide (tomorrow or day after) as there is quite a few dependant packages.. There shouldn't be a need to rebuild huge

Re: upcoming libtool rebase (2.4.2 ~ 2.4.3)

On Wednesday 29 of October 2014 15:20:31 Pavel Raiskup wrote: Libtool upstream was able to cut the new release! I'll rebase the Rawhide package probably by the end of the next week or so, if there are no objections. Upstream maintainer calls this update fearless :) and that it needs a bit

Re: PostgreSQL 9.5 in rawhide

Hi Tom, On Friday 08 of January 2016 08:49:25 Tom Hughes wrote: > On 07/01/16 15:40, Pavel Kajaba wrote: > > > we are going to change version of PostgreSQL from 9.4 to 9.5. > > > > You should consider rebuilding these packages: > > postgis is missing from those lists but also needs rebuilding

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Hacks for multilib unclean C headers

Thanks to Vit for the link, I'd like to see the discussion in: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/312 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Hacks for multilib unclean C headers

Just wanted to ping here about one packaging helper [1], which is stuck in some (possibly infinite/priority) queue without any review. In database packages we have that multilib hack for a very long time, mostly C'ed among various spec files. Having this in redhat-rpm-config could make that more

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Hacks for multilib unclean C headers

On Thursday, June 9, 2016 11:28:05 AM CEST Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>>>> "PR" == Pavel Raiskup <prais...@redhat.com> writes: > PR> Thanks to Vit for the link, I'd like to see the discussion in: > PR> https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/312 &

libarchive-3.2.0 into rawhide

Hi, this is just headsup that I'll rebase the libarchive in Rawhide today. This should not cause breakage, no SONAME bump -- there's only one private symbol missing (renamed, detected by abipkgdiff). So, if there are issues, please open a bug. Thanks, Pavel -- devel mailing list

Re: Accidentally installed libtool wrapper scripts instead of binaries

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 2:27:11 PM CEST Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > Just a note more than anything, since I don't see this problem > discussed anywhere in the packaging guidelines ... > [...] > I accidentally packaged some libtool wrapper scripts by doing: It probably rarely happens as the

Ongoing zlib 1.2.11 rebase in Rawhide

Hi all, I'll build new zlib in Rawhide very soon, testing packages are in [1] and the commits are in [2]. Abipkgdiff output is in related bug report [3]. There's no soname bump, and it seems to be clean update. So no mass rebulid or breakage is expected, but let's keep you informed. Any

Re: How to build both python 2 and 3 bindings from autotools?

On Thursday, January 26, 2017 1:27:00 AM CET Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 09:10:30AM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote: > > Before I start hacking up something nasty I figured it's better to ask: how > > do I build both py2 and py3 bindings from a package using autotools

Re: COPR and new chroot naming

On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 11:00:15 AM CET Michal Novotny wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > I honestly don't understand what is purpose of the f26 vs master. Why we > > have empty master currently (speaking of dist-git)? master should be

Re: F27 System Wide Change: No More Alphas

On Monday, February 20, 2017 6:44:50 PM CET Jan Kurik wrote: > Fedora will no longer produce Alpha releases. As a side-effect of making rawhide "alpha". That doesn't sound bad. After seeing Denis's talk on devconf, I think I understand the motivation: it takes ages to generate all the Fedora

Package 'xdelta' was relicensed from GPLv2 to ASL 2.0

SSIA, per release notes on http://xdelta.org/ Pavel ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: RFC: Storing Automated Tasks/Tests In Dist-Git

On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 10:49:26 AM CEST Dan Horák wrote: > I haven't thought much about it yet how feasible it would be, but why > not "abuse" rpm infrastructure even for the tests? Introduce foo-test > package as a test-suite for package foo and do everything within its > spec file -

Re: RFC: Storing Automated Tasks/Tests In Dist-Git

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 8:09:14 PM CEST Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > And related to this question, do we also need to define > "TestRequires" packages/dependencies? Sounds like natural approach would be to install the built packages into some minimal environment, and the packages itself should

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 2:27:44 PM CEST Andrea Musuruane wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Andrea Musuruane wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III > > wrote: > >> > >> Here are the recent changes to the

Re: RFC: Storing Automated Tasks/Tests In Dist-Git (git-submodules)

On Monday, October 3, 2016 1:50:33 PM CEST Tim Flink wrote: > https://phab.qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/w/taskotron/new_distgit_task_storage_proposal/ > ... > Please read through the wiki page I mentioned above and give us > feedback on whether what we're planning to implement is going to be >

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Broken dependencies: vim-syntastic

On Monday, October 3, 2016 8:53:41 AM CEST Pavel Raiskup wrote: > On Monday, October 3, 2016 8:12:50 AM CEST Pavel Raiskup wrote: > > On Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:45:32 PM CEST Pavel Raiskup wrote: > > > Thanks a lot for this discussion. I'll go (probably) the hacky >

Re: Broken dependencies: vim-syntastic

On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 6:12:55 PM CEST Björn Persson wrote: > Stephen Gallagher <sgall...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 09/21/2016 11:32 AM, Pavel Raiskup wrote: > > > On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:16:39 PM CEST > > > build...@fedoraproject.org wrote:

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Broken dependencies: vim-syntastic

On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 11:37:09 AM CEST Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>>>> "PR" == Pavel Raiskup <prais...@redhat.com> writes: > > PR> What's should packager do in such case? Recap: noarch package > PR> depends on arch-dependant

Re: Broken dependencies: vim-syntastic

On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:16:39 PM CEST build...@fedoraproject.org wrote: > vim-syntastic has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree: > On aarch64: > vim-syntastic-lisp-3.7.0-6.fc26.noarch requires clisp > On aarch64: > vim-syntastic-cs-3.7.0-6.fc26.noarch requires

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Broken dependencies: vim-syntastic

On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 11:57:06 AM CEST Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>>>> "PR" == Pavel Raiskup <prais...@redhat.com> writes: > > PR> Here comes the same argument as with ExclusiveArch .. I don't want > PR> to, because this _is_ noar

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Broken dependencies: vim-syntastic

this becomes too tiring (because the package has non-trivial amount of run-time-only dependencies), I'll talk to releng team. > >>>>> "PR" == Pavel Raiskup <prais...@redhat.com> writes: > > PR> Understood why _usually_ do not permit them, but the fact we _n

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Broken dependencies: vim-syntastic

On Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:45:32 PM CEST Pavel Raiskup wrote: > Thanks a lot for this discussion. I'll go (probably) the hacky > ExclusiveArch way, just because I want to give it a try. Once this > becomes too tiring (because the package has non-trivial amount of > r

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Broken dependencies: vim-syntastic

On Monday, October 3, 2016 8:12:50 AM CEST Pavel Raiskup wrote: > On Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:45:32 PM CEST Pavel Raiskup wrote: > > Thanks a lot for this discussion. I'll go (probably) the hacky > > ExclusiveArch way, just because I want to give it a try. Once this > &g

Re: Bodhi For Rawhide?

On Thursday, October 27, 2016 12:53:27 PM CEST Vít Ondruch wrote: > Hi all, > > I am thinking, why we don't have enabled Bodhi for Rawhide? I know that > you might think now that I went nut and it is bureaucracy, Not at all to me. > but let me > explain. > > If I understand it correctly,

The 'rpm -q --whatrequires' variant to get list of all dependant packages?

On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 5:51:51 PM CET Pavel Raiskup wrote: > Consider we have package 'foo-libs' that provides set of libraries. > > How do I get all dependant packages (for batch rebuild of dependencies after > package update)? Something which takes soft dependencies into

%clisp_arches candidates?

On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 12:25:02 PM CET Kalev Lember wrote: > On 10/03/2016 08:53 AM, Pavel Raiskup wrote: > > Even more interesting, %arm is not on ExclusiveArch list for > > 'vim-syntastic-d' package, while the build on arm machine succeeded: > > http://koji.fedoraproj

Re: The 'rpm -q --whatrequires' variant to get list of all dependant packages?

On Thursday, November 10, 2016 11:46:16 AM CET Pádraig Brady wrote: > On 10/11/16 07:08, Pavel Raiskup wrote: > > Is there something similar to 'dnf repoquery --whatrequires foo-libs > > --all-deps' > > in RPM? See the following: > > > > $ rpm -q --whatrequi

Re: RFC: Storing Automated Tasks/Tests In Dist-Git (git-submodules)

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 10:01:30 AM CEST Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > I'm not against it, as I'm not going to hack that :) but this is a lot of > > expensive complexity, when submodules are here clearly for this purpose. > > And are you going to hack on submodules? (both as user and to help

Re: RFC: Storing Automated Tasks/Tests In Dist-Git (git-submodules)

On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 11:40:44 AM CEST Tim Flink wrote: > I didn't notice that my reply went only to Pavel, resending to devel@ > > On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 10:25:46 +0200 > Pavel Raiskup <prais...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Monday, October 3, 2016 1:50

Making package critical path, some batch update now?

I keep informed via fedora notifications that some of the packges I maintain are hired into critical-path team... Some of those changes make sense to me :) but for example 'less' package sounds like a mistake. Is there a database/git which can I read now? And which I'm able to read after say 10

Re: Making package critical path, some batch update now?

On Thursday, October 20, 2016 4:00:16 PM CEST Pavel Raiskup wrote: > I keep informed via fedora notifications that some of the packges I > maintain are hired into critical-path team... Some of those changes make > sense to me :) but for example 'less' package sounds like a mistake.

Re: redhat-rpm-config config.sub/guess are old

On Thursday, October 13, 2016 4:50:20 PM CEST Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > Also automake which carries config.sub and config.guess around too. > Perhaps these should be combined?! I don't think merging is right way to do. To be honest, I should update gnuconfig files in automake more often than

Re: No arch broken dependency issue

On Sunday, November 13, 2016 4:28:26 PM CET Jeremy Newton wrote: > Hi, > I was wondering if any of the RPM guru's know how to fix an issue I'm having. > > I keep getting this email: > >orthorobot has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree: > >On ppc64le: > >orthorobot-1.1-4.fc26.noarch

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Broken dependencies: vim-syntastic

On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:55:48 PM CET Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > First off, the guidelines have: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Noarch_with_unported_dependencies > > I've been assuming that you're talking about the BuildRequires: case. > If you're just talking

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Broken dependencies: vim-syntastic

On Monday, November 14, 2016 4:37:57 PM CET Peter Robinson wrote: > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Pavel Raiskup <prais...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:55:48 PM CET Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >> First off, the guidelines have: > >&g

Re: No arch broken dependency issue

On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 3:10:33 PM CET Jeremy Newton wrote: > So does exclusive arch actually block the unsupported arches come f26? I probably don't understand the question. This IMO shouldn't be blocker for Fedora 26 release, just there's the issue that packages which: BuildArch:

Re: Pondering security update time frames

On Monday, October 31, 2016 9:54:37 AM CET Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > Note that this is not security-only. That's the reason for > > 'prepared-rpms' prefix, e.g. if we had something like that in Fedora, > > we could test/use this feature several times a year as we are > > informed by PostgreSQL

repoquery to get the complete set of dependencies

Consider we have package 'foo-libs' that provides set of libraries. How do I get all dependant packages (for batch rebuild of dependencies after package update)? Something which takes soft dependencies into account, too. Some packages might depend on 'foo-libs' explicitly, some depend on soname

Re: repoquery to get the complete set of dependencies

On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 1:38:57 PM CET Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On 11/02/2016 01:09 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On 11/02/2016 12:51 PM, Pavel Raiskup wrote: > >> Consider we have package 'foo-libs' that provides set of libraries. > >> > >>

Re: repoquery to get the complete set of dependant packages

Sorry for the typo in $Subject, s/dependencies/dependant packages/ probably, or "requiring" packages, according to "--whatrequires" syntax. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: Pondering security update time frames

On Monday, October 31, 2016 1:42:12 PM CET Florian Weimer wrote: > On 10/26/2016 02:31 PM, Pavel Raiskup wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 2:03:20 PM CEST Florian Weimer wrote: > >>> However, extending Koji to support "hidden builds" is certainly a good >

Re: Pondering security update time frames

On Monday, October 31, 2016 1:45:22 PM CET Florian Weimer wrote: > On 10/26/2016 02:45 PM, Pavel Raiskup wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 1:33:34 PM CEST Florian Weimer wrote: > >> Debian does not build from SCM, but directly from maintainer-uploaded > &

Re: Slow configure scripts

On Saturday, October 29, 2016 7:09:35 PM CET Pádraig Brady wrote: > On 27/10/16 20:19, Pádraig Brady wrote: > > On 27/10/16 17:09, Pavel Raiskup wrote: > >> On Thursday, October 27, 2016 3:23:25 PM CEST Pádraig Brady wrote: > >>> On 24/10/16 17:35, Florian Weim

Re: Bodhi For Rawhide?

On Friday, October 28, 2016 12:17:13 AM CET Kevin Kofler wrote: > > It is actually quite interesting, that while most of the development > > happens in Rawhide, there is less sanity checks then for the Rawhide, so > > if you screw up something in Rawhide, it will get into stable version > > and

Re: repoquery to get the complete set of dependencies

On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 6:47:32 PM CET Pavel Raiskup wrote: > On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 1:38:57 PM CET Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On 11/02/2016 01:09 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > On 11/02/2016 12:51 PM, Pavel Raiskup wrote: > > >> Cons

Re: Pondering security update time frames

On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 7:37:32 PM CEST Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > 3. AFAIK Fedora has no means by which it can participate in embargoed > > updates. For this to work, I think there ought to be private git > > branches, a way to get Koji to make a private build from a private git > > branch, and

Re: Pondering security update time frames

On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 1:33:34 PM CEST Florian Weimer wrote: > Debian does not build from SCM, but directly from maintainer-uploaded > source packages, so there is no need to have a private SCM. Do we have a good marketing for the fact that we are that "superior" compared to Debian then?

Re: Pondering security update time frames

On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 2:03:20 PM CEST Florian Weimer wrote: > > However, extending Koji to support "hidden builds" is certainly a good > > idea. > > Trust me, it's not. Embargoes are against the spirit of Fedora, and a > general hassle for everyone involved. Vague argument, sorry.

Re: Slow configure scripts

On Thursday, October 27, 2016 3:23:25 PM CEST Pádraig Brady wrote: > On 24/10/16 17:35, Florian Weimer wrote: > > I recall some reports that configure scripts are really slow in recent > > Fedora versions due to pervasive use of BIND_NOW. > > > > Has anyone investigated this further? Is there a

Re: Slow configure scripts

On Monday, October 24, 2016 6:35:36 PM CEST Florian Weimer wrote: > I recall some reports that configure scripts are really slow in recent > Fedora versions due to pervasive use of BIND_NOW. Based on BIND_NOW, you are talking about builds in Koji. Right? To build from source (repeated

Copr && Rawhide -- no "rolling updates" workflow

FYI: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1381790 Seems like the `fedora-rawhide-x86_64` chroot is not going to exist from now, which is IMO unnecessary change ... but what could be other than those "obvious" consequences for both Copr repo maintainers and users? Does this sound like

Re: redhat-rpm-config config.sub/guess are old

On Thursday, October 13, 2016 6:23:24 PM CEST Panu Matilainen wrote: > On 10/13/2016 04:57 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > > The versions of config.sub and config.guess in redhat-rpm-config are > > 3+ years old. I'd like to update these to the very latest versions, > > primarily because the

PostgreSQL 9.6.0 rebase

Hi all, there's new PostgreSQL version 9.6.0 out and we plan to build this into Fedora Rawhide within few moments (a bit of testing remains now). This action requires re-buliding of packages that provide binary PostgreSQL modules, basically this is about: $ dnf repoquery --disablerepo='*'

Re: PostgreSQL 9.6.0 rebase

On Monday, October 10, 2016 11:07:55 AM CEST Peter Robinson wrote: > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Pavel Raiskup <prais...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > there's new PostgreSQL version 9.6.0 out and we plan to build this into > > Fedora Rawhide wit

Re: PostgreSQL 9.6.0 rebase

Hi William, On Monday, October 10, 2016 8:19:44 AM CEST William Moreno wrote: > El 10/10/2016 3:12 a. m., "Pavel Raiskup" <prais...@redhat.com> escribió: > > > > Hi all, > > > > there's new PostgreSQL version 9.6.0 out and we plan to build this into &

Re: mutter broken in Rawhide

On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 6:21:02 AM CET Kevin Kofler wrote: > Kamil Paral wrote: > > This serves as a nice example why we need to tweak how Rawhide works if we > > want people actually running on it. > > And why do we need that? This is clear to me: Early testing -> early fixes -> faster

Re: F26 System Wide Change: pkgconf as system pkg-config implementation

Doh I missed this. This is now approved due to "bootstrapping issue". So the way to use "old" pkgconfig is (in case of FTBFS)? Pavel On Thursday, January 5, 2017 11:53:38 AM CET Owen Taylor wrote: > On Wed, 2017-01-04 at 09:20 +0100, Jan Kurik wrote: > > = System Wide Change: pkgconf as

Re: F26 System Wide Change: pkgconf as system pkg-config implementation

On Friday, January 13, 2017 5:54:41 PM CET Pavel Raiskup wrote: > Doh I missed this. This is now approved due to "bootstrapping issue". So the > way to use "old" pkgconfig is (in case of FTBFS)? Reading again the proposal, there's compatibility layer -- but the

Diagreement with pkgconfig removal

On Friday, January 13, 2017 1:18:34 PM CET Neal Gompa wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Pavel Raiskup <prais...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Friday, January 13, 2017 5:54:41 PM CET Pavel Raiskup wrote: > >> Doh I missed this. This is now approved due to &q

Re: Diagreement with pkgconfig removal

On Saturday, January 14, 2017 7:45:05 AM CET Neal Gompa wrote: > On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 7:10 AM, Pavel Raiskup <prais...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Friday, January 13, 2017 1:18:34 PM CET Neal Gompa wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Pavel Raiskup <prais

Re: HEADS UP: Rebasing to Readline-7.0 in rawhide

On Friday, January 13, 2017 6:33:49 PM CET Igor Gnatenko wrote: > On Fri, 2017-01-13 at 10:30 -0500, Siteshwar Vashisht wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Readline-7.0 was released few months ago and I have rebased it in > > rawhide to version 7.0. I have created a compatibility package > >

Re: Diagreement with pkgconfig removal

Hi Neal! On Saturday, January 14, 2017 9:51:39 AM CET Neal Gompa wrote: > > I hope no. Can you be precise here? I'm all for protecting Fedora's > > interests.; > > I strongly believe in Fedora's Foundations[0], which include a commitment to > "excellence" and "innovation". I hope it all is

Re: mock error on armv7hl koji

On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 11:53:21 AM CET Daiki Ueno wrote: > Hello, > > When rebuilding 'nss' package, I got the following failure on the > armv7hl machine in koji: > > Task 17179597 on arm04-builder19.arm.fedoraproject.org > Task Type: build (noarch) > Link:

Re: Proposal: Rethink Fedora multilib support

I'm wholeheartedly against this. I also view personally containers *just* as a thing to solve subset of real-world problems, but not a army knife for everything. IOW, enforcing users to use containers instead of multilib feature looks a bit hostile. Have other distros already done this

Re: Proposal: Rethink Fedora multilib support (Take Two!)

On Thursday, January 5, 2017 5:08:16 PM CET Stephen Gallagher wrote: > Two suggestions were raised as alternatives to the container approach: > > * Switch to using the Debian style of multi-arch layout, which instead of > /usr/lib and /usr/lib64 uses /usr/lib/$ARCH-linux-gnu. Benefits to this

Re: Koji builders' specs

On Monday, January 2, 2017 11:24:35 AM CET Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Dne 20.12.2016 v 16:03 Pavel Raiskup napsal(a): > > The only thing I was able to find is version of mock in the log output. > > Hmm, that is nice idea. Plugin for Mock which will print: > * number of C

Re: Best practices for getting CFLAGS/LDFLAGS etc.

On Monday, January 2, 2017 10:56:10 AM CET Florian Weimer wrote: > The final values of CFLAGS/LDFLAGS/… are set (as shell variables) by the > %configure macro. There is no other immediately obvious way to get > those definitions. This means that if you can't use %configure for some > reason,

Re: Koji builders' specs

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 12:06:40 PM CET Pavel Raiskup wrote: > On Monday, January 2, 2017 3:47:52 PM CET Pavel Raiskup wrote: > > On Monday, January 2, 2017 2:40:34 PM CET Pavel Raiskup wrote: > > > Also, the question is whether it isn't really glibc bug, because > >

Re: Koji builders' specs

On Monday, January 2, 2017 11:00:44 AM CET Kamil Dudka wrote: > > Note this test was just changed upstream to use locks instead of volatiles, > > which significantly improved performance on a 40 core NUMA system at least: > > http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=gnulib.git;a=commitdiff;h=480d374

Re: Koji builders' specs

On Monday, January 2, 2017 2:40:34 PM CET Pavel Raiskup wrote: > Also, the question is whether it isn't really glibc bug, because > schedulers non-ppc64le architectures look to be more "fair" regardless > the default. Sorry, not really -- at least i686 (build cross-compiled f

Re: Koji builders' specs

On Monday, January 2, 2017 3:47:52 PM CET Pavel Raiskup wrote: > On Monday, January 2, 2017 2:40:34 PM CET Pavel Raiskup wrote: > > Also, the question is whether it isn't really glibc bug, because > > schedulers non-ppc64le architectures look to be more "fair" r

Re: Best practices for getting CFLAGS/LDFLAGS etc.

On Friday, January 6, 2017 3:02:22 PM CET Florian Weimer wrote: > > Wouldn't it suffice to put PYTHON= at the end? autotools' configure > > scripts accept such assignments (and even remember them in > > config.status etc). > > Indeed, this looks like a reasonable solution. Is %configure only for

Re: Best practices for getting CFLAGS/LDFLAGS etc.

On Friday, January 6, 2017 3:24:46 PM CET Florian Weimer wrote: > On 01/06/2017 03:20 PM, Pavel Raiskup wrote: > > On Friday, January 6, 2017 3:02:22 PM CET Florian Weimer wrote: > >>> Wouldn't it suffice to put PYTHON= at the end? autotools' configure > >>>

Re: release cycle thread (motivations, and... revisiting tick-tock?)

On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 12:11:32 PM CET Matthew Miller wrote: > First, I very frequently hear this: "Fedora should have an LTS — or be > a rolling release." These two things are very far apart in actual > implication, but they have one big thing in common, and when pressed, > it usually

Re: Two more concrete ideas for what a once-yearly+update schedule would look like

Maybe a bit bit off topic WRT $Subject, sorry if it is the case. On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 8:23:12 AM CET Michael Catanzaro wrote: > Batched updates are something I really want to do regardless. > Of course having fixes available sooner is valuable, but you have to weigh > that against the

Re: Packages FTBFS with Python 3.6

On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 12:18:47 AM CET Miro Hrončok wrote: > Hi all, > We've recently tried to rebuild all Python packages with Python 3.6. > However, we currently have bunch of packages that simply fail to build. > ... > Everything currently happens in a side tag. I will notify you when

gettext: 'msghack' moved to 'msghack' sub-papackage

Hi all, JFYI, for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1405433 purpose, we're moving '/bin/msghack' script into 'msghack' package (and most probably, it is going to be dropped in future). In case anybody used '/bin/msghack' for anything, we'd like to hear from you (adding explicit (Build)Requires is fine

Re: Strange koji failures

On Friday, December 23, 2016 9:33:31 AM CET Petr Pisar wrote: > >> Wouldn't be possible to build noarch packages just on primary arch builders > >> for example? > > > > Those arches are all primary .. but ExclusiveArch could help. > > > No, it does not. I have noarch perl-Alien-ROOT with

Re: Strange koji failures

On Friday, December 23, 2016 10:42:33 AM CET Pavel Raiskup wrote: > On Friday, December 23, 2016 9:33:31 AM CET Petr Pisar wrote: > > >> Wouldn't be possible to build noarch packages just on primary arch > > >> builders > > >> for example? &

Re: Strange koji failures

I understand this was not the cause to FTBFS, but FTR: On Thursday, December 22, 2016 3:03:56 AM CET Christopher wrote: > sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1243292 > warning: Could not canonicalize hostname: buildvm-14.phx2.fedoraproject.org

Re: Strange koji failures

On Thursday, December 22, 2016 9:50:12 AM CET Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Dne 22.12.2016 v 09:27 Mikolaj Izdebski napsal(a): > > On 12/22/2016 05:06 AM, Christopher wrote: > >> The failure yesterday that I was thinking of was: > >> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=17004112 > >> > >>

  1   2   3   4   5   >