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

On Mon, 2018-07-09 at 17:45 +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 at 16:42, Przemek Klosowski > wrote: > [..] > > > > After which, I'm going to ask rel-eng to finally remove it from > > > > buildroot. This will happen before mass rebuild. Stay tuned. > > > > > > After adding

linker errors (since binutils-2.30.90-1.fc29?) : _end: invalid version 21 (max 0), error adding symbols: bad value

See bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1599521 Haven't been able to successfully build anything in rawhide recently. -- Rex ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora

Re: Removal of GCC from the buildroot

On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 at 01:12, Kevin Fenzi wrote: [..] > a 36 post long thread in Feb. > > You posted the idea to it of now using "gcc" but some macro, but the > change owner and at least one other person replied and didn't feel it > was worthwhile as we have no plans to move away from gcc. Yeah

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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599499 Bug ID: 1599499 Summary: perl-PPIx-Regexp-0.061 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-PPIx-Regexp Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee:

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

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: > > DEBUG util.py:439: Install 144 Packages > > DEBUG util.py:439: Total

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

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 download size: 146 M > DEBUG util.py:439: Installed size: 570 M > > F29: > DEBUG

Re: Removal of GCC from the buildroot

On 07/09/2018 04:40 PM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 at 20:45, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > [..] >> This is an approved by FESCo Fedora 29 change that needs to be done >> before the mass rebuild, which is scheduled for the 11th (2 days from now). >> >> 2018-07-11 Mass Rebuild >> >> (

Re: Removal of GCC from the buildroot

On Tue, 2018-07-10 at 00:40 +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 at 20:45, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > [..] > > This is an approved by FESCo Fedora 29 change that needs to be done > > before the mass rebuild, which is scheduled for the 11th (2 days from now). > > > > 2018-07-11 Mass

Re: Packages which needlessly use %defattr

> "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 do this without too much effort. I just know that some people are

Re: Removal of GCC from the buildroot

On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 at 20:45, Kevin Fenzi wrote: [..] > This is an approved by FESCo Fedora 29 change that needs to be done > before the mass rebuild, which is scheduled for the 11th (2 days from now). > > 2018-07-11 Mass Rebuild > > ( see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/29/Schedule )

Re: Removal of GCC from the buildroot

On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 at 20:40, Tomasz Torcz wrote: [..] > > PS. It is second time when Mr. Gnatenko started doing things before > > finishing the discussion. > > I can only repeat .. congratulation. > > To be fair, his email was sent Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 20:46:26 +0200. > And today is 9th of

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

Hello everyone, today we finally dropped gcc and gcc-c++ from the buildroot . This made 12 packages go away along with 134MB installed size. This means that you need to add gcc/gcc-c++ in the BuildRequires (guidelines stated this

Re: F29 System Wide Change: Zchunk Metadata

On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 6:28 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 9.7.2018 23:52, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 1:19 AM Jan Kurik wrote: > >> > >> = Proposed System Wide Change: Zchunk Metadata = > >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Zchunk_Metadata > >> > >> > >> Owner(s): > >>

Re: F29 System Wide Change: Zchunk Metadata

On 9.7.2018 23:52, Josh Boyer wrote: On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 1:19 AM Jan Kurik wrote: = Proposed System Wide Change: Zchunk Metadata = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Zchunk_Metadata Owner(s): * Jonathan Dieter * Neal Gompa All dnf repository metadata will be compressed with

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Modularity WG (once every two weeks)

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: Modularity WG (once every two weeks) on 2018-07-10 from 10:00:00 to 11:00:00 US/Eastern At fedora-meetin...@irc.freenode.net The meeting will be about: Meeting of the Modularity Working Group. More information available at: [Modularity

Re: F29 System Wide Change: Zchunk Metadata

On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 1:19 AM Jan Kurik wrote: > > = Proposed System Wide Change: Zchunk Metadata = > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Zchunk_Metadata > > > Owner(s): > * Jonathan Dieter > * Neal Gompa > > > All dnf repository metadata will be compressed with the zchunk format rather

Re: Removal of GCC from the buildroot

On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 02:07:26PM -0400, R P Herrold wrote: > On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, Matt Milosevic wrote: > > > I tend to agree with Chris on this. Whether we like it or not, GCC is an > > integral part of the Unix environment and most things we care about utilize > > it in some aspect, even when

Re: Removal of GCC from the buildroot

On Mon, Jul 9, 2018, 20:22 Tomasz Torcz wrote: > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 06:56:19PM +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 at 18:37, Chris Adams wrote: > > [..] > > > There are a significant (but unknown number) of packages in Fedora that > > > are probably only currently built and

Fedora Rawhide-20180709.n.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 7/138 (x86_64), 23/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20180707.n.2): ID: 255930 Test: x86_64 Workstation-boot-iso install_default URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/255930 ID: 255953 Test:

[389-devel] please review: PR 49841 - ds-replcheck should validate ldif files and database RUV in offline mode

https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/49841 ___ 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html

Re: Removal of GCC from the buildroot

On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 at 19:02, Matt Milosevic wrote: > > I tend to agree with Chris on this. Whether we like it or not, GCC is an > integral part of the Unix environment and most things we care about utilize > it in some aspect, even when it's not immediately obvious. Attempting to > forcefully

libicu 62 update with soname bump in rawhide/F29

Hi, I'm updating icu to 62.1 in rawhide and rebuilding anything that links with libicu. We'll also have a compat package with libicu 61 soname, so I don't expect much rawhide breakage: anything that is currently built with libicu 61 but fails to build with libicu 62 should just continue using

soname bump hyperscan in rawhide

Hyperscan 5.0.0 has been released and the soname has been bumped. As far as I can tell the only affected package is suricata which I will take care of. JT ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20180709.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20180707.n.2 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20180709.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:4 Dropped images: 5 Added packages: 3 Dropped packages:3 Upgraded packages: 172 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 15.67 MiB Size of dropped packages

[389-devel] please review: PR 49839 - Add new password policy syntax attrs to UI

https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/49839 ___ 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html

Outage: Fedora Infrastructure housed at Ibiblio 2017-07-10 14:00 UTC

Ibiblio downtime/outage 2018-07-11 (affects torrents/people) Created seconds ago by smooge Modified just now There will be an outage starting at 2018-07-10 14:00UTC, which will last approximately 6 hours. To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at

Re: Removal of GCC from the buildroot

On 07/09/2018 11:15 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote: > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 06:56:19PM +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: >> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 at 18:37, Chris Adams wrote: >> [..] >>> There are a significant (but unknown number) of packages in Fedora that >>> are probably only currently built and tested

Re: Removal of GCC from the buildroot

On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 06:56:19PM +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 at 18:37, Chris Adams wrote: > [..] > > There are a significant (but unknown number) of packages in Fedora that > > are probably only currently built and tested upstream with GCC > > compilers. Putting a virtual

Re: Removal of GCC from the buildroot

On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, Matt Milosevic wrote: > I tend to agree with Chris on this. Whether we like it or not, GCC is an > integral part of the Unix environment and most things we care about utilize > it in some aspect, even when it's not immediately obvious. Attempting to > forcefully bring in an

Re: I orphaned pam_radius. It needs a new maintainer.

On Mon, 2018-07-09 at 04:47 +, Tim Lank wrote: > I orphaned pam_radius. > > It needs a new maintainer. > I have requested access to the package here: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7625 comaintainers would be great if anyone else is interested. JT >

Re: Removal of GCC from the buildroot

On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 at 18:37, Chris Adams wrote: [..] > There are a significant (but unknown number) of packages in Fedora that > are probably only currently built and tested upstream with GCC > compilers. Putting a virtual requires in the spec, before testing them > with alternate compilers, is

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

- Original Message - > From: "Tomasz Kłoczko" > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > > Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 6:45:28 PM > Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] Removal of GCC from the buildroot > > On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 at 16:42, Przemek Klosowski > wrote: > [..] > > >> After

Re: Removal of GCC from the buildroot

I tend to agree with Chris on this. Whether we like it or not, GCC is an integral part of the Unix environment and most things we care about utilize it in some aspect, even when it's not immediately obvious. Attempting to forcefully bring in an alternate compiler would undoubtedly break a great

Re: Removal of GCC from the buildroot

Once upon a time, R P Herrold said: > As an alternative, adding a 'virtual build requirement' such > as for: > BR: CCP-compiler > > and adding a manual: > Provides: CCP-compiler > > to: gcc-c++ > > and so forth, would make this a non-invasive change. Why ** > not ** choose such

Re: Annobin: "causes a section type conflict with..."

On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, Florian Weimer wrote: > > Can the compiler team just merge the bloody plugin sources into the > > gcc source package so that it doesn't randomly break anymore? > > This change would add roughly 18 hours to the delivery of every annobin change > because that's the time

Removal of GCC from the buildroot

Removal GCC and friends from the buildroot is different than adding new conflicting BRs which impair Clang usability On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, Igor Gnatenko started: > > > I'm going to do this tomorrow. > > > > > > After which, I'm going to ask rel-eng to finally remove it from buildroot.

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

On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 at 16:42, Przemek Klosowski wrote: [..] > >> After which, I'm going to ask rel-eng to finally remove it from buildroot. > >> This will happen before mass rebuild. Stay tuned. > > After adding explicite gcc/g++ in BuildRequires it will be extreamly > > hard to switch use for

Heads up: soname bump of liblouis and liblouisutdml

Hello all, I've just updated liblouis and liblouisutdml in rawhide to the latest upstream releases. As far as I can see, there are no packages in Fedora that directly depend on the libraries but some require the Python bindings (python3-louis). If one of your Fedora or private packages

[389-devel] please review: PR 49836 - Add pam_pwquality features to DS password policy syntax checking

https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/49836 ___ 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html

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

On 07/09/2018 11:15 AM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: On Sun, 8 Jul 2018 at 19:57, 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

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

On Sun, 8 Jul 2018 at 19:57, 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 found, also > autotools/cmake/meson

Re: Firefox lost my session after update

On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 09:25:30 +0200 Michal Ruprich wrote: > Anyone else has experienced this? I rebooted my laptop after some time > and newer version of Firefox(60.0.2-1.f27) kicked in. Unfortunately my > session is lost and I cannot seem to be able to restore it in any way. > From what I've

Re: Review swaps

I fifth that... Because he was the only guy from Fedora project, who gave me feed-back about my proposal for a new package : https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1581240 https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/avigne/pcb-rnd/ Thank you Robert-André. -- Alain V. On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 1:12

[Bug 1599306] New: perl-Search-Xapian-1.2.25.1 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599306 Bug ID: 1599306 Summary: perl-Search-Xapian-1.2.25.1 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-Search-Xapian Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee:

Re: Orphaning not-yet-commons-ssl

On 9 July 2018 at 13:36, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > I've just orphaned not-yet-commons-ssl [1]. It is a dependency of > eclipse-fedorapackager but I'm not sure how useful this dependency still is > I haven't used it lately. The library has a dependency on > jakarta-commons-httpclient which has

Re: Please update rpmlint on taskotron

On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 2:40 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote: > All Python 3 packages now get bytceode related errors with Python 3.7. > > See for example https://taskotron.fedoraprojec > t.org/artifacts/all/7653ca56-8370-11e8-bbcf-525400fc9f92/ > tests.yml/python-libsass-0.14.5-1.fc29.log > > rpmlint was

Orphaning not-yet-commons-ssl

I've just orphaned not-yet-commons-ssl [1]. It is a dependency of eclipse-fedorapackager but I'm not sure how useful this dependency still is I haven't used it lately. The library has a dependency on jakarta-commons-httpclient which has been EOLed in 2011 [2] . [1]

[Bug 1598259] perl-Config-Perl-V-0.30 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1598259 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Config-Perl-V-0.30-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-05262281f2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the

[Bug 1598259] perl-Config-Perl-V-0.30 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1598259 --- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar --- For Fedora ≥ 28. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To

[Bug 1598259] perl-Config-Perl-V-0.30 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1598259 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In Version|

Re: Compiling binaries with PGO

This thread already exists on this mailing list. In fact, you made it. Is there any reason to start a new one? Matt On Mon, Jul 9, 2018, 11:51 Alexander Zaitsev wrote: > Hello. > > As far as I know binaries in Debian repositories most binaries are > compiled without > PGO (profile-guided

[Bug 1599020] perl-Net-Amazon-S3-0.82 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599020 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version|

Re: Review swaps

On Mon, Jul 9, 2018, 13:07 Alois Mahdal wrote: > > > On 07/09/2018 12:36 AM, Jerry James wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 9:49 AM Robert-André Mauchin > wrote: > >> I took care of: > >> > >> - cadical: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599012 > >> - lfsc:

Re: Review swaps

On 07/09/2018 12:36 AM, Jerry James wrote: > On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 9:49 AM Robert-André Mauchin wrote: >> I took care of: >> >> - cadical: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599012 >> - lfsc: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599013 >> - symfpu:

Re: Annobin: "causes a section type conflict with..."

Neal Gompa wrote: > Can the compiler team just merge the bloody plugin sources into the > gcc source package so that it doesn't randomly break anymore? I don't think that doing that is going to solve all the problems with Annobin. I'd rather they just turn this off by default. Annotated builds

[Bug 1598945] perl-Test-Strict-0.47 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1598945 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Fixed In Version|

Re: Annobin: "causes a section type conflict with..."

On 07/09/2018 02:56 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Annobin is causing so many issues, and its main goal of finding packages that were not built with the correct linker flags has already been achieved (bugs have been filed for all of them), so do we really need to keep dragging this thing along all the

Re: Your package doesn't build with Python 3.7

On Sat, 2018-07-07 at 10:09 -0700, Tim Orling wrote: > https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/repos/rawhide/latest/x86_64/ > > See: > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/ttorling/pystatgrab/ > > (I didn’t try to build any other architectures on copr) Thanks it works > On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at

Compiling binaries with PGO

Hello.As far as I know binaries in Debian repositories most binaries are compiled withoutPGO (profile-guided optimization). Also I don't know any LInux-based OSwhere all (or significant part) binaries are precompiled with PGO. With PGO we can improveperformance of binaries for typical use-cases

Re: Annobin: "causes a section type conflict with..."

On Mon, 2018-07-09 at 09:11 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 07/09/2018 03:33 AM, Neal Gompa wrote: > > Can the compiler team just merge the bloody plugin sources into the > > gcc source package so that it doesn't randomly break anymore? > > This change would add roughly 18 hours to the delivery

[Bug 1599111] perl-YAML-LibYAML-0.72 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599111 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version|

Re: Change DNF to use Zchunk for F29

On Mon, 2018-07-09 at 02:27 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Jonathan Dieter wrote: > > And, since the patches to librepo all work and are in the review state > > right now, I expect that there will be few, if any, further changes to > > zchunk's API. > > I think these: >

Firefox lost my session after update

Anyone else has experienced this? I rebooted my laptop after some time and newer version of Firefox(60.0.2-1.f27) kicked in. Unfortunately my session is lost and I cannot seem to be able to restore it in any way. From what I've heard I am not the only one here in the office who ran into this. --

Re: Annobin: "causes a section type conflict with..."

On 07/09/2018 03:33 AM, Neal Gompa wrote: Can the compiler team just merge the bloody plugin sources into the gcc source package so that it doesn't randomly break anymore? This change would add roughly 18 hours to the delivery of every annobin change because that's the time required for