On 10/14/2013 10:55 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 01:39:21AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
Next steps:
- Verify libssp works correctly on 32-bit ARM.
- Look at enhancing the existing support in glibc.
- Add TLS stack guard.
- Add TLS pointer guard.
- Add pointer
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:42:44PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
On 10/14/2013 10:55 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Did the arm32 portions of this end up being completed for F20?
For 32-bit ARM on f20:
- Stack guard:
- Existing glibc support provides stack guard value in global
On 10/15/2013 12:53 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:42:44PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
On 10/14/2013 10:55 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Did the arm32 portions of this end up being completed for F20?
For 32-bit ARM on f20:
- Stack guard:
- Existing glibc support
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 02:16:28PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
Pointer mangling is useful, but we can roll that change into an update
and it should not in my opinion block F20.
I've filed:
Bug 1019452 - [ARM] Backport pointer mangling support from upstream.
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 02:16:28PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
There is no effective security difference between accessing the randomized
stack guard value from a global variable or a value stored in the dynamic
thread vector.
It is only a performance optimization. The choice of a global
On 10/15/2013 02:27 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 02:16:28PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
There is no effective security difference between accessing the randomized
stack guard value from a global variable or a value stored in the dynamic
thread vector.
It is only a
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 01:39:21AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
Next steps:
- Verify libssp works correctly on 32-bit ARM.
- Look at enhancing the existing support in glibc.
- Add TLS stack guard.
- Add TLS pointer guard.
- Add pointer mangle/demangle support.
- Enhance aarch64 to
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 3:53 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 07:33:48PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 07/16/2013 07:16 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
For instance, it seems to be missing both the stack protector and
llvmpipe issues.
Finishing scope of
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 08:12:42PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
There probably is a minimal packageset, though. the kernel, glibc, gcc,
and rpm would all be on my list. Given that fesco has a policy about the
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:18:26 -0700
Brendan Conoboy b...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/16/2013 05:28 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
All the remix images to date have been created on the users own
devices. If you are internal to Red Hat there's process to get
access to internal infrastructure...
- Original Message -
On 07/16/2013 05:28 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
All the remix images to date have been created on the users own
devices. If you are internal to Red Hat there's process to get access
to internal infrastructure...
There are 3 things I would like to add here:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 12:53:18 -0400 (EDT)
Bastien Nocera bnoc...@redhat.com wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Koji/BuildingImages says:
koji grant-permission image user: grant the permission to build
an image type to a user.
Is that not correct?
Yeah, I guess it is now. We don't
On 07/17/2013 09:53 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I'd rather have community accessible
machines.
And I'm not really comfortable manipulating build images from 4000 miles away if
I haven't been able to test them in the slightest locally.
Sure, community
On 17 Jul 2013 18:18, Brendan Conoboy b...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/17/2013 09:53 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I'd rather have community
accessible machines.
And I'm not really comfortable manipulating build images from 4000 miles
away if
I haven't been able
On Wed, 2013-07-10 at 23:25 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2013-07-10 at 23:18 -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 07/10/2013 10:12 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
As I said elsewhere in the thread, the criteria should be subsidiary to
the primary arch designation. If we decide we want to
On Wed, 2013-07-17 at 15:18 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Following today's FESCo decision, I have created a QA trac ticket to
co-ordinate this:
https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/393
interested parties please feel free to CC yourselves and contribute any
suggested changes /
If phones and tablets aren't the primary focus, what is? Development boards,
for the sake of running Fedora ARM on something? Server systems that don't
exist yet (or aren't widely available[1])?
I'm interested in Fedora on phones, tablets, tiny dongly media centers, set-top
boxes, Wi-Fi
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Bastien Nocera bnoc...@redhat.com wrote:
If phones and tablets aren't the primary focus, what is? Development boards,
for the sake of running Fedora ARM on something? Server systems that don't
exist yet (or aren't widely available[1])?
They're not the primary
On Monday, July 15, 2013, Rob Clark robdcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Brendan Conoboy b...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/11/2013 10:41 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Kernel, glibc, all the core library
- Original Message -
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Bastien Nocera bnoc...@redhat.com wrote:
If phones and tablets aren't the primary focus, what is? Development
boards, for the sake of running Fedora ARM on something? Server systems
that don't exist yet (or aren't widely
They're not the primary focus of mainline Fedora either. We're
CURRENTLY focusing on development boards (100s of examples), desktop
like systems (Trimslice and other similar systems), netbooks/laptop
style systems and the various media centre style devices (STB/media
sticks etc), and servers.
On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 13:00 +0200, drago01 wrote:
It is getting a bit off the topic, but this it isn't really a
problem
with mesa. But rather that we have non-gallium closed src drivers
from the GPU vendors in the ARM space, which only support GLES. And
most/all of the desktop stuff
- Original Message -
They're not the primary focus of mainline Fedora either. We're
CURRENTLY focusing on development boards (100s of examples), desktop
like systems (Trimslice and other similar systems), netbooks/laptop
style systems and the various media centre style devices
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 13:00 +0200, drago01 wrote:
It is getting a bit off the topic, but this it isn't really a
problem
with mesa. But rather that we have non-gallium closed src drivers
from the GPU vendors in the ARM
Any image that wants to use a kernel that is a non upstream mainline
Fedora kernel ships as a remix.
This is the rootfs for F18 (I started work on that before F19 got out):
We no longer support a rootfs tarball because it caused more problems
than it solved.
I'm happy to create a remix
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 7:00 AM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, July 15, 2013, Rob Clark robdcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Brendan Conoboy b...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/11/2013
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Rob Clark robdcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 7:00 AM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, July 15, 2013, Rob Clark robdcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11,
Brendan Conoboy (b...@redhat.com) said:
On 07/15/2013 11:09 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
If I'm understanding you, you would prefer that ARM be blessed with the
stamp of being a 'primary' arch at the cost of dropping release targets,
images, and featuresets that are made by and for the
On 07/16/2013 11:01 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Brendan Conoboy (b...@redhat.com) said:
If not now, when? When libGL is ready to go?
... when someone fixes it?
Hypothetically speaking, if libGL is fixed in the next few days, do you
have any objections to armv7hl being moved to primary
Brendan Conoboy (b...@redhat.com) said:
Hypothetically speaking, if libGL is fixed in the next few days, do
you have any objections to armv7hl being moved to primary koji? Or
is that the tip of the iceberg?
And I'm saying that threshold should be that the major libraries work. That
On 07/16/2013 01:49 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
I'm interested in Fedora on phones, tablets, tiny dongly media centers, set-top
boxes, Wi-Fi routers and eBook readers.
Personally, I'm interested in running Fedora on ARM everywhere, so if
you want to contribute toward the above, by all means do
On 07/16/2013 05:28 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
All the remix images to date have been created on the users own
devices. If you are internal to Red Hat there's process to get access
to internal infrastructure...
There are 3 things I would like to add here:
1. As Peter mentioned elsewhere in his
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 22:42 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 09:17 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
I'm afraid I can't agree. I like the simplicity of the model you're
proposing, but from a
On 07/16/2013 11:36 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Well, what else is broken?
It's a matter of approach - you seem to be saying what are the minimum
requirements, listed so that we can meet them. In terms of a minimum
viable platform, for all its faults, the interfaces specified by the LSB
might
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 04:07:39PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
I don't want to move the goalposts on the ARM effort, but I think it's
reasonable to expect that a list of Known Broken/Deficient items be
available. Does such a list exist?
The list of outstanding ARM bugs is tracked here:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 22:42 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 09:17 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
I'm afraid I
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 04:07:39PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
I don't want to move the goalposts on the ARM effort, but I think it's
reasonable to expect that a list of Known Broken/Deficient items be
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 12:16:04AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 04:07:39PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
I don't want to move the goalposts on the ARM effort, but I think it's
On 07/16/2013 07:16 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 12:16:04AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 04:07:39PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
I don't want to move the goalposts
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 07:33:48PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 07/16/2013 07:16 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
For instance, it seems to be missing both the stack protector and
llvmpipe issues.
Finishing scope of stack protector issue- it'll be there in a day or
so. Idea is to get
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 02:17:28PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 07/12/2013 12:08 PM, David Tardon wrote:
I dont argue that this should be a blocker for architectures quite
the opposite as far as I see it the only requirement for an
architecture to be come a primary ( thou arguably
Matthew Miller píše v Pá 12. 07. 2013 v 23:24 -0400:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:53:23PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
What do we talk about when we talk about Fedora? :)
Well, we just did a major release. Go look on news.google.com for
Fedora 19, or search for Fedora 19 review, or just poke
On 07/11/2013 03:33 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 04:01:15PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
That's the point. You don't get to be a primary architecture until
you've demonstrated that doing so won't
在 2013-7-11 AM4:43，Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com写道：
I appreciate that some people cannot or don't want to buy hardware,
but if you did have roughly $300 available, then you should probably
get the Oct 2012 Samsung Chromebook or the Arndale development board.
The Chromebook has the
On 07/15/2013 07:42 AM, David Tardon wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 02:17:28PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 07/12/2013 12:08 PM, David Tardon wrote:
I dont argue that this should be a blocker for architectures quite
the opposite as far as I see it the only requirement for an
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:49:21AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 07/15/2013 07:42 AM, David Tardon wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 02:17:28PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 07/12/2013 12:08 PM, David Tardon wrote:
I still think...
We should limit the number of packages
For the record: this is my last reply in this thread. I have better
things to do...
D.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:00:32AM +0200, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
S, speaking of which:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/VisibleCloud
I think this is mixing up things together a bit. I don't think no one
thinks we can create an ISO that would work perfectly for all uses
(desktop,
On 07/15/2013 04:13 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:
Agree, I have 2 Arndale now, its performance can beats any other v7
devices.
But. I'm not sure if A15 can be fully supported. Currently I only see
many A9 hardwares.
Some requisite patches weren't upstream in time for Fedora 19's 3.9 GA
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 10:07 -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
Some requisite patches weren't upstream in time for Fedora 19's 3.9 GA
kernel, but are in the 3.10 update. This means Arndale should be fully
supportable in Fedora 20. Meanwhile, there is an F19 remix for Arndale
using a later
On 07/15/2013 10:15 AM, Chris Tyler wrote:
I think that's s/Arndale/Chromebook/
Same SoC, different peripherals sticking out.
--
Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / b...@redhat.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 10:28 -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 07/15/2013 10:15 AM, Chris Tyler wrote:
I think that's s/Arndale/Chromebook/
Same SoC, different peripherals sticking out.
Right -- but also different boot processes. I was just noting that the
image for which you provided the
Brendan Conoboy (b...@redhat.com) said:
On 07/11/2013 12:37 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Well, as I said (and you cut out)
...
I do know what some people want ARM to be in terms of dense
hypserscale servers (32/64-bit)... but the community that would be using
Fedora ARM does seem to be
On 07/15/2013 06:09 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Brendan Conoboy (b...@redhat.com) said:
On 07/11/2013 12:37 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Well, as I said (and you cut out)
...
I do know what some people want ARM to be in terms of dense
hypserscale servers (32/64-bit)... but the community that
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote:
Adam Jackson (a...@redhat.com) said:
If we really wanted to talk about graphics on arm, we'd be talking about
writing drivers for GPUs.
Is there any use to shipping freedreno and similar projects in Fedora ARM
before
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Brendan Conoboy b...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/11/2013 08:46 AM, Till Maas wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 07:48:50AM -0400, Jonathan Masters wrote:
And following the legitimate concerns about stack-protector this was
raised by ARM into core Linaro as an urgent
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Peter Jones pjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:58:59AM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
Security features are implemented and working- except
evidently pointer guards, which we found out about *yesterday*.
The point of this isn't just that it
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Brendan Conoboy b...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/11/2013 10:41 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Kernel, glibc, all the core library stacks. And I would argue that yes,
this
*includes* libGL. So llvmpipe needs fixed, outside of any desktops.
Should
we define the core
On 07/15/2013 11:09 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
If I'm understanding you, you would prefer that ARM be blessed with the
stamp of being a 'primary' arch at the cost of dropping release targets,
images, and featuresets that are made by and for the community now.
I wouldn't put it like that. The
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote:
Adam Jackson (a...@redhat.com) said:
If we really wanted to talk about graphics on arm, we'd be talking about
writing drivers for GPUs.
Is
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 09:17 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
I'm afraid I can't agree. I like the simplicity of the model you're
proposing, but from a practical point of view, there is still a commonly
held
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Brendan Conoboy b...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/11/2013 10:41 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Kernel, glibc, all the core library stacks. And I would argue that yes,
this
*includes* libGL. So
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:32 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:58:08PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:50:24PM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Or does it mean x86 as PA is out of line? There are a lot more people
with ARM
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 22:07 -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com writes:
[...] Primary Architectures : These are architectures with the
majority of the users, the most common
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 1:08 PM, David Tardon dtar...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 06:06:04PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 07/11/2013 02:04 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
johan...@gmail.com wrote:
Each sub-community ( be
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 02:17:28PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
1. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949328
2. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869540
Often, people maintain a package
That's the point. You don't get to be a primary architecture until
you've demonstrated that doing so won't slow down the other
architectures
Is that you don't get to be a primary architecture unless you have
demonstrated that nobody outside of the ARM SIG needs to do any work
on the
Just in case anyone wanted a different view of the time differences for the F19
build tasks (PA vs ARM):
http://scotland.proximity.on.ca/~jon/koji.times.html
Source code is here based off of DJ Delorie's original work/script:
http://scotland.proximity.on.ca/~jon/koji-times.txt
Jon Chiappetta
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 02:06:12PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
we have a kernel and initramfs, that can be pxe booted or you can boot
and load, however we have not made it the primary mathod of
install for boards because they generally can only boot and run from a
sdcard you would need to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 13 Jul 2013 11:36:00 +0200
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 02:06:12PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
we have a kernel and initramfs, that can be pxe booted or you can
boot and load, however we have not made
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 11:50:40AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jul 2013 11:36:00 +0200
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 02:06:12PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
we have a kernel and initramfs, that can be pxe booted or you can
boot and load,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 10:23:50 -0700
Brendan Conoboy b...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/11/2013 03:55 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
I will note that it is not x86 alone. If one is simply going by as
close to the current Fedora experience the current Primary
- Original Message -
From: Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 9:02:48 AM
Subject: Re: F20 System Wide Change: ARM as primary Architecture
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 10:23:50 -0700
Hi,
On 07/11/2013 08:38 PM, Till Maas wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 08:58:11AM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
snip
vnc installs if you want graphics. Or kickstart installs if you
want automation.
This sounds promising. Are there remix-anaconda images that can be used
to test this on a
On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 22:07 -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com writes:
[...] Primary Architectures : These are architectures with the
majority of the users, the most common architectures. [...]
By that standard, PA treatment of ARM seems way premature.
On 07/11/2013 07:53 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
What's your definition of what people perceive Fedora to be?
What do we talk about when we talk about Fedora?:)
Well, we just did a major release. Go look on news.google.com for
Fedora 19, or search for Fedora 19 review, or just poke through a
few
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 06:06:04PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 07/11/2013 02:04 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
johan...@gmail.com wrote:
Each sub-community ( be it spins be it various arch ) should need to provide
the necessary
On 07/12/2013 12:08 PM, David Tardon wrote:
I dont argue that this should be a blocker for architectures quite
the opposite as far as I see it the only requirement for an
architecture to be come a primary ( thou arguably those are
outdated concepts as well ) is that all package currently build (
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 02:17:28PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
1. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949328
2. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869540
Often, people maintain a package because it's required for a certain use
case they have not necessarily for
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:37:41AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 02:17:28PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
1. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=949328
2. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869540
Often, people maintain a package because it's
i will look at throwing together a script to give us some comparisons
between the build times on the different arches.
I've already done this, last time it came up...
http://www.delorie.com/arm/koji-compare-build-times.tar.gz
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 10:52:15 -0400
DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote:
i will look at throwing together a script to give us some
comparisons between the build times on the different arches.
I've already done this, last time it came up...
http://www.delorie.com/arm/koji-compare-build-times.tar.gz
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 403 Forbidden
2013-07-12 08:53:13 ERROR 403: Forbidden.
wget is blocked unless you're clueful enough to use the -U flag.
Consider it a spot check for smart enough to not recursively download
i will look at throwing together a script to give us some comparisons
between the build times on the different arches.
I've already done this, last time it came up...
http://www.delorie.com/arm/koji-compare-build-times.tar.gz
Also, I'm running the script now, I'll post results when it
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 11:05:49 -0400
DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote:
http://www.delorie.com/arm/koji-compare-build-times.tar.gz
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 403 Forbidden
2013-07-12 08:53:13 ERROR 403: Forbidden.
wget is blocked unless you're clueful enough to use the -U
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:50:00AM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 07/11/2013 11:38 AM, Till Maas wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865022
It is currently closed, because I did not re-test anymore after it was
announced that the device won't be supported anymore soon.
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 09:03:24AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
As for the anaconda install support, my images will be a copy of:
Fedora-XFCE-armhfp-19-1-sda.raw.xz with the kernel and uboot replaced
+ some other tweaks, but otherwise unmodified. So if that image can
do anaconda installs, my
The stack-protector issue has been raised to priority number one for the
library folks within the Linaro toolchain group. I have followed up with
members of the toolchain and steering committees as appropriate to ensure this
is going to be taken care of extremely swiftly.
Next!
--
Sent from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 18:40:21 +0200
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 09:03:24AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
As for the anaconda install support, my images will be a copy of:
Fedora-XFCE-armhfp-19-1-sda.raw.xz with
Also, I'm running the script now, I'll post results when it
finishes, let's not ALL hit the koji database at the same time ;-)
Results here:
http://www.delorie.com/arm/f19-times.html
includes the raw time data from koji
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:53:23PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
What do we talk about when we talk about Fedora? :)
Well, we just did a major release. Go look on news.google.com for
Fedora 19, or search for Fedora 19 review, or just poke through a
few popular tech sites and forums.
What do
On 07/10/2013 09:13 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Fedora is an operating system that supports a range of desktop
environments, defaulting to the GNOME desktop environment. An OS that
supports headless servers but not desktop environments might be based on
Fedora, but it wouldn't be Fedora. As such,
- Original Message -
From: Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 11:56:40 PM
Subject: Re: F20 System Wide Change: ARM as primary Architecture
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 04:17
On 07/10/2013 10:12 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
As I said elsewhere in the thread, the criteria should be subsidiary to
the primary arch designation. If we decide we want to take ARM as a
primary arch in any form in which the current release criteria don't
apply, we should amend the release
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 21:56:40 +0100
Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 04:17:47PM +0100, Caolán McNamara wrote:
On Wed, 2013-07-10 at 08:28 -0400, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
I still have serious concerns regarding build times:
* arm -
On Wed, 2013-07-10 at 23:18 -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 07/10/2013 10:12 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
As I said elsewhere in the thread, the criteria should be subsidiary to
the primary arch designation. If we decide we want to take ARM as a
primary arch in any form in which the current
: Wednesday, July 10, 2013
11:56:40 PM Subject: Re: F20 System Wide Change: ARM as primary
Architecture
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 04:17:47PM +0100, Caolán McNamara wrote:
On Wed, 2013-07-10 at 08:28 -0400, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
I still have serious concerns regarding build times
Thanks Brendan. My Fedora doesn't even use a GNOME desktop. I've happily used
XFCE for years. And I make no secret that I care about servers more than
desktops (you know, that part of the market where general purpose Linux has a
huge footprint and stands a chance). I would hate to look back in
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 11:15:37PM +0100, M A Young wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 11:32:46AM -0400, Jonathan Masters wrote:
Excellent proposal. I of course think this would be just awesome!
This proposal doesn't address virtualization!
I
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 10:24:05PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 06:14:24PM +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
I was working on adding 2 more SOC's for packagers earlier this
1 - 100 of 255 matches
Mail list logo
