[Test-Announce] 2017-03-20 @ 1600 UTC - Blocker Review Meeting

# F26 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2017-03-20 # Time: 16:00 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net Greetings testers! Last week we determined that Alpha wasn't ready to ship, so we've had more time to work on and look for blockers. Currently we have 1 proposed blocker for bot

Re: Provenpackagers dealing with -Werror=format-security issues

On 19 March 2017 at 02:46, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > Will try to take care of those few but it is possible that it is few more > possible ways to lower compile time warnings verbosity level. > Started cleaning parted.spec and found method *much* more often used. [tkloczko@domek SPECS.fedora]$ gre

Re: Provenpackagers dealing with -Werror=format-security issues

BTW compilation warnings .. [tkloczko@domek SPECS.fedora]$ grep -- --disable-gcc-warnings *mingw-libtasn1.spec:%mingw_configure --disable-static *--disable-gcc-warnings*parted.spec:%configure --enable-selinux --disable-static *--disable-gcc-warnings* [tkloczko@domek SPECS.fedora]$ grep -- --disabl

Re: uClibc-ng (was Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution)

On 18 March 2017 at 22:24, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: > You should consider switching to uClibc-ng [1]. > uClibc project is frozen, latest release [2] was done five years ago and > last > git commit [3] nearly two. > Than you for putting one more useful pebble in the my hands :) kloczek -- Toma

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On 18 March 2017 at 22:26, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > I read through the whole thread and I still don't understand why > packaging glibc-static in Fedora is not a good thing. > I've already described this multiple times trying to use different descriptions/analogies about well known *glibc NSS

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On 18 March 2017 at 06:21, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: [..] > > So here is kind contradiction because my past experience that such > binaries > > are used so long (+6 years) that it causes silent issues with conflicts > on > > kernel<->user space and sooner or later initial intention turns into > >

Provenpackagers dealing with -Werror=format-security issues

There was an issue[1] with GCC7 during the mass-rebuild. Despite the Fedora-wide setting of -Werror=format-security, GCC did not process its command-line properly and an unknown number of packages were built without this flag appropriately set. As a result, all of those packages built successfully

Re: Fonts packaging Help wanted

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 11:29:26AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Greetings. > > I thought I would toss this out in case anyone was looking for things to > package up. I can help with that. > https://github.com/googlei18n/fontmake - a python based font compiler. > Here are the dependencies tha

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 10:25:38PM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On 18 March 2017 at 19:58, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > Although I'm nit-picking, this isn't entirely true. > > > > OCaml doesn't statically link C code, as you can see from: > > > > $ ldd /usr/bin/virt-builder > > > [..] > > S

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 10:21:06PM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On 18 March 2017 at 21:40, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > > Did you try to link it against uClibc? > > > > Yes, supermin supports several alternate libc. > > > So it is -1 from critical glibc-static using projects :) I read thr

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On 18 March 2017 at 19:58, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > Although I'm nit-picking, this isn't entirely true. > > OCaml doesn't statically link C code, as you can see from: > > $ ldd /usr/bin/virt-builder > [..] So am I right that it looks like Ocaml can be removed as well from glibc-static depende

uClibc-ng (was Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution)

On 03/18/2017 10:11 PM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > Did you try to link it against uClibc? > If t is about executable size depends which one libc functions linking with > uClibc should give you waay smaller binaries. > Please just try :) > *Install please uClibc-devel package and put -L%{_*libdir}/uC

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On 18 March 2017 at 21:40, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > Did you try to link it against uClibc? > > Yes, supermin supports several alternate libc. So it is -1 from critical glibc-static using projects :) kloczek -- Tomasz Kłoczko | LinkedIn: *http://lnkd.in/FXPWxH * ___

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 09:11:56PM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On 18 March 2017 at 20:01, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > It would break supermin which compiles a tiny statically linked init. > > > > Actually as of today we are using dietlibc instead of glibc-static on > > every architecture t

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On 18 March 2017 at 20:01, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > It would break supermin which compiles a tiny statically linked init. > > Actually as of today we are using dietlibc instead of glibc-static on > every architecture that Fedora supports resulting in massive savings > in code size and performa

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 09:56:50AM -0700, Josh Stone wrote: > This may still be a useful consideration for Fedora itself. Would we > alienate anyone if Fedora removed glibc-static? It would break supermin which compiles a tiny statically linked init. Actually as of today we are using dietlibc in

Re: Static libraries in Fedora distribution (Was: Re: [Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift)

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 05:08:50PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > There are entire non-C language toolchains in > Fedora that are based on static compilation - eg OCaml Although I'm nit-picking, this isn't entirely true. OCaml doesn't statically link C code, as you can see from: $ ldd /usr/b

Fedora 26-20170318.n.0 compose check report

Missing expected images: Server dvd i386 Server boot i386 Failed openQA tests: 15/107 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test did not fail in 26-20170317.n.0): ID: 66963 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso realmd_join_cockpit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/66963 ID: 66964 T

Fedora Rawhide-20170318.n.0 compose check report

Missing expected images: Server dvd i386 Xfce raw-xz armhfp Server boot i386 Failed openQA tests: 26/107 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20170317.n.0): ID: 66864 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso base_service_manipulation URL: https://openqa.fedoraproje

Fonts packaging Help wanted

Greetings. I thought I would toss this out in case anyone was looking for things to package up. Many fonts these days (the google ones at least) are shipping .glyphs files as source. The origin of this format seems to be a non free binary only macos app called "Glyphs". However, there's two o

Re: Review Swaps: (mostly) very simple golang packages

> 6) golang-github-cznic-fileutil - File utility functions for Go (depends on > [2]) > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1431732 I will take this as well, would you take a look at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394923 ? Thanks! -- Athos Ribeiro http://www.ime.usp.br/~at

Re: fedpkg push warning

Brad Bell wrote on 03/18/2017 07:25 PM: What does the waring below mean ? cppad>fedpkg push Total 0 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0) remote: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/cffi/model.py:526: UserWarning: 'git_checkout_notify_t' has no values explicitly defined; next version will refuse to gue

fedpkg push warning

What does the waring below mean ? cppad>fedpkg push Total 0 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0) remote: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/cffi/model.py:526: UserWarning: 'git_checkout_notify_t' has no values explicitly defined; next version will refuse to guess which integer type it is meant to be