Re: Adding ~/.local/bin to default PATH

2011-07-27 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 04:24:06PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote: IMHO the ~/.local/bin place is a mistake, and it's still not too late to stop making this mistake irreversible. Yeah. Every $PATH element has its runtime cost (execvp needs to search that path, at least for unsuccessful searches,

Re: floppy support

2011-08-31 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 10:41:45PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: %install rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/modules-load.d echo floppy $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/modules-load.d/floppy.conf %{_sysconfdir} instead of %{_libdir} everywhere. %files

Re: Notice of intent: patching glibc

2011-09-01 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 09:34:10AM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com writes: But I did mention all the various bug reports - Arch and upstream - in my ML post on the topic: subject glibc causing crashes in most anything that does DNS lookups in F16. That

Re: Notice of intent: patching glibc

2011-09-02 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 01:20:19PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: Is there a specific reason glibc does this? Yes. Can it not have a set of patches, one per change, as is usual practice? Fedora glibc sources are from git, and the bit diff is just generated diff between the upstream snapshot

Re: Notice of intent: patching glibc

2011-09-03 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Sat, Sep 03, 2011 at 09:38:46AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: Fedora glibc sources are from git, and the bit diff is just generated diff between the upstream snapshot and corresponding Fedora snapshot, sans a few Fedora-only directories (which are packaged as extra tarball). That's

Re: Compiling 32bit on 64bit Fedora

2011-09-07 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 11:52:58AM -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote: gcc -m32 -o foo foo.c gives me: /usr/include/gnu/stubs.h:7:27: fatal error: gnu/stubs-32.h: No such file or directory If I copy the gnu/stubs-32.h file from the 32bit glibc-devel package into the right place and run the

Re: Development to release quality

2011-09-12 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:05:05AM -0400, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote: On 09/12/2011 06:01 AM, Matej Cepl wrote: Too much QA (or any external QA) imposed on the development make it slower. Compare Linux v. OpenSolaris kernel development. Fedora tries to be very fast developing distro, thus less

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

2011-09-22 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 01:06:51PM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote: Here are the latest changes to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines: --- The section of the Packaging Guidelines regarding Compiler Flags has been updated and improved, most notably, to document handling of PIE enabled packages.

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

2011-09-22 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 01:59:33PM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote: On 09/22/2011 01:36 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: That should be ... adds -fPIE (if -fPIC is not already present) ... I'd say. At least I hope that's what the spec change does, the initial version did that. No, I'm fairly sure

Re: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

2011-09-22 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 02:18:10PM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: %rename cc1_options rh_cc1_options_old

Re: Another glibc change that nearly got pushed into F16

2011-10-26 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:06:31AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: /usr/include/glib-2.0/glib/gmacros.h:32:2: error: #error Only glib.h can be included directly. or close variants of that. I assume this is another manifestation of the same bug being discussed here ... or have the glibc guys managed

Re: systemd acceptance, packaging guidelines (was Re: systemd and changes)

2010-08-25 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 04:08:49PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Wed, 25.08.10 03:03, Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) wrote: The traditional solution is to reexec not on shutdown, but immediately after init upgrade (which also frees the inodes early); this can still race with shutdown

Re: Putting cross compilers into Fedora

2010-09-01 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 02:06:37PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: - Fedora's rpm and some components the build-infrastructure have serious issues related to cross-building. - A cross compiler alone is not worth it, you need a whole zoo of further cross-target packages to make it usable.

Re: -static packages

2010-09-15 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 05:06:20PM +0100, Robert Spanton wrote: I've recently had to link a fair amount of my work statically so that it'll run on a cluster of RHEL machines. Unfortunately, I am just a user of these machines, and so I don't have the power to get them to run Fedora or even to

Re: -frecord-gcc-switches as default CFLAG?

2010-11-01 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 09:04:12AM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: On 10/30/2010 06:01 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 02:24:02AM -0400, Jon Stanley wrote: I noticed on my Fedora 13 box that in the RPM macro %__global_cflags that -frecord-gcc-switches is missing, which

Re: Compile with -fno-omit-frame-pointer on x86_64?

2010-11-03 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 02:48:12PM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: Lack of decent profiling is a major problem for making our operating system fast. By far the most effective of profiling is sampling profile with callgraph information. Soeren's comment from March:

Re: Compile with -fno-omit-frame-pointer on x86_64?

2010-11-03 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 03:20:59PM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 19:58 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 02:48:12PM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: Instead of this, which really is a big performance penalty. Do you have a sense of the quantification of big

Re: Compile with -fno-omit-frame-pointer on x86_64?

2010-11-03 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 04:10:30PM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 19:58 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 02:48:12PM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: Basically summarizes the situation, and as far as I know nothing has changed ... with default compilation

Re: Backporting LLVM 3.1 for Fedora 17

2012-11-16 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 09:49:19AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote: That said, llvm consumers are difficult to keep in sync with llvm anyway. Many llvm projects seem like they pick a point release to build against and then never get updated when the ABI changes. If we do this we might want to

Results of a test mass rebuild of rawhide/x86_64 with gcc-4.8.0-0.1.fc19

2013-01-04 Thread Jakub Jelinek
Hi! As part of preparations for possible switch of system compiler in F19 to GCC 4.8.0, we (myself and Marek Polacek) have performed a test mass rebuild of rawhide (December 17th package list) using gcc-4.8.0-0.1.fc19 on x86_64, and for those packages that failed also rebuilt the same package

Re: Results of a test mass rebuild of rawhide/x86_64 with gcc-4.8.0-0.1.fc19

2013-01-04 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 04:41:45PM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote: Thanks for this! One question... On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 21:40 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: llvm-3.1-12.fc19.src.rpm gcc bug, not fixed yet, see http://gcc.gnu.org/PR55875 My reading of that bug is that -fno-ivopts could

Re: Results of a test mass rebuild of rawhide/x86_64 with gcc-4.8.0-0.1.fc19

2013-01-07 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 03:50:01PM +, Petr Pisar wrote: yap-6.2.2-4.fc18.src.rpm similar to getdata bug: LAST_FLAG = 23 ... #define NUMBER_OF_YAP_FLAGS LAST_FLAG ... #define yap_flags Yap_heap_regs-yap_flags_field ... Int

Re: Results of a test mass rebuild of rawhide/x86_64 with gcc-4.8.0-0.1.fc19

2013-01-14 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 06:08:21PM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote: On 2013-01-04 22:40, Jakub Jelinek wrote: gcc-4.8.0-0.1.fc19 on x86_64 I see this in git, but not even a scratch build in koji. Is a build of the 4.8.0 gcc and friends available somewhere? What about the build logs

Re: Results of a test mass rebuild of rawhide/x86_64 with gcc-4.8.0-0.1.fc19

2013-01-14 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:32:09AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 09:40:27PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: The remaining packages, that failed to build with 4.8.0-0.1 and succeeded with 4.7.2-9 are listed below. 67 of these look like issues on the package side, 22 gcc

Re: Shall we modify '-g' to '-g3' to have gcc save the macro info?

2013-01-16 Thread Jakub Jelinek
a function definition. That would be great, I have not found any official request for it, there was only short -g3 discussion in: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2012-06-18) http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-June/168884.html The new -g3 format by Jakub

Re: Proposed F19 Feature: GCC48 - switch GCC in Fedora 19 to 4.8.x, rebuild all packages with it

2013-01-16 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 08:21:24PM +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote: On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 14:15 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: GCC 4.8.0 is going to be released in mid March to mid April and is currently in regression bugfix only mode. I've performed a test mass rebuild on x86_64

Re: Proposed F19 Feature: GCC48 - switch GCC in Fedora 19 to 4.8.x, rebuild all packages with it

2013-01-16 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:52:04AM -0800, Brendan Conoboy wrote: On 01/16/2013 11:19 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: We need to decide the schedule soon IMHO. Perhaps the schedule should be decided in part on time to do mass rebuild after gcc 4.8.0 is released. The ARM team would really like to see

Re: Proposed F19 Feature: GCC48 - switch GCC in Fedora 19 to 4.8.x, rebuild all packages with it

2013-01-16 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:38:29PM -0800, Brendan Conoboy wrote: Even better! Will the 3 failed builds mentioned at the beginning of the thread be resolved by the end-of-January estimated ready to go time? Are there any outstanding bugs in the 4.8-pre compiler that might have major impact on

Re: Proposed F19 Feature: GCC48 - switch GCC in Fedora 19 to 4.8.x, rebuild all packages with it

2013-01-17 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:45:04PM +0100, Nikola Pajkovsky wrote: is gcc bug[1] fixed in 4.8.0? it could bring a lot of nasty problems with app which using atomit_t (unsigned long) [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55981 I think it isn't yet committed, has been approved though.

Re: Odd Problems to build inn on rawhide

2013-01-17 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 02:30:09PM +0100, Jochen Schmitt wrote: Hallo, during my last build of inn on rawhide I have got the following odd error messages: RPM build errors: bogus date in %changelog: Wed Jan 13 2009 Ondrej Vasik ova...@redhat.com - 2.4.5-7 bogus date in

Re: Proposed F19 Feature: GCC48 - switch GCC in Fedora 19 to 4.8.x, rebuild all packages with it

2013-01-22 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 09:22:00PM +0100, Erik van Pienbroek wrote: Jaroslav Reznik schreef op wo 16-01-2013 om 12:35 [-0500]: See https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-January/175876.html for details. Once gcc-4.8.0-* is built into Fedora, after a few days or weeks a

Re: Proposed F19 Feature: MEMSTOMP

2013-01-24 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 01:29:36PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) said: = Features/MEMSTOMP = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/MEMSTOMP Feature owner(s): Jeff Law l...@redhat.com Include the MEMSTOMP DSOs in Fedora 19 to enable developers

Re: Proposed F19 Feature: GLIBC 2.17

2013-01-29 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:39:21AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: On 01/28/2013 06:31 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: Florian Weimer (fwei...@redhat.com) said: See http://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Tips_and_Tricks/secure_getenv for code snippets to implement in the change in a backwards-compatible

Re: Proposed F19 Feature: systemd features

2013-01-30 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 07:18:40PM +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote: The point is, we've done this in the past where we shipped the data with the tools, and we very quickly moved to shipping the data separate - it's cleaner, allows for just updating the data when necessary, and it forces people to

Re: Multilib help?

2010-01-28 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 11:21:02PM +0100, Till Maas wrote: Is it maybe easily possible to just add another dummy helper script, that by default does not create any Requires/Provides, but is called for every RPM, e.g. __extra_provides/requires. Then this could be overwritten without disturbing

Re: LD Changes To Implicit DSO Linking Update

2010-02-09 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 11:09:50PM +0530, Parag N(पराग़) wrote: Anyway I find adding missing DSO to CFLAGS in SPEC is easy solution for now. They don't belong to CFLAGS, those are flags for compilation. You want LDFLAGS or even better add it in configure to LIBS. Jakub -- devel

Re: LD Changes To Implicit DSO Linking Update

2010-02-09 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 07:42:44PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Adam Williamson wrote: I disagree with that. Previous changes to the build environment - even upstream GCC changes - have broken way more packages (every GCC .x release tends to break a lot of things temporarily). And that's

Re: LD Changes To Implicit DSO Linking Update

2010-02-10 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 08:42:53PM +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote: Parag N(पराग़) wrote, at 02/10/2010 02:58 AM +9:00: On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 11:09:50PM +0530, Parag N(पराग़) wrote: Anyway I find adding missing DSO to CFLAGS

Re: LD Changes To Implicit DSO Linking Update

2010-02-16 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 03:57:52PM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: Well. Even pretty fundamental GNOME stuff like gtk2-devel is still broken. Look here: [r...@localhost ~]# pkg-config --libs gtk+-2.0 -pthread -lgtk-x11-2.0 -lgdk-x11-2.0 -latk-1.0 -lgio-2.0 -lpangoft2-1.0 -lgdk_pixbuf-2.0

Re: gcc internal error on F13

2010-03-06 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 08:44:13AM -0500, Sam Varshavchik wrote: Paulo Cavalcanti writes: « HTML content follows » I am trying to build a package on F13, and got a gcc internal error: URL:http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2034791http://koji

Re: Announcing `gold-rebuild' - link your packages with gold now

2010-03-08 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:24:29AM -0500, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: Michal Nowak mno...@redhat.com writes: Past months I spent investigating `gold' - the new GNU linker and how it now works with stock Fedora packages. [...] Do your scripts provide some evidence of exciting speedups with

Re: does mc really require perl*?

2013-09-20 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 08:37:50PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: well, some people would now say i do the same i can say for sure to some other pakcages on a cloud server where they would disagree and because everybody has different needs keep the dependency chain as small as possible is always

Re: F20 System Wide Change: ARM as primary Architecture

2013-10-15 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 02:16:28PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote: There is no effective security difference between accessing the randomized stack guard value from a global variable or a value stored in the dynamic thread vector. It is only a performance optimization. The choice of a global

Re: libtool broken in Koji F19 buildroot?

2013-10-17 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 07:38:59PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: While preparing the buildroot, Koji is saying: DEBUG util.py:266: Error: Package: libtool-2.4.2-16.fc19.x86_64 (build) DEBUG util.py:266: Requires: gcc = 4.8.1 DEBUG util.py:266: Installed:

Re: FTBFS if -Werror=format-security flag is used

2013-12-04 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 05:11:16PM -0600, Ian Pilcher wrote: On 12/04/2013 04:56 PM, Brendan Jones wrote: Patching is not a problem. Unnecessary is the question. Explain to me (not you in particular Rahul) how these printf's can possibly be exploited? char *output; output =

Re: FTBFS if -Werror=format-security flag is used

2013-12-06 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 08:02:06PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: * translatable format strings, e.g. printf(translate(processed %d items), foo); Translatable strings are handled just fine. Try e.g.: extern int my_printf (void *my_object, const char *my_format, ...) __attribute__ ((format

Re: FTBFS if -Werror=format-security flag is used

2013-12-09 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 03:01:55PM -0800, Les Howell wrote: unless something has changed recently fputs and puts just like gets and fgets have been deprecated and are discouraged due to potential security issues. That is wrong. Only gets is deprecated (removed in C11, obsolescent in POSIX

Re: missing on bodhi: gcc-c++-4.8.2-5.fc19.x86_64

2013-12-11 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 05:42:16PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=483733 [root@testserver:~]$ rpm -qa | grep gcc gcc-c++-4.8.2-5.fc19.x86_64 libgcc-4.8.2-5.fc19.x86_64 gcc-4.8.2-5.fc19.x86_64 are these packages are missing on bodhi?

Re: Fixing the glibc adobe flash incompatibility

2010-11-18 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:14:58AM +, Andrew Haley wrote: On 11/17/2010 11:42 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: How is any of that a reason not to patch glibc? Upside of patching: happy users. Downside: nothing. Downside: slower memcpy on sse4.2 machines Downside: if we workaround the Adobe flash

Re: Fixing the glibc adobe flash incompatibility

2010-11-18 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:09:56AM -0500, Genes MailLists wrote: On 11/18/2010 09:28 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Downside: nothing. Downside: slower memcpy on sse4.2 machines Do you know how much slower in absolute time is it? And is it (or would it be) visible (1/10's of seconds

Re: Fixing the glibc adobe flash incompatibility

2010-11-18 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 04:39:40PM +0100, Magnus Glantz wrote: So.. Upside of patching: happy users :-) Downside of patching: unhappy developers :-( and unhappy users because their software runs slower, apparently you've (intentionally?) missed that. There is absolutely no reason to punish

Re: Package rebuilds for gcc bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634757

2010-11-23 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 03:45:26PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: gcc - update in -candidate, ping jakub Just remove gcc from your list. gcc is bootstrapped, so the installed gcc only builds first stage, everything else is built by (one of the) newly built compiler(s). So, gcc in f14 surely

Re: GCC bug 634757 F14 rebuild status

2010-12-01 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 12:03:42AM -0500, Matt McCutchen wrote: On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 20:29 -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote: /usr/bin/install -c -m 644 'doc/examples/runExample.sh'

Re: Go frontend, GCC 4.6, F15

2010-12-05 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 08:28:20PM +0200, Albert Strasheim wrote: The Go frontend has been committed to GCC trunk: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-12/msg00117.html I checked the wiki, but there doesn't seem to be any mention of GCC 4.6 on the F15 feature list:

Re: Removing -fexceptions from $RPM_OPT_FLAGS

2011-01-18 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 06:08:37PM -0500, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: -fexception allows a C library to participate in C++ exception handling. It does not cost anything except extra data tables in the ELF file. Its presence matters in cases where a C library is used by a C++ program, for example

Re: heads-up: systemtap-sdt-devel rebase in rawhide

2011-01-19 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 03:52:24PM +, Mark Wielaard wrote: Dan Horák dan at danny.cz writes: there is some clash in min/max macros/functions, but I've not done any detailed investigation yet, Tom has been notified. I asked Stan Cox, who said he was using the following workaround: I

Re: heads-up: systemtap-sdt-devel rebase in rawhide

2011-01-19 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 04:49:04PM -0500, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: tgl wrote: [...] I think the only near-term fix is to turn off dtrace support in mysql. [...] We'll do one better; we'll add a hack to sys/sdt.h to make mysql build and respin systemtap today or tomorrow. But the

Re: About mtune=atom

2011-01-24 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 12:55:59PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: Jakub Jelinek (ja...@redhat.com) said: On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 09:25:45AM -0800, John Reiser wrote: Actually many of them should be using the new x86_32 software architecture, which is the 64-bit instruction set (thus

Re: gcc 4.6 for package monkeys

2011-01-28 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 08:26:36AM +0100, Julian Sikorski wrote: I have just run into an issue with gcc-4.6, namely RPM Fusion's mame failed to compile [1]. I was told that #include stddef.h was missing. So I have two questions: why did including this header directly became necessary (code

Re: gcc 4.6 for package monkeys

2011-01-28 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:29:45PM -0800, Garrett Holmstrom wrote: On 1/27/2011 23:26, Julian Sikorski wrote: I have just run into an issue with gcc-4.6, namely RPM Fusion's mame failed to compile [1]. I was told that #includestddef.h was missing. So I have two questions: why did including

GCC 4.6 related common package rebuild failures (was Re: mass rebuild status)

2011-02-09 Thread Jakub Jelinek
Hi! On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 06:23:57PM -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote: so the mass rebuild is 24 hours in we have completed ~45% of the builds and are at 365 packages failed to build the total number of builds in the mass rebuild is 10404 we are churning along nicely. i expect to complete the

Re: gcc-4.6.0-0.11.fc15.x86_64 breaks strcmp?

2011-03-07 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 05:09:17PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote: I suspect that there was a problem with .11, perhaps one of these: * Fri Mar 04 2011 Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com 4.6.0-0.12 - update from trunk - PRs c++/46159, c++/46282, c++/47200, c++/47774, c++/47851, c

Re: gcc-4.6.0-0.12.fc15.x86_64 breaks strcmp?

2011-03-07 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 05:15:18PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote: With the former and -O3, I do see your warning. Here's a pared-down test case: $ cat k.c #include string.h void do_rm_rf (const char *p) { if (strcmp (p, /) == 0) return; } $ gcc -Wall -O3 -c k.c

Re: Using LD_PRELOAD wrappers to identify problem use of shared library functions

2011-03-10 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:25:38AM -0500, William Cohen wrote: Shared library are heavily used through Linux distributions. Unfortunately, there are cases of functions in the libraries having undefined behavior. Rather than immediately reporting the dependence on that undefined behavior, the

Re: Shared library permissions in Debian-land and Red Hat-land

2011-03-24 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 09:52:24PM -0700, John Reiser wrote: they say on Debian and Ubuntu, all shared libs have 0644 permissions. What they say is incorrect. Well, given that libc.so and ld.so are shared libraries with with meaningful e_entry, so you can actually run /lib/ld-2.*.so or

Re: 9base in Fedora?

2011-05-26 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 02:18:07PM +0200, Petr Sabata wrote: I'd like to thank all for their input. As I understand it, the best way to do this in Fedora, with respect to same ideas in this thread, would be having %{_libexecdir}/plan9 or similar, with bin, lib and share (or whatever upstream

Re: selinux alert from gccgo

2011-06-09 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 11:26:26AM -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 06/09/2011 09:19 AM, Neal Becker wrote: I just compiled 'hello world.go' with gccgo on F15 and got selinux alert about mmap_zero when executable was run. THen I would

Re: systemd: please stop trying to take over the world :)

2011-06-15 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:12:35AM -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote: On 06/15/2011 11:03 AM, Miloslav Trma? wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Stephen Smalley s...@tycho.nsa.gov wrote: Ways to improve the situation for systemd would include: - Only load a subset of file_contexts entries,

Re: Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2011-06-21)

2011-06-24 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 05:16:12PM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: and compiling it. In this case, -z relro on its own will not help: the address of the 'exit' function isn't known until it's first called, because function resolution is normally done lazily, and because the 'exit' symbol is not

Re: question about -fstack-protector and fedora

2011-06-30 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 03:19:10PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: as far as i can see fedora is built with -fstack-protector and not -fstack-protector-all - is there a specific reason for not using the all variant Sure, it is expensive to set up the canary even when it is obvious it isn't needed.

Re: question about -fstack-protector and fedora

2011-06-30 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 03:31:24PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 03:19:10PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: as far as i can see fedora is built with -fstack-protector and not -fstack-protector-all - is there a specific reason for not using the all variant Sure

Re: glibc 2.14-4 eats my data (Re: F15 ext3, eCryptfs + samba = data corruption (Re: F15 Error mounting eCryptfs: [-5] Input/output error on different disks))

2011-07-08 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 01:12:04PM -0400, Steve Clark wrote: So it does appear to be related to the memcpy change in libc. So eCryptfs is buggy, just fix it. The compatibility stuff that has been added to glibc to workaround buggy old programs was just for programs linked against old glibc. If

Re: glibc 2.14-4 eats my data (Re: F15 ext3, eCryptfs + samba = data corruption (Re: F15 Error mounting eCryptfs: [-5] Input/output error on different disks))

2011-07-08 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 01:27:45PM -0400, Steve Clark wrote: memove should be used if areas overlap that are being copied. If they overlap or may overlap. Jakub -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Proposed F18 feature: MiniDebugInfo

2012-05-07 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 04:25:46PM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote: On Mon, 07 May 2012 15:07:20 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote: I just wrote a new Feature proposal for shipping minimal debug info by default: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/MiniDebugInfo The several choices is

Re: Proposed F18 feature: MiniDebugInfo

2012-05-07 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 05:25:29PM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote: On Mon, 07 May 2012 16:34:27 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: For bug reporting, you don't need to upload core files, if all you want is to augment backtraces with symbol info and perhaps line info, then all you can do is just

Re: Proposed F18 feature: MiniDebugInfo

2012-05-08 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 08:09:04AM +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote: This is your opinion. I rarely need the full backtrace in a bug report, because it you can get one its generally something thats easily reproduced and I can just run it in gdb myself. When you need it is when something weird is

Re: Proposed F18 feature: MiniDebugInfo

2012-05-08 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 08:34:57AM +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote: Its true that that is all the information you need from the process/core. But you need to have the rest of the information availible *somewhere*, such as on a global retrace server or just having it Yes. locally in the

Re: Proposed F18 feature: MiniDebugInfo

2012-05-09 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 01:44:03PM +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote: I'm not proposing that we drop the existing backtraces with full debug info, but (appart from the other places where backtraces are also useful) I'd like it if ABRT could somehow catch all the cases where people abort a

Re: x32 abi support?

2012-05-16 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:28:31PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: Mhmm, so I was under the impression that x32 was mostly about increasing the scalability of virtualized systems. i.e. run a higher number of x32 containers/VM on an x86_64 host. Most server software that is run in

Re: How to proceed with MiniDebugInfo

2012-05-24 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 04:19:15PM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote: do better is too ambiguous and probably not right. Duplication matching can be always done server-side. Minidebuginfo may give less load for ABRT servers for example, this does not match the do better phrase. And the symbols for

Re: prelink should not mess with running executables

2012-07-19 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 07:10:18AM -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote: What's a special-case band-aid about it? It looks perfectly reasonable to me. Why wouldn't you restart init? Why would you?If there's nothing wrong with with overwriting an executable, and, after all, that's how UNIX worked

Re: prelink should not mess with running executables

2012-07-20 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 07:08:39AM -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote: ??? prelink most certainly does NOT restart every daemon. prelink restarts init because historically init didn't always re-exec itself at shutdown, which in turn caused the root filesystem to not be cleanly unmounted. There

Re: DWARF 4

2011-12-09 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 01:16:42PM -0700, Jerry James wrote: Are there known obstacles in the way of replacing -g with -gdwarf-4 -fvar-tracking-assignments in our %{optflags}? I'm eager to be rid of gdb telling me that the one value I really have to know to diagnose a crash has been optimized

Results of a test mass rebuild of rawhide/x86_64 with gcc-4.7.0-0.1.fc17

2011-12-31 Thread Jakub Jelinek
Hi! As part of preparations to switch GCC in F17 to GCC 4.7.0, I've performed a test mass rebuild of rawhide (December 23th package list) using gcc-4.7.0-0.1.fc17 on x86_64, and for those packages that failed also rebuilt the same package with gcc-4.6.2-1.fc16 to quickly remove from the list

Re: Results of a test mass rebuild of rawhide/x86_64 with?gcc-4.7.0-0.1.fc17

2011-12-31 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 08:55:53AM -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote: if we plan to do a mass rebuild for gcc 4.7 we need to start it next week. IMHO a mass rebuild is highly desirable, but (with the exception of a few gcj/objc dependent packages not strictly required). We still have lots of *.fc15,

Re: Results of a test mass rebuild of rawhide/x86_64 with gcc-4.7.0-0.1.fc17

2012-01-02 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 09:09:29AM -0700, Nathanael Noblet wrote: On Jan 2, 2012, at 5:30 AM, Nils Philippsen wrote: I've attached a list of packages and (co)maintainers, to easily find if one of your packages is affected or not. It seems one of my packages has an issue, the gcc

Re: Results of a test mass rebuild of rawhide/x86_64 with gcc-4.7.0-0.1.fc17

2012-01-03 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 07:03:44PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote: I have just tried to build iwhd on F16 using a pretty recent gcc-4.7.x (built manually: 4.7.0 20111202), and it worked fine, so I'm not quite sure why iwhd is on the list. Maybe the gcc-4.7.x that Jakub used lacks something

Re: GCC 4.7 build issues: error: no matching function for call...

2012-01-09 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 11:04:33AM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote: I think I'm almost there. I was also troubleshooting parallel make issues but I think I've got that sorted out (thankfully it builds with cmake). The build seems to pause for a while and I see the following output:

Re: Moving gnustep to clang/llvm

2012-01-18 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 06:03:05PM +0100, Jochen Schmitt wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 18.01.2012 17:57, Andrew Haley wrote: The issue was, that during thu build of gnustep-base I have got a error messag which told me, that the file objc/objc-api.h was not

Re: gcc 4.7 changes binary behaviors ?

2012-01-26 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 07:12:43AM +, Sérgio Basto wrote: Hi, hope that also could help Has package builder we also build kBuid http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=7356 , after use kBuid compile with gcc 4.7 I got this error on building virtuaBox

Re: gcc 4.7 changes binary behaviors ?

2012-01-26 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 05:22:20AM +, Sérgio Basto wrote: As an illustration gcore also broke with gcc-4.7 but it was a bug of gcore: http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2011-12/msg00298.html as the code violates ISO C99 6.2.4 item 5 by using local variable outside of its block,

Re: Apple will use LLVM

2012-02-16 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:12:06AM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: The another usual mistake when people compare speed of GCC and LLVM is to use -O2 for the both compilers. But the true is that -O1 of GCC is -O2 of LLVM with the point of code generation quality. The compiler speed of GCC

Re: Apple will use LLVM

2012-02-22 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 08:46:19AM +0100, Roman Rakus wrote: On 02/16/2012 05:33 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: For just -O3 or -O2 -ftree-vectorize we could perhaps have some knob in the spec files to request those extra flags, for PGO it really requires some work from the packager (but e.g. bash

Re: Apple will use LLVM

2012-02-23 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 05:26:25PM +0100, Roman Rakus wrote: On 02/22/2012 09:08 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 08:46:19AM +0100, Roman Rakus wrote: On 02/16/2012 05:33 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: For just -O3 or -O2 -ftree-vectorize we could perhaps have some knob in the spec

Re: C++ ABI rebuilds for rawhide too?

2012-02-29 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 09:38:58AM +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote: On 02/28/2012 09:18 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: Are the same packages going to get automatically rebuilt in rawhide as well as f17? Btw, does anybody have a pointer to that ABI breakage in gcc 4.7 for c++ (i.e., was it an

Re: C++ ABI rebuilds for rawhide too?

2012-02-29 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 09:50:06AM +0100, Dan Horák wrote: Stephan Bergmann píše v St 29. 02. 2012 v 09:38 +0100: On 02/28/2012 09:18 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: Are the same packages going to get automatically rebuilt in rawhide as well as f17? Btw, does anybody have a pointer to

Re: Why we need redhat_lsb_trigger.c in redhat-lsb package?

2012-03-14 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:08:32AM +0100, Niels de Vos wrote: On 03/13/2012 07:04 AM, Xibo Ning wrote: The best solution would probably be to replace the %triggerpostun with a lua scriptlet, something like this (totally untested and you'll need to add the LSB-version somewhere too):

Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

2012-03-20 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 03:19:35PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: This is very much a draft, but I'd like to start a discussion regarding what we expect from primary architectures. Feedback not only welcome, but actively desired. I think the speed of the build hardware should be also part of

Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

2012-03-20 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 08:58:45AM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote: On 03/20/2012 08:24 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: I think the speed of the build hardware should be also part of the criteria, as all primary architectures are built synchronously. GCC on x86_64/i686 currently builds often in 2 hours

Re: compat-gcc-32

2012-03-24 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:16:24PM -0700, Dave Close wrote: How is it possible that Fedora 16 includes package compat-gcc-32-3.2.3-debuginfo.i686.rpm but does not appear to include the underlying compat-gcc-32-3.2.3.i686.rpm? To what does the debuginfo package pertain (it says, This package

  1   2   3   4   >