On 22 January 2016 at 13:38, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Ian Malone wrote:
>> On 22 January 2016 at 09:05, Paul Howarth wrote:
>>> On 21/01/16 22:24, Ian Malone wrote:
Since RHEL/CentOS 7 already does not exist in a native 32bit version I
do wonder what wo
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 6:53 AM, Ian Malone wrote:
> On 22 January 2016 at 09:05, Paul Howarth wrote:
>> On 21/01/16 22:24, Ian Malone wrote:
>>>
>>> Since RHEL/CentOS 7 already does not exist in a native 32bit version I
>>> do wonder what would actually be running in a hypothetical
>>> mock/cont
On 22 January 2016 at 09:05, Paul Howarth wrote:
> On 21/01/16 22:24, Ian Malone wrote:
>>
>> Since RHEL/CentOS 7 already does not exist in a native 32bit version I
>> do wonder what would actually be running in a hypothetical
>> mock/container/VM to build and run 32 bit systems down the road if
>
On 21/01/16 22:24, Ian Malone wrote:
Since RHEL/CentOS 7 already does not exist in a native 32bit version I
do wonder what would actually be running in a hypothetical
mock/container/VM to build and run 32 bit systems down the road if
multilib went away.
CentOS 7 does now have a 32-bit version:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 23:24:13 +0100, Ian Malone wrote:
> and shifting data in and out is more awkward than working directly on it.
Mock has bind_mount* plugin for that.
Jan
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 21 January 2016 at 15:15, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Ian Malone wrote:
>> On 21 January 2016 at 14:25, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> However I really think we need to sit down and rethink multilib. I would
>>> like
>>> to start by changing the multilib method t
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:53:45PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> On 01/21/2016 10:32 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 04:36:33PM +, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> >> On Qui, 2016-01-21 at 08:25 -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I am not really sure that people have test
On 01/21/2016 10:32 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 04:36:33PM +, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>> On Qui, 2016-01-21 at 08:25 -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>>>
>>> I am not really sure that people have tested this use case in years.
>>> It would
>>> be interesting to see if yum-d
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 04:36:33PM +, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Qui, 2016-01-21 at 08:25 -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> >
> > I am not really sure that people have tested this use case in years.
> > It would
> > be interesting to see if yum-deprecated gave you working results. If
> > so then I
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:37:36AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > Aren't the multiuser systems a history now with VPSes or even just
> > containers cheaper than a hamburger? Moreover for anyone with any
> > special requirements.
> No. They are incredibly common in schools and in high performance
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 04:49:21PM +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> Aren't the multiuser systems a history now with VPSes or even just
> containers cheaper than a hamburger? Moreover for anyone with any
> special requirements.
No. They are incredibly common in schools and in high performance
computi
On 21/01/16 16:49 +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 16:37:01 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
A developer who wants to build a 32-bit program on x86_64 might not
be in the mock group. Their system administrator might not want to
Aren't the multiuser systems a history now with VPSes
On Qui, 2016-01-21 at 08:25 -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>
> I am not really sure that people have tested this use case in years.
> It would
> be interesting to see if yum-deprecated gave you working results. If
> so then I
> would say it is a dnf bug.
Is not a dnf bug
Somehow
dnf repoqu
On 21/01/16 10:52 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
On 21/01/16 10:15 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Ian Malone wrote:
Successfully build and run 20+ year old programs without having to
completely rewrite them woul
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
> On 21/01/16 10:15 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Ian Malone wrote:
>>>
>>> Successfully build and run 20+ year old programs without having to
>>> completely rewrite them would be one of the things I want
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 16:37:01 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> A developer who wants to build a 32-bit program on x86_64 might not
> be in the mock group. Their system administrator might not want to
Aren't the multiuser systems a history now with VPSes or even just containers
cheaper than a hamburg
On 21/01/16 10:15 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Ian Malone wrote:
Successfully build and run 20+ year old programs without having to
completely rewrite them would be one of the things I want today. In
fact it's one of the things I was doing earlier this week.
Is t
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Ian Malone wrote:
> On 21 January 2016 at 14:25, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>
>>
>> However I really think we need to sit down and rethink multilib. I would
>> like
>> to start by changing the multilib method to runtime. So you only get runtime
>> libraries and noth
On 21 January 2016 at 14:25, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>
> However I really think we need to sit down and rethink multilib. I would like
> to start by changing the multilib method to runtime. So you only get runtime
> libraries and nothing to build 32 bit apps on 64 bit. For 32 bit building you
> sh
On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 03:50:03 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> If you're on freshly installed Fedora 23 (x86-64), then
>
> dnf install gtk3-devel.x86_64
>
> gets you everything you need to compile a simple Gtk3 application[1].
>
> However on the same host if you do:
>
> dnf install
On 2016-01-21, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Rex Dieter wrote:
>> Sounds like one way forward to fix this is to make pkgconfig dependencies
>> arch'd
>
> Hrm, thinking on it more, I don't think that can ever work for this purpose.
> There's no way to know that
> Requires: foo
> in a bar.pc pkgconfig file
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 07:41:23AM -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Rex Dieter wrote:
>
> > Michael Schwendt wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 17:32:52 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >>
> >>> IMO, this is supposed to work => Bug
> >>>
> >>> The big question would be: Where?
> >>
> >> It cannot wor
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 03:34:34PM +0200, Yanko Kaneti wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 09:38 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:10:22AM +0200, Yanko Kaneti wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2016-01-20 at 15:50 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > > If you're on freshly installed Fe
Rex Dieter wrote:
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 17:32:52 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>
>>> IMO, this is supposed to work => Bug
>>>
>>> The big question would be: Where?
>>
>> It cannot work as long as gtk3-devel relies on pkgconfig(foo)
>> dependencies instead of arch-s
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 17:32:52 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>> IMO, this is supposed to work => Bug
>>
>> The big question would be: Where?
>
> It cannot work as long as gtk3-devel relies on pkgconfig(foo) dependencies
> instead of arch-specific explicit Requires.
Sou
Am 21.01.2016 um 14:34 schrieb Yanko Kaneti:
On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 09:38 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:10:22AM +0200, Yanko Kaneti wrote:
On Wed, 2016-01-20 at 15:50 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
If you're on freshly installed Fedora 23 (x86-64), then
dnf
On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 09:38 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:10:22AM +0200, Yanko Kaneti wrote:
> > On Wed, 2016-01-20 at 15:50 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > If you're on freshly installed Fedora 23 (x86-64), then
> > >
> > > dnf install gtk3-devel.x86_64
>
On 21 January 2016 at 09:10, Yanko Kaneti wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-01-20 at 15:50 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> If you're on freshly installed Fedora 23 (x86-64), then
>>
>> dnf install gtk3-devel.x86_64
>> ..
>>
>> Is this a bug or is it not expected this would work or I am doing it
>> w
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:10:22AM +0200, Yanko Kaneti wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-01-20 at 15:50 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > If you're on freshly installed Fedora 23 (x86-64), then
> >
> > dnf install gtk3-devel.x86_64
> > ..
> >
> > Is this a bug or is it not expected this would work o
On Wed, 2016-01-20 at 15:50 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> If you're on freshly installed Fedora 23 (x86-64), then
>
> dnf install gtk3-devel.x86_64
> ..
>
> Is this a bug or is it not expected this would work or I am doing it
> wrong?
IMO trying to get this (i686 development environme
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 09:39:38AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 01/21/2016 09:27 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >I also
> >tried yum-deprecated with the same results.
>
> I also tried - same result. I guess, investigating this any further
> will require pre-dnf Fedora.
The earliest Fedora I
On 01/21/2016 09:27 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 04:10:00AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 01/20/2016 08:23 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I have filed a bug (against gtk3 for now) about this issue:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300432
I still don'
On 01/20/2016 05:59 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 17:32:52 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
IMO, this is supposed to work => Bug
The big question would be: Where?
It cannot work as long as gtk3-devel relies on pkgconfig(foo) dependencies
instead of arch-specific explicit Requir
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 04:10:00AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 01/20/2016 08:23 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >
> >I have filed a bug (against gtk3 for now) about this issue:
> >
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300432
>
> I still don't know the cause of this issue, I don
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 23:59:01 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:59:01 +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 16:50:03 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > However on the same host if you do:
> > >
> > > dnf install gtk3-devel.i686
> > >
> > > then there's a
On 01/20/2016 08:23 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I have filed a bug (against gtk3 for now) about this issue:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300432
I still don't know the cause of this issue, I don't think this is gtk3's
fault (alone). It's possible to generate similar break
On 01/21/2016 12:45 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
We don't store libraries and headers in such a way that the different
arches can coexist without clobbering.
Headers being installed to /usr/include must be multilib capable. I.e.
they either must be arch-independent or contain sufficient magic
(condit
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 18:45:15 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> Wouldn't there also be the problem of headers getting clobbered when
> you do this?
Not generally. Not all projects generate headers to be arch-specific.
At least in the C/C++ world, it is much more common for headers to
contain conditionals
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:59:01 +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 16:50:03 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> > However on the same host if you do:
>> >
>> > dnf install gtk3-devel.i686
>> >
>> > then there's a lot miss
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:59:01 +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 16:50:03 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > However on the same host if you do:
> >
> > dnf install gtk3-devel.i686
> >
> > then there's a lot missing before you can compile a 32 bit Gtk3
> > application[2].
>
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 16:50:03 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> However on the same host if you do:
>
> dnf install gtk3-devel.i686
>
> then there's a lot missing before you can compile a 32 bit Gtk3
> application[2].
There were always missing many %{?_isa} in BuildRequires, I was filing many
I have filed a bug (against gtk3 for now) about this issue:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300432
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-builder quickly b
On Qua, 2016-01-20 at 17:59 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 17:32:52 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> > IMO, this is supposed to work => Bug
> >
> > The big question would be: Where?
I bet more in packaging which have some missing %{_isa}
dnf repoquery --requires gtk3-deve
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 05:59:25PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 17:32:52 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> > IMO, this is supposed to work => Bug
> >
> > The big question would be: Where?
>
> It cannot work as long as gtk3-devel relies on pkgconfig(foo) dependencies
> inst
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 17:32:52 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> IMO, this is supposed to work => Bug
>
> The big question would be: Where?
It cannot work as long as gtk3-devel relies on pkgconfig(foo) dependencies
instead of arch-specific explicit Requires.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedorapr
On 01/20/2016 04:50 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
If you're on freshly installed Fedora 23 (x86-64), then
dnf install gtk3-devel.x86_64
gets you everything you need to compile a simple Gtk3 application[1].
However on the same host if you do:
dnf install gtk3-devel.i686
then there's a l
If you're on freshly installed Fedora 23 (x86-64), then
dnf install gtk3-devel.x86_64
gets you everything you need to compile a simple Gtk3 application[1].
However on the same host if you do:
dnf install gtk3-devel.i686
then there's a lot missing before you can compile a 32 bit Gtk3
applic
47 matches
Mail list logo
