Le 18/07/2019 à 18:26, Nicolas Chauvet a écrit :
>> "Build dependencies on Fedora packages which provide pkg-config files SHOULD
>> be expressed
>> as pkgconfig(foo) and not foo-devel, whether the dependent package uses
>> pkg-config or not."
>
> This is true for the fast majority of cases. Spe
On 7/18/19 6:44 PM, Steven A. Falco wrote:
> On 7/18/19 10:28 AM, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
>>
>> On 7/18/19 4:10 PM, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
>>> Hello, Zdenek Dohnal.
>>>
>>> Thu, 18 Jul 2019 15:51:33 +0200 you wrote:
>>>
Even the new .spec files, which do not have to be RPM spec files?
Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote:
> Depending on the package name is not a way to state you're not using
> pkgconfig, it's a way to get broken builds when the package you depend
> on gets restructured.
On the other hand, there are also cases where pkgconfig(foo) can break:
* if compatibility librar
* Florian Weimer:
> For Fedora, that would affect the i686 architecture only.
It was pointed out off-list that I forgot armhfp. Sorry!
The external pressure to keep armhfp going indefinitely and switch to
a 64-bit time_t is probably larger on armhfp than on i686. The reason
is that new armhfp
* Michael Cronenworth:
> On 7/18/19 4:05 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> Old binaries with a 32-bit time_t will continue to run, but new
>> binaries built against a current glibc will always use a 64-bit time_t
>> under this approach.
> How would this affect Wine's handling of 32-bit PE binaries? I'
Anyone else seeing this? It seems to only happen on physical i686
machines, not vm's, but that's based on only three builds so far.
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=36329825
BUILDSTDERR: create archive failed: cpio: write failed - Cannot allocate
memory
Very similar to
Anyone else seeing this? It seems to only happen on physical i686
machines, not vm's, but that's based on only three builds so far.
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=36329825
BUILDSTDERR: create archive failed: cpio: write failed - Cannot allocate
memory
(this is after t
On 7/18/19 4:05 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
Old binaries with a 32-bit time_t will continue to run, but new
binaries built against a current glibc will always use a 64-bit time_t
under this approach.
How would this affect Wine's handling of 32-bit PE binaries? I'm assuming they will also
break
There is an effort under way to enhance glibc so that it can use the
Y2038 support in the kernel. The result will be that more 32-bit
architectures can use a 64-bit time_t. (Currently, it's x86-64 x32
only.)
Originally, the plan was to support both ABIs in glibc for building
new applications, si
Welcome back to Fedora. I've clicked the necessary sponsorship buttons.
- J<
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject
> "ZD" == Zdenek Dohnal writes:
ZD> Hi all, I would like to ask as Vim co-maintainer, do you find useful
ZD> for Vim to do:
ZD> - when you open new file with .spec suffix, Vim will get you basic
ZD> spec file structure?
Personally I have always found that behavior annoying. If I open a new
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 9:07 AM Jerry James wrote:
> I'm down to these 3 still to go: arm-none-eabi-gcc-cs, avr-gcc, and
> cross-gcc. Those gcc builds take a long time. :-) So far the builds
> have gone smoothly.
All the builds have completed without trouble. I did have to patch a
couple of pa
On 7/18/19 10:28 AM, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
>
> On 7/18/19 4:10 PM, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
>> Hello, Zdenek Dohnal.
>>
>> Thu, 18 Jul 2019 15:51:33 +0200 you wrote:
>>
>>> Even the new .spec files, which do not have to be RPM spec files?
>>> Because Vim provides spec template for such cases
Le jeu. 18 juil. 2019 à 17:12, Philip Kovacs via devel
a écrit :
>
> > It does not matter if the config process uses pkgconfig or not.
> > Depending on the package name is not a way to state you're not using
> > pkgconfig, it's a way to get broken builds when the package you depend
> > on gets res
On Thu, 2019-07-18 at 10:25 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Nathanael Noblet:
>
> >I have been using a library for awhile now and have been
> > thinking
> >of submitting it to Fedora. Part of what I have been doing with
> > it
> >was compiling it using -fsanitize=address and leak etc.
Hello,
my name is David Kaspar (a.k.a. Dee'Kej), and I used to be a package
maintainer as a Red Hat employee for 3.5 years. Now that I'm no longer part
of Red Hat I can't use my old Red Hat associated accounts to help with the
work on Fedora...
Therefore I have restored my old 'deekej' FAS accoun
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:26 AM Philip Kovacs via devel
wrote:
>
> A "necessary and sufficient" question on the use of .pc files supplied by
> library providers.
>
> 1. Package foo-devel installs a pkgconfig .pc file as a convenience to
> developers.
> 2. Package bar requires headers and librar
On 7/18/19 4:10 PM, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> Hello, Zdenek Dohnal.
>
> Thu, 18 Jul 2019 15:51:33 +0200 you wrote:
>
>> Even the new .spec files, which do not have to be RPM spec files?
>> Because Vim provides spec template for such cases.
> I never used this feature, so I think it can be
> It does not matter if the config process uses pkgconfig or not.
> Depending on the package name is not a way to state you're not using
> pkgconfig, it's a way to get broken builds when the package you depend
> on gets restructured.
Then the docs should be strengthened to state the case from
Hello, Zdenek Dohnal.
Thu, 18 Jul 2019 15:51:33 +0200 you wrote:
> Even the new .spec files, which do not have to be RPM spec files?
> Because Vim provides spec template for such cases.
I never used this feature, so I think it can be disabled by default. But
syntax highlighting for RPM SPEC file
Le 2019-07-18 15:51, Zdenek Dohnal a écrit :
On 7/18/19 3:39 PM, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
Hello, Zdenek Dohnal.
Thu, 18 Jul 2019 13:44:56 +0200 you wrote:
What's your opinion? Is it useful feature of Vim and it should stay
as
default, or it needs to be disabled?
I think, that *.spec f
As stated in
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PkgConfigBuildRequires/
pkgconfig(foo) is a more reliable marker of what ships the devel files,
than the package name.
It does not matter if the config process uses pkgconfig or not.
Depending on the package name is not
On 7/18/19 3:39 PM, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> Hello, Zdenek Dohnal.
>
> Thu, 18 Jul 2019 13:44:56 +0200 you wrote:
>
>> What's your opinion? Is it useful feature of Vim and it should stay as
>> default, or it needs to be disabled?
> I think, that *.spec files on Fedora should be treated as
On 7/18/19 3:25 PM, Steven A. Falco wrote:
> On 7/18/19 7:44 AM, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I would like to ask as Vim co-maintainer, do you find useful for Vim to do:
>>
>> - when you open new file with .spec suffix, Vim will get you basic spec
>> file structure?
>>
>> Recently I found
Hello, Zdenek Dohnal.
Thu, 18 Jul 2019 13:44:56 +0200 you wrote:
> What's your opinion? Is it useful feature of Vim and it should stay as
> default, or it needs to be disabled?
I think, that *.spec files on Fedora should be treated as RPM SPEC files
by default.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vi
A "necessary and sufficient" question on the use of .pc files supplied by
library providers.
1. Package foo-devel installs a pkgconfig .pc file as a convenience to
developers.
2. Package bar requires headers and libraries provided by foo and is both a
build and runtime dependency of foo.3. Pa
On 7/18/19 7:44 AM, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to ask as Vim co-maintainer, do you find useful for Vim to do:
>
> - when you open new file with .spec suffix, Vim will get you basic spec
> file structure?
>
> Recently I found out someone can find it as bad behavior
> https://
The package jaxen at least since version 1.2.0 no longer includes the
only differently (under W3C) licensed file from the rest (BSD) which
leaves the package with a single license (BSD).
--
Marián Konček
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedorapr
On 7/18/19 1:44 PM, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to ask as Vim co-maintainer, do you find useful for Vim to do:
>
> - when you open new file with .spec suffix, Vim will get you basic spec
> file structure?
>
> Recently I found out someone can find it as bad behavior
> https:
rubygem-fission + rubygem-CFPropertyList which is its dependency used to
be used by rubygem-fog-* packages. Because these were dropped couple of
months ago, I don't have any other use for
rubygem-{fission,CFPropertyList} therefore I am orphaning them.
___
Hi all,
I would like to ask as Vim co-maintainer, do you find useful for Vim to do:
- when you open new file with .spec suffix, Vim will get you basic spec
file structure?
Recently I found out someone can find it as bad behavior
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1724126 , so I consider
I don't have any use for this library, so I have orphaned it.
Vít
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/p
The outage is done, all our servers are now running Fedora 30 and
everything should work again.
We apologize for any inconvenience caused by the outage.
Jakub
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:03 PM Jakub Kadlcik wrote:
>
> There will be an outage starting at 2019-07-18 05:00 UTC, which will last
> app
AsciiBinder was introduced into Fedora to help generate Fedora
documentation. Nevertheless, it has been long replaced by Antora. I
don't have any use for AsciiBinder myself and it is deprecated upstream
(the home page should be switched of on July 31, 2019), therefore I have
orphaned rubygem-ascii_
Le mer. 19 juin 2019 à 15:16, Petr Viktorin a écrit :
>
> Hello,
> Back when [Django 2.0] was released in Fedora 28, I took over Django
> 1.11 LTS as some important (to me) packages depended on it. I'm no
> longer interested in maintaining it, so I've orphaned it.
> Let me know if you want to take
Hi Nathanael,
Nathanael Noblet writes:
> Hello,
>
>I have been using a library for awhile now and have been thinking of
> submitting it to Fedora. Part of what I have been doing with it was compiling
> it using -fsanitize=address and leak etc. I’m kinda wondering about how that
> is handl
Hi Nathanael,
Nathanael Noblet writes:
> Hello,
>
>I have been using a library for awhile now and have been thinking of
> submitting it to Fedora. Part of what I have been doing with it was compiling
> it using -fsanitize=address and leak etc. I’m kinda wondering about how that
> is handl
* Nathanael Noblet:
>I have been using a library for awhile now and have been thinking
>of submitting it to Fedora. Part of what I have been doing with it
>was compiling it using -fsanitize=address and leak etc. I’m kinda
>wondering about how that is handled with Fedora packages. A
38 matches
Mail list logo
