Re: I would like to propose that we turn on XFS Reflink in Fedora 29 by default

>> > On 28/04/18 14:55, Peter Robinson wrote: >> >> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 11:09 AM, Daniel Walsh <dwa...@redhat.com> >> >> wrote: >> >>> We are adding some features to container projects for User Namespace >> >>> support

Re: sysusage f27 and rawhide blocked in koji

On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Frank Crawford wrote: > Folks, > > Sorry to drop this in here, but I've can't find where else it could go. I'm > the maintainer for sysusage, which was un-retired mid 2017, around the time > of conversion to pagure.io for packages. > > The

Re: Security updates and batched pushes

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 5:39 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On 01/07/2018 08:01 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> Kevin Fenzi wrote: >>> The critera for bypassing batched is if the update is marked "urgent". >> >> The problem is, this appears to be insufficient. > Well, if this firefox update

Re: F28 System Wide Change: AArch64 Server Promotion

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 5:16 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2018-01-08 at 14:40 +0100, Jan Kurik wrote: >> >> == Scope == >> * Proposal owners: >> The general AArch64 support is already in place and is widely and >> actively supported by the Fedora ARM SIG and

Re: Security updates and batched pushes

>> within the whole Meltdown and Spectre story I realized that Koji pushes >> even security updates to batched only, not directly to stable. In > > The critera for bypassing batched is if the update is marked "urgent". Or once you push it stable and it's queued for batched the maintainer then has

Re: F28 System Wide Change: AArch64 Server Promotion

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 6:03 PM, Jonathan Dieter wrote: > On Mon, 2018-01-08 at 12:53 -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> On 8 January 2018 at 12:28, Matthew Miller >> wrote: >> > On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 09:16:05AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: >> >

Re: F28 System Wide Change: AArch64 Server Promotion

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 6:06 PM, Andreas Tunek wrote: > 2018-01-08 19:03 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Dieter : >> On Mon, 2018-01-08 at 12:53 -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >>> On 8 January 2018 at 12:28, Matthew Miller >>> wrote:

Re: F28 Self Contained Change: Anaconda modularization

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 2:01 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 07:04:31AM -0500, Martin Kolman wrote: >> Yep - basically, there will be no "old" and "new, DBUS/modular" >> Anaconda, the plan is to turn the current Anaconda to the new one one >> step at a

Re: F28 System Wide Change: AArch64 Server Promotion

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 5:53 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 8 January 2018 at 12:28, Matthew Miller wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 09:16:05AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: >>> A significant miss here is 'testing'. Making an arch primary means

Re: F28 System Wide Change: AArch64 Server Promotion

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 3:57 AM, Adam Williamson <adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2018-01-09 at 03:43 +0000, Peter Robinson wrote: >> >> > A significant miss here is 'testing'. Making an arch primary means we >> > need to ensure we have the necessary

Re: F28 System Wide Change: AArch64 Server Promotion

>> > == Scope == >> > * Proposal owners: >> > The general AArch64 support is already in place and is widely and >> > actively supported by the Fedora ARM SIG and numerous ARM vendors >> > and >> > third parties in Fedora. There will be further and wider support, >> > hardware enablement, polish

Re: -z defs linker flag activated in Fedora rawhide

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 2:21 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > On 01/25/2018 02:41 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> >> I think the -z defs change should be reverted. It breaks very long- >> standing expected behaviour of linkers and there's been no proper >> justification for

Re: Python3 will be in next major RHEL release, please adjust %if statements accordingly

On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 1:36 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> As a person not privy to Red Hat internals, I really have no idea what >> state things are in there, but I have to assume that Red Hat is well >> along with RHEL8 packaging and so I would

Re: /proc/sys/net/core/optmem_max on armv7l

> I just noticed, there is a difference in the default value of > `/proc/sys/net/core/optmem_max` on armv7l: > > On all arches it is 20480, but on armv7l it is 10240. > > Is there any specific reason for limiting the maximum ancillary buffer > size allowed per socket on this arch? No specific

Re: What's up with koji?

On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 01/27/2018 12:10 AM, Josh Stone wrote: >> >> koji wait-repo f28-build --build=httpd-2.4.29-4.fc28 >> >> It sometimes takes a while for the actual repo to be regenerated. > > > The last rawhide repository was generated

Re: GCC broken in rawhide?

ATM all rawhide builds are failing for me, because autoconf's tests for CC are failing. >>> >>> >>> Yes, we had an internal dependency issue involving annobin (not related >>> to RPM dependencies), fixed by an annobin rebuild. Later, a defective build >>> of annobin was tagged into

Re: Orphaning some Spacewalk packages

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > I orphaned > rhnmd > This is Spacewalk package which is not developed any more. If it's dead upstream with no users within Fedora you're much better off just retiring it directly with "fedpkg retire" than letting it

Re: Rawhide armv7hl buildroot busted?

On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 7:33 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > I've tried two builds over the past couple hours that result in failures. > Other architectures are building. You need to reference the root task, it's hard to get back to that from the .log files, and it allows people

Re: Mass Rebuild for Fedora 28

>> We have now completed the automated part of the Fedora 28 mass rebuild, >> The details for the scheduled mass rebuild for Fedora 28 can be found >> here[1]. The failure page for the rebuilds can be found here[3] and the >> full list of packages that are needing rebuilding can be found here[4].

Re: libevent-2.1.8 SONAME change.

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 11:51 AM, Steve Dickson wrote: > Hello, > > Yesterday I updated libevent to the latest upstream release. > > I mistakenly did not realized there was a SONAME change > in this update. So if your package is dependent on > libevent, you are going to have to

Re: [HEADS UP] No more gnupg2 in buildroot

>> > > On Tue, 2018-02-20 at 19:11 +, Peter Robinson wrote: >> > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Igor Gnatenko >> > > > <ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: >> > > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> >

Re: [HEADS UP] No more gnupg2 in buildroot

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > Hey, > > today I've split⁰ librpmsign from rpm-build-libs into its own subpackage rpm- > sign-libs. Does this mean that the python bindings no longer

Re: Using devtoolset for EPEL builds

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Peter Robinson <pbrobin...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 12:01 AM, Peter Robinson <pbrobin...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> I need/want/would like to build new node 6 for EL6, but gcc is too old. >>>> For that r

Re: [fedora-arm] cmake segfault on 32-bit arches on Rawhide

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 9:58 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > I just tried a rebuild of a package in Rawhide, it worked on most > arches, but failed on armv7hl and i686 (our only 32-bit arches). On > both arches, cmake seems to have segfaulted: > >

Re: %{valgrind_arches}

On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 5:52 PM, Jeff Johnson wrote:> Try > > ... > %check > %ifarch ppc64 ppc64p7 You no longer need ppc64p7 as it's been killed off as of F-26 > exit 0 > %endif > ... > > My comments apply to the rest of what you appear to be proposing everywhere. >

Re: enabling KCM in the Fedora kernels

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018, 20:47 Kaleb S. KEITHLEY, wrote: > Hi, > > How would one go about requesting this be enabled by default? > Generally either email the ker...@lists.fp.o or open a kernel bugzilla Upstream NFS-Ganesha devs have been playing with it a bit and got a > modest performance boost. >

Re: Kernel lockdown patch & IPAddressAllow/IPAddressDeny systemd feature with Secure Boot

Probably a good idea to cc: this to the kernel list :-) I suspect it's intentional but with the planned changes for iptables etc to be backed by bpf in the upstream kernel sometime in the future it's likely going to need to be reviewed. Peter On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 10:25 PM, Timothée Ravier

Re: F29 System Wide Change: uEFI for ARMv7

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 11:05 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > On Tuesday, 07 August 2018 at 11:05, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >> Hi, >> >> > Gerd Hoffman has a nightly edk2 repo which builds arm32 images. If >> > someone can figure out the magic qemu incantation to get those working >> >

Re: [HEADS UP] Update libgit2 to 0.27

On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 9:37 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 02:14:41PM +1000, Amit Saha wrote: >> Hi Igor, >> >> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 4:33 PM Igor Gnatenko < >> ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: >> >> > Hello everyone, >> > >> > 0.27.x is released long

Re: Fedora 30 System-Wide Change proposal: Remove glibc-all-langpacks from buildroot

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:18 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 02:39:47PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 01:55:54PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 12:38:48PM +, Petr Pisar wrote: > > > > On

Re: Will there be one more nightly compose for Fedora 29 Beta?

On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 1:40 PM Zamir SUN wrote: > > Hi, > > I just wanna know if there will be one more compose for Fedora 29 for > Beta? To be clear, I've retired some packages in Fedora 29 before the > freeze which affect the LxQT appearance. But it did not take effect so I > filed a ticket

Re: F29 Self-Contained Change: Basic FPGA Support

GA >> 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 vendor agnostic tools. >> >> == Owner == >> * Name: Peter Robinson >> * Email: pbrobins

Re: Fedora crda To wireless-regdb Upgrade

On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 7:47 PM, John W. Linville wrote: > A mostly "behind the scenes" aspect of the Linux wireless LAN > (IEEE802.11) subsystem has changed upstream with some system-level > effects. Replacing an existing package with a cleaner but functionally > equivalent package is an

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

Re: [HEADS UP] Removal of GCC from the buildroot

On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 7:04 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On 07/21/2018 02:54 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > On Jul 15, 2018, at 5:47 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 04:05:42PM +0200, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: > On 07/12/2018 10:17 PM, Richard W.M. Jones

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

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 3:26 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 8:37 PM Terry Bowling wrote: >> >> 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

Re: GNOME 3.30.0 megaupdate

>> As many of you know, I've been gone half the summer. I'm back now since >> Monday though and just in time for GNOME 3.30.0 :) >> >> We are quite a bit behind with the builds, like half of GNOME is still >> at 3.28.x or at various stages of 3.29.x snapshots, so there's quite a >> bit of catching

Re: Fedora 29 Beta blocker status mail #1

On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 3:06 PM Robert Moskowitz wrote: > > Adam, > > What is the position on openSSL 1.1.1? > > The openSSL team has targeted Sept 11 as the release date, and I have > not seen any other word on the user list. Of course there may be > different discussion elsewhere. > > For all

Re: GNOME 3.30.0 megaupdate

> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 12:33 PM, Adam Williamson > wrote: > > On Thu, 2018-09-06 at 10:41 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > >> Fedora folks have been testing 3.29 for weeks now. Fedora people > >> haven't been testing 3.30 because it's not really available to test. > >> So I think it's reasonable

Re: [F29 only] Dropping requirements for initscripts package from specfiles

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 3:56 PM, David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] wrote: > Hello people, > > I'm working on making Fedora being able to function completely without the > 'initscripts' package (hopefully) some day in the future. I have done some > cleanup in initscripts recently, and I would like to ask

Re: F29 System Wide Change: uEFI for ARMv7

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 9:22 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 10:14:43PM -0700, Thomas Daede wrote: >> On 07/03/2018 05:15 AM, Jan Kurik wrote: >> > Move to uEFI as the default boot mechanism for ARMv7 devices. >> >> Will this work with virt-manager too? Currently,

Re: Packages which use banned tags

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 9:43 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > The packaging guidelines indicate that the following tags must not be > used: > Copyright: > Packager: > Vendor: > PreReq: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections > > I wasn't aware that a

Re: F29 System Wide Change: ZRAM support for ARM images

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:50 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On 07/03/2018 05:39 AM, Jan Kurik wrote: >> = Proposed System Wide Change: ZRAM support for ARM images = >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ZRAMforARMimages >> >> >> Owner(s): >> * Peter

Re: F29 System Wide Change: ZRAM support for ARM images

>> = Proposed System Wide Change: ZRAM support for ARM images = >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ZRAMforARMimages >> >> >> Owner(s): >> * Peter Robinson >> >> >> Enable ZRAM for swap on ARMv7 and aarch64 pre generated images to >

Re: F29 System Wide Change: ZRAM support for ARM images

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:50 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:50 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >> On 07/03/2018 05:39 AM, Jan Kurik wrote: >>> = Proposed System Wide Change: ZRAM support for ARM images = >>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ZRAMfor

Re: F29 System Wide Change: ZRAM support for ARM images

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 08:33:36AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: >> >> = Proposed System Wide Change: ZRAM support for ARM images = >> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ZRAMforARMimage

Re: F29 System Wide Change: uEFI for ARMv7

>> >> > Move to uEFI as the default boot mechanism for ARMv7 devices. >> >> >> >> Will this work with virt-manager too? Currently, while aarch64 boots via >> >> uEFI there, it seems that armv7 is only supported by manually specifying >> >> a kernel and initrd. >> > >> > Ping. >> >> Ping? Who or

Re: F29 System Wide Change: uEFI for ARMv7

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Kyle Marek wrote: > On 07/10/2018 04:51 PM, Cole Robinson wrote: >> On 07/10/2018 04:22 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 10:14:43PM -0700, Thomas Daede wrote: On 07/03/2018 05:15 AM, Jan Kurik wrote: > Move to uEFI as

Re: F29 System Wide Change: uEFI for ARMv7

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 9:51 PM, Cole Robinson wrote: > On 07/10/2018 04:22 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 10:14:43PM -0700, Thomas Daede wrote: >>> On 07/03/2018 05:15 AM, Jan Kurik wrote: Move to uEFI as the default boot mechanism for ARMv7 devices. >>>

Re: [F29 only] Dropping requirements for initscripts package from specfiles

On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 8:16 AM Peter Robinson wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 3:56 PM, David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] >> wrote: >> > Hello people, >> > >> > I'm working on making

Re: GCC 8.0.1 updates in F28

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 6:25 AM, Vascom wrote: > Hi. > > GCC 8.0.1-0.16 in F28 repo is freezed until F28 release? > Or it will be updated soon so we can build some packages failed to build > now? > Or better use build override new gcc for this packages? Is there a particular

Re: GCC 8.0.1 updates in F28

On Thu, 15 Mar 2018, 10:26 Dan Horák, <d...@danny.cz> wrote: > On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 17:11:49 +0000 > Peter Robinson <pbrobin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 6:25 AM, Vascom <vasc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi. > > > > >

Re: Critpath karma

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 1:48 PM, Randy Barlow wrote: > Greetings! > > Does anybody here know the history and/or purpose behind Bodhi's > critical path karma? A brief grepping of Bodhi's codebase makes me think > it isn't really used by Bodhi for any purpose other than

Re: Server SIG Weekly Meeting Minutes (2018-04-03)

On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 12:01 PM, Tomasz Torcz ️ <to...@pipebreaker.pl> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 10:05:12AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: >> >> > * Feedback: Easy "home media server" would be nice (sgallagh, >> > 20:08:36) >> >&g

Re: Server SIG Weekly Meeting Minutes (2018-04-03)

> * Feedback: Easy "home media server" would be nice (sgallagh, > 20:08:36) TBH I think that's quite a divergence from a typical "enterprise server" that the Server SIG has targetted. >>> >>> But this is probably much closer to what "real-world" Fedora server >>>

Re: [EPEL-devel] Ansible in EL7

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:58 AM, Todd Zullinger wrote: > James Hogarth wrote: >> I was under the impression that as of 2.4.0 in EL7 we removed ansible >> from EPEL7 since Red Hat included it in their extras repo, and EPEL >> policy is not to conflict. >> >> I was surprised just

Re: Fedora28 / autofs

On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 3:13 AM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On 6 April 2018 at 22:58, Pierre-Francois RENARD wrote: >> Hello guys, >> >> with F28 I tried to use autofs and nfs. > > BTW autofs: is it any particular reason why in Fedora kernels autofs >

Re: Sliming down kernel and provide more as modules (Was: Re: Fedora28 / autofs)

Have you actually tested any of these proposed changes before you come barging in, or even looked for history as to why they're like that? In reality you should send this, with them all separate, with reasons/justification why you believe they should be changed to the kernel list. > Just

Re: RHEL 7.5 for aarch64

You should likely ask that on the epel-devel list, but I've added smooge in as he's the EPEL lead. On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 6:22 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote: > Anyone knows when RHEL 7.5 packages will be available for aarch64 in > koji, so that new dependencies get picked up?

Re: F28 Self Contained Change: Stop building 389-ds-base on i686

On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, 16:24 Florian Weimer, wrote: > On 03/28/2018 08:48 PM, Tomasz Torcz ️ wrote: > > >> Note that while GCC produces broken code, this is actually an ABI bug, > and > >> we cannot change struct layout rules for long long retroactively. Maybe > we > >> could

Re: Status of OwnCloud/NextCloud

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Randy Barlow wrote: > Greetings! > > It seems that OwnCloud and NextCloud might be unmaintained in Fedora. I > found that upgrading my F27 box to F28 causes it to be unable to login: I think the old maintainer did a blog post about

Re: Unacceptable size increase to ALL live images in F28: Noto CJK Fonts

On Sat, 31 Mar 2018, 03:07 Chris Murphy, wrote: > On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 8:15 AM, Gerald Henriksen > wrote: > > > Consult the relevant experts, and based on their recommendations > > mandate a base set of fonts that provide a quality first

Re: Unannounced soname bump (Rawhide): poppler (libpoppler.so.73 -> libpoppler.so.74)

On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 9:07 AM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On 24 March 2018 at 03:14, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > [..] >>> BTW In situations like this is possible to observe how really bad idea >>> was building ALL Fedora +5.6k texlive* packages from single sec

Re: F28 Self Contained Change: Stop building 389-ds-base on i686

>>> So, is this hardware limitation something that is likely to affect other >>> packages? Is there something we could look for in how they consume >>> atomic types to tell? I would hate for us to ship something else that is >>> subject to this problem. >> >> >> There is lots of fingerpointing,

Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 29 Final is GO

> On 25/10/2018 20:58, Ben Cotton wrote: > > The Fedora 29 Final RC1.2 compose [1] is GO and will to be shipped > > live on Tuesday, October 30, 2018. > > > > For more information please check the Go/No-Go meeting minutes [2] or logs > > [3]. > > > > Thank you to everyone who has worked on this

Re: IBM buying RedHat

On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 12:46 AM Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Sun, 2018-10-28 at 19:44 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > It's always a wait and see approach. I'm a bit disappointed that no > > one from Red Hat has said anything yet. The only comfort is that > > apparently most RHers I know are equally

Re: IBM buying RedHat

On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 9:45 AM Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le 2018-10-29 10:18, Peter Robinson a écrit : > > > From the press release, which is all I know about, it's not due to > > complete until "latter half of 2019." which is around a year from now &

Re: IBM buying RedHat

On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:26 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 8:14 AM Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 4:48 PM Matthew Miller > > wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 07:44:12PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > It'd be nice if someone from up top

Re: IBM buying RedHat

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 6:13 AM John Coughlan wrote: > > Yea - Does IBM have any plans on keeping, or discarding any of RH’s open > source efforts…like this one? Can we as a community still expect the same > sort of, and level of involvement post sale as we have enjoyed before hand > from

Re: Fedora's OpenH264 repo issue

https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7590 On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 10:51 AM Jan Pokorný wrote: > > Not sure where to report this for the Fedora side, but there seems to > be some synchronization issue regarding the built artifacts hosted at > http://ciscobinary.openh264.org, since older packages can be

Re: Unexpected rebase of libsolv to 0.7.1 in F29, F28; please report any issues to bugzilla

On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 3:35 PM Jaroslav Mracek wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > There was an announcement of release libsolv-0.7.0 ([HEADS UP] libsolv 0.7) > into rawhide, but the rebase also ended up in stable branches of Fedora 28 > and 29. This release could affect not only libsolv users, but

Re: upgrade tinyproxy for f29?

On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 4:07 PM Michael Adam wrote: > > Hi all, > > Tinyproxy just released a new version 1.10 which is has been overdue > and containes 2 CVE fixes apart from several enhancements. > > I created builds for rawhide already. > > I was wondering if it is still possible to get

Re: Semi-serious proposal: drop all optional entries from comps

> On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 11:39:51AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > Somewhere halfway between those, in that I've talked with the GNOME > > > Software > > > dev about it in the past. Software presents "Categories" and "Featured > > > Applications" -- the idea would be to extend that into

Re: Blocking criteria proposal for F30+: Printing

> There was a bug[1] filed recently that indicated that printing was > broken on certain printers. As a result of that discussion, it became > apparent that there was no criteria for printing to work at all, which > seems like an oversight. > > I discussed this briefly with Matthias Clasen this

Re: Fedora for Web Development fail

> * Máirín Duffy: > > > - Found out it's cloud-info stalling the boot. > > I think it's actually cloud-init. > > > - Yay I have a login prompt! What's the login info? Ga... > > - Realize have to run virt-customize --uninstall cloud-init --root-password > > password:whatever --selinux-relabel

Re: Fedora rawhide compose report: 20190114.n.0 changes

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 2:52 PM Dan Horák wrote: > > On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 13:54:02 + > Fedora Rawhide Report wrote: > > > OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20190108.n.0 > > NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20190114.n.0 > > > > = SUMMARY = > > Added images:3 > > Dropped images: 1 > > Added packages:

Re: Driver for USB 3.0 Docking Station (displaylink?)

> Hi, I would like to try to use un my Asus notebook with Fedora 29 this ASUS > USB3.0 HZ-3 Docking Station > https://www.asus.com/it/Laptops-Accessories/ASUS_USB30_HZ3_Docking_Station/ > > For Linux I have found this driver: > https://www.displaylink.com/downloads/ > > But "Ubuntu" is not a S.O,

Re: Backwards incompatible changes planned for Bodhi 4.0.0

> Greetings fellow Fedorans! > > I am about to start working on a set of backwards incompatible changes > to Bodhi for its upcoming 4.0.0 release (Bodhi follows Semantic > Versioning[0]): > > https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/projects/6 > > If the thought of backwards incompatible changes to

Re: _performance_build and -O3 package builds

> Downstream, we had a separate set of builds flags for certain packages > and used -O3 there, targeted at POWER (both ppc64 and ppc64le), for > increased use of vectorization presumably. > > I don't think this was ever upstreamed to Fedora (the downstream changes > were in the redhat-rpm-config

Re: What does delaying F31 mean for packagers/users?

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 11:10 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 12:15:52PM +, Peter Robinson wrote: > > This is basically the problem I have with the work we're doing in IoT. > > The basically will make me re-evaluate if IoT is now worth doing at

Re: Proposal: Move to an annual platform release starting at F30

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 8:07 AM Brian (bex) Exelbierd wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 4:15 AM Brendan Conoboy wrote: > > Paul's proposal was definitely a one-time pause for the reasons you > > state. He requested we follow-up with additional questions and > > suggestions so I'm questioning

Re: What does extended F30 cycle mean for F29?

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:14 AM Kalev Lember wrote: > > If F31 is delayed by 6 months and F30 is supported for 6 months longer, > does it mean F29 *also* automatically gets a longer cycle since it by > policy becomes EOL when F31 is out + 1 month? > > Can we EOL F29 6 months before F31 is out to

Re: [HEADS UP] Ceph-14.x.x, dropping 32-bit archs

Kaleb, Firstly the title is misleading as there was no heads up, a heads up is notice before you actually push the change, not when you do the change. > Ceph 14.x.x (Nautilus) will no longer be built on i686 and armv7hl archs > starting in fedora-30/rawhide. > > The upstream project doesn't

Re: [HEADS UP] Rawhide buildroot now has glibc-minimal-langpack instead

> * Petr Pisar [2018-12-03 11:24]: > > On 2018-11-28, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > > the removal of glibc-all-langpacks from the buildroot[0] is done. > > > Standard buildroot has decreased from 445 to 237 megabytes in > > > installed size ;) > > > > > That's nice, but Koji builders have not been

Re: What does delaying F31 mean for packagers/users?

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 3:39 PM Owen Taylor wrote: > > One of the key parts of making a decision to delay/skip F31 is > figuring out, ahead of the decision, what the expected experience is > for users and packagers. Does F30 have normal stability, or do we try > to keep users happy by moving

Re: Improving the compose: leave the current compose in place

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:01 PM Paul Frields wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 9:59 AM Owen Taylor wrote: > > A lot of discussion about improving the compose process seem to end up > > with a "reality check" - that ideas have already been tried but don't > > work because of requirements a) b)

Re: What does delaying F31 mean for packagers/users?

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 2:58 PM Gerald Henriksen wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 12:15:52 +, you wrote: > > >From an IoT perspective where we're looking at some features around > >security that could be cross component dependent > >(toolchain/kernel/userspace) to be unable to consume for

Re: Can we change the xz block size in our cloud images?

On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:43 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > It looks like the raw format xz-compressed cloud images that we ship > use a very large block size, possibly 192M. This is not ideal and it > would be better to use a smaller block size such as 16M so that they > can be consumed

Re: How much is dnf's minimum memory requirement?

On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 4:54 PM Benjamin Kircher wrote: > > What are dnf’s minimum memory requirements? It came as a surprise to me that > a simple `dnf check-update` is getting OOM’ed by the kernel on a (ok, fairly > small) 512MB VM. > > > [root@node ~]# dnf check-update > Killed > >

Re: mass-removal of LANG=anything-not-C.UTF-8 in packages

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 12:09 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 09:21:09AM -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > > the build group in koji is defined as > > > > build > > build > > None > > false > > true > > > > bash > > Hmm, where is this

Re: Last dbus upgrade issues

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 5:57 AM David Herrmann wrote: > > Hi > > On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 10:53 PM Tomasz Kłoczko > wrote: > > > > On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 at 11:35, Tomasz Kłoczko > > wrote: > > [..] > > > I’m talking about F30 recent change in which has been implemented switch > > > to

Re: Proposal: delay F31 release to work out infrastructure and lifecycle challenges

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 6:26 PM Paul Frields wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 9:50 AM Dennis Gilmore wrote: > [...snip...] > > > The customers RH serves have specific expectations, and in part that > > > dictates how delivery tooling is done. Binding the community to that > > > may be

Re: Proposal: delay F31 release to work out infrastructure and lifecycle challenges

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:42 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Mon, 2018-11-26 at 11:30 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On 11/26/18 10:58 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 6:53 PM Adam Williamson > > > wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2018-

Re: Proposal: delay F31 release to work out infrastructure and lifecycle challenges

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:47 PM Mohan Boddu wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 2:30 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: >> >> On 11/26/18 10:58 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: >> > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 6:53 PM Adam Williamson >> > wrote: >> >> >>

Re: Proposal: delay F31 release to work out infrastructure and lifecycle challenges

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:52 PM Paul Frields wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 1:59 PM Peter Robinson wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 6:53 PM Adam Williamson > > wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 2018-11-26 at 18:44 +, Peter Robinson wrote: > > &

Re: Proposal: delay F31 release to work out infrastructure and lifecycle challenges

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:22 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 3:03 PM Peter Robinson wrote: > > There's no facts or details, to quote "The reported speed increase for > > transactions is substantial. This may solve (or greatly reduce) the > &g

Re: Release Cadence WAS: Re: Proposal: delay F31 release to work out infrastructure and lifecycle challenges

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 4:23 PM Brian (bex) Exelbierd wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 5:05 PM Matthew Miller > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 09:50:33AM -0500, Paul Frields wrote: > > > Here's the summary from the page, which proposes we pause the release > > > after F30 for these

Re: Proposal: delay F31 release to work out infrastructure and lifecycle challenges

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 4:05 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 09:50:33AM -0500, Paul Frields wrote: > > Here's the summary from the page, which proposes we pause the release > > after F30 for these efforts: > > I know it was a big time-off holiday week in the US, but I

Re: Proposal: delay F31 release to work out infrastructure and lifecycle challenges

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 6:53 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Mon, 2018-11-26 at 18:44 +, Peter Robinson wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 4:05 PM Matthew Miller > > wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 09:50:33AM -0500, Paul Frields wrote: > > > >

Re: Proposal: delay F31 release to work out infrastructure and lifecycle challenges

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 9:48 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 08:02:26PM +, Peter Robinson wrote: > > transactions is substantial. This may solve (or greatly reduce) the > > compose speed problem, TBD." but it doesn't report the context of

<    6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   >