Re: mass rebuild and i586 rpms - glglobe
On 10/20/2009 08:48 PM, Milos Jakubicek wrote: http://mjakubicek.fedorapeople.org/need-rebuild.html hmmn, glglobe is mine, wonder what went wrong. It seems that the build logs are no longer available ? https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1504772 eg for: x86_64 (red) https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1516629 And the other 3x orange ones appear to mean cancelled, is that correct ? Wonder whether they were cancelled manually (ie the whole rebuild) ? Or did the fail on one arch trigger the cancels ? Anyway, a scratch build (without change) succeeds: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1766626 Should I bump and rebuild, or just re-request the same build ? Should I request it to be in F-12 ? (the i586.f11 one that is in f-12 beta (rawhide) works OK). DaveT. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora 12 Beta
On 10/24/2009 06:17 PM, Ilyes Gouta wrote: Hi, Was Fedora 12 Beta released with all sort of debugging info. compiled in? I just want to find the cause of the general slowness .. Yes. Development releases of Fedora have a large number of debugging stuff enabled. Rahul -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: the mass rebuild and i586 rpms?
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 02:37:57AM +0200, Milos Jakubicek wrote: Newpackage (some of them even for months!): python-decorator3 Please do not rebuild this one. It's currently just a forwards compat package for EL-5. I'll dead.package the devel package soon. zikula-module-filterutil Please do not rebuild this one either. I imported and built it for EL-5 for someone I'm mentoring on packaging because we need it for Fedora Insight. I'll be using building of the package for F-12 as part of mentoring when we can both clear up some time. -Toshio pgpDjBYhum66a.pgp Description: PGP signature -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: orphaning (eol) gtk-qt-engine
Petrus de Calguarium wrote: By the way, colours on old kde3 apps doesn't work, either, despite enabling for non-kde4 applications in system settings (kftpgrabber) - I can see it already: file a bug report :-) There's already an ages-old bug report, the upstream KDE developers don't care. :-( You have to set up the colors separately for KDE 3 apps, using kcmshell colors (but it's a PITA as it doesn't support KDE 4 color schemes). I might try to fix this somehow. Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: rawhide report: 20091024 changes
Rawhide Report wrote: nickle-2.69-2.fc12 -- * Fri Oct 23 2009 Michel Salim sali...@fedoraproject.org - 2.69-2 - Lower FORTIFY setting; level 2 does not work with gcc 4.4.2 That's a completely WRONG fix!!! You MUST fix the application instead. Disabling security flags can't be the right approach to fix compilation, they're being used for a reason! Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: rawhide report: 20091024 changes
On 10/25/2009 09:49 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Rawhide Report wrote: nickle-2.69-2.fc12 -- * Fri Oct 23 2009 Michel Salimsali...@fedoraproject.org - 2.69-2 - Lower FORTIFY setting; level 2 does not work with gcc 4.4.2 That's a completely WRONG fix!!! You MUST fix the application instead. Disabling security flags can't be the right approach to fix compilation, they're being used for a reason! Calm down son, calm down. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
OpenSER / Kamailio
Hi there, I'm just starting to play with my SIP Phones using OpenSER. I was wondering why there have been no updates to the OpenSER package since it was renamed to Kamailio in version 1.4.0? I did however notice that version 1.4.0 in fact is of an earlier date than version 1.3.4 (which still is named OpenSER and is in Fedora). So is there an actual difference between OpenSER and Kamailio - other than the name - that prevents us from replacing the OpenSER package with a Kamailio package. Or is it just that nobody has submitted a review request for Kamailio yet? Felix -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
rawhide report: 20091025 changes
Compose started at Sun Oct 25 06:15:11 UTC 2009 Broken deps for ppc64 -- python-mwlib-0.11.2-3.20090522hg2956.fc12.ppc64 requires LabPlot Summary: Added Packages: 0 Removed Packages: 0 Modified Packages: 0 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: OpenSER / Kamailio
Hello All! 2009/10/25 Felix Kaechele fe...@fetzig.org: Hi there, I'm just starting to play with my SIP Phones using OpenSER. I was wondering why there have been no updates to the OpenSER package since it was renamed to Kamailio in version 1.4.0? There are plans to package sip-router, when it will reach some level of quality, since it's a merge of SER and OpenSER/Kamailio. Also, there is an attempt to package OpenSIPs (another one fork of SER/OpenSER codebase) - take a look here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529831 I did however notice that version 1.4.0 in fact is of an earlier date than version 1.3.4 (which still is named OpenSER and is in Fedora). 1.3.4 is the last stable version of OpenSER. Since ver. 1.4.0 it was rebranded as Kamailio. So is there an actual difference between OpenSER and Kamailio - other than the name - that prevents us from replacing the OpenSER package with a Kamailio package. A lots, actually. There are some changes in config-file syntax, in plugins and so on. Every version of OpenSER/Kamailio (1.3.x/1.4.x/1.5.x) is incompatible to some degree with previous one. Fortunately, they can be installed in parallel due to different naming scheme. The curse of this project is the team/features management issues, which led project to the number of consequent forks (and one merge), which confuses end users a lot. One of popular questions from customers, is which one from these routers should we choose - SER/OpenSER/OpenSIPs/Kamailio/SIP-Router?. I'm voting for OpenSER 1.3.4 right now - it's stable and it was proved to work reliably. Perhaps, at 2010, we may consider switching to SIP Router. -- With best regards, Peter Lemenkov. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Should installkernel be passing --dracut to new-kernel-pkg?
On 10/22/2009 06:18 PM, Stephen Smalley wrote: Hi, /sbin/installkernel doesn't pass --dracut to /sbin/new-kernel-pkg, so a make install from a kernel.org kernel tree tries to invoke /sbin/mkinitrd rather than dracut. Is that intentional? Also, any ideas on why a dracut-generated initramfs image generated for a kernel.org kernel tree would be so much larger than the Fedora kernel one (same .config)? 12M /boot/initramfs-2.6.31.1-56.fc12.x86_64.img 82M /boot/initramfs-2.6.32-rc2.img If you want to reduce the size, set hostonly in /etc/dracut.conf https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Dracut/Options#-H.2C_--hostonly Rahul -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Looking into LLVM
Hi LLVM 2.6 has been announced with Clang declared as production quality in this release http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-announce/2009-October/33.html Has anyone been looking into building Fedora with it to see how the performance impact is? Rahul -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: rpms/python-mpd/F-10 python-mpd.spec,1.2,1.3 sources,1.2,1.3
Hi Haïkel, Haïkel Guémar wrote: Author: hguemar Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/python-mpd/F-10 In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv27941 Modified Files: python-mpd.spec sources Log Message: Updated to 0.2.1 Any reason to update this for F-10 (or any Fedora branches really), as the only change upstream from 0.2.0 was to fix a minor bug on Windows? The 0.2.1 release was made in June 2008 and we've lived without it until now. ;) -- ToddOpenPGP - KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ~~ Now, now my good man, this is no time for making enemies. -- Voltaire, on his deathbed in response to a priest asking that he renounce Satan. pgpGy3seyXDOW.pgp Description: PGP signature -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: rpms/python-mpd/F-10 python-mpd.spec,1.2,1.3 sources,1.2,1.3
I wrote: Hi Haïkel, Haïkel Guémar wrote: Author: hguemar Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/python-mpd/F-10 In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv27941 Modified Files: python-mpd.spec sources Log Message: Updated to 0.2.1 Any reason to update this for F-10 (or any Fedora branches really), as the only change upstream from 0.2.0 was to fix a minor bug on Windows? The 0.2.1 release was made in June 2008 and we've lived without it until now. ;) BTW, your email address has a typo in the %changelog. :/ -- ToddOpenPGP - KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ~~ A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought. -- Peter Wimsey pgpNss88mOlax.pgp Description: PGP signature -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Looking into LLVM
Rahul Sundaram wrote: LLVM 2.6 has been announced with Clang declared as production quality in this release http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-announce/2009-October/33.html Has anyone been looking into building Fedora with it to see how the performance impact is? A lot of upstream software on GNU/Linux only supports GCC. Clang tries to support GCC extensions, but I strongly doubt it'll compile all upstream code unchanged, and upstream projects might even reject patches to fix the build with Clang because they only support GCC. Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Looking into LLVM
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.atwrote: Rahul Sundaram wrote: LLVM 2.6 has been announced with Clang declared as production quality in this release http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-announce/2009-October/33.html Has anyone been looking into building Fedora with it to see how the performance impact is? A lot of upstream software on GNU/Linux only supports GCC. Clang tries to support GCC extensions, but I strongly doubt it'll compile all upstream code unchanged, and upstream projects might even reject patches to fix the build with Clang because they only support GCC. Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list Also, clang's support with C++ ABI is still very broken. It's listed under known issues. While most applications are made with C or Python, there are still a fair number of C++ applications... -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Looking into LLVM
On 10/25/2009 10:51 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Rahul Sundaram wrote: LLVM 2.6 has been announced with Clang declared as production quality in this release http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-announce/2009-October/33.html Has anyone been looking into building Fedora with it to see how the performance impact is? A lot of upstream software on GNU/Linux only supports GCC. Clang tries to support GCC extensions, but I strongly doubt it'll compile all upstream code unchanged, and upstream projects might even reject patches to fix the build with Clang because they only support GCC. We wouldn't know unless we try. Guess work doesn't lead to much. Hence my question. Has anyone actually tried to do compile say a large C codebase with LLVM? Rahul -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: mass rebuild and i586 rpms - glglobe
On 25.10.2009 08:18, David Timms wrote: On 10/20/2009 08:48 PM, Milos Jakubicek wrote: http://mjakubicek.fedorapeople.org/need-rebuild.html hmmn, glglobe is mine, wonder what went wrong. It seems that the build logs are no longer available ? No, they are kept only for 14(?) days or so. Should I bump and rebuild, or just re-request the same build ? Should I request it to be in F-12 ? (the i586.f11 one that is in f-12 beta (rawhide) works OK). I've rebuilt and will request tagging together with some other packages. Milos -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
texlive 2009 - should set TEXMFCNF?
I wonder if texlive should include a /etc/profile.d package to set TEXMFCNF, so that other packages, such as xdvipdfmx will work? Or, should texlive just obsolete xdvipdfmx and include it's own version? -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: texlive 2009 - should set TEXMFCNF?
2009/10/25 Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com: I wonder if texlive should include a /etc/profile.d package to set TEXMFCNF, so that other packages, such as xdvipdfmx will work? Or, should texlive just obsolete xdvipdfmx and include it's own version? IMO the latter. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: rpms/python-mpd/F-10 python-mpd.spec,1.2,1.3 sources,1.2,1.3
Haïkel Guémar wrote: This is personal policy to always push latest stable unless it's broken, since it wasn't critical, i had always delayed it. Why i pushed the update on older branches ? Maintainers are asked to support branches until EOL and it worked on my test VM. Maybe, i'm just a bit maniacal. ;) Did it break anything ? For the moment, updates are staging in testing, i can unpush them if you think it's more appropriate. :) Nope, nothing breaks AFAIK (mostly because nothing relevant to a non-windows system changed, other than the version number). I was just curious to know the reason for the update. Thanks. -- ToddOpenPGP - KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ~~ Man was made at the end of the week's work when God was tired. -- Mark Twain pgpcy7O5wIsge.pgp Description: PGP signature -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: rpms/python-mpd/F-10 python-mpd.spec,1.2,1.3 sources,1.2,1.3
Am Sonntag, den 25.10.2009, 20:56 +0100 schrieb Haïkel Guémar: This is personal policy to always push latest stable unless it's broken, since it wasn't critical, i had always delayed it. Why i pushed the update on older branches ? Maintainers are asked to support branches until EOL and it worked on my test VM. Maybe, i'm just a bit maniacal. ;) Definitely. ;) To support does not mean to drown users in useless updates. We had this discussions over and over again, please look for the thread called The updates firehose back in June 2007. Did it break anything ? For the moment, updates are staging in testing, i can unpush them if you think it's more appropriate. :) In this case I think you really should unpush it. Not only for F-11 but for F-11 as well, possibly F12 to. If this update doesn't fix anything on Linux, then don't push it. H. Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: rpms/python-mpd/F-10 python-mpd.spec,1.2,1.3 sources,1.2,1.3
On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 22:20 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote: Am Sonntag, den 25.10.2009, 20:56 +0100 schrieb Haïkel Guémar: This is personal policy to always push latest stable unless it's broken, since it wasn't critical, i had always delayed it. Why i pushed the update on older branches ? Maintainers are asked to support branches until EOL and it worked on my test VM. Maybe, i'm just a bit maniacal. ;) Definitely. ;) To support does not mean to drown users in useless updates. We had this discussions over and over again, please look for the thread called The updates firehose back in June 2007. Did it break anything ? For the moment, updates are staging in testing, i can unpush them if you think it's more appropriate. :) In this case I think you really should unpush it. Not only for F-11 but for F-11 as well, possibly F12 to. If this update doesn't fix anything on Linux, then don't push it. Then you get bug from people expecting the latest version because you're not up to date... Come-on this is maintainer decision and as long as it doesn't break anyone, leave it that way. Pierre -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: rpms/python-mpd/F-10 python-mpd.spec,1.2,1.3 sources,1.2,1.3
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:20:59 +0100, Christoph wrote: Am Sonntag, den 25.10.2009, 20:56 +0100 schrieb Haïkel Guémar: This is personal policy to always push latest stable unless it's broken, since it wasn't critical, i had always delayed it. Why i pushed the update on older branches ? Maintainers are asked to support branches until EOL and it worked on my test VM. Maybe, i'm just a bit maniacal. ;) Definitely. ;) To support does not mean to drown users in useless updates. We had this discussions over and over again, please look for the thread called The updates firehose back in June 2007. Did it break anything ? For the moment, updates are staging in testing, i can unpush them if you think it's more appropriate. :) In this case I think you really should unpush it. Not only for F-11 but for F-11 as well, possibly F12 to. If this update doesn't fix anything on Linux, then don't push it. And once again, the bodhi update requests for these updates don't try to explain what changes come with these updates. They are only marked as bug fix updates with no notes that give details. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: rpms/python-mpd/F-10 python-mpd.spec,1.2,1.3 sources,1.2,1.3
Le 25/10/2009 22:20, Christoph Wickert a écrit : Am Sonntag, den 25.10.2009, 20:56 +0100 schrieb Haïkel Guémar: This is personal policy to always push latest stable unless it's broken, since it wasn't critical, i had always delayed it. Why i pushed the update on older branches ? Maintainers are asked to support branches until EOL and it worked on my test VM. Maybe, i'm just a bit maniacal. ;) Definitely. ;) To support does not mean to drown users in useless updates. We had this discussions over and over again, please look for the thread called The updates firehose back in June 2007. Did it break anything ? For the moment, updates are staging in testing, i can unpush them if you think it's more appropriate. :) In this case I think you really should unpush it. Not only for F-11 but for F-11 as well, possibly F12 to. If this update doesn't fix anything on Linux, then don't push it. H. Regards, Christoph This was a very very low priority task for me, python-mpd is roughly one python file mpd.py. There was only one use-case, i could think about : an unexperienced developer including it in his multiplatform project. Then, he shares it with his friend under windows (nobody is perfect) and bang it fails! Since, this is so controversial, i'll just let them rot on testing, then end of discussion. Best regards, H. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Looking into LLVM
King InuYasha wrote: Also, clang's support with C++ ABI is still very broken. It's listed under known issues. Actually, the ABI issue is only if you use the C code generator, not the native ones. The real problem is that C++ support in Clang is just not complete. You may have more luck with llvm-g++, but that one always has trouble keeping up with current GCC and it probably doesn't bring all that many benefits over just using GCC. While most applications are made with C or Python, there are still a fair number of C++ applications... (Nearly) all of KDE is C++! Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: rpms/python-mpd/F-10 python-mpd.spec,1.2,1.3 sources,1.2,1.3
Pierre-Yves wrote: Then you get bug from people expecting the latest version because you're not up to date... That's what NOTABUG is for. Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: rpms/python-mpd/F-10 python-mpd.spec,1.2,1.3 sources,1.2,1.3
Haïkel Guémar wrote: This is personal policy to always push latest stable unless it's broken, This makes sense in principle, but not if nothing (of relevance to Fedora) actually changed. Why i pushed the update on older branches ? Maintainers are asked to support branches until EOL and it worked on my test VM. It's also a good reflex to support all branches with updates, especially bugfix updates (and I wish more people would do it), but again, only if there's a reason to push the update in the first place. :-) Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: rpms/python-mpd/F-10 python-mpd.spec,1.2,1.3 sources,1.2,1.3
Haïkel Guémar wrote: This was a very very low priority task for me, python-mpd is roughly one python file mpd.py. There was only one use-case, i could think about : an unexperienced developer including it in his multiplatform project. People bundling system libraries deserve whatever they get. We definitely don't support this usecase. Since, this is so controversial, i'll just let them rot on testing, then end of discussion. It's better to unpush them. Updates should not be sitting in testing forever. Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: rpms/python-mpd/F-10 python-mpd.spec,1.2,1.3 sources,1.2,1.3
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:39:56 +0100, Haïkel wrote: This was a very very low priority task for me, python-mpd is roughly one python file mpd.py. There was only one use-case, i could think about : an unexperienced developer including it in his multiplatform project. Then, he shares it with his friend under windows (nobody is perfect) and bang it fails! Expand that scenario a little bit [1]: Imagine that mpd.py suffers from further bugs specific to that other OS. Would the unexperienced developer or his friend request bug-fix updates _from you_? -- [1] And as another step, one could map it to the source archives we redistribute in src.rpm packages. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: rpms/python-mpd/F-10 python-mpd.spec,1.2,1.3 sources,1.2,1.3
Le 25/10/2009 22:59, Kevin Kofler a écrit : It's also a good reflex to support all branches with updates, especially bugfix updates (and I wish more people would do it), but again, only if there's a reason to push the update in the first place. :-) Kevin Kofler they were unpushed, good package monkeys should listen their peers. H. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Should installkernel be passing --dracut to new-kernel-pkg?
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 08:48:03AM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: Hi, /sbin/installkernel doesn't pass --dracut to /sbin/new-kernel-pkg, so a make install from a kernel.org kernel tree tries to invoke /sbin/mkinitrd rather than dracut. Is that intentional? Don't know if it's intentional, probably an oversite, but I did get bitten by this last week myself. -- Matt Domsch Technology Strategist, Dell Office of the CTO linux.dell.com www.dell.com/linux -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Recap: blocker bug review meeting 2009-10-23
We held the first official blocker bug review meeting for Fedora 12 final release on Friday, 2009-10-23. Many thanks to James Laska, Jesse Keating, Ray Strode, Matej Cepl, Denise Dumas, Justin Forbes, Bill Nottingham, Edward Kirk, and Matthias Clasen for their contributions. We ran through all 51 bugs on the blocker list at the time of the meeting, accepting or dropping them as blockers and working to ensure all remaining blockers are in the process of being fixed. You can see a summary of the entire meeting, with the final decision on each bug, at: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-bugzappers/2009-10-23/fedora-bugzappers.2009-10-23-15.00.html a full log of the meeting (warning: extremely long) is available at: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-bugzappers/2009-10-23/fedora-bugzappers.2009-10-23-15.00.log.html The next blocker review meeting will be next Friday, 2009-10-30, at 15:00 UTC in #fedora-bugzappers. Thanks again to all who contributed. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: the mass rebuild and i586 rpms?
Next bunch built, it's a complete set of those with mock exit status 30 (I'm curious what does this exit status mean, missing prerequisity is denoted by 10) and some others too: piggyback-2.6.26-4.fc12 (on sparc) perl-Perl-Critic-1.105-1.fc12 glglobe-0.2-8.fc12 libica-2.0.2-1.fc12 (on s390) openssl-ibmca-1.0.0-2.fc12 (on s390) python-polybori-0.5-6.fc12 python-igraph-0.5.2-4.fc12 perl-POE-Component-Client-Keepalive-0.2600-3.fc12 mathgl-1.9-7.fc12 artwiz-aleczapka-fonts-1.3-8.fc12 python-xkit-0.4.2-4.fc12 389-dsgw-1.1.4-1.fc12 perl-Apache2-SOAP-0.73-3.fc12 gds2pov-0.20080229-3.fc12 gdesklets-0.36.1-6.fc12 gedit-plugins-2.26.1-3.fc12 giggle-0.4.91-3.fc12 glabels-2.2.5-2.fc12 gl-117-1.3.2-9.fc12 glade2-2.12.2-7.fc12 glitz-0.5.6-8.fc12 gliv-1.9.6-5.fc12 glob2-0.9.4.1-2.fc12 gnome-applet-grandr-0.4.1-2.fc12 gnome-applet-bubblemon-2.0.14-2.fc12 ladspa-swh-plugins-0.4.15-16.fc12 libbtctl-0.11.1-3.fc12 pfscalibration-1.4-7.fc12 pfstools-1.7.0-8.fc12 klibido-0.2.5-12.fc12 pfqueue-0.5.6-10.fc12 petitboot-0.2-4.fc12 baekmuk-bdf-fonts-2.2-8.fc12 We're slowly narrowing to reasonable count of packages (which are really either going to be dead or need fixing, though a few false positives are still in the list), everybody is encouraged to take anything from http://mjakubicek.fedorapeople.org/need-rebuild.html and try to fix it!;) Regards, Milos -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Should installkernel be passing --dracut to new-kernel-pkg?
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 08:48:03AM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: Hi, /sbin/installkernel doesn't pass --dracut to /sbin/new-kernel-pkg, so a make install from a kernel.org kernel tree tries to invoke /sbin/mkinitrd rather than dracut. Is that intentional? Also, any ideas on why a dracut-generated initramfs image generated for a kernel.org kernel tree would be so much larger than the Fedora kernel one (same .config)? 12M /boot/initramfs-2.6.31.1-56.fc12.x86_64.img 82M /boot/initramfs-2.6.32-rc2.img Do you have CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO set ? The kernel specfile strips the debug info out to separate debuginfo packages. If you build it by hand, that doesn't happen, so you get all the symbols etc attached to every module in your initramfs. Dave -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: idea: abrt plugin for yum rpm scriptlets output
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009, Rudolf Kastl wrote: Hello! While doing some tests and installing a large part of the rawhide repository content i see that there are various packages that have a broken %post scriptlet or it is outputting some warnings. maybe it would be an idea for a abrt-yum plugin to submit those warnings and errors to bugzilla. unfortunately yum.log doesent record them either. that could definitely help in keeping the house clean i guess. try running: yum history which will give you a list of yum transaction events. Then taking whichever history id number from the left-most column and running: yum history info $history_id_number - see if that shows you some info about the scriptlets. -sv -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora 12 Beta
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 3:19 AM, Rahul Sundaram sunda...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Yes. Development releases of Fedora have a large number of debugging stuff enabled. I really can't tell if you're joking. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Looking into LLVM
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Actually, the ABI issue is only if you use the C code generator, not the native ones. I'm not sure I understand. How can LLVM-C be ABI-incompatible with plain GCC-C? I thought that C doesn't have any crazy name or symbol or virtual table mangling. The stuff should just work, right? Does that mean that I can't write a GTK program and compile with LLVM-C, since I can't link to the GTK libraries? -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora 12 Beta
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 23:38:31 -0400, Jud Craft craft...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 3:19 AM, Rahul Sundaram sunda...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Yes. Development releases of Fedora have a large number of debugging stuff enabled. I really can't tell if you're joking. I think that is an exageration. But at various times in the development cycle debugging is often turned on in the kernel. This can impact performance or just make the kernel downloads larger. There are separate debuginfo packages you can get, but you don't get those by default. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Looking into LLVM
I'm not sure I understand. How can LLVM-C be ABI-incompatible with plain GCC-C? See /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 and its symbols, such as stack unwinding, uncommon or messy conversions between data formats, expensive operations on 'long long', etc. -- -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
rpms/perl-Catalyst-Log-Log4perl/devel .cvsignore, 1.4, 1.5 perl-Catalyst-Log-Log4perl.spec, 1.5, 1.6 sources, 1.4, 1.5
Author: iarnell
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Catalyst-Log-Log4perl/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv17361
Modified Files:
.cvsignore perl-Catalyst-Log-Log4perl.spec sources
Log Message:
* Sun Oct 25 2009 Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 1.04-1
- update to latest upstream
Index: .cvsignore
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Catalyst-Log-Log4perl/devel/.cvsignore,v
retrieving revision 1.4
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -p -r1.4 -r1.5
--- .cvsignore 8 Apr 2009 15:26:45 - 1.4
+++ .cvsignore 25 Oct 2009 07:37:23 - 1.5
@@ -1 +1 @@
-Catalyst-Log-Log4perl-1.03.tar.gz
+Catalyst-Log-Log4perl-1.04.tar.gz
Index: perl-Catalyst-Log-Log4perl.spec
===
RCS file:
/cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Catalyst-Log-Log4perl/devel/perl-Catalyst-Log-Log4perl.spec,v
retrieving revision 1.5
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -u -p -r1.5 -r1.6
--- perl-Catalyst-Log-Log4perl.spec 26 Jul 2009 04:11:11 - 1.5
+++ perl-Catalyst-Log-Log4perl.spec 25 Oct 2009 07:37:23 - 1.6
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-Catalyst-Log-Log4perl
-Version:1.03
-Release:2%{?dist}
+Version:1.04
+Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:Log::Log4perl logging for Catalyst
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -11,10 +11,9 @@ BuildArch: noarch
BuildRequires: perl(Catalyst) = 5.60
BuildRequires: perl(Data::Dump)
BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
-BuildRequires: perl(Log::Log4perl) = 0.49
+BuildRequires: perl(Log::Log4perl) = 1.04
BuildRequires: perl(MRO::Compat)
BuildRequires: perl(Params::Validate)
-BuildRequires: perl(Sub::Install)
BuildRequires: perl(Test::More)
Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version))
@@ -26,7 +25,7 @@ as the underlying log mechanism.
%setup -q -n Catalyst-Log-Log4perl-%{version}
%build
-%{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor
+PERL5_CPANPLUS_IS_RUNNING=1 %{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor
make %{?_smp_mflags}
%install
@@ -52,6 +51,9 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Sun Oct 25 2009 Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 1.04-1
+- update to latest upstream
+
* Sat Jul 25 2009 Fedora Release Engineering rel-...@lists.fedoraproject.org
- 1.03-2
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_12_Mass_Rebuild
Index: sources
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Catalyst-Log-Log4perl/devel/sources,v
retrieving revision 1.4
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -p -r1.4 -r1.5
--- sources 8 Apr 2009 15:26:45 - 1.4
+++ sources 25 Oct 2009 07:37:23 - 1.5
@@ -1 +1 @@
-23b26077d4e943389dee279026363dc9 Catalyst-Log-Log4perl-1.03.tar.gz
+c747b4c1a97feebf62ee6aa956798148 Catalyst-Log-Log4perl-1.04.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-Config-JFDI/devel .cvsignore, 1.4, 1.5 perl-Config-JFDI.spec, 1.4, 1.5 sources, 1.4, 1.5
Author: iarnell
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Config-JFDI/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv10045
Modified Files:
.cvsignore perl-Config-JFDI.spec sources
Log Message:
* Sun Oct 25 2009 Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 0.064-1
- update to latest upstream release
Index: .cvsignore
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Config-JFDI/devel/.cvsignore,v
retrieving revision 1.4
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -p -r1.4 -r1.5
--- .cvsignore 25 Jun 2009 03:28:39 - 1.4
+++ .cvsignore 25 Oct 2009 09:03:48 - 1.5
@@ -1 +1 @@
-Config-JFDI-0.063.tar.gz
+Config-JFDI-0.064.tar.gz
Index: perl-Config-JFDI.spec
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Config-JFDI/devel/perl-Config-JFDI.spec,v
retrieving revision 1.4
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -p -r1.4 -r1.5
--- perl-Config-JFDI.spec 26 Jul 2009 04:37:36 - 1.4
+++ perl-Config-JFDI.spec 25 Oct 2009 09:03:48 - 1.5
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-Config-JFDI
-Version:0.063
-Release:2%{?dist}
+Version:0.064
+Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:Just * Do it: A Catalyst::Plugin::ConfigLoader-style layer
over Config::Any
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -57,6 +57,9 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Sun Oct 25 2009 Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 0.064-1
+- update to latest upstream release
+
* Sat Jul 25 2009 Fedora Release Engineering rel-...@lists.fedoraproject.org
- 0.063-2
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_12_Mass_Rebuild
Index: sources
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Config-JFDI/devel/sources,v
retrieving revision 1.4
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -p -r1.4 -r1.5
--- sources 25 Jun 2009 03:28:39 - 1.4
+++ sources 25 Oct 2009 09:03:48 - 1.5
@@ -1 +1 @@
-908f2a01cae3a882340501d3f008a741 Config-JFDI-0.063.tar.gz
+24bbe8ba39d5d19e539483639a0e489b Config-JFDI-0.064.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 529172] Fedora::Bugzilla - get_flag() doesn't work for all flags
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=529172 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 2009-10-26 00:48:21 EDT --- Hmm. Oddly, I can't see the flags you mentioned in the bug referenced by the test script (private flags?), but I'll get some additional tests in place to validate the flag functionality. -- 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
