Fedora 11 wireless-tools yum erase?
Why does yum erase wireless-tools want to: Removing for dependencies: anaconda firstboot rhpl system-config-(boot,date,date-docs,firewall, firewall-tui,keyboard,kickstart,language,lvm, network,network-tui,rootpassword,users,users-docs) This is a wired desktop, that has absolutely no need for wireless or indeed wpa-supplicant which want to remove: NetworkManager NetworkManager-gnome anaconda system-config-kickstart I know --nodeps could be used, or indeed use "network service" but currently have no problems with NM Bu how?, are they tied into so much. Frank -- jabber | msn | skype: frankly3d (Skype will be scrapped as my im 1st July 2009) http://www.frankly3d.com -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [VERY LONG] The fonts SIG irregular status report: Fedora 11 state
On Saturday 20 June 2009, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > — FPC and FESCO were very late in reviewing and approving new packaging > guidelines. Also, FPC requested last-minute changes in font package > naming. That caused a lot of confusion in the first months of the Fedora > 11 cycle. Packagers that anticipated new guidelines had to rework their > packaging (sometimes, with fallout in other packages). Packagers that > waited for the final guidelines publication lost many weeks resulting in > an activity peak just before Fedora 11 freezes. > > — many packagers didn't act on the guidelines change, or exhausted > scarce support resources by being frankly uncooperative². Pointing fingers at everyone else isn't going to help. Just my personal experience: I luckily package only a very few things that contain or depend on font packages. I was one of those who adjusted my packaging several times as they changed and tried to keep up with many changes already before this effort started. For example: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477478 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480477 When I mentioned that I have no time to keep up with the changes and asked the reporter to go ahead and fix the issues himself several times, all I got was things that look like mass replies (again pretty much just blaming others) and not even a comment whether the reported intends to help out or not. Eventually the "not" alternative became quite evident and I managed to find time to sort things out once more. https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-January/msg01087.html https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-January/msg01090.html https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-January/msg01142.html Asking (in a very annoyed tone, not surprisingly) on fedora-devel the same people to take responsibility and to start actually (meaning as in "show me the patches") helping out with implementing the changes, I get greeted with what I think are plain unjustified insults (see 2nd link above), and when replying to those (3rd link above) and pointing out why I think those were unjustified and incorrect, there was no reply (again == not admitting any failure, not a hint of an apology), and now we get to hear again why the failures/rough edges were someone else's fault. > — it would be nice to see more activity on the SIG mailing list. People > do participate in the SIG and package fonts, but it happens almost > exclusively in private mails, bugzilla and IRC. If people have ideas on > how to revive the list, please post them³ to redhat.com> (you may need to subscribe). No more lists, thanks; I'll just post my .02€ here for the last time on this subject: It wouldn't have taken more than dropping the arrogance and adding something like "Sorry, we messed up by pushing changes too early and not having enough resources around to help people out in the first place and especially at the late stages of the churn, and will try to do better in the future. Thanks to everyone affected for your patience." in this report instead of continuing to blame FPC, FESCO and packagers for problems to start making this SIG look like a responsible group again, making it more likely that packagers are more willing to work with you and perhaps some will become actual active resources for the SIG's continuing/future work. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora 11 wireless-tools yum erase?
Dne Sun, 21 Jun 2009 12:14:04 +0100 Frank Murphy napsal(a): > Why does yum erase wireless-tools want to: > Removing for dependencies: > anaconda > firstboot > rhpl > system-config-(boot,date,date-docs,firewall, > firewall-tui,keyboard,kickstart,language,lvm, > network,network-tui,rootpassword,users,users-docs) > > This is a wired desktop, that has absolutely no need for wireless > or indeed wpa-supplicant which want to remove: > NetworkManager > NetworkManager-gnome > anaconda > system-config-kickstart > > I know --nodeps could be used, or indeed use "network service" > but currently have no problems with NM > > Bu how?, are they tied into so much. > > Frank > Someone already requested this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480558 Why does it bother you? The package is not that big. Michal -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora 11 wireless-tools yum erase?
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 12:14 +0100, Frank Murphy wrote: > Why does yum erase wireless-tools want to: > Removing for dependencies: > anaconda > firstboot > rhpl > system-config-(boot,date,date-docs,firewall, > firewall-tui,keyboard,kickstart,language,lvm, > network,network-tui,rootpassword,users,users-docs) > > This is a wired desktop, that has absolutely no need for wireless > or indeed wpa-supplicant which want to remove: > NetworkManager > NetworkManager-gnome > anaconda > system-config-kickstart > > I know --nodeps could be used, or indeed use "network service" > but currently have no problems with NM > > Bu how?, are they tied into so much. > > Frank > I'm not sure about most of these, but I'd like to note that wpa-supplicant is not a wireless-only tool (that one of your sentences seem to imply). I use it at dorm to authenticate to wired network (as well as at home to authenticate to home wifi network). And because some NM features clearly require its presence, it would be broken if it did not require it. Martin signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora 11 wireless-tools yum erase?
On 21/06/09 12:57, Michal Schmidt wrote: Someone already requested this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480558 Good Why does it bother you? The package is not that big. It's not about size, it's about making sense. No wireless, therefore why wireless installed. Michal Frank -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora 11 wireless-tools yum erase?
On 21/06/09 12:59, Martin Sourada wrote: I'm not sure about most of these, but I'd like to note that wpa-supplicant is not a wireless-only tool (that one of your sentences seem to imply). I use it at dorm to authenticate to wired network(as well as at home to authenticate to home wifi network). And because some NM features clearly require its presence, it would be broken if it did not require it. Then the description need changing: Description wpa_supplicant is a WPA Supplicant for Linux, BSD and Windows with support for WPA and WPA2 (IEEE 802.11i / RSN). Supplicant is the IEEE 802.1X/WPA component that is used in the client stations. It implements key negotiation with a WPA Authenticator and it controls the roaming and IEEE 802.11 authentication/association of the wlan : driver. Martin Frank -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Why do we need FC version attached to the package name?
Hi all, Why is necessary to have a particular package tagged as fc10 or fc11?? What is the significance.? As it is, versions of the packages keep changing independent of the Fedora versions. For example : kdebase-4.2.3-1.fc10.i386 is available for fc10 and the same version kdebase-4.2.3-1.fc11.i386 is available for fc11 It wastes space,time(while upgrading from fc10 to fc11) (I invite ppl to add to the list) Regards Bharath -- All roads lead to some other roads -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Why do we need FC version attached to the package name?
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Bharath wrote: > Hi all, > > Why is necessary to have a particular package tagged as fc10 or fc11?? What > is the significance.? As it is, versions of the packages keep changing > independent of the Fedora versions. > For example : > > kdebase-4.2.3-1.fc10.i386 is available for fc10 > and the same version > kdebase-4.2.3-1.fc11.i386 is available for fc11 > > It wastes space,time(while upgrading from fc10 to fc11) (I invite ppl to > add to the list) The package has been rebuilt with a newer gcc and a newer rpm (stringer hash) so no its not the same package with a different name. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Why do we need FC version attached to the package name?
I second this. Can't we have only one stable repository which is for "Fedora", instead of one each FC10, FC11, ...? "development", "testing" and "stable" three repositories for "Fedora" as a whole and snapshots of stable as releases? That would make definitely user's life simple and I believe would make so even for the developers. Regards, Prasad 2009/6/21 Bharath : > Hi all, > > Why is necessary to have a particular package tagged as fc10 or fc11?? What > is the significance.? As it is, versions of the packages keep changing > independent of the Fedora versions. > For example : > > kdebase-4.2.3-1.fc10.i386 is available for fc10 > and the same version > kdebase-4.2.3-1.fc11.i386 is available for fc11 > > It wastes space,time(while upgrading from fc10 to fc11) (I invite ppl to > add to the list) > > Regards > Bharath > > -- > All roads lead to some other roads > > -- > fedora-devel-list mailing list > fedora-devel-list@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list > -- Prasad H. L. PhD Student (with Dr. Shalabh Bhatnagar) Department of Computer Science and Automation, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore - 560012 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Why do we need FC version attached to the package name?
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 18:22 +0530, Prasad H. L. wrote:
> I second this.
>
> Can't we have only one stable repository which is for "Fedora",
> instead of one each FC10, FC11, ...?
>
> "development", "testing" and "stable" three repositories for "Fedora"
> as a whole and snapshots of stable as releases?
>
> That would make definitely user's life simple and I believe would make
> so even for the developers.
But that's the way it is now. Rawhide (development) is the bleeding-edge
distribution, which is frozen every six months for a stable release.
There is a sound need for these releases: you have to stabilize the
package set so that you don't have to use a broken system. If you want
to try what happens when any system components can change whenever they
want, breaking dependencies on other packages, use rawhide.
The versioning of packages with %{?dist} (.fc10, .fc11 and so on) also
has a purpose. Different versions of Fedora use different compiler
versions and optimization flags that are not present in older versions.
That's why it's important that when you update to a newer distribution
all of your packages are updated as well to versions compiled with the
new compiler and optimization flags.
--
Jussi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussileht...@fedoraproject.org
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora 11 wireless-tools yum erase?
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 13:10 +0100, Frank Murphy wrote: > Then the description need changing: > > Description wpa_supplicant is a WPA Supplicant for Linux, BSD and > Windows with support for WPA and WPA2 (IEEE 802.11i / RSN). Supplicant > is the IEEE 802.1X/WPA component that is used in the client stations. It > implements key negotiation with a WPA Authenticator and it controls the > roaming and IEEE 802.11 authentication/association of the wlan > : driver. > Yeah, the "wlan driver" is not apparently the only one where wpa_supplicant is used for authentication, although the usage of IEEE 802.1x on wired networks is probably rather rare. > Frank > Martin signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Changing the default 32-bit x86 arch for Fedora 12 (#2)
On 19/06/09 00:19, Bill Nottingham wrote:
No, period - I haven't seen anyone in the community say that they're
testing it on i586-class hardware.
Hi Bill,
Your wiki page has some jargon ("i586") which I'm trying
to reduce to manufacturer products, as you have already
done for the AMD products.
F12 x86 will not work on i586 (or i686 without CMOV)
Intel Pentium
Intel Pentium Pro
VIA Cyrix III
VIA C3 and C3-M ("Samuel 2")
VIA C3 and C3-M ("Ezra")
VIA C3 and C3-M ("Ezra-T")
VIA Eden ESP ("Samuel 2")
Note that the VIA Eden ESP ("Samuel 2") appears to be a shipping
product [based on vendor's website, not personal experience], and
that this will not run Fedora 12 under the current proposal. It
ships in the VIA EPIA MII/ML/PE motherboards with CPUs rated at
667MHz (all other clock speeds will run F12). Probably worth a
mention in the F12 Release Notes.
F12 x86 will work on these 32b processors
-
Intel Pentium II
Intel Celeron (any)
Intel Pentium III
Intel Pentium 4
Intel Pentium M
VIA C3 and C3-D ("Nehemiah")
VIA Eden ESP ("Nehemiah")
VIA Eden-N
VIA Eden ("Esther")
VIA C7 and C7-M and C7-D ("Esther")
VIA Nano
Any Intel x86-64, AMD64 or compatible
Although this is the best I could do, the VIA situation is complex
and errors in the above would not shock me.
Cheers, Glen
--
Glen Turner
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora 11 wireless-tools yum erase?
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 12:14:04PM +0100, Frank Murphy wrote: > Why does yum erase wireless-tools want to: > Removing for dependencies: > anaconda > firstboot > rhpl > system-config-(boot,date,date-docs,firewall, > firewall-tui,keyboard,kickstart,language,lvm, > network,network-tui,rootpassword,users,users-docs) > > This is a wired desktop, that has absolutely no need for wireless If a tool needs something to perform one of its functions it needs it. There isn't a "anaconda-no-wireless" package, etc. Hth... John -- John W. LinvilleLinux should be at the core linvi...@redhat.com of your literate lifestyle. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
rawhide report: 20090621 changes
Compose started at Sun Jun 21 06:15:09 UTC 2009 New package blueproximity Detects you via your bluetooth devices and locks/unlocks the screen New package qelectrotech An electric diagrams editor Updated Packages: cluster-3.0.0-18.rc3.fc12 - * Sat Jun 20 2009 Fabio M. Di Nitto - 3.0.0-18.rc3 - New upstream release - spec file updates: * Drop local patches. * Update BuildRequires and Requires: on newer corosync/openais. clutter-0.9.4-1.fc12 * Sat Jun 20 2009 Bastien Nocera 0.9.4-1 - Update to 0.9.4 corosync-0.98-1.fc12 * Sat Jun 20 2009 Fabio M. Di Nitto - 0.98-1 - New upstream release - spec file updates: * Drop corosync-trunk patch and alpha tag. * Fix alphatag vs buildtrunk handling. * Drop requirement on ais user/group and stop creating them. * New config file locations from upstream: /etc/corosync/corosync.conf. cppad-20090303.0-4.fc12 --- * Sat Jun 20 2009 Brad Bell 20090303-4 - Patch cppad/local/fun_construct.hpp to give a more useful error message - (so we can figure out why the Fedora 11 build is failing). emerald-0.8.2-1.fc12 * Sat Jun 20 2009 Nikolay Vladimirov - 0.8.2-1 - New upstream - Added build requires for libXres-devel( BZ#496969) fence-agents-3.0.0-12.rc3.fc12 -- * Sat Jun 20 2009 Fabio M. Di Nitto - 3.0.0-12.rc3 - New upstream release. - spec file updates: * BuildRequires / Requires: latest corosync and openais fprintd-0.1-11.git04fd09cfa.fc12 * Sat Jun 20 2009 Bastien Nocera 0.1-11.git04fd09cfa - Remove obsolete patch gauche-0.8.14-1.fc12 * Fri Jun 19 2009 Gerard Milmeister - 0.8.14-1 - new release 0.8.14 glob2-0.9.4.1-1.fc12 * Sat Jun 20 2009 RafaŠPsota - 0.9.4.1-1 - update to 0.9.4.1 goocanvas-0.14-1.fc12 - * Thu Apr 23 2009 Denis - 0.14-1 - Update to upstream 0.14 gpa-0.8.0-1.fc12 * Sat Jun 20 2009 Rex Dieter - 0.8.0-1 - gpg-0.8.0 - optimize scriptlets gpgme-1.1.8-1.fc12 -- * Sat Jun 20 2009 Rex Dieter - 1.1.8-1 - gpgme-1.1.8 - -devel: s/postun/preun/ info scriptlet * Wed Mar 11 2009 Rex Dieter - 1.1.7-3 - track shlib sonames closer, to highlight future abi/soname changes - _with_gpg macro, to potentially conditionalize gnupg vs gnupg2 defaults for various os/releases (ie, fedora vs rhel) kernel-2.6.31-0.17.rc0.git15.fc12 - * Sat Jun 20 2009 Kyle McMartin - sched-introduce-SCHED_RESET_ON_FORK-scheduling-policy-flag.patch: add, queued in tip/sched/core (ca94c442535a44d508c99a77e54f21a59f4fc462) * Sat Jun 20 2009 Kyle McMartin 2.6.31.0.16.rc0.git15 - 2.6.30-git15 - config changes: - generic: - CONFIG_LBDAF=y - staging: - CONFIG_USB_SERIAL_QUATECH2 is not set - CONFIG_VT6655 is not set - CONFIG_USB_CPC is not set - CONFIG_RDC_17F3101X is not set - CONFIG_FB_UDL is not set - ppc32: - CONFIG_KMETER1=y - ppc generic: - CONFIG_PPC_DISABLE_WERROR is not set - lirc disabled due to i2c detach_client removal. * Sat Jun 20 2009 Kyle McMartin 2.6.31.0.17.rc0.git15 - config changes: - ppc generic: - CONFIG_PPC_DISABLE_WERROR=y (switched... chrp fails otherwise, stack frame size.) kio_sysinfo-20090620-1.fc12 --- * Sat Jun 20 2009 Lukáš Tinkl - 20090620-1 - new upstream version - drop patches - added battery status - updated translations libassuan-1.0.5-1.fc12 -- * Sat Jun 20 2009 Rex Dieter - 1.0.5-1 - libassuan-1.0.5 libfprint-0.1.0-8.pre2.fc12 --- * Sat Jun 20 2009 Bastien Nocera 0.1.0-8.pre2 - Update to 0.1.0-pre2 libksba-1.0.6-1.fc12 * Sat Jun 20 2009 Rex Dieter - 1.0.6-1 - libksba-1.0.6 - -devel: fix info scriptlet mapnik-0.5.2-0.13.svn780.fc12 - * Sat Jun 20 2009 Alex Lancaster - 0.5.2-0.13.svn780 - Require individual dejavu font packages muse-1.0-0.6.rc3.fc12 - * Sat Jun 20 2009 Orcan Ogetbil 1:1.0-0.6.rc3 - Update to 1.0rc3 notification-daemon-engine-nodoka-0.1.0-7.fc12 -- * Sat Jun 20 2009 Martin Sourada - 0.1.0-7 - Use gtkrc specified color for background (fixes rhbz #498422) openais-0.97-1.fc12 --- * Sat Jun 20 2009 Fabio M. Di Nitto - 0.97-1 - New upstream release - spec file updates: * Drop openais-trunk patch and alpha tag. * Fix alphatag vs buildtrunk handling. * New config file locations from upstream: /etc/corosync/. * Fix configure invokation. * Requires and BuildRequires corosync 0.98 pidgin-2.5.7-1.fc12 --- * Sat Jun 20 2009 Warren Togami 2.5.7-1 - 2.5.7 with Yahoo Protocol 16 support pygoocanvas-0.14.0-1.fc12 - * Thu Apr 23 2009 Denis - 0.14.0-1 - Update to upstream 0.14.0 python-beaker-1.3.1-3.fc12 --
Re: Why do we need FC version attached to the package name?
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:52:18 +0200, drago01 wrote: > On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Bharath wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Why is necessary to have a particular package tagged as fc10 or fc11?? What > > is the significance.? As it is, versions of the packages keep changing > > independent of the Fedora versions. > > For example : > > > > kdebase-4.2.3-1.fc10.i386 is available for fc10 > > and the same version > > kdebase-4.2.3-1.fc11.i386 is available for fc11 > > > > It wastes space,time(while upgrading from fc10 to fc11) (I invite ppl to > > add to the list) > > The package has been rebuilt with a newer gcc and a newer rpm > (stringer hash) so no its not the same package with a different name. Yes, and let me add that the ".fc10" and ".fc11" (the dist-tag) is part of the package "Release" value not just the package file name. That makes the .fc11 package "newer than" the .fc10 package in RPM's view, which is particularly important if internally it really differs from the .fc10 build (e.g. in terms of compiler generated code, library versions, dependencies). -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora 11 wireless-tools yum erase?
On 06/21/2009 07:57 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote: Dne Sun, 21 Jun 2009 12:14:04 +0100 Frank Murphy napsal(a): Why does yum erase wireless-tools want to: Removing for dependencies: anaconda firstboot rhpl system-config-(boot,date,date-docs,firewall, firewall-tui,keyboard,kickstart,language,lvm, network,network-tui,rootpassword,users,users-docs) This is a wired desktop, that has absolutely no need for wireless or indeed wpa-supplicant which want to remove: NetworkManager NetworkManager-gnome anaconda system-config-kickstart I know --nodeps could be used, or indeed use "network service" but currently have no problems with NM Bu how?, are they tied into so much. Frank Someone already requested this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480558 Why does it bother you? The package is not that big. Michal You are correct someone has already requested this change. That was almost six months ago, with little to no movement since then. Request for info from the maintainer for for 5+ months. Still has a status of new. Those are the problems I see with the bug report. As to the bug itself, I can not and will not speak for why it bothers the OP. To answer your question though, it bothers me because I don't want packages on my machine I don't need. As it is my machine that is reason enough. Size is irrelevant. With all due respect to Jeremy, I am removing his need info flag and assigning this bug as an RFE. This bug has the information needed to be actionable. If someone feels this is incorrect, feel free to change it again (I don't do revision wars). Just have the courtesy to let me know why you made that change so we are on the same page for the future. Edward (TK009) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Why do we need FC version attached to the package name?
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 17:14 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > The package has been rebuilt with a newer gcc and a newer rpm > > (stringer hash) so no its not the same package with a different name. > > Yes, and let me add that the ".fc10" and ".fc11" (the dist-tag) is part > of the package "Release" value not just the package file name. > That makes the .fc11 package "newer than" the .fc10 package > in RPM's view, which is particularly important if internally > it really differs from the .fc10 build (e.g. in terms of compiler > generated code, library versions, dependencies). Exactly: say that in Fedora 10 package foo-1.0-1 is built against libbar.so.4, but in Fedora 11 it's built against libbar.so.5 then you might end up in trouble with a distribution upgrade if libbar.so.4 doesn't exist in the new distribution. [I don't know whether yum is capable of handling this.] When you add the distro version into the release tag, you have foo-1.0-1.fc10 in Fedora 10 and foo-1.0-1.fc11 in Fedora 11, then the Fedora 11 version will automatically replace the Fedora 10 version. PS. I am not aware of any distribution without some kind of a frozen release system - even the source based distros such as Gentoo have stabilized sets of the base components. -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [VERY LONG] The fonts SIG irregular status report: Fedora 11 state
Ville, Just because you didn't have time does not mean others had it. There were 5949 font files Fedora 10 (not counting symlinks). Do the math. Besides, you've been in the game long enough to know that requests in "very annoyed tone" don't buy you any karma, quite the contrary. No one forces you to maintain any package, if you don't have the time to do so, orphan it. I had to release several packages myself to help other packagers this cycle (starting with the polite ones). That also didn't leave me the time to participate in the flames you helpfully started. For what happened FPC and FESCO side, most of it is public and archived and can easily be checked so I stand by what I wrote (not pointing fingers just stating facts so hopefully we do better next time). And for the last time, if you're so convinced the SIG is mismanaged, you're welcome to try doing better, the seat has always been open for the taking as far as I'm concerned. -- Nicolas Mailhot signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Changing the default 32-bit x86 arch for Fedora 12 (#2)
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 11:24:35PM +0930, Glen Turner wrote:
> F12 x86 will not work on i586 (or i686 without CMOV)
>
> Intel Pentium
> Intel Pentium Pro
>
> VIA Cyrix III
> VIA C3 and C3-M ("Samuel 2")
> VIA C3 and C3-M ("Ezra")
> VIA C3 and C3-M ("Ezra-T")
> VIA Eden ESP ("Samuel 2")
>
> ..
> Although this is the best I could do, the VIA situation is complex
> and errors in the above would not shock me.
The original "Samuel" won't work either.
Other than this omission, your table looks correct to me.
There's also the AMD K5, K6, K6-2, K6-3 that won't work.
And all the older Cyrix 6x86/MX/MII/MediaGX CPUs.
(Though those things sucked even in 1990's, and I doubt they've
improved with age)
Dave
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Changing the default 32-bit x86 arch for Fedora 12 (#2)
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Glen Turner wrote:
> On 19/06/09 00:19, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>
>> No, period - I haven't seen anyone in the community say that they're
>> testing it on i586-class hardware.
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> Your wiki page has some jargon ("i586") which I'm trying
> to reduce to manufacturer products, as you have already
> done for the AMD products.
>
>
> F12 x86 will not work on i586 (or i686 without CMOV)
>
> Intel Pentium
> Intel Pentium Pro
>
> VIA Cyrix III
> VIA C3 and C3-M ("Samuel 2")
> VIA C3 and C3-M ("Ezra")
> VIA C3 and C3-M ("Ezra-T")
> VIA Eden ESP ("Samuel 2")
>
> Note that the VIA Eden ESP ("Samuel 2") appears to be a shipping
> product [based on vendor's website, not personal experience], and
> that this will not run Fedora 12 under the current proposal. It
> ships in the VIA EPIA MII/ML/PE motherboards with CPUs rated at
> 667MHz (all other clock speeds will run F12). Probably worth a
> mention in the F12 Release Notes.
>
>
> F12 x86 will work on these 32b processors
> -
>
> Intel Pentium II
> Intel Celeron (any)
> Intel Pentium III
> Intel Pentium 4
> Intel Pentium M
>
> VIA C3 and C3-D ("Nehemiah")
> VIA Eden ESP ("Nehemiah")
> VIA Eden-N
> VIA Eden ("Esther")
> VIA C7 and C7-M and C7-D ("Esther")
> VIA Nano
>
> Any Intel x86-64, AMD64 or compatible
+ AMD K7
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora 11 wireless-tools yum erase?
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 6:50 AM, John W. Linville wrote: > If a tool needs something to perform one of its functions it needs it. > There isn't a "anaconda-no-wireless" package, etc. This speaks deeply to a cultural understanding as to what the concept of networking is. It seems obvious there are people who would like to consider wireless as "optional." as this is an historic artifact of how networking tech has developed over time. I wonder, have we reached the point where other people have started to consider a wired network "optional" as well? -jef -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Why do we need FC version attached to the package name?
On 06/21/2009 09:14 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: Yes, and let me add that the ".fc10" and ".fc11" (the dist-tag) is part of the package "Release" value not just the package file name. That makes the .fc11 package "newer than" the .fc10 package in RPM's view, which is particularly important if internally I *wish* it made a difference. I did an upgrade am an left with a host of fc10 packages because the fc11 ones weren't considered newer. For example people with updates-testing enabled on fc10 got a non-upgraded yum because the versions were the same (except for fc10/fc11) and it stopped working because python went from 2.5 to 2.6 So to RPM the fc10/fc11 isn't being compared, at least not that I can see... it really differs from the .fc10 build (e.g. in terms of compiler generated code, library versions, dependencies). It would definitely help if it did though... -- Nathanael d. Noblet T: 403.875.4613 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Why do we need FC version attached to the package name?
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 04:56:07PM -0600, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote: > I *wish* it made a difference. I did an upgrade am an left with a host > of fc10 packages because the fc11 ones weren't considered newer. > > For example people with updates-testing enabled on fc10 got a > non-upgraded yum because the versions were the same (except for > fc10/fc11) and it stopped working because python went from 2.5 to 2.6. That's messed up. We used to check just before release time that this situation never occured. It should probably be added to the rel-eng release checklist if it isn't there already. Dave -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: F11: LVM over MD is broken. Switch back to F10?
You'll also want to watch out for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=506189 Good times! -- Ian Pilcher arequip...@gmail.com -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Why do we need FC version attached to the package name?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Nathanael D. Noblet wrote: > On 06/21/2009 09:14 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > >> Yes, and let me add that the ".fc10" and ".fc11" (the dist- tag) is part >> of the package "Release" value not just the package file name. >> That makes the .fc11 package "newer than" the .fc10 package >> in RPM's view, which is particularly important if internally > > > I *wish* it made a difference. I did an upgrade am an left with a host > of fc10 packages because the fc11 ones weren't considered newer. > > > For example people with updates-testing enabled on fc10 got a > non-upgraded yum because the versions were the same (except for > fc10/fc11) and it stopped working because python went from 2.5 to > 2.6 So to RPM the fc10/fc11 isn't being compared, at least not that > I can see... > >> it really differs from the .fc10 build (e.g. in terms of compiler >> generated code, library versions, dependencies). > > It would definitely help if it did though... > This is a broken upgrade path. It's a bug with the package. However, if you're upgrading to the DVD, yes, there will be broken deps from updates-testing. Since updates-testing of F(n-1) is a moving target that can pass GA of Fn's NVR set very quickly, forcing F11 > F10 in all cases is unacceptable and would stunt releases that aren't (Rawhide - 1). - --Ben -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAko+wLsACgkQiPi+MRHG3qQp0wCfSRH0iwR13qyiV7M0m2D1mQ4g cygAnRFzK2EbUzHIGAMO+aSRNVoVDmoY =c0Ff -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
.spec file help - need buildrequires to depend on fedora version
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 My libpst package BuildRequires boost-devel, which works on older systems (centos4 thru fedora 10), but for fedora 11 and devel, it needs BuildRequires boost-python-devel. What is the preferred .spec code to achieve that? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFKPuX5L6j7milTFsERAiOqAJ9Or4j5LcFkbidmmKwEVFW2WFnJ+gCfV0N3 OwiMYhvVcFtw5X9eJbgo2NM= =sVU7 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: .spec file help - need buildrequires to depend on fedora version
Carl Byington wrote:
> My libpst package BuildRequires boost-devel, which works on older
> systems (centos4 thru fedora 10), but for fedora 11 and devel, it
> needs BuildRequires boost-python-devel. What is the preferred .spec
> code to achieve that?
Something like this:
%if 0%{?fedora} > 10
BuildRequires: boost-python-devel
%else
BuildRequires: boost-devel
%endif
--
ToddOpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
~~
Religion. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the
nature of the Unknowable.
-- Ambrose Bierce, The Enlarged Devil's Dictionary, 1906
pgpyQkVor9Lx4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: rawhide report: 20090621 changes
Rawhide Report wrote: > Compose started at Sun Jun 21 06:15:09 UTC 2009 Here (x86_64) yum tries to install a raft of *.i586 packages without matching *.x86_64 (like libfprint-0.1.0-8.pre2.fc12). Almost nothing is x86_64, it seems. Not even the kernel is available. BTW, yum-3.2.23-6.fc12.noarch -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de InformaticaFono: +56 32 2654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile 234 Fax: +56 32 2797513 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: rawhide report: 20090621 changes (don't upgrade x86_64 rawhide hosts)
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 22:41:39 -0400 "Horst H. von Brand" wrote: > Rawhide Report wrote: > > Compose started at Sun Jun 21 06:15:09 UTC 2009 > > Here (x86_64) yum tries to install a raft of *.i586 packages without > matching *.x86_64 (like libfprint-0.1.0-8.pre2.fc12). Almost nothing > is x86_64, it seems. Not even the kernel is available. > > BTW, yum-3.2.23-6.fc12.noarch Yes, it seems rawhide mash is horribly broken and didn't include any x86_64 rpms in the x86_64 repo. ;( I would strongly suggest avoiding updating until this gets sorted out. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: What I HATE about F11
Lennart Poettering wrote: [...] > Gah. Allowing packages to pierce the firewall just makes the firewall > redundant. Not entirely. > I still think that the current firewall situation on Fedora is pretty > much broken. It's a bit like SELinux: it's one of the first features > most people disable. Strange... I've rarely had any reason to futz around with the firewall here. Neither with SELinux, at least for a long while now. > Fedora is the only big distro that enables a firewall by default and > thus creates a lot of trouble for many users. I think I mentioned that > before, and I can only repeat it here: we should not ship a firewall > enabled by default, like we currently do. If an application cannot be > trusted then it should not be allowed to listen on a port by default > in the first place. A firewall is an extra layer of security that > simply hides the actual problem. True. But "another layer of security" /is/ a good idea, most of the time. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de InformaticaFono: +56 32 2654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile 234 Fax: +56 32 2797513 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
rpm package with many files inside
Hello All I need to create rpm package with cca 50-100 tiny files inside. The whole tree is about 2-3GB binary data. Koji dies with "error: Unable to create immutable header region." There are existing bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462539 How to make that package? Thank you all -- JFCh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
