Hi,
Neal Gompa wrote:
> The binary RPM for grub's BIOS boot code is grub2-pc (and
> grub2-pc-modules), not grub2. But "grub2-pc" is not particularly
> descriptive as a source package name, so grub2-bios makes sense for
> the source package name if we need to split it.
May i propose "grub2-pc-bios
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 4:30 PM Kevin Kofler via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Neal Gompa wrote:
> > dnf, microdnf
>
> Doesn't the change page say the Python DNF will go away?
>
This question will be addressed in a separate change proposal. Fedora 39
can be taken as a primary ta
On 4/12/22 13:54, Ben Cotton wrote:
== Detailed Description ==
The new major Microdnf will provide huge improvements and in some
cases better behavior then DNF. In the future, the new Microdnf will
replace DNF. The new Microdnf will be accompanied by a new library
(`libdnf5`) and a new DNF Daemon
On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 12:38 AM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> Matthew Miller wrote:
> > We've got a 300+ message thread in just one week, with 66 different
> > participants. This handily beats discussions systemd-resolved,
> > btrfs-by-default, and even switching the default editor to nano.
>
On 4/11/22 17:45, Sandro Mani wrote:
> Facing a similar situation a while ago, it was suggested to use a script
> like [1] to prepare an offline cache of all dependencies, and point yarn
> to that folder in the package spec. Other example is pgadmin4 [2].
>
> Sandro
That only works if that folde
On 4/12/22 11:22, Petr Pisar wrote:
> V Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 04:04:35PM +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> napsal(a):
>> On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 11:16:59AM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote:
>>> Where should autoreconf be placed? %pre or %conf?
>>
>> For me the important distinction is that %prep should *
On 4/13/22 17:11, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> On 13.4.2022 08:04, David Bold wrote:
>>
>> It seems I must be missing something? Why should we not care about a
>> significant number of our users, just because other OSs have more users?
>> Could you explain that?
>
> First of all this is not si
On Thu, Apr 14 2022 at 03:02:16 AM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
Given that this is not the first time that we have annobin-induced
breakage
endangering a release,
Thing is, Kevin has a point here. I've lost track of the number of
times annobin troubles have resulted in gratuitous too
On 4/12/22 16:54, Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MajorUpgradeOfMicrodnf
>
> == Summary ==
> A major upgrade of Microdnf is the first step in the evolution of
> package management in Fedora. The new microdnf has ambitions to
> provide all major features of DNF without lo
Neal Gompa wrote:
> The binary RPM for grub's BIOS boot code is grub2-pc (and
> grub2-pc-modules), not grub2.
Oh, it used to be just grub2 until F26 (included), I had either forgotten or
not noticed at all that it had been renamed back in F27 already. (It used to
be the case for years that grub2
Fabio Valentini wrote:
> And, lo and behold, now there's a third update for annobin:
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-3dd2ddf4ab
>
> The update for LLVM 14 was pushed to stable due to a freeze exception,
> but the GCC+annobin update is still in "testing".
> And now there's a n
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 8:45 PM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> Hans de Goede wrote:
> > As the Source0 provider for the packages and then next to:
> >
> > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/grub2
> >
> > Add a:
> >
> > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/grub2-bios
> >
> > And moving the build o
Germano Massullo wrote:
> This problem was caused because I had misinterpreted official Red Hat
> configuration [2].
The documentation was written with interactive use in mind, not for
scripting or packaging. The "scl enable" tool is very impractical for
packaging because you would have to prefi
On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 12:48 PM Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Looks like there's a little bit of a mess around LLVM 14 / GCC /
> annobin updates brewing in f36-updates-testing.
>
> Right now, there's *two* updates in "testing" state that contain
> builds of annobin:
>
> - https://bodhi.fe
Hans de Goede wrote:
> As the Source0 provider for the packages and then next to:
>
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/grub2
>
> Add a:
>
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/grub2-bios
>
> And moving the build of all sub-packages which are
> only necessary for BIOS support to the second src.
Matthew Miller wrote:
> We've got a 300+ message thread in just one week, with 66 different
> participants. This handily beats discussions systemd-resolved,
> btrfs-by-default, and even switching the default editor to nano.
>
> Clearly there's a lot to talk about here. Would it be useful to have a
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 7:52 PM Brian C. Lane wrote:
>
> A huge thanks to Thomas Schmitt for posting xorrisofs arguments :)
>
> Here is a lorax PR switching to grub2 for BIOS and changing the layout
> of the iso as described in his post:
>
> https://github.com/weldr/lorax/pull/1226
>
> And a Fedor
A huge thanks to Thomas Schmitt for posting xorrisofs arguments :)
Here is a lorax PR switching to grub2 for BIOS and changing the layout
of the iso as described in his post:
https://github.com/weldr/lorax/pull/1226
And a Fedora 36 iso:
https://bcl.fedorapeople.org/boot-grub2-f36.iso
I've test
Minutes:
https://meetbot-raw.fedoraproject.org/teams/fedora_coreos_meeting/fedora_coreos_meeting.2022-04-13-16.31.html
Minutes (text):
https://meetbot-raw.fedoraproject.org/teams/fedora_coreos_meeting/fedora_coreos_meeting.2022-04-13-16.31.txt
Log:
https://meetbot-raw.fedoraproject.org/teams/fedo
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 12:56:11PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> If that proves acceptable for change owners here that would perhaps take
> care of the short term problem. What about longer term though? Would the
> thought be that the BIOS sig would remain around for the forseeable
> future maintaini
On 13.4.2022 08:04, David Bold wrote:
It seems I must be missing something? Why should we not care about a
significant number of our users, just because other OSs have more users?
Could you explain that?
First of all this is not significant number of Fedora's users ( or in
the overall deskt
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 03:27:14PM -0400, David Cantrell wrote:
> > FWIW, ATM I think everything which can be said about
> > this has been said and I'm not sure if having a video
> > call about this will add anything new.
> Agreed.
Works for me -- I just wanted to put the option there in case it _
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 09:03:09PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> 1. I'm not sure if it is possible to setup group ownership
> of pkgs in pagure? So to keep things simple the few packages which
> are only necessary for BIOS boot can be handed over to me and then
> I'll just add other peo
...snip bios sig plan...
Thanks for that Hans!
If that proves acceptable for change owners here that would perhaps take
care of the short term problem. What about longer term though? Would the
thought be that the BIOS sig would remain around for the forseeable
future maintaining BIOS boot? Or wo
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 09:03:09PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 4/13/22 18:07, David Cantrell wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 10:39:23AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 13 2022 at 10:54:01 AM -0400, David Cantrell
> >> wrote:
> >>> The core issue still comes down t
Hi,
On 4/13/22 18:07, David Cantrell wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 10:39:23AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 13 2022 at 10:54:01 AM -0400, David Cantrell
>> wrote:
>>> The core issue still comes down to having resources to continue
>>> maintaining
>>> BIOS boot support in Fedor
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 09:34:18AM -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 4/13/22 07:54, David Cantrell wrote:
> > The core issue still comes down to having resources to continue maintaining
> > BIOS boot support in Fedora and so far no one has come forward to work on
> > that.
>
> As far as I can tell fr
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 07:08:13PM +0200, Germano Massullo wrote:
> Hello, in my opinion we should add to Fedora Packaging Guidelines, a
> paragraph concerning GCC Toolset usage.
>
> I recently experienced some problems in building darktable for
> epel8/epel8-next due bad configuration of gcc-tool
Hello, in my opinion we should add to Fedora Packaging Guidelines, a
paragraph concerning GCC Toolset usage.
I recently experienced some problems in building darktable for
epel8/epel8-next due bad configuration of gcc-toolset-11 in the spec
file. In a few words, gcc-toolset-11 was not really e
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 2/15 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-IoT-36-20220411.0):
ID: 1224256 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso release_identification@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1224256
Old failures (same test failed in Fed
On 4/13/22 07:54, David Cantrell wrote:
The core issue still comes down to having resources to continue maintaining
BIOS boot support in Fedora and so far no one has come forward to work on
that.
As far as I can tell from the responses in the other thread, there is
not currently an issue with
On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 at 14:25, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 09:54:12AM -0400, David Cantrell wrote:
> > If you use i686 packages for something now, please respond to this thread.
>
> I use {glibc{,-devel,-static},{gmp,mpfr,libmpc}{,-devel}}.i686 for
> development and testing of G
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 6/229 (x86_64), 11/161 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-36-20220412.n.0):
ID: 1223658 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_lvm_ext4@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1223658
ID: 1223806 Test: aarch64 Ser
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 10:39:23AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13 2022 at 10:54:01 AM -0400, David Cantrell
> wrote:
> > The core issue still comes down to having resources to continue
> > maintaining
> > BIOS boot support in Fedora and so far no one has come forward to work
> >
On Wed, Apr 13 2022 at 10:54:01 AM -0400, David Cantrell
wrote:
The core issue still comes down to having resources to continue
maintaining
BIOS boot support in Fedora and so far no one has come forward to
work on
that.
It's not true, although you can be forgiven for missing it in such a
ma
On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 07:20:52PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> We've got a 300+ message thread in just one week, with 66 different
> participants. This handily beats discussions systemd-resolved,
> btrfs-by-default, and even switching the default editor to nano.
>
> Clearly there's a lot to tal
Neal Gompa wrote:
> dnf, microdnf
Doesn't the change page say the Python DNF will go away?
I would welcome a pure C/C++ base system, with no language interpreters
beyond bash.
Kevin Kofler
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.or
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 10:07 AM Mattia Verga via devel
wrote:
>
> Il 12/04/22 22:54, Ben Cotton ha scritto:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MajorUpgradeOfMicrodnf
> >
> > == Summary ==
> > A major upgrade of Microdnf is the first step in the evolution of
> > package management in Fedor
Il 12/04/22 22:54, Ben Cotton ha scritto:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MajorUpgradeOfMicrodnf
>
> == Summary ==
> A major upgrade of Microdnf is the first step in the evolution of
> package management in Fedora. The new microdnf has ambitions to
> provide all major features of DNF witho
OLD: Fedora-36-20220412.n.0
NEW: Fedora-36-20220413.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 0
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:1.33 MiB
Size of
Due to outstanding blocker bugs[1], we do not have an F36 Final
release candidate. As a result, F36 Final is NO-GO for the early
release target and tomorrow's Go/No-Go meeting is cancelled.
The next Fedora Linux 36 Final Go/No-Go meeting[2] will be held at
1700 UTC on Thursday 21 April in #fedora-
Missing expected images:
Minimal raw-xz armhfp
Compose PASSES proposed Rawhide gating check!
All required tests passed
Failed openQA tests: 12/231 (x86_64), 12/152 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20220412.n.0):
ID: 1223127 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-i
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 10:15 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> Dne 12. 04. 22 v 22:54 Ben Cotton napsal(a):
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MajorUpgradeOfMicrodnf
> >
> > == Summary ==
> > A major upgrade of Microdnf is the first step in the evolution of
> > package management in Fedora. The
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (aarch64), 1/8 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
New soft failures (same test not soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-34-20220412.0):
ID: 1223407 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi
URL:
I confirm Dan's analysis. Problem solved. All details at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2074663#c7
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Con
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20220412.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20220413.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 4
Added packages: 5
Dropped packages:2
Upgraded packages: 81
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 6.36 MiB
Size of dropped packages:1.14
On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 09:47:55 +0200
Germano Massullo wrote:
> Il 12/04/22 20:59, Dan Horák ha scritto:
> > On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 18:20:25 +0200
> > Germano Massullo wrote:
> >
> >> Hello, a new kind of failure is happening, still on same package and CPU
> >> arch
> >> https://koji.fedoraproject.org
Dne 12. 04. 22 v 22:54 Ben Cotton napsal(a):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MajorUpgradeOfMicrodnf
== Summary ==
A major upgrade of Microdnf is the first step in the evolution of
package management in Fedora. The new microdnf has ambitions to
provide all major features of DNF without lo
Il 12/04/22 20:59, Dan Horák ha scritto:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 18:20:25 +0200
Germano Massullo wrote:
Hello, a new kind of failure is happening, still on same package and CPU
arch
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=85563318
Maybe an OpenMP bug?
so now it chokes on inlined func
49 matches
Mail list logo
