I'm not sure I understand. How can LLVM-C be ABI-incompatible with plain GCC-C?
See /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 and its symbols, such as stack unwinding, uncommon or
messy
conversions between data formats, expensive operations on 'long long', etc.
--
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-lis
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 23:38:31 -0400,
Jud Craft wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 3:19 AM, Rahul Sundaram
> wrote:
> > Yes. Development releases of Fedora have a large number of debugging
> > stuff enabled.
>
> I really can't tell if you're joking.
I think that is an exageration. But at vari
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Actually, the ABI issue is only if you use the C code generator, not the
> native ones.
I'm not sure I understand. How can LLVM-C be ABI-incompatible with plain GCC-C?
I thought that C doesn't have any crazy name or symbol or virtual
table
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 3:19 AM, Rahul Sundaram
wrote:
> Yes. Development releases of Fedora have a large number of debugging
> stuff enabled.
I really can't tell if you're joking.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-deve
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009, Rudolf Kastl wrote:
Hello!
While doing some tests and installing a large part of the rawhide
repository content i see that there are various packages that have a
broken %post scriptlet or it is outputting some warnings. maybe it
would be an idea for a abrt-yum plugin to s
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 08:48:03AM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> Hi,
>
> /sbin/installkernel doesn't pass --dracut to /sbin/new-kernel-pkg, so a
> make install from a kernel.org kernel tree tries to
> invoke /sbin/mkinitrd rather than dracut. Is that intentional?
>
> Also, any ideas on
Next bunch built, it's a complete set of those with mock exit status 30
(I'm curious what does this exit status mean, missing prerequisity is
denoted by 10) and some others too:
piggyback-2.6.26-4.fc12 (on sparc)
perl-Perl-Critic-1.105-1.fc12
glglobe-0.2-8.fc12
libica-2.0.2-1.fc12 (on s390)
ope
We held the first official blocker bug review meeting for Fedora 12
final release on Friday, 2009-10-23. Many thanks to James Laska, Jesse
Keating, Ray Strode, Matej Cepl, Denise Dumas, Justin Forbes, Bill
Nottingham, Edward Kirk, and Matthias Clasen for their contributions.
We ran through all 51
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 08:48:03AM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> Hi,
>
> /sbin/installkernel doesn't pass --dracut to /sbin/new-kernel-pkg, so a
> make install from a kernel.org kernel tree tries to
> invoke /sbin/mkinitrd rather than dracut. Is that intentional?
Don't know if it's intentional
Le 25/10/2009 22:59, Kevin Kofler a écrit :
>
> It's also a good reflex to support all branches with updates, especially
> bugfix updates (and I wish more people would do it), but again, only if
> there's a reason to push the update in the first place. :-)
>
> Kevin Kofler
>
they were
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:39:56 +0100, Haïkel wrote:
> This was a very very low priority task for me, python-mpd is roughly one
> python file mpd.py. There was only one use-case, i could think about :
> an unexperienced developer including it in his "multiplatform" project.
> Then, he shares it with
Haïkel Guémar wrote:
> This was a very very low priority task for me, python-mpd is roughly one
> python file mpd.py. There was only one use-case, i could think about :
> an unexperienced developer including it in his "multiplatform" project.
People bundling system libraries deserve whatever they
Haïkel Guémar wrote:
> This is personal policy to always push latest stable unless it's broken,
This makes sense in principle, but not if nothing (of relevance to Fedora)
actually changed.
> Why i pushed the update on older branches ? Maintainers are asked to
> support branches until EOL and it
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> And once again, the bodhi update requests for these updates don't try to
> explain what changes come with these updates. They are only marked as "bug
> fix" updates with no notes that give details.
Right, we really need some enforcement against this practice.
I have no i
Pierre-Yves wrote:
> Then you get bug from people expecting the latest version because you're
> not up to date...
That's what NOTABUG is for.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
King InuYasha wrote:
> Also, clang's support with C++ ABI is still very broken. It's listed under
> known issues.
Actually, the ABI issue is only if you use the C code generator, not the
native ones.
The real problem is that C++ support in Clang is just not complete. You may
have more luck with
Le 25/10/2009 22:20, Christoph Wickert a écrit :
> Am Sonntag, den 25.10.2009, 20:56 +0100 schrieb Haïkel Guémar:
>
>> This is personal policy to always push latest stable unless it's broken,
>> since it wasn't critical, i had always delayed it.
>> Why i pushed the update on older branches ? Maint
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:28:58 +0100, Pierre-Yves wrote:
> Then you get bug from people expecting the latest version because you're
> not up to date...
Ridiculous. It's easy to close such tickets as NOTABUG and explain to such
people why an update doesn't make sense.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:20:59 +0100, Christoph wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 25.10.2009, 20:56 +0100 schrieb Haïkel Guémar:
>
> > This is personal policy to always push latest stable unless it's broken,
> > since it wasn't critical, i had always delayed it.
> > Why i pushed the update on older branches
On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 22:28 +0100, Pierre-Yves wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 22:20 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> > Am Sonntag, den 25.10.2009, 20:56 +0100 schrieb Haïkel Guémar:
> >
> > > This is personal policy to always push latest stable unless it's broken,
> > > since it wasn't critical
On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 22:20 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 25.10.2009, 20:56 +0100 schrieb Haïkel Guémar:
>
> > This is personal policy to always push latest stable unless it's broken,
> > since it wasn't critical, i had always delayed it.
> > Why i pushed the update on older b
Am Sonntag, den 25.10.2009, 20:56 +0100 schrieb Haïkel Guémar:
> This is personal policy to always push latest stable unless it's broken,
> since it wasn't critical, i had always delayed it.
> Why i pushed the update on older branches ? Maintainers are asked to
> support branches until EOL and it
Haïkel Guémar wrote:
> This is personal policy to always push latest stable unless it's broken,
> since it wasn't critical, i had always delayed it.
> Why i pushed the update on older branches ? Maintainers are asked to
> support branches until EOL and it worked on my test VM.
> Maybe, i'm just a b
2009/10/25 Neal Becker :
> I wonder if texlive should include a /etc/profile.d package to set TEXMFCNF,
> so that other packages, such as xdvipdfmx will work? Or, should texlive
> just obsolete xdvipdfmx and include it's own version?
IMO the latter.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-deve
Le 25/10/2009 17:53, Todd Zullinger a écrit :
> I wrote:
>> Hi Haïkel,
>>
>> Haïkel Guémar wrote:
>>> Author: hguemar
>>>
>>> Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/python-mpd/F-10
>>> In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv27941
>>>
>>> Modified Files:
>>> python-mpd.spec sources
>>> Log Mes
I wonder if texlive should include a /etc/profile.d package to set TEXMFCNF,
so that other packages, such as xdvipdfmx will work? Or, should texlive
just obsolete xdvipdfmx and include it's own version?
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailm
On 25.10.2009 08:18, David Timms wrote:
On 10/20/2009 08:48 PM, Milos Jakubicek wrote:
http://mjakubicek.fedorapeople.org/need-rebuild.html
hmmn, glglobe is mine, wonder what went wrong.
It seems that the build logs are no longer available ?
No, they are kept only for 14(?) days or so.
Shou
On 10/25/2009 10:51 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> LLVM 2.6 has been announced with Clang declared as production quality in
>> this release
>>
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-announce/2009-October/33.html
>>
>> Has anyone been looking into building Fedora with it
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > LLVM 2.6 has been announced with Clang declared as production quality in
> > this release
> >
> >
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-announce/2009-October/33.html
> >
> > Has anyone been looking into build
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> LLVM 2.6 has been announced with Clang declared as production quality in
> this release
>
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-announce/2009-October/33.html
>
> Has anyone been looking into building Fedora with it to see how the
> performance impact is?
A lot of
I wrote:
> Hi Haïkel,
>
> Haïkel Guémar wrote:
>> Author: hguemar
>>
>> Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/python-mpd/F-10
>> In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv27941
>>
>> Modified Files:
>> python-mpd.spec sources
>> Log Message:
>> Updated to 0.2.1
>
> Any reason to update this fo
Hi Haïkel,
Haïkel Guémar wrote:
> Author: hguemar
>
> Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/python-mpd/F-10
> In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv27941
>
> Modified Files:
> python-mpd.spec sources
> Log Message:
> Updated to 0.2.1
Any reason to update this for F-10 (or any Fedora bra
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009, Mike Chambers wrote:
I mirror rawhide on a F11 box, that I normally nfs mount from a rawhide
running system. Tried to do an nfs based install from rawhide 2 days
ago and it failed, but installing via http from outside source (I don't
have http setup on the box) worked. So I
Hi
LLVM 2.6 has been announced with Clang declared as production quality in
this release
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-announce/2009-October/33.html
Has anyone been looking into building Fedora with it to see how the
performance impact is?
Rahul
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
On 10/22/2009 06:18 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> Hi,
>
> /sbin/installkernel doesn't pass --dracut to /sbin/new-kernel-pkg, so a
> make install from a kernel.org kernel tree tries to
> invoke /sbin/mkinitrd rather than dracut. Is that intentional?
>
> Also, any ideas on why a dracut-generated in
Hello All!
2009/10/25 Felix Kaechele :
> Hi there,
> I'm just starting to play with my SIP Phones using OpenSER.
> I was wondering why there have been no updates to the OpenSER package
> since it was renamed to Kamailio in version 1.4.0?
There are plans to package sip-router, when it will reach s
Compose started at Sun Oct 25 06:15:11 UTC 2009
Broken deps for ppc64
--
python-mwlib-0.11.2-3.20090522hg2956.fc12.ppc64 requires LabPlot
Summary:
Added Packages: 0
Removed Packages: 0
Modified Packages: 0
--
fedora-deve
Hi there,
I'm just starting to play with my SIP Phones using OpenSER.
I was wondering why there have been no updates to the OpenSER package
since it was renamed to Kamailio in version 1.4.0?
I did however notice that version 1.4.0 in fact is of an earlier date
than version 1.3.4 (which still is nam
On 10/25/2009 09:49 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Rawhide Report wrote:
nickle-2.69-2.fc12
--
* Fri Oct 23 2009 Michel Salim - 2.69-2
- Lower FORTIFY setting; level 2 does not work with gcc 4.4.2
That's a completely WRONG fix!!! You MUST fix the application instead.
Disabling securi
Rawhide Report wrote:
> nickle-2.69-2.fc12
> --
> * Fri Oct 23 2009 Michel Salim - 2.69-2
> - Lower FORTIFY setting; level 2 does not work with gcc 4.4.2
That's a completely WRONG fix!!! You MUST fix the application instead.
Disabling security flags can't be the right approach to
Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
> By the way, colours on old kde3 apps doesn't work,
> either, despite enabling for non-kde4 applications in
> system settings (kftpgrabber) - I can see it already:
> file a bug report :-)
There's already an ages-old bug report, the upstream KDE developers don't
care.
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 02:37:57AM +0200, Milos Jakubicek wrote:
>
> Newpackage (some of them even for months!):
> python-decorator3
Please do not rebuild this one. It's currently just a forwards compat
package for EL-5. I'll dead.package the devel package soon.
> zikula-module-filterutil
>
Ple
On 10/24/2009 06:17 PM, Ilyes Gouta wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Was Fedora 12 Beta released with all sort of debugging info. compiled in?
> I just want to find the cause of the general slowness ..
Yes. Development releases of Fedora have a large number of debugging
stuff enabled.
Rahul
--
fedora-devel-li
On 10/20/2009 08:48 PM, Milos Jakubicek wrote:
http://mjakubicek.fedorapeople.org/need-rebuild.html
hmmn, glglobe is mine, wonder what went wrong.
It seems that the build logs are no longer available ?
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1504772
eg for: x86_64 (red)
https://koj
44 matches
Mail list logo
