[Bug 901500] New: GPU offload (dynamic hybrid graphics) support
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Product: Fedora Documentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=901500
Bug ID: 901500
Summary: GPU offload (dynamic hybrid graphics) support
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: release-notes
Severity: medium
Priority: unspecified
Reporter: TomasM(a)tomasm.tk
Created attachment 682312
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=682312&action=edit
sample glxinfo output (with DRI_PRIME set and unset)
Fedora 18 supports GPU offloading for many systems with dynamic switchable
graphics support (AMD PowerXPress, NVIDIA Optimus or similar). Setting
DRI_PRIME=1 will render applications with the discrete graphics card on
supported hardware.
Is this something that should be in the release notes?
- AFAIK Fedora 18 is the first distro released with dynamic gpu offload support
- this is a big deal for most laptops with two graphics cards, as the more
powerful card is just a power drain for most Linux users at the moment.
- As per IRC discussion with randomuser, I haven't found upstream docs on how
to actually enable this functionality and think it would be useful to document
somewhere.
I can pull snippets from kernel, Xorg, libXrandr and mesa changelogs to confirm
all of this, but am hopeful a graphics dev (this is largely David Airlie's
work) can verify this instead. Dave has come across a laptop model which
doesn't work with the release-day code; I'm not sure if his warrants some
ambiguity or a technical disclaimer for 'supported hardware'.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
11 years, 2 months
[Bug 902130] New: Boost is not a collection of C libraries
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Product: Fedora Documentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902130
Bug ID: 902130
Summary: Boost is not a collection of C libraries
Product: Fedora Documentation
Version: devel
Component: release-notes
Severity: unspecified
Priority: unspecified
Reporter: fedoration(a)kayari.org
"4.2.1. boost gets up to speed
Fedora 18 will include Boost version 1.50 . The popular collection of C
libraries is updated to the newest available version with each Fedora release."
Should be C++.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
11 years, 3 months
fedora_requires_release_note granted: [Bug 863796] Review Request: printrun - RepRap printer interface and tools
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Pete Travis <me(a)petetravis.com> has granted fedora_requires_release_note:
Bug 863796: Review Request: printrun - RepRap printer interface and tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863796
------- Additional Comments from Pete Travis <me(a)petetravis.com>
Package Review
==============
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
[!]: Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
===== MUST items =====
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
x -- No licensing issues.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
x -- No compiler flag issues.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
x -- No bundled libraries.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
x -- Changelog is properly formatted
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
x -- No permissibility issues.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[ ]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
- -- No macros in summary, descriptions
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is
such a file.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
- -- No development files
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
x -- No directory conflicts
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
x -- Only apropriate files in %doc
[ ]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
- -- No arch issues.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package -n
plater, %package common, %package -n pronterface, %package -n pronsole
- -- noarch packages; dependencies are appropriately declared.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
x --
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"*No copyright* GPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or
generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
in /home/makerpm/rpmbuild/863796-printrun/licensecheck.txt
x -- Undeclared individual files are inheriting license of project
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
- -- No upstream license files; please raise the issue upstream
[ ]: The spec file handles locales properly.
x -- Spec file is not translating, no errors.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
x --
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
x -- No name issues.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
x -- No Conflicts.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
x -- FHS Compliant.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
- -- not applicable
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
x -- No directory conflicts.
[ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
x -- No file conflicts.
[!]: Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
x -- Depends on other package recently reviewed; tested to install
properly when dependencies are available.
[ ]: Package is not relocatable.
x --
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
x -- Requires are correct and trimmed.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
x --
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
- -- Not required
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 256000 bytes in 20 files.
- -- not required.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[ ]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
Note: Cannot find sources under BUILD (using prebuilt sources?)
- -- No binaries, just an egg-defined dir in site-packages.
[ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
x --
[ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
x -- Package does provide egg info
[ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
x --
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
- -- No license files included, you should query upstream
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
x --
[ ]: Package functions as described.
x --
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
x --
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
x --
[ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
x -- Filed and cited.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source2 (pronterface.desktop) Source3 (plater.desktop) Source1
(pronsole.desktop)
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: Mock build failed
x -- rpmlint only complains about spelling of subpackage names. Package
does build.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
I see no issues here. Thanks for your contribution, Miro! This package is
APPROVED.
11 years, 3 months
[Bug 872940] New: Typos and broken links in F18 beta Release Notes
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872940
Bug ID: 872940
QA Contact: kwade(a)redhat.com
Severity: unspecified
Version: devel
Priority: unspecified
CC: oglesbyzm(a)gmail.com, wb8rcr(a)arrl.net
Assignee: relnotes(a)fedoraproject.org
Summary: Typos and broken links in F18 beta Release Notes
Regression: ---
Story Points: ---
Classification: Fedora
OS: Unspecified
Reporter: yurchor(a)ukr.net
Type: Bug
Documentation: ---
Hardware: Unspecified
Mount Type: ---
Status: NEW
Component: release-notes
Product: Fedora Documentation
Created attachment 638011
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=638011&action=edit
Patch to fix typos
Description of problem: There some problems due to conversion in the current
Release Notes
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): git/master,
git/f18
How reproducible: always
Steps to Reproduce: open XMl files of the docs from the patch attached
Actual results: Some broken links due to the period at the end of sentences,
sqlite broken into "sqlit" and "e", orphaned parenthesis
Expected results: Typo-free docs.
Additional info: Thanks for fixing these issues.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
11 years, 3 months