Dne 02. 02. 23 v 17:20 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
Dne 01. 02. 23 v 23:25 Reon Beon via devel napsal(a):
There seems to be support now in
rpm:https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2022
Where? When following the link, it leads to the hole of anothers
issues, and refences.
Dne 01. 02. 23 v 23:25 Reon Beon via devel napsal(a):
There seems to be support now in
rpm:https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2022
Where? When following the link, it leads to the hole of anothers issues, and
refences. But I see no merged PR.
Miroslav
There seems to be support now in rpm:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/discussions/2022
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
Support glibc-hwcaps in rpm
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1812
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
On 6/18/21 1:42 AM, Mark Otaris wrote:
For Fedora, linux-hardware.org says 78% use EFI and 16% have Secure Boot
enabled. Not a very good data set, though Fedora telemetry wouldn’t be either.
Of ~ 1K linux boxes in my env -- bare metal & VM, servers & desktops --
~ 550 are now running fully
On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 at 01:51, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > The problems with this is that we are taking a fairly fuzzy data set
> > and making it much easier to track individual users in ways seen as
> > problematic by various laws and regulations.
>
> Well, depends on how you store the
Hi,
> The problems with this is that we are taking a fairly fuzzy data set
> and making it much easier to track individual users in ways seen as
> problematic by various laws and regulations.
Well, depends on how you store the data. You can store one record per
machine (with all properties in
For Fedora, linux-hardware.org says 78% use EFI and 16% have Secure Boot
enabled. Not a very good data set, though Fedora telemetry wouldn’t be either.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
Okay,
So here comes another naive suggestion.
The metrics that are desired are really innocuous content which should
not risk anonymity, correct? Such things like BIOS/UEFI/?, CPU, Memory,
installed edition or spin, when it was installed, optional packages,
storage setup, etc... I presume. Why
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 10:36:47AM -0500, Ron Olson wrote:
> Apologies in advance if this is laughable naïveté, but would a possible
> solution be to have a different repo for packages compiled against the
> latest-n-greatest architectures, and packagers could choose to include their
> packages
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 11:02:23PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 9:52 PM Benjamin Beasley
> wrote:
> >
> > At the risk of overextending an already well-elaborated thread, I would
> > like to point out that my main workstation, for Fedora packaging and other
> >
On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 at 12:27, Justin Forbes wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 3:23 PM Matthew Miller
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 02:57:17PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > > >We'll at least gather information about capabilities of Fedora
> > > >users hardware.
> > >
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 10:26 AM Justin Forbes wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 3:23 PM Matthew Miller
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 02:57:17PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > > >We'll at least gather information about capabilities of Fedora
> > > >users hardware.
> > >
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 3:23 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 02:57:17PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > >We'll at least gather information about capabilities of Fedora
> > >users hardware.
> > Telemetry is evil. It must not be allowed.
>
> Well, that's certainly A
On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 at 11:38, Ron Olson wrote:
>
> Apologies in advance if this is laughable naïveté, but would a possible
> solution be to have a different repo for packages compiled against the
> latest-n-greatest architectures, and packagers could choose to include their
> packages in
Apologies in advance if this is laughable naïveté, but would a possible
solution be to have a different repo for packages compiled against the
latest-n-greatest architectures, and packagers could choose to include their
packages in there, similar to EPEL?
Packages in this hypothetical repo
On 6/17/21 4:44 AM, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
On 16.06.2021 22:22, Matthew Miller wrote:
Well, that's certainly A Position. I don't think it's anything nearly so
absolute, though, and depends on what, who, how, why, and a host of
other
things. And "it can help us answer questions like
On 17.06.2021 13:43, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
1. This conversation is not about other operating systems.
It was just an example of telemetry usage.
2. No one is talking about installing keyloggers or similar tools.
Appetite comes with eating. More and more telemetry will be introduced
On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 at 04:45, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 16.06.2021 22:22, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > Well, that's certainly A Position. I don't think it's anything nearly so
> > absolute, though, and depends on what, who, how, why, and a host of other
> > things. And "it can help us
On 16.06.2021 22:22, Matthew Miller wrote:
Well, that's certainly A Position. I don't think it's anything nearly so
absolute, though, and depends on what, who, how, why, and a host of other
things. And "it can help us answer questions like this for our community" is
a pretty non-evil "why".
On June 17, 2021 12:08:44 AM UTC, Neal Gompa wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 6:08 PM Kevin Kofler via devel
> wrote:
>>
>> Neal Gompa wrote:
>> > Yeah, I think that proposal was not workable because of AVX2. The
>> > x86_64-v2 subarch adds SSSE3, SSE4.2, POPCNT, and CMPXCHG16B to the
>> >
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 6:08 PM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> Neal Gompa wrote:
> > Yeah, I think that proposal was not workable because of AVX2. The
> > x86_64-v2 subarch adds SSSE3, SSE4.2, POPCNT, and CMPXCHG16B to the
> > current x86_64 baseline. All of these instructions were present in
Florian Weimer wrote:
> Right, I have yet to encounter anyone who can't run the new el9 binaries
> on their hardware. We had a few issues, but they were all
> misconfiguration of hypervisors or software emulators.
Let me introduce you to my notebook:
[kevin@laptop64 ~]$ cat /etc/fedora-release
Neal Gompa wrote:
> Yeah, I think that proposal was not workable because of AVX2. The
> x86_64-v2 subarch adds SSSE3, SSE4.2, POPCNT, and CMPXCHG16B to the
> current x86_64 baseline. All of these instructions were present in the
> first Intel Macs launched in 2007, as I recall.
Still means my
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 9:52 PM Benjamin Beasley
wrote:
>
> At the risk of overextending an already well-elaborated thread, I would like
> to point out that my main workstation, for Fedora packaging and other
> purposes, has an Intel Q6600 (Core 2 Quad) that does NOT meet the
> requirements
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 02:57:17PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> >We'll at least gather information about capabilities of Fedora
> >users hardware.
> Telemetry is evil. It must not be allowed.
Well, that's certainly A Position. I don't think it's anything nearly so
absolute, though,
> In this case it doesn't 'matter' it is a small segment of users. It is
> a
> segment of our maintainers who are. We either have to listen to them, 'fire
> them', or buy them replacement hardware. Since we are already overloaded,
> firing them has not been on the table. Buying replacement
On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 at 12:45, przemek klosowski via devel
wrote:
>
>
> On 6/16/21 12:09 PM, Florian Weimer wrote
> >> I'm missing something---I get identicaloutput on my v3 Core i7-4810MQ
> > Why do you expect different output?
>
> Stephen was showing off his 'oldest' system and I assumed that it
On 6/16/21 12:09 PM, Florian Weimer wrote
I'm missing something---I get identicaloutput on my v3 Core i7-4810MQ
Why do you expect different output?
Stephen was showing off his 'oldest' system and I assumed that it was
some Penryn-era relic, so I expected a <= v1 result. One cohort of
* przemek klosowski via devel:
> I'm missing something---I get identicaloutput on my v3 Core i7-4810MQ
Why do you expect different output?
> Is this supposed to run HWCAP and show the result, or just show the
> HWCAP configuration and possible choices?
It shows capabilities (as defined by the
* Neal Gompa:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 8:57 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
> wrote:
>>
>> On 16.06.2021 14:45, Frantisek Zatloukal wrote:
>> > We'll at least gather information about capabilities of Fedora users
>> > hardware.
>>
>> Telemetry is evil. It must not be allowed.
>>
>
> So how do you
On 6/16/21 8:45 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
oh cool. this even works on CentOS and RHEL systems:
```
smooge@xanadu ~]$ podman run fedora:latest /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2
--help
...
Subdirectories of glibc-hwcaps directories, in priority order:
x86-64-v4
x86-64-v3 (supported,
On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 at 08:46, Frantisek Zatloukal
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 2:20 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> On Fedora 34 or later, you can use “/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 --help”.
>> If x86-64-v2 shows up as “supported”, there is compatibile:
>>
>> | Subdirectories of
On 16.06.2021 15:00, Neal Gompa wrote:
So how do you propose we figure out what kind of hardware we need to
work with, further develop, or such?
No way. And that's fine.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
___
devel mailing list
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 8:57 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 16.06.2021 14:45, Frantisek Zatloukal wrote:
> > We'll at least gather information about capabilities of Fedora users
> > hardware.
>
> Telemetry is evil. It must not be allowed.
>
So how do you propose we figure out what
On 16.06.2021 14:45, Frantisek Zatloukal wrote:
We'll at least gather information about capabilities of Fedora users
hardware.
Telemetry is evil. It must not be allowed.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
___
devel mailing list
> Am 16.06.2021 um 14:16 schrieb Stephen John Smoogen :
>
>
>
> …
> feel comfortable using. People in academia usually have tight capex budgets
++1
As an example, we have still to use as a server for production
> [root@hydra ~]# cat /proc/cpuinfo
> processor : 0
> vendor_id :
On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 at 08:16, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 at 04:29, Daniel P. Berrangé
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 05:34:02PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
>> > Hey all,
>> >
>> > Earlier this week, I was helping with processing features for openSUSE
>> > Leap
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 2:20 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
> On Fedora 34 or later, you can use “/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 --help”.
> If x86-64-v2 shows up as “supported”, there is compatibile:
>
> | Subdirectories of glibc-hwcaps directories, in priority order:
> | x86-64-v4
> | x86-64-v3
On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 at 08:19, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Stephen John Smoogen:
>
> > I used this
> >
> https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/631217/how-do-i-check-if-my-cpu-supports-x86-64-v2
> > to see what cpu instructions are at each level
> >
> > ```
> > #!/usr/bin/awk -f
> >
> > BEGIN {
>
> Am 16.06.2021 um 13:47 schrieb Björn Persson :
> But I'm already planning to reinstall that one with Debian,
> ... so it won't hurt me
> if Fedora stops working there.
Do we really want to recommend this to our users?
The ability to continue using ‚mature', functional hardware was
* Stephen John Smoogen:
> I used this
> https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/631217/how-do-i-check-if-my-cpu-supports-x86-64-v2
> to see what cpu instructions are at each level
>
> ```
> #!/usr/bin/awk -f
>
> BEGIN {
> while (!/flags/) if (getline < "/proc/cpuinfo" != 1) exit 1
> if
On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 at 04:29, Daniel P. Berrangé
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 05:34:02PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > Hey all,
> >
> > Earlier this week, I was helping with processing features for openSUSE
> > Leap 15.4[1] and I discovered that they're planning on introducing
> > x86_64-v2
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> #!/usr/bin/awk -f
>
> BEGIN {
> while (!/flags/) if (getline < "/proc/cpuinfo" != 1) exit 1
> if (/lm/&&/cmov/&&/cx8/&&/fpu/&&/fxsr/&&/mmx/&&/syscall/&&/sse2/) level =
> 1
> if (level == 1 &&
> /cx16/&&/lahf/&&/popcnt/&&/sse4_1/&&/sse4_2/&&/ssse3/) level
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 12:52:22PM +0200, Eugene Syromiatnikov wrote:
> Oops, I confused "Gen 3" above with x86_64-v3; however, with regards to
> v2 support, Westmere-based Pentiums/Celerons were released in 2011
> and do not support SSE4.1/4.2.
And until the Silvermont core (in 2013) the Atom
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 12:37:57PM +0200, Eugene Syromiatnikov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 09:28:47AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 05:34:02PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > Hey all,
> > >
> > > Earlier this week, I was helping with processing features for
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 09:28:47AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 05:34:02PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > Hey all,
> >
> > Earlier this week, I was helping with processing features for openSUSE
> > Leap 15.4[1] and I discovered that they're planning on introducing
> >
Hi,
On 6/16/21 12:19 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 12:01:29PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 6/16/21 10:28 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 05:34:02PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
Hey all,
Earlier this week, I was helping
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 12:01:29PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 6/16/21 10:28 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 05:34:02PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> >> Hey all,
> >>
> >> Earlier this week, I was helping with processing features for openSUSE
> >> Leap 15.4[1]
Hi,
On 6/16/21 10:28 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 05:34:02PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
>> Hey all,
>>
>> Earlier this week, I was helping with processing features for openSUSE
>> Leap 15.4[1] and I discovered that they're planning on introducing
>> x86_64-v2 to openSUSE
Hello,
I have already benchmarked this when Arch was considering a similar move:
https://openbenchmarking.org/result/2103142-HA-UARCHLEVE55
There is no or negligible performance benefit of compiling for x86_64-v2 versus
amd64 baseline. For discussion see [1]. Beforehand, I have explicitly
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 05:34:02PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> Earlier this week, I was helping with processing features for openSUSE
> Leap 15.4[1] and I discovered that they're planning on introducing
> x86_64-v2 to openSUSE soon. The reference for this change was that
> RHEL 9 is
* Neal Gompa:
> Some cursory examination of the new x86_64 sublevels seem to indicate
> that x86_64-v2 goes back to roughly 2007~2008, merely cutting off the
> first couple of generations of x86_64 CPUs from Intel and AMD. I
> personally don't have any computers that don't have support for
>
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 9:55 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> Yeah, I think that proposal was not workable because of AVX2. The
> x86_64-v2 subarch adds SSSE3, SSE4.2, POPCNT, and CMPXCHG16B to the
> current x86_64 baseline. All of these instructions were present in the
> first Intel Macs launched in
On 15/06/2021 22:54, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 5:50 PM Fabio Valentini wrote:
Different question: How is the runtime CPU feature detection /
dispatch support in glibc coming along? Shouldn't this "work" by now?
No idea, good question, though!
If you mean feature level
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 5:50 PM Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 11:35 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> >
> > Hey all,
> >
> > Earlier this week, I was helping with processing features for openSUSE
> > Leap 15.4[1] and I discovered that they're planning on introducing
> > x86_64-v2 to
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 11:35 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
> Earlier this week, I was helping with processing features for openSUSE
> Leap 15.4[1] and I discovered that they're planning on introducing
> x86_64-v2 to openSUSE soon. The reference for this change was that
> RHEL 9 is going to
On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 at 17:35, Neal Gompa wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> Earlier this week, I was helping with processing features for openSUSE
> Leap 15.4[1] and I discovered that they're planning on introducing
> x86_64-v2 to openSUSE soon. The reference for this change was that
> RHEL 9 is going to use
Hey all,
Earlier this week, I was helping with processing features for openSUSE
Leap 15.4[1] and I discovered that they're planning on introducing
x86_64-v2 to openSUSE soon. The reference for this change was that
RHEL 9 is going to use x86_64-v2[2]. Additionally, other distributions
have been
59 matches
Mail list logo
