Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Feb 27, 2014, at 11:07 PM, James Wilson Harshaw IV wrote: > I apologize, I guess I did not get the whole background out of it. > > What filesystems are we considering? It's XFS vs ext4 and Server WG has agreed on XFS on LVM. There's 92 messages in this thread, and they're in the archives,

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 02/28/2014 01:03 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Feb 27, 2014, at 10:56 PM, James Wilson Harshaw IV wrote: Yet what was the main point that it wasn't ready yet? It was easy to miss if you don't know the name Josef Bacik, but he's one of the upstream Btrfs maintainers. He said here in this thr

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Feb 27, 2014, at 10:56 PM, James Wilson Harshaw IV wrote: >> > Yet what was the main point that it wasn't ready yet? It was easy to miss if you don't know the name Josef Bacik, but he's one of the upstream Btrfs maintainers. He said here in this thread yesterday that it's not ready as a d

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 02/28/2014 12:57 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: All I mean is, you can't do an ext4->Btrfs conversion and get the Btrfs preset the installer offers. You get something really different that not many people will likely have. So if you're the audience who wants a recommended layout by using instal

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:53 PM, James Wilson Harshaw IV wrote: > > On 02/27/2014 11:20 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> In the context of the default ext4+LVM layout the conversion still means >> separate /boot, /, and /home file systems. A major benefit of the Btrfs >> layout is these are subvol

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 02/28/2014 12:41 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote: On 2/27/14, 10:53 PM, James Wilson Harshaw IV wrote: On 02/27/2014 11:20 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Feb 26, 2014, at 12:53 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: Chris Murphy wrote: by default we put ext4 on LVM The tool works in this use-case unless so

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 2/27/14, 10:53 PM, James Wilson Harshaw IV wrote: > > On 02/27/2014 11:20 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> On Feb 26, 2014, at 12:53 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: >> >>> Chris Murphy wrote: by default we put ext4 on LVM >>> The tool works in this use-case unless something has broken it recentl

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 02/27/2014 11:20 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Feb 26, 2014, at 12:53 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: Chris Murphy wrote: by default we put ext4 on LVM The tool works in this use-case unless something has broken it recently. It can be done, the convert tool should work, and Btrfs should wor

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Feb 26, 2014, at 12:53 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > Chris Murphy wrote: >> by default we put ext4 on LVM > > The tool works in this use-case unless something has broken it recently. It can be done, the convert tool should work, and Btrfs should work on any device mapper instance. Howev

Re: exclude people from giving karma?

Am 28.02.2014 03:54, schrieb Michael Catanzaro: > On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 02:18 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> But again, I think that even with no other policy change, just >> removing the >> "karma automatism" misfeature from Bodhi would be an improvement. > > Or requiring min time in updates-tes

Re: exclude people from giving karma?

On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 02:18 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > But again, I think that even with no other policy change, just > removing the > "karma automatism" misfeature from Bodhi would be an improvement. Or requiring min time in updates-testing (2-3 days) before an autokarma-assisted push. signa

Re: exclude people from giving karma?

Christopher Meng wrote: > Kevin, I think you are talking about releasing models... I'm talking about having the maintainer actually OK the push to stable after having checked the situation (or at least he/she is supposed to have checked it!), rather than letting the update go out automatically w

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 16:03:06 -0500 Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Dennis Gilmore > wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:01:47 -0500 > > Matthew Miller wrote: > > > >> On T

LVMthinp (was: default file system - Comparison to Workstation TS)

Server Technical Specification Working Session http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2014-02-27/fedora-meeting-1.2014-02-27-15.00.log.html > 16:06:36 simo: To answer your question about overcommit: that is > *possible*, but we can be smarter about it in the default partitioning Anac

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 27 February 2014 15:02, Jochen Schmitt wrote: > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 04:08:46PM -0500, James Wilson Harshaw IV wrote: > > A question I have is XFS worth it? > > I have done some testing with RHEL 7 Beta which use XFS as a default file > system. > > I have to recorgnize, that the -r switch o

Re: lvresize and XFS, was: default file system

Haha! Error: stuff happened. On Feb 27, 2014 6:02 PM, "Eric Sandeen" wrote: > On 2/27/14, 4:40 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > > > On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Chris Murphy > wrote: > > > >> > >> On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:02 PM, Jochen Schmitt > wrote: > >> > >>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 04:08:46PM -050

Re: lvresize and XFS, was: default file system

On 2/27/14, 4:40 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > >> >> On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:02 PM, Jochen Schmitt wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 04:08:46PM -0500, James Wilson Harshaw IV wrote: A question I have is XFS worth it? >>> >>> I have done so

Re: lvresize and XFS, was: default file system

So far my small of research shows it isn't that big of a problem. We should look more into it thought. On Feb 27, 2014 5:41 PM, "Chris Murphy" wrote: > > > On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > > > > On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:02 PM, Jochen Schmitt wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014

Re: lvresize and XFS, was: default file system

On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:02 PM, Jochen Schmitt wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 04:08:46PM -0500, James Wilson Harshaw IV wrote: >>> A question I have is XFS worth it? >> >> I have done some testing with RHEL 7 Beta which use XFS as a defa

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 2/27/14, 4:08 PM, James Wilson Harshaw IV wrote: > Interesting. If someone could confirm that this remains true with Fedora 20, > it would be extremely beneficial. With details, please, as Chris requested. "doesn't cooperate" is not enough to go on. ;) Thanks, -Eric > On 02/27/2014 05:02

lvresize and XFS, was: default file system

On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:02 PM, Jochen Schmitt wrote: > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 04:08:46PM -0500, James Wilson Harshaw IV wrote: >> A question I have is XFS worth it? > > I have done some testing with RHEL 7 Beta which use XFS as a default file > system. > > I have to recorgnize, that the -r swi

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

Interesting. If someone could confirm that this remains true with Fedora 20, it would be extremely beneficial. On 02/27/2014 05:02 PM, Jochen Schmitt wrote: On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 04:08:46PM -0500, James Wilson Harshaw IV wrote: A question I have is XFS worth it? I have done some testing with

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 04:08:46PM -0500, James Wilson Harshaw IV wrote: > A question I have is XFS worth it? I have done some testing with RHEL 7 Beta which use XFS as a default file system. I have to recorgnize, that the -r switch of the lvresize command doesn't cooperate with xfs in oppoiste

[Bug 1065043] Not a HASH reference at /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/IO/Socket/SSL.pm line 689.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065043 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- perl-IO-Socket-IP-0.29-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-IO-Socket-IP-0.29-1.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are o

Re: exclude people from giving karma?

On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 09:07 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 02:18 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Miloslav Trmač wrote: > > > I fully agree with you testers giving +1 is not even close to proper > > > validation, but what alternative to get proper validation do you propose > >

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Feb 27, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2014-02-27/fedora-meeting-1.2014-02-27-15.00.log.html >> >> OK super, pretty much all Server WG questions are answered. That was easy.

[perl-IO-Socket-IP/f20] (3 commits) ...0.29 bump

Summary of changes: b624230... 0.27 bump, test suite enhancements only (*) b700fd5... 0.28 bump (*) 8b1293e... 0.29 bump (*) (*) 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 maili

[perl-IO-Socket-IP/f19] (13 commits) ...0.29 bump

Summary of changes: 79265c5... 0.20 bump (*) 7fe63ab... 0.21 bump (*) cc37780... Perl 5.18 rebuild (*) 15f3e4b... Disable the SO_REUSEPORT test; koji builders don't support (*) f50cbc9... 5.18 rebuild merge (*) 66589ad... 0.22 bump (*) ca163a1... - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:47:21PM -0800, Les Howell wrote: > My question may seem dumb, but will the systems still function without > the net? Cloud services are wonderful in their promise, but my > experience with availability of the net lead me to be suspicious, and I don't see how this is rel

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

A question I have is XFS worth it? On 02/27/2014 04:06 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 04:03:06PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: Or, as an alternative, XFS support could be added to u-boot and/or syslinux. Never eliminate the possibility of actually writing code to fix problems. Al

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 04:03:06PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > Or, as an alternative, XFS support could be added to u-boot and/or > syslinux. Never eliminate the possibility of actually writing code to > fix problems. All it takes is someone willing to do work ;). Right, and as I understand it, t

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:01:47 -0500 > Matthew Miller wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 07:43:53AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> > I realize that XFS is a difficult pill to swallow fo

Introduction: James Harshaw

Hello! My name is James Wilson Harshaw IV. I have been using Fedora for a few years now, but recently really wanted to get more involved. I have a pretty good amount of knowledge in C, C++, PHP, Perl, Golang, and Java. I hope to use this knowledge to benefit the project. A little about me: I

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:01:47 -0500 Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 07:43:53AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > I realize that XFS is a difficult pill to swallow for /boot, due to > > your use of syslinux instead of GRUB2. If the Se

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 13:07 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Feb 27, 2014, at 12:22 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > > > > On Feb 27, 2014, at 5:43 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > >> > >> > >> Question for the cloud folks: > >> > >> I realize that XFS is a difficult pill to swallow for /boot, due t

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2014-02-27/fedora-meeting-1.2014-02-27-15.00.log.html > > OK super, pretty much all Server WG questions are answered. That was easy. > Summary is they are going to go with XFS on LVM. LVM vs

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Feb 27, 2014, at 12:22 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Feb 27, 2014, at 5:43 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> >> >> Question for the cloud folks: >> >> I realize that XFS is a difficult pill to swallow for /boot, due to >> your use of syslinux instead of GRUB2. If the Server and Workstatio

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 07:43:53AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > I realize that XFS is a difficult pill to swallow for /boot, due to > your use of syslinux instead of GRUB2. If the Server and Workstation > groups decide to settle on both using XFS-on-LVM for the main > partitions, we could *pro

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 2014-02-27 04:43, Stephen Gallagher wrote: Question for the cloud folks: I realize that XFS is a difficult pill to swallow for /boot, due to your use of syslinux instead of GRUB2. If the Server and Workstation groups decide to settle on both using XFS-on-LVM for the main partitions, we could

Self Introduction: Julien Enselme

Hi, I am Julien Enselme, a French student in engineering. I have been a Linux user for 5 years and a fedora user for ~4 years. Some of the packages I need are not yet available in Fedora. Thus I would like to become a package maintainer. I have submitted two reviews : - python-svgwrite to create

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Feb 27, 2014, at 5:43 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > Question for the cloud folks: > > I realize that XFS is a difficult pill to swallow for /boot, due to > your use of syslinux instead of GRUB2. If the Server and Workstation > groups decide to settle on both using XFS-on-LVM for the ma

Re: F21 System Wide Change: System-wide crypto policy

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > > On 27 February 2014 10:58, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: >> >> >> > We have to document that, but there will be always ways to shoot >> > someones foot. There are legitimate uses of increasing a security level >> > (if one for examp

Re: F21 System Wide Change: System-wide crypto policy

On 27 February 2014 10:58, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > > > We have to document that, but there will be always ways to shoot > > someones foot. There are legitimate uses of increasing a security level > > (if one for example sets up machines to be used in a LAN). > > > >> If someone sets SUITEB-wha

Re: F21 System Wide Change: System-wide crypto policy

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:52:01AM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) said: > > = Proposed System Wide Change: System-wide crypto policy = > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CryptoPolicy > > > > Change owner(s): Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos > > > > Unify th

Re: F21 System Wide Change: System-wide crypto policy

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: > On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 10:12 -0700, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: >> > == Detailed Description == >> > The idea is to have some predefined security levels such as LEVEL-80, >> > LEVEL-128, LEVEL-256, >> > or ENISA-LEGACY, ENISA-FUTURE, S

Re: F21 System Wide Change: System-wide crypto policy

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > Unify the crypto policies used by different applications and libraries. That > is > allow setting a consistent security level for crypto on all applications in a > Fedora system. As others have noted, crypto tech compatibility is tricky.

Re: F21 System Wide Change: System-wide crypto policy

On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 10:12 -0700, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > > == Detailed Description == > > The idea is to have some predefined security levels such as LEVEL-80, > > LEVEL-128, LEVEL-256, > > or ENISA-LEGACY, ENISA-FUTURE, SUITEB-128, SUITEB-256. These will be the > > security levels > > that th

Re: F21 System Wide Change: System-wide crypto policy

On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 08:42 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > After that the administrator should be assured that any application > > that uses the system settings will follow a policy that adheres to > > the configured profile. > > Ideally setting a profile should be setting: > > * the acceptable

Re: F21 System Wide Change: System-wide crypto policy

On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 16:35 +, Colin Walters wrote: > wrote: > > and being applied after executing update-crypto-profiles. (Note: it > > would be better to have a daemon that watches those files and runs > > update-crypto-profiles automatically) > Was the option of patching the libraries to *di

Re: F21 System Wide Change: System-wide crypto policy

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > = Proposed System Wide Change: System-wide crypto policy = > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CryptoPolicy > > Change owner(s): Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos > > Unify the crypto policies used by different applications and libraries. That

Re: exclude people from giving karma?

On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 02:18 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Miloslav Trmač wrote: > > I fully agree with you testers giving +1 is not even close to proper > > validation, but what alternative to get proper validation do you propose > > as an improvement? Dropping autokarma would replace broken valida

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com) said: > Directed more broadly at all three products: > > Formal proposal (for discussion): All three products agree to use ext4 > for /boot and XFS-on-LVM for all other partitions in the "guided" > mode. All is fair game in the "custom" mode. > > Also, for

Re: F21 System Wide Change: System-wide crypto policy

Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) said: > = Proposed System Wide Change: System-wide crypto policy = > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CryptoPolicy > > Change owner(s): Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos > > Unify the crypto policies used by different applications and libraries. That > is > al

Re: F21 System Wide Change: System-wide crypto policy

On Feb 27, 2014 8:25 AM, "Jaroslav Reznik" wrote: > > = Proposed System Wide Change: System-wide crypto policy = > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CryptoPolicy > == Detailed Description == > The idea is to have some predefined security levels such as LEVEL-80, > LEVEL-128, LEVEL-256, > or

Re: F21 System Wide Change: System-wide crypto policy

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: and being applied after executing update-crypto-profiles. (Note: it would be better to have a daemon that watches those files and runs update-crypto-profiles automatically) Was the option of patching the libraries to *directly* read

F21 System Wide Change: System-wide crypto policy

= Proposed System Wide Change: System-wide crypto policy = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CryptoPolicy Change owner(s): Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos Unify the crypto policies used by different applications and libraries. That is allow setting a consistent security level for crypto on all app

Re: Wiki pages: Missing tests in %check and missing upstream test suites

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 05:49:05PM +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote: > На 27.02.2014 16:18, Richard W.M. Jones написа: > > >Attached is a proposed patch to the spec file. I ran this under > >auto-buildrequires to see if it would need any extra BRs, but auto-br > >didn't find any. > > > > Richard,

Re: Wiki pages: Missing tests in %check and missing upstream test suites

Interesting : fedora-release-notes ***-fonts Can someone point me how to test them? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

F21 System Wide Change: Ruby 2.1

= Proposed System Wide Change: Ruby 2.1 = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Ruby_2.1 Change owner(s): Vít Ondruch Ruby 2.1 is the latest stable version of Ruby, with major increases in speed, memory efficiency and reliability. With this major update from Ruby 2.0.0 in Fedora 20 to Ruby 2.

F21 System Wide Change: Access control in PCSC

= Proposed System Wide Change: Access control in PCSC = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/PcscAccessControl Change owner(s): Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos Add access control to PC/SC smart cards available in the system. Adding access control would (a) prevent unauthorized processes/users from re

[perl-Perlbal-XS-HTTPHeaders/el6] new upstream version

commit 683abcf3da2f31f072b9868faebdb3d9d1b7a80a Author: lbazan Date: Thu Feb 27 10:50:36 2014 -0500 new upstream version .gitignore |1 + perl-Perlbal-XS-HTTPHeaders.spec |7 +-- sources |2 +- 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+)

Re: Wiki pages: Missing tests in %check and missing upstream test suites

На 27.02.2014 16:18, Richard W.M. Jones написа: Attached is a proposed patch to the spec file. I ran this under auto-buildrequires to see if it would need any extra BRs, but auto-br didn't find any. Richard, can you point me to what auto-buildrequires is, where it lives and how do I use it?

F21 System Wide Change: Remove python-setuptools-devel

= Proposed System Wide Change: Remove python-setuptools-devel = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_Python-setuptools-devel Change owner(s): Toshio Kuratomi The python-setuptools package has carried a virtual Provide for python- setuptools-devel since 2009 for backwards compatibility.

Re: Wiki pages: Missing tests in %check and missing upstream test suites

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 03:55:02PM +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote: > Hi folks, > thanks for your feedback in the last few days. I've created two wiki > pages about packages which don't execute their tests in %check: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Testing_in_check Of the two packages that have

Wiki pages: Missing tests in %check and missing upstream test suites

Hi folks, thanks for your feedback in the last few days. I've created two wiki pages about packages which don't execute their tests in %check: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Testing_in_check and another one for packages which don't seem to have test suites at all: https://fedoraproject.org/w

Re: Packages with missing %check

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 08:04:10AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: >> The kernels that are built are tested at a minimum on 3 machines >> before I even put them to git. > > I didn't realize this happened, so my apologies for making claims > abo

[perl-MooseX-GlobRef] Fix bogus date in %changelog

commit c5b20c8480106ec8a4336facddceadb794bcb1a8 Author: Paul Howarth Date: Thu Feb 27 13:17:45 2014 + Fix bogus date in %changelog perl-MooseX-GlobRef.spec |2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/perl-MooseX-GlobRef.spec b/perl-MooseX-GlobRef.spec

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/27/2014 08:10 AM, Jacob Yundt wrote: >> Fortunately for me, I set it up on LVM. I went out, bought a new >> hard drive, inserted it, added it to the volume group and then >> ran 'pvmove' to migrate all of the sectors off of the original >> drive

Re: Packages with missing %check

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 08:04:10AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > The kernels that are built are tested at a minimum on 3 machines > before I even put them to git. I didn't realize this happened, so my apologies for making claims about testing which aren't true. Is it possible you can boot them in qe

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

> Fortunately for me, I set it > up on LVM. I went out, bought a new hard drive, inserted it, added it > to the volume group and then ran 'pvmove' to migrate all of the > sectors off of the original drive to the new one. What did you do with your /boot partition? -Jacob -- devel mailing list dev

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/27/2014 07:53 AM, Rui Tiago Cação Matos wrote: > On 27 February 2014 13:43, Stephen Gallagher > wrote: >> Formal proposal (for discussion): All three products agree to use >> ext4 for /boot and XFS-on-LVM for all other partitions in the >> "guid

Re: Packages with missing %check

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 4:49 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:12:59AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: >> On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 08:09 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 06:50:56PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: >> > > On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 21:53 +00

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/27/2014 12:18 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Feb 26, 2014, at 5:33 PM, Josef Bacik > wrote: >> >> Just popping in here to say that btrfs is not ready to be default >> in Fedora yet. Optional is fine but not defaul

Re: libicu soname bump in rawhide

Hi Jakub, On Friday, 2014-02-14 13:40:26 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > upstream to consider providing stable API/ABI, symbol versioning etc.? > I mean, if a shared library has 1-2 users, we can still live with it being > in constant flux, but for a widely used shared library stable public ABI is

Re: Why libicu soname bump required harfbuzz package to be built twice?

Hi David, On Friday, 2014-02-14 17:48:42 +0100, David Tardon wrote: > It was mainly a communication problem: I was prepared to handle the > rebuilds, but when Eike did not ping me that he built new ICU, I assumed > that he got hold of some other provenpackager :-( Ok, next time I'll explicitly p

Self Introduction: Till Hofmann

Hey everyone, my name is Till Hofmann and I'm a student working for the Knowledge Based Systems Group ( http://kbsg.rwth-aachen.de/ ) at RWTH Aachen University in Germany. Since we are packaging the robotics software framework Fawkes ( http://fawkesrobotics.org/ ) for Fedora, I joined the project

PRDs/Tech Specs to formal Change Proposals and Change submission deadline

Hi, at yesterday's FESCo meeting, it was agreed on setting deadlines for Change submission for Fedora 21 [1] and to process PRDs into Change proposals. "AGREED: Fedora Changes Process submission deadline for system-wide changes is April 7th. Deadline for true standalone changes will be sometime la

Re: Packages with missing %check

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote: > На 26.02.2014 15:56, David Howells написа: > >> Alexander Todorov wrote: >> >>> How about making %check a packaging requirement in all cases - run tests >>> or >>> add a comment explaining why not, how to run them (e.g. make test) or wh

Re: Packages with missing %check

На 26.02.2014 15:56, David Howells написа: Alexander Todorov wrote: How about making %check a packaging requirement in all cases - run tests or add a comment explaining why not, how to run them (e.g. make test) or why there are no tests for this package. Does %check install the package and r

Re: Packages with missing %check

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:12:59AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 08:09 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 06:50:56PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 21:53 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > > It happens too often in >

Re: [Base] Fedora Base Design Working Group (2014-02-21) meeting minutes and logs

On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 09:17 +0100, Vratislav Podzimek wrote: > On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 11:46 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 11:17 +0100, Karel Zak wrote: > > > > > Don't try to be smart to everyone, it does not work. IMHO all you > > > need is to support one or a very few

Re: [Base] Fedora Base Design Working Group (2014-02-21) meeting minutes and logs

On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 11:46 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 11:17 +0100, Karel Zak wrote: > > > Don't try to be smart to everyone, it does not work. IMHO all you > > need is to support one or a very few scenarios (complete scenarios > > without customization) and a way ho

Re: Packages with missing %check

On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 08:09 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 06:50:56PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 21:53 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > It happens too often in > > > Rawhide, and a simple test (in %check or elsewhere) could fix it. >

Re: Packages with missing %check

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 06:50:56PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 21:53 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > It happens too often in > > Rawhide, and a simple test (in %check or elsewhere) could fix it. > > You can't really test a system boot in a package's %check. That's