Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:52:58PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > On 03/20/2012 12:44 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > >Now the ultra ridiculous: How about secondary architecture requirements > >demoted as-is to tertiary. And create substantially more aggressive > >requirements for secondary architectu

Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 13:44 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > Now the ultra ridiculous: How about secondary architecture > requirements demoted as-is to tertiary. And create substantially more > aggressive requirements for secondary architecture (in which ARM would > be placed), yet are not identical re

Re: H.264 in Fedora 17!

Meanwhile, my Fedora post-installation instructions are quite popular on the Internet: http://avi.alkalay.net/2007/06/fedora-post-installation-configurations.html It is link #3 on a "fedora h.264" Google search and I use to keep it updated. On 20/03/2012, at 23:11, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > O

Re: H.264 in Fedora 17!

- Original Message - > On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 22:29 -0400, Fedora Video wrote: > > > In any case. This argument is moot. Fedora will distribute H.264 > > because it will be part of Firefox. > > No, it won't. You persist in misunderstanding this, though it has > been > explained to you. Fir

Re: H.264 in Fedora 17!

On 20.3.2012 23:27, Kevin Kofler wrote: Even YouTube has adopted WebM. What the original author ignored to include was link to http://brendaneich.com/2012/03/video-mobile-and-the-open-web/ which explains the position of MoFo. What he completely missed is bug https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_

Re: Evolution + bogofilter

On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 10:17 -0500, Mike Chambers wrote: > Yes I understand it has to relearn. But it doesn't is the problem. I > had to keep marking them as junk. > > Example, just reinstalled F16+updates on this very box. Started evo + > the backup file as a restore, just as with F17. Soon as

Re: H.264 in Fedora 17!

On 21.3.2012 03:41, Adam Williamson wrote: Firefox will take advantage of a system h264 codec where one is available. In the Fedora system, one will not be available. Fedora as shipped from get.fedoraproject.org won't contain H.264 codec. Which doesn't mean that my computer won't be able to pl

Re: Chromium

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 7:02 AM, Camilo Mesias wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Richard W.M. Jones > wrote: >> which (right now) has precisely one other hit on Google. > > If you search for the demangled symbol, there are more references: > > v8::internal::I18NExtension::get()

Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

- Original Message - > just a side note - I was told by an OpenSUSE on ARM person that they > use > x86 boxes with the user-space qemu virtual machine. It works quite > fast, > but still needs some hacking eg. in test-suites Yep, OpenSUSE uses qemu - it's sometimes not as stable as it shou

Re: Heads up: rpm 4.10.0 alpha to hit rawhide shortly

On 03/20/2012 07:37 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: On 3/20/12 8:10 AM, Jonathan Dieter wrote: Ok, in F16 (and I'm assuming this is also true in Rawhide; unfortunately I don't have a Rawhide tree here to test), fedpkg is in the srpm-build group, and it requires pyrpkg which requires mock which requires

Re: ARM as a primary architecture

On 03/20/2012 05:44 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Jon Masters wrote: > >> > On 03/20/2012 11:52 AM, Peter Jones wrote: >>> >> 7) it can't be a serious maintenance burdon due to build related issues. >>> >>We need a couple of groups to sign off that builds are fast enough, not >>> >>just on a "full dis

Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > I think you're looking at this in slightly the wrong way. Being a > primary architecture isn't meant to be a benefit to the port - it's > meant to be a benefit to Fedora. Adding arm to the PA list means you'll > have to take on a huge numb

Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

- Original Message - > Maybe it's worth to ask them (or look at for example Mer builds) > what's > the difference in build times. A few statistics from build.meego.com - using the OBS and building in qemu. These are really just approximate numbers, built in different times with probably a

[headsup] ghc-7.4.1 coming to a rawhide near you soon

Hi, This is just a headsup that ghc-7.4.1 is going into F18 rawhide. [1] After that all ghc based Haskell packages will need to be rebuilt. This major new version has a lot of new features and performance improvements [2], also incidently including registerized compilation support on ARM using llv

Re: F17 latest yum update hoses grub.cfg, grubby?

Dne 21.3.2012 03:56, Adam Williamson napsal: Properly, it ought to be versioned grub2-2.00-0.1.beta2.fc17. (Or possibly grub2-2.00-0.1.~beta2.fc17, I really dunno what that tilde is for). The tilde is a debianism to mark a pre-release. dpkg understands version 42~foo as lower than 42. Michal -

Re: /usr/share/applications weird error on koji

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Alec Leamas wrote: > On 03/19/2012 02:32 PM, Nikos Roussos wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Alec Leamas wrote: > >> On 03/19/2012 12:50 PM, Nikos Roussos wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I'm trying to build a package. It's an update on >> SparkleShare

Re: Heads up: rpm 4.10.0 alpha to hit rawhide shortly

On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 11:04 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: > I'm starting to consider going dirty and just adding fake library provides > for one build of rpm to get deltarpm "bootstrapped", as I assume > createrepo (and thus deltarpm) doesn't actually get invoked in the srpm > creation phase, ri

[perl-Test-Perl-Critic] Drop tests subpackage and clean up

commit fc4da8936ee6341a05420a021b5488d960df0417 Author: Paul Howarth Date: Wed Mar 21 10:59:45 2012 + Drop tests subpackage and clean up - Drop -tests subpackage (general lack of interest in this), but include them as documentation for the main package - Drop redundan

Re: Heads up: rpm 4.10.0 alpha to hit rawhide shortly

On 03/21/2012 01:03 PM, Jonathan Dieter wrote: On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 11:04 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: I'm starting to consider going dirty and just adding fake library provides for one build of rpm to get deltarpm "bootstrapped", as I assume createrepo (and thus deltarpm) doesn't actually get

Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:41:33AM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > I think you're looking at this in slightly the wrong way. Being a > > primary architecture isn't meant to be a benefit to the port - it's > > meant to be a benefit to Fedo

Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > - Original Message - > >> Maybe it's worth to ask them (or look at for example Mer builds) >> what's >> the difference in build times. > > A few statistics from build.meego.com - using the OBS and building in > qemu. These are real

Re: ARM as a primary architecture

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: > On 3/20/12 9:30 AM, Jon Masters wrote: >> >> Hi again, >> >> I want to thank you, and everyone else in FESCo for talking with us >> yesterday, and for looking over the proposal. Bear in mind, it's a work >> in progress. We intend to have broa

Re: F17 latest yum update hoses grub.cfg, grubby?

> The yum update didn't update grub, but it did update the kernel. This is > the first time you have done a kernel update via yum with the new grub2. > > grubby updates the grub.cfg file. seems reproducible. My grub config is pretty empty, too. During update, I get something an error: grubby fat

Re: ARM as a primary architecture

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:36 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 13:39 -0400, Peter Jones wrote: > >> >> 4) when milestones occur, arm needs to be just as testible as other >> >>     primary architectures >> > >> > So we have a new hire (hi Paul) who is looking at autoqa, and we're

Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 05:04 -0400, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > - Original Message - > > just a side note - I was told by an OpenSUSE on ARM person that they > > use > > x86 boxes with the user-space qemu virtual machine. It works quite > > fast, > > but still needs some hacking eg. in test-sui

Re: ARM as a primary architecture

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Peter Jones wrote: >> In yesterday's FESCo meeting I told you I'd make a list of specific issues >> I have with the current proposal for ARM as a primary archictecture. There >> are some places where I think the current proposal fails to deal

Re: ARM as a primary architecture

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> Peter Jones wrote: >>> In yesterday's FESCo meeting I told you I'd make a list of specific issues >>> I have with the current proposal for ARM as a primary archictecture. There >>> ar

Re: ARM as a primary architecture

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 12:12:25PM +, Peter Robinson wrote: > How was this handled in the case of PPC? My understanding is that due > to legal reasons the Fedora Project never officially provided access > to PPC machines. There were a number of machines that users could get > access to that wer

Re: Mass deduplication and reassignment of ABRT bugs

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 08:58:36PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > Here's another suspicious action: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/714364#3 > > Is anybody from the ABRT team watching these actions? > The bot closed bug 714364 (gtk2) as duplicate of bug 701926 > (rhythmbox) and did the same

Re: Mass deduplication and reassignment of ABRT bugs

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 02:56:40PM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > Miroslav Lichvar wrote: > >If you find a suspicious action, please let us know at > >crash-catc...@lists.fedorahosted.org or file a ticket at > >https://fedorahosted.org/abrt. > > What about bugs that your script did not catch

Re: ARM as a primary architecture

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: 1) mechanisms need to be in place to get package maintainers access to fix     arm-specific bugs in their packages >>> >>> >>> So we have a tracker bug at the moment. Is that sufficient? If so, we >>> obviously should make sure

Re: ARM as a primary architecture

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 12:12:25PM +, Peter Robinson wrote: >> How was this handled in the case of PPC? My understanding is that due >> to legal reasons the Fedora Project never officially provided access >> to PPC machines. There we

Re: Mass deduplication and reassignment of ABRT bugs

Miroslav Lichvar wrote: We don't try to deduplicate python bugs yet. (only by the abrt_hash field in bugzilla) Every dupe bug has the same abrt_hash in the Whiteboard: abrt_hash:01acb9e5787833cdbc03832f71e787ef531f1cd -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproje

Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:41:33AM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Matthew Garrett >> wrote: >> > I think you're looking at this in slightly the wrong way. Being a >> > primary architecture isn't meant to

Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 12:08 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > >> 2) Updates.  Submitting updates requires the entire build to be complete >> which means you have to wait for the slowest thing to finish.  Having to >> wait for 12 hours effectively

Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:41:33AM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Matthew Garrett >> wrote: >> > I think you're looking at this in slightly the wrong way. Being a >> > primary architecture isn't meant t

Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > - Original Message - > >> Maybe it's worth to ask them (or look at for example Mer builds) >> what's >> the difference in build times. > > A few statistics from build.meego.com - using the OBS and building in > qemu. These are real

Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 7:13 AM, David Tardon wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:52:58PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote: >> On 03/20/2012 12:44 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >Now the ultra ridiculous: How about secondary architecture requirements >> >demoted as-is to tertiary. And create substantiall

Re: Mass deduplication and reassignment of ABRT bugs

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 08:08:13AM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > Miroslav Lichvar wrote: > >We don't try to deduplicate python bugs yet. (only by the abrt_hash > >field in bugzilla) > > Every dupe bug has the same abrt_hash in the Whiteboard: > abrt_hash:01acb9e5787833cdbc03832f71e787ef531f1

Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 01:26:58PM +, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > The expectation would be that the architecture maintainers have fixed > > everything before moving to being a primary architecture, so this should > > only be an issue if

Re: Mass deduplication and reassignment of ABRT bugs

On 03/21/2012 02:32 PM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 08:08:13AM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: Miroslav Lichvar wrote: We don't try to deduplicate python bugs yet. (only by the abrt_hash field in bugzilla) Every dupe bug has the same abrt_hash in the Whiteboard: abrt_has

Re: Mass deduplication and reassignment of ABRT bugs

Michael Cronenworth writes: > Miroslav Lichvar wrote: >> We don't try to deduplicate python bugs yet. (only by the abrt_hash >> field in bugzilla) > > Every dupe bug has the same abrt_hash in the Whiteboard: > abrt_hash:01acb9e5787833cdbc03832f71e787ef531f1cd which is very, very odd. what we fir

Re: SPDY in F18 (was Re: F17 httpd 2.4?)

W dniu 13 marca 2012 21:59 użytkownik Michał Piotrowski napisał: > 2012/2/21 Jon Ciesla : >> 2012/2/21 Michał Piotrowski : >>> Hi, >>> >>> Is there a chance to get httpd 2.4 in Fedora 17 >>> http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/Announcement2.4.html >>> ? >>> >>> This is the first major release from a

Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

On 03/21/2012 09:21 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: Except when people are forced to look at it, their solution was often ExcludeArch for PPC. As I said in the other thread, you cannot force people to care about an architecture they don't know or want to learn. That suggests we need a FTBFS-like nightl

Re: ARM as a primary architecture

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: > 1) mechanisms need to be in place to get package maintainers access to > fix >     arm-specific bugs in their packages So we have a tracker bug at the moment. I

[perl-Test-Perl-Critic] Remove unused patch

commit 0a5b90bb2f3179fb463d66e196a77fce930ed142 Author: Paul Howarth Date: Wed Mar 21 13:59:13 2012 + Remove unused patch .gitignore |2 +- perl-Test-Perl-Critic-1.01-fixtest.patch | 21 - 2 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 22 del

Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Peter Jones wrote: > On 03/21/2012 09:21 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: > >> Except when people are forced to look at it, their solution was often >> ExcludeArch for PPC.  As I said in the other thread, you cannot force >> people to care about an architecture they don't kno

Re: SPDY in F18 (was Re: F17 httpd 2.4?)

2012/3/13 Michał Piotrowski : > 2012/2/21 Jon Ciesla : >> 2012/2/21 Michał Piotrowski : >>> Hi, >>> >>> Is there a chance to get httpd 2.4 in Fedora 17 >>> http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/Announcement2.4.html >>> ? >>> >>> This is the first major release from a few years and has some nice features

Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Peter Jones wrote: > On 03/21/2012 09:21 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: > >> Except when people are forced to look at it, their solution was often >> ExcludeArch for PPC.  As I said in the other thread, you cannot force >> people to care about an architecture they don't kno

Re: SPDY in F18 (was Re: F17 httpd 2.4?)

2012/3/21 Peter Robinson : > 2012/3/13 Michał Piotrowski : >> 2012/2/21 Jon Ciesla : >>> 2012/2/21 Michał Piotrowski : Hi, Is there a chance to get httpd 2.4 in Fedora 17 http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/Announcement2.4.html ? This is the first major release from

Re: ARM as a primary architecture

On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 12:26 +, Peter Robinson wrote: > No, we've never said that ever! But then there are a lot of desktops > that run just fine without OpenGL. 3D really wasn't in a great state > even in x86 until Fedora 15 with a lot of drivers only doing it > partially or not at all, even n

Re: ARM as a primary architecture

On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 13:32 +0100, drago01 wrote: > Even though I disagree with Kevin that we should block on "does not > have 3D drivers" .. OpenGL is imo > even more important on ARM (non server systems) then on x86. > > A tablet or smartphone without hardware accelerated rendering is just > us

Re: ARM as a primary architecture

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: > On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 12:26 +, Peter Robinson wrote: > >> No, we've never said that ever! But then there are a lot of desktops >> that run just fine without OpenGL. 3D really wasn't in a great state >> even in x86 until Fedora 15 with a lo

Re: ARM as a primary architecture

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 02:28:10PM +, Peter Robinson wrote: > What about all the other xorg-x11-drv* video cards, admittedly they're > generally considered legacy but there are a lot that don't do 3D at > all there. Of the hardware still produced, they're either things Adam listed as unsuppo

Re: ARM as a primary architecture

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: > On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 13:32 +0100, drago01 wrote: > >> Even though I disagree with Kevin that we should block on "does not >> have 3D drivers" .. OpenGL is imo >> even more important on ARM (non server systems) then on x86. >> >> A tablet or s

Re: ARM as a primary architecture

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: > On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 13:32 +0100, drago01 wrote: > >> Even though I disagree with Kevin that we should block on "does not >> have 3D drivers" .. OpenGL is imo >> even more important on ARM (non server systems) then on x86. >> >> A tablet or s

Re: ARM as a primary architecture

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 02:28:10PM +, Peter Robinson wrote: > >> What about all the other xorg-x11-drv* video cards, admittedly they're >> generally considered legacy but there are a lot that don't do 3D at >> all there. > > Of the hard

Re: ARM as a primary architecture

Peter Robinson (pbrobin...@gmail.com) said: > That's my point, I don't believe that working 3D should be a blocker > to primary arch because like mainline it will likely come with both > time and demand. Is llvmpipe not 'working'? (Admittedly, on low-power CPUs like ARM, it might be more of a bur

Re: ARM as a primary architecture

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Peter Robinson (pbrobin...@gmail.com) said: >> That's my point, I don't believe that working 3D should be a blocker >> to primary arch because like mainline it will likely come with both >> time and demand. > > Is llvmpipe not 'working'? (A

Re: ARM as a primary architecture

On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 14:31 +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 02:28:10PM +, Peter Robinson wrote: > > > What about all the other xorg-x11-drv* video cards, admittedly they're > > generally considered legacy but there are a lot that don't do 3D at > > all there. > > Of th

Re: ARM as a primary architecture

On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 10:38 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Peter Robinson (pbrobin...@gmail.com) said: > > That's my point, I don't believe that working 3D should be a blocker > > to primary arch because like mainline it will likely come with both > > time and demand. > > Is llvmpipe not 'workin

Fwd: Re: Release Notes Update

From the docs@ list, FYI, in case someone has some time in which they can contribute to release notes for desktop, system daemons, web servers, or for that matter any other existing beats: - Forwarded message from "John J. McDonough" - On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 23:27 -0400, Christopher R. An

Re: ARM as a primary architecture

Peter Jones (pjo...@redhat.com) said: > In yesterday's FESCo meeting I told you I'd make a list of specific issues > I have with the current proposal for ARM as a primary archictecture. There > are some places where I think the current proposal fails to deal with some > necessary aspects of becomi

Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 01:27:04PM +, Peter Robinson wrote: > All sorts of things can speed it up, most of the Fedora builders are > currently loopback ext4 over NFS over 100Mb ethernet over USB. Not > optimal. Just switching them to ext2 would save a ton of IO. The buildroots get regenerat

Re: F17 latest yum update hoses grub.cfg, grubby?

On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 20:30 -0700, John Reiser wrote: > On 03/20/2012 06:24 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > After a yum update a few minutes ago, GRUB's kinda messed up. Anyone else? > > Yes, it happened to me, too, after booting an up-to-the-minute anaconda > install DVD > for _update_ (not fresh in

Re: F17 latest yum update hoses grub.cfg, grubby?

On 03/21/2012 02:27 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 00:12 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mar 21, 2012, at 12:08 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: It seems reasonable to consider this a grubby bug, yes? Considering grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/grub2/grub.cfg produces the exact correct resul

Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Dave Jones wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 01:27:04PM +, Peter Robinson wrote: >  > All sorts of things can speed it up, most of the Fedora builders are >  > currently loopback ext4 over NFS over 100Mb ethernet over USB. Not >  > optimal. > > Just switching th

Re: ARM as a primary architecture

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: > On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 14:31 +, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 02:28:10PM +, Peter Robinson wrote: >> >> > What about all the other xorg-x11-drv* video cards, admittedly they're >> > generally considered legacy but th

Re: ARM as a primary architecture

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: > On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 10:38 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: >> Peter Robinson (pbrobin...@gmail.com) said: >> > That's my point, I don't believe that working 3D should be a blocker >> > to primary arch because like mainline it will likely come w

File Wx-0.9905.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by spot

A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Wx: 757f337a14869a3fdfa8ebd3444159b1 Wx-0.9905.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl

[perl-Wx] 0.9905

commit d69eb2b96252d3a54d531a551b37ecbb91a9d94e Author: Tom Callaway Date: Wed Mar 21 11:29:39 2012 -0400 0.9905 .gitignore |1 + perl-Wx.spec |7 ++- sources |2 +- 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore index c664

Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

> > So probably using Qemu could speed it up quite a lot. Also OBS > > offers > > quite a lot of flexibility to decouple arch builds, disable > > selected > > archs etc. But I'm not sure about the processes for chain builds, > > updates, how they make the builds consistent (if one arch fails)... >

Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

On 03/21/2012 10:58 AM, Dave Jones wrote: On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 01:27:04PM +, Peter Robinson wrote: > All sorts of things can speed it up, most of the Fedora builders are > currently loopback ext4 over NFS over 100Mb ethernet over USB. Not > optimal. Just switching them to ext2 wo

Re: H.264 in Fedora 17!

On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 09:55 +0100, Matej Cepl wrote: > On 21.3.2012 03:41, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Firefox will take advantage of a system h264 codec where one is > > available. In the Fedora system, one will not be available. > > Fedora as shipped from get.fedoraproject.org won't contain H.264

Re: ARM as a primary architecture

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Peter Jones (pjo...@redhat.com) said: >> In yesterday's FESCo meeting I told you I'd make a list of specific issues >> I have with the current proposal for ARM as a primary archictecture. There >> are some places where I think the current p

Re: F17 latest yum update hoses grub.cfg, grubby?

On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 11:20 +0100, Michal Schmidt wrote: > Dne 21.3.2012 03:56, Adam Williamson napsal: > > Properly, it ought to be versioned grub2-2.00-0.1.beta2.fc17. (Or possibly > > grub2-2.00-0.1.~beta2.fc17, I really dunno what that tilde is for). > > The tilde is a debianism to mark a pre-

Re: /usr/share/applications weird error on koji

On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 19:10 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > The usual way to make this selectable is with a parameter for the > package's configure script, something like --disable-desktop-update . > > These days, it seems like very few packages need this any more. I don't > know if upstreams hav

Re: ARM as a primary architecture

On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 14:28 +, Peter Robinson wrote: > > So it's a little like saying "we only support x86 chips from Intel, AMD, > > and VIA". Okay, yeah, maybe that's fair, but those are actually all > > there is to care about. > > What about all the other xorg-x11-drv* video cards, admitt

Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:32:04AM -0400, Zach Brown wrote: > On 03/21/2012 10:58 AM, Dave Jones wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 01:27:04PM +, Peter Robinson wrote: > > > All sorts of things can speed it up, most of the Fedora builders are > > > currently loopback ext4 over NFS ove

Re: F17 latest yum update hoses grub.cfg, grubby?

On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 11:17 -0400, Peter Jones wrote: > On 03/21/2012 02:27 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 00:12 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > >> On Mar 21, 2012, at 12:08 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: > >> > >>> It seems reasonable to consider this a grubby bug, yes? > >> > >> > >>

Re: /usr/share/applications weird error on koji

On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 12:51 +0200, Nikos Roussos wrote: > I wrote a small patch to comment out this line and it worked just > fine. I'll file a bug upstream. A patch to simply remove the update-desktop-database call is unlikely to be accepted upstream, as people building for themselves want the

[Bug 804420] perl-Wx-0.9905 is available

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804420 --- Comment #1 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2012-03-21 12:13:23 EDT --- 0.9905 is in rawhide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzi

[Bug 804420] perl-Wx-0.9905 is available

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804420 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added ---

rawhide report: 20120321 changes

Compose started at Wed Mar 21 08:15:05 UTC 2012 Broken deps for x86_64 -- [HippoDraw] HippoDraw-devel-1.21.3-2.fc17.i686 requires python-numarray HippoDraw-devel-1.21.3-2.fc17.x86_64 requires python-numarray HippoDraw-

Re: F17 bogus "could not detect partitions" error

On Mar 20, 2012, at 12:52 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > Proposed as blocker, F17 Final. > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=805272 Does anyone know how GRUB2 (bootloader+core, grub2-install, grub2-mkconfig) will behave in a case where there is a valid legacy MBR and a stale GPT remains b

Re: Reminder. Please build ImageMagick dependencies until March 23

On 03/21/2012 04:33 PM, Pavel Alexeev wrote: Hello All. As was announced before ImageMagick-6.7.5.6-3.fc17 now in build overrides. Please build your package against it (and answer there if it not so hard). 23 march I'll push one update for Fedora 17. -- With best wishes, Pavel Alexeev (aka Pah

Re: Broken dependencies: parcellite

Am Mittwoch, den 21.03.2012, 12:52 + schrieb build...@fedoraproject.org: > > parcellite has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree: > On i386: > parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) > parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0

Re: Broken dependencies: parcellite

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote: > Am Mittwoch, den 21.03.2012, 12:52 + schrieb > build...@fedoraproject.org: >> >> parcellite has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree: >> On i386: >>       parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) >>  

Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

On 03/21/2012 05:25 AM, Chris Tyler wrote: Fully-emulated actually fits into the "Native Builds" guideline, but it hasn't been economical to use this approach because there's no hardware support for ARM emulation on x86 (the way that there is hardware acceleration for x86 virtualization on x86) a

Re: Reminder. Please build ImageMagick dependencies until March 23

21.03.2012 20:31, Marcela Mašláňová написал: On 03/21/2012 04:33 PM, Pavel Alexeev wrote: Hello All. As was announced before ImageMagick-6.7.5.6-3.fc17 now in build overrides. Please build your package against it (and answer there if it not so hard). 23 march I'll push one update for Fedora 17

Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

On 3/21/12 6:52 AM, Peter Jones wrote: On 03/21/2012 09:21 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: Except when people are forced to look at it, their solution was often ExcludeArch for PPC. As I said in the other thread, you cannot force people to care about an architecture they don't know or want to learn. Th

Re: F17 latest yum update hoses grub.cfg, grubby?

On Mar 21, 2012, at 9:17 AM, Peter Jones wrote: > We definitely want to keep using grubby instead of running grub2-mkconfig and > clobbering whatever's in your config file every time. *shrug* I think grubby makes for an increasingly cluttered grub.cfg. With the latest behavior I'm seeing with 2

[perl-IO-InSitu/f17] Initial import (#605674).

Summary of changes: 42abd26... Initial import (#605674). (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproje

Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

On 3/21/12 10:36 AM, Brendan Conoboy wrote: The main place I see ARM emulation being useful is in allowing any packager with an x86 host to boot a simulated ARM host to resolve build failures in their package. That's not ideal- ideal is every package owner has an ARM system they can use, but it'

Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

On 03/21/2012 06:26 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: Thanks Adam, this is the first real use case where speed of builds is important for something other than keeping the developer happy. Other points raised on the list are: 1. The nature of chainbuilds would feel slowed build times particularly. Th

Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 06:07:57 -0400 (EDT) Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > - Original Message - > > > Maybe it's worth to ask them (or look at for example Mer builds) > > what's > > the difference in build times. > > A few statistics from build.meeg

Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:12:58 -0400 Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Peter Jones > wrote: > > On 03/21/2012 09:21 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > >> Except when people are forced to look at it, their solution was > >> often ExcludeArc

Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 06:07:57 -0400 (EDT) > Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > >> - Original Message - >> >> > Maybe it's worth to ask them (or look at for example Mer builds) >> > what's >>

Re: Reminder. Please build ImageMagick dependencies until March 23

On 03/21/2012 11:42 AM, Pavel Alexeev wrote: 21.03.2012 20:31, Marcela Mašláňová написал: On 03/21/2012 04:33 PM, Pavel Alexeev wrote: Hello All. As was announced before ImageMagick-6.7.5.6-3.fc17 now in build overrides. Please build your package against it (and answer there if it not so hard)

File IO-InSitu-0.0.2.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by wfp

A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-IO-InSitu: 69e55eda0c3d0e5597b88a9ccf9fbfc3 IO-InSitu-0.0.2.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/

  1   2   >