(resending, as i got a bounce from the list)
On 29/09/14 20:54 +0200, Haïkel wrote:
>Currently, there is *no* golang packaging guidelines approved, so we
>shouldn't have accepted golang packages in the first place.
>The most urgent issue is to complete the current draft and champion it
>to the FPC.
>Without guidelines, we're just increasing packaging entropy.
the increasing entropy is worriesome, but i'm glad topics like this are
coming up to help us get the guidelines robust
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2014-08-21 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
Local time information (via. rktime):
2014-08-28 09:00 Thu US/Pacific PDT
2014-08-28 12:00 Thu US/Eastern EDT
2014-08-28 16:00 Thu UTC <-
2014-08-28 17:00 Thu Europe/London BST
2014-08-28 18:00 Thu Europe/Paris CEST
2014-08-28 18:00 Thu Europe/Berlin CEST
2014-08-28 21:30 Thu Asia/Calcutta IST
2014-08-29 00:00 Fri Asia/Singapore SGT
2014-08-29 00:00 Fri Asia/Hong_Kong HKT
2014-08-29 01:00 Fri Asia/Tokyo JST
2014-08-29 02:00 Fri Australia/Brisbane EST
Links to all tickets below can be found at:
= Followups =
(approval and retirement sections already passed, /opt exception passed,
#topic #339 software collections in Fedora
(comment #16 is the current winner)
#topic #341 How to replace "docker" package with an entirely
different package of the same name?
#topic #382 Go Packaging Guidelines Draft
(more votes needed, or defer to FESCO?)
#topic #444 Officially recommend to releng that SCLs be placed in
separate packages rather than separate branches in git
= New business =
#topic #447 Bundling exception for axmail
#topic #448 Copylib exception for fastlz
#topic #450 Temporary jsquery packing exception for kimchi
#topic #452 Crypto policies packaging guideline
#topic #453 Changes/SystemdSysusers updates for
= Open Floor =
For more complete details, please visit each individual ticket. The
report of the agenda items can be found at:
If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can reply to
this e-mail, file a new ticket at https://fedorahosted.org/fpc,
e-mail me directly, or bring it up at the end of the meeting, during
the open floor topic. Note that added topics may be deferred until
the following meeting.
Testers wanted immediately for:
For Fedora 21 and Fedora 20 we will be disabling Intel TSX
support in POSIX threads effective immediately. This disabling
of TSX support in POSIX threads is in order to prevent users
from crashing their systems when they upgrade microcode_ctl.
The upgrade to the new microcode_ctl applies the microcode
update for the Intel errata HSW136 and makes all TSX instructions
invalid opcodes. This means that any process on your system
already using POSIX threads, and already using TSX, will fault
with invalid opcode errors when it tries to execute TSX
The best solution is for the microcode update to be done before
userspace starts as part of a single-threaded init process or
Until we support updating microcode in early bootup we won't
enable TSX in POSIX threads. The glibc maintainers have decided
not add code to detect which devices the errata applies to, nor
will code be added to re-read the cpuid values at every TSX usage.
We are going with the simples approach which is to disable TSX
for POSIX threads.
I'm trying to build a 32bit library on my 64bit system with cmake. The
first part is easy, pass -m32 to the C/CXX flags, but this library includes
a code generator and if the target and host parameters don't 100% match,
cmake assumes it's cross-compiling and then requires import executables for
the "host" system.
When I build a package using rpmbuild --target i686 everything works as
expected so I assume rpmbuild is setting up some stuff in the background to
make this happen.
I was trying to see if I could get verbose output from rpmbuild but I built
the package 3 times, once without verbose, once, with, and one with -vv.
Other than the expected differences (tmp dirs, etc) all the logs are
identical which would indicate to me that the verbose options aren't doing
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
As of yesterday, the deadline for submitting bids for Flock 2015 has
passed. There were four bids made:
* Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
* Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
* Rochester, New York, USA
* Cape Cod, Massachusetts, USA
Ultimately, the selection of the location is up to the Flock Planning
Committee, but I'd like to run an informal poll on this list to ask
people to rate each of these locations on a scale of -5 to 5 how much
this particular location would affect their interest in attending Flock.
In other words:
- -5: I would not want to attend Flock if it was held in this location.
0: This location has no effect on my decision to go to Flock.
5: I would go to Flock just for the excuse to visit this location.
Note: this is *not* asking whether you plan to attend Flock, just how
much the selection of each of these locations would play into your
(For the sake of fairness, I'd ask those that submitted bids to excuse
themselves from this poll.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----