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

On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 at 12:26, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: [..] > # dnf -C repoquery --qf "%{name}.%{arch} %{source_name} %{reponame}" | > grep -w rawhide | grep x86_64 | awk '{print $2}' | sort | uniq | wc -l > Last metadata expiration check: 0:03:06 ago on Tue 10 Jul 2018 12:17:44 BST. > 9314 Just

Orphaning eclipse-xtext and dependencies

eclipse-xtext and its dependencies eclipse-xpand and eclipse-emf-mwe have just been orphaned. Eclipse SIG has no use of these packages anymore (despite them being really active upstream), the build system is quite complicated and they haven't been properly kept upto date lately. -- Alexander

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

Hi, On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 08:42:09AM +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > At the bottom I want only flag that people like Igor as they have > proven packager perms are able to make at the end more harm than good. > I don't know him (how experienced developer he really is) as my only > personal

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

On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 at 12:52, Till Maas wrote: [..] > > PS. And really I don't care that again above will be taken as kind of > > personal attack (which is not my intention). > > The Fedora Code of Conduct is not optional therefore I expect you to > care about this. If you believe your e-mail

Re: Hiding the grub menu by default on single OS installs

Hello Everyone, Regarding boot success determination: For the current Fedora GSoC project that I am participating in, I wrote greenboot, a generic health check framework for systemd: https://github.com/LorbusChris/greenboot In greenboot, health checks can be defined in the form of scripts and/or

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

On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 at 13:35, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > IMO even if he has some potential I'm guessing that he is still > relatively young and if it is true he may still need proper mentoring Not cool, you stepped over the line. Igor has done some great work in Fedora in the last few months.

Re: [HEADS UP] gcc/gcc-c++ removal from buildroot and more

Thank you for pushing this forward! One question though. I see that this works in Koji, but trying to test this locally it does not work. 1) $ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 rubygem-abrt-0.3.0-3.fc29.src.rpm --enablerepo=local This still installs gcc. 2) $ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64

Re: [HEADS UP] gcc/gcc-c++ removal from buildroot and more

Hi, On Tue, 2018-07-10 at 12:14 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > One question though. I see that this works in Koji, but trying to > test this locally it does not work. > 1) $ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 rubygem-abrt-0.3.0-3.fc29.src.rpm > --enablerepo=local > This still installs gcc. > 2) $ mock -r

Re: [HEADS UP] gcc/gcc-c++ removal from buildroot and more

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 2:17 AM Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 at 01:02, Tomasz Kłoczko > wrote: > [..] > > > F28: > > > DEBUG util.py:439: Install 179 Packages > > > DEBUG util.py:439: Total download size: 146 M > > > DEBUG util.py:439: Installed size: 570 M > > > > > > F29: >

Re: [HEADS UP] gcc/gcc-c++ removal from buildroot and more

On 07/10/2018 12:14 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Thank you for pushing this forward! > > > One question though. I see that this works in Koji, but trying to test > this locally it does not work. It should work with config generated with "koji mock-config" command: koji mock-config --tag

Re: [HEADS UP] gcc/gcc-c++ removal from buildroot and more

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 12:22 PM Vít Ondruch wrote: > Thank you for pushing this forward! > > > One question though. I see that this works in Koji, but trying to test > this locally it does not work. > > 1) $ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 rubygem-abrt-0.3.0-3.fc29.src.rpm > --enablerepo=local >

Re: [HEADS UP] gcc/gcc-c++ removal from buildroot and more

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 2:12 AM Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 at 00:17, Igor Gnatenko > wrote: > [..] > > But looking into simple package build for f28 and f29 I see some nice > trend. > > > > F28: > > DEBUG util.py:439: Install 179 Packages > > DEBUG util.py:439: Total

Re: Packages which needlessly use %defattr

On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 7:53 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> "KF" == Kevin Fenzi writes: > > KF> I agree. If this could be done before mass rebuild we can catch any > KF> issues/typos/mistakes in this with the mass rebuild. > > I've been away from computers for a bit, but I could certainly

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

Dne 10.7.2018 v 14:03 Tomasz Kłoczko napsal(a): > On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 at 12:26, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > [..] >> # dnf -C repoquery --qf "%{name}.%{arch} %{source_name} %{reponame}" | >> grep -w rawhide | grep x86_64 | awk '{print $2}' | sort | uniq | wc -l >> Last metadata expiration check:

Orphaning metamorphose2

Good Morning Everyone, metamorphose2 is a small wxPython (GUI) app allowing to mass-rename files. The last commit upstream is from July 22nd 2016, so almost 2 years ago. It fails to build from source now. I'm intending to orphan it. If someone is interested in picking it up, let me know and

Re: F29 System Wide Change: Zchunk Metadata

On Mon, 2018-07-09 at 18:48 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > Can we update the language on the Change page to clarify that? I thought I had explained at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Zchunk_Metadata#Upgrade.2Fcompat ibility_impact Is there something I should put that would make it clearer?

Re: F29 System Wide Change: Zchunk Metadata

On Tue, 2018-07-10 at 08:34 +0100, Jonathan Dieter wrote: > On Mon, 2018-07-09 at 18:48 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > Can we update the language on the Change page to clarify that? > > I thought I had explained at: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Zchunk_Metadata#Upgrade.2Fcompat >

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

On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 at 06:37, David Tardon wrote: [..] > > My proposition is *not* to add gcc/g++ explicit to BuildReequires and > > use instead glibc-devel and libstdc++-devel modifications and ban use > > gcc/gcc-c++ in BuildRequires (in most of the cases all current > > gcc/g++ > >

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

Dne 10.7.2018 v 09:42 Tomasz Kłoczko napsal(a): > On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 at 06:37, David Tardon wrote: > [..] >>> My proposition is *not* to add gcc/g++ explicit to BuildReequires and >>> use instead glibc-devel and libstdc++-devel modifications and ban use >>> gcc/gcc-c++ in BuildRequires (in

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

On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 at 10:57, Vít Ondruch wrote: [..] > Explicit "BR: gcc" definitely does the switch to other compiler easier, > because one of the main question for this change was actually "how many > packages actually requires C/C++" and it was quite tricky to answer such > question. Now it

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

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 3:12 PM Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > Dne 10.7.2018 v 14:03 Tomasz Kłoczko napsal(a): > > On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 at 12:26, Tomasz Kłoczko > wrote: > > [..] > >> # dnf -C repoquery --qf "%{name}.%{arch} %{source_name} %{reponame}" | > >> grep -w rawhide | grep x86_64 | awk

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

- Original Message - > From: "Tomasz Kłoczko" > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > > Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 2:27:40 PM > Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] Removal of GCC from the buildroot > > On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 at 12:52, Till Maas wrote: > [..] > > > PS. And really I

Fedora Atomic Host Two Week Release Announcement: 28.20180708.0

A new Fedora Atomic Host update is available via an OSTree update: Version: 28.20180708.0 Commit(x86_64): 5736e832b1fd59208465458265136fbe2aa4ba89517d8bdcc91bc84724f40a8e Commit(aarch64): 4066f8e2f2f13709d0cf9a562a1f24cd2459bdc9f13e1ea1034a367586f79dac Commit(ppc64le):

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

Igor Gnatenko wrote: > As per Changes/Remove GCC from BuildRoot > , I'm > going to automatically add BuildRequires: gcc and/or BuildRequires: > gcc-c++ to packages which fail to build with common messages (like gcc: > command not

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

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 05:44:50PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > I still think that this change is absolutely counterproductive, because it > will actually INCREASE local mock build times for all C/C++ programs for all > packagers, because gcc and gcc-c++ will no longer be included in the root

Re: Packages which needlessly use %defattr

On 07/10/2018 08:53 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 10.7.2018 17:45, Till Maas wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:36:08AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> >>> I haven't written any scripts which modify specfiles, only scripts which >>> find issues.  And in any case: >>> >>>

Re: Packages which needlessly use %defattr

On 10.7.2018 17:45, Till Maas wrote: Hi, On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:36:08AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: I haven't written any scripts which modify specfiles, only scripts which find issues. And in any case: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mass_package_changes#Automated_cleanup

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

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 5:52 PM Kevin Kofler wrote: > Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > As per Changes/Remove GCC from BuildRoot > > , I'm > > going to automatically add BuildRequires: gcc and/or BuildRequires: > > gcc-c++ to packages

Fedora Rawhide-20180710.n.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 19/138 (x86_64), 23/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20180709.n.0): ID: 256117 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso base_update_cli URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/256117 ID: 256131 Test: x86_64

Re: Plan to update Brotli to 1.0.5 in Rawhide

So did anyone try to see if there were any problems or did they not try it yet? Kinda new to the collaborating thing with potentially ABI breaking updates and am not sure whether I should proceed or not, and I don't really want to accidentally cause a repeat of the "unannounced soname bump" thing

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20180710.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20180709.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20180710.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:5 Dropped images: 1 Added packages: 2 Dropped packages:8 Upgraded packages: 154 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 892.89 KiB Size of dropped packages

Re: Plan to update Brotli to 1.0.5 in Rawhide

On Tue, 2018-07-10 at 11:43 -0500, po...@pouar.net wrote: > So did anyone try to see if there were any problems or did they not try it > yet? Kinda new to the collaborating thing with potentially ABI breaking > updates and am not sure whether I should proceed or not, and I don't really > want to

Re: Packages which needlessly use %defattr

> "NK" == Nico Kadel-Garcia writes: NK> Would you please post, or post a link to, your updated filter NK> script? It remains at https://pagure.io/fedora-misc-package-utilities : https://pagure.io/fedora-misc-package-utilities/blob/master/f/find-needless-defattr I currently have no unpushed

Re: Packages which needlessly use %defattr

Hi, On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:36:08AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > I haven't written any scripts which modify specfiles, only scripts which > find issues. And in any case: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mass_package_changes#Automated_cleanup > > Besides... this is git. And

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

On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 5:44:50 PM CEST Kevin Kofler wrote: > Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > > As per Changes/Remove GCC from BuildRoot > > , I'm > > going to automatically add BuildRequires: gcc and/or BuildRequires: > > gcc-c++ to

Re: Packages which needlessly use %defattr

In case it wasn't obvious from all of the commit messages, I did go ahead and remove many needless %defattr directives from a large number of packages a few hours ago. I used the output of the find-needless-defattr script from https://pagure.io/fedora-misc-package-utilities as a guide for which

Re: [HEADS UP] gcc/gcc-c++ removal from buildroot and more

On 07/10/2018 03:36 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 12:22 PM Vít Ondruch wrote: > >> Thank you for pushing this forward! >> >> >> One question though. I see that this works in Koji, but trying to test >> this locally it does not work. >> >> 1) $ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64

Re: [atomic-announce] Fedora Atomic Host Two Week Release Announcement: 28.20180708.0

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 8:28 PM, wrote: > > A new Fedora Atomic Host update is available via an OSTree update: > > Version: 28.20180708.0 > Commit(x86_64): 5736e832b1fd59208465458265136f > be2aa4ba89517d8bdcc91bc84724f40a8e > Commit(aarch64): 4066f8e2f2f13709d0cf9a562a1f24 >

Re: GCC 8/9 ABI change: call for rebuilds

On Tue, 2018-07-10 at 15:31 -0400, Marek Polacek wrote: > Recently a serious bug in the compiler was discovered whereby we miscompiled > several packages. The problem only occurs in C++ programs that contain a class > with a trivial move constructor and deleted copy constructor. For such >

Re: F29 System Wide Change: OpenLDAP without Non-threaded Libraries

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:28:40PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 07/10/2018 10:19 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > >On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 11:26:02AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > >>On 07/03/2018 10:13 AM, Jan Kurik wrote: > >>>= Proposed System Wide Change: OpenLDAP without

Re: F29 System Wide Change: uEFI for ARMv7

On 07/10/2018 04:22 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 10:14:43PM -0700, Thomas Daede wrote: >> On 07/03/2018 05:15 AM, Jan Kurik wrote: >>> Move to uEFI as the default boot mechanism for ARMv7 devices. >> >> Will this work with virt-manager too? Currently, while

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

On 07/03/2018 05:39 AM, Jan Kurik wrote: > = Proposed System Wide Change: ZRAM support for ARM images = > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ZRAMforARMimages > > > Owner(s): > * Peter Robinson > > > Enable ZRAM for swap on ARMv7 and aarch64 pre generated images to > improve performance

Re: Packages which use the BuildRoot: directive

Unfortunately it seems that many of these packages have had the BuildRoot tags _added back in_ after previously having them removed. A number of the commits even delete existing changelog entries, a sure sign that someone is just copying the specfile from some outside source. As a reminder, the

Re: Plan to update Brotli to 1.0.5 in Rawhide

On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 11:30:12 -0700 Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2018-07-10 at 11:43 -0500, po...@pouar.net wrote: > > So did anyone try to see if there were any problems or did they not try > > it yet? Kinda new to the collaborating thing with potentially ABI > > breaking updates and am not

GCC 8/9 ABI change: call for rebuilds

Recently a serious bug in the compiler was discovered whereby we miscompiled several packages. The problem only occurs in C++ programs that contain a class with a trivial move constructor and deleted copy constructor. For such programs, the calling convention changed inappropriately, in the sense

Packages which use the BuildRoot: directive

The Packaging Guidelines indicate that BuildRoot: should not be used in Fedora specfiles. The BuildRoot: tag has not been required since RHEL6 and was also not required in EPEL5 (due to some magic in epel-rpm-macros). It has not been needed in any Fedora release since at least Fedora 12. It has

Re: F29 System Wide Change: uEFI for ARMv7

On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 10:14:43PM -0700, Thomas Daede wrote: > On 07/03/2018 05:15 AM, Jan Kurik wrote: > > Move to uEFI as the default boot mechanism for ARMv7 devices. > > Will this work with virt-manager too? Currently, while aarch64 boots via > uEFI there, it seems that armv7 is only

Re: Packages which use the BuildRoot: directive

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 03:03:56PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > The usual lists are below. Feel free to fix your packages if you like; > there should be no need to rebuild. I will wait a few days and then fix > up the instances which remain. Thanks! It'll be nice to see BuildRoot

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

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 06:03:33PM +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 5:52 PM Kevin Kofler wrote: > > > Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > > As per Changes/Remove GCC from BuildRoot > > > , I'm > > > going to

Packages which use banned tags

The packaging guidelines indicate that the following tags must not be used: Copyright: Packager: Vendor: PreReq: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections I wasn't aware that a package would even build if the first three were used, but it seems that a few

Re: F29 System Wide Change: OpenLDAP without Non-threaded Libraries

On 07/10/2018 10:19 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 11:26:02AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: On 07/03/2018 10:13 AM, Jan Kurik wrote: = Proposed System Wide Change: OpenLDAP without Non-threaded Libraries =

Re: F29 System Wide Change: OpenLDAP without Non-threaded Libraries

On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 11:26:02AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 07/03/2018 10:13 AM, Jan Kurik wrote: > >= Proposed System Wide Change: OpenLDAP without Non-threaded Libraries = > >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OpenLDAPwithoutNonthreadedLibraries > > >OpenLDAP will not ship

Re: F29 System Wide Change: uEFI for ARMv7

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

cvc4 license change

The license of cvc4 has been corrected from GPv3+ to "Boost and BSD and MIT". Since that is a less restrictive license, it should cause no issues. -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/ ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To

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

On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 02:39:05PM +0200, Jan Kurik wrote: > = Proposed System Wide Change: ZRAM support for ARM images = > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ZRAMforARMimages > > > Owner(s): > * Peter Robinson > > > Enable ZRAM for swap on ARMv7 and aarch64 pre generated images to >

Intent to retire cryptominisat4

With cvc4 1.6 building in Rawhide right now, the last Fedora user of cryptominisat 4.x is gone. All Fedora consumers are now on cryptominisat 5.x, which is in the cryptominisat package. Consequently, I intend to retire the cryptominisat4 package soon. If somebody needs it, let me know and I will

[Bug 1599722] New: perl-Test-mysqld-1.0010 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599722 Bug ID: 1599722 Summary: perl-Test-mysqld-1.0010 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-Test-mysqld Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee:

[Bug 1596132] CVE-2018-10860 perl-Archive-Zip: Directory traversal in Archive::Zip [fedora-all]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1596132 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In Version|

[Bug 1596132] CVE-2018-10860 perl-Archive-Zip: Directory traversal in Archive::Zip [fedora-all]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1596132 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Archive-Zip-1.60-3.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-6abfa0012f -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC

[Bug 1596132] CVE-2018-10860 perl-Archive-Zip: Directory traversal in Archive::Zip [fedora-all]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1596132 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Archive-Zip-1.59-6.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-ebebe9abe2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC

[Bug 1599499] perl-PPIx-Regexp-0.061 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599499 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version|

[Bug 1588760] CVE-2018-12015 perl: Directory traversal in Archive::Tar

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1588760 --- Doc Text *updated* by Eric Christensen --- It was found that the Archive::Tar module did not properly sanitize symbolic links when extracting tar archives. An attacker, able to provide a specially crafted archive for processing, could

[Bug 1599931] New: perl-MongoDB-v2.0.1 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599931 Bug ID: 1599931 Summary: perl-MongoDB-v2.0.1 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-MongoDB Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee:

[Bug 1599930] New: perl-Net-Amazon-S3-0.83 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599930 Bug ID: 1599930 Summary: perl-Net-Amazon-S3-0.83 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-Net-Amazon-S3 Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee:

[Bug 1599926] New: perl-BSON-v1.6.7 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599926 Bug ID: 1599926 Summary: perl-BSON-v1.6.7 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-BSON Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee: ppi...@redhat.com