Re: Use AutoQA to track changes in "provides" and "requires"?
> On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 11:17 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Kamil Paral > > wrote: > > > Something like this? [1] [2] > > > > Yup! Something a lot like that! I did look over the AutoQA wiki > > before > > posting but didn't know enough about rpmguard to know that where I > > needed to look :) > > > > > > > We already do that in the form of 'rpmguard' test [3]. Currently > > > you have to sign-up manually to receive rpmguard/rpmlint results > > > for new package builds [4]. > > > > So you have to subscribe per package per release? I don't > > necessarily > > want them emailed to me but accessible somewhere would be nice. > > All AutoQA results can be accessed via resultsdb: > > http://autoqa.fedoraproject.org/resultsdb/frontend http://autoqa.fedoraproject.org is enough, that will redirect you there. > > You can do a search for a specific package and/or test case. On the > search page - > http://autoqa.fedoraproject.org/resultsdb/frontend/search > - 'Envr' seems to be the place to put the package name. So if you put > 'kernel' in the 'Envr' box, and 'rpmguard' in the 'Testcase' box, and > hit search, you get all the rpmguard tests for kernel package builds. > > Kamil, perhaps the search interface could be made a bit friendlier? A > better name for the field than 'Envr', whatever the heck that's > supposed > to mean? A drop-down list for 'testcase', rather than free text? > Friendly unicorn pictures? :) > -- > Adam Williamson ENVR is an abbreviation for epoch-name-version-release. So you can put there a package build specification in the ENVR format, or just a package name. I agree that it's not really descriptive. CCing autoqa-devel to annoy my colleagues and make them work harder :=) Petr, can you adjust the "Envr" label text to "Package name or ENVR" (or similar)? And maybe have a look at drop-down lists for Testcase and Arch? Thanks. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Next FUDCon EMEA (Paris) planning meeting today, 6PM UTC
Hi there, Just to remind you that we are having our next planning meeting today, Thursday, at 6PM UTC, #fedora-meeting. This time is going to be used for our weekly meetings. The current agenda is: # hotel # founding # design # other tasks # open floor Hope to see you later today, -- Kévin Raymond (shaiton) GPG-Key: A5BCB3A2 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora-Review 0.2.0
On 08/02/2012 12:02 AM, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 23:52 -0600, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
Where would you like bug reports?
I tried it against one of my own review tickets. It found a number of
issues however almost all of them except one was wrong.
For example it complained of no clean section with a rm -rf %{buildroot}
which the specfile contained, same message except in the install section
etc.
Are you sure it wasn't complaining that the specfile actually contained
those lines?
The Fedora guidelines say those lines are not needed, and shouldn't be
there for new packages, unless the package maintainer wants to ensure
compatibility with EPEL 5.
Hmm I guess I mis-read it then.
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
at the beginning of %install
When I read that, the ! tells me I failed that. So Package does not run
rm -rf %{buildroot} at the beginning of %install. I think the double
negative there is what threw me. I think putting the MUST part into the
actual description would help. For example
[!] Package MUST NOT run rm -rf %{buildroot} ...
Clearly tells me that I failed that because I am running the rm command.
Whereas a MUST preceding the line and the failure can be interpreted as
I failed because the package does not run rm -rf ... Not sure if you see
what I mean. Now that it is pointed out it does make more sense.
Thoughts? Is it just me that read that totally wrong?
--
Nathanael d. Noblet
t 403.875.4613
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora-Review 0.2.0
On Thu, 2012-08-02 at 08:23 -0600, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
> On 08/02/2012 12:02 AM, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 23:52 -0600, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
> >> Where would you like bug reports?
> >>
> >> I tried it against one of my own review tickets. It found a number of
> >> issues however almost all of them except one was wrong.
> >>
> >> For example it complained of no clean section with a rm -rf %{buildroot}
> >> which the specfile contained, same message except in the install section
> >> etc.
> >
> > Are you sure it wasn't complaining that the specfile actually contained
> > those lines?
> >
> > The Fedora guidelines say those lines are not needed, and shouldn't be
> > there for new packages, unless the package maintainer wants to ensure
> > compatibility with EPEL 5.
>
> Hmm I guess I mis-read it then.
>
> [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
> [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
> at the beginning of %install
>
> When I read that, the ! tells me I failed that. So Package does not run
> rm -rf %{buildroot} at the beginning of %install. I think the double
> negative there is what threw me. I think putting the MUST part into the
> actual description would help. For example
>
> [!] Package MUST NOT run rm -rf %{buildroot} ...
>
> Clearly tells me that I failed that because I am running the rm command.
> Whereas a MUST preceding the line and the failure can be interpreted as
> I failed because the package does not run rm -rf ... Not sure if you see
> what I mean. Now that it is pointed out it does make more sense.
>
> Thoughts? Is it just me that read that totally wrong?
Maybe it would be better formulated as:
[!]: MUST: Buildroot MUST NOT be present (NOTE: this is not true for
EPEL5)
[!]: MUST: Package MUST NOT run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
at the beginning of %install
What do you think?
Pierre
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora-Review 0.2.0
On 08/02/2012 08:29 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
Maybe it would be better formulated as:
[!]: MUST: Buildroot MUST NOT be present (NOTE: this is not true for
EPEL5)
[!]: MUST: Package MUST NOT run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
at the beginning of %install
What do you think?
That would definitely be clearer to me.
--
Nathanael d. Noblet
t 403.875.4613
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora-Review 0.2.0
On 08/02/2012 03:36 PM, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
On 08/02/2012 08:29 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
Maybe it would be better formulated as:
[!]: MUST: Buildroot MUST NOT be present (NOTE: this is not true for
EPEL5)
[!]: MUST: Package MUST NOT run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
at the beginning of %install
What do you think?
That would definitely be clearer to me.
Where is the guideline that says (as a MUST) that buildroot definition
and cleaning must not be done (except for EPEL5)?
The packaging guidelines page
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag) just
says that it's not needed to define the buildroot from F-10, which is
hardly a MUST; the only related MUST is that it MUST be defined for EPEL-5.
Similarly, buildroot cleaning
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean) is listed
as not required from F-13.
Leaving these in may enable a single spec to be used for all branches,
including EPEL-5 if there aren't other reasons why a package wouldn't
build on such an old distro, in which case it's harmless and
advantageous to leave those in. I think the wording should reflect that
these things are just redundant in modern distros and may be removed,
but drop the MUST label.
Paul.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
krb5 update issue
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11388/krb5-1.10.2-5.fc1 triggers: Error: Package: 1:libguestfs-1.18.5-2.fc17.i686 (updates) Requires: /lib/libkrb5.so.3 Removing: krb5-libs-1.10.2-2.fc17.i686 (@updates-testing) Not found Updated By: krb5-libs-1.10.2-5.fc17.i686 (updates-testing) Not found Available: krb5-libs-1.10-5.fc17.i686 (fedora) Not found Looks like a usrmove issue. I thought rpm would know that /usr/lib/libkrb5.so.3 would provide /lib/libkrb5.so.3 as well? -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA, Boulder Office FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane or...@nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.nwra.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: krb5 update issue
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 09:00:17AM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11388/krb5-1.10.2-5.fc1 > > triggers: > > Error: Package: 1:libguestfs-1.18.5-2.fc17.i686 (updates) >Requires: /lib/libkrb5.so.3 >Removing: krb5-libs-1.10.2-2.fc17.i686 (@updates-testing) >Not found >Updated By: krb5-libs-1.10.2-5.fc17.i686 (updates-testing) >Not found >Available: krb5-libs-1.10-5.fc17.i686 (fedora) >Not found > > Looks like a usrmove issue. I thought rpm would know that > /usr/lib/libkrb5.so.3 would provide /lib/libkrb5.so.3 as well? I'll do another build of libguestfs and add it to this update. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones New in Fedora 11: Fedora Windows cross-compiler. Compile Windows programs, test, and build Windows installers. Over 70 libraries supprt'd http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW http://www.annexia.org/fedora_mingw -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: krb5 update issue
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 09:00:17AM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11388/krb5-1.10.2-5.fc1 > > triggers: > > Error: Package: 1:libguestfs-1.18.5-2.fc17.i686 (updates) >Requires: /lib/libkrb5.so.3 >Removing: krb5-libs-1.10.2-2.fc17.i686 (@updates-testing) >Not found >Updated By: krb5-libs-1.10.2-5.fc17.i686 (updates-testing) >Not found >Available: krb5-libs-1.10-5.fc17.i686 (fedora) >Not found > > Looks like a usrmove issue. I thought rpm would know that > /usr/lib/libkrb5.so.3 would provide /lib/libkrb5.so.3 as well? Whether it does or not, I'm rebuilding the candidate update without this change, since I'd rather not introduce dependency breakage after release. In the future, can libguestfs stop having file path dependencies? Nalin -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: krb5 update issue
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 04:03:08PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 09:00:17AM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11388/krb5-1.10.2-5.fc1 > > > > triggers: > > > > Error: Package: 1:libguestfs-1.18.5-2.fc17.i686 (updates) > >Requires: /lib/libkrb5.so.3 > >Removing: krb5-libs-1.10.2-2.fc17.i686 (@updates-testing) > >Not found > >Updated By: krb5-libs-1.10.2-5.fc17.i686 (updates-testing) > >Not found > >Available: krb5-libs-1.10-5.fc17.i686 (fedora) > >Not found > > > > Looks like a usrmove issue. I thought rpm would know that > > /usr/lib/libkrb5.so.3 would provide /lib/libkrb5.so.3 as well? > > I'll do another build of libguestfs and add it to this update. Please don't do that; I'm reverting the krb5 change in F17. But do please get rid of the file path dependency if you can. Thanks, Nalin -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[Bug 746941] perl-Mojolicious-3.18 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=746941 Upstream Release Monitoring changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|perl-Mojolicious-3.17 is|perl-Mojolicious-3.18 is |available |available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[Bug 746941] perl-Mojolicious-3.18 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=746941 --- Comment #74 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- Latest upstream release: 3.18 Current version in Fedora Rawhide: 3.17 URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Mojolicious/ Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
Re: krb5 update issue
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 11:04:34AM -0400, Nalin Dahyabhai wrote: > On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 09:00:17AM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-11388/krb5-1.10.2-5.fc1 > > > > triggers: > > > > Error: Package: 1:libguestfs-1.18.5-2.fc17.i686 (updates) > >Requires: /lib/libkrb5.so.3 > >Removing: krb5-libs-1.10.2-2.fc17.i686 (@updates-testing) > >Not found > >Updated By: krb5-libs-1.10.2-5.fc17.i686 (updates-testing) > >Not found > >Available: krb5-libs-1.10-5.fc17.i686 (fedora) > >Not found > > > > Looks like a usrmove issue. I thought rpm would know that > > /usr/lib/libkrb5.so.3 would provide /lib/libkrb5.so.3 as well? > > Whether it does or not, I'm rebuilding the candidate update without this > change, since I'd rather not introduce dependency breakage after > release. I can fix this if you give me an hour or two .. > In the future, can libguestfs stop having file path > dependencies? It really depends on those file paths, and if the files move, it breaks. Previously discussed below, and the status is still now essentially the same as it was then: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-April/134663.html Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones virt-df lists disk usage of guests without needing to install any software inside the virtual machine. Supports Linux and Windows. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-df/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: krb5 update issue
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 04:12:52PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 11:04:34AM -0400, Nalin Dahyabhai wrote: > > Whether it does or not, I'm rebuilding the candidate update without this > > change, since I'd rather not introduce dependency breakage after > > release. > > I can fix this if you give me an hour or two .. Do not. I have no guarantee that libguestfs is the only affected package in the universe. And as Fedora 17 is already released, any breakage this inflicts on other packages has to be undone. Nalin -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: krb5 update issue
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 11:15:09AM -0400, Nalin Dahyabhai wrote: > On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 04:12:52PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 11:04:34AM -0400, Nalin Dahyabhai wrote: > > > Whether it does or not, I'm rebuilding the candidate update without this > > > change, since I'd rather not introduce dependency breakage after > > > release. > > > > I can fix this if you give me an hour or two .. > > Do not. I have no guarantee that libguestfs is the only affected > package in the universe. And as Fedora 17 is already released, any > breakage this inflicts on other packages has to be undone. As you wish. Sorry, I didn't see your first reply before. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones libguestfs lets you edit virtual machines. Supports shell scripting, bindings from many languages. http://libguestfs.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[perl-SOAP-Lite] Bundle 0.714 IO modules to fix dependency breakage
commit efaa4364498f9d9a18773ef283df6cce9d3fd6a1
Author: Petr Šabata
Date: Thu Aug 2 17:15:45 2012 +0200
Bundle 0.714 IO modules to fix dependency breakage
perl-SOAP-Lite-0.715-IO-modules.patch | 425 +
perl-SOAP-Lite.spec |9 +-
2 files changed, 433 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-SOAP-Lite-0.715-IO-modules.patch
b/perl-SOAP-Lite-0.715-IO-modules.patch
new file mode 100644
index 000..8c7c9fc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/perl-SOAP-Lite-0.715-IO-modules.patch
@@ -0,0 +1,425 @@
+From e5091cc065b492cfaba9896cb488035e291555e6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: =?UTF-8?q?Petr=20=C5=A0abata?=
+Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 17:10:04 +0200
+Subject: [PATCH] Add IO::SessionDat and IO::SessionSet from SOAP::Lite 0.714
+MIME-Version: 1.0
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
+
+
+Signed-off-by: Petr Šabata
+---
+ lib/IO/SessionData.pm | 230 +
+ lib/IO/SessionSet.pm | 163 ++
+ 2 files changed, 393 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
+ create mode 100644 lib/IO/SessionData.pm
+ create mode 100644 lib/IO/SessionSet.pm
+
+diff --git a/lib/IO/SessionData.pm b/lib/IO/SessionData.pm
+new file mode 100644
+index 000..de85382
+--- /dev/null
b/lib/IO/SessionData.pm
+@@ -0,0 +1,230 @@
++# ==
++#
++# Copyright (C) 2000 Lincoln D. Stein
++# Slightly modified by Paul Kulchenko to work on multiple platforms
++# Formatting changed to match the layout layed out in Perl Best Practices
++# (by Damian Conway) by Martin Kutter in 2008
++#
++# ==
++
++package IO::SessionData;
++
++use strict;
++use Carp;
++use IO::SessionSet;
++use vars '$VERSION';
++$VERSION = 1.02;
++
++use constant BUFSIZE => 3000;
++
++BEGIN {
++my @names = qw(EWOULDBLOCK EAGAIN EINPROGRESS);
++my %WOULDBLOCK =
++(eval {require Errno}
++? map {
++Errno->can($_)
++? (Errno->can($_)->() => 1)
++: (),
++} @names
++: ()
++),
++(eval {require POSIX}
++? map {
++POSIX->can($_) && eval { POSIX->can($_)->() }
++? (POSIX->can($_)->() => 1)
++: ()
++} @names
++: ()
++);
++
++sub WOULDBLOCK { $WOULDBLOCK{$_[0]+0} }
++}
++
++# Class method: new()
++# Create a new IO::SessionData object. Intended to be called from within
++# IO::SessionSet, not directly.
++sub new {
++my $pack = shift;
++my ($sset,$handle,$writeonly) = @_;
++# make the handle nonblocking (but check for 'blocking' method first)
++# thanks to Jos Clijmans
++$handle->blocking(0) if $handle->can('blocking');
++my $self = bless {
++outbuffer => '',
++sset=> $sset,
++handle => $handle,
++write_limit => BUFSIZE,
++writeonly => $writeonly,
++choker => undef,
++choked => 0,
++},$pack;
++$self->readable(1) unless $writeonly;
++return $self;
++}
++
++# Object method: handle()
++# Return the IO::Handle object corresponding to this IO::SessionData
++sub handle {
++return shift->{handle};
++}
++
++# Object method: sessions()
++# Return the IO::SessionSet controlling this object.
++sub sessions {
++return shift->{sset};
++}
++
++# Object method: pending()
++# returns number of bytes pending in the out buffer
++sub pending {
++return length shift->{outbuffer};
++}
++
++# Object method: write_limit([$bufsize])
++# Get or set the limit on the size of the write buffer.
++# Write buffer will grow to this size plus whatever extra you write to it.
++sub write_limit {
++my $self = shift;
++return defined $_[0]
++? $self->{write_limit} = $_[0]
++: $self->{write_limit};
++}
++
++# set a callback to be called when the contents of the write buffer becomes
larger
++# than the set limit.
++sub set_choke {
++my $self = shift;
++return defined $_[0]
++? $self->{choker} = $_[0]
++: $self->{choker};
++}
++
++# Object method: write($scalar)
++# $obj->write([$data]) -- append data to buffer and try to write to handle
++# Returns number of bytes written, or 0E0 (zero but true) if data queued but
not
++# written. On other errors, returns undef.
++sub write {
++my $self = shift;
++return unless my $handle = $self->handle; # no handle
++return unless defined $self->{outbuffer}; # no buffer for queued data
++
++$self->{outbuffer} .= $_[0] if defined $_[0];
++
++my $rc;
++if ($self->pending) { # data in the out buffer to write
++local $SIG{PIPE}='IGNORE';
++# added length() to make it work on Mac. Thanks to Robin Fuller
++$rc = syswrite($handle,$self->{outbuffer},length($self
Re: Fedora-Review 0.2.0
On 07/11/2012 06:23 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> A new fedora-review is being brought to you.
For me it fails like this:
$ fedora-review -v -n octave-odepkg
Exception down the road...
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/review_helper.py",
line 115, in run
Settings.init()
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/settings.py", line
188, in init
_check_mock_grp()
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/settings.py", line
105, in _check_mock_grp
raise ConfigError('No mock group - mock not installed?')
ConfigError: 'Configuration error: No mock group - mock not installed?'
Exception down the road...
It would be nice at least to get the error without having to pass the
-v. :-)
The problem is that
$ cat /etc/group | grep mock
mock:x:989:jamatos
So I have no idea about what it is wrong here. :-)
--
José Matos
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[Test-Announce] 2012-08-03 @ 17:00 UTC - F18 Alpha Blocker Bug Review #1
# F18 Alpha Blocker Review meeting #1 # Date: 2012-08-03 # Time: 17:00 UTC [1] (13:00 EDT, 10:00 PDT) # Location: #fedora-bugzappers on irc.freenode.net Thanks to jreznik for the reminder that it's that time again: time to start in on blocker review meetings for Fedora 18. Crack your knuckles, everyone, the F18 cycle is about to ramp up! We'll be running through the beta blockers and nice-to-haves. An updated list of blocker bugs should soon be available: tflink is still working on a replacement for the current blocker bugs page, but he says he'll have something up today. We'll be reviewing the bugs to determine ... 1. Whether they meet the Alpha release criteria [1] and should stay on the list 2. Whether they are getting the attention they need [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Alpha_Release_Criteria For guidance on Blocker and Nice-to-have (NTH) bugs, please refer to - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_nth_bug_process For the blocker review meeting protocol, see - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
File JSON-XS-2.33.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by eseyman
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-JSON-XS: 6a1eafeadc1680a806ec2eb1798f6084 JSON-XS-2.33.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
Re: krb5 update issue
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 04:12:52PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > It really depends on those file paths, and if the files move, it > breaks. Previously discussed below, and the status is still now > essentially the same as it was then: > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-April/134663.html I had some inspiration about this, and it's now fixed in F17+ (ie. with UsrMove): http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/libguestfs.git/commit/ Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com Fedora now supports 80 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#) http://cocan.org/getting_started_with_ocaml_on_red_hat_and_fedora -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Debugging Fedora UEFI boot problems on Intel DQ77MK
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 05:54:46PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: > "nomodeset" doesn't help or change anything unfortunately.. Try with noapic? -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora-Review 0.2.0
On 08/02/2012 06:15 PM, José Matos wrote:
On 07/11/2012 06:23 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
Dear all,
A new fedora-review is being brought to you.
For me it fails like this:
$ fedora-review -v -n octave-odepkg
Exception down the road...
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/review_helper.py",
line 115, in run
Settings.init()
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/settings.py", line
188, in init
_check_mock_grp()
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/settings.py", line
105, in _check_mock_grp
raise ConfigError('No mock group - mock not installed?')
ConfigError: 'Configuration error: No mock group - mock not installed?'
Exception down the road...
It would be nice at least to get the error without having to pass the
-v. :-)
The problem is that
$ cat /etc/group | grep mock
mock:x:989:jamatos
So I have no idea about what it is wrong here. :-)
Have you just have created this group? If so, try to use 'newgrp' before
running f-r. Or log out, and login again. Basically, a new group is not
effective until a new login shell is created.
If still in problems, ~/.cache/fedopra-review.log might give some more
hints.
See also https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/ticket/78 for a more
complete and somewhat confused discussion on a similar (same?) problem
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] [FINAL NOTICE] Retiring packages for F-18
Sérgio Basto wrote: > On Ter, 2012-07-31 at 22:42 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> I'm looking into these: >> >> Bill Nottingham wrote: >> > Package komparator (fails to build) > can't resolve this fail > > g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -I/usr/include/kde > -I/usr/lib64/qt-3.3/include -I. -DQT_THREAD_SUPPORT -D_REENTRANT -O2 > -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector > --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -c -o kdatecombo.o > kdatecombo.cpp > g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -I/usr/include/kde > -I/usr/lib64/qt-3.3/include -I. -DQT_THREAD_SUPPORT -D_REENTRANT -O2 > -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector > --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -c -o kfileitemext.o > kfileitemext.cpp > g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -I/usr/include/kde > -I/usr/lib64/qt-3.3/include -I. -DQT_THREAD_SUPPORT -D_REENTRANT -O2 > -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector > --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -c -o klistviewitemdups.o > klistviewitemdups.cpp > g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -I/usr/include/kde > -I/usr/lib64/qt-3.3/include -I. -DQT_THREAD_SUPPORT -D_REENTRANT -O2 > -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector > --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -c -o > klistviewitemsingle.o klistviewitemsingle.cpp > kdatecombo.cpp:17:26: fatal error: kdatecombo.moc: No such file or > directory > compilation terminated. > make[2]: *** [kdatecombo.o] Error 1 My Koji Rawhide build succeeded just fine. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Insane results from mock "rawhide" build
I just did /usr/bin/mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 /tmp/freeimage-3.10.0-10.fc18.src.rpm after having flushed /var/cache/mock, so that current packages would get pulled down. Or so I thought. When the build failed and I went to find out why, I discovered that it had supplied me with an ancient libtiff: DEBUG util.py:257: libtiff-devel x86_64 3.9.5-2.fc17 fedora 451 k DEBUG util.py:257: libtiffx86_64 3.9.5-2.fc17 fedora 136 k That version of the package was obsoleted in April, not only in rawhide but F17 as well, so WTF? Where is mock pulling this from? (The other packages it grabbed seem to be an assortment of mostly fc17 and a few fc18 builds; didn't really check dates on the others, but for sure this is not a post-mass-rebuild package set.) regards, tom lane -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Test-Announce] 2012-08-03 @ 17:00 UTC - F18 Alpha Blocker Bug Review #1
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 10:23:57 -0700 Adam Williamson wrote: > We'll be running through the beta blockers and nice-to-haves. An > updated list of blocker bugs should soon be available: tflink is still > working on a replacement for the current blocker bugs page, but he > says he'll have something up today. The blocker page is currently up at: http://supermegawaffle.com/blockerbugs/current Bugs that have been modified within the last 24 hours are highlighted in yellow, MODIFIED and ON_QA bugs are bolded. All of the columns are sortable. The domain is going to change once I figure out hosting and get through a few last changes but this works for now. It's currently set to sync with bugzilla every 30 minutes but we can adjust that as needed. There is currently no bug tracker set up, so let me know if you see anything that should be on the list and isn't or shouldn't be on the list and is. I'll send out another announcement when I get the domain, hosting and bug tracker situation figured out. Tim signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [ACTION REQUIRED v4] Retiring packages for F-18
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 20:13:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: I'm still hoping to kill libpng-compat (and libtiff-compat) before we branch F18. Should libpng12 obsolete libpng-compat? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [ACTION REQUIRED v4] Retiring packages for F-18
Bruno Wolff III writes: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 20:13:18 -0400, >Tom Lane wrote: >> I'm still hoping to kill libpng-compat (and libtiff-compat) before we >> branch F18. > Should libpng12 obsolete libpng-compat? Doh. I didn't think about that, but you're probably right. regards, tom lane -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] [FINAL NOTICE] Retiring packages for F-18
Bill Nottingham writes: > Package man-pages-ko (orphan) I have taken ownership of this one. Regards, -- Daiki Ueno -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
