On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 14:18 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
libguestfs uses hfsplus-tools in order to provide some HFS+ filesystem
features (mainly for Mac filesystems and .DMG files). We can remove
this functionality from the Fedora version, but of course it means
people won't be able to
On 06/18/2014 02:16 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
If I may vent for a moment, I'd like to point out exactly how spurious
the blocks usage was (and, implicitly, troll for code review):
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/hfsplus-tools.git/plain/hfsplus-tools-no-blocks.patch
That's right kids, the
On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 15:24 -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
On 06/18/2014 02:16 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
If I may vent for a moment, I'd like to point out exactly how
spurious the blocks usage was (and, implicitly, troll for code
review):
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:16:49PM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 14:18 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
libguestfs uses hfsplus-tools in order to provide some HFS+ filesystem
features (mainly for Mac filesystems and .DMG files). We can remove
this functionality from the
Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 02:00:13AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
That was overly critical of me and did nothing to actually further the
discussion. I apologise.
No need to apologize! It's just the truth: ARM is not ready to be a
primary
Kevin, I disagree. A positive
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:50:32AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Matthew Miller wrote:
Kevin, I disagree. A positive tone to discussion is important even when
speaking the truth.
There was no negative tone in Matthew Garrett's original message:
If the Fedora/ARM community don't care about
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 02:22:57PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 17:08:13 +0100
Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
I have a Fedora 20 ppc64 Mac right next to my feet here that is
definitely booting using yaboot.
Then you did not install using Fedora 20.
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 10:20:46PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 08:43:07PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Can we excludearch %{arm} for this one?
Why? It's a bug that it doesn't build on ARM. Refusing to build it
doesn't fix the bug, and then someone else will
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 07:48:36 +0100
Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 02:22:57PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 17:08:13 +0100
Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
I have a Fedora 20
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 07:54:26AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 10:20:46PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 08:43:07PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Can we excludearch %{arm} for this one?
Why? It's a bug that it doesn't build on
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 03:45:57PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 07:54:26AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 10:20:46PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 08:43:07PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Can we excludearch
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 05:23:01PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 03:45:57PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Eh. We're constrained by our own policies here, not by anything
fundamental - LLVM being broken on ARM ought to mean that our ARM
product is worse, not that
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 06:00:05PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 05:23:01PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 03:45:57PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Eh. We're constrained by our own policies here, not by anything
fundamental - LLVM being
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 06:14:03PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 06:00:05PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
ExcludeArch implies that it's acceptable that it doesn't build on ARM
and removes the incentive for anyone to fix it. It's not.
There's a process for
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 06:21:00PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 06:14:03PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 06:00:05PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
ExcludeArch implies that it's acceptable that it doesn't build on ARM
and removes the
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 06:34:31PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
The bug that I'm actually fixing is that we haven't had a successful
hfsplus-tools build in nearly a year.
Ok. Once the build's done let's remove the ExcludeArch so it continues
to show up as a failure in mass builds. It can
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 06:39:52PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 06:34:31PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
The bug that I'm actually fixing is that we haven't had a successful
hfsplus-tools build in nearly a year.
Ok. Once the build's done let's remove the
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 06:44:06PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 06:39:52PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Ok. Once the build's done let's remove the ExcludeArch so it continues
to show up as a failure in mass builds. It can be restored if we
actually need to
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 06:53:59PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 06:44:06PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 06:39:52PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Ok. Once the build's done let's remove the ExcludeArch so it continues
to show up as a
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 07:05:56PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
In this case however I don't think much productive came from this
discussion we had about hfsplus-tools. Obviously no one wants
hfsplus-tools and/or clang enough on Fedora/ARM that they are prepared
to fix it. So I think we
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 07:11:53PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 07:05:56PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
In this case however I don't think much productive came from this
discussion we had about hfsplus-tools. Obviously no one wants
hfsplus-tools and/or clang
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 18:34:31 +0100,
Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
The relevant bit of the package guidelines is this:
If a Fedora package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Eh. We're constrained by our own policies here, not by anything
fundamental - LLVM being broken on ARM ought to mean that our ARM
product is worse, not that everything else is dragged down to the same
level.
Didn't YOU vote for ARM as a primary architecture, and even
Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 07:11:53PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
If the Fedora/ARM community don't care about feature parity with x86,
then we should just drop them back to secondary status.
+1, and:
That was overly critical of me and did nothing to actually further
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 02:00:13AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
That was overly critical of me and did nothing to actually further the
discussion. I apologise.
No need to apologize! It's just the truth: ARM is not ready to be a primary
Kevin, I disagree. A positive tone to discussion is
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 01:53:12AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Eh. We're constrained by our own policies here, not by anything
fundamental - LLVM being broken on ARM ought to mean that our ARM
product is worse, not that everything else is dragged down to the same
On 06/11/2014 02:08 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 02:00:13AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
That was overly critical of me and did nothing to actually further the
discussion. I apologise.
No need to apologize! It's just the truth: ARM is not ready to be a primary
Kevin, I
Dne 1.6.2014 11:24, Till Maas napsal(a):
The following packages did not build for two releases (no new build
since 2013-07-25) and will be retired when Fedora (F21) is branched,
unless someone successfully builds them till then. If you know for sure
that the package should be retired, please do
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 11:24:09AM +0200, Till Maas wrote:
hfsplus-toolsajax, ajax
Just to be clear, is hfsplus-tools still at risk of being removed or not?
I notice there has not been a successful build since 2013-06-12
(approximately 1 year
On Sun, Jun 08, 2014 at 09:18:12PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 00:01:34 +0100
Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 04:36:28PM -0400, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
On Monday, June 2, 2014, 2:53:33 PM,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 00:01:34 +0100
Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 04:36:28PM -0400, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
On Monday, June 2, 2014, 2:53:33 PM, Till Mass wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:01:53AM +0200, Dan Horák
On Monday, June 9, 2014, 12:08:13 PM, Richard Jones wrote:
On Sun, Jun 08, 2014 at 09:18:12PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 00:01:34 +0100
Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 04:36:28PM
On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 17:07 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 11:24:09AM +0200, Till Maas wrote:
hfsplus-toolsajax, ajax
Just to be clear, is hfsplus-tools still at risk of being removed or not?
I notice there has
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 05:07:14PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 11:24:09AM +0200, Till Maas wrote:
hfsplus-toolsajax, ajax
Just to be clear, is hfsplus-tools still at risk of being removed or not?
It's required
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 02:18:11PM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 17:07 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 11:24:09AM +0200, Till Maas wrote:
hfsplus-toolsajax, ajax
Just to be clear, is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 17:08:13 +0100
Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 08, 2014 at 09:18:12PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 00:01:34 +0100
Richard W.M.
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 08:43:07PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Can we excludearch %{arm} for this one?
Why? It's a bug that it doesn't build on ARM. Refusing to build it
doesn't fix the bug, and then someone else will crash into the same
issue when they dare to build something that needs
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 04:36:28PM -0400, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
On Monday, June 2, 2014, 2:53:33 PM, Till Mass wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:01:53AM +0200, Dan Horák wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2014 11:24:09 +0200
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
yaboot dwmw2,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 00:01:34 +0100
Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 04:36:28PM -0400, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
On Monday, June 2, 2014, 2:53:33 PM, Till Mass wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:01:53AM +0200, Dan Horák
Till Maas wrote:
The following packages did not build for two releases (no new build
since 2013-07-25) and will be retired when Fedora (F21) is branched,
unless someone successfully builds them till then. If you know for sure
that the package should be retired, please do so now with a
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 09:42:02PM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Till Maas wrote:
gdome2 sundaram
I have retired this already. What more should I do?
You need to retire it in pkgdb. Btw. the retiring reason could be
On Mon, 2 Jun 2014 23:54:10 +0200
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 04:36:28PM -0400, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
Please do not start deleting ppc32-only packages.
A few of us would like to resurrect ppc32, likely initially
as a Fedora Remix. Deleting
On 06/01/2014 05:24 AM, Till Maas wrote:
R-bigmemory spot, spot
RETIRED
log4net spot, cicku, spot
Fixed and built in rawhide:
log4net-1.2.13-1.fc21
netgospot, spot
On Tuesday, June 3, 2014, 2:37:49 AM, Dan Horák wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2014 23:54:10 +0200
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 04:36:28PM -0400, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
Please do not start deleting ppc32-only packages.
A few of us would like to resurrect
On Sun, 1 Jun 2014 11:24:09 +0200
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
The following packages did not build for two releases (no new build
since 2013-07-25) and will be retired when Fedora (F21) is branched,
unless someone successfully builds them till then. If you know for
sure that the
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:01:53AM +0200, Dan Horák wrote:
yaboot dwmw2, dwmw2, fkocina,
this is a secondary arch only package since F-12, so it should be
excluded from the FTBFS list in primary koji
This needs special attention from Dennis:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:01:53AM +0200, Dan Horák wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2014 11:24:09 +0200
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
yaboot dwmw2, dwmw2, fkocina,
this is a secondary arch only package since F-12, so it should be
excluded from the FTBFS list in
On Monday, June 2, 2014, 2:53:33 PM, Till Mass wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:01:53AM +0200, Dan Horák wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2014 11:24:09 +0200
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
yaboot dwmw2, dwmw2, fkocina,
this is a secondary arch only package since
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 04:36:28PM -0400, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
Please do not start deleting ppc32-only packages.
A few of us would like to resurrect ppc32, likely initially as a
Fedora Remix. Deleting ppc32-only packages just adds more work
to that effort.
ok, but I guess there
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 12:56:58PM +0200, Till Maas wrote:
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 11:24:09AM +0200, Till Maas wrote:
The following packages did not build for two releases (no new build
since 2013-07-25) and will be retired when Fedora (F21) is branched,
I might have used the wrong
On Monday, June 2, 2014, 5:54:10 PM, Till Mass wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 04:36:28PM -0400, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
Please do not start deleting ppc32-only packages.
A few of us would like to resurrect ppc32, likely initially as a
Fedora Remix. Deleting ppc32-only packages just
Hi
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Till Maas wrote:
gdome2 sundaram
I have retired this already. What more should I do?
Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct:
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 11:24:09AM +0200, Till Maas wrote:
The following packages did not build for two releases (no new build
since 2013-07-25) and will be retired when Fedora (F21) is branched,
I might have used the wrong date, probably it should be 2013-02-12. I
will create an updated list
On Sun, 1 Jun 2014 11:24:09 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
The following packages did not build for two releases (no new build
since 2013-07-25) and will be retired when Fedora (F21) is branched,
unless someone successfully builds them till then.
rss2emailmschwendt, mcepl,
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 03:33:28PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
rss2emailmschwendt, mcepl, mschwendt
That is inaccurate.
No, it is not.
The F21 mass-rebuild has been announced to start on 2014-06-06, so that
should be early enough for rss2email.
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 07:28:38PM +0200, Till Maas wrote:
Branching is after the mass rebuild, so if rss2email will build in the
mass rebuild, nothing will happen to it.
Also nothing will happen to it if it keeps failing, because I written in
my other mail, the cut-off date is earlier,
On Sun, 1 Jun 2014 19:28:38 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 03:33:28PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
rss2emailmschwendt, mcepl, mschwendt
That is inaccurate.
No, it is not.
The F21 mass-rebuild has been announced to
Hi
On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Till Maas wrote:
The following packages did not build for two releases
sundaram: transmission-remote-cli, gdome2
I have retired gdome2 as upstream has been dead for a long time and I don't
think there is any dependency on this. I have updated
58 matches
Mail list logo
