Re: Proposal: fedora-release-rawhide subpackage
On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 14:43 +0100, Till Maas wrote: On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 02:02:24PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:24:05 +0100 Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote: You propose that the repo should be enabled by default if the package is installed. I don't like this. This make it a lot easier to break a system with Rawhide, if one installs the repo file, e.g. only to be able to easily download the src.rpm files with yumdownloader or to query it with repoquery, but not to actually install the unsigned packages from it. How many folks do this? I suppose this is a downside... we could also ship it with default disabled, so you would need to install and then enable it. I guess the use of repoquery for rawhide is quite common for Fedora developers who want to inspect the impact of updating their packages. Also I guess at least the selective installation of some Rawhide package might be quite common to verify bugfixes. IMHO developers and debuggers can install the additional package.. Imho the danger of accidently breaking the system is a lot higher if there is a package that will auto-destruct the system with the next yum update than it is with the current setup, where a manual change of a config file is required. You don't have to edit the config file, it's enough to run yum with --enablerepo=rawhide (or --enablerepo=* !). +1 for branching, with default disabled. -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Bodhi CA problem
Hi, for some time now I've been experiencing the following problem with bodhi: $ make update Creating a new update for gromacs-4.0.7-1.el4 gromacs-4.0.7-1.el5 Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/bin/bodhi, line 360, in module main() File /usr/bin/bodhi, line 153, in main data = bodhi.save(**update_args) File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/fedora/client/bodhi.py, line 111, in save 'bugs': bugs, File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/fedora/client/baseclient.py, line 316, in send_request req_params = req_params, auth_params = auth_params) File /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/fedora/client/proxyclient.py, line 275, in send_request request.perform() pycurl.error: (60, 'Peer certificate cannot be authenticated with known CA certificates') make: *** [bodhi] Error 1 What's the problem and how do I fix it? -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Can some provenpackager bump openvpn in EL-5
On Wed, 2009-12-30 at 08:55 +0530, Huzaifa Sidhpurwala wrote: Hi, I have this bz open for some time now, with no response. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=544944 Can some one with proven packager access bump the EL-5 version to the latest one in devel. Even though any proven packager could do the change, that bug does not fall in the items listed in the proven packager policy [1]. You haven't listed any problems with the current package, you're just requesting a version upgrade. Version upgrades should be performed by the package maintainer. This especially holds in EPEL, which should be a slowly moving distribution. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Who_is_allowed_to_modify_which_packages -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Can some provenpackager bump openvpn in EL-5
On Wed, 2009-12-30 at 16:35 +0530, Huzaifa Sidhpurwala wrote: Jussi Lehtola wrote: Even though any proven packager could do the change, that bug does not fall in the items listed in the proven packager policy [1]. You haven't listed any problems with the current package, you're just requesting a version upgrade. The version of openvpn in EPEL is an upstream rc version. The Changelog file upstream shows a lot of bugs have been fixed and it would be nice to have it fixed in EPEL too. OK, that's starting to sound better. Version upgrades should be performed by the package maintainer. This especially holds in EPEL, which should be a slowly moving distribution. In this case the bz is around 2.5 weeks old, with absolutely no response. What is the policy to get the package updated in this case? See the nonresponsive maintainer policy at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Pondus license change GPLv3+ - MIT
Hi all, pondus was previously licensed under GPLv3+; now starting from 0.7.0 the license is MIT. -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
rpms/perl-Net-UPnP/devel .cvsignore, 1.2, 1.3 perl-Net-UPnP.spec, 1.3, 1.4 sources, 1.2, 1.3
Author: jussilehtola
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Net-UPnP/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv27284
Modified Files:
.cvsignore perl-Net-UPnP.spec sources
Log Message:
Update to 1.4.2. Fix rpm versioning with Epoch 1.
Index: .cvsignore
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Net-UPnP/devel/.cvsignore,v
retrieving revision 1.2
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -p -r1.2 -r1.3
--- .cvsignore 18 Apr 2009 07:25:31 - 1.2
+++ .cvsignore 27 Dec 2009 15:34:21 - 1.3
@@ -1 +1 @@
-Net-UPnP-1.41.tar.gz
+Net-UPnP-1.4.2.tar.gz
Index: perl-Net-UPnP.spec
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Net-UPnP/devel/perl-Net-UPnP.spec,v
retrieving revision 1.3
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -p -r1.3 -r1.4
--- perl-Net-UPnP.spec 7 Dec 2009 18:13:56 - 1.3
+++ perl-Net-UPnP.spec 27 Dec 2009 15:34:21 - 1.4
@@ -1,11 +1,12 @@
Name: perl-Net-UPnP
-Version: 1.41
-Release: 5%{?dist}
+Version: 1.4.2
+Epoch: 1
+Release: 1%{?dist}
Summary: Perl extension for UPnP
License: BSD
Group: Development/Libraries
URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Net-UPnP/
-Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/S/SK/SKONNO/Net-UPnP-%{version}.tar.gz
+Source0:
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/S/SK/SKONNO/Net-UPnP-%{version}.tar.gz
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildArch: noarch
BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
@@ -33,20 +34,20 @@ done
make %{?_smp_mflags}
%install
-rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+rm -rf %{buildroot}
-make pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+make pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=%{buildroot}
-find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} \;
-find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2/dev/null \;
+find %{buildroot} -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} \;
+find %{buildroot} -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2/dev/null \;
-%{_fixperms} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/*
+%{_fixperms} %{buildroot}/*
%check
make test
%clean
-rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+rm -rf %{buildroot}
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
@@ -55,18 +56,22 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
-* Mon Dec 7 2009 Stepan Kasal ska...@redhat.com - 1.41-5
+* Sun Dec 27 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussileht...@fedoraproject.org - 1:1.4.2-1
+- Update to 1.4.2.
+- Fix spelling in rpm version: 1.4.1 instead of previous 1.41.
+
+* Mon Dec 7 2009 Stepan Kasal ska...@redhat.com - 1.4.1-5
- rebuild against perl 5.10.1
-* Sun Jul 26 2009 Fedora Release Engineering rel-...@lists.fedoraproject.org
- 1.41-4
+* Sun Jul 26 2009 Fedora Release Engineering rel-...@lists.fedoraproject.org
- 1.4.1-4
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_12_Mass_Rebuild
-* Wed Apr 15 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi - 1.41-3
+* Wed Apr 15 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussileht...@fedoraproject.org - 1.4.1-3
- Review fixes.
-* Sun Apr 12 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi - 1.41-2
+* Sun Apr 12 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussileht...@fedoraproject.org - 1.4.1-2
- Add missing BR: Test::More.
-* Sun Apr 12 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi - 1.41-1
+* Sun Apr 12 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussileht...@fedoraproject.org - 1.4.1-1
- Specfile autogenerated by cpanspec 1.77.
Index: sources
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Net-UPnP/devel/sources,v
retrieving revision 1.2
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -p -r1.2 -r1.3
--- sources 18 Apr 2009 07:25:31 - 1.2
+++ sources 27 Dec 2009 15:34:21 - 1.3
@@ -1 +1 @@
-7fec0b93c8f7bc62057e06852dd4b722 Net-UPnP-1.41.tar.gz
+bc009fd76b565df40a70aca49af82a7d Net-UPnP-1.4.2.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-Net-UPnP/EL-5 perl-Net-UPnP.spec,1.1,1.2 sources,1.2,1.3
Author: jussilehtola
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Net-UPnP/EL-5
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv31680a/EL-5
Modified Files:
perl-Net-UPnP.spec sources
Log Message:
Update to 1.4.2. Fix rpm versioning with Epoch 1.
Index: perl-Net-UPnP.spec
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Net-UPnP/EL-5/perl-Net-UPnP.spec,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -p -r1.1 -r1.2
--- perl-Net-UPnP.spec 18 Apr 2009 07:27:30 - 1.1
+++ perl-Net-UPnP.spec 27 Dec 2009 15:50:38 - 1.2
@@ -1,11 +1,12 @@
Name: perl-Net-UPnP
-Version: 1.41
-Release: 3%{?dist}
+Version: 1.4.2
+Epoch: 1
+Release: 1%{?dist}
Summary: Perl extension for UPnP
License: BSD
Group: Development/Libraries
URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Net-UPnP/
-Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/S/SK/SKONNO/Net-UPnP-%{version}.tar.gz
+Source0:
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/S/SK/SKONNO/Net-UPnP-%{version}.tar.gz
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildArch: noarch
BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
@@ -33,20 +34,20 @@ done
make %{?_smp_mflags}
%install
-rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+rm -rf %{buildroot}
-make pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+make pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=%{buildroot}
-find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} \;
-find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2/dev/null \;
+find %{buildroot} -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} \;
+find %{buildroot} -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2/dev/null \;
-%{_fixperms} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/*
+%{_fixperms} %{buildroot}/*
%check
make test
%clean
-rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+rm -rf %{buildroot}
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
@@ -55,12 +56,22 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
-* Wed Apr 15 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi - 1.41-3
+* Sun Dec 27 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussileht...@fedoraproject.org - 1:1.4.2-1
+- Update to 1.4.2.
+- Fix spelling in rpm version: 1.4.1 instead of previous 1.41.
+
+* Mon Dec 7 2009 Stepan Kasal ska...@redhat.com - 1.4.1-5
+- rebuild against perl 5.10.1
+
+* Sun Jul 26 2009 Fedora Release Engineering rel-...@lists.fedoraproject.org
- 1.4.1-4
+- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_12_Mass_Rebuild
+
+* Wed Apr 15 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussileht...@fedoraproject.org - 1.4.1-3
- Review fixes.
-* Sun Apr 12 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi - 1.41-2
+* Sun Apr 12 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussileht...@fedoraproject.org - 1.4.1-2
- Add missing BR: Test::More.
-* Sun Apr 12 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi - 1.41-1
+* Sun Apr 12 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussileht...@fedoraproject.org - 1.4.1-1
- Specfile autogenerated by cpanspec 1.77.
Index: sources
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Net-UPnP/EL-5/sources,v
retrieving revision 1.2
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -p -r1.2 -r1.3
--- sources 18 Apr 2009 07:27:30 - 1.2
+++ sources 27 Dec 2009 15:50:38 - 1.3
@@ -1 +1 @@
-7fec0b93c8f7bc62057e06852dd4b722 Net-UPnP-1.41.tar.gz
+bc009fd76b565df40a70aca49af82a7d Net-UPnP-1.4.2.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-Net-UPnP/F-11 perl-Net-UPnP.spec,1.1,1.2 sources,1.2,1.3
Author: jussilehtola
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Net-UPnP/F-11
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv31680a/F-11
Modified Files:
perl-Net-UPnP.spec sources
Log Message:
Update to 1.4.2. Fix rpm versioning with Epoch 1.
Index: perl-Net-UPnP.spec
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Net-UPnP/F-11/perl-Net-UPnP.spec,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -p -r1.1 -r1.2
--- perl-Net-UPnP.spec 18 Apr 2009 07:27:30 - 1.1
+++ perl-Net-UPnP.spec 27 Dec 2009 15:50:39 - 1.2
@@ -1,11 +1,12 @@
Name: perl-Net-UPnP
-Version: 1.41
-Release: 3%{?dist}
+Version: 1.4.2
+Epoch: 1
+Release: 1%{?dist}
Summary: Perl extension for UPnP
License: BSD
Group: Development/Libraries
URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Net-UPnP/
-Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/S/SK/SKONNO/Net-UPnP-%{version}.tar.gz
+Source0:
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/S/SK/SKONNO/Net-UPnP-%{version}.tar.gz
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildArch: noarch
BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
@@ -33,20 +34,20 @@ done
make %{?_smp_mflags}
%install
-rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+rm -rf %{buildroot}
-make pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+make pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=%{buildroot}
-find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} \;
-find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2/dev/null \;
+find %{buildroot} -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} \;
+find %{buildroot} -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2/dev/null \;
-%{_fixperms} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/*
+%{_fixperms} %{buildroot}/*
%check
make test
%clean
-rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+rm -rf %{buildroot}
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
@@ -55,12 +56,22 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
-* Wed Apr 15 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi - 1.41-3
+* Sun Dec 27 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussileht...@fedoraproject.org - 1:1.4.2-1
+- Update to 1.4.2.
+- Fix spelling in rpm version: 1.4.1 instead of previous 1.41.
+
+* Mon Dec 7 2009 Stepan Kasal ska...@redhat.com - 1.4.1-5
+- rebuild against perl 5.10.1
+
+* Sun Jul 26 2009 Fedora Release Engineering rel-...@lists.fedoraproject.org
- 1.4.1-4
+- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_12_Mass_Rebuild
+
+* Wed Apr 15 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussileht...@fedoraproject.org - 1.4.1-3
- Review fixes.
-* Sun Apr 12 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi - 1.41-2
+* Sun Apr 12 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussileht...@fedoraproject.org - 1.4.1-2
- Add missing BR: Test::More.
-* Sun Apr 12 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi - 1.41-1
+* Sun Apr 12 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussileht...@fedoraproject.org - 1.4.1-1
- Specfile autogenerated by cpanspec 1.77.
Index: sources
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Net-UPnP/F-11/sources,v
retrieving revision 1.2
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -p -r1.2 -r1.3
--- sources 18 Apr 2009 07:27:30 - 1.2
+++ sources 27 Dec 2009 15:50:39 - 1.3
@@ -1 +1 @@
-7fec0b93c8f7bc62057e06852dd4b722 Net-UPnP-1.41.tar.gz
+bc009fd76b565df40a70aca49af82a7d Net-UPnP-1.4.2.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-Net-UPnP/F-12 perl-Net-UPnP.spec,1.2,1.3 sources,1.2,1.3
Author: jussilehtola
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Net-UPnP/F-12
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv31680a/F-12
Modified Files:
perl-Net-UPnP.spec sources
Log Message:
Update to 1.4.2. Fix rpm versioning with Epoch 1.
Index: perl-Net-UPnP.spec
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Net-UPnP/F-12/perl-Net-UPnP.spec,v
retrieving revision 1.2
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -p -r1.2 -r1.3
--- perl-Net-UPnP.spec 26 Jul 2009 13:48:05 - 1.2
+++ perl-Net-UPnP.spec 27 Dec 2009 15:50:39 - 1.3
@@ -1,11 +1,12 @@
Name: perl-Net-UPnP
-Version: 1.41
-Release: 4%{?dist}
+Version: 1.4.2
+Epoch: 1
+Release: 1%{?dist}
Summary: Perl extension for UPnP
License: BSD
Group: Development/Libraries
URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Net-UPnP/
-Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/S/SK/SKONNO/Net-UPnP-%{version}.tar.gz
+Source0:
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/S/SK/SKONNO/Net-UPnP-%{version}.tar.gz
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildArch: noarch
BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
@@ -33,20 +34,20 @@ done
make %{?_smp_mflags}
%install
-rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+rm -rf %{buildroot}
-make pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+make pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=%{buildroot}
-find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} \;
-find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2/dev/null \;
+find %{buildroot} -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} \;
+find %{buildroot} -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2/dev/null \;
-%{_fixperms} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/*
+%{_fixperms} %{buildroot}/*
%check
make test
%clean
-rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+rm -rf %{buildroot}
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
@@ -55,15 +56,22 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
-* Sun Jul 26 2009 Fedora Release Engineering rel-...@lists.fedoraproject.org
- 1.41-4
+* Sun Dec 27 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussileht...@fedoraproject.org - 1:1.4.2-1
+- Update to 1.4.2.
+- Fix spelling in rpm version: 1.4.1 instead of previous 1.41.
+
+* Mon Dec 7 2009 Stepan Kasal ska...@redhat.com - 1.4.1-5
+- rebuild against perl 5.10.1
+
+* Sun Jul 26 2009 Fedora Release Engineering rel-...@lists.fedoraproject.org
- 1.4.1-4
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_12_Mass_Rebuild
-* Wed Apr 15 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi - 1.41-3
+* Wed Apr 15 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussileht...@fedoraproject.org - 1.4.1-3
- Review fixes.
-* Sun Apr 12 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi - 1.41-2
+* Sun Apr 12 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussileht...@fedoraproject.org - 1.4.1-2
- Add missing BR: Test::More.
-* Sun Apr 12 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi - 1.41-1
+* Sun Apr 12 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussileht...@fedoraproject.org - 1.4.1-1
- Specfile autogenerated by cpanspec 1.77.
Index: sources
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Net-UPnP/F-12/sources,v
retrieving revision 1.2
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -p -r1.2 -r1.3
--- sources 18 Apr 2009 07:25:31 - 1.2
+++ sources 27 Dec 2009 15:50:39 - 1.3
@@ -1 +1 @@
-7fec0b93c8f7bc62057e06852dd4b722 Net-UPnP-1.41.tar.gz
+bc009fd76b565df40a70aca49af82a7d Net-UPnP-1.4.2.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
Re: Question about a lib requires
On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 11:01 -0600, Jon Ciesla wrote: Nicoleau Fabien wrote: I'm packaging a software that requires : /usr/bin/jpegtran (provided by libjpeg) and /usr/bin/tiffinfo (provided by libtiff). If I explicitely put libjpeg and libtiff in Requires, rpmlint complains because I don't let RPM find the libs. Is there a way to include these requires properly ? (like adding directly /usr/bin/jpegtran and /usr/bin/tiffinfo in Requires). Yes. Requires: /usr/bin/jpegtran Requires: /usr/bin/tiffinfo Does it really just need the binaries and not the libs, just that rpm would auto-Require the libjpeg and libtiff RPMs? And if it actually needs the binaries, then you can just put in Requires: libjpeg, libtiff and safely ignore the rpmlint warning. AFAIK resolving file dependencies is a lot slower than resolving explicit dependencies. -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Create a -cli package without a different executable
On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 18:12 +0100, Nicoleau Fabien wrote: My question is : is it good to provide a -cli package that does not provides a separate script or executable file, and that will work only if the user is carefull to not launch it in a way that it does not require a graphic lib (without parameters in that context) ? The design seems idiotic. Anyway, you have to weigh the surplus of admins not having to install graphical stuff on their servers versus the possible problems caused by new users trying to work the package in a way it isn't supposed to be used. I'd say: it's up to the packager. -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Deprecation of LAM/MPI?
Hi, First of all, I'm not the maintainer of LAM, but since Doug seems to be busy with other things I took the liberty of taking things into my own hands: I really would like everything to confer to the MPI guidelines in Fedora 13, but the problem is that so far no-one has volunteered to rework the LAM/MPI package to conform to the new guidelines [1]. IMHO LAM/MPI could be safely pulled out from Fedora 13, since it was obsoleted by Open MPI 3 years ago. Any thoughts? Does someone care deeply enough about LAM to take ownership and fix the package? [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=523998 -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 16:59 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Le Mar 24 novembre 2009 16:00, Chris Adams a écrit : What is the real maintenance cost? You have said that core fonts are not going away, so the maintenance cost will not go away. The costs could go down to nothing if there was no core font user left in Fedora .. continuing the reasoning: if there were no packages in Fedora, the maintenance costs would vanish. However, there is still a justification for legacy software. Even if some utility only supported the ASCII code set, it would be stupid to bar its inclusion just because it doesn't support UTF-8, as it probably was not designed to serve that purpose. If you don't want to maintain something, then the normal way is to orphan it and let someone else take the job, not badger everybody else using the thing you don't want to maintain anymore. Does not work that way. If it was a clear package dependency, I could orphan the stuff, and all the people who complain at me now would be forced to take themselves in charge and do the work needed by the stuff they use. Because of the brain-damaged way core fonts were specified, the dependency is not expressed in that way and I can not stop caring about core fonts without stopping caring about other fonts (because as long as I have a fonts hat, and no one has a core fonts one, people come to me by default and don't want to hear about differences in font systems). Don't fix what ain't broken. There are always st00p1d users asking silly questions on the internet. Instead of ranting about legacy fonts that have been used for decades, you can direct your energy towards something useful: making sure that new fonts that are compatible with modern font handling systems are correctly packaged. -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora security updates to full disclosure ?
On Sat, 2009-11-07 at 14:44 +0100, Jerome Benoit wrote: Hello, Like all major Linux distro, I really think Fedora should push security updates information to full disclosure mailing list ... What do you mean? The info for security updates is pushed to fedora-package-announce just as for normal updates. For instance: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-package-announce/2009-November/thread.html -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Major reorganization of TeX Live packages
On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 10:31 -0400, Neal Becker wrote: On F11 I get: kpathsea-2007-42.fc11.x86_64 from installed has depsolving problems -- Missing Dependency: texlive = 2007-42.fc11 is needed by package kpathsea-2007-42.fc11.x86_64 (installed) Error: Missing Dependency: texlive = 2007-42.fc11 is needed by package kpathsea-2007-42.fc11.x86_64 (installed) First, you need to enable enable the updates-testing repository. Then, you need to wait until the new kpathsea package hits the updates-testing repository: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/texlive-2007-46.fc11 Or, you can fetch the new build of kpathsea manually from http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=137909 -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: conflict between libotf and openmpi
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 22:55 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
On Wednesday 16 September 2009, Jay Fenlason wrote:
otfdump will be in
openmpi-devel: %{_libdir}/%{name}/bin/ where it won't interfere with
libotf.
IIUC this will only help wrt. the packaging conflict; interference still
happens as $PATH changes e.g. when loading/unloading the openmpi modules. I
don't think there's any other way around that issue besides renaming one of
the executables, but whether that's worth doing/necessary is another thing.
Yes, that is true. If the openmpi module is loaded then Open MPI's
otfdump will be used. I'm not sure whether this is a problem, though,
since the module is not loaded by default and one does not run into any
conflicts. Renaming binaries is a nuisance, too.
--
Jussi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussileht...@fedoraproject.org
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [Fedora-packaging] Processing Review Requests
On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 21:21 +0530, Shakthi Kannan wrote: Hi, I would like to know: This message is off-topic to this list. Redirecting discussion to fedora-devel-l...@redhat.com. 1. If there is a comprehensive contact list of Fedora Packagers who are allowed to sponsor packages? Is the list available somewhere that new joinees can use, and contact Fedora packagers? or is it always that whenever a Sponsor looks into FE-NEEDSPONSOR review requests in bugzilla, the package is reviewed? Yes, you can look in FAS who have sponsor status in the Packager group. Normally sponsors look for review requests needing sponsors, but if you've been waiting for very long you can mail fedora-devel-list and ask for someone to have a look at your package. 2. Is there a queue of review requests that is maintained, say, for example a review-request that has not been reviewed for a month, should be given first priority or is there any criteria as such? or is it left to the Packagers? Not especially, but the review bugs have bug numbers that are in increasing order in time, so older reviews have smaller numbers. Picking what to review is up to the packager. -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: TeX Live 2009 for Fedora
On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 17:10 +0200, Jindrich Novy wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 04:48:49PM +0300, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
It seems your spec making program has some bugs, as some packages have
names such as texlive-csplain.ARCH, this probably shouldn't be..?
Nope, it is intentional. It is needed to somehow distinguish the
noarch and arch-dependent part. So package texlive-csplain contains
the noarch bits and texlive-csplain.ARCH ships the binaries.
Wouldn't it be better to have texlive-csplain%{_isa} shipping the arch
dependent bits and a texlive-csplain-common.noarch shipping the arch
independent stuff? That would be more in line with other packages.
--
Jussi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussileht...@fedoraproject.org
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: TeX Live 2009 for Fedora
On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 14:44 +0200, Jindrich Novy wrote: Hi, TeX Live 2009 pretest is now available via external repository for testing in Fedora: rpm -Uhv http://jnovy.fedorapeople.org/texlive/texlive-release-2009-0.1.fc11.noarch.rpm Maybe a good idea is to start directly with TeX Live 2009 in Fedora because TL 2008 has different package set and TL 2009 contains newest packages and will likely be released this year. And before that we can help with testing :) My current effort is aimed to font packaging so that the fonts are available to non-TeX Live users as well. It seems your spec making program has some bugs, as some packages have names such as texlive-csplain.ARCH, this probably shouldn't be..? When I try to install texlive-scheme-full on F11 x86_64 I get a bunch of errors due to missing packages: -- Missing Dependency: texlive-findhyph is needed by package texlive-collection-binextra-2009-14758.fc11.noarch (texlive) Error: Missing Dependency: texlive-germkorr is needed by package texlive-collection-langgerman-2009-14751.fc11.noarch (texlive) Error: Missing Dependency: texlive-spverbatim is needed by package texlive-collection-latexextra-2009-14750.fc11.noarch (texlive) Error: Missing Dependency: texlive-fig4latex is needed by package texlive-collection-pictures-2009-14752.fc11.noarch (texlive) Error: Missing Dependency: texlive-findhyph is needed by package texlive-collection-binextra-2009-14758.fc11.noarch (texlive) Error: Missing Dependency: texlive-titlepic is needed by package texlive-collection-latexextra-2009-14750.fc11.noarch (texlive) -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: F12 to require i686, but which CPUs do not qualify?
On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 14:37 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: Joachim (joachim.frie...@googlemail.com) said: Moreover, it is even pulled in by basic packages like gnome-games (!). Well, you know, if you want to play sudoku, you *need* a linear algebra package. (See earlier threads about numpy dependencies in pygtk.) But one can compile against LAPACK, which admittedly is slower than ATLAS, but works like a charm. -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
--target in %configure in rawhide i386
Hi, why does %configure still use --build=i686-pc-linux-gnu --host=i686-pc-linux-gnu --target=i586-redhat-linux-gnu in rawhide i386, shouldn't the target be i686-redhat-linux-gnu? -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: --target in %configure in rawhide i386
On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 18:34 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 08/08/2009 12:19 PM, Jussi Lehtola wrote: Hi, why does %configure still use --build=i686-pc-linux-gnu --host=i686-pc-linux-gnu --target=i586-redhat-linux-gnu in rawhide i386, shouldn't the target be i686-redhat-linux-gnu? --target should not be set at all. It's meaningless for 99.9% of all packages. .. and it causes trouble in the 0.1% of packages: compilers. At least the pcc build scripts think that a cross-compilation is in course, since the host and target arguments differ. -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Review
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 12:34 +0400, Peter Lemenkov wrote: Hello All! 2009/8/5 Jonathan MERCIER bioinfornat...@gmail.com: Dear sir, I have an old bug : https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=482757 This person want a review someone can review this software please. Thanks kind regards Jonathan, you may review this srpm by yourself. Don't be afraid, just step in :) Others, will help you, if you missed something during review. The bug depends on FE-NEEDSPONSOR, and Jonathan isn't a sponsor. (I'm not very sure, however, about the current policy of wanting sponsors to review first packages. IMHO anyone should be able to review them, just as long as a sponsor goes through them and some inofficial reviews by the submitter. It's less work for the sponsor that way :D) However, the last committer activity has been April, and my comments a month ago haven't been taken into account yet. -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Review
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 12:17 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: JL == Jussi Lehtola jussileht...@fedoraproject.org writes: JL (I'm not very sure, however, about the current policy of wanting JL sponsors to review first packages. IMHO anyone should be able to JL review them, just as long as a sponsor goes through them and some JL inofficial reviews by the submitter. It's less work for the sponsor JL that way :D) Anyone can review anything, sponsor, sponsored, or not a packager at all. The difference is who can approve a package and sponsor contributors. It is certainly quite reasonable for a non-sponsor to review that package and get it into shape so that a sponsor can come along, double check, and click the various buttons. That's what I think, too, but http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#Get_Sponsored thinks otherwise: First reviews for new packagers must be done by registered sponsors. Informal reviews can be done by anyone interested. Maybe that note should be removed? -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: License change for ghostscript
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 11:33 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 00:15 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: I should probably talk to Spot about that. So, the rule here is that we don't take outside linking into effect when marking the package's licensing. We go by what the source in the tarball tells us. Otherwise, it would become massively too complicated to figure it out for a lot of packages. I see that, but it presents a rather significant problem. Say we have something whose own license is LGPLv2+ - let's call it Component B - linking against something whose license is GPLv3 (Component C). Component B is then effectively GPLv3, but our license tags will not reflect that. If there is something _else_ that in turn links against Component B - call it Component A - and we want to find out whether there's a license conflict, we will treat Component B, for license checking purposes, as if it were LGPLv2+. But, for our purposes, it no longer is - we can only consider it to be GPLv3. So we may say that there's no problem with Component A linking against Component B, when actually there is... Apropos, what's the license in case a GPL package links against OpenSSL? GPL with exceptions or what? Or is it even allowed? -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
An easy way to redefine configure?
Hi,
related to the MPI packaging draft
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MPI
I have a need to redefine %configure to use ../configure instead
of ./configure to do off-root builds.
So far I've tried
%global dconfigure %(echo %{configure} | sed
's|./configure|../configure|g')
but calling
%dconfigure
gives me
+ CFLAGS=-O2
+ -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic
/var/tmp/rpm-tmp.mvjW71: line 42: -g: command not found
What's the correct way to do this?
--
Jussi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussileht...@fedoraproject.org
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: An easy way to redefine configure?
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 13:42 +0200, Mattias Ellert wrote: What's the correct way to do this? %global dconfigure %(rpm -E %%configure | sed 's!./configure!../configure!g') %dconfigure This works, but isn't it bad style to call rpm from within a spec file..? -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: An easy way to redefine configure?
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 14:47 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Jussi Lehtola jussileht...@fedoraproject.org writes:
So far I've tried
%global dconfigure %(echo %{configure} | sed
's|./configure|../configure|g')
Since %configure expands to a text containing double quotes this gets
the quoting wrong. Using single quotes work here (albeit still not
general enough):
%global dconfigure %(printf %%s '%configure' | sed
's!\./configure!../configure!g')
Thanks, this was what I was looking for.
--
Jussi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussileht...@fedoraproject.org
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Testing libsatsolver on Fedora
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 18:06 +0300, Jussi Lehtola wrote: On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 17:26 +0300, Jussi Lehtola wrote: To test things I've written a small application called solv that works like a very tiny package manager. It's available via: http://software.opensuse.org/search?baseproject=Fedora:11q=libsatsolver-demo Impressive: after the repository data has been downloaded, the calculation of the update from Fedora 10 (x86_64) to Fedora 11 takes less than two seconds (practically instantaneous!) on an Athlon64 X2 4600+. For a very unscientific comparison, it takes about 1m 40 sec for yum-3.2.23-3.fc10.noarch (with --disableplugin=*) to do the same. Actually, there's something quite wrong with these results: yum: Install172 Package(s) Update2388 Package(s) Remove 1 Package(s) solv: 1564 upgraded packages 76 installed packages 31 erased packages 1 arch changes from i386 to noarch 5 arch changes from x86_64 to noarch Downloading 1636 packages, 1812867 K so solv is clearly missing some features. -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Trouble with koji
edOn Wed, 2009-07-29 at 19:37 -0400, Jochen Schmitt wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am 29.07.2009 12:21, schrieb Mike Bonnet: The build of ghc-editline creates 3 subpackages ghc-editline-devel ghc-editline-doc ghc-editline-prof Thank you for your hint. Now it's works for Rawhide, but not for F-11. On F-11 I got DEBUG util.py:256: No Package Found for ghc-editline-devel The build you may find at: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1563427 A quick query on koji http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=8851 reveals that there is a succesful Fedora 11 build (a few even). A cross-check in the updates database https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/search/ghc-editline reveals no updates have been submitted. So the package has to be tagged to the buildroot or be available in the updates repository, first. -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: rawhide report: 20090729 changes
On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 23:30 +0100, Quentin Armitage wrote: The report shows there is a new version of rpm, version rpm-4.7.1-2.fc11.i586. The previous version, announced in the rawhide report 20090722 was rpm-4.7.1.1.fc12.i686. This update appears to be ^ going the wrong way, and it seems strange for an f12 version to be replaced by an f11 version. I noticed this because a yum update updated my rpm from 4.7.1.1.fc12.i686 to 4.7.1.2.fc11.i586. ^^ should be dashes. Are there other packages that are getting onto the Rawhide updates that are from earlier versions of Fedora, and inadvertently superseding the (later) Rawhide versions? AFAIK when the rawhide refresh is done the newest EVR is picked up in rawhide. A look at koji http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=319 reveals that there was a 19 hour window in between the F11 and F12 build (F11 being first), so the rawhide compose has been during that window. The next refresh should pick up the correct F12 version. -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Building boost-1.39.0-3.fc12.src.rpm on Fedora11
On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 15:31 -0400, Martin Dubuc wrote: I was successful building boost 1.39.0 from rawhide source RPM (using boost-1.39.0-3.fc12.src.rpm) for RHEL 5.3. Now, I need to compile the same package on a Fedora 11 server but I am getting some build error in the process: # rpm -ivh boost-1.39.0-3.fc12.src.rpm # cd /root/rpmbuild/SPECS # rpmbuild -bb boost.spec DO NOT BUILD RPMS AS ROOT! EVER! For example, a single wrongly placed 'rm' in the spec file can botch your system. To build RPMS: Make sure the following packages are installed # yum -y install rpmdevtools redhat-rpm-macros Setup an rpm build tree in your homedir $ rpmdev-setuptree and build the rpm with $ rpmbuild --rebuild boost-1.39.0-3.fc12.src.rpm Or, even better, you can use mock. -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Proposal to Drop Fedora 12 Features
On Fri, 2009-07-17 at 10:00 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: John Poelstra (poels...@redhat.com) said: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XZRpmPayloads https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F12X86Support Both updated now. Apologies for the dlay. Bill A possibly stupid question: The above page states that the flags will be -march=i686 -mtune=atom on i386, but a build I just did in rawhide has -march=i686 -mtune=generic so -march has changed but -mtune hasn't? -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: koji build dependencies in cloud computing project?
On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 16:16 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: You can't do chained scratch builds like Jeff wanted to do. So, if Package Foo BuildRequires packages Bar and Baz, Bar and Baz need to be in Fedora and built for the target. Then, you can do a scratch build of Foo. Or you can use mock to give you a clean shell, and do your scratch builds inside it manually. Or build the BR:s with mock and make a local repo and add it to the mock config. Then you can build the package normally. ... and, as said before, you can build it in Fedora once the requirements have been approved and built. -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: NVR bugs in rawhide
On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 15:37 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: %dist should be used always. No. Particulary for noarch data packages, using %dist bears an additional risk. Because it becomes possible to tag a package on multiple branches and break inheritance by building for more than the oldest branch. So, how do you do it without the %dist branch? AFAIK then you have to manually make sure that the EVR in F(N) is greater than that in F(N-1). Say I've built foo-1-1 in rawhide a year ago and thus the package is available now in F-10 and F-11. How do I update to foo-2-1 in both distros? In other cases, for example, %dist suggests that a spec/src.rpm would be dist-independent and could simply be copied to multiple branches. That doesn't need to be true. Yes, that is true. -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: NVR bugs in rawhide
On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 17:23 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: Say I've built foo-1-1 in rawhide a year ago and thus the package is available now in F-10 and F-11. How do I update to foo-2-1 in both distros? Whether with %dist or not, doesn't make a difference. You commit the upgrade to the branch that previously targeted rawhide. F-10 in your example. And it automatically ends up in F-11? I can't tag and build for F-11 if the tag with same EVR already exists in F-10. -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: NVR bugs in rawhide
On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 18:39 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:08:49 +0300, Jussi wrote:
On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 17:23 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Say I've built foo-1-1 in rawhide a year ago and thus the package is
available now in F-10 and F-11. How do I update to foo-2-1 in both
distros?
Whether with %dist or not, doesn't make a difference. You commit the
upgrade to the branch that previously targeted rawhide. F-10 in your
example.
And it automatically ends up in F-11?
With koji inheritance, yes.
I can't tag and build for F-11 if
the tag with same EVR already exists in F-10.
We're not talking about the same thing. Or to put it differently, you want
to prove something to me which I don't find relevant in this discussion.
I just don't understand the build system well enough yet to know how
this works. I agree that for packages that only contain stuff that is
going to be the same on every architecture and distribution (such as
packages consisting of PDF files) not using the %{?dist} tag is sane.
The question about rpm internals changing is related to this, but is a
separate issue. IMHO one should be able to tagbuild noarch packages for
multiple distributions at once to cope with the changes in rpm.
However, packages that are compiled in some way *really should* use the
%{?dist} tag, since that way they are upgraded when the distribution is
upgraded. (Or it can be easily seen that the compilation is obsolete.)
--
Jussi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussileht...@fedoraproject.org
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Something amock with rawhide?
Hello,
is something still haywire in rawhide? My build of Octave 3.2.0 hangs on
i586 with
*** glibc detected *** pdfetex: malloc(): memory corruption: 0x09a3c3a0
***
The package builds fine in x86_64 and ppc{,64}.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1473079 - task root
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1473086name=build.log
--
Jussi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussileht...@fedoraproject.org
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: x86_64 packages depends on i586.
On Sat, 2009-07-11 at 08:38 +0100, Joshua C. wrote: 2009/7/10 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com: On 07/10/2009 05:58 PM, Joshua C. wrote: I made a custom x86_64 livecd (f11) and found that the following x86_64 packages depend on i586 and i686. Is this an error when compiling those packages or they do need the 32 bits? I'm pretty sure you're looking at it wrong. I don't know but when I try to install one of those x86_64 packages it pulls the i586 as dependencies. I've pointed all repo files to x86_64 and I really don't know how and why this happens? The x86_64 repo contains some multilib packages. If you don't specify the wanted architecture when installing, yum might install both 32- and 64-bit versions if available. Try adding the .x86_64 arch specifier, e.g. instead of # yum install foo perform # yum install foo.x86_64 -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
rpm %defattr question
Hi, is the default attribute definition %defattr(-,root,root) the same as %defattr(-,root,root,-)? -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: noarch subpackages
On Thu, 2009-07-09 at 18:28 +0200, Farkas Levente wrote:
Except it should be:
%if 0%{?fedora} 9 || 0%{?rhel} 5
it'd be nice if _all_ packages which have noarch subpackage use this
since most fedora packager reply to my such patches that they don't care
about rhel/centos:-(
This should really be a macro in rpm, as it has to be duplicated in so
many places. Say, %{_noarch_subpackage} which would expand to
%if 0%{?fedora} 9 || 0%{?rhel} 5
BuildArch: noarch
%endif
--
Jussi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussileht...@fedoraproject.org
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: noarch subpackages
Lainaus yersinia yersinia.spi...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Rick L. Vinyard, Jr.
rviny...@cs.nmsu.eduwrote:
Jussi Lehtola wrote:
This should really be a macro in rpm, as it has to be duplicated in so
many places. Say, %{_noarch_subpackage} which would expand to
Yes, it really should. Otherwise, some will look like:
clip
If you need further proof of the confusion simply look to this thread.
Plus it is more expressive as to what the intent of the check is for,
allowing a smoother migration process if, in the future, a check is put in
for the rpm version.
So you agreed that the check is on the rpm version, not distro version.
That would be up to the distro guys to do, since they can define the
macro how they wish. SuSe might define it to use their corresponding
%{dist} variable. Or, it could be defined to evaluate to empty, if the
rpm version doesn't support it. Or, it could evaluate just the noarch
bit.
The beauty of this is, of course, that you could even skip the
conditionals and just define the macro per distro basis (e.g. in the
redhat-rpm-macros package): the macro in F-10 could be just %{nil} and
in F-11 BuildArch: noarch.
There has been some discussion about versioning rpm specfiles, but I
don't know whether that discussion lead anywhere.
--
Jussi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussileht...@fedoraproject.org
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: delaying an update
On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 09:30 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: Christoph Höger on 07/08/2009 09:21 AM wrote: how do I do that? Since you have not submitted it for stable I do not see any problem. Don't do anything. :) You might want to disable the automatic push to stable, though, in case the package gets too much karma.. -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Broken dependencies in Rawhide - 2009-07-07
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 15:47 +, Michael Schwendt wrote: The following packages in the repository suffer from broken dependencies: package: pypar-2.1.0_66-3.fc10.i386 from fedora-development-i386 unresolved deps: libpython2.5.so.1.0 python(abi) = 0:2.5 I haven't been able to build the package due to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499851 and have deferred doing a workaround to cope with a problem that is inherently in opempi. And it's not the only one, either: the environment module is messed up, and will override the build environment variables if it is loaded. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476844 Related to this is bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504357 Openmpi needs some TLC. -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Why do we need FC version attached to the package name?
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 09:31 +0200, Jesse Keating wrote: On Jun 22, 2009, at 9:26, Rahul Sundaram sunda...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On 06/22/2009 12:54 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: Not possible while we allow people to keep making updates to the older releases. Those updates quickly become version ( not just release even ) higher than the static copies on the release medium and repos. Is there any proposed solution to this problem? We can't just continue to break upgrade paths and call it the way things are done. If you have any ideas I'd like to hear them. A super epoch has already been suggested but that just masks the problem and may cause unwanted downgrades. Any solution either involves severly limiting what kind of updates can be done or requiring network access during upgrades. Does anaconda currently force installs of core packages such as yum? This is quite important if the version in the old distro is newer than that on the DVD. -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Why do we need FC version attached to the package name?
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 18:22 +0530, Prasad H. L. wrote:
I second this.
Can't we have only one stable repository which is for Fedora,
instead of one each FC10, FC11, ...?
development, testing and stable three repositories for Fedora
as a whole and snapshots of stable as releases?
That would make definitely user's life simple and I believe would make
so even for the developers.
But that's the way it is now. Rawhide (development) is the bleeding-edge
distribution, which is frozen every six months for a stable release.
There is a sound need for these releases: you have to stabilize the
package set so that you don't have to use a broken system. If you want
to try what happens when any system components can change whenever they
want, breaking dependencies on other packages, use rawhide.
The versioning of packages with %{?dist} (.fc10, .fc11 and so on) also
has a purpose. Different versions of Fedora use different compiler
versions and optimization flags that are not present in older versions.
That's why it's important that when you update to a newer distribution
all of your packages are updated as well to versions compiled with the
new compiler and optimization flags.
--
Jussi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussileht...@fedoraproject.org
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Do we need split media CDs for F12?
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 09:34 -0500, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Matt Domsch matt_dom...@dell.com said: CDs had their place, back when DVD readers weren't commonplace, and before we had LiveCD/LiveUSB medias. Now, DVDs are fairly common, the LiveCDs work great for a lot of installs, and we have both a small (158MB) network-based bootable CD installer for new installs that would require a CD, and preupgrade for upgrading from an older distro version to the next. Let's kill off split media CDs for Fedora 12. Your thoughts? Sounds good to me. Keep the LiveCDs and netboot CD and remove the other CD images. Hmm, I'd want netboot.img back, since I normally use a USB stick to start the network install (OK, there is the possibility of using livecd-iso-to-disk, but that's a lot more hassle than downloading a minimalistic img and running dd). -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Do we need split media CDs for F12?
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 11:12 -0500, Matt Domsch wrote: On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 07:04:12PM +0300, Jussi Lehtola wrote: Hmm, I'd want netboot.img back, since I normally use a USB stick to start the network install (OK, there is the possibility of using livecd-iso-to-disk, but that's a lot more hassle than downloading a minimalistic img and running dd). We have it, it's now called netinst.iso Yes but not netboot.img that could be dd'd straight away to a USB drive or whatnot; the iso needs livecd-iso-to-disk which a) is extra work and b) is only available on Fedora and Windows. [Also, the livecd tools need an own homepage so that users of other distros can get them.] -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora PPC console=? to get serial console
On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 19:33 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: It's useful to be able to run Fedora on qemu-system-ppc, if only because it allows me to track down build problems that only affect the ppc builders. (Which in fact is what got me into this in the first place). btw, we don't currently have a howto: debug failing builds on esoteric architectures. Is it as simple as running mock $ mock -r fedora-11-ppc package.srpm and testing the binaries with $ qemu-system ./binary ? -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: RPM Soft dependencies (Was: Re: Agenda for the 2009-05-26 Packaging Committee meeting)
On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 11:29 +0200, Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) wrote: users may not want those features. A soft dependency covers this situation pretty perfectly; by default you get the extra dependencies installed so the features will be available, but if you're someone who needs to optimize disk space or number of installed packages you'll have configured urpmi not to install soft dependencies so you won't get them, and if you didn't do that but you later decide to remove one of the soft deps, you can. I consider this a significant win, the package would be objectively less good without this. How do you know _later_ which installed packages could be removed as they only came via soft dependencies ? « package-cleanup --soft-leaves » or something like that ? Is this possible now even with hard dependencies? If I install package A that requires B and C, but decide I don't like it so I remove package A, B and C still stay on my system. For me the situation sounds quite clear: you have a switch somewhere which controls if soft dependencies are treated as hard dependencies or ignored. If you install some package that has soft dependencies and the switch is on, everything is pulled in. The same thing in case a package is updated and it has unsatisfied soft dependencies. If the switch is off all soft dependencies are ignored both in install and update. On a minimalist system one could have those flags off for everything else than, say httpd. A two-tier system (Recommends, Suggests) could also be treated this way: you could have a treat-recommends-as-requires flag and a treat-suggestions-as-requires flag. This would enable a more fine-grained control. -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: gnaughty is a hot babe
On Sat, 2009-05-30 at 12:44 +0300, Muayyad AlSadi wrote: yes, English is not my first language, and law is not one of my interests, and for sure there exists a better phrasing of the page https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/InappropriateContents but nobody have shown me a serious problem in that page Yes, they have: there's no way there's going to be a Packaging Guideline on the matter (a Packaging Draft is a Packaging Guideline wanna-be / to-be). If you want such a page just do it and don't try to make it an official guideline. -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: gnaughty is a hot babe
On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 13:55 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: I think this is the main point Muayyad should understand. Muayyad, if you feel this sort of filtering is necessary then you simply can't trust others to do it. Even if they had any interest in doing it because they may simply not understand your moral boundaries, let alone share them. Your best bet is to ask for help in your own community and come up with a method to allow your community members to tag packages, in a wiki associated to your spin, and then use those tags to build your package list. This would make it much easier for you and for the Fedora project. +1 There are so many different types of packages that could be considered controversial from cultural, idealistic or religious reasons that there is simply no way to please everyone. For instance, creationists might consider anything that has to do with evolution (such as evolution simulations or gene programs) as controversial, whereas for scientists they might be a necessity for daily work. Or, people such as RMS might consider every package which enhances interoperability with proprietary systems (such as Evolution's Exchange plugin) as suspicious. As to the implementation, as has been already suggested you can make your own internet page [even in the fedorapeople wiki?] (either by yourself or with a group of other concerned people) about packages you find controversial. Or, you can make your own repository that contains a metapackage which Conflicts with the packages you find detestable (or obsoletes them so that they can't be installed and they are even automatically removed from the systems that have some of them installed). Or even better: you can create your own spin / distribution with the packages you find detestable removed. Simply start from a minimal install and add only the packages you need. -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
rpms/perl-Net-UPnP/devel import.log, NONE, 1.1 perl-Net-UPnP.spec, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.1, 1.2
Author: jussilehtola
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Net-UPnP/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv27587/devel
Modified Files:
.cvsignore sources
Added Files:
import.log perl-Net-UPnP.spec
Log Message:
* Sat Apr 18 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi - 1.41-3
- Import package in Fedora.
--- NEW FILE import.log ---
perl-Net-UPnP-1_41-3_fc10:HEAD:perl-Net-UPnP-1.41-3.fc10.src.rpm:1240039405
--- NEW FILE perl-Net-UPnP.spec ---
Name: perl-Net-UPnP
Version:1.41
Release:3%{?dist}
Summary:Perl extension for UPnP
License:BSD
Group: Development/Libraries
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/Net-UPnP/
Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/S/SK/SKONNO/Net-UPnP-%{version}.tar.gz
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildArch: noarch
BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
BuildRequires: perl(Test::More)
Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version))
%description
This package provides some functions to control UPnP devices.
%prep
%setup -q -n Net-UPnP-%{version}
# Fix file attributes
find -name '*.pm' -exec chmod a-x '{}' \;
# Fix shebangs
for file in examples/*.pl; do
sed s|/usr/local/bin/perl|/usr/bin/perl|g $file $file.mod \
touch -r $file $file.mod \
mv $file.mod $file
done
%build
%{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor
make %{?_smp_mflags}
%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
make pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} \;
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2/dev/null \;
%{_fixperms} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/*
%check
make test
%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc Changes README examples/
%{perl_vendorlib}/*
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
* Wed Apr 15 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi - 1.41-3
- Review fixes.
* Sun Apr 12 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi - 1.41-2
- Add missing BR: Test::More.
* Sun Apr 12 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi - 1.41-1
- Specfile autogenerated by cpanspec 1.77.
Index: .cvsignore
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Net-UPnP/devel/.cvsignore,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2
--- .cvsignore 17 Apr 2009 21:38:14 - 1.1
+++ .cvsignore 18 Apr 2009 07:25:31 - 1.2
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+Net-UPnP-1.41.tar.gz
Index: sources
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Net-UPnP/devel/sources,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2
--- sources 17 Apr 2009 21:38:14 - 1.1
+++ sources 18 Apr 2009 07:25:31 - 1.2
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+7fec0b93c8f7bc62057e06852dd4b722 Net-UPnP-1.41.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-Net-UPnP/EL-5 perl-Net-UPnP.spec, NONE, 1.1 sources, 1.1, 1.2
Author: jussilehtola
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Net-UPnP/EL-5
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv28389/EL-5
Modified Files:
sources
Added Files:
perl-Net-UPnP.spec
Log Message:
* Sat Apr 18 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi - 1.41-3
- Import package in Fedora.
--- NEW FILE perl-Net-UPnP.spec ---
Name: perl-Net-UPnP
Version:1.41
Release:3%{?dist}
Summary:Perl extension for UPnP
License:BSD
Group: Development/Libraries
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/Net-UPnP/
Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/S/SK/SKONNO/Net-UPnP-%{version}.tar.gz
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildArch: noarch
BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
BuildRequires: perl(Test::More)
Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version))
%description
This package provides some functions to control UPnP devices.
%prep
%setup -q -n Net-UPnP-%{version}
# Fix file attributes
find -name '*.pm' -exec chmod a-x '{}' \;
# Fix shebangs
for file in examples/*.pl; do
sed s|/usr/local/bin/perl|/usr/bin/perl|g $file $file.mod \
touch -r $file $file.mod \
mv $file.mod $file
done
%build
%{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor
make %{?_smp_mflags}
%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
make pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} \;
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2/dev/null \;
%{_fixperms} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/*
%check
make test
%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc Changes README examples/
%{perl_vendorlib}/*
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
* Wed Apr 15 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi - 1.41-3
- Review fixes.
* Sun Apr 12 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi - 1.41-2
- Add missing BR: Test::More.
* Sun Apr 12 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi - 1.41-1
- Specfile autogenerated by cpanspec 1.77.
Index: sources
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Net-UPnP/EL-5/sources,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2
--- sources 17 Apr 2009 21:38:14 - 1.1
+++ sources 18 Apr 2009 07:27:30 - 1.2
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+7fec0b93c8f7bc62057e06852dd4b722 Net-UPnP-1.41.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-Net-UPnP/F-10 perl-Net-UPnP.spec, NONE, 1.1 sources, 1.1, 1.2
Author: jussilehtola
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Net-UPnP/F-10
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv28389/F-10
Modified Files:
sources
Added Files:
perl-Net-UPnP.spec
Log Message:
* Sat Apr 18 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi - 1.41-3
- Import package in Fedora.
--- NEW FILE perl-Net-UPnP.spec ---
Name: perl-Net-UPnP
Version:1.41
Release:3%{?dist}
Summary:Perl extension for UPnP
License:BSD
Group: Development/Libraries
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/Net-UPnP/
Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/S/SK/SKONNO/Net-UPnP-%{version}.tar.gz
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildArch: noarch
BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
BuildRequires: perl(Test::More)
Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version))
%description
This package provides some functions to control UPnP devices.
%prep
%setup -q -n Net-UPnP-%{version}
# Fix file attributes
find -name '*.pm' -exec chmod a-x '{}' \;
# Fix shebangs
for file in examples/*.pl; do
sed s|/usr/local/bin/perl|/usr/bin/perl|g $file $file.mod \
touch -r $file $file.mod \
mv $file.mod $file
done
%build
%{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor
make %{?_smp_mflags}
%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
make pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} \;
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2/dev/null \;
%{_fixperms} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/*
%check
make test
%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc Changes README examples/
%{perl_vendorlib}/*
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
* Wed Apr 15 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi - 1.41-3
- Review fixes.
* Sun Apr 12 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi - 1.41-2
- Add missing BR: Test::More.
* Sun Apr 12 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi - 1.41-1
- Specfile autogenerated by cpanspec 1.77.
Index: sources
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Net-UPnP/F-10/sources,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2
--- sources 17 Apr 2009 21:38:14 - 1.1
+++ sources 18 Apr 2009 07:27:30 - 1.2
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+7fec0b93c8f7bc62057e06852dd4b722 Net-UPnP-1.41.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-Net-UPnP/F-11 perl-Net-UPnP.spec, NONE, 1.1 sources, 1.1, 1.2
Author: jussilehtola
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Net-UPnP/F-11
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv28389/F-11
Modified Files:
sources
Added Files:
perl-Net-UPnP.spec
Log Message:
* Sat Apr 18 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi - 1.41-3
- Import package in Fedora.
--- NEW FILE perl-Net-UPnP.spec ---
Name: perl-Net-UPnP
Version:1.41
Release:3%{?dist}
Summary:Perl extension for UPnP
License:BSD
Group: Development/Libraries
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/Net-UPnP/
Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/S/SK/SKONNO/Net-UPnP-%{version}.tar.gz
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildArch: noarch
BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
BuildRequires: perl(Test::More)
Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl} -V:version`; echo
$version))
%description
This package provides some functions to control UPnP devices.
%prep
%setup -q -n Net-UPnP-%{version}
# Fix file attributes
find -name '*.pm' -exec chmod a-x '{}' \;
# Fix shebangs
for file in examples/*.pl; do
sed s|/usr/local/bin/perl|/usr/bin/perl|g $file $file.mod \
touch -r $file $file.mod \
mv $file.mod $file
done
%build
%{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor
make %{?_smp_mflags}
%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
make pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} \;
find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {} 2/dev/null \;
%{_fixperms} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/*
%check
make test
%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc Changes README examples/
%{perl_vendorlib}/*
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
* Wed Apr 15 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi - 1.41-3
- Review fixes.
* Sun Apr 12 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi - 1.41-2
- Add missing BR: Test::More.
* Sun Apr 12 2009 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi - 1.41-1
- Specfile autogenerated by cpanspec 1.77.
Index: sources
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Net-UPnP/F-11/sources,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2
--- sources 17 Apr 2009 21:38:14 - 1.1
+++ sources 18 Apr 2009 07:27:30 - 1.2
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+7fec0b93c8f7bc62057e06852dd4b722 Net-UPnP-1.41.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
