package installation statistics
Hello, do Fedora have some statistics of how many users install concrete fedora package? Ivana Hutarova Varekova -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: mandb behavior
On 02/15/2011 03:10 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 02/10/2011 07:02 AM, Mark Bidewell wrote: >> I was working with CentOS 5 and I was noticing some what appear to be >> functional regressions in F14 mandb: >> >> 1) In the centos configuration you can specify manpaths with wildcard >> expansions. Example: /opt/*/man would specify all man subdirectories >> in /opt. In F14 this no longer works. >> 2) In F14, directories specified in the MANPATH environment variable >> seem to be ignored. >> >> Are these intended? > I guess not. File a bug report in bugzilla please. > > Rahul Hello, you are right, thanks for the bug report. Ivana Hutarova Varekova -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: mpfr soname bump in rawhide
On 11/30/2010 07:57 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 18:03 +0100, Ivana Varekova wrote: >> Hello, >> >> mpfr-3.0.0 is now build to rawhide branch and soname is bumped to 4.0.0 >> there. >> MPFR 3.0.0 is binary incompatible with previous versions and also is not >> completely API compatible. >> The most important changes from versions 2.4.* to version 3.0.0 >> >> * MPFR is now distributed under the GNU Lesser General Public >> License version 3 or later (LGPL v3+). >> * Rounding modes GMP_RNDx are now MPFR_RNDx (GMP_RNDx kept for >> compatibility). >> * A new rounding mode (MPFR_RNDA) is available to round away from zero. >> * Functions mpfr_random and mpfr_random2 have been removed. >> * mpfr_get_f and mpfr_get_z now return a ternary value. >> * a lot of new functions >> full list of changes is on: >> http://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-current/#download >> >> The packages which depends on mpfr should be rebuild against the new >> versio. The list is: > It would be much better to either do the rebuilds yourself or arrange a > tag for the new soname and ask the packagers of the below packages to > rebuild them in the tag before merging the whole tag into rawhide. We > really need to get away from this method by which you dump a libmajor > bump into rawhide and then just hope for the necessary rebuilds to be > done. > Hello, I'm not superuser thus I can't do the rebuild myself. But I cooperate with the maintainers of major dependencies of mpfr - gcc and libmpc to test the package against the new version. They were prepared to rebuild their packages when I push 3.0.0 to rawhide and they maintainers rebuild them in a while. The process with the separate tag seems more systematic and thus better to me (I'm not sure whether it is necessary if there is quite small number of dependencies). Where can I find some info how to do it? Ivana >> avr-gcc >> CGAL >> gappa >> gcc >> genius >> ghdl >> gretl >> libfplll >> libmpc >> Macaulay2 >> mingw32 >> rasqal >> seed -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: should man-pages-* have Requires: man?
On 05/06/2010 01:28 AM, Ding Yi Chen wrote: > - "Ivana Varekova" wrote: > > >> Sorry for the late response, this solution seems fine for me. From my >> >> point of view man and man-db sould provide man-reader. >> Ivana >> -- >> devel mailing list >> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >> > Has man-pages-reader changed applied to Fedora 13? > If not, will it? > > Hello, for now man-pages-reader are provides by man in fc13, fc14 and man-db in fc14. man-db is fedora from 14 so there is no 13 version. The man in 13 provides the tag just for the purpose to fix possible problem if the maintainer of packages uses this flag in fc13 too, it have not any other reason there now. Ivana Hutarova Varekova -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: should man-pages-* have Requires: man?
On 03/08/2010 02:59 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/08/2010 11:25 AM, Ivana Hutarova Varekova wrote:
>
>>For now in fedora there are 11 packages which contains language
>> mutations of man-pages (man-pages-{cs,da,de,es,fr,it,ja,ko,pl,ru,uk})
>> and man-pages package.
>>Only 2 of them (man-pages-es, man-pages-it) requires man package. I
>> think man dependences should be consistent in all man-pages* packages.
>>From my point of view man dependency should be in all of them.
>>
> There is no strong dependency between "man" and "man-pages".
>
> "man" is just one utility amongst many utilities which can be used to
> process man-pages.
>
> Ralf
>
Hello,
from my point of view, the vast majority of users uses man to show the
wanted man-page content (the reason to add the dependency). You are
right, there are other possibilities, so man is not necessary (the
reason not to add the dependency).
I prefer to have the dependency to man there, but if the majority votes
for not to have it there then it is OK for me too (better then the state
in which each package handle this in the different way).
Ivana
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
should man-pages-* have Requires: man?
For now in fedora there are 11 packages which contains language
mutations of man-pages (man-pages-{cs,da,de,es,fr,it,ja,ko,pl,ru,uk})
and man-pages package.
Only 2 of them (man-pages-es, man-pages-it) requires man package. I
think man dependences should be consistent in all man-pages* packages.
From my point of view man dependency should be in all of them.
Any ideas?
Ivana Hutarova Varekova
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: switching from man to man-db
On 02/25/2010 05:13 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Kevin Fenzi wrote: > >> This would of course need to be a new package that would either not >> conflict with or simply obsolete/replace the existing man-db package, >> right? >> > I'd say Obsoletes/Provides is the best solution. > > Kevin Kofler > > Yes I agree, the idea is to add obsolete/provides. Man-db have the a lot of functionality which is the same with man, so theer are a lot of conflicts and if the package will replace man, the it has no sense to rename or remove conflicting files from man-db. Ivana Hutarova Varekova -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: man-db vs. man
Hello, sorry for the late response, I'm the man package maintainer and I agree with the idea to switch from man to man-db. I just sent a mail to fedora list about it. Thanks. Ivana On 02/12/2010 05:53 PM, Till Maas wrote: > Hiyas, > according to the man-db[0] homepage all/most other major distributions > use a more actively developed manpage suite called man-db, while we only > ship this: > http://primates.ximian.com/~flucifredi/man/ > > In a package of mine, "man -l" is used to create a plaintext version of > the manpage, which seems to only work with man-db. Could this be a > Feature for F14 to use man-db instead of man or are there major reasons > not to do this? > > Btw. I cc'ed man-ow...@fpo. > > Regards > Till > > [0] http://man-db.nongnu.org/ > -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
switching from man to man-db
Hello, I'd like to switch from man (http://primates.ximian.com/~flucifredi/man/) to man-db project (http://man-db.nongnu.org/). man-db seems for me to be better choice then the original man. The reasons are: * the upstream very active in man-db, man upstream almost does not response and the last version was released in 2007 * because of the previous comment man-db have more features then man * man-db uses Berkeley db instead of text file for the index of man pages * Debian, Ubuntu, SuSE use man-db As the first step I want to add man-db to fedora cvs. Comments welcomed. Ivana -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
