Re: packages up for adoption
Am Dienstag, den 05.01.2010, 09:37 -0500 schrieb Matthias Clasen: I intend to give up the following packages: preferences-menus I'm a friend of nested menus, so I'm going to take it. Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: PackageKit 0.6.0 going into rawhide
Am Dienstag, den 05.01.2010, 10:33 + schrieb Richard Hughes: I'm about to build PackageKit 0.6.0 into rawhide, which bumps the soname. I'll take care of rebuilding gnome-packagekit and kpackagekit which is (I think) are the only users of the low level library API. Plus moblin-app-installer, currently under review at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=546301 Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Orphaned some packages
Am Samstag, den 19.12.2009, 21:44 +0100 schrieb Simon Wesp: Hi all, fresh orphaned packages: ... xpad: Sticky notepad for GTK+2 Bugs: 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/bugs/xpad I have taken xpad (at least on F11 and F12, package-db wouldn't let me take it on rawhide). Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: 190 packages with .la file(s)
Am Montag, den 30.11.2009, 14:42 +0100 schrieb Pierre-Yves:
If I run:
for i in $(repoquery --disablerepo=rpmfusion\* -f *.la
--qf=%{name}.%{arch} | grep x86_64 | sort | uniq); do repoquery -s
$i; done | sort | uniq
exo-0.3.105-1.fc12.src.rpm
fixed
gtkglextmm-1.2.0-10.fc12.src.rpm
I took it over while ago because it's a dep of one of my packages. Need
to look into that deeper.
xfce4-session-4.6.1-3.fc12.src.rpm
fixed
Christoph
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Non responsive maintainer: Karol Trzcionka
Am Donnerstag, den 10.12.2009, 04:02 +0530 schrieb Debayan Banerjee: ermm, I do know how to write spec files, and build RPMs, but am a bit unsure about the process of uploading the packages upstream to Fedora repos. Again, I shall Google and learn. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: rawhide report: 20091126 changes
Am Donnerstag, den 26.11.2009, 13:13 + schrieb Rawhide Report: Compose started at Thu Nov 26 08:15:08 UTC 2009 Broken deps for i386 -- gtranslator-1.9.6-2.fc13.i686 requires libsvn_fs_base-1.so.0 ... rapidsvn-0.10.0-2.fc12.i686 requires libsvn_fs_base-1.so.0 ... thunar-vcs-plugin-0.1.2-2.fc13.i686 requires libsvn_fs_base-1.so.0 I contacted the subversion maintainer yesterday and Joe replied: The library has disappeared because Berkeley DB support was no longer detected by configure due to a new version being built in dist-f13. I'll get this fixed. So I think it's not necessary to rebuild these packages and wait for a fixed subversion instead. Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: abrt and bugzilla
Am Freitag, den 20.11.2009, 23:05 + schrieb Colin Walters: On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Colin Walters wrote: In an anonymous crash system, there should be a promote to bugzilla link, where people could comment. And how would you track down the original submitter if you need further information from him? You don't; the submitter of course should get a link to their crash report, and can perform the bugzilla promotion on their own if they have more to add. From my experience they don't have anything to add, not even a small comment on what they were doing when the application crashed. This should be mandatory in abrt. I have many reports that even lack debuginfo and even if I tell users how to install it manually, I don't get a response. From now on I will set all these bugs to NEEDINFO REPORTER and if I don't hear back from them within 4 weeks, close their reports. I'm sure this is not how it's supposed to work because it's not fruitful and nether the maintainers nor the reporters are happy. Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
rawhide report screwing up changelogs (was: Re: rawhide report: 20091123 changes)
When two builds of the same version are done on the same day, the rawhide report screws up the order of the changelog entries: Am Montag, den 23.11.2009, 13:28 + schrieb Rawhide Report: nimbus-0.1.4-2.fc13 --- * Sun Nov 22 2009 Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org - 0.1.4-1 - Update to 0.1.4 * Sun Nov 22 2009 Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org - 0.1.4-2 - Fix srciptlets of nimbus-icon-theme * Fri Nov 13 2009 Christoph Wickert cwick...@fedoraproject.org - 0.0.17-8.1 - Remove reference to non existant notification engine (#537161) Can this be fixed please? Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: rawhide report screwing up changelogs (was: Re: rawhide report: 20091123 changes)
Am Montag, den 23.11.2009, 14:56 +0100 schrieb Michael Schwendt: On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:39:28 +0100, Christoph wrote: When two builds of the same version are done on the same day, the rawhide report screws up the order of the changelog entries: Can this be fixed please? See Yum (yum-utils) upstream tickets #6 and #7 for the background. One part of the fix will require a hack in the handling of repo metadata stored in SQLite tables. Thanks for the info, Michael. Obviously it's not so trivial. BTW: Is there a place where I can look at the rawhide report script? Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: abrt and bugzilla
Am Freitag, den 20.11.2009, 11:24 + schrieb Matthew Booth: To get useful bug reports from the unwashed masses we need anonymous submission, or at least submission which doesn't require any kind of account creation or authentication. I disagree. As the maintainer, I need to be able to ask people for details, clarification, feedback etc. This is impossible for anonymous submissions and I doubt it will be possible with submissions that don't require an kind of authentication. So, turning that into some feature requests: 1. Can Fedora enable anonymous/unauthenticated bug submission. Please don't see above. 2. Can abrt not add duplicate reports to the CC list. Per user setting in bugzilla. As a maintainer I'd like to be informed about new people CC'ing to a bug because it gives me feedback how many users are affected. 3. Can abrt/Fedora please ensure that original abrt reporters don't get email either. Makes sense to me. 4. Can abrt/Fedora track abrt submitted BZs and report only when there's a fix available. Why that? We will loose lots of useful input. Everybody will just sit and wait for a fix instead of actively working on it by providing details and feedback. 5. Can abrt give me a list of submitted BZs so I can browse them if I want to? Makes sense. Two more features I'd like to see: * Don't subscribe people to bugs that are closed duplicate. Subscribe them to the original bug report. Filed as https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538783 * Limit the number of reports for a particular crash or even ignore certain crashes. This would have helped us with the LXDE spin, where a crashed application was respawned by the the session manager and the permanent crashes made abrt using all CPU and filling up the live OS overlay with crash reports. Filed as https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539551 Thanks for everybody who works on abrt. It's a great tool that surely will improve the overall quality of the code. Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Claudio Tomasoni is now MIA
This is a follow-up to my mail from October 9th [1] As per unresponsive package maintainer policy, Claudio is now officially considered missing in action and his packages [2] will be orphaned. qtoctave - Frontend for Octave 1 Bug: 2 Menu entries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486753 octaviz - 3D visualization system for Octave no open bugs but fails to build with vtk 5.0 https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-October/msg00657.html tennix - A simple tennis game 1 Open Bug: Update to 1.0 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=500068 If you are interested in any of these packages, please go ahead and grab them at [2]. Regards, Christoph [1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-October/msg00416.html [2] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/users/packages/claudiotomasoni -- 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
F12 Security Updates not tagged (Re: Reminder: Tagging Policy for Fedora 12)
Am Dienstag, den 20.10.2009, 17:27 -0400 schrieb Warren Togami: Many Builds Not Tagged, but Probably Should Be == # koji list-tagged --latest dist-f12-updates-candidate This command shows over 400 packages are built for F-12 but not tagged for release. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F12/pending What really scares me is that there is a number of security updates in bodhi that don't have a tag request in trac. Are maintainers that careless? We don't want F12 released with 6 weeks old security bugs, so it might be worth to mail their owners if there is no tag request. Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: F12 Security Updates not tagged (Re: Reminder: Tagging Policy for Fedora 12)
Am Dienstag, den 20.10.2009, 20:01 -0400 schrieb Josh Boyer: On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 01:11:23AM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote: What really scares me is that there is a number of security updates in bodhi that don't have a tag request in trac. Are maintainers that careless? We don't want F12 released with 6 weeks old security bugs, so Please be careful with your terminology. There has been very little in the way of communication when it comes to F12 and updates, so it would not be a stretch at all if a large majority of maintainers thought the updates were getting mashed and repos were being published. Calling people careless without real cause is overly hostile and unhelpful. It was not my intention to be hostile in anyway, but I don't think that I need to be careful with the terminology because it's not mine, but bodhi's and the maintainer's. They declared their updates as security, not me. josh Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: F12 Security Updates not tagged (Re: Reminder: Tagging Policy for Fedora 12)
Am Dienstag, den 20.10.2009, 17:01 -0700 schrieb Jesse Keating: On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 01:11 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote: What really scares me is that there is a number of security updates in bodhi that don't have a tag request in trac. Are maintainers that careless? We don't want F12 released with 6 weeks old security bugs, so it might be worth to mail their owners if there is no tag request. security is a pretty broad and vague moniker. Are any of these known privilege escalations, or could they just be crashers or DoS? AFAICS these are privilege escalations and a have CVE assigned: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ocaml-mysql-1.0.4-11.fc12 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ocaml-postgresql-1.12.3-1.fc12 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ocaml-camlimages-3.0.1-12.fc12.1 But these are already tagged and the submitter forgot to withdraw the requests. Others: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Net-OAuth-0.19-1.fc12 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rt3-3.8.4-6.fc12 this one has no details or comments at all :( Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: rpms/libXt/devel .cvsignore, 1.11, 1.12 libXt.spec, 1.33, 1.34 sources, 1.12, 1.13
Am Dienstag, den 13.10.2009, 10:21 -0700 schrieb Jesse Keating: On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 22:18 +0530, Parag N(पराग़) wrote: I am confused here. Why this is removed? I still see xt.pc needs those Requires. rpm now autogenerates the pkgconfig requirements, both /usr/bin/pkg-config and also the pkgconfig(foo) level requirements. Changes like this really should be announced! And by announced I mean a mail to fedora-devel-announce. It's really funny that certain rpm developers (none of them involved in this thread) blame people for still following outdated information but are to lazy to write a quick announcement. Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: rpms/libXt/devel .cvsignore, 1.11, 1.12 libXt.spec, 1.33, 1.34 sources, 1.12, 1.13
Am Dienstag, den 13.10.2009, 14:42 -0500 schrieb Rex Dieter: Christoph Wickert wrote: Am Dienstag, den 13.10.2009, 10:21 -0700 schrieb Jesse Keating: On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 22:18 +0530, Parag N(पराग़) wrote: I am confused here. Why this is removed? I still see xt.pc needs those Requires. rpm now autogenerates the pkgconfig requirements, both /usr/bin/pkg-config and also the pkgconfig(foo) level requirements. Changes like this really should be announced! And by announced I mean a mail to fedora-devel-announce. I see it first mentioned here anyway: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-announce/2008- July/msg2.html Indeed, I recall this announcement. But it only covers Provides, not Requires. -- Rex Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Review Request: kompozer - Web Authoring System
Am Montag, den 12.10.2009, 23:16 +0200 schrieb Ismael Olea: Description: A complete Web authoring system for Linux Desktop users, similar to Microsoft Windows programs like FrontPage and Dreamweaver. Please remove that part. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Trademarks_in_Summary_or_Description It makes managing a Web site a snap. Now anyone can create Web pages and manage a Web site with no technical expertise or HTML knowledge. IMO this the most important part from a user's POV, so it should be at the beginning. Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Howto handle multilib conflict?
Am Samstag, den 10.10.2009, 11:30 +0300 schrieb Panu Matilainen: On Sat, 10 Oct 2009, Christoph Wickert wrote: If the contents of the file is the same and they only their timestamps differ, you can touch them reversely after install as in http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/exo/devel/exo.spec?r1=1.38r2=1.39 Timestamp differences do NOT cause file conflicts. Indeed, obviously this has changed. Changes like this should be announced somewhere, I guess Kevin and me are not the only one packagers who still believe they have to care for timestamps. Content (and permission) differences do. I took a look at the files from exo and they did differ. Tanks for the pointer. - Panu - Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Maintainer MIA: Claudio Tomasoni
Am Samstag, den 10.10.2009, 21:41 +0200 schrieb Chitlesh GOORAH: On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote: I am starting the AWOL procedure [1] for Claudio Tomasoni, because he didn't respond to a bug I opened 5 months ago [2]. Chitlesh even tried to contact him for more than 7 months [3]. We should prepare for taking over Claudio's packages [4]. I'm willing to take over : https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/octaviz https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/qtoctave Great, but there are still two weeks left. Chitlesh Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Maintainer MIA: Claudio Tomasoni
I am starting the AWOL procedure [1] for Claudio Tomasoni, because he didn't respond to a bug I opened 5 months ago [2]. Chitlesh even tried to contact him for more than 7 months [3]. We should prepare for taking over Claudio's packages [4]. If anybody knows whats up with Claudio or how to contact him, please let us know. Regards, Christoph [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=500068 [3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486753 [4] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/users/packages/claudiotomasoni -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Howto handle multilib conflict?
Am Freitag, den 09.10.2009, 18:56 -0400 schrieb Neal Becker: Just received: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528237 yum install libotf-devel.i586 libotf-devel.x86_64 yields: Transaction Check Error: file /usr/bin/libotf-config from install of libotf-devel-0.9.8-2.fc11.i586 conflicts with file from package libotf-devel-0.9.8-2.fc11.x86_64 file /usr/share/doc/libotf-devel-0.9.8/example/Makefile from install of libotf-devel-0.9.8-2.fc11.i586 conflicts with file from package libotf-devel-0.9.8-2.fc11.x86_64 What is the recommended way to resolve this? If the contents of the file is the same and they only their timestamps differ, you can touch them reversely after install as in http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/exo/devel/exo.spec?r1=1.38r2=1.39 Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Howto handle multilib conflict?
Am Freitag, den 09.10.2009, 19:48 -0400 schrieb Orcan Ogetbil: On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote: ... If the contents of the file is the same and they only their timestamps differ, you can touch them reversely after install as in http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/exo/devel/exo.spec?r1=1.38r2=1.39 What if the generated docbook documents are different due to different ids? Do we need to separate the docs into a noarch subpackage? Honestly I have no idea, but I prefer noatch subpackages for docs anyway. Of course, this depends on their size. Orcan Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: wmii window manager
Am Samstag, den 03.10.2009, 12:04 -0500 schrieb Adam Miller: Doesn't it mention somewhere in the wmii documentation that wmii is not intended for packaging because many of the user configuration options are to be set in a header file pre compile? I could be wrong but seem to remember reading that about both wmii and ion. That was dwm, which is also hosted at suckless.org and from the same author IIRC: Because dwm is customized through editing its source code, it’s pointless to make binary packages of it. This keeps its userbase small and elitist. No novices asking stupid questions. http://dwm.suckless.org/ -Adam Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Orphaning some packages [Was: Re: Buyer Beware: A Major Change in NFS is about to happen]
Am Freitag, den 02.10.2009, 15:26 + schrieb Matej Cepl: I also wish to orphan these packages, and frankly I care about them much less, so if nobody steps up, I will probably just let them die. JSDoc -- Produces javadoc-style documentation from JavaScript sourcefiles nimbus -- Desktop theme originally from Sun Hi Matěj, I'm going to take over nimbus. I already reviewed it and you asked me for co-maintenance. Sorry I didn't find the time to look into the EPEL build error sooner, it's still on my todo list. Please release ownership in pkg-db, so I can claim it. Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: NFS and slow boot
Am Freitag, den 02.10.2009, 19:39 + schrieb Valent Turkovic: Here you can see the bootchart from freshly built Fedora 11 updated packages: http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/184632/bootchart-slow.png I didn't know that akmods are part of a freshly installed Fedora. ;) Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Packaging Webmin for Fedora 11+
Am Dienstag, den 29.09.2009, 08:24 +0100 schrieb Howard Wilkinson: Already made the decision to remove the file when building During build is not enough. If we are not allowed to redistribute it, we cannot distribute it in our source rpms ether. Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Packaging Webmin for Fedora 11+
Am Dienstag, den 29.09.2009, 13:55 +0200 schrieb Josephine Tannhäuser: btw. what was the reason for debian to drop webmin? Dunno, maybe the fact that webmin is a weapon of mass destruction. ;) Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Orphaning a few packages
Am Donnerstag, den 17.09.2009, 17:05 +0200 schrieb H. Guémar: I'll take : * gazpacho * poedit I'd happy to co-maintain poedit with you, I use it quite regularly. Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Package Review Stats for last 12 days
Am Montag, den 14.09.2009, 09:27 +0530 schrieb Rakesh Pandit: 2009/9/14 Christoph Wickert wrote: Am Montag, den 14.09.2009, 00:48 +0530 schrieb Rakesh Pandit: 2009/9/13 Björn Persson wrote: Is it completed reviews or modified reviews? Completed ones. So why/when was this changed? In the past we counted approved reviews, not finished ones. Not sure which is better, but by silently changing the criteria, we are counting several reviews twice. Not completed ones, I check the date when fedora-review flag goes to '+' . Thanks for the clarification. Do you also check for packages that have the flag set to '-'? Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Package Review Stats for last 12 days
Am Sonntag, den 13.09.2009, 15:07 +0530 schrieb Rakesh Pandit: Hello, Top three FAS account holders who have completed reviewing Package review components on bugzilla for last 12 days ending 12th Sept ... This means 1st till 12th September, right? What about https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=506855 ? Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Review needed....
First of all: Congrats for this Am Freitag, den 04.09.2009, 09:43 +0200 schrieb Josephine Tannhäuser: Perhaps it is luck, but I'm happy about that fact that not all contributors with an open review request begging on devel list for a reviewer. If anybody will do it, the devel list will explode with review beggars. It's strange to see that most of the baggers are working for a big north american distributor, or living in india, or both! No, I don't want a pony!!! Is it difficult to be patient? Spot asked for a review 4 days ago because he needed it to fix a broken dep [1]. Peter Robinson asked for a couple of reviews [2] because they were needed for his Moblin feature. Both Spot and Peter explained why their reviews were urgent. Adam Williamson asked for a review of libva [3], but he also offered to swap reviews. This is a normal procedure and has nothing to do with bagging. The reason why there are several RH employees asking for a review is because these people work full time on Fedora and actually drive the development forward. OK, this leaves Kushal, who asked for a review of pony [4] back in May. I wonder why you bring this up after months. I mean: You didn't do the review, so what are you worrying about? Kushal's request was also with a good portion of humor as the subject Who wants a pony? shows. If there is somebody to understand what catchy subjects are, I guess it's the person starting threads with subjects like KDE vs. Gnome or Review needed... (when there actually is not review needed). What was the name of that person? ;) Regards, Christoph [1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-September/msg00031.html [2] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-August/msg00090.html [3] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-August/msg01086.html [4] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-May/msg02139.html -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Review needed....
Am Freitag, den 04.09.2009, 12:41 +0200 schrieb Christoph Wickert: First of all: Congrats for this ...catchy subject Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: source file audit - 2009-08-10
Am Montag, den 10.08.2009, 10:15 -0600 schrieb Kevin Fenzi: cwickert:BADURL:glista-0.4.tar.gz:glista works with spectool cwickert:BADURL:gwget-1.0.1.tar.bz2:gwget 404, new version, fixed. cwickert:BADURL:lxde-settings-daemon-0.4.tar.bz2:lxde-settings-daemon 301, due to sf changes I guess. lxde-settings-deamon will be orphaned soon, because it will become part of lxsession. cwickert:BADURL:termit-2.2.0.tar.bz2:termit works with spectool cwickert:BADURL:thunar-volman-0.3.80.tar.bz2:thunar-volman 404, Xfce download archive reorganization. cwickert:BADURL:timer-applet-2.1.2.tar.gz:gnome-applet-timer works spectool, SF.net cwickert:BADURL:xfburn-0.4.2.tar.bz2:xfburn 404, Xfce download archive reorganization. Regards, Christoph -- 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, 10:32 +0530 schrieb Rahul Sundaram: 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. I did , but it doesn't explain why maintainers shouldn't be able to fix it. 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. So where is the problem then? I don't understand the bother. Rahul Regards, Christoph -- 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, 14:57 +0530 schrieb Rahul Sundaram: On 08/17/2009 02:23 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote: See my first mail on this thread. I did , but it doesn't explain why maintainers shouldn't be able to fix it. How would they be able to fix it exactly? openal-soft earlier obsoleted openal in the stable branches. openal-soft maintainer also filed bug reports asking all the maintainers to rebuild the packages that depended openal in Rawhide, Fedora 11 and Fedora 10. A rebuild is only possible in Rawhide since openal-soft is not in the build root for other branches. All this information is already in the bug report I linked to in the original mail. Then you should also know that a buildroot overwrite for the other branches has been requested as well, so a simple rebuild should fix everything for those maintainers, who want to switch to openal-soft. Regards, Christoph -- 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, 15:24 +0530 schrieb Rahul Sundaram: On 08/17/2009 03:22 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote: Then you should also know that a buildroot overwrite for the other branches has been requested as well, so a simple rebuild should fix everything for those maintainers, who want to switch to openal-soft. The rebuild is *unnecessary*. It's on the maintainers (but not on you) to decide whether the rebuild is unnecessary or not. I know there are a couple of people who want to rebuild against openal-soft. In fact, Thomas was asked to push it to F-10 and F-11 because a package needs it to fix a crasher bug. The obsolete was added *incorrectly* for the stable branches and has been fixed now. Read the bug report I referenced in the original mail before replying. I *did* read it. I just wanted to answer back to you incorrect statement that it was broken and there was no way for the package maintainers to fix it. Rahul Regards, Christoph -- 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, 16:29 +0530 schrieb Rahul Sundaram: On 08/17/2009 03:54 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote: Am Montag, den 17.08.2009, 15:24 +0530 schrieb Rahul Sundaram: On 08/17/2009 03:22 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote: Then you should also know that a buildroot overwrite for the other branches has been requested as well, so a simple rebuild should fix everything for those maintainers, who want to switch to openal-soft. The rebuild is *unnecessary*. It's on the maintainers (but not on you) to decide whether the rebuild is unnecessary or not. The maintainer of openal-soft has already admitted that the obsolete was incorrect and fixed it in Fedora and Fedora 10 and informed me about it offlist. Thomas is a first timer, who joined Fedora recently. Please don't judge him by your standards and please don't expect him to follow procedures that are not even outlined in the wiki. I am a maintainer of a package (tremulous) affected by the obsolete and I am not supposed to say that it is unnecessary to rebuild? You can only speak for yourself and your package, but not for other maintainers or packages. That doesn't make any sense to me. What exactly are you fighting about now? The problem is already solved. The problem is solved, but your incorrect statement about maintainers not being able to fix their packages was still not corrected on the list. I just wanted to correct that. I'm not fighting, I'm protecting a fellow friend of mine against unjustified accusations. Rahul Regards, Christoph -- 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: Another linux kernel NULL pointer vulnerability ( exploit here )
Am Freitag, den 14.08.2009, 14:39 -0300 schrieb Itamar Reis Peixoto:
Hello guy's
for the people who don't have updated the kernel.
I'm running kernel-2.6.29.6-217.2.3.fc11.x86_64 and this one is not
supposed to be fixed, however...
http://grsecurity.net/%7Espender/wunderbar_emporium.tgz
... it doesn't work here. Although the author claims it's not stopped by
SELinux (he even mentions Dan by name), SELinux one more time saves the
world:
$ su -c 'setenforce 0'
$ LANG=C sh wunderbar_emporium.sh
runcon: invalid context:
unconfined_u:unconfined_r:initrc_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023: Invalid argument
[+] MAPPED ZERO PAGE!
[+] Resolved selinux_enforcing to 0x81874374
[+] Resolved selinux_enabled to 0x815a0a60
[+] Resolved security_ops to 0x81871b20
[+] Resolved default_security_ops to 0x815a0080
[+] Resolved sel_read_enforce to 0x8118934c
[+] Resolved audit_enabled to 0x8182e804
[+] Resolved commit_creds to 0x810615c3
[+] Resolved prepare_kernel_cred to 0x810614a4
[+] got ring0!
[+] detected 2.6 style 4k stacks
sh: mplayer: command not found
[+] Disabled security of : nothing, what an insecure machine!
[+] Got root!
sh-4.0# setenforce 1
sh-4.0# exit
exit
$ LANG=C sh wunderbar_emporium.sh
runcon: invalid context:
unconfined_u:unconfined_r:initrc_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023: Invalid argument
UNABLE TO MAP ZERO PAGE!
The log entry:
node=wicktop.localdomain type=AVC msg=audit(1250276339.135:27494):
avc: denied { mmap_zero } for pid=16293 comm=exploit
scontext=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023
tcontext=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023
tclass=memprotect node=wicktop.localdomain type=SYSCALL
msg=audit(1250276339.135:27494): arch=c03e syscall=9 success=yes
exit=0 a0=0 a1=1000 a2=7 a3=32 items=0 ppid=16273 pid=16293 auid=500
uid=500 gid=500 euid=500 suid=500 fsuid=500 egid=500 sgid=500
fsgid=500 tty=pts4 ses=1 comm=exploit
exe=/home/chris/Downloads/wunderbar_emporium/exploit
subj=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023 key=(null)
So I suggest to calm down and not believer everything you read.
Regards,
Christoph
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora 12 Features Proposed for Removal
Am Donnerstag, den 06.08.2009, 18:08 +0200 schrieb Ralf Corsepius: On 08/06/2009 05:16 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote: [snipped] Sorry, you didn't pick up any of the bugs, none was assigned to you. There is none assigned to me, because I turned away from this person's reviews. You can find traces of them in reviews. Only comments about autotools. How comes, if the packages are really that bad? You picked on Peter, that's all. Well, your freedom to think so, my freedom to think otherwise -- I think, you are picking on _me_, because I am pronouncing something which doesn't fit into your wishful thinking. What wishful thinking?I know that we have lots of (IMHO) bad reviews, but I'm still waiting for numbers from you. Please provide details so me and others can start on improvements. Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora 12 Features Proposed for Removal
Am Donnerstag, den 06.08.2009, 10:44 +0200 schrieb Ralf Corsepius: On 08/06/2009 10:39 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FedoraMoblin I'm the maintainer of this. I think its very much in a similar category to gnome/kde. The only difference is there is some packages still awaiting review, about 2 that are actually critical, but moblin 2 like gnome etc are still in there development phase so its a moving target. IMO, this feature should be scratched, because the packages in question are of immature nature (... and of low packaging quality from my POV). This is what the review is for. The ones that are reviewed should be in good shape, if not, please speak up in the reviews and CC me with the address fedora at christoph - wickert . de. Ralf Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora 12 Features Proposed for Removal
Am Donnerstag, den 06.08.2009, 13:39 +0200 schrieb Ralf Corsepius: On 08/06/2009 12:32 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote: On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 10:44 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 08/06/2009 10:39 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: After requesting status updates, including direct email to the feature owners, the following feature pages do not have a current status or their ability to tested during the Alpha is unclear based on the lack of information provided or percentage of completion. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FedoraMoblin I'm the maintainer of this. I think its very much in a similar category to gnome/kde. The only difference is there is some packages still awaiting review, about 2 that are actually critical, but moblin 2 like gnome etc are still in there development phase so its a moving target. IMO, this feature should be scratched, because the packages in question are of immature nature (... and of low packaging quality from my POV). Low packaging quality? I certainly don't think so, given the amount of time Peter spent on them, and the fact that they all seemed good enough to pass review. Yes, they somehow sneeked through reviews. This doesn't invalidate what I said. It only proves my impression of Fedora quality standards being low and about the quality of reviews. Would you please be so kind and name names here? What packages and what reviews are you talking about? I asked you to write down the problems you found in bz and CC me, but so far I haven't received a mail. Instead you spend time on writing mails with abstract accusations to the list. As you know I'm really interested in improving both the packaging and the review quality and I appreciate your cooperation. Why not pick up some of the reviews? This is the easiest and fastest way to enforce your quality standards. TIA, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora 12 Features Proposed for Removal
Am Donnerstag, den 06.08.2009, 16:14 +0200 schrieb Ralf Corsepius: On 08/06/2009 02:10 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote: I asked you to write down the problems you found in bz and CC me, but so far I haven't received a mail. I haven't received any mail from you. Instead you spend time on writing mails with abstract accusations to the list. Do you want me to flame people in public? No, I want constructive criticism in bugzilla. Flaming people in public is what you are currently doing on this list. As you know I'm really interested in improving both the packaging and the review quality and I appreciate your cooperation. Why not pick up some of the reviews? I did so, but Mr. Robinson refused to listen and preferred to go his way, because the fedora guidelines allow him to do so. It cause me to turn away from his reviews. Sorry, you didn't pick up any of the bugs, none was assigned to you. You picked on Peter, that's all. You only commented on two bugs regarding autoconf, but this is a controversial topic. Please accept that there are different views on questions like this one. Ralf Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora 12 Features Proposed for Removal
Am Donnerstag, den 06.08.2009, 16:20 +0200 schrieb Ralf Corsepius: On 08/06/2009 02:18 PM, drago01 wrote: On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de wrote: * IM (NSH) O, the packaging quality of the submitted packages is close to being inacceptable low. Can you be more verbose on that one? 3 Examples: So where are your comments in bugzilla for example 2 and 3? I corrected Peter and Rahul, who did review one of the packages. Both were tankful for my corrections and incorporated the suggestions. Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora 12 Features Proposed for Removal
Am Donnerstag, den 06.08.2009, 18:14 +0200 schrieb Ralf Corsepius: Low quality reviews - QED. I can't stand lousy reviews ether, I often comment on already closed reviews in order to show the reviewers problems they did not catch. Someone even said what I did was a witch-hunting him, but nevertheless he was open to constructive criticism. Please be so kind as to name numbers and individual problems. Otherwise, we cannot improve. TIA, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Review swaps
Am Dienstag, den 04.08.2009, 00:39 +0100 schrieb Peter Robinson: Hi All, Anyone interested in some review swaps? I have the following packages that I need to get reviewed for Moblin so if you've got a package you'd like to swap (or you've just got a few spare cycles for a plain review) they are as follows: bickley - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=506825 bisho - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=506833 dalston - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507223 Hi Peter, as promised I will take them. You can in turn do: xfce4-stopwatch-plugin - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=514351 whaawmp - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513420 Cheers, Peter Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: rpms/kmess/F-11 kmess.spec, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.1, 1.2
Am Donnerstag, den 30.07.2009, 03:56 +0200 schrieb Till Maas: On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 06:36:42PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: SMP == Steven M Parrish tuxbr...@fedoraproject.org writes: SMP Summary: A MSN Messenger Clone Please don't build a package with this summary. Please explain why. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Trademarks_in_Summary_or_Description Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: rpms/parrot/F-9 parrot-1.x.0.patch, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.2, 1.3 import.log, 1.1, 1.2 parrot.spec, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.2, 1.3 parrot-1.0.0-rpath-removal.patch, 1.1, NONE parrot-install_files.pa
Am Dienstag, den 21.07.2009, 16:47 + schrieb Gerd Pokorra: Author: gerd Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/parrot/F-9 Ähm, F-9 ist end of lifetime, da kannst Du keine Updates mehr machen. Ich würde dich bitten, die Änderungen im CVS wieder auf den Stand vorher zurückzusetzen, damit es mit dem, was tatsächlich released wurde, auch synchron ist. Log Message: Bitte immer eine Log message machen, also cvs -m blala commit. Oder aber einfacher make clog cvs commit -F clog Damit bekommst Du automatisch den letzen Eintrag im Changelog als Log. %changelog +* Tue Jul 21 2009 Gerd Pokorra g...@zimt.uni-siegen.de 1.4.0-1 +- add the new disable-rpath configure option Update to 1.4.0 hätte man noch dazuschreiben können, aber ist nicht so wichtig. C U Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: rpms/parrot/F-9 parrot-1.x.0.patch, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.2, 1.3 import.log, 1.1, 1.2 parrot.spec, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.2, 1.3 parrot-1.0.0-rpath-removal.patch, 1.1, NONE parrot-install_files.pa
Am Mittwoch, den 22.07.2009, 14:50 +0200 schrieb Christoph Wickert: ... Sorry, this wasn't supposed to go to the list. Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Red Hat Bugzilla Front Page query In Progress broken
Am Dienstag, den 21.07.2009, 21:25 +0200 schrieb Edwin ten Brink: I'm not sure where to file this bug against Red Hat Bugzilla. On my Red Hat Bugzilla Front Page, under Open Issues: In Progress Reported by You, no bugs appear even though there should be one in progress. It seems that the query generating the list is broken. The link for show list starts with: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=bug_status=1bug_status=1bug_status=1bug_status=1bug_status=1bug_status=1bug_status=1bug_status=1bug_status=1bug_status=1 ... which does not feel entirely correct. Could somebody please fix this, or tell me where to file this bug? Already being worked on: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512531 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512381 Kind regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Purging the F12 orphans
Am Mittwoch, den 15.07.2009, 17:47 +0200 schrieb Pablo Martin-Gomez: Le Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:58:43 -0700, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com a écrit : I've taken all the following packages, co-maintainer are welcome : Unblocked orphan gconf-cleaner Unblocked orphan gnome-specimen Unblocked orphan gtkperf Unblocked orphan notecase Unblocked orphan qemu-launcher Unblocked orphan wifi-radar If someone want to take the ownership of one of the package, tell me and I will orphan it. notecase is discontinued upstream, so think twice befor taking it. Pablo Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora rawhide rebuild in mock status 2009-07-10 x86_64
Am Dienstag, den 14.07.2009, 16:57 -0500 schrieb Matt Domsch: On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 09:41:57PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote: Am Dienstag, den 14.07.2009, 13:22 -0500 schrieb Matt Domsch: cwickert: gwget,lxappearance,lxlauncher,lxsession-edit,lxshortcut The epiphany extension of gwget is known to be broken. Already reported upstream: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=585401 Should I disable it for now? So should I or should I not? The rest are false positives. All have been updated last week without problems and I verified they still build with a couple scratch builds: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1473863 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1473873 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1473864 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1473905 There must be something wrong with your builds: lxappearance: build.log is 33 MB lxlauncher: build.log is 46 MB lxsession-edit: build.log is 19 MB lxshortcut: build.log is 17 MB make got very upset... But only on your buildsys but not in Fedora's. I think you should stop your script from mass-filing bugs until you found the error on your side, because a high percentage are false positives. Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: How to contact Tomáš Bžatek?
Am Mittwoch, den 15.07.2009, 09:16 +0200 schrieb Jan Zelený: Dne úterý 14 července 2009 19:20:02 Christoph Wickert napsal(a): Anybody knows how to contact Tomáš Bžatek? Is he still working for Red Hat? I see he has a lot of open bugs (some of them are just getting closed by the bugzappers) without a single comment from him. I set one to NEEDINFO but didn't get a response for months. Already time for AWOL procedure? [1] He usually sits next to me, I'll let him know to pay attention to this thread (or your attempts to contact him). Thanks Jan, not necessary, just tell him to please pay attention to his bug reports (especially if they already contain the solution or if they are set to NEEDINFO assignee). I just wanted to make sure he's still around because I could not find any activity from him in Bugzilla or CVS for quite some time and I was afraid, the bugs were assigned to somebody who no longer works for Red Hat. Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: ext4 /boot in F12 ALPHA - changes in anaconda.
Am Mittwoch, den 15.07.2009, 13:48 -0300 schrieb Itamar Reis Peixoto: Hello guy's anaconda can be fixed before F12 ALPHA to allow ext4 /boot ? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486284 Already fixed in http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=112216 Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: ext4 /boot in F12 ALPHA - changes in anaconda.
Am Mittwoch, den 15.07.2009, 18:59 +0200 schrieb Christoph Wickert: Am Mittwoch, den 15.07.2009, 13:48 -0300 schrieb Itamar Reis Peixoto: Hello guy's anaconda can be fixed before F12 ALPHA to allow ext4 /boot ? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486284 Already fixed in http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=112216 Opps, wrong link, this is the correct one for anaconda: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=112742 Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora rawhide rebuild in mock status 2009-07-10 x86_64
Am Mittwoch, den 15.07.2009, 16:22 -0500 schrieb Matt Domsch: I wonder... My build systems are running F11 using ext4 file system, while the koji buildsystems will still be using ext3. It seems like make is getting confused as to whether or not something got created; timestamps may not be getting updated correctly. Indeed. Builds fine in my homdir, which is ext3, but when I build it inside /usr/src/ it goes into an infinite loop. Weird. Where is the bug, or where to file it? Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Feature proposal: Rebootless Installer
Am Dienstag, den 14.07.2009, 08:09 -0600 schrieb Douglas McClendon: Colin Walters wrote: Another thing to keep in mind that immediately post-installation there are going to be updates, which will at a minimum need desktop reset (fast reboot experience), or more likely system restart. I don't exactly get this. I might understand some negligible things. But historically I've often done -normal install, reboot -booted, logged in using everying, then a massive yum update, then I'd wait till it was absolutely convenient to logout of the desktop or reboot You wouldn't need no yum update if you enabled the updates repo during install. It's a single click. Your proposal sounds interesting, but I have two questions/issues: 1. The installation is not finished after reboot because we have firstboot. How to trigger firstboot in a rebootless install? 2. Imagine after the installation you switch rebootless to the new system and install a kmod. But you are still running the kernel from the installation medium and kmods get installed for the running kernel, which not necessarily needs to be the one that was installed. Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Feature proposal: Rebootless Installer
Am Dienstag, den 14.07.2009, 20:12 +0530 schrieb Rahul Sundaram: On 07/14/2009 08:08 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote: Am Dienstag, den 14.07.2009, 19:05 +0530 schrieb Rahul Sundaram: On 07/14/2009 07:02 PM, Christoph Höger wrote: Hi, although (as others pointed out) a reboot may be necessary one way or the other, my opinion would be: Why not? Currently you are *forced* to reboot which now seems not to be a must have. Nobody is forced. You must be misremembering things. Obviously you are the one misremembering things: http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/temp/anaconda-last-screen.png We are talking about a live cd installation, yes? Are we? If I understand the proposal correctly it also includes rebootless switching from the installation DVD into your newly installed system. You can close the installer then. But why would I want that? If somebody installs Fedora, I'm sure he wants to actually use it and not the slow livecd. So the rebootless feature only makes sense if one can switch rebootless to the installed system - from the livecd as well as from the installation DVD. Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Feature proposal: Rebootless Installer
Am Dienstag, den 14.07.2009, 09:27 -0600 schrieb Douglas McClendon: Douglas McClendon wrote: Christoph Wickert wrote: Am Dienstag, den 14.07.2009, 08:09 -0600 schrieb Douglas McClendon: 2. Imagine after the installation you switch rebootless to the new system and install a kmod. But you are still running the kernel from the installation medium and kmods get installed for the running kernel, which not necessarily needs to be the one that was installed. As with a current LiveOS installation, the installation media kernel is the running kernel. (unless the f11 installer already allows you to trigger a chrooted yum update as part of install). Ok, I'll show my good fedora developer maturity and call it a 'night' now that I'm starting to get sloppy. That should have been worded- As with a current LiveOS installation, the installation media kernel is the running kernel. Even if the f11 installer already allows you to trigger a chrooted yum update as part of the install, you won't be running the updated kernel until after a reboot. There is no chrooted yum update but the updated packages get installed *instead* of the old ones from the installation media. ... Same as RebootlessInstaller ... until ksplice ... Thanks everyone for the vetting so far. Thanks a lot for the proposal and the work you've put into it. I'm sure we all are interested in it, but many of use are just a little skeptical if it really works out. Please don't let this skepticism scare you. :) Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
How to contact Tomáš Bžatek?
Anybody knows how to contact Tomáš Bžatek? Is he still working for Red Hat? I see he has a lot of open bugs (some of them are just getting closed by the bugzappers) without a single comment from him. I set one to NEEDINFO but didn't get a response for months. Already time for AWOL procedure? [1] Regards, Christoph [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
glipper (was Re: Purging the F12 orphans)
Am Dienstag, den 14.07.2009, 13:23 -0500 schrieb Juan Rodriguez: On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote: Unblocked orphan glipper If noone's taking care of glipper, I'll have to sign up, as I actually *depend* on glipper to function properly. Well, then you are lost, as it's broken for ages, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449890 I think the program is dead upstream. Use parcelite instead. Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Purging the F12 orphans
Am Dienstag, den 14.07.2009, 11:27 -0600 schrieb Jerry James: On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote: ... Unblocked orphan fmit Are there really none that start with g-z, or did something quit after fmit? Yes, there was a new list sent out to fedora-devel-announce. Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora rawhide rebuild in mock status 2009-07-10 x86_64
Am Dienstag, den 14.07.2009, 13:22 -0500 schrieb Matt Domsch: cwickert: gwget,lxappearance,lxlauncher,lxsession-edit,lxshortcut The epiphany extension of gwget is known to be broken. Already reported upstream: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=585401 Should I disable it for now? The rest are false positives. All have been updated last week without problems and I verified they still build with a couple scratch builds: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1473863 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1473873 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1473864 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1473905 There must be something wrong with your builds: lxappearance: build.log is 33 MB lxlauncher: build.log is 46 MB lxsession-edit: build.log is 19 MB lxshortcut: build.log is 17 MB Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: RFC: cronKit
Am Montag, den 06.07.2009, 19:03 +0200 schrieb Christoph Höger: Hi, since I sync my mail with the experimental gnome ui of offlineimap, I encounter a small problem: How do I tell cron to only invoke the job when I am logged in under gnome only? How about http://www.gnomefiles.org/app.php/DoThisNow Since I want the job only to be run if I am logged in under gnome the main idea is to have a process added to the session that can handle crontab like jobs (aka cronKit) No more kits please. ;) Whatever the new software would be named, pls don't make another *kit. Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: rawhide report: 20090702 changes
Am Donnerstag, den 02.07.2009, 09:48 -0400 schrieb Paul W. Frields: On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 02:52:59PM +0200, Thomas Janssen wrote: 2009/7/2 Rahul Sundaram sunda...@fedoraproject.org: On 07/02/2009 06:15 PM, Frank Murphy wrote: Is there a book group? or what search parameter? Tried yum info Dive Into Python # yum info diveintopython Since we have more than one book, I guess a new group could be defined as well. If there is consensus on the name, I can add it. Should we just call it Books ? +1 Perhaps something more inclusive like Documentation would be good. +1 for Documentation, -1 for Books. Books is to generic on the one hand but to graphic on the other (These are no real books). Documentation fits very well and it already is a group in rpm, so IMO we should stick with that. Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Update descriptions hosed
What happened to these updates? https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-5739 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-5966 Is it a bodhi failure or a human one (both are from the same submitter) Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Announcing LXDE Fedora Remix 11
Am Freitag, den 19.06.2009, 13:55 +0530 schrieb Rahul Sundaram: On 06/19/2009 01:41 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote: To sum it up: You say you wanted to work together with me, but you did not contact me, you did not tell me and you did not send me your ks, although you promised to do so. Right? I made no such promise. I expressed a intend to do so and got busy with the other things. Quote: I will post the ks file and the image to fedora-devel list a bit later. To me this sounds like a promise. Since there is no big difference between kickstart files that essentially do the same thing and is so old now that is not going be useful anymore, I am not even sure why you are so bothered with it. I'm not really interested in your file since it based on my work and hardly differs from it. I just wanted to point out that I *did* try to cooperate: I provided you my work, I asked for your progress and my mine was documented in the wiki. Can you say the same for your work? Neverthless if you wanted it, you could have easily send me a reminder instead of bringing it up after such a long time. That was a boomerang. I can say the very same or even better: Before sending a reminder you should have told me about your plans in first place. My name is at the top of the ks and you hardly can remove a copyright notice. It is a kickstart file with a bunch of packages and groups and some simple configuration changes. Hardly something unique enough to be copyrightable. I guess the same applies to the Xfce ks and the first thing you did was to place a copyright notice and your name on it. Nevertheless AFAICS all you changed is: * You replaced slim with gdm because you could not get it working * and included PolicyKit-gnome This is not really much remixing of my work. Don't you think that my name should have been mentioned in the announcement? I agree it would be been nice to do so but I have already said that in long offlist mails and IRC conversations. It is not reasonable to demanding it however since much of what we do is by nature, building on others work. But whenever one builds on others work, one credits them. This is what FOSS is about. Anyway: Frank is right, complaining does not help, because it doesn't fix the damage done. So I'm going to stop here. Rahul Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Announcing LXDE Fedora Remix 11
(@all: See fedora-list for previous postings.) Am Donnerstag, den 18.06.2009, 11:17 +0530 schrieb Rahul Sundaram: I had already did a remix based on LXDE a release before and I had the kickstart and a working image a while earlier. The survey was done on this list just to gauge interest in it before releasing it. I did try and convey this to you and Kevin. You never tried to convey anything to me. Back in Februar I asked for your ks and you said you wanted to post it to fedora-devel. This never happened. Maybe we had a communication breakdown. In that case, accept my apologies. I doubt we only had a communication failure because you did it before with the Xfce ks and now you did it again with LXDE. This is a social issue. I find it despicable from you to take the work others did, slap your name on it and release it without _ANY_ attribution to the people doing most of the work and without even telling anybody about your plans. This is FOSS after all, communication is vital and credit the main currency. Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Announcing LXDE Fedora Remix 11
Am Donnerstag, den 18.06.2009, 16:59 -0400 schrieb TK009: On 06/18/2009 03:08 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote: (@all: See fedora-list for previous postings.) Am Donnerstag, den 18.06.2009, 11:17 +0530 schrieb Rahul Sundaram: I had already did a remix based on LXDE a release before and I had the kickstart and a working image a while earlier. The survey was done on this list just to gauge interest in it before releasing it. I did try and convey this to you and Kevin. You never tried to convey anything to me. Back in Februar I asked for your ks and you said you wanted to post it to fedora-devel. This never happened. Maybe we had a communication breakdown. In that case, accept my apologies. I doubt we only had a communication failure because you did it before with the Xfce ks and now you did it again with LXDE. This is a social issue. I find it despicable from you to take the work others did, slap your name on it and release it without _ANY_ attribution to the people doing most of the work and without even telling anybody about your plans. This is FOSS after all, communication is vital and credit the main currency. Regards, Christoph When I first saw this announcement, I thought, wow there is a lxde sig and I didn't know. I never saw the email to gauge interest, though I could have easily missed it. I wanted to email Rahul about this and ask how do I join this SIG. I got very busy this week and didn't get to it. There is no SIG yet because A SIG needs APPROVAL from the board. But there already are couple of people interested: Marc Wiriadisastra, Simon Wesp, Sebastian Vahl and two people from the LXDE team who have joined Fedora recently but are still waiting for sponsorship in the ambassadors group. And me of course as the main LXDE maintainer. While the announcement seem to indicate this was a fedora project thing (SIG), by this email that does not appear to be the case. It definitely is not a Fedora project, it's just a Remix without Fedora Artwork etc. So it's not Fedora, people just get this impression because it is hosted at a fedoraproject.org website. I have allot of interest in LXDE and am now wondering is the LXDE spin a one man show or are others invited? Others are always invited, as long as they are willing to cooperate and not do any solo attempts. Any help and input would be appreciated. Look at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LXDE_Spin and feel free to contact me. TK009 Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Announcing LXDE Fedora Remix 11
Am Donnerstag, den 18.06.2009, 16:04 -0700 schrieb Toshio Kuratomi: On 06/18/2009 02:41 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote: There is no SIG yet because A SIG needs APPROVAL from the board. But there already are couple of people interested: Marc Wiriadisastra, Simon Wesp, Sebastian Vahl and two people from the LXDE team who have joined Fedora recently but are still waiting for sponsorship in the ambassadors group. And me of course as the main LXDE maintainer. I was under the impression that a subproject needed some sort of approval but a SIG was much more free-form. I was unable to find anything useful on the wiki to confirm or deny this, though. You are correct, I re-read the Defining projects page [1] and realized I was wrong. Quote: It is not necessary, however, for contributors to receive the approval of any existing body to form a SIG. Some ideas may not even involve support from existing Fedora Project bodies. The Fedora Project Board retains the right, however, to provide oversight over any SIG if necessary, to appoint a body to that end, or to move a SIG under the umbrella of an existing body. Such actions should rarely be necessary, though, given a SIG with a well-defined mission and objectives. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Defining_projects -Toshio Kind regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Signing server? (Re: Updates testing for F-11)
Am Freitag, den 12.06.2009, 08:48 -0700 schrieb Toshio Kuratomi: On 06/12/2009 08:14 AM, Christoph Wickert wrote: Am Freitag, den 12.06.2009, 05:34 +0200 schrieb Kevin Kofler: I don't see what it buys our users if they get one big update over 2 small ones. In most cases the biggest part (consuming time and cpu cycles) of the updates is not installing them but everything else like checking for new packages, downloading the metadata, This portion of the list is saved. This part happens in the background without user's notice, so this portion irrelevant. calculating dependencies, downloading the packages and running the transaction test. Especially for small updates this takes much more time than the actual rpm -U part. But this portion of your list is dependent on the size of the transaction so it isn't going to halve the time to go from two small updates to a single large update here. But this is the portion that requires user interaction, what happens between the first update notice and the message that all updates were installed. So from a users POV the time is reduced dramatically. I think it could even more than halve because scriptlets are only running once instead of several times. -Toshio Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Signing server? (Re: Updates testing for F-11)
Am Freitag, den 12.06.2009, 05:34 +0200 schrieb Kevin Kofler: Christoph Wickert wrote: IMO this is something we should discuss on this list. We need to find a fine balance between pushing updates in time to make maintainers happy and not too many updates for the users. Maybe something like security/urgent updates daily, everything else once or twice a week. But this needs further discussion. I don't see what it buys our users if they get one big update over 2 small ones. In most cases the biggest part (consuming time and cpu cycles) of the updates is not installing them but everything else like checking for new packages, downloading the metadata, calculating dependencies, downloading the packages and running the transaction test. Especially for small updates this takes much more time than the actual rpm -U part. Plus, it'd require us to distinguish urgent vs. not urgent updates, and causes big issues with urgent updates accidentally depending on non-urgent ones. Good point. I did not think of that because my updates usually are at the end of a dependency chain and if not, I put all packages that require each other into one big update. Maintainers should be smart enough to do it that way. Of course it would cause problems for people waiting for other packager's updates, but IMO this is no difference to the current situation: If you don't ask rel-eng for a build root overwrite, you have to wait until the dependencies are pushed before you can build you packages. Of course it would require some automatic dependency check from bodhi, but this is something we should look at anyway as the recent vte update shows. Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Signing server? (Re: Updates testing for F-11)
Am Donnerstag, den 11.06.2009, 20:54 -0400 schrieb Josh Boyer: On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Christoph Wickertchristoph.wick...@googlemail.com wrote: Some updates are processed after a day, others not for two weeks. I'm a bit confused where your date is coming from. 2 weeks seems wrong lately. In fact, since I took over the push stuff, it's normally done daily or as often as the composes allow. Right now, the compose for f11-updates alone is 7-8 hours, so doing it daily often just doesn't work out. But 2 weeks seems wrong. OK, 12 days to be correct. You said it will not happen before the weekend, and if it happens on Sunday, two of my requests have reached 12 days. Also, signing server won't really help any of the above. Especially at release time this is annoying as some of the packages I submitted were bugfixes I wanted to be in the Xfce Spin. Another package was renamed, if it got pushed in time this would have happend smoothly between releases. So any chance we get a more reliable push mechanism? If by reliable you mean auto-pushed, maybe. Two options: More manpower or automatic pushes. For me it is important that I get a time frame that I can count on. But that would need auto-sign and an agreed upon schedule for updates and code. IMO this is something we should discuss on this list. We need to find a fine balance between pushing updates in time to make maintainers happy and not too many updates for the users. Maybe something like security/urgent updates daily, everything else once or twice a week. But this needs further discussion. And right now, we have a number of things that cause backend failures which necessitates manually fixing them. If you'd like to volunteer to code on bodhi and fix some of these, it would be most welcome. With the number of people currently working on it (2-3), it will be a while before we get to that point. I will see what I can do, but currently I'm swamped with other things, both Fedora (LinuxTag Berlin) and $dayjob. Also it will take some time for me to get involved in infrastructure, but if possible, I'll do it. josh Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora rawhide rebuild in mock status 2009-06-08 x86_64
Am Mittwoch, den 10.06.2009, 17:06 -0500 schrieb Matt Domsch: cwickert: gwget,xfce4-clipman-plugin clipman-plugin is fixed, gwget only fixed in CVS and I'm waiting for the buildsys to come up again. Thanks for your report, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: rpms/polkit-gnome/devel polkit-gnome.spec, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.1, 1.2
Am Montag, den 08.06.2009, 20:47 + schrieb David Zeuthen:
Author: davidz
[snipped]
--- NEW FILE polkit-gnome.spec ---
Summary: PolicyKit integration for the GNOME desktop
Name: polkit-gnome
Version: 0.92
Release: 1%{?dist}
License: LGPLv2
URL: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/PolicyKit
Group: Applications/System
Source0: http://hal.freedesktop.org/releases/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root
BuildRequires: gtk2-devel
BuildRequires: polkit-devel = 0.92
BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils
# for /usr/share/gnome/autostart
Requires: gnome-session
Great! This adds
gnome-session: 1.8 MB
control-center: 7.1 MB
GConf2: 5,5 MB
gnome-keyring: 2,3 MB
gnome-vfs2: 3.1 MB
You added at least ~ 22,8 MB overhead just for directory ownership,
although I asked you to _not_ do this. I think users of alternative
desktops and the maintainers of their spins will not be amused. Last
week you told me, that a one advantage of the new polkit is that no
longer requires GConf2, but now it's dragged in again.
%description
polkit-gnome provides an authentication agent for PolicyKit
that matches the look and feel of the GNOME desktop.
%prep
%setup -q
%build
%configure --enable-gtk-doc
make
Still no parallel build, only one of several problems. I already pointed
that out during the so called review [1] and I find it sad to see you
don't give anything about feedback, good advice and not even the
packaging guidelines.
Regards,
Christoph
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=502920
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: rpms/polkit-gnome/devel polkit-gnome.spec, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.1, 1.2
Am Dienstag, den 09.06.2009, 09:28 -0400 schrieb Matthias Clasen: On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 14:58 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote: # for /usr/share/gnome/autostart Requires: gnome-session Great! This adds gnome-session: 1.8 MB control-center: 7.1 MB GConf2: 5,5 MB gnome-keyring: 2,3 MB gnome-vfs2: 3.1 MB You added at least ~ 22,8 MB overhead just for directory ownership, although I asked you to _not_ do this. I think users of alternative desktops and the maintainers of their spins will not be amused. Last week you told me, that a one advantage of the new polkit is that no longer requires GConf2, but now it's dragged in again. Your anger is misdirected. My anger is because people don't honor our packaging guidelines not even if they are asked to do so. The guidelines are very clear in this case: Multiple packages have files in a common directory but none of them requires others. [...] In this case, each package must own the /usr/share/Foo/Animal/ directory. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership Complain to the rpm people for not handling directories in a sane way. Or better still, send them a patch... Correct me if I'm wrong, but the problem with rpm is that an empty, unowned dir is left behind if * it's no longer owned by any package * packages got uninstalled in the wrong order Both are reasons for duplicate ownership, not to mention the large overhead that is pulled in. Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Dear VTE maintainer (Re: Broken dependencies in Fedora 11 - 2009-06-09)
Am Dienstag, den 09.06.2009, 20:00 + schrieb Michael Schwendt: The following packages in the repository suffer from broken dependencies: == The results in this summary consider Test Updates! == package: lxterminal-0.1.4-2.fc11.i586 from fedora-11-i386 unresolved deps: libvte.so.9 Dear VTE maintainer, please consider announcing updates that will break 32 packages and please use fedora-devel-announce. TIA! Kind regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: GDM Language list...
Am Freitag, den 05.06.2009, 20:30 +0530 schrieb Ankitkumar Rameshchandra Patel: Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Le Ven 5 juin 2009 15:06, Ankitkumar Rameshchandra Patel a écrit : applications like gedit, nautilus showing square boxes instead of Hindi text. Actually, in F11 they'll show a nice popup suggesting to look for and autoinstall hindi fonts. So this part is already fixed (maybe not in all apps but in pango-based apps at least) That's good to know. Thanks Nicolas. But, it's not only the matter of fonts, rather language support which includes - fonts, input method (and maps), spell checker, openoffice langpack, kde langpack and language packs for various other applications. So, how are we going to solve those things? By doing yum install hindi-support?! We cannot put all languages on the LiveCD because there is not enough space. Currently the group hindi-support looks like this: group idhindi-support/id _nameHindi Support/_name _description/ defaultfalse/default uservisibletrue/uservisible langonlyhi/langonly packagelist packagereq type=mandatorylohit-hindi-fonts/packagereq packagereq type=mandatorym17n-contrib-hindi/packagereq packagereq type=mandatorym17n-db-hindi/packagereq packagereq type=conditional requires=aspellaspell-hi/packagereq packagereq type=conditional requires=gcomprisgcompris-sound-hi/packagereq packagereq type=conditional requires=hunspellhunspell-hi/packagereq packagereq type=conditional requires=hyphenhyphen-hi/packagereq packagereq type=conditional requires=xorg-x11-server-Xorgibus-m17n/packagereq packagereq type=conditional requires=kdelibs3kde-i18n-Hindi/packagereq packagereq type=conditional requires=kdelibskde-l10n-Hindi/packagereq packagereq type=conditional requires=moodlemoodle-hi/packagereq packagereq type=conditional requires=openoffice.org-coreopenoffice.org-langpack-hi_IN/packagereq packagereq type=defaultiok/packagereq packagereq type=defaultsamyak-devanagari-fonts/packagereq packagereq type=defaultsarai-fonts/packagereq /packagelist /group Is there something you are missing? Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: I must be doing something seriously wrong...
Am Samstag, den 23.05.2009, 09:52 -0400 schrieb Josh Boyer: On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 10:35:58PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote: Also I've got a notion that FESCo recently approves more and more proposals without asking the community for opinions first and even in opposition to the community. I can't recall that being the case. There certainly may have been some proposals that were opened during the week that were discussed on that Friday, but we aren't creating secret proposals and voting on them. All of them come directly from contributors (usually via fedora-devel discussions) and are logged in the open fesco trac instance for the meetings. When the flags proposal was announced to fedora-devel, so so a public decision-making could take place *before* making a policy? The proposal was not announced, it's ratification nether and the policy was active for months without anybody getting informed. This is what I'd call a secret. 3. If someone really needs docs, he will realize this himself, because he is missing knowledge. For flags he doesn't. How is a deluge user supposed the realize the lack of a function? Deluge is clearly spelled out in the guideline as not needing flags for functionality. Is that statement incorrect? Please note the difference between a function and functionality. Of course the missing flags do not impact the basic function of deluge which is sharing files, but there is certain functionality missing. People can no longer see the location of their peers on a quick glance and have to read instead. I don't find that concerning. Maybe it will help literacy. Hopefully, but the original question is still unanswered then: How is a deluge user supposed the realize the lack of single a function? josh Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: I must be doing something seriously wrong...
Am Mittwoch, den 27.05.2009, 19:20 +0200 schrieb Jochen Schmitt: Christoph Wickert schrieb: When the flags proposal was announced to fedora-devel, so so a public decision-making could take place *before* making a policy? The proposal was not announced, it's ratification nether and the policy was active for months without anybody getting informed. This is what I'd call a secret. Even the title of thei policy was a bad chosen, because you may thought, the the usage of compiler flags may be the topic of this policy. Hopefully, but the original question is still unanswered then: How is a deluge user supposed the realize the lack of single a function? My opinion is to drop the flag policy entirely, so the flags should be integrated into the application as planed by the upstream. Let's not start this discussion again. ;) I'm glad FESCo did the right thing by withdrawing the policy (at least for now). Best Regards: Jochen Schmitt Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
