Re: Why does disk I/O slow down a CPU bound task?

On 31 March 2015 at 22:53, Dave Johansen wrote: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Richard W.M. Jones > wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 12:21:55PM -0700, Dave Johansen wrote: >> > You're right that is a problem because my "purely CPU bound task" was >> > actually writing to disk every 10 sec

Re: How to build one TeXLive subpackage for EPEL-7?

On 8 April 2015 at 12:04, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > "MC" == Matěj Cepl writes: > > MC> Cutting up texlive monster piece by piece seems like rather lousy > MC> idea to me. > > I honestly don't see why. Surely fixing some of it is better than > fixing none of it. And fixing some of it

Re: Copying more than 500 MB crashes Fedora Live CD even though there is sufficient RAM

On 16 April 2015 at 17:13, Moez Roy wrote: > Copying more than 500 MB crashes Fedora Live CD even though there is > sufficient RAM. > > I don't think this is a question meant for the devel list. You would be better off asking on the users list. Also when you do ask it there, please make sure you

Re: Unison in Fedora

On 7 May 2015 at 08:41, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Thu, 7 May 2015 09:17:10 +0100 > "Richard W.M. Jones" wrote: > >> [Previous discussion here: >> >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-September/thread.html#157495 >> ] > > (I guess I was cc'ed directly because I replied in that t

Re: fedup for F23 and beyond

On 28 May 2015 at 16:42, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 15:05 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >> With timed: you don't get the newest thing, but switching to the new >> stuff is more on your schedule. You can ignore the new release for a >> while and still get bugfixes/security updates

Re: Including tlp in Fedora Workstation by default

On 29 May 2015 at 02:34, Nadim Kobeissi wrote: > > Users simply don't care. If Fedora depletes what used to be an 11-hour > battery on Windows/OS X in 6 hours instead, they'll simply switch back to > their former OS within a week. I have years of experience with this scenario > and I strongly thin

Re: fedup for F23 and beyond

On 29 May 2015 at 13:04, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 08:55:55PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: >> >Why does no one know? Keeping track of this kind of thing is exactly >> >what computers are good for >> because when each and every application sjips it's own libraries >> it's a mes

Re: fedup for F23 and beyond

On 8 June 2015 at 06:37, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Will Woods wrote: >> On Sun, 2015-06-07 at 07:41 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: >>> Uhh, this might be a stupid question, but what actually prevents us >>> from integrating the FedUp process into install media (that is, not >>

Re: GNOME captive portal helper (was Re: F23 System Wide Change: Default Local DNS Resolver)

On 13 June 2015 at 17:10, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Sat, 2015-06-13 at 15:54 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote: >> If the captive portal uses the system's DNS, and the system has >> cached >> www.gnome.org from when you were on a previous network, your captive >> portal check might use a cached DNS re

Re: GNOME captive portal helper (was Re: F23 System Wide Change: Default Local DNS Resolver)

On 15 June 2015 at 13:07, Paul Wouters wrote: > On Mon, 15 Jun 2015, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > >> Is the code on how ChromeOS or Android detects captivity part of the >> 'public' code? It seems to do a 'good' job in finding many captive >> portals

Re: Btrfs as default filesystem for Fedora 23?

On 23 June 2015 at 14:15, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Neal Gompa wrote: >>> >>> As I recall, Josef Bacik mentioned that he'd be pushing for Btrfs >>> becoming the default in Fedora 23 >>> >>> . At this point,

Re: Btrfs as default filesystem for Fedora 23?

On 23 June 2015 at 18:40, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Stephen John Smoogen > wrote: >> >> On 23 June 2015 at 14:15, Neal Gompa wrote: >> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: >> >> >> >> >&

Re: FESCO Elections - June 2015 - Results

On 29 June 2015 at 07:42, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Alexander Ploumistos > wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Haïkel wrote: >>> >>> Another possibility is that people didn't find any candidate to their >>> taste. >>> I suggest adding a None option too. >>> Thou

Re: Has something changed with RPMS?

On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 at 11:38, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > I should say that there's also the possibility of writing a block > device plugin which is highly tuned in some way to the Koji use case. > We've already done discarding flushes and showed that you get all the > benefit of a RAM disk just b

Re: Day one of the datacenter service migration

On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 10:35, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 10:28:23AM -0400, Charalampos Stratakis wrote: > > > > The elections app seems to be broken for me though, so I can't vote at > this point. > > Can you elaborate? > > Do you get an error? Does it not display? Does it not al

Re: zram as swap on EL?

On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 at 14:05, Richard Shaw wrote: > > I didn't get any response from the EPEL list so forwarding here since the > change was discussed here anyway... The EPEL list really isn't for these sorts of OS level discussions.. most of the people on it are usually php/perl/python level to

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 at 09:27, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 8:45 AM Josh Boyer wrote: > > > However, I am concerned that as ELN develops further, we are likely to > be even more starved for build resources than we have been previously. > Modules are huge build chains that essenti

Re: Modules building for Fedora 30

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 23:16, Orion Poplawski wrote: > > I just noticed that my openmpi module build is building for Fedora 30. > This seems like a mistake. Where do I report that? > I think it should be reported here: https://pagure.io/releng/issues > -- > Orion Poplawski > Manager of NWRA T

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 17:42, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 5:25 PM John M. Harris Jr > wrote: > > > > On Saturday, June 20, 2020 4:42:17 AM MST Neal Gompa wrote: > > > TL;DR benefits of modularity for Fedora: > > > > > > * Automating build chains for producing artifacts > > > *

Re: RHEL 9 and modularity

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 05:29, Dan Čermák wrote: > > Hi Stephen, > > this will probably get buried given the immense amount of replies in > this thread already, but nevertheless, here's my 2cts. > > Stephen John Smoogen writes: > > > On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 17:

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 11:36, Solomon Peachy wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 11:15:54AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 11:13:39AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > > > Not Fedora land, but Facebook installs it on all of our root > > > devices, so millions of machines. We've

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 at 11:09, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 10:26 am, Stephen Gallagher > wrote: > > For the record, as this directly affects the Workstation deliverable, > > I will be voting -1 until and unless the Workstation WG votes in > > favor. > > > > Yes, it's a lar

Re: Better Thermal Management for the Workstation - Fedora 33 Self-Contained Change proposal

On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 at 16:14, Jared Dominguez wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 3:41 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel > wrote: >> >> On 30.06.2020 19:43, Hans de Goede wrote: >> > That is the first time I have heard that. Do you have a source for that ? >> >> https://github.com/intel/dptfxtract

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 at 17:09, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 4:30 PM Justin Forbes wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 1:39 PM John M. Harris Jr > > wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, June 30, 2020 8:22:00 AM MST Stephen John Smoogen w

Re: out of Koji disk space

On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 at 02:09, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > > Hi, > > I have tried to enable debuginfo for Chromium but it cannot fit the disk. > During local build it has 160GB (on x86_64) and Koji shows (moreover AFAIK > shared for multiple builders): > > https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//wo

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 at 07:19, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > Yeah. I have no doubt that the decision was made carefully back then. > That said, time has passed, and btrfs has evolved and our use cases > have evolved too, so a fresh look is good. > > We have https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/C

Re: out of Koji disk space

On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 at 08:09, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > > On Wed, 01 Jul 2020 13:43:57 +0200, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > In the end we have limited resources and you are running into those > > limits. We can either have fewer builders with more disk space and a > > lo

Re: out of Koji disk space

On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 at 09:38, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > > On Wed, 01 Jul 2020 15:14:09 +0200, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > At the moment we have about 10% of the hardware > > we shipped back in operation and there are at least 2 to 3 weeks to > > get the rest up. Getti

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make nano the default editor

On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 at 13:14, Iñaki Ucar wrote: > > On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 at 18:54, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > > On 01. 07. 20 18:33, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 11:28 am, Michael Catanzaro > > > wrote: > > >> I have not much opinion on whether we should use this vs. nano.

Re: The future of legacy BIOS support in Fedora.

On Sat, 4 Jul 2020 at 11:34, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 11:20 AM Lennart Poettering > wrote: > > > > On Mi, 01.07.20 21:06, Neal Gompa (ngomp...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > > The user-interactive portion of sd-boot is *awful*. I know our GRUB > > > looks ugly by default these day

Re: The future of legacy BIOS support in Fedora.

On Sun, 5 Jul 2020 at 11:23, Markus Larsson wrote: > > > > On 5 July 2020 16:27:07 CEST, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > >On Sat, 4 Jul 2020 at 11:34, Neal Gompa wrote: > >> > >> On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 11:20 AM Lennart Poettering > >> wrote: &g

Re: The future of legacy BIOS support in Fedora.

On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 07:38, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > Hi, > > > > btw, sd-boot has a few tricks up its sleeve: if during boot you keep > > > "w" pressed down it will automatically boot into windows, similar if > > > you keep "l" pressed down it will automaticall boot into linux, "a" > > > will b

Re: modular and personal koji

On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 10:33, Didier Fabert wrote: > > Hi all, > > With my personal koji (on el8), I cannot build some packages for my el8 > tag. All failures are about modular metadata packages which cannot be > installed. > Koji doesn't really understand modules and the depsolver has problems. F

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 01:19, Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 8:40 PM Eric Sandeen wrote: > > > > On 7/3/20 1:41 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > > SSDs can fail in weird ways. Some spew garbage as they're failing, > > > some go read-only. I've seen both. I don't have stats on how common

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 16:49, Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 1:57 PM Eric Sandeen wrote: > > > > On 7/9/20 2:11 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > > >> > > >> From what I've gathered from these responses, btrfs is unique in that > > >> it is > > >> /expected/ that if anything goes wrong, t

Re: Outdated programs in rawhide

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 at 05:14, Dan Horák wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 01:36:09 +0200 > Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: > > > scala: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1080923 > > libnetfilter_queue: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1512736 > > nftables: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1846663 > > libcap: https://bugz

Re: Enable EarlyOOM on Fedora KDE - Fedora 33 Self-Contained Change proposal

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 05:04, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > John M. Harris Jr wrote: > > Userspace isn't dead when a system is thrashing. Your software is still > > running. If it gets killed, you're most likely going to lose your data. > > The thing is, there are various levels of thrashing. In some ca

Re: ar (binutils) segfaulting in Rawhide - known bug?

On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 17:51, Jeff Law wrote: > > On Fri, 2020-07-24 at 22:40 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 03:37:05PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > > > Hmm, what's interesting here is that it's binutils-2.34, so it's not > > > the update that Nick was doing to do today.

Re: ARM as a primary architecture

On 23 March 2012 18:24, Kevin Kofler wrote: > DJ Delorie wrote: >> So buy a trimslice and use the internal SSD or sata disk.  The >> trimslice has everything the netwinder has (and more), and uses half >> the power. >> >> http://trimslice.com/web/ > > "Trim-Slice is the first desktop computer powe

Re: ARM as a primary architecture

On 28 March 2012 19:13, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 07:23:48PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote: > >> In the future, ARM systems will transition increasingly to UEFI. Many >> ARM server systems will likely eventually boot with ACPI as well. They >> will smell like low-energy alternati

Re: /tmp on tmpfs (was: Re: Summary/Minutes for today's FESCo meeting (2012-04-02))

On 2 April 2012 14:55, Steve Grubb wrote: > On Monday, April 02, 2012 03:58:12 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> > * #834 F18 Feature: /tmp on tmpfs - >> > >> >   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/tmp-on-tmpfs  (mitr, 17:40:06) >> >   * AGREED: tmp-on-tmpfs is accepted (+5 -3)  (mitr, 18:12:52)

Re: Feedback on secondary architecture promotion requirements draft

On 3 April 2012 15:57, Jesse Keating wrote: > On 4/3/12 2:53 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: >> >> Somehow other distro's have manage to find a way to fund themselves >> perhaps we can adopt some of their model and implement it either >> officially or unofficially... > > > I suggest a long and

Re: Feedback on secondary architecture promotion requirements draft

On 4 April 2012 07:31, Jared K. Smith wrote: > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:23 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" > wrote: > Now, for the ugly part.  One of the many complications is that if a US > non-profit receives the majority of its funding and support from a > single corporate entity, that the non-pr

Re: Feedback on secondary architecture promotion requirements draft

On 4 April 2012 12:28, DJ Delorie wrote: > > Ok, giving money won't work, and the tax stuff is a mess.  Let's > ignore that for a second. > > What about equipment? > > Consider: if a box showed up at PHX, which contained hardware that met > the technology requirements of PHX, with a note that said

Re: Schedule for Monday's FESCo Meeting (2012-06-18)

On 17 June 2012 11:49, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 05:06:51PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: >> On 17 June 2012 10:53, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> > So this is a problem that needs to be solved, but does it require a >> > reboot?  Not really ... it's possible to list all pr

Re: F18 DNF and history

On 19 June 2012 11:51, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 15:33 +0200, Ales Kozumplik wrote: >> On 06/19/2012 02:44 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > I have a question about DNF https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/DNF >> > >> > Are there any plans to replace yum with

Re: Help Wanted: Fedora.next schedule estimation

On 24 February 2014 10:44, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > As a non-exhaustive list of example things we expect will need > attention and would like input (particularly time-estimates) on: > > * Quality Assurance: Coverage increases and automation such as >Task-o-Tron[1] > * Release Engineer

Re: Service units for web applications

On 25 February 2014 16:04, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 22:41 +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > On Tue, 25.02.14 15:49, Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com) wrote: > > > > > In the specific case I'm looking at, I'm not (necessarily) talking > > > about separate httpd instances.

Re: F21 System Wide Change: System-wide crypto policy

On 27 February 2014 10:58, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > > > We have to document that, but there will be always ways to shoot > > someones foot. There are legitimate uses of increasing a security level > > (if one for example sets up machines to be used in a LAN). > > > >> If someone sets SUITEB-wha

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 27 February 2014 15:02, Jochen Schmitt wrote: > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 04:08:46PM -0500, James Wilson Harshaw IV wrote: > > A question I have is XFS worth it? > > I have done some testing with RHEL 7 Beta which use XFS as a default file > system. > > I have to recorgnize, that the -r switch o

Re: Per-Product Config file divergence

On 10 March 2014 16:46, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2014-03-10 at 11:31 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > > > And I think those subpackages probably _should_ conflict, don't you? > > > > > > > Depends. Sgallagh had a desire to mark that a particular system > > implemented multiple products

Re: F21 Self Contained Change: Security Policy In The Installer

On 14 March 2014 13:45, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 03:41:30PM -0400, Eric H. Christensen wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 07:31:55PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > How does the average user make an informed decision about whether an > > > available security policy is

Re: F21 Self Contained Change: Security Policy In The Installer

On 14 March 2014 16:24, Eric H. Christensen wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 08:01:53PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 03:56:47PM -0400, Eric H. Christensen wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 07:45:53PM +, Matth

Re: Maybe it's time to get rid of tcpwrappers/tcpd?

On 20 March 2014 11:34, Lennart Poettering wrote: > Heya! > > I wonder whether it wouldn't be time to say goodbye to tcpwrappers in > Fedora. There has been a request in systemd upstream to disable support > for it by default, but I am not sure I want to do that unless we can > maybe say goodbye

Re: Maybe it's time to get rid of tcpwrappers/tcpd?

On 20 March 2014 13:05, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Thu, 20.03.14 12:20, Stephen John Smoogen (smo...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > I doubt there are many people even using them anymore, firewalls are > > > more comprehensive and a lot more powerful, and while every admin

Re: Maybe it's time to get rid of tcpwrappers/tcpd?

On 20 March 2014 13:55, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 03/20/2014 07:45 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > On Thu, 20.03.14 14:31, Martin Langhoff (martin.langh...@gmail.com) > wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Lennart Poettering < > mzerq...@0pointer.de>wrote: > >> > >>> I wonde

Re: Maybe it's time to get rid of tcpwrappers/tcpd?

On 24 March 2014 12:18, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > It's a pity though that nobody in Fedora is actively working on getting > rid of legacy cruft. I really wished we had some people who oversee > deprecating things more proactively, figure out how to deprecate things, > write stub code to pr

Re: NetworkManager "forget" user network configurations: bug or feature?

On 25 March 2014 13:53, Sergio Belkin wrote: > > > Adam, > > I've found that by default when I create a user, the checkbox in > NetworkManager that says > > "All users may connect to this network" is checked! > > If I uncheck anyway the network configuration files are in > /etc/sysconfig/network-

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Java 8

On 26 March 2014 07:41, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: > On 03/25/2014 06:45 PM, Omair Majid wrote: > > * Mikolaj Izdebski [2014-03-24 11:41]: > >> On 03/22/2014 06:15 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > >>> Given the known large number of failures (OptionalJavadocs says "80% > build > >>> failure rate" withou

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Java 8

On 26 March 2014 10:29, Christopher wrote: > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Deepak Bhole wrote: > > * Christopher [2014-03-25 19:59]: > >> I also would like to see 1.7.0 stick around for awhile. Not > >> necessarily as the default, but at least available in the repos. As it > >> stands, it's

Re: Desktop racing problem in F20

On 28 March 2014 10:47, Pete Zaitcev wrote: > Dear Fedorians: > > Recently, I was hitting a number of odd behaviours that look like races. > Filed a couple of bugs: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082092 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082095 > > But this feels u

Re: [CHANGE PROPOSAL] The securetty file is empty by default

On 2 April 2014 17:15, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 02:12:50PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > > How does someone express strong disagreement to this change ? > > Posting here is a good start. You can also add a note in the FESCo ticket > for approval once one is filed, and if you a

Re: fedora-atomic discussion point: /usr/lib/passwd

On 11 April 2014 10:49, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Fri, 11.04.14 16:09, Colin Walters (walt...@verbum.org) wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Martin Langhoff > > wrote: > > > > > >If you move in this direction, you have to create files/dirs to be > > >owned by the daemon user too

Re: The Forgotten "F": A Tale of Fedora's Foundations

On 21 April 2014 11:19, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 04/21/2014 01:08 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 12:37:57 -0400, Stephen Gallagher > > wrote: > >>> Does Fedora need to be that gateway OS? Maybe Ubuntu would be a > >

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Workstation: Disable firewall

On 22 April 2014 05:40, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Since you missed the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYGgVUYjXQ8 > > I too recommend that everyone gives it a look. It is very insightful > and helpful in understanding what people really

Re: The Forgotten "F": A Tale of Fedora's Foundations

On 22 April 2014 05:53, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 04/21/2014 05:31 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > > On 21 April 2014 11:19, Stephen Gallagher > <mailto:sgall...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > &

Re: The Forgotten "F": A Tale of Fedora's Foundations

On 23 April 2014 02:29, Christian Schaller wrote: > Hi Mairin, > Not sure exactly where you are coming from in terms of wanting legal > to weigh in, but in general I don't think legals opinion is very relevant > and this point. The first step here should always be us as a project > deciding what

Re: The Forgotten "F": A Tale of Fedora's Foundations

On 24 April 2014 02:49, Christian Schaller wrote: > Well my point is I spoke to Red Hat legal before I even posted the > original proposal to open up to more 3rd party repositories some > Months ago. There are a lot of repositories that it is perfectly > fine for Fedora to include from a legal pe

Re: The Forgotten "F": A Tale of Fedora's Foundations

On 24 April 2014 09:56, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 04/24/2014 11:01 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > > > > > > On 24 April 2014 02:49, Christian Schaller > <mailto:cscha...@redhat.com>>

Re: The Forgotten "F": A Tale of Fedora's Foundations

On 24 April 2014 16:06, Christian Schaller wrote: > > > These were things that people were wondering when this came up in the > past. > > Once again this is becoming a debate about hypotheticals which rarely > leads anywhere > constructive. > > It actually isn't hypothetical. I have had to deal w

Re: We want to stop systemd from being added to docker images, because of rpm requiring systemctl.

On 28 April 2014 15:01, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > The problem is lots of services require systemd because they ship a > unit file and want systemctl reload to happen. Systemd then triggers a > require for udev and kmod, which docker containers do not need. > > rpm -q --whatrequires systemd| wc -l

Re: Incorrect order of /usr/bin and /usr/sbin in path

On 6 May 2014 10:49, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 04:11:50PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > > 2014-05-06 16:06 GMT+02:00 David Cantrell : > > > > > I think the annoying thing is if you're typing out a path that includes > > > /usr/lib, you can't easily hit TAB to get in to

Re: ssh problem with pkgs.fedoraproject.org

On 11 June 2014 10:04, Jerry James wrote: > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > Usually the best thing would be to open a infrastructure ticket. > > > > I've hopefully fixed your IP too now tho. ;) > > This kind of problem is just going to keep happening to those of us > with

Re: dnf replacement for yum-cron

On 16 June 2014 09:22, drago01 wrote: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Matthew Miller > wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 05:06:45PM +0200, drago01 wrote: > >> > That's not the most descriptiony of all descriptions ever, but if the > name > >> > is any indication, it is just a thing which kee

Re: dnf even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings

On 22 June 2014 00:18, Tim Lauridsen wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 6:29 PM, Rahul Sundaram > wrote: > >> >> Tim, >> >> Is there anyone working on a protected packages plugin for Dnf? In the >> past, it has helped users avoid trashing their systems due to bugs in >> package-cleanup and so o

Re: delta rpms - can we turn them off

On 29 June 2014 15:34, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 14:20:44 -0700 > Jonathan Dieter wrote: > > > We can do this, but createrepo would need to store the checksum of 0 > > level compressed xz rpms in primary, which involve making createrepo > > decompress each rpm and then recompress

Re: SPF records @fedoraproject.org versus @lists.fedoraproject.org

On 4 October 2015 at 03:03, Reindl Harald wrote: > is there a reason that the list-subdomain has a SPF record but the main > domain not? now that as example "bo...@fedoraproject.org" sends a lot of > mails it would make sense to shortciruit them as ham on spamfilters as it is > possible for the ma

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 5 October 2015 at 05:09, Dave Love wrote: > Tom Hughes writes: > >> Recently I even saw a case of a header only C++ library bundling >> another C++ head library which raises slightly metaphysical questions >> since dependants of a header only library need to be rebuilt when it >> changes anywa

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 6 October 2015 at 14:49, Jared K. Smith wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Stephen Gallagher > wrote: >> >> I'm putting up another pass at the proposal, as there were some >> critical typographical errors in the last one that caused confusion >> (there were a couple places where I wrot

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 7 October 2015 at 16:09, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> Extra points if we can put this in as an RPM header and you can have a >> plugin which says "I only want N point packages" > > How does that help? It will just mean the user will n

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 7 October 2015 at 16:41, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> So the next step after that is that we reward people who lower a >> package's point. Good idea Kevin. > > "Reward" how? > I was thinking of cookies, but I expect that some so

Re: Proposal: retire lesstif in f24 and beyond

On 8 October 2015 at 17:04, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Christopher Meng wrote: >> IMO motif should 'Obsoletes' lesstif in Fedora since motif is free now. > > The reason we kept lesstif even after OpenMotif was finally freed is because > OpenMotif only implements the Motif 2 API, whereas lesstif impleme

Re: ansible in Fedora 23+ (python3)

On 19 October 2015 at 21:00, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Fabio Alessandro Locati wrote: >> Also, the problem is that RedHat still supports RHEL5 systems which >> for today standards are totally legacy and therefore it has to run on >> Python 2.4. > > The point of forking would be that the fork wouldn't

Re: FC1 in archive missing a bunch of RPMs?

On 23 October 2015 at 14:52, Adam Williamson wrote: > I happened to notice last night that: > > https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/archive/fedora/linux/core/1/x86_64/os/Fedora/RPMS/ > > seems very incomplete - it's like it's truncated, it has everything > alphabetically up to 'beecrypt' and nothing

Re: make unmaintained ??

On Oct 25, 2015 12:53, "Jan Kratochvil" wrote: > > On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 01:07:47 +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > I built 4.1 for rawhide. If that checks out to be OK, I can push > > an update for F23 also. > > I do not understand why a major rebase could be permitted after all the F-2

Re: Build Error: Trigger fired by the same package is already fired???

On Nov 3, 2015 07:30, "Steve Dickson" wrote: > > > > On 11/03/2015 06:59 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 04:32:47 -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: > > > >>> %triggerun -- nfs-utils < 1:1.3.1-4.0 > >>> # reset configuration files and running daemons > >>> if [ $1 -eq 2 ] ; then > >>>

Re: Fedora IPv6 testing and improvements - request for ideas

On 4 November 2015 at 02:20, Toby Goodwin wrote: > As well as Fedora itself, we need to get the infrastructure IPv6 ready. > My company has developed an IPv6 health checker. Given a domain, it > tests its nameservers, webservers, and mailservers for IPv6 readiness. > > Currently fedoraproject.org

Re: kdbus module being removed from Rawhide

On 4 November 2015 at 16:41, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Josh Boyer wrote: >> That's fine, but I think we already knew that? I mean, the suggestion >> was to disable SELinux entirely (or at least put it in permissive >> mode) when we added it to begin with. It is also one of the reasons >> we limited

Re: COPR for ARM?

On Nov 7, 2015 13:50, "Neal Gompa" wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >> >> On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 11:19:00 -0600 (CST) >> Jerry Vonau wrote: >> >> > Hi All, >> > >> > I really like being able to use COPR to build rpms, what a great >> > tool. Be nice to have a one stop sh

Re: COPR for ARM?

On 7 November 2015 at 17:51, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Stephen John Smoogen > wrote: >> >> >> On Nov 7, 2015 13:50, "Neal Gompa" wrote: >> > >> > Why don't we do emulated builds (like how OBS does it for A

Re: Retire a package from Fedora i686 (not x86_64)

On 11 November 2015 at 13:20, Fred New wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 6:03 AM, Reindl Harald > wrote: >> >> >> >> Am 07.11.2015 um 05:00 schrieb Luya Tshimbalanga: >>> >>> On 06/11/15 07:29 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > But if upstream doesn't care, it's going to be a problem. :-( >>

Re: Retire a package from Fedora i686 (not x86_64)

On 11 November 2015 at 14:10, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 11.11.2015 um 21:54 schrieb Reindl Harald: >> >> >> Am 11.11.2015 um 21:20 schrieb Fred New: >>> >>> On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 6:03 AM, Reindl Harald >> any system not older than 10 years has SSE3 and frankly systems >>> older than 10

Re: wayland in rawhide

On 11 November 2015 at 18:05, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 7:58 PM, David Airlie wrote: >> >>> That's fine. I don't have a problem adding "GNOME on Xorg" option to >>> the session >>> menu in the interim. I'll do it tomorrow. >> >> This is what the feature page said would happen i

Re: Some analysis on the size of the minimal and Server installs of Fedora 23

On Nov 17, 2015 01:25, "Martijn Ras" wrote: > > What i've been doing on a number of small devices lately is strip all comments from all files, which frees up a lot of disk space. > > I know, this strips copyright headers. > > Maybe the minimal packages can be split in two, by moving the comments t

Re: Dealing with the "my packages" problem

On Nov 18, 2015 14:06, "Brian C. Lane" wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 02:24:37PM -0500, Rob Crittenden wrote: > > Matthew Miller wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 06:08:24PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > >> After some IRC discussion I've come to the following proposal: that > > >>

Infrastructure Outage: mailman/nagios 2015-12-02 0300 UTC

Planned Outage: Mailman / Nagios - 2015-12-02 03:00 UTC There will be an outage starting at 2015-12-02 03:00 UTC, which will last approximately 1 hour. To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto or run: date -d '2015-12-02 03:00 UTC'

Re: ZFS on linux

On 14 January 2016 at 08:58, Zach Villers wrote: > I understand. My thought was, that there seems to be a push to add support > in Debian and Ubuntu. Would it now be possible/make sense to create maybe a > nodebug kernel package based on a stable kernel supported by ZFS and zfs/spl > packages mayb

Re: ZFS on linux

On 14 January 2016 at 12:20, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: >> >> >> Am 14.01.2016 um 19:57 schrieb Gerald B. Cox: >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Bill Nottingham >> > wrote: >>> >>> As a rule, I try not to take leg

Re: Xulrunner - intent to remove from Fedora 24

On 26 January 2016 at 10:18, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: > On 2016-01-26 08:55, Richard Hughes wrote: >> >> On 26 January 2016 at 12:51, Martin Stransky wrote: >>> >>> does anyone use the xulrunner package? (and gecko-devel actually). >>> Mozilla >>> does not maintain it any more and the XUL as techn

Re: Heads up: LLVM repackaging in F24

On Jan 27, 2016 11:26, "Neal Gompa" wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Adam Jackson wrote: > > LLVM upstream is (eventually) dropping their autotools build system in > > favor of their cmake buildsystem. This wouldn't normally be something > > you'd notice, but the two produce different

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >