Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Thu, 2016-06-16 at 14:24 -0400, Ben Rosser wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Matthew Miller > .org> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 01:12:07PM -0400, Ben Rosser wrote: > > > ship pip, npm, etc? Where I become uncomfortable, and the reason > > I chimed > > > in on this thread

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Thu, 2016-06-16 at 14:07 -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote: > I think that once the full sandboxing / portal system is in place, > > there _will_ be a tangible reason to prefer Flatpak. >  Definitely true for third party packages that currenly require > pip/npm/rubygems/(curl | sh  :), but you

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 12:46 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 06:25:17PM +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote: > > > That's precisely what they are doing on non-Ubuntu distributions, > > > disabling confinement. > > Thats is pretty crappy. That means th

Re: Source, symbols and debuginfo for flatpaks/snaps

On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 21:38 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > O! I see in builder/builder-utils.c "This code is based on > debugedit.c > from rpm". And I am just hacking on that for rpm (see some patches on > rpm-ma...@rpm.org). Its just part of the debugedit stuff though, because we don't have to

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 16:32 +0100, James Hogarth wrote: > >  > > Snappy fundamentally relies on apparmour to do confinement (i.e. it > > doesn't use filesystem namespaces like flatpak), how does this work > on > > fedora? You can't use selinux and apparmour at the same time, so > this > >

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 08:24 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 06/15/2016 06:27 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 9:07 PM, Florian Weimer > > wrote: > > > On 06/15/2016 04:11 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > > > > > > > I *strongly* disagree here.  The

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 19:26 +0100, James Hogarth wrote: > So I was rather surprised by this Softpaedia article today: > http://news.softpedia.com/news/snap-packages-become-the-universal-bin > ary-format-for-all-gnu-linux-distributions-505241.shtml > It claims that Canonical state that they have

Re: Source, symbols and debuginfo for flatpaks/snaps

On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 12:19 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 22:02 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > When DNF will be able to install flatpack pkgs then we can stop > > supporting > > distro packages for that. > > One of the things I am working on is making access to

Re: F23 System Wide Change: Glibc locale subpackaging

On fre, 2015-08-21 at 15:14 -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote: On 06/22/2015 10:59 AM, Alexander Larsson wrote: Do they really have to modify locale-archive? Can't each package install separate archive files (say, based on the locale name). Packaging optional extra files is a lot easier for me

Re: F23 System Wide Change: Glibc locale subpackaging

on fedora. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Alexander LarssonRed Hat, Inc al...@redhat.comalexander.lars...@gmail.com He's an immortal small-town gentleman spy on his last day in the job

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Default Local DNS Resolver

On tis, 2014-04-29 at 11:24 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: On Tue, 2014-04-29 at 17:15 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote: On tis, 2014-04-29 at 14:15 +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: = Proposed System Wide Change: Default Local DNS Resolver = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Default Local DNS Resolver

On tis, 2014-04-29 at 14:15 +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: = Proposed System Wide Change: Default Local DNS Resolver = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Default_Local_DNS_Resolver Change owner(s): P J P p...@fedoraproject.org, Pavel Šimerda pav...@pavlix.net, Tomas Hozza

Re: We want to stop systemd from being added to docker images, because of rpm requiring systemctl.

On tis, 2014-04-29 at 11:21 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Alexander Larsson al...@redhat.com wrote: On tis, 2014-04-29 at 12:33 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Mon, 28.04.14 17:01, Daniel J Walsh (dwa...@redhat.com) wrote: The problem is lots of services

Re: We want to stop systemd from being added to docker images, because of rpm requiring systemctl.

On tis, 2014-04-29 at 17:40 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Tue, 29.04.14 16:58, Alexander Larsson (al...@redhat.com) wrote: On tis, 2014-04-29 at 12:33 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Mon, 28.04.14 17:01, Daniel J Walsh (dwa...@redhat.com) wrote: The problem is lots

Re: Packages requiring Xorg BackingStore true

On ons, 2013-09-11 at 12:16 +0200, Sandro Mani wrote: Hello, Some time ago I've packaged Xfoil, Avl and Xrotor (which are popular codes for foil/fluid-dynamics related computations), but I never ended up posting a package review for one reason: the plot window of those programs needs

Re: minimal install set tuning [was Re: systemd requires HTTP server and serves QR codes]

On tis, 2012-10-09 at 12:34 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: On 10/9/12 9:18 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: From the list of packages this minimal set still installs, that I'd really like to see gone: chkconfig gamin info systemd-sysv chkconfig seems like it could have the

Re: How to proceed with MiniDebugInfo

On Fri, 2012-05-25 at 10:10 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 05/25/2012 09:26 AM, Alexander Larsson wrote: On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 13:20 -0400, Casey Dahlin wrote: On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 09:28:16AM +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote: I'm at a loss to how to proceed with the MiniDebugInfo work. I

Re: How to proceed with MiniDebugInfo

On Tue, 2012-05-29 at 21:49 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Thu, 24.05.12 09:28, Alexander Larsson (al...@redhat.com) wrote: I'm at a loss to how to proceed with the MiniDebugInfo work. I have patches to rpmbuild that creates the compressed minidebuginfo putting them in the main

Re: How to proceed with MiniDebugInfo

On Sat, 2012-05-26 at 11:50 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 04:43:12PM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote: On Thu, 24 May 2012 16:35:57 +0200, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: jan.kratochvil wrote: If your feature does not solve any problem it is just a bloat. This

Re: How to proceed with MiniDebugInfo

On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 22:24 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote: Wrt upstreaming the patch to FSF GDB first it can be posted but I would keep it for a release or two only downstream, it is simple enough patch, there may be found some issues with its practical use (if any) etc. I agree with Jan. The

Re: How to proceed with MiniDebugInfo

On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 13:20 -0400, Casey Dahlin wrote: On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 09:28:16AM +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote: I'm at a loss to how to proceed with the MiniDebugInfo work. I have patches to rpmbuild that creates the compressed minidebuginfo putting them in the main binaries

How to proceed with MiniDebugInfo

I'm at a loss to how to proceed with the MiniDebugInfo work. I have patches to rpmbuild that creates the compressed minidebuginfo putting them in the main binaries, and I have patches to gdb that reads the compressed debuginfo on demand. However, the whole thing is useless unless we agree that

Re: How to proceed with MiniDebugInfo

On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 11:22 +0300, Yanko Kaneti wrote: On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 09:35 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote: On Thu, 24 May 2012 09:28:16 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote: However, the whole thing is useless unless we agree that we want to enable this by default. It seems some people

Re: How to proceed with MiniDebugInfo

On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 11:17 +0200, Jiri Moskovcak wrote: On 05/24/2012 11:07 AM, Alexander Larsson wrote: On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 11:22 +0300, Yanko Kaneti wrote: The duplication of effort less so IMHO, as different people are doing the work. If we don't do minidebug I will not be spending

Re: How to proceed with MiniDebugInfo

On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 14:46 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote: On Thu, 24 May 2012 11:07:06 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote: There are many ways how to solve this problem, unfortunately nobody knows what is your problem, there are too many close but still different problems in this basket. You have

Re: x32 abi support?

On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 02:28 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: Nicolas Chauvet wrote: So that make me wonder if we really need to built the whole collection as x32 ? Or if we only wants a selection of components to be optimized by x32. For example does it matter to move the whole Xorg server

Re: x32 abi support?

On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 15:30 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:28:31PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: Mhmm, so I was under the impression that x32 was mostly about increasing the scalability of virtualized systems. i.e. run a higher number of x32 containers/VM on

Re: x32 abi support?

On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 21:37 +0200, drago01 wrote: On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Alexander Larsson al...@redhat.com wrote: On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 15:30 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:28:31PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: Mhmm, so I was under the impression

Re: Size of official media handouts (was Re: Proposed F18 feature: MiniDebugInfo)

On Fri, 2012-05-11 at 16:42 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote: Am Mittwoch, den 09.05.2012, 11:57 -0400 schrieb Adam Jackson: On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 11:45 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 13:35 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: Alexander Larsson wrote: The feature page lists

Re: Proposed F18 feature: MiniDebugInfo

On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 10:02 +0200, drago01 wrote: On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: I'd rather we just don't add yet another size overhead to every package. Our packages keep growing and growing even without that. A few KiB here, a few KiB there,

Re: Proposed F18 feature: MiniDebugInfo

On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 13:32 +0200, Jiri Moskovcak wrote: Appart from that I see two questions here: 1. Whether to add the minidebuginfo in Fedora 2. Whether to use this stripped backtrace when reporting a bug. For 1: The decision to use it or not should be based on some real-life tests

Re: Proposed F18 feature: MiniDebugInfo

On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 13:35 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: Alexander Larsson wrote: The feature page lists some of the background and statistics. It also lists some options in how to implement this, which all have various different pros and cons. I'd like to hear what peoples opinions

Re: Proposed F18 feature: MiniDebugInfo

On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 23:54 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote: On Mon, 07 May 2012 23:36:04 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: But anyway, I don't think it's worth continuing this discussion, this is a bit like a dialogue between two wet towels... I also do not think we can ever find an

Re: Proposed F18 feature: MiniDebugInfo

On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 18:55 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Alexander Larsson al...@redhat.com wrote: I just wrote a new Feature proposal for shipping minimal debug info by default: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/MiniDebugInfo The feature page lists

Re: Proposed F18 feature: MiniDebugInfo

On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 16:24 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: Alexander Larsson (al...@redhat.com) said: I just wrote a new Feature proposal for shipping minimal debug info by default: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/MiniDebugInfo The feature page lists some of the background

Re: Proposed F18 feature: MiniDebugInfo

On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 22:44 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote: On Mon, 07 May 2012 22:24:15 +0200, Bill Nottingham wrote: 4) I disagree with the contention that this should all be done via the retrace server. For the retrace server to work, you have to have all of the following: - all

Re: Proposed F18 feature: MiniDebugInfo

On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 08:30 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 08:09:04AM +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote: This is your opinion. I rarely need the full backtrace in a bug report, because it you can get one its generally something thats easily reproduced and I can just run

Re: Proposed F18 feature: MiniDebugInfo

On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 13:08 +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote: My take: 1) Developers of the software in question: Bluntly, the ~1-100 users in the whole world shouldn't matter in our discussion - if they are even running the RPM, they can and probably will install complete debuginfo, enable

Re: Proposed F18 feature: MiniDebugInfo

On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 15:07 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote: I just wrote a new Feature proposal for shipping minimal debug info by default: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/MiniDebugInfo The feature page lists some of the background and statistics. It also lists some options in how

Proposed F18 feature: MiniDebugInfo

I just wrote a new Feature proposal for shipping minimal debug info by default: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/MiniDebugInfo The feature page lists some of the background and statistics. It also lists some options in how to implement this, which all have various different pros and cons.

Re: Proposed F18 feature: MiniDebugInfo

On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 16:25 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote: On Mon, 07 May 2012 15:07:20 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote: I just wrote a new Feature proposal for shipping minimal debug info by default: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/MiniDebugInfo The several choices is missing

Re: libjpeg for F14

as a separate library or as a replacement for libjpeg. It is binary compatible with libjpeg, but contains some extra API not supported by the normal libjpeg. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Alexander LarssonRed

Re: ABRT frustrating for users and developers

. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Alexander LarssonRed Hat, Inc al...@redhat.comalexander.lars...@gmail.com He's an uncontrollable Amish rock star with a passion for fast cars. She's an enchanted

Re: ABRT frustrating for users and developers

On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 09:31 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote: On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 13:02 +, Camilo Mesias wrote: Having said that the things that can be done with a mere backtrace are limited. I would almost always need to look at the corefile too, and would be frustrated if it wasn't