I am gathering informations about various use of CI with Copr. Do you use Copr for building packages for nightlies? For
building packages before pull request is merged? Do you have your set up described somewhere? What is the name of your
Please let me know. Either here or via private reply.
It will help me to understand your use of Copr and to make Copr better.
Thanks in advance.
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:21:30AM +0200, Jakub Martisko wrote:
> On 9.8.2017 11:37, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > ocaml-gsl (OCaml bindings for GNU Scientific Library) currently
> > fails to link to atlas:
> > + /usr/bin/ocamlfind ocamlopt -g -I lib -linkpkg -package bigarray -I lib -I examples lib/gsl.cmxa examples/blas_ex.cmx -o examples/blas_ex.native
> > /usr/lib64/atlas/libsatlas.so: undefined reference to `dlarfy_'
> > /usr/lib64/atlas/libsatlas.so: undefined reference to `slarfy_'
> > /usr/lib64/atlas/libsatlas.so: undefined reference to `clarfy_'
> > /usr/lib64/atlas/libsatlas.so: undefined reference to `zlarfy_'
> > collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
> > However this only happens with the very latest atlas that was built by
> > binutils 2.29 (atlas-3.10.2-18.fc27.x86_64). It doesn't occur with
> > the previous version of atlas (atlas-3.10.2-16.fc26) even though there
> > seems to have been no change in atlas.
> > $ nm -D /usr/lib64/atlas/libtatlas.so | grep larfy
> > U clarfy_
> > U dlarfy_
> > U slarfy_
> > U zlarfy_
> > I looked in /usr/lib64 on my development machine which has atlas
> > installed but there is no .so* file that I can find which defines
> > these symbols. I also couldn't work out where in the atlas code
> > (which is a bit strange) these references are used.
> > Hence the question: Is this breakage in atlas? binutils?
> > Rich.
> OK so it seems that according to git commit messages LAPACK
> has been rebased from 3.6.0 to 3.7.1 day before that mass
> rebuild . Those "larfy" subroutines have been added to
> LAPACK in 3.7.0 and have not been present before. I've
> tried to make a scratch build of atlas  and the missing
> symbols seem to be present...
> $ nm -D ./libtatlas.so.3|grep larfy
> T clarfy_
> T dlarfy_
> T slarfy_
> T zlarfy_
It looks as if you scratch build just changes ‘rm’ to ‘rm -f’ at one
point in the spec file. Is that change also needed?
I can do a bump and rebuild of atlas with or without that change - let
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many
powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc.
Would you like to consider to provide a less "bloated" KDE spin ? Here is the softs I suggest to remove to have a much cleaner base experience :
kolourpaint kruler qupzilla ktorrent krusader kgpg krfb kmines kpat kmahjongg krdc konversation konqueror akregator kamoso dragon ksshaskpass knode kmouth kmousetool dnfdragora k3b jovie kmail kaddressbook korganizer telepathy* ktp* kmag kfind knetattach
Like every softs, if someone need one that is not in the base install, he simply can install it.
Hi, folks! So I've (finally) got ready an initial round of draft
changes to various wiki pages for the purpose of implementing the 'No
More Alphas' Change. You can find all the drafts in the NoMoreAlphas
For each page I cloned the original text and saved it as the first
edit, so you can use the 'History' tab's diff feature to see the actual
changes to each page (just compare the current state to the first
To summarize the changes, at least as I remember them, and call out
some significant choices:
* Obviously, all Alpha-related points on the schedule template on the
Fedora Release Life Cycle page were removed. For schedule points that
were previously derived from Alpha points that got removed, I adjusted
them to derive from some other still-remaining point.
* My proposal for 'what do we do about release criteria / validation'
is basically: the 'Fedora 27 Alpha Release Criteria' page gets renamed
'Basic Release Criteria' (note: not versioned, I don't think it should
be), and we document that *all* composes - not just Beta and Final
candidate composes, but also Rawhide and Branched nightlies - will be
automatically tested for (and release of them gated on) compliance with
them. Which is more or less what's proposed in the Change. All external
references to the 'Alpha' criteria get changed to 'Basic' (e.g. this is
what changed on the other criteria pages, and on the test matrix
template pages). Practically speaking, we currently have automated
testing for *most* of the existing Alpha criteria, but a few items
aren't covered. We can choose to move these to the Beta criteria, or
leave them on Basic and just accept that *actual* coverage doesn't
quite meet what we aspire to. I do *NOT* propose to have any kind of
blocker tracking bug for the Basic release criteria; it doesn't seem to
fit in the process, there is no Alpha release to block, and we can't
realistically block nightly composes on manual test results. So a
tracker bug wouldn't really have any reason to exist. In the case where
a violation of the Basic criteria makes it into composes despite the
automated testing, it should be marked as a Beta blocker.
* There is a problem with what to do about the Change schedule: our two
sources for it don't actually agree on what the schedule *is*. The
Changes Policy page - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Policy -
claims that the 'Completion deadline' "falls on the same day as the
Alpha milestone freeze", but the Fedora Release Life Cycle page -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Life_Cycle - claims it
falls on the same day as the branch point, which is two weeks *before*
the Alpha freeze. Given this inconsistency I didn't really feel
confident proposing a draft for the Changes/Policy page yet; probably
it'd be good for FESCo(?) as owners of the Change process to decide
when they actually want the key dates of the Change process to be, In A
World Without Alphas. If FESCo wants to figure that out and let me
know, I can draft the changes.
Please do look these over and provide any kind of feedback! Thanks.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
I was playing around in the new Pagure https://src.fedoraproject.org/ and I
created a fork of a repo to test. However, I don't need or want this fork.
How do I delete it? There doesn't appear to be an option.
Greetings. Is https://github.com/fedora-selinux/selinux-policy-contrib
the right place to contribute to the Fedora SELinux policy?
I added a pull request for a small update needed for a new release of
cups-pdf, but I am not sure someone is monitoring that. There is another
one from rhatdan there so I presume is the right place.
Kernel 4.13 was released this past weekend. This kernel has been
built for rawhide and is building for F27 as well. We will be
following the same upgrade procedure as in the past. F25 and F26
will get rebased to 4.13 after a few stable releases, typically
4.13.2 or 4.11.3 depending on how stable the kernel is. Upstream
does not give release dates for stable release but given past
timings, this will probably happen towards the end of September.
As always, if you have any questions please let me know.