Empathy default in F12?
The F12 feature still indicates the switch to Empathy as a default IM client in Fedora. However, the talk page for the feature (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Talk:Features/Empathy) raises material concerns that the switch to Empathy would result in an insufficiently justified loss of functionality. Where does this currently stand? -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Empathy default in F12?
On 08/16/2009 01:05 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > The F12 feature still indicates the switch to Empathy as a default IM > client in Fedora. > > However, the talk page for the feature > (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Talk:Features/Empathy) raises material > concerns that the switch to Empathy would result in an insufficiently > justified loss of functionality. > > Where does this currently stand? My understanding is that Empathy is still planned to be the default. What specific concerns do you have? Rahul -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Empathy default in F12?
* Voice chat with GoogleTalk (though this will probably need us to look at our firewall rules for this to work out of the box) - bpepple Is it really a pro when it works very poorly? You reportedly need to install additional codecs to do video with Google Talk. Then there are the terrible issues with NAT, proxies and firewalls where in practice it will not work for most users without manual configuration. Also pidgin does the same as of the soon to be released 2.6.0 version. Warren -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Empathy default in F12?
Am Sonntag, den 16.08.2009, 13:10 +0530 schrieb Rahul Sundaram: > On 08/16/2009 01:05 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > > The F12 feature still indicates the switch to Empathy as a default IM > > client in Fedora. > > > > However, the talk page for the feature > > (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Talk:Features/Empathy) raises material > > concerns that the switch to Empathy would result in an insufficiently > > justified loss of functionality. > > > > Where does this currently stand? > > My understanding is that Empathy is still planned to be the default. > What specific concerns do you have? Well on fedora 10 it cannot connect to irc. Which makes it pretty unusable. signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Empathy default in F12?
2009/8/16 Christoph Höger > Am Sonntag, den 16.08.2009, 13:10 +0530 schrieb Rahul Sundaram: > > On 08/16/2009 01:05 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > > > The F12 feature still indicates the switch to Empathy as a default IM > > > client in Fedora. > > > > > > However, the talk page for the feature > > > (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Talk:Features/Empathy) raises material > > > concerns that the switch to Empathy would result in an insufficiently > > > justified loss of functionality. > > > > > > Where does this currently stand? > > > > My understanding is that Empathy is still planned to be the default. > > What specific concerns do you have? > > Well on fedora 10 it cannot connect to irc. Which makes it pretty > unusable. Same for Fedora 11, as far as I could tell. > > > -- > fedora-devel-list mailing list > fedora-devel-list@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list > -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Empathy default in F12?
On 08/16/2009 02:51 PM, Christoph Höger wrote: > Am Sonntag, den 16.08.2009, 13:10 +0530 schrieb Rahul Sundaram: >> On 08/16/2009 01:05 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: >>> The F12 feature still indicates the switch to Empathy as a default IM >>> client in Fedora. >>> >>> However, the talk page for the feature >>> (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Talk:Features/Empathy) raises material >>> concerns that the switch to Empathy would result in an insufficiently >>> justified loss of functionality. >>> >>> Where does this currently stand? >> >> My understanding is that Empathy is still planned to be the default. >> What specific concerns do you have? > > Well on fedora 10 it cannot connect to irc. Which makes it pretty > unusable. I use a separate IRC client but IIRC this has been fixed in Rawhide already. So before we get into a comparison, it is useful to try out the version in Rawhide. Fedora 12 Alpha should be out soon. Rahul -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Empathy default in F12?
On Sun, 2009-08-16 at 11:21 +0200, Christoph Höger wrote: > Well on fedora 10 it cannot connect to irc. Which makes it pretty > unusable. Well, it can connect to irc for me on F11... 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
Confusion with openal-soft
Hi, Apparently openal-soft shouldn't have been pushed to Fedora 11 and Fedora 10. Unfortunately I already did the cvs commits for these branches and only noticed after the Fedora 11 build failed. Heads up for others. What would be the right way to revert these commits? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517715#c1 Rahul -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Empathy default in F12?
The F12 feature still indicates the switch to Empathy as a default IM client in Fedora. However, the talk page for the feature (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Talk:Features/Empathy) raises material concerns that the switch to Empathy would result in an insufficiently justified loss of functionality. Where does this currently stand? >>> >>> My understanding is that Empathy is still planned to be the default. >>> What specific concerns do you have? >> >> Well on fedora 10 it cannot connect to irc. Which makes it pretty >> unusable. > > I use a separate IRC client but IIRC this has been fixed in Rawhide > already. So before we get into a comparison, it is useful to try out the > version in Rawhide. Fedora 12 Alpha should be out soon. Well in the F-12 version when connected to gtalk I can't communicate with contacts. I can see them but if I start a chat with them they don't see anything from me. I need to test it further as the person I was trying to chat to is on a 3rd party jabber server which is syndicated to google's servers. That is a show stopper for me. The other thing I need is to be able to do a one off import of all my IM logs as I reference them regularly, there's a bug that for that though so there is some movement on it. Peter -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:32:51 +0530, Rahul wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Apparently openal-soft shouldn't have been pushed to Fedora 11 and
> Fedora 10. Unfortunately I already did the cvs commits for these
> branches and only noticed after the Fedora 11 build failed. Heads up for
> others. What would be the right way to revert these commits?
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517715#c1
As I see it, openal-soft has not been tagged into the F11/F10 buildroots
anyway, and that means nobody can rebuild with it.
$ koji latest-pkg dist-f11-build openal-soft
Build Tag Built by
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
I have updated the packages for F-10 and F-11 with conflicts and without
obseltues :)
Am 16.08.2009 14:00, schrieb Michael Schwendt:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:32:51 +0530, Rahul wrote:
Hi,
Apparently openal-soft shouldn't have been pushed to Fedora 11 and
Fedora 10. Unfortunately I already did the cvs commits for these
branches and only noticed after the Fedora 11 build failed. Heads up for
others. What would be the right way to revert these commits?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517715#c1
As I see it, openal-soft has not been tagged into the F11/F10 buildroots
anyway, and that means nobody can rebuild with it.
$ koji latest-pkg dist-f11-build openal-soft
Build Tag Built by
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
rawhide report: 20090816 changes
Compose started at Sun Aug 16 06:15:07 UTC 2009 Summary: Added Packages: 0 Removed Packages: 0 Modified Packages: 0 Broken deps for i386 -- 389-ds-1.1.3-4.fc12.noarch requires 389-ds-admin R-RScaLAPACK-0.5.1-19.fc11.i586 requires openmpi-libs asterisk-fax-1.6.1-0.24.rc1.fc12.i686 requires libspandsp.so.1 bigboard-0.6.4-12.fc12.i686 requires mugshot >= 0:1.1.90-1 clutter-cairomm-0.7.4-2.fc11.i586 requires libclutter-cairo-0.8.so.0 clutter-cairomm-0.7.4-2.fc11.i586 requires libcluttermm-0.8.so.2 clutter-cairomm-0.7.4-2.fc11.i586 requires libclutter-glx-0.8.so.0 clutter-cairomm-devel-0.7.4-2.fc11.i586 requires pkgconfig(cluttermm-0.8) clutter-cairomm-devel-0.7.4-2.fc11.i586 requires pkgconfig(clutter-0.8) clutter-gtkmm-0.9.4-1.fc12.i586 requires libclutter-glx-0.9.so.0 clutter-gtkmm-0.9.4-1.fc12.i586 requires libclutter-gtk-0.9.so.0 clutter-gtkmm-devel-0.9.4-1.fc12.i586 requires pkgconfig(clutter-gtk-0.9) cluttermm-0.9.4-1.fc12.i586 requires libclutter-glx-0.9.so.0 cluttermm-devel-0.9.4-1.fc12.i586 requires pkgconfig(clutter-0.9) dap-hdf4_handler-3.7.9-2.fc11.i586 requires libdap.so.9 dap-hdf4_handler-3.7.9-2.fc11.i586 requires libdapserver.so.6 entertainer-0.4.2-5.fc12.noarch requires pyclutter-cairo octave-forge-20080831-10.fc12.i686 requires octave(api) = 0:api-v32 perl-DBIx-Class-Schema-Loader-0.04006-4.fc12.noarch requires perl(DBIX::Class) php-layers-menu-3.2.0-0.2.rc.fc12.noarch requires php-pear(HTML_Template_PHPLIB) plplot-octave-5.9.4-1.fc12.i586 requires octave(api) = 0:api-v32 ppl-yap-0.10.2-5.fc12.i686 requires libYap.so python-repoze-what-quickstart-1.0-2.fc12.noarch requires python-repoze-who-plugins-sql qtparted-0.4.5-19.fc11.i586 requires libparted-1.8.so.8 rubygem-main-2.8.4-3.fc12.noarch requires rubygem(fattr) >= 0:1.0.3 sems-1.1.1-2.fc12.i586 requires libspandsp.so.1 sems-g722-1.1.1-2.fc12.i586 requires libspandsp.so.1 sems-gsm-1.1.1-2.fc12.i586 requires libspandsp.so.1 sems-speex-1.1.1-2.fc12.i586 requires libspandsp.so.1 serpentine-0.9-5.fc12.noarch requires gnome-python2-nautilus-cd-burner showimg-pgsql-0.9.5-22.fc11.i586 requires libpqxx-2.6.8.so sugar-pippy-34-2.fc12.i686 requires libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) sugar-pippy-34-2.fc12.i686 requires libc.so.6()(64bit) sugar-pippy-34-2.fc12.i686 requires libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) sugar-pippy-34-2.fc12.i686 requires libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) sugar-pippy-34-2.fc12.i686 requires libm.so.6()(64bit) sugar-pippy-34-2.fc12.i686 requires libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) sugar-pippy-34-2.fc12.i686 requires libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) sugar-pippy-34-2.fc12.i686 requires libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) sugar-pippy-34-2.fc12.i686 requires libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) thunderbird-lightning-1.0-0.8.20090513hg.fc12.i686 requires thunderbird < 0:3.0-3.6.b4 Broken deps for x86_64 -- 389-ds-1.1.3-4.fc12.noarch requires 389-ds-admin R-RScaLAPACK-0.5.1-19.fc11.x86_64 requires openmpi-libs asterisk-fax-1.6.1-0.24.rc1.fc12.x86_64 requires libspandsp.so.1()(64bit) bigboard-0.6.4-12.fc12.x86_64 requires mugshot >= 0:1.1.90-1 clutter-cairomm-0.7.4-2.fc11.i586 requires libclutter-cairo-0.8.so.0 clutter-cairomm-0.7.4-2.fc11.i586 requires libcluttermm-0.8.so.2 clutter-cairomm-0.7.4-2.fc11.i586 requires libclutter-glx-0.8.so.0 clutter-cairomm-0.7.4-2.fc11.x86_64 requires libclutter-cairo-0.8.so.0()(64bit) clutter-cairomm-0.7.4-2.fc11.x86_64 requires libcluttermm-0.8.so.2()(64bit) clutter-cairomm-0.7.4-2.fc11.x86_64 requires libclutter-glx-0.8.so.0()(64bit) clutter-cairomm-devel-0.7.4-2.fc11.i586 requires pkgconfig(cluttermm-0.8) clutter-cairomm-devel-0.7.4-2.fc11.i586 requires pkgconfig(clutter-0.8) clutter-cairomm-devel-0.7.4-2.fc11.x86_64 requires pkgconfig(cluttermm-0.8) clutter-cairomm-devel-0.7.4-2.fc11.x86_64 requires pkgconfig(clutter-0.8) clutter-gtkmm-0.9.4-1.fc12.i586 requires libclutter-glx-0.9.so.0 clutter-gtkmm-0.9.4-1.fc12.i586 requires libclutter-gtk-0.9.so.0 clutter-gtkmm-0.9.4-1.fc12.x86_64 requires libclutter-glx-0.9.so.0()(64bit) clutter-gtkmm-0.9.4-1.fc12.x86_64 requires libclutter-gtk-0.9.so.0()(64bit) clutter-gtkmm-devel-0.9.4-1.fc12.i586 requires pkgconfig(clutter-gtk-0.9) clutter-gtkmm-devel-0.9.4-1.fc12.x86_64 requires pkgconfig(clutter-gtk-0.9) cluttermm-0.9.4-1.fc12.i586 requires libclutter-glx-0.9.so.0 cluttermm-0.9.4-1.fc12.x86_64 requires libclutter-glx-0.9.so.0()(64bit) cluttermm-devel-0.9.4-1.fc12.i58
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:04:14 +0200, LinuxDonald wrote: > I have updated the packages for F-10 and F-11 with conflicts and without > obseltues :) Explicit Conflicts need the approval of the Fedora Packaging Committee. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Error while installing firefox from source build "cpio: MD5 sum mismatch"
On 08/14/2009 01:32 PM, Harshavardhana wrote: I have been trying to build firefox 3.0.13 on Fedora-10, i was successfull in building it but during installation i end up with following md5sum mismatch. This is happening continously with even fresh builds and i don't have firefox installed also. RegardsPreparing... ### [100%] 1:firefox ### [100%] error: unpacking of archive failed on file /usr/lib64/firefox-3.0.13/firefox;4a854232: cpio: MD5 sum mismatch Can any one give me few more pointers to debug this problem?. Thanks Maybe my post on 27/06/2009 helps: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-June/msg02092.html Regards, Edwin -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
Michael Schwendt wrote, at 08/16/2009 09:29 PM +9:00: On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:04:14 +0200, LinuxDonald wrote: I have updated the packages for F-10 and F-11 with conflicts and without obseltues :) Explicit Conflicts need the approval of the Fedora Packaging Committee. This occurs only on F-10/11 and not on rawhide. Please see the discussion on bug 515109 for details. Regards, Mamoru -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:39:37 +0900, Mamoru wrote: > Michael Schwendt wrote, at 08/16/2009 09:29 PM +9:00: > > On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:04:14 +0200, LinuxDonald wrote: > > > >> I have updated the packages for F-10 and F-11 with conflicts and without > >> obseltues :) > > > > Explicit Conflicts need the approval of the Fedora Packaging Committee. > > > > This occurs only on F-10/11 and not on rawhide. > Please see the discussion on bug 515109 for details. First it is pointed out that parallel installable packages would be preferred, then there is a jump to making them conflict. Why? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Empathy default in F12?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Gregory Maxwell wrote: > The F12 feature still indicates the switch to Empathy as a default IM > client in Fedora. > > However, the talk page for the feature > (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Talk:Features/Empathy) raises material > concerns that the switch to Empathy would result in an insufficiently > justified loss of functionality. > > Where does this currently stand? If there is any major loss of functionality, perhaps the application should be renamed to "apathy". ;o) - -- Mike A. Harris http://mharris.ca | https://twitter.com/mikeaharris -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFKiCGO4RNf2rTIeUARAkH7AJ98B1CBWF3DP88FGU7Qj3sRBOXvQgCgnA7D GyrcZLmNbfzHCUek68bnbgg= =y4Ii -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
Michael Schwendt wrote, at 08/16/2009 11:47 PM +9:00:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:39:37 +0900, Mamoru wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote, at 08/16/2009 09:29 PM +9:00:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:04:14 +0200, LinuxDonald wrote:
I have updated the packages for F-10 and F-11 with conflicts and without
obseltues :)
Explicit Conflicts need the approval of the Fedora Packaging Committee.
This occurs only on F-10/11 and not on rawhide.
Please see the discussion on bug 515109 for details.
First it is pointed out that parallel installable packages would be
preferred, then there is a jump to making them conflict. Why?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts
To be clear, openal and openal-soft can be installable in parallel
(because of the same library with the different soversion),
however openal-devel and openal-soft-devel is actually in conflict.
openal-soft is intended to replace openal (bug 501132), so on rawhide
openal-soft{,-devel} have "Obsoletes (not conflicts): openal{,-devel}".
Note that this will require rebuilds of packages depending on
openal on rawhide (because of soname bump).
On F-10/11 the whole rebuild is not preferable, however it seems that
actually openal-soft is also needed on F-10/11 to fix some bugs
(bug 515109). So on F-10/11, it was decided to make openal and
openal-soft installable in parallel (not making openal-soft obsolete
openal) and make openal-devel and openal-soft-devel in conflict (not
making openal-soft-devel obsolete openal-devel) to avoid mass rebuild.
Regards,
Mamoru
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
IPv6 for fedora services?
Is there any IPv6 plan for *.fedoraproject.org ? One plan that projects (including wikimedia) have chosen is a staged rollout, 1) enable IPv6 reachability and records for DNS servers 2) enable IPv6 for small-audience or developer-only services, such as cvs/svn/git services 3) enable IPv6 for primary services, such as public web Such staged rollouts attempt to balance the potential for service disruption due to end-user misconfiguration, with pushing technological progress foward. As of today, for months, the DNS root servers are reachable via IPv6 and have records. Any chance we could look at step #1 or #2 for Fedora? Jeff -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: IPv6 for fedora services?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/16/2009 06:51 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > Is there any IPv6 plan for *.fedoraproject.org ? > > One plan that projects (including wikimedia) have chosen is a staged > rollout, > > 1) enable IPv6 reachability and records for DNS servers > 2) enable IPv6 for small-audience or developer-only services, such as > cvs/svn/git services > 3) enable IPv6 for primary services, such as public web > Jeff, Wouldn't be more appropriated to discuss that on fedora-infrastructure ML instead of fedora-devel? Cheers, Gianluca -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkqIOjQACgkQK/GZLlzGxsgIfQCghcm/wwIHsutDknN3sT9fcnEI rRsAoKxEbYx0yrJOUZWoPQMtQAfwkWC1 =fmXj -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
Only the devel packages conflicts. Am 16.08.2009 16:47, schrieb Michael Schwendt: On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:39:37 +0900, Mamoru wrote: Michael Schwendt wrote, at 08/16/2009 09:29 PM +9:00: On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:04:14 +0200, LinuxDonald wrote: I have updated the packages for F-10 and F-11 with conflicts and without obseltues :) Explicit Conflicts need the approval of the Fedora Packaging Committee. This occurs only on F-10/11 and not on rawhide. Please see the discussion on bug 515109 for details. First it is pointed out that parallel installable packages would be preferred, then there is a jump to making them conflict. Why? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: IPv6 for fedora services?
On Sunday 16 August 2009 11:51:32 am Jeff Garzik wrote: > Is there any IPv6 plan for *.fedoraproject.org ? > > One plan that projects (including wikimedia) have chosen is a staged > rollout, > > 1) enable IPv6 reachability and records for DNS servers > 2) enable IPv6 for small-audience or developer-only services, such as > cvs/svn/git services > 3) enable IPv6 for primary services, such as public web > > Such staged rollouts attempt to balance the potential for service > disruption due to end-user misconfiguration, with pushing technological > progress foward. > > As of today, for months, the DNS root servers are reachable via IPv6 and > have records. > > Any chance we could look at step #1 or #2 for Fedora? > > Jeff While this is the completely wrong list to ask something like this on. fedora- infrastructre list is the correct place. there is currently no plans to roll out IPv6 our upstream providers do no provide IPv6 connectivity. we could look at using SIXXS or someone like it for ipv6 tunnels. but as of right now its not being actively worked on. We do need to look into it at some point however. some mirrors are available via ipv6 . it would be nice to have mirror lists available via it. some services i know dont support ipv6. Dennis 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: Confusion with openal-soft
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:32:51 +0530, you wrote: >Apparently openal-soft shouldn't have been pushed to Fedora 11 and >Fedora 10. Unfortunately I already did the cvs commits for these >branches and only noticed after the Fedora 11 build failed. Heads up for >others. What would be the right way to revert these commits? Pushing openal-soft info F-11/F-10 is a violation of the Fedora updating policy. So I'M wondering why someone have filled a rebuild request for blender for this reason. Best Regards: Jochen Schmitt -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
Am 16.08.2009 19:55, schrieb Jochen Schmitt: On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 15:32:51 +0530, you wrote: Apparently openal-soft shouldn't have been pushed to Fedora 11 and Fedora 10. Unfortunately I already did the cvs commits for these branches and only noticed after the Fedora 11 build failed. Heads up for others. What would be the right way to revert these commits? Pushing openal-soft info F-11/F-10 is a violation of the Fedora updating policy. So I'M wondering why someone have filled a rebuild request for blender for this reason. Best Regards: Jochen Schmitt Hello Jochen i have closed the Ticket for rebuild. But you must rebuild it in F12. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
On 08/16/2009 11:07 PM, LinuxDonald wrote: > Only the devel packages conflicts. Just in case, it is not clear. You have broken every package that depends on openal in Fedora 11 and Fedora 10 and there is no way for the package maintainers to fix it. Are you going to cancel the openal-soft to push to these branches? Rahul -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:30:31 +0900, Mamoru wrote: > Michael Schwendt wrote, at 08/16/2009 11:47 PM +9:00: > > On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:39:37 +0900, Mamoru wrote: > > > >> Michael Schwendt wrote, at 08/16/2009 09:29 PM +9:00: > >>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:04:14 +0200, LinuxDonald wrote: > >>> > I have updated the packages for F-10 and F-11 with conflicts and without > obseltues :) > >>> Explicit Conflicts need the approval of the Fedora Packaging Committee. > >>> > >> This occurs only on F-10/11 and not on rawhide. > >> Please see the discussion on bug 515109 for details. > > > > First it is pointed out that parallel installable packages would be > > preferred, then there is a jump to making them conflict. Why? > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts > > To be clear, openal and openal-soft can be installable in parallel > (because of the same library with the different soversion), > however openal-devel and openal-soft-devel is actually in conflict. Why? In openal-soft-devel I see a pkgconfig file. Surely that one can be modified to point to relocated headers and libopenal.so My interest in this is because I'd like to know where we are with regard to the rather complex Fedora Packaging:Conflicts policies? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Header_Name_Conflicts [...] Put the headers in a subdirectory of /usr/include. [...] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Compat_Package_Conflicts [...] Whenever possible, this should be avoided. [...] So, two times it is recommended to let the packages coexist. "openal-soft" is not a compatibility package. The old "openal" at most could be described as a compat package in disguise after introducing openal-soft. We don't need more SHOULD type of guidelines like that, if it's too easy to choose the lazy packaging or if explicit Conflicts are the 1st choice. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Empathy default in F12?
> * Voice chat with GoogleTalk (though this will probably need us to look at > our firewall rules for this to work out of the box) - bpepple > > Is it really a pro when it works very poorly? You reportedly need to > install additional codecs to do video with Google Talk. Then there are the > terrible issues with NAT, proxies and firewalls where in practice it will > not work for most users without manual configuration. Any pointers to the "manual configuration" will be highly appreciated. :-) Thanks, Debarshi -- One reason that life is complex is that it has a real part and an imaginary part. -- Andrew Koenig -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Empathy default in F12?
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 08/16/2009 01:05 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: >> The F12 feature still indicates the switch to Empathy as a default IM >> client in Fedora. >> >> However, the talk page for the feature >> (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Talk:Features/Empathy) raises material >> concerns that the switch to Empathy would result in an insufficiently >> justified loss of functionality. >> >> Where does this currently stand? > > My understanding is that Empathy is still planned to be the default. > What specific concerns do you have? > File transfer support is missing for almost all protocols. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
First of all, please make it clear under what branch
you want to discuss, devel, F-11 or F-10.
Michael Schwendt wrote, at 08/17/2009 03:52 AM +9:00:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:30:31 +0900, Mamoru wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote, at 08/16/2009 11:47 PM +9:00:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:39:37 +0900, Mamoru wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote, at 08/16/2009 09:29 PM +9:00:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:04:14 +0200, LinuxDonald wrote:
I have updated the packages for F-10 and F-11 with conflicts and without
obseltues :)
Explicit Conflicts need the approval of the Fedora Packaging Committee.
This occurs only on F-10/11 and not on rawhide.
Please see the discussion on bug 515109 for details.
First it is pointed out that parallel installable packages would be
preferred, then there is a jump to making them conflict. Why?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts
To be clear, openal and openal-soft can be installable in parallel
(because of the same library with the different soversion),
however openal-devel and openal-soft-devel is actually in conflict.
Why? In openal-soft-devel I see a pkgconfig file. Surely that one
can be modified to point to relocated headers and libopenal.so
Again,
- On rawhide opanal-soft is intended to replace openal _completely_
(i.e. openal is to be removed from rawhide tree once F12alpha freeze
ends)
So on rawhide there is no need that openal-soft should be relocated.
Just openal{-devel} is to be dropped.
- And I don't think there is a strong need for avoiding conflict
on -devel packages (not on between openal/openal-soft) on F-10/11.
If you really think even openal{,-soft}-devel conflict must be
avoid even on F-11/10 (I am not speaking for rawhide tree here),
please visit bug 515109 if you have a good suggestion.
My interest in this is because I'd like to know where we are with
regard to the rather complex Fedora Packaging:Conflicts policies?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Header_Name_Conflicts
[...] Put the headers in a subdirectory of /usr/include. [...]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts#Compat_Package_Conflicts
[...] Whenever possible, this should be avoided. [...]
So, two times it is recommended to let the packages coexist. "openal-soft"
is not a compatibility package. The old "openal" at most could be
described as a compat package in disguise after introducing openal-soft.
Again openal{,-soft} can be installable in parallel (and on F-10/11 they are
made as such).
We don't need more SHOULD type of guidelines like that, if it's too easy
to choose the lazy packaging or if explicit Conflicts are the 1st choice.
Regards,
Mamoru
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 04:34:20 +0900, Mamoru wrote:
> First of all, please make it clear under what branch
> you want to discuss, devel, F-11 or F-10.
With regard to Conflicts, the policies apply to all branches.
There are still open bugzilla tickets filed long ago with packagers
not taking action on resolving implicit conflicts. Now with this
openal incident, an explicit Conflicts tag is added as what seems
to be the first choice due to laziness or so.
> Again,
> - On rawhide opanal-soft is intended to replace openal _completely_
> (i.e. openal is to be removed from rawhide tree once F12alpha freeze
>ends)
Replacing packages does not need any Conflicts, but just a proper
Obsoletes/Provides pair.
> If you really think even openal{,-soft}-devel conflict must be
> avoid even on F-11/10 (I am not speaking for rawhide tree here),
> please visit bug 515109 if you have a good suggestion.
Explicit Conflicts are a general problem. They are not specific
to this package. And bugzilla is not good for discussions.
> Again openal{,-soft} can be installable in parallel (and on F-10/11 they are
> made as such).
>
Not their -devel packages. The spec in cvs contains an explicit Conflicts
tag.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 20:34:23 +0200, you wrote: >Hello Jochen i have closed the Ticket for rebuild. >But you must rebuild it in F12. Yes, I have rebuilt blender agains freealut-1.1.0-10, which was rebult agains openal-soft. Best Regards: Jochen Schmitt References: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=126989 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=126871 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Empathy default in F12?
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 3:40 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 08/16/2009 01:05 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: >> The F12 feature still indicates the switch to Empathy as a default IM >> client in Fedora. >> >> However, the talk page for the feature >> (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Talk:Features/Empathy) raises material >> concerns that the switch to Empathy would result in an insufficiently >> justified loss of functionality. >> >> Where does this currently stand? > > My understanding is that Empathy is still planned to be the default. > What specific concerns do you have? For me? It doesn't support OTR. Which is basically a non-starer for me. Thanks to the robust support in whatever client is popular in OSX plus pidgin on windows every single one of my contacts is OTR-enabled. Pushing people back to eavesdropping vulnerable IM is arguably unethical and not something that I'm going to do. But since other people may not care about that (i.e. Empathy developers mock people who want confidentiality, i.e. http://resiak.livejournal.com/60614.html ), I thought I'd see if I had any other concerns. Testing rawhide I found that it doesn't appear to have file transfer, which isn't a feature I use much but I know its important to other people. Cheers! -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
fonts turning white?
I have seen menus (firefox and evolution) and/or fonts turn white or missing on various occasions, no matter what I was doing. I've seen mention of gtk2 for various reasons, although this may or may not be a part of the problem. And what I mean by the problem, is the fonts are there and didn't leave, just not black no longer. They just seemed to fade out, or turn completely white and not be seen, or even be turned white but can see the letters. Anyone else experienced this and/or know what I am experiencing? -- Mike Chambers Madisonville, KY Fedora Project - Bugzapper, Tester, User, etc.. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
Am Montag, den 17.08.2009, 00:02 +0530 schrieb Rahul Sundaram: > On 08/16/2009 11:07 PM, LinuxDonald wrote: > > Only the devel packages conflicts. > > Just in case, it is not clear. You have broken every package that > depends on openal in Fedora 11 and Fedora 10 and there is no way for the > package maintainers to fix it. Why is there no way to fix it??? > Are you going to cancel the openal-soft to push to these branches? AFAIC it's delayed until dependencies are rebuilt. > Rahul Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: rawhide report: 20090815 changes
2009/8/15 Rawhide Report wrote: > Compose started at Sat Aug 15 06:15:05 UTC 2009 > > Updated Packages: > > anaconda-12.15-1.fc12 > - > (script missed changelog ) FI, * Wed Aug 12 2009 David Cantrell - 12.15-1 - Make sure we have the ca cert to handle https repo connections. (517171) (jkeating) > Summary: > Added Packages: 0 > Removed Packages: 0 > Modified Packages: 1 > Broken deps for i386 -- Regards, Rakesh Pandit -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Confusion with openal-soft
On 08/17/2009 04:50 AM, Christoph Wickert wrote: > Am Montag, den 17.08.2009, 00:02 +0530 schrieb Rahul Sundaram: >> On 08/16/2009 11:07 PM, LinuxDonald wrote: >>> Only the devel packages conflicts. >> >> Just in case, it is not clear. You have broken every package that >> depends on openal in Fedora 11 and Fedora 10 and there is no way for the >> package maintainers to fix it. > > Why is there no way to fix it??? See my first mail on this thread. >> Are you going to cancel the openal-soft to push to these branches? > > AFAIC it's delayed until dependencies are rebuilt. It got fixed by not obsoleting openal in the stable branches. Rahul -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
