Re: Nautilus usability

On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 20:23:31 -0800, Samuel Sieb wrote: > An SSD drive might not have this problem, but a spinning disk definitely > will. You should never try running multiple copies on the same disk if > you want it to finish in a reasonable time. With one copy, you can do > long contiguous

Re: Nautilus usability

On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 20:58:45 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nka...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Chris Murphy <li...@colorremedies.com> > > wrote: > >> On Sun, Nov 27, 2016

Re: Nautilus usability

On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 15:07:20 +, Chris Murphy wrote: > A directory containing 10,000 1MiB files moved to another directory > completes immediately. The target directory may be a different partition or a network mount. ___ devel mailing list --

Nautilus usability

This is about F25 and F24, but likely applies to older releases, too, since I haven't noticed any improvements about it. Have you ever made Nautilus copy/move a huge directory tree and then started a similar task for other directories while Nautilus was still working on the first task? What

Re: Upgrade path violations in F25

On Fri, 25 Nov 2016 12:47:01 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > It's worth remembering that upgrade path breakage really isn't that big > of a deal these days. dnf-system-upgrade has done a distro-sync (not > 'upgrade') for several releases now, and the instructions for upgrading > directly with dnf

F25 GNOME Shell notification locked up hard for some time

WTF? Noticed one notification about "File operations" in GNOME Shell, clicked on it, and the entire machine was frozen for maybe ten seconds. Mouse pointer couldn't be moved, keyboard input didn't work, couldn't switch to virtual console either. ___

line 1: udevadm: command not found

The root.log of F25 build jobs prints this late: DEBUG util.py:421: Running transaction DEBUG util.py:421: /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.W2zvnF: line 1: udevadm: command not found DEBUG util.py:421: /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.W2zvnF: line 2: udevadm: command not found DEBUG util.py:421: Running in chroot, ignoring

Upgrade path violations in F25

For the release of F25, has nobody run the upgrade path violations checker to warn packagers about any downgrades the dist update would perform? A missing zero day update [only available in updates-testing] for Claws Mail has hit users. Not great. And I hear there are other packages that get

Re: mpg123 buildroot override troubles

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 08:34:18 -0600, den...@ausil.us wrote: > You have to find the existing buildroot override in bodhi and change it's > expiry date. > That worked: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/overrides/mpg123-1.23.8-3.fc25 Thanks! ___ devel

mpg123 buildroot override troubles

Hello! I'd like to build F25 audacious-plugins with mpg123, but can't because: 1) There is no active buildroot override. 2) I cannot create an own buildroot override, because bodhi doesn't let me. It claims an override exists, but koji list-tagged f25-override disagrees. 3) The bodhi

Re: install.img

On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:31:54 -0600, jd1008 wrote: > Tell the list what exactly you wish to achieve, then perhaps you will > receive help. > Asking for a filename is not the way to seek help on this list. Well, it is, provided that someone remembers such a file or its purpose. FWIW, I only

Re: rpmbuild

On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:58:53 +0100, Patrick Dupre wrote: > rpmbuild -bb > and I got the following error message: > RPM build errors: > File not found: > /home/pdupre/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/perl-PAR-Packer-1.035-1.fc24.x86_64/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/* > File not found: >

Re: RPM %changelog?

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 08:40:04 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > That's pretty much the exact *opposite* of what I put in the changelog, > FWIW. It is no news that in recent years some people have pushed their own agenda about what to put into which changelog. I can't do anything about that. > For

Re: RPM %changelog?

On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 16:21:25 +, Christopher wrote: > > Our rules is "leave it to the packager's personal preference" and to > > "keep what's important". > > I'm curious, what *IS* important? 1.) Don't copy upstream changelogs into the spec %changelog. 2.) Mention everything that may affect

Re: Claws-Mail

On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:35:01 -0700, stan wrote: > > After last update of Claws-Mail reading new mails, something is > > changed. I read first mail, after reading I move it into trash, > > cursor jumps to last unread mail. Before update worked, after moved > > trash, cursor went next unread mail.

-filesystem packages (was: Re: Critpath flags on Emacs and Guile)

On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 01:24:57 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > Probably better to just drop the -filesystem subpackage and make all dependent > packages co-own that dir. Those -filesystem packages are a remnant of time > before repoquery could be used to easily find all packages that

Re: Is Kalpa Welivitigoda still active at maintaining packages?

On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 13:24:40 +, Iiro Laiho wrote: > Hi, > > I am asking if anyone knows anything about the whereabouts of Fedora > developer Kalpa Welivitigoda? He is the maintainer of unetbootin package. Bug > 1229874 would need fixing, but it seems that he is not responding to the bug >

Re: Rawhide: Audacious 3.8 plugin API changes

> Audacious 3.8 is landing in Rawhide and will need rebuilds of any > external plugin packages, because the plugin API has changed again. > > You can find working rpms in fedora copr (or koji): > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mschwendt/audacious-next/ Has anyone used it yet or any

Rawhide: Audacious 3.8 plugin API changes

Audacious 3.8 is landing in Rawhide and will need rebuilds of any external plugin packages, because the plugin API has changed again. You can find working rpms in fedora copr (or koji): https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mschwendt/audacious-next/ I'll take care of the patching and

Re: Unversioned and >/=/>= obsoletes

On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 13:14:13 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > All guidelines mandate the use of have some number of packages (179 source rpms -> 292 binary rpms) with > unversioned Obsoletes or with >/=/>= Obsoletes. > > It is causing problems with upgrade (if package is getting re-added) > or with

Re: rpmbuild error (wbar) on F24

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 12:44:59 -0500, Ranjan Maitra wrote: > > Revisit the build output and look for a real error message from the > > compiler, not these that Make prints. > > Where is this build output? I get the following complete output when I use: Here: > ../src/core/Main.cc:84:35:

Re: rpmbuild error (wbar) on F24

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 09:26:29 -0500, Ranjan Maitra wrote: > Hi, > > I have a local rpm that I have created using wbar. The spec file is here: > > https://paste.fedoraproject.org/384973/14669508 > > I have successfully created this rpm up to Fedora 23. But have been unable to > do so this time

Re: GCC 6 constexpr errors?

gcc-6.1.1-1.fc25 is no longer affected. Now could gcc-6.1.1-1.fc24 be published for F24, please? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

GCC 6 constexpr errors?

audacious-plugins-3.7.2 in Rawhide koji failed to build with constexpr errors in various plugins. What exactly has changed? https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5212/13645212/build.log metronom.cc:50:30: in constexpr expansion of

Re: FreeCAD Fedora 24 packages missing all library dependencies.

On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 15:33:02 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote: > I recently got a rash of bug report that FreeCAD on f24 was segfaulting. > After looking at a few things I noticed that the f24 builds seem to be > missing all library based dependencies. > > Has this happened to anyone else? The question

Re: Next push to F24?

On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 20:54:30 +, Peter Robinson wrote: > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?page=22=F24 > > > > There are 22 pages of updates for F24 and push requests as old as > > 11 days. When will be the next push to "stable"? > > Once Alpha gets signed off... same process each

Next push to F24?

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?page=22=F24 There are 22 pages of updates for F24 and push requests as old as 11 days. When will be the next push to "stable"? -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe:

Re: libcue soname bump

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 13:23:34 +0100, Peter Lemenkov wrote: > Hello All! > I'm going to upgrade libcue. Unfortunately this requires a soname > bump. Fortunately only recompilation is necessary. This could have gone better. Apparently, the same SONAME bump has been released to F24 too, and broken

Re: Fedora mass rebuild 2016

On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 12:55:56 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: > audiofile-0.3.6-9.fc24.src.rpm This one was left-shifting a negative integer and also triggered narrowing-conversion errors. Fixed in Rawhide already. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: openCOLLADA: Help with GCC6 narrowing conversion

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 16:46:32 +0100, Dan Horák wrote: > you are welcome, there will be more packages suffering from the same > problem (I own at least one :-)), sometimes appending "-fsigned-char" > to CFLAGS will be easier. A couple of narrowing-conversion problems had turned up in Oct 2015

Re: GCC 6: template argument deduction/substitution failed

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 13:21:23 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > I think this case might be a missing #include . Indeed. was not enough anymore. Thank you, Florian! -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

GCC 6: template argument deduction/substitution failed

Is there any helpful list of major changes in GCC 6, which may give a hint about what C++ gotchas that used to build with GCC 5 may not be valid anymore? And is there a bugzilla tracker ticket for other packages with C++ compilation issues? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1307334 if g++ -fPIC

Re: Latest claws mail moves to message above deleted message instead of below

On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 11:36:48 -0700, stan wrote: > I don't see a bugzilla for this, and a search at claws-mail.org doesn't > turn up anything. Where exactly have you searched for what? A search for the word "next" in the list archives is successful for both January and February. And bugzilla

Re: Unannounced soname bump: libpsl

On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 04:21:59 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > Rawhide is broken too often too easily, leading to too few > contributors/developers running it, leading to more problems. Is the Fedora Project still not doing anything to change that? As long as some developers continue using Rawhide

Re: On packager motivation

On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 19:35:41 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > But thats not how I look at it least. Instead of being one package who > says "My packages are great", you can say "My packages are great, and > other people help me when they can, and I help them out and our > community is great". It's not

Re: Unannounced soname bump: libpsl

On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 10:53:11 +0100, David Tardon wrote: > On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 11:27:30PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: > > > This is the hazard of using %{_libdir}/*.so.* in %files. Is there any > > > reason why such a syntax should NOT be formally discouraged in

Re: Unannounced soname bump: libpsl

On Tue, 02 Feb 2016 13:01:04 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Even if the spec file uses wildcards to include any shared library > > version, the automatic dependency checks for Rawhide will notice the > > SONAME change and inform the packager about it. > > [...] > > This is too late, though. We

Re: Upstream release monitoring issue

On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 07:34:06 +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 10:45:04PM -, Christian Stadelmann wrote: > > Is there any reason why two packages provide tsqllib and tsqllib-devel? See > > https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/s?search=trustedqsl and the related >

Re: Unannounced soname bump: libpsl

On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 05:26:23 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 06:13:13PM -0600, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: > > >This approach really scales badly and creates busywork. > > And breaking rawhide however often due to unnoticed soname bumps > > does scale well and does not cause

Re: Upstream release monitoring issue

On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 07:32:33 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote: > On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Christian Stadelmann wrote: > > > Is there any reason why two packages provide tsqllib and tsqllib-devel? > > See https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/s?search=trustedqsl and the > > related .spec files

Re: On packager motivation

On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 16:04:19 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > When a provenpackager is rebuilding *hundreds* of packages at once, > and trying to deal with maybe dozens of build failures, sending emails > to all the package owners and waiting to see if they respond promptly > is not an efficient

Re: Unannounced soname bump: libpsl

On Tue, 02 Feb 2016 10:20:32 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote: > The reason to not use globs anyway, though, is simple and exactly the > one in this thread: when the soname changes, all the package's > dependencies need rebuilding. Thus, as the packager, you need to know > when the soname changes. If

Re: [Geeqie-devel] NULL-ptr crash in image_read_ahead_done_cb()

On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 23:00:17 +0800, Flos Lonicerae wrote: > But for old version of geeqie - for example the one provided by nux repo: > > geeqie-1.1-10.el6.nux.x86_64 > > did not have this issue. That repo doesn't do anything different. The package you refer to has been copied from Fedora 19

Re: Needless use of %defattr (in 4464 packages)

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 10:48:28 +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Petr Pisar wrote: > > This can bring bugs because, as noted in the orignal message, some > > people use to change wrong permissions coming from %install section. > > Can you give a

Re: Audio CD burner question

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 15:57:13 -0500, Fred Smith wrote: > > MP3 Audio Decoder plugin not found. > > K3b could not load or find the MP3 decoder plugin. This means that > > you will not be able to create Audio CDs from MP3 files. Many Linux > > distributions do not include MP3 support for legal

Re: Should 'dnf install gtk3-devel.i686' work?

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 18:45:15 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > Wouldn't there also be the problem of headers getting clobbered when > you do this? Not generally. Not all projects generate headers to be arch-specific. At least in the C/C++ world, it is much more common for headers to contain

Re: Should 'dnf install gtk3-devel.i686' work?

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 17:32:52 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > IMO, this is supposed to work => Bug > > The big question would be: Where? It cannot work as long as gtk3-devel relies on pkgconfig(foo) dependencies instead of arch-specific explicit Requires. -- devel mailing list

Re: Should 'dnf install gtk3-devel.i686' work?

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:59:01 +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 16:50:03 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > However on the same host if you do: > > > > dnf install gtk3-devel.i686 > > > > then there's a lot missing before you can compile a 32 bit Gtk3 > > application[2]. >

Fw: the-new-hotness saw an update for eiciel, but pkgdb says the maintainers are not interested in bugs being filed

Anyone knows what this cryptic message is trying to tell? What kind of "update" does it refer to? Is this a belated notification about 0.9.11 which is in koji since Dec 2015 already? [...] Begin forwarded message: Subject: the-new-hotness saw an update for eiciel, but pkgdb says the

Re: the-new-hotness saw an update for eiciel, but pkgdb says the maintainers are not interested in bugs being filed

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 12:19:07 -0500, Ralph Bean wrote: > > https://release-monitoring.org/project/8847/ > > Yeah, looking at the message history for eicil helps show what > happened: > > https://apps.fedoraproject.org/datagrepper/raw?package=eiciel > > It looks like someone added eicil to

Re: the-new-hotness saw an update for eiciel, but pkgdb says the maintainers are not interested in bugs being filed

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 18:09:39 +0100, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: > > Anyone knows what this cryptic message is trying to tell? > > What kind of "update" does it refer to? > > Is this a belated notification about 0.9.11 which is in koji > > since Dec 2015 already? > > > > [...] > > > >

Re: Finding the date on which a Fedora 23 was installed on a given machine

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 19:43:12 +0200, Kevin Wilson wrote: > Hello all, > > Is there a way to find out the date on which a Fedora distro was > installed on a given machine (assuming that the date was set correctly > on the machine when it was installed)? rpm -qa --last|tail -10 That's the ten

Re: Unset environment variable when building rpm

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 12:48:58 +0100, arnaud gaboury wrote: > >> --- > >> if [ -n $R_PROFILE_USER ];then > >> unset R_PROFILE_USER > >> fi > >> > >> > >> What is the correct way to unset for

Re: Finding the date on which a Fedora 23 was installed on a given machine

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 10:24:45 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote: > > dumpe2fs on the root filesystem also works, if the filesystem has > > been formatted at 1st install time. > > That's true if and only if you always do a clean install, never an upgrade. Well, upgrades don't reformat the root fs. If you

Re: Finding the date on which a Fedora 23 was installed on a given machine

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 17:36:31 +, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > rpm -qa --last|tail -10 > > That's fine as long as Fedora was clean installed and not updated from > a previous version. The OP didn't say this explicitly. And it isn't fine either, if the installation is from a Live medium. Then

Re: Bug 917362: poco rpms, maintener not responding

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 09:47:55 +0100, zosrothko wrote: > As mentioned by the Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers, I am > asking if anyone knows how to contact the poco rpms maintener > udushlivy > since the issue 917362 has been

Re: Rules regarding whitespace inside .spec files

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 06:18:31 -, Andrew Toskin wrote: > > error: line 102: Unknown tag: Source1: firefox-45.0a2.tar.bz2 > > ...and removing the leading whitespace removes the error. If you test with elemental tags, such as Name, Version and Release, you can observe that they are not

Re: Can I enable C++11 to build a package?

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 12:03:06 +, Ankur Sinha wrote: > Hiya, > > The subtitleeditor package seems to require C++11 enabled to build. > Here's an error in the mock log[1] for the latest failed build[2] for > example: > > /usr/include/glibmm-2.4/glibmm/error.h:41:20: note: C++11 'noexcept' >

Re: mpg123 not included, why?

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:28:33 -0500, Fernando Cassia wrote: > The ID3 info is put at the end of MP3 files, that is per design. Only ID3v1. Unless you're stuck in history, ID3v2 is current and found in most MP3 files. Normally, it's prepended to files as a header, but can also be appended to files

Re: Unresponsive maintainer procedure for tuxbrewr

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 21:48:25 +0100, Christian Dersch wrote: > Hi all, > > I tried to contact tuxbrewr some weeks ago (due to quassel bug fixes and > maintainance), without any response. Does anybody know how to contact > him? I already tried smparr...@gmail.com without success. > > Info:

Re: mpg123 not included, why?

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 08:02:59 -0500, Fernando Cassia wrote: > Well, "the Unix way" is you have programs that send everything to standard > output, then redirect as needed by other apps. Which would get funny, if you wanted to seek back and forth in a large chunk of data fed to a program via

Re: Unresponsive maintainer procedure for tuxbrewr

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:27:03 +0100, Sven Lankes wrote: > As I understand it, your sponsor is supposed to look after your commits. Not forever, though. Sponsorship is not a life-time duty, and monitoring git commits isn't either. It's not even mentioned as a responsibility. There are sponsors who

Re: Unresponsive maintainer procedure for tuxbrewr

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 11:17:37 +0100, Christian Dersch wrote: > > The same procedure has been started a few times, at least > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/736874 > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/963890 > > > > Requesting co-maintainer access would be a way to solve such > > isues. > > > I

Re: Stop please

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:26:14 +, Andrew Clayton wrote: > Interesting. In Claws Mail for this message I'm seeing > > From: > To: > Subject: > Date: > X-Mailer: > Organization: > Message-ID: > > (true, they may not all be shown by default) Preferences > Message View > Text Options > Headers

Re: rpm spec file %define

On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 21:57:21 +, Joseph L. Casale wrote: > For the academic sake only, does a facility exist to defer evaluation > for this use case? It would get kinda ugly, but you could re-expand the macro body: %global foo-bar_dir %{expand:%(ls -d

Re: mpg123 not included, why?

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:11:13 +0100, Philip Brown wrote: > > What is your concern about RPMFusion? You seem to imply you have > > something against it. > > > bad past experience, could have been livna, it was a long time ago and I > never used it since. I imagine it should be a lot better now,

Re: mpg123 not included, why?

On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 23:43:38 +0100, Philip Brown wrote: > > And a "dnf install gstreamer1-plugins\*" here wants to install > > "35 Packages", while some dependencies probably are installed already. > Ok Michael, I can see you don't like this. > > however, in a couple of very simple steps, this

Re: rpm spec file %define

On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 03:16:24 +, Joseph L. Casale wrote: > I have a spec with two source files where I do not create the second, it's > not mine: > > Source0:%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz > Source1:foo-bar.tar.xz > > My prep sections looks like: > > %setup -q > %setup -q -T -D

Re: mpg123 not included, why?

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 19:18:05 +0100, Philip Brown wrote: > if you don't want to install all the extra software repos etc... you can > just grab the rpms from rpmfusion, unzip and get all the .so files out > of them and place them in your .local/share/gstreamer-1.0/plugins > folder. a la: > > ls

Re: mpg123 not included, why?

On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 22:25:20 +0100, Philip Brown wrote: > on the contrary, the information was given to resolve concerns about > acquiring codecs without having to install rpmfusion. i think it > achieves that. The subject is about mpg123, which is not related to GStreamer at all. The message

Re: mpg123 not included, why?

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:41:21 -0500, Fernando Cassia wrote: > Is there any side-effect from enabling the rpmfusion repos? > Conflict with system libs? http://rpmfusion.org/FAQ#How_can_I_trust_that_RPM_Fusion_will_work_with_the_Fedora_project.3F -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Stop please

On Sat, 09 Jan 2016 12:36:08 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > I, Michael Catanzaro, have never in my entire life seen any email > client display mail headers. It's beyond unreasonable to suggest users > look there for anything, much less for a way to unsubscribe from a > mailing list. The

Re: Updating summary and description of a package on pkgdb and the spec

On Fri, 08 Jan 2016 14:58:55 +0100, Dave Olsthoorn wrote: > On Fri, 2016-01-08 at 13:41 +, Ankur Sinha wrote: > > Pkgdb picks up the summary and description from the spec itself, so > > one > > just needs to update the spec and it should reflect in pgkdb after > > the > > next push. > >

Re: emacs-filesystem

On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 11:17:15 +0100, Jan Synacek wrote: > > 2) A dependency on emacs-filesystem is primarily for packages, which store > > files in those directories, but which do _not_ need Emacs to be installed. > > Splitting off emacs- subpackages is not always the most wise/convenient > >

Re: Poll: emacs.desktop or emacsclient.desktop?

On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 11:23:02 +0100, Jan Synacek wrote: > Which one do you use? Having both is confusing, as noted in [1], so I'm > planning to remove one of them. What do you think should be the default? > Please, write what *you* think/use, not what you guess that other people > might want to

Re: emacs-filesystem

On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 15:35:51 +0100, Jan Synacek wrote: > Hello, > > long time ago, there was a request to create the emacs-filesystem > package [1], so other packages could drop their emacs-specific files > there. I believe it was done the other way around... Those files are > useless without

Re: frafra uploaded yumex-dnf-4.1.6.tar.gz for yumex-dnf

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 21:15:12 -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote: > On 12/28/2015 02:35 AM, Tim Lauridsen wrote: > > How do i handle a situation where someone, without my knowledge uploads > > new sources to one of my projects. It could be a security problem ? > > > > Tim > > Email the person and ask

Re: flash plugin

On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 13:14:55 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote: > Currently, my desktop is still on F 21, although I'm planning on > upgrading to 22 next month. Just today, I checked for updates and found > one for the adobe flash plugin. Odd, but adobe doesn't seem to care > when an older version of

Re: Firefox build?

On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 23:44:51 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > Am 28.12.2015 um 22:57 schrieb Bojan Smojver: > > Release notes for FF 43.0.2 say that a security issue was fixed (MD5 > > signatures accepted within TLS 1.2 ServerKeyExchange in server > > signature). Does this not affect Fedora builds?

Re: What to do when upstream doesn't version

And the guidelines offer more than what is needed for many cases, but they cover many different versioning scenarios. * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages *

Re: Specs using %define

On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 14:37:13 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > For fun, what was there: > > %ifos linux > %define _bindir /bin > %endif > > Wow. I can't imagine the original purpose of that block, or how long > ago it must have been added. > > However, why not actually remove it

Re: Specs using %define

On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 15:45:24 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > MS> %_bindir is not /bin > > In Fedora there's not exactly much of a difference because of the > symlink. Not true. While "rpm -q --whatprovides …" queries follow symlinks, the same cannot be said about dependencies in

Re: Specs using %define

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 15:01:02 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > eiciel (mschwendt) Fixed in rawhide git. No build requested, though. > libmowgli (ertzing, mschwendt) This has not been touched except for several mass-rebuilds. No API users are left in the package collection. It could be

Re: Bodhi

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 12:38:34 +0530, Parag Nemade wrote: > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich > wrote: > > And now it is locked. I just can't drop it and redone (it is locked) and I > > can't do anything (it is locked). > > Any ideas? > > Check this

Tuxmath needs help

Just received bugzilla messages for ancient tickets that have not been dealt with. Duplicates and EOL-closed ones have piled up:

Re: rpmlint error and packaging guidelines

On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 15:31:08 +0100, Mattia Verga wrote: > > %global sover 1 > > > > … > > > > %install > > # Install the built binaries. > > > > ln -fs %{_libdir}/libpasplan404.so.%{sover}.0 \ > > %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/libpasplan404.so.%{sover} > > > > … > > > > %files > > # doc-files,

Re: yum configure to only download one package at a time

On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 17:05:21 -0700, Robin Laing wrote: > Hello, > > I am trying to upgrade my system and through our corporate > firewall/network filters/etc, the bandwidth is limited. Today while > doing an upgrade, yum was downloading five packages at a time. Have you visited "man

Re: Dead entries in pkgdb?

On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 13:13:31 +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > pkgdb-cli list |cut -d" " -f4 |sort >$HTMP/fedoralist > After testing a few of them in pkgdb, they seem to be marked as retired there > as > well: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/tetex-pgf/ >

Re: Dead entries in pkgdb?

On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 12:34:01 +0100, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: > But there are entries in pkgdb which can not be fetched that way: > > actdiag $ fedpkg clone actdiag Cloning into 'actdiag'... FATAL: R any actdiag mschwendt DENIED by fallthru (or you mis-spelled the reponame) fatal: Could not

Re: Dead entries in pkgdb?

> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/?q=actdiag > doesn't find the git repo either. > > Same for "seqdiag" and "nwdiag". Review request for "actdiag": https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1072065 Watch this -> | New Package SCM Request 2014-03-04 | === | Package

Packagers: undead packages not retired properly

This is about Rawhide (and some parts apply to F23 and older, too). Again there are zombie packages, which are obsoleted by other packages, but still live on and even have survived mass-rebuilds. Superfluous and can lead to breakage (see bottom), too. "Dead" = a dead.package file in dist git

rpmbuild Perl dependency finder broken since F23?

Been trying to figure out why an unchanged package rebuilt in koji for F23 is missing _all_ Perl dependencies. Without those deps it crashes at runtime. Turned out that rpmbuild did not generate any Perl deps for the single Perl script in /usr/bin. Shebang was '#!/usr/bin/perl -w'. Changing

Re: rpmbuild Perl dependency finder broken since F23?

Here's a test-case: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1291903 The Perl script contents somehow confuse the dep generator. Which component to assign to? rpm or perl-generators? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: -fstack-protector-strong vs -fstack-protector-all

On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 12:18:59 +0100, Antonio Trande wrote: > libmodplug/libtimidity in 'MOC' (RPM Fusion free) Oh, this made me thought this actually refers to duplicated/bundled libs (as both libmodplug and libtimidity are Fedora packages), but in "moc" it's just:

Re: some errors on boot

On Tue, 15 Dec 2015 12:21:26 +, Frank White wrote: > Hi, > I have not resolved my problem... I have seen an automatic reboot > after the relabeling job. And I have a freeze during reinstall of > polkit packages.. and some others packages... > anyway this is my boot log: >

Re: can't upgrade filesystem-3.2-32.fc23.x86_64

On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:10:43 +0100, arnaud gaboury wrote: > Fedora 23 > > It has been since a few eeeks now upgrading > filesystem-3.2-32.fc23.x86_64 to filesystem-3.2-35.fc23.x86_64 fails. > > The only thing I can find in log files is this: > > Dec 14 16:00:02 ERROR Error unpacking rpm

Re: some errors on boot

On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 11:59:58 +, Frank White wrote: > Hi, as my previous messages I have some problems to boot. > One error is that F. does not find some users.. > Those are the errors: > > Dec 14 12:49:54 localhost chronyd[818]: chronyd version 1.31.1 starting > Dec 14 12:49:54 localhost

Re: can't upgrade filesystem-3.2-32.fc23.x86_64

On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 20:37:42 +0100, arnaud gaboury wrote: > >> > error: unpacking of archive failed on file /sys: cpio: chmod > >> > error: filesystem-3.2-35.fc23.x86_64: install failed > >> > error: filesystem-3.2-32.fc22.x86_64: erase skipped > > > > And /sys of your installation is a

Re: can't upgrade filesystem-3.2-32.fc23.x86_64

On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 17:03:49 +0100, arnaud gaboury wrote: > > # rpm -Uvh > > https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/filesystem/3.2/35.fc23/x86_64/filesystem-3.2-35.fc23.x86_64.rpm > > Retrieving > >

Re: Scriptlet errors during manual installation of Fedora 23

On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 08:54:14 +0100, Andrej Podzimek wrote: > error: %prein(selinux-policy-targeted-3.13.1-157.fc23.noarch) scriptlet > failed, exit status 126 > Error in PREIN scriptlet in rpm package selinux-policy-targeted > How can I diagnose this? Where can I dig out the exact

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >