Re: Why do we need FC version attached to the package name?

2009-06-22 Thread Jesse Keating



On Jun 22, 2009, at 1:08, Dave Jones da...@redhat.com wrote:


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




Not possible while we allow people to keep making updates to the older  
releases.  Those updates quickly become version ( not just release  
even ) higher than the static copies on the release medium and repos.


--
Jes

--
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?

2009-06-22 Thread Rahul Sundaram
On 06/22/2009 12:54 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:

 
 Not possible while we allow people to keep making updates to the older
 releases.  Those updates quickly become version ( not just release even
 ) higher than the static copies on the release medium and repos.

Is there any proposed solution to this problem? We can't just continue
to break upgrade paths and call it the way things are done.

Rahul

-- 
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?

2009-06-22 Thread Frank Murphy

On 22/06/09 08:24, Jesse Keating wrote:






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




Not possible while we allow people to keep making updates to the older
releases. Those updates quickly become version ( not just release even )
higher than the static copies on the release medium and repos.

--
Jes



Maybe, freeze all updates nearing a GA,

FRank

--
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?

2009-06-22 Thread Jesse Keating



On Jun 22, 2009, at 9:26, Rahul Sundaram sunda...@fedoraproject.org  
wrote:



On 06/22/2009 12:54 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:



Not possible while we allow people to keep making updates to the  
older
releases.  Those updates quickly become version ( not just release  
even

) higher than the static copies on the release medium and repos.


Is there any proposed solution to this problem? We can't just continue
to break upgrade paths and call it the way things are done.

Rahul



If you have any ideas I'd like to hear them. A super epoch has already  
been suggested but that just masks the problem and may cause unwanted  
downgrades. Any solution either involves severly limiting what kind of  
updates can be done or requiring network access during upgrades.


--
Jes

--
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?

2009-06-22 Thread Jesse Keating



On Jun 22, 2009, at 9:29, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:


On 22/06/09 08:24, Jesse Keating wrote:






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




Not possible while we allow people to keep making updates to the  
older
releases. Those updates quickly become version ( not just release  
even )

higher than the static copies on the release medium and repos.

--
Jes



Maybe, freeze all updates nearing a GA,




And keep them frozen indefinitely?

--
Jes

--
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?

2009-06-22 Thread Jussi Lehtola
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 09:31 +0200, Jesse Keating wrote:
 On Jun 22, 2009, at 9:26, Rahul Sundaram sunda...@fedoraproject.org  
 wrote:
  On 06/22/2009 12:54 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
  Not possible while we allow people to keep making updates to the  
  older
  releases.  Those updates quickly become version ( not just release  
  even
  ) higher than the static copies on the release medium and repos.
 
  Is there any proposed solution to this problem? We can't just continue
  to break upgrade paths and call it the way things are done.
 
 If you have any ideas I'd like to hear them. A super epoch has already  
 been suggested but that just masks the problem and may cause unwanted  
 downgrades. Any solution either involves severly limiting what kind of  
 updates can be done or requiring network access during upgrades.


Does anaconda currently force installs of core packages such as yum?
This is quite important if the version in the old distro is newer than
that on the DVD.
-- 
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: Why do we need FC version attached to the package name?

2009-06-22 Thread Frank Murphy

On 22/06/09 08:32, Jesse Keating wrote:


Maybe, freeze all updates nearing a GA,




And keep them frozen indefinitely?

--
Jes



Duh!, forgot the coffee.

That would get the early adopters,
then nearing EOL of current eg 9.
Only allow updates for 11.
Same when 10 is EOL.
Just update most recent release

Frank

--
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?

2009-06-22 Thread Jesse Keating



On Jun 22, 2009, at 9:38, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:


On 22/06/09 08:32, Jesse Keating wrote:


Maybe, freeze all updates nearing a GA,




And keep them frozen indefinitely?

--
Jes



Duh!, forgot the coffee.

That would get the early adopters,
then nearing EOL of current eg 9.
Only allow updates for 11.
Same when 10 is EOL.
Just update most recent release




Doesn't actually help anything. People upgrading from the most recent  
release will run into issues unless we stop updates around devel  
freeze, which would leave more than a month without updates and would  
cut our 13 month life to 5 or so.


--
Jes

--
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?

2009-06-22 Thread Rahul Sundaram
On 06/22/2009 01:01 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:

 
 If you have any ideas I'd like to hear them. A super epoch has already
 been suggested but that just masks the problem and may cause unwanted
 downgrades. Any solution either involves severly limiting what kind of
 updates can be done or requiring network access during upgrades.

I can't think of any fool proof solutions but there are a couple of
things that might help:

* Run checks on upgrade paths and inform the maintainers when are about
to break an upgrade path (ie) before signing it. I noticed a few
maintainers I talked to just weren't aware they were doing so and
neither were they aware of the %dist.1 trick to workaround the problem
atleast in some cases. They might choose to delay an update where it is
feasible to do so. Not sure what we can do about security updates or
critical bug fixes breaking the upgrade path for the next release.
Ideally, the maintainer should have pushed it in sync for the two
releases.

* In preupgrade, if a user has updates-testing repo enabled, make sure
it is enabled for the release they are upgrading to. I think I have a
RFE filed on this. This is a bit of a corner case.

Rahul
Rahul

-- 
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

2009-06-22 Thread Paul Howarth

On 22/06/09 03:15, Todd Zullinger wrote:

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


Or you could buildreq one of the header files you actually need, e.g.

BuildRequires: /usr/include/boost/python.hpp

That should pull in whatever package contains the file.

Paul.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list


XInput.h has moved to libXi

2009-06-22 Thread Peter Hutterer
Just a notice, if your package requires XInput.h to build, you will need to
change the BuildRequires from xorg-x11-proto-devel to libXi. The header file
has moved there.

Reason: it's the library header file and shouldn't have been in the proto
package in the first place (this applies to upstream as well of course).

This applies to Rawhide only, not F11.

Cheers,
  Peter

-- 
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?

2009-06-22 Thread Josh Boyer
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 01:14:55PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 06/22/2009 01:01 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:

 
 If you have any ideas I'd like to hear them. A super epoch has already
 been suggested but that just masks the problem and may cause unwanted
 downgrades. Any solution either involves severly limiting what kind of
 updates can be done or requiring network access during upgrades.

I can't think of any fool proof solutions but there are a couple of
things that might help:

* Run checks on upgrade paths and inform the maintainers when are about
to break an upgrade path (ie) before signing it. I noticed a few
maintainers I talked to just weren't aware they were doing so and
neither were they aware of the %dist.1 trick to workaround the problem
atleast in some cases. They might choose to delay an update where it is
feasible to do so. Not sure what we can do about security updates or
critical bug fixes breaking the upgrade path for the next release.
Ideally, the maintainer should have pushed it in sync for the two
releases.

I think you mean before pushing rather than signing, but this idea has been
suggested before.  The good thing is, we could possibly tie this into bodhi
during update submission.  It's fairly easy to do NEVR comparisons and we don't
need full repos for the upgrade path checks to happen since we can use the
update information and koji tags.

The bad thing is, this suffers from the same problems every other auto-QA
suggestion has.  Namely, no code, nobody with time to write the code, and it
potentially slows things down even more.

josh

-- 
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?

2009-06-22 Thread Rahul Sundaram
On 06/22/2009 04:49 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:

 
 I think you mean before pushing rather than signing, but this idea has been
 suggested before.  

Well, if you aren't going to push anyway, then signing it wouldn't be
that useful, right? A koji build can be a trigger for the script check
instead of a push in bodhi.

The good thing is, we could possibly tie this into bodhi
 during update submission.  It's fairly easy to do NEVR comparisons and we 
 don't
 need full repos for the upgrade path checks to happen since we can use the
 update information and koji tags.
 
 The bad thing is, this suffers from the same problems every other auto-QA
 suggestion has.  Namely, no code, nobody with time to write the code, and it
 potentially slows things down even more.

Isn't the scripts Michael Schwendt refers to, not useful anymore? Even
one with some false positives would be better than nothing. There is
also the separate but related problem of maintainers ignoring issues
that are being reported but that is a relatively smaller number.

Rahul

-- 
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?

2009-06-22 Thread Reindl Harald
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1


 There are still packagers who bump %version or %release
 in old dist updates without considering the consequences with regard to
 dist upgrades.

I think this is the real problem
If this hits yum or any package yum depends on you have no chance for 
dist-upgrade

I had the problem updating f8-f9 eith openssl-dependencies of installed
yum-version which was installed in a version yum did not resolve because
installed yum has dependencie of installed openssl and the yum-version
from f9 was not resolved as to update. preupgrade did leave me with a 
unbootable
system without a kernel after second try and finally i had to force the upgrade 
again
form dvd - if this happens on a server you would wish to die :-)

I think dist-upgrades with yum should be forced official because
you can not upgrade a server from dvd or preupgrade because of downtime

my experience is that upgrades with yum are much better if there are no
broken dependencies because you can check and fix grub.conf, make manually 
updates,
remove leaves and so on while the system is running and as sample apache
serves his websites without downtime, so you have more time to look and think
before you reboot and run into troubles.

anaconda is a blackbox in this case
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAko/cggACgkQhmBjz394AnlfLACeJb50BGs8lSM6RtBI4XRhOV4Y
RgsAnipX1IGn/9iYwt5fAD6T9o5q3pA1
=k3bM
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-- 
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?

2009-06-22 Thread Josh Boyer
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 04:53:10PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 06/22/2009 04:49 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:

 
 I think you mean before pushing rather than signing, but this idea has been
 suggested before.  

Well, if you aren't going to push anyway, then signing it wouldn't be
that useful, right? A koji build can be a trigger for the script check

Right, but pushing and signing are disjoint.

instead of a push in bodhi.

No, I don't think we want to do that yet.  The way my brain sees it working is
that a maintainer does a build and submits it into bodhi.  When he/she submits
it for test/stable, bodhi will run a quick upgrade path check and refuse to
actually put it in the pending state if it breaks an upgrade path.

The signing stuff is only done on updates that are accepted, so you don't have
to worry about signing a useless build.

 The bad thing is, this suffers from the same problems every other auto-QA
 suggestion has.  Namely, no code, nobody with time to write the code, and it
 potentially slows things down even more.

Isn't the scripts Michael Schwendt refers to, not useful anymore? Even

It's useful.  It's generally after the fact though, and in the long run I think
we want to be proactive, not reactive.

josh

-- 
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?

2009-06-22 Thread Gilboa Davara
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 18:15 -0500, Ian Pilcher wrote:
 You'll also want to watch out for
 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=506189
 
 Good times!
 

Uggg...

- Gilboa

-- 
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?

2009-06-22 Thread TK009

On 06/21/2009 05:56 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 6:50 AM, John W. Linvillelinvi...@redhat.com  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

   
This is a good question. Laptops are becoming the norm if not already 
so, add smart devices and wireless is looking more like the standard 
rather than exception. We are not there quite yet though.


To most (almost all) desktop users, wireless packages are superfluous. 
That is generally not the case with a laptop user. As long as they have 
the hardware to support both, they will continue to need (want) both. So 
no, I do not believe we've reached a point where wired would be 
concidered optional, not yet anyway.


TK009
-- 
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?

2009-06-22 Thread Peter Robinson
 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



 This is a good question. Laptops are becoming the norm if not already so,
 add smart devices and wireless is looking more like the standard rather
 than exception. We are not there quite yet though.

 To most (almost all) desktop users, wireless packages are superfluous. That
 is generally not the case with a laptop user. As long as they have the
 hardware to support both, they will continue to need (want) both. So no, I
 do not believe we've reached a point where wired would be concidered
 optional, not yet anyway.

I would agree, just about all NetBooks (possibly all) still come with
wired ethernet ports and given their price point I would expect that
that platform to be the one to drop the wired ports first. Also a
nummber of other devices that have only wireless still support usb
ethernet out of the box to provide wired support.

Peter

-- 
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?

2009-06-22 Thread Rahul Sundaram
On 06/22/2009 05:35 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:

 Isn't the scripts Michael Schwendt refers to, not useful anymore? Even
 
 It's useful.  It's generally after the fact though, and in the long run I 
 think
 we want to be proactive, not reactive.

I agree but we aren't even reacting much now. If the scripts run from
infrastructure systems automatically as opposed to having someone run it
manually, I suspect it would help fix most of the issues we are
currently having.

Rahul

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list


Packaging PHP

2009-06-22 Thread Patrick MONNERAT
I'm currently packaging some PHP classes: if I follow the packaging
guideline at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#File_Placement,
class files should appear directly in /usr/share/php, not in an
extension-specific sub-directory.

This seems rather rude: this rule will sooner or later cause name
collision between files from packages and the directory will grow up to
a mess very fast.

Would it be possible to alter this rule to allow package-specific
sub-directories ? I know some packages go already this way (is it by
special authorization?).

Maybe my understanding of this simple rule is too strict. In this case,
I think it should be stated in more permissive terms.

Thanks for your replies
Patrick

-- 
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?

2009-06-22 Thread Josh Boyer
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 06:20:07PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 06/22/2009 05:35 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:

 Isn't the scripts Michael Schwendt refers to, not useful anymore? Even
 
 It's useful.  It's generally after the fact though, and in the long run I 
 think
 we want to be proactive, not reactive.

I agree but we aren't even reacting much now. If the scripts run from
infrastructure systems automatically as opposed to having someone run it
manually, I suspect it would help fix most of the issues we are
currently having.

True.  Care to file a rel-eng ticket suggesting we setup a cronjob to do so?
The script will likely need some rework and it may take some time, but the
ticket is a good starting point.

josh

-- 
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?

2009-06-22 Thread Nicolas Mailhot


Le Lun 22 juin 2009 15:26, Josh Boyer a écrit :

 True.  Care to file a rel-eng ticket suggesting we setup a cronjob to
 do so?
 The script will likely need some rework and it may take some time, but
 the
 ticket is a good starting point.

Can a ticket be opened to run other periodic checks for which scripts
exist ?

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

-- 
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?

2009-06-22 Thread Rahul Sundaram
On 06/22/2009 06:56 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
 On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 06:20:07PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
 On 06/22/2009 05:35 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:

 Isn't the scripts Michael Schwendt refers to, not useful anymore? Even

 It's useful.  It's generally after the fact though, and in the long run I 
 think
 we want to be proactive, not reactive.

 I agree but we aren't even reacting much now. If the scripts run from
 infrastructure systems automatically as opposed to having someone run it
 manually, I suspect it would help fix most of the issues we are
 currently having.
 
 True.  Care to file a rel-eng ticket suggesting we setup a cronjob to do so?
 The script will likely need some rework and it may take some time, but the
 ticket is a good starting point.

Here, you go

https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/1471

Rahul

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list


Outage Notification - 2009-06-23 20:00 UTC

2009-06-22 Thread Mike McGrath

There will be an outage starting at 2009-06-23 20:00 UTC, which will last
approximately 2 and a half hours.

To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto
or run:

date -d '2009-06-23 20:00 UTC'

Affected Services:

CVS / Source Control

Unaffected Services:

Buildsystem
Database
DNS
Fedora Hosted
Fedora People
Fedora Talk
Mail
Mirror System
Torrent
Translation Services
Websites

Ticket Link:

https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/1472

Reason for Outage:

Step 1 of a two step migration process for cvs (moving to different
hardware).  If this goes well, step 2 will come later in the week.  CVS
commits will continue to work during this time.  Lookaside cache
availability will be intermittent.  If a build fails, just re-try later.

Contact Information:

Please join #fedora-admin in irc.freenode.net or respond to this email to
track the status of this outage.

___
Fedora-devel-announce mailing list
fedora-devel-annou...@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-announce

-- 
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?

2009-06-22 Thread Dan Williams
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 13:01 +0100, Frank Murphy wrote:
 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.

Same reason the kernel installs a lot of drivers.  If you, in the
future, plug something wireless in, it'll work.

It's also a question of maintainability.  Sure, we could split up tons
of packages and add code to all the tools to check runtime-availability
of every tool they might use.  But that's just insane, and increases the
maintenance burden tremendously.

So the tradeoff is between the packagers maintaining an ugly patch that
upstream probably won't care about, against making the 5% of people who
really want to remove wireless-tools happy.  Every change like this
increases the maintenance burden, and I'd argue that it's simply not
worth it.  There's also value to being able to just plug hardware in and
have it work without downloading additional software.

Dan


-- 
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?

2009-06-22 Thread Dan Williams
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 13:59 +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
 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.

Which is exactly why NM requires the supplicant, because without it, you
can't connect to 802.1x-protected *wired* networks like yours, and you
can't just plug in a wifi adapter and have it work out of the box.

Dan


-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list


Re: rpm package with many files inside

2009-06-22 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 02:55:04 -0400,
  Jan Chadima jchad...@redhat.com wrote:
 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

Fedora seems to build file systems with around 2.5 M inodes these days (at
least on ext3) and you are creating a number of files that is a significant
fraction of that. I have some fairly full installs that already install
uses about half of that (around 1.3 M inodes) on the root file system.
A couple packages like this are going to break things with the default
inode limits. (It used to be that the default number of inodes allowed
scaled up to larger values; on the order of 10 M.)

-- 
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)

2009-06-22 Thread Bill Nottingham
Glen Turner (g...@gdt.id.au) said: 
 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

PPro has cmov, AFAIK.

Bill

-- 
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)

2009-06-22 Thread Peter Robinson
 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

 PPro has cmov, AFAIK.

Yes, its i686.

Peter

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list


Re: rawhide report: 20090621 changes

2009-06-22 Thread Bill Nottingham
Horst H. von Brand (vonbr...@inf.utfsm.cl) said: 
 Rawhide Report rawh...@fedoraproject.org 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

A yum API change caused the compose to 'succeed', but in a very broken way.
(See the PPC tree for more fun.)

It will be fixed for the next rawhide, which may be tomorrows.

Bill

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list


Re: Packaging PHP

2009-06-22 Thread Remi Collet
Le 22/06/2009 16:46, Christopher Stone a écrit :
 On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 6:02 AM, Patrick MONNERATp...@datasphere.ch wrote:

fedora-php-devel-list or fedora-packaging are better place for this
discussion, already raised (by me) in :
-
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-php-devel-list/2009-June/msg0.html
- https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2009-June/msg00087.html

 I'm currently packaging some PHP classes: if I follow the packaging
 guideline at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#File_Placement,
 class files should appear directly in /usr/share/php, not in an
 extension-specific sub-directory.

Yes Guidelines is very short about this (but didn't say directly).


 This seems rather rude: this rule will sooner or later cause name
 collision between files from packages and the directory will grow up to
 a mess very fast.

Yes, this seems really obvious


 Would it be possible to alter this rule to allow package-specific
 sub-directories ? I know some packages go already this way (is it by
 special authorization?).

Guidelines didn't forbid the use of a subdirectory
This even seems implicit (at least for some of us)


 Maybe my understanding of this simple rule is too strict. In this case,
 I think it should be stated in more permissive terms.
 
 You're supposed to be using subdirectories under /usr/share/php.  Look
 at the php-Smarty package as an example, it was the first package to
 use this directory and I was the one who pushed to create this
 directory for other packages.  The guidelines just need to be
 re-worded.

Il will propose an Guidelines update ASAP.
Please, fix your pending reviews to use a subdirectories.
Regards
Remi

 
 Regards,
 Chris
 

-- 
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?

2009-06-22 Thread Jeff Spaleta
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Dave Jonesda...@redhat.com wrote:
 Considering these updates are supposed to be for our 'stable' release,
 having them be in $nextrelease first seems like a good idea anyway.

including rawhide?

Do you want security fix updates to block on rawhide not composing in
order to prevent an upgrade path breakage.

-jef?

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list


Re: Packaging PHP

2009-06-22 Thread Patrick MONNERAT
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 07:46 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:

Hi Chris,

 You're supposed to be using subdirectories under /usr/share/php.

Many thanks for precising it.

  The guidelines just need to be re-worded.

Oh yes, please do !

Thanks for the reply
Regards,
Patrick

-- 
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)

2009-06-22 Thread Clemens Eisserer
Why can't you just leave it as-is?
I mean is 1% improvement (for cpu intensive workload) really worth
changing anything?

Instead of messing arround with stuff like that, I guess a lot of code
would benefit of beeing build with profile driven optimizations, which
often yields a 5-15% improvement without sacrifycing anything.
On amd64 it would even enable the auto-vectorizer (if enabled) to
vectorize only parts which count, without bloating code unescessary.

However that would be _real_ work, instead of just changing switches
and discussing it forth and back ;)

- Clemens

-- 
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?

2009-06-22 Thread Michael Schwendt
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:18:39 -0400, Tom wrote:

 Jeff Spaleta writes:
  On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Dave Jones wrote:
  Considering these updates are supposed to be for our 'stable' release,
  having them be in $nextrelease first seems like a good idea anyway.
 
  including rawhide?

Yes, with exceptions and creating a warning at least. See below.
 
  Do you want security fix updates to block on rawhide not composing in
  order to prevent an upgrade path breakage.

Not really, although the same question applies also to the other
dists. Theoretically it would be possible that temporary build problems
with a newer dist could cause a security fix for an older dist to be
blocked. (e.g. foo-2.1-1.fc10 being ready to be pushed, but fc11 being
stuck at foo-2.0-1.fc11 because foo-2.1-1.fc11 fails to build due to
arbitrary issues one can imagine)

 You could work around that by using a suitable definition of pushed.
 (You'd need a careful definition anyway, to not fail on an update
 request that's trying to push to all the back branches at once.)
 
 However, there's still an issue if rawhide is so badly broken that a
 package won't even *build* there, as we know happens occasionally.

*Then* any such package that doesn't build in rawhide and would block
updates for older dists shall be put onto a special MUST-FIX list that
blocks Rawhide instead, so Rawhide cannot become the next Fedora release
before these missing packages have been built successfully.

With regard to security issues, you either run Rawhide already and then
you may be vulnerable as long as the fix can't be built. Or you use an
older dist release and you can get the fix for that dist, but in case of
dependency problems and violated upgrade path to Rawhide, you can't
upgrade to Rawhide. Tons better than upgrade issues between stable Fedora
releases.

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list


Suggestion for improvement https://admin.fedoraproject.org/community

2009-06-22 Thread Jochen Schmitt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hallo,

in the Fedora Weekly News there was an announcement about
the new community portal for Fedora.

After I have taken a first look, I want to make the following
suggestion.

It may be helpful if you can see on the user profile, if the user
are a sponsor of the packager group. Nowaday, you have none
indicator about this state on the user profile.

Best Regards:

Jochen Schmitt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAko/2AEACgkQT2AHK6txfgysTQCdGGQmDPSt9nkslI4442Bf92Mt
UiUAn2txpD2/0yZTGZcykAs/Wudx3mnd
=3/JV
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-- 
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?

2009-06-22 Thread Jesse Keating



On Jun 22, 2009, at 18:32, Dave Jones da...@redhat.com wrote:


On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 09:31:32AM +0200, Jesse Keating wrote:


On Jun 22, 2009, at 9:26, Rahul Sundaram sunda...@fedoraproject.org
wrote:


On 06/22/2009 12:54 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:



Not possible while we allow people to keep making updates to the
older
releases.  Those updates quickly become version ( not just release
even
) higher than the static copies on the release medium and repos.


Is there any proposed solution to this problem? We can't just  
continue

to break upgrade paths and call it the way things are done.

Rahul



If you have any ideas I'd like to hear them. A super epoch has  
already

been suggested but that just masks the problem and may cause unwanted
downgrades. Any solution either involves severly limiting what kind  
of

updates can be done or requiring network access during upgrades.


How about something in bodhi that checks you aren't introducing this
problem, forcing you to push a higher NVR package to $nextrelease  
first

before you can push it to updates?

Considering these updates are supposed to be for our 'stable' release,
having them be in $nextrelease first seems like a good idea anyway.


Doesn't actually help when upgrading from the static DVD or release  
repo. Updates to the new release have to be enabled at upgrade time  
for this to help.


--
Jes

--
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)

2009-06-22 Thread Krzysztof Halasa
Clemens Eisserer linuxhi...@gmail.com writes:

 I mean is 1% improvement (for cpu intensive workload) really worth
 changing anything?

No, especially if it screws somebody (not me though).
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list


Spins SIG could use some more active participants

2009-06-22 Thread Bruno Wolff III
Our Spins SIG meetings have been pretty poorly attended recently (just nirik
and I) and our Spins Wrangler for F11 has resigned from that position for F12.

nirik does not have time to take a more active role and I want to limit
my work in the Spins SIG to technical stuff and the Games Spin. I really
don't have a good big picture view of Spins.

I am not sure if kanarip has just been short on time recently or if he is
looking to change his level of involvement in the Spins SIG on a long term
basis.

Besides needing a new wrangler, we need to get processes for recurring and
discontinued Spins created.

P.S.
I screwed up the devel list address the first time I tried to send this.

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list


Re: rpm package with many files inside

2009-06-22 Thread Roberto Ragusa
Jan Chadima wrote:
 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

One million files means (at 4KiB per file even if its length is one byte) about 
4GiB of space
on most filesystems (everyone except reiserfs, IIRC).

And I don't want to imagine the stress that one-million-files rpms can cause to 
the
rpm/yum machinery, which is quite slow even in normal usage.

-- 
   Roberto Ragusamail at robertoragusa.it

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list


Re: F11 deltarpms being built against rawhide base release

2009-06-22 Thread Luke Macken
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 08:16:30AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
 On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 08:04:21AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
 On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 01:49:14PM +0300, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
 On Sat, 2009-06-20 at 14:08 +1000, Bradley Baetz wrote:
  Hi,
  
  Running F11 (x86_64), I've noticed that not all updates have deltarpms 
  built for them. It looks like there is one built for the package, but 
  the source version is wrong.
  
  For example gvfs-1.2.3-6.f11 is in the latest set of updates. I 
  currently have 1.2.3-2.f11 installed, but the drpm is 
  gvfs-1.2.3-3.fc12_1.2.3-6.fc11.x86_64.drpm, (f12, not f11, and 1.2.3-3 
  never got pushed to f11) which won't work...
  
  Presumably there should be drpms built against release+prev-update, or 
  ideally one drpm for any update released in the previous week.
  
  Other packages (openssl, qemu) don't seem to have .drpms built at all.
 
 I would suggest creating a bug report against createrepo for the wrong
 source rpm.
 
 This sounds more like a mash config issue than a createrepo bug.
 
 I've filed ticket 1938 against rel-eng.  Hopefully we can get this fixed
 before the next updates push.

I just pushed out a new version of bodhi into production with a fix.

luke

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list


autodownloader, live spins and packaging

2009-06-22 Thread Bruno Wolff III
I am the maintainer of the Live Games Spin and am looking for feedback
on dealing with games (though this could apply to other types of packages
as well) that have some of their content obtained using autodownloader.
Currently I don't want to include games that can only be played using
downloaded content on the Live Games Spin. I don't think that gives
a good experience using the Live Games Spin as a demo (which is what
I think its focus should be). And space is tight right now so cutting things
that used the auotdownloader first was a useful way to get down to size.

However, it's possible that lzma compression of live images might be available
for F12, which would allow me to add back some game packages that had to
be cut because of space. While I still wouldn't want to include games that
were only playable using autodownloader, there are some packages that have
some data included in Fedora and other data that gets downloaded. So that
you can play some of the games without having to download data, but not
all of them. For example the quake3 package is needed for some games in
Fedora, but it makes menu items for some games that are only playable with
large downloads.

For the games spin, I'd like to be able to either not show menu items for
the games that need downloaded data or have a way to not include the
game stubs that need downloaded data to play. I don't believe the first
option is allowed for spins. So I am thinking of filing RFEs against
packages this applies to, to split out the autodownloader stuff into a
separate rpm that is optional. Does this sound reasonable? If so, is this
something that should be recommended in a packaging guideline?

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list


rpms/perl-Mouse/devel .cvsignore, 1.9, 1.10 perl-Mouse.spec, 1.10, 1.11 sources, 1.9, 1.10

2009-06-22 Thread Chris Weyl
Author: cweyl

Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-Mouse/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv12140

Modified Files:
.cvsignore perl-Mouse.spec sources 
Log Message:
* Mon Jun 22 2009 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 0.25-1
- auto-update to 0.25 (by cpan-spec-update 0.01)
- altered req on perl(Scalar::Util) (1.19 = 1.14)



Index: .cvsignore
===
RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-Mouse/devel/.cvsignore,v
retrieving revision 1.9
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -u -p -r1.9 -r1.10
--- .cvsignore  2 Jun 2009 07:16:59 -   1.9
+++ .cvsignore  22 Jun 2009 07:20:30 -  1.10
@@ -1 +1 @@
-Mouse-0.23.tar.gz
+Mouse-0.25.tar.gz


Index: perl-Mouse.spec
===
RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-Mouse/devel/perl-Mouse.spec,v
retrieving revision 1.10
retrieving revision 1.11
diff -u -p -r1.10 -r1.11
--- perl-Mouse.spec 2 Jun 2009 07:16:59 -   1.10
+++ perl-Mouse.spec 22 Jun 2009 07:20:30 -  1.11
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 Name:   perl-Mouse
-Version:0.23
+Version:0.25
 Release:1%{?dist}
 License:GPL+ or Artistic
 Group:  Development/Libraries
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ BuildRequires: perl(Test::More) = 0.8
 # recommends in rpm yet, let's manually require them here.
 Requires:  perl(Class::Method::Modifiers) = 1.01
 Requires:  perl(Test::Exception)  = 0.27
-Requires:  perl(Scalar::Util) = 1.19
+Requires:  perl(Scalar::Util) = 1.14
 Requires:  perl(MRO::Compat)  = 0.09
 
 
@@ -81,6 +81,10 @@ rm -rf %{buildroot}
 %{_mandir}/man3/*.3*
 
 %changelog
+* Mon Jun 22 2009 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 0.25-1
+- auto-update to 0.25 (by cpan-spec-update 0.01)
+- altered req on perl(Scalar::Util) (1.19 = 1.14)
+
 * Tue Jun 02 2009 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 0.23-1
 - auto-update to 0.23 (by cpan-spec-update 0.01)
 - altered br on perl(Test::Exception) (0 = 0.21)


Index: sources
===
RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-Mouse/devel/sources,v
retrieving revision 1.9
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -u -p -r1.9 -r1.10
--- sources 2 Jun 2009 07:16:59 -   1.9
+++ sources 22 Jun 2009 07:20:31 -  1.10
@@ -1 +1 @@
-ee51652607053ee0be56aff304a5bc07  Mouse-0.23.tar.gz
+97dbe3320902d3e769795849c26884f7  Mouse-0.25.tar.gz

--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list


rpms/perl-Mouse/F-11 perl-Mouse.spec,1.10,1.11 sources,1.9,1.10

2009-06-22 Thread Chris Weyl
Author: cweyl

Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-Mouse/F-11
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv15393

Modified Files:
perl-Mouse.spec sources 
Log Message:
* Mon Jun 22 2009 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 0.25-1
- auto-update to 0.25 (by cpan-spec-update 0.01)
- altered req on perl(Scalar::Util) (1.19 = 1.14)



Index: perl-Mouse.spec
===
RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-Mouse/F-11/perl-Mouse.spec,v
retrieving revision 1.10
retrieving revision 1.11
diff -u -p -r1.10 -r1.11
--- perl-Mouse.spec 2 Jun 2009 07:27:56 -   1.10
+++ perl-Mouse.spec 22 Jun 2009 07:41:09 -  1.11
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 Name:   perl-Mouse
-Version:0.23
+Version:0.25
 Release:1%{?dist}
 License:GPL+ or Artistic
 Group:  Development/Libraries
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ BuildRequires: perl(Test::More) = 0.8
 # recommends in rpm yet, let's manually require them here.
 Requires:  perl(Class::Method::Modifiers) = 1.01
 Requires:  perl(Test::Exception)  = 0.27
-Requires:  perl(Scalar::Util) = 1.19
+Requires:  perl(Scalar::Util) = 1.14
 Requires:  perl(MRO::Compat)  = 0.09
 
 
@@ -81,6 +81,10 @@ rm -rf %{buildroot}
 %{_mandir}/man3/*.3*
 
 %changelog
+* Mon Jun 22 2009 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 0.25-1
+- auto-update to 0.25 (by cpan-spec-update 0.01)
+- altered req on perl(Scalar::Util) (1.19 = 1.14)
+
 * Tue Jun 02 2009 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 0.23-1
 - auto-update to 0.23 (by cpan-spec-update 0.01)
 - altered br on perl(Test::Exception) (0 = 0.21)


Index: sources
===
RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-Mouse/F-11/sources,v
retrieving revision 1.9
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -u -p -r1.9 -r1.10
--- sources 2 Jun 2009 07:27:56 -   1.9
+++ sources 22 Jun 2009 07:41:09 -  1.10
@@ -1 +1 @@
-ee51652607053ee0be56aff304a5bc07  Mouse-0.23.tar.gz
+97dbe3320902d3e769795849c26884f7  Mouse-0.25.tar.gz

--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list


rpms/perl-Mouse/F-10 perl-Mouse.spec,1.9,1.10 sources,1.9,1.10

2009-06-22 Thread Chris Weyl
Author: cweyl

Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-Mouse/F-10
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv15459

Modified Files:
perl-Mouse.spec sources 
Log Message:
* Mon Jun 22 2009 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 0.25-1
- auto-update to 0.25 (by cpan-spec-update 0.01)
- altered req on perl(Scalar::Util) (1.19 = 1.14)



Index: perl-Mouse.spec
===
RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-Mouse/F-10/perl-Mouse.spec,v
retrieving revision 1.9
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -u -p -r1.9 -r1.10
--- perl-Mouse.spec 2 Jun 2009 07:28:01 -   1.9
+++ perl-Mouse.spec 22 Jun 2009 07:41:18 -  1.10
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 Name:   perl-Mouse
-Version:0.23
+Version:0.25
 Release:1%{?dist}
 License:GPL+ or Artistic
 Group:  Development/Libraries
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ BuildRequires: perl(Test::More) = 0.8
 # recommends in rpm yet, let's manually require them here.
 Requires:  perl(Class::Method::Modifiers) = 1.01
 Requires:  perl(Test::Exception)  = 0.27
-Requires:  perl(Scalar::Util) = 1.19
+Requires:  perl(Scalar::Util) = 1.14
 Requires:  perl(MRO::Compat)  = 0.09
 
 
@@ -81,6 +81,10 @@ rm -rf %{buildroot}
 %{_mandir}/man3/*.3*
 
 %changelog
+* Mon Jun 22 2009 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 0.25-1
+- auto-update to 0.25 (by cpan-spec-update 0.01)
+- altered req on perl(Scalar::Util) (1.19 = 1.14)
+
 * Tue Jun 02 2009 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 0.23-1
 - auto-update to 0.23 (by cpan-spec-update 0.01)
 - altered br on perl(Test::Exception) (0 = 0.21)


Index: sources
===
RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-Mouse/F-10/sources,v
retrieving revision 1.9
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -u -p -r1.9 -r1.10
--- sources 2 Jun 2009 07:28:02 -   1.9
+++ sources 22 Jun 2009 07:41:18 -  1.10
@@ -1 +1 @@
-ee51652607053ee0be56aff304a5bc07  Mouse-0.23.tar.gz
+97dbe3320902d3e769795849c26884f7  Mouse-0.25.tar.gz

--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list


[Bug 416781] SOAP::Lite contains useful examples not packaged under %doc

2009-06-22 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=416781





--- Comment #7 from Jan Pazdziora jpazdzi...@redhat.com  2009-06-22 03:39:20 
EDT ---
Confirming fixed in perl-SOAP-Lite-0.710.08-2.fc11.noarch, thanks.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list


[Bug 506496] tkmib failed

2009-06-22 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=506496


Jan Safranek jsafr...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||andreas.bierf...@lowlatency
   ||.de,
   ||fedora-perl-devel-l...@redh
   ||at.com
  Component|net-snmp|perl-Tk
 AssignedTo|jsafr...@redhat.com |andreas.bierf...@lowlatency
   ||.de




--- Comment #1 from Jan Safranek jsafr...@redhat.com  2009-06-22 04:55:34 EDT 
---
I think you hit a bug in perl-Tk package, which is probably fixed upstream:

http://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=38746

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list


rpms/perl-Pod-Abstract/F-11 perl-Pod-Abstract.spec, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.1, 1.2

2009-06-22 Thread Marcela Mašláňová
Author: mmaslano

Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Pod-Abstract/F-11
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv3657

Modified Files:
.cvsignore sources 
Added Files:
perl-Pod-Abstract.spec 
Log Message:
* Mon Jun 08 2009 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 0.17-2
- fix rpmlint warnings



--- NEW FILE perl-Pod-Abstract.spec ---
Name:   perl-Pod-Abstract
Version:0.17
Release:2%{?dist}
Summary:Abstract document tree for Perl POD documents
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group:  Development/Libraries
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/Pod-Abstract/
Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/B/BL/BLILBURNE/Pod-Abstract-%{version}.tar.gz
BuildRoot:  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildArch:  noarch
BuildRequires:  perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
BuildRequires:  perl(IO::String)
BuildRequires:  perl(Test::More)
Requires:   perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo 
$version))

%description
POD::Abstract provides a means to load a POD (or POD compatible) document
without direct reference to it's syntax, and perform manipulations on the
abstract syntax tree.

%prep
%setup -q -n Pod-Abstract-%{version}
chmod 644  lib/Pod/Abstract/Filter/*.pm 

%build
%{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor
make %{?_smp_mflags}

%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

make pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT

find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} \;
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2/dev/null \;

%{_fixperms} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/*

%check
make test

%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc Changes README
%{perl_vendorlib}/*
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%{_bindir}/paf
%{_mandir}/man1/paf.1.gz

%changelog
* Mon Jun 08 2009 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 0.17-2
- fix rpmlint warnings

* Thu Jun 04 2009 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 0.17-1
- Specfile autogenerated by cpanspec 1.78.


Index: .cvsignore
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Pod-Abstract/F-11/.cvsignore,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -p -r1.1 -r1.2
--- .cvsignore  20 Jun 2009 15:01:56 -  1.1
+++ .cvsignore  22 Jun 2009 11:36:15 -  1.2
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Pod-Abstract-0.17.tar.gz


Index: sources
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Pod-Abstract/F-11/sources,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -p -r1.1 -r1.2
--- sources 20 Jun 2009 15:01:57 -  1.1
+++ sources 22 Jun 2009 11:36:16 -  1.2
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+414ed18145c1d8a73269d46de62c78a3  Pod-Abstract-0.17.tar.gz

--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list


rpms/perl-Pod-Abstract/devel perl-Pod-Abstract.spec, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.1, 1.2

2009-06-22 Thread Marcela Mašláňová
Author: mmaslano

Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Pod-Abstract/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv5882

Modified Files:
.cvsignore sources 
Added Files:
perl-Pod-Abstract.spec 
Log Message:
* Mon Jun 08 2009 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 0.17-2
- fix rpmlint warnings



--- NEW FILE perl-Pod-Abstract.spec ---
Name:   perl-Pod-Abstract
Version:0.17
Release:2%{?dist}
Summary:Abstract document tree for Perl POD documents
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group:  Development/Libraries
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/Pod-Abstract/
Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/B/BL/BLILBURNE/Pod-Abstract-%{version}.tar.gz
BuildRoot:  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildArch:  noarch
BuildRequires:  perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
BuildRequires:  perl(IO::String)
BuildRequires:  perl(Test::More)
Requires:   perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo 
$version))

%description
POD::Abstract provides a means to load a POD (or POD compatible) document
without direct reference to it's syntax, and perform manipulations on the
abstract syntax tree.

%prep
%setup -q -n Pod-Abstract-%{version}
chmod 644  lib/Pod/Abstract/Filter/*.pm 

%build
%{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor
make %{?_smp_mflags}

%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

make pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT

find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} \;
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2/dev/null \;

%{_fixperms} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/*

%check
make test

%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc Changes README
%{perl_vendorlib}/*
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%{_bindir}/paf
%{_mandir}/man1/paf.1.gz

%changelog
* Mon Jun 08 2009 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 0.17-2
- fix rpmlint warnings

* Thu Jun 04 2009 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 0.17-1
- Specfile autogenerated by cpanspec 1.78.


Index: .cvsignore
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Pod-Abstract/devel/.cvsignore,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -p -r1.1 -r1.2
--- .cvsignore  20 Jun 2009 15:01:56 -  1.1
+++ .cvsignore  22 Jun 2009 11:46:00 -  1.2
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Pod-Abstract-0.17.tar.gz


Index: sources
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Pod-Abstract/devel/sources,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -p -r1.1 -r1.2
--- sources 20 Jun 2009 15:01:57 -  1.1
+++ sources 22 Jun 2009 11:46:00 -  1.2
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+414ed18145c1d8a73269d46de62c78a3  Pod-Abstract-0.17.tar.gz

--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list


rpms/perl-JSON/devel .cvsignore, 1.10, 1.11 perl-JSON.spec, 1.13, 1.14 sources, 1.10, 1.11

2009-06-22 Thread Chris Weyl
Author: cweyl

Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-JSON/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv7631

Modified Files:
.cvsignore perl-JSON.spec sources 
Log Message:
* Mon Jun 22 2009 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 2.15-1
- auto-update to 2.15 (by cpan-spec-update 0.01)



Index: .cvsignore
===
RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-JSON/devel/.cvsignore,v
retrieving revision 1.10
retrieving revision 1.11
diff -u -p -r1.10 -r1.11
--- .cvsignore  1 Mar 2009 23:38:33 -   1.10
+++ .cvsignore  22 Jun 2009 15:06:42 -  1.11
@@ -1 +1 @@
-JSON-2.14.tar.gz
+JSON-2.15.tar.gz


Index: perl-JSON.spec
===
RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-JSON/devel/perl-JSON.spec,v
retrieving revision 1.13
retrieving revision 1.14
diff -u -p -r1.13 -r1.14
--- perl-JSON.spec  1 Mar 2009 23:38:33 -   1.13
+++ perl-JSON.spec  22 Jun 2009 15:06:42 -  1.14
@@ -1,11 +1,11 @@
 Name:   perl-JSON
-Version:2.14
+Version:2.15
 Release:1%{?dist}
 Summary:Parse and convert to JSON (JavaScript Object Notation)
 License:GPL+ or Artistic
 Group:  Development/Libraries
 URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/JSON/
-Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/M/MA/MAKAMAKA/JSON-%{version}.tar.gz
+Source0:
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/M/MA/MAKAMAKA/JSON-%{version}.tar.gz
 BuildRoot:  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
 BuildArch:  noarch
 Requires:   perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo 
$version))
@@ -27,7 +27,6 @@ Requires:   perl(Scalar::Util)
 Requires:   perl(LWP::UserAgent)
 Requires:   perl(HTTP::Daemon)
 
-
 %description
 This module converts between JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) and Perl
 data structure into each other. For JSON, See to
@@ -37,7 +36,7 @@ http://www.crockford.com/JSON/.
 %setup -q -n JSON-%{version}
 
 # make rpmlint happy...
-find .  -type f -exec chmod -c -x {} + 
+find .  -type f -exec chmod -c -x {} +
 find t/ -type f -exec perl -pi -e 's|^#! perl|#!/usr/bin/perl|' {} +
 sed -i 's/\r//' README t/*
 
@@ -78,6 +77,9 @@ rm -rf %{buildroot}
 %{_mandir}/man3/*
 
 %changelog
+* Mon Jun 22 2009 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 2.15-1
+- auto-update to 2.15 (by cpan-spec-update 0.01)
+
 * Sun Mar 01 2009 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 2.14-1
 - update to 2.14
 


Index: sources
===
RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-JSON/devel/sources,v
retrieving revision 1.10
retrieving revision 1.11
diff -u -p -r1.10 -r1.11
--- sources 1 Mar 2009 23:38:33 -   1.10
+++ sources 22 Jun 2009 15:06:42 -  1.11
@@ -1 +1 @@
-340d2e9eb18406e18c88475d7aa25edc  JSON-2.14.tar.gz
+15de50d89da9a0c389d3fb1a4aef84d0  JSON-2.15.tar.gz

--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list


[Bug 491536] cssh is broken

2009-06-22 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491536





--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org  
2009-06-22 13:02:29 EDT ---
perl-Tk-804.028-8.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Tk-804.028-8.fc10

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list


[Bug 489228] Keyboard does not work in perl-Tk programs

2009-06-22 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489228





--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org  
2009-06-22 13:02:23 EDT ---
perl-Tk-804.028-8.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Tk-804.028-8.fc10

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list


[Bug 489228] Keyboard does not work in perl-Tk programs

2009-06-22 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489228





--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org  
2009-06-22 13:03:14 EDT ---
perl-Tk-804.028-8.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Tk-804.028-8.fc11

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list


[Bug 506496] tkmib failed

2009-06-22 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=506496





--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org  
2009-06-22 13:02:35 EDT ---
perl-Tk-804.028-8.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Tk-804.028-8.fc10

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list


[Bug 491536] cssh is broken

2009-06-22 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491536





--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org  
2009-06-22 13:03:19 EDT ---
perl-Tk-804.028-8.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Tk-804.028-8.fc11

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list


[Bug 506496] tkmib failed

2009-06-22 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=506496





--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org  
2009-06-22 13:03:24 EDT ---
perl-Tk-804.028-8.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Tk-804.028-8.fc11

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list


[Bug 487122] getOpenFile fails if -multiple is set

2009-06-22 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487122





--- Comment #2 from Ieuan Clay ieuan.c...@bbsrc.ac.uk  2009-06-22 13:08:09 
EDT ---
http://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=31989

Solves problem

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list


[Bug 491536] cssh is broken

2009-06-22 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491536





--- Comment #15 from Need Real Name l...@nodata.co.uk  2009-06-22 13:14:25 
EDT ---
WFM THANKS!

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list


[Bug 507490] New: Garbled text terminal display

2009-06-22 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Garbled text terminal display

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507490

   Summary: Garbled text terminal display
   Product: Fedora
   Version: 11
  Platform: x86_64
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: low
  Priority: low
 Component: amavisd-new
AssignedTo: st...@silug.org
ReportedBy: sin...@gnu.org
 QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: st...@silug.org, fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
Classification: Fedora


Description of problem:  From startx (init 3), or init 5, with framebuffer
enabled (I haven't tested with it disabled: vga=792) on a t61p, when X is
running I get garbled (wavey line) display on text terminal (it is usable, but
only typing blindly).

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Nvidia Quadro FX 570M
2. Nouveau driver (with or without xorg.conf)
3. From runlevel 3, run startx, or init 5 (with gdm)
4. Switch with C-M-Del-F{2..6} to text terminal

Actual results: Garbled display on text terminal

Expected results: Text terminal Login prompt (with /etc/issue text)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list


[Bug 504389] RFE: update to 0.11

2009-06-22 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504389


Bernard Johnson bjohn...@symetrix.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||507491




-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list


[Bug 507490] Garbled text terminal display

2009-06-22 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507490


Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC|fedora-perl-devel-l...@redh |airl...@redhat.com,
   |at.com, st...@silug.org |a...@redhat.com,
   ||bske...@redhat.com
  Component|amavisd-new |xorg-x11-drv-nouveau
 AssignedTo|st...@silug.org |bske...@redhat.com




--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu  2009-06-22 20:26:58 EDT 
---
I can't figure out what this could possibly have to do with amavisd-new. 
Reassigning to xorg-x11-drv-nouveau, although it might be better to assign it
to kernel.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list


rpms/perl-JSON/F-10 perl-JSON.spec,1.10,1.11 sources,1.9,1.10

2009-06-22 Thread Chris Weyl
Author: cweyl

Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-JSON/F-10
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv13487

Modified Files:
perl-JSON.spec sources 
Log Message:
* Mon Jun 22 2009 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 2.15-1
- auto-update to 2.15 (by cpan-spec-update 0.01)



Index: perl-JSON.spec
===
RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-JSON/F-10/perl-JSON.spec,v
retrieving revision 1.10
retrieving revision 1.11
diff -u -p -r1.10 -r1.11
--- perl-JSON.spec  13 Oct 2008 04:26:45 -  1.10
+++ perl-JSON.spec  23 Jun 2009 05:24:57 -  1.11
@@ -1,11 +1,11 @@
 Name:   perl-JSON
-Version:2.12
+Version:2.15
 Release:1%{?dist}
 Summary:Parse and convert to JSON (JavaScript Object Notation)
 License:GPL+ or Artistic
 Group:  Development/Libraries
 URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/JSON/
-Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/M/MA/MAKAMAKA/JSON-%{version}.tar.gz
+Source0:
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/M/MA/MAKAMAKA/JSON-%{version}.tar.gz
 BuildRoot:  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
 BuildArch:  noarch
 Requires:   perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo 
$version))
@@ -27,7 +27,6 @@ Requires:   perl(Scalar::Util)
 Requires:   perl(LWP::UserAgent)
 Requires:   perl(HTTP::Daemon)
 
-
 %description
 This module converts between JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) and Perl
 data structure into each other. For JSON, See to
@@ -37,7 +36,7 @@ http://www.crockford.com/JSON/.
 %setup -q -n JSON-%{version}
 
 # make rpmlint happy...
-find .  -type f -exec chmod -c -x {} + 
+find .  -type f -exec chmod -c -x {} +
 find t/ -type f -exec perl -pi -e 's|^#! perl|#!/usr/bin/perl|' {} +
 sed -i 's/\r//' README t/*
 
@@ -78,6 +77,18 @@ rm -rf %{buildroot}
 %{_mandir}/man3/*
 
 %changelog
+* Mon Jun 22 2009 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 2.15-1
+- auto-update to 2.15 (by cpan-spec-update 0.01)
+
+* Sun Mar 01 2009 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 2.14-1
+- update to 2.14
+
+* Thu Feb 26 2009 Fedora Release Engineering rel-...@lists.fedoraproject.org 
- 2.12-3
+- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_11_Mass_Rebuild
+
+* Thu Feb 26 2009 Fedora Release Engineering rel-...@lists.fedoraproject.org 
- 2.12-2
+- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_11_Mass_Rebuild
+
 * Sun Oct 12 2008 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 2.12-1
 - update to 2.12
 


Index: sources
===
RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-JSON/F-10/sources,v
retrieving revision 1.9
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -u -p -r1.9 -r1.10
--- sources 13 Oct 2008 04:26:45 -  1.9
+++ sources 23 Jun 2009 05:24:57 -  1.10
@@ -1 +1 @@
-5719ba98f607003295d99952c2ac2ea7  JSON-2.12.tar.gz
+15de50d89da9a0c389d3fb1a4aef84d0  JSON-2.15.tar.gz

--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list


rpms/perl-Moose/devel perl-Moose.spec,1.41,1.42

2009-06-22 Thread Chris Weyl
Author: cweyl

Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-Moose/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv19148

Modified Files:
perl-Moose.spec 
Log Message:
* Mon Jun 22 2009 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 0.81-2
- split off Test::Moose



Index: perl-Moose.spec
===
RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-Moose/devel/perl-Moose.spec,v
retrieving revision 1.41
retrieving revision 1.42
diff -u -p -r1.41 -r1.42
--- perl-Moose.spec 9 Jun 2009 08:29:05 -   1.41
+++ perl-Moose.spec 23 Jun 2009 05:46:24 -  1.42
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 Name:   perl-Moose
 Version:0.81
-Release:1%{?dist}
+Release:2%{?dist}
 Summary:Complete modern object system for Perl 5
 License:GPL+ or Artistic
 Group:  Development/Libraries
@@ -74,6 +74,17 @@ While Moose is very much inspired by Per
 tired or writing the same old boring Perl 5 OO code, and drooling over
 Perl 6 OO. So instead of switching to Ruby, I wrote Moose :)
 
+%package -n perl-Test-Moose
+License:GPL+ or Artistic
+Group:  Development/Libraries
+Summary:Test functions for Moose specific features
+Requires:   %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+
+%description -n perl-Test-Moose
+This module provides some useful test functions for Moose based classes.
+It is an experimental first release, so comments and suggestions are
+very welcome.
+
 %prep
 %setup -q -n Moose-%{version}
 
@@ -105,9 +116,19 @@ rm -rf %{buildroot}
 %defattr(-,root,root,-)
 %doc Changes README doap.rdf t/
 %{perl_vendorlib}/*
+%exclude %{perl_vendorlib}/Test
 %{_mandir}/man3/*
+%exclude %{_mandir}/man3/Test::Moose*
+
+%files -n perl-Test-Moose
+%defattr(-,root,root,-)
+%{perl_vendorlib}/Test
+%{_mandir}/man3/Test::Moose*
 
 %changelog
+* Mon Jun 22 2009 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 0.81-2
+- split off Test::Moose
+
 * Tue Jun 09 2009 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 0.81-1
 - auto-update to 0.81 (by cpan-spec-update 0.01)
 - altered br on perl(Class::MOP) (0.83 = 0.85)
@@ -258,10 +279,3 @@ rm -rf %{buildroot}
 
 * Sat Sep 02 2006 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 0.12-1
 - Specfile autogenerated by cpanspec 1.69.1.
-
-Checking : Moose-0.79.tar.gz on 
https://cvs.fedoraproject.org/repo/pkgs/upload.cgi...
-Uploading: Moose-0.79.tar.gz to 
https://cvs.fedoraproject.org/repo/pkgs/upload.cgi...
-
-Source upload succeeded. Don't forget to commit the new ./sources file
-M sources
-M .cvsignore

--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list