[Mageia-dev] No GUI available to burn iso into USB sticks
Hi, I have run liveusb-creator and it does not detect the usb stick, no matter if i unplug and plug the usb stick it continues without being detected. The same problem also happens in unetbootin, so currently in Mageia there is no application providing a GUI to burn .iso images into usb discs.
Re: [Mageia-dev] Skype 4.0 for Linux - Package request
15.06.2012 18:24, Damien Lallement kirjutas: > Le 15/06/2012 16:57, Angelo Naselli a écrit : >>> I think this would be worth a backport to mga2 - a lot of people will look >>> for it and most don't have a clue how to get stuff from Cauldron and that >>> it is safe to do so (mixing Cauldron and stable being bad idea in general). >> Backports are not open yet, they should be soon, at the end of our >> discussion, >> next meeting i hope... > > As skype 2.x was a beta release, I think we should submit 4.x in > update_testing for 1 and 2. I'll test it a bit longer to see if it's really better than the previous version. So long i can tell that it's using quite a lot more memory. -- Sander
Re: [Mageia-dev] Skype 4.0 for Linux - Package request
Le 15/06/2012 16:57, Angelo Naselli a écrit : I think this would be worth a backport to mga2 - a lot of people will look for it and most don't have a clue how to get stuff from Cauldron and that it is safe to do so (mixing Cauldron and stable being bad idea in general). Backports are not open yet, they should be soon, at the end of our discussion, next meeting i hope... As skype 2.x was a beta release, I think we should submit 4.x in update_testing for 1 and 2. [...] -- Damien Lallement twitter: damsweb - IRC: damsweb/coincoin
Re: [Mageia-dev] Skype 4.0 for Linux - Package request
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Il 15/06/2012 19:56, Sander Lepik ha scritto: > 15.06.2012 20:43, Claire Robinson kirjutas: >> Shouldn't this be a normal update to get-skype rather than a >> backport? That's why i said what maintainer and our policy can do :D > So long there is no reason to do that. 2.0.0.35 is still available > and has no know secuirty issues. But it's also a proprietary sofware in which we are not always able to know that... -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk/bevgACgkQqEs9DA4DquAd/gCfT7Y5FjbscrCbGIxEb/Wa9Tw0 df8An2ZBuCoOGJB20c4kxOvOfRNvLiti =dQKz -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Mageia-dev] Skype 4.0 for Linux - Package request
15.06.2012 20:43, Claire Robinson kirjutas: > Shouldn't this be a normal update to get-skype rather than a backport? > > Claire > So long there is no reason to do that. 2.0.0.35 is still available and has no know secuirty issues. -- Sander
Re: [Mageia-dev] Skype 4.0 for Linux - Package request
On 15/06/12 18:37, Angelo Naselli wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Well, it's only the tag in name (mga3) that changes. Nothing else. In this case yes, but other folks who don't know the package might not know that and, buoyed by the success of installing this package may be tempted to install others which might not go so smoothly etc. etc. Yes that was exactly what i meant :) Better to do it clearly if we can. Better clearly do it cleanly :-) I backported by myself into mga1, and works, i will try it as well into mga2, but the right thing to do is that someone officially asks for it into bugzilla, then let's see what maintainer and our policy can do :) Angelo Shouldn't this be a normal update to get-skype rather than a backport? Claire
Re: [Mageia-dev] Skype 4.0 for Linux - Package request
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 >>> Well, it's only the tag in name (mga3) that changes. Nothing >>> else. >> >> In this case yes, but other folks who don't know the package >> might not know that and, buoyed by the success of installing this >> package may be tempted to install others which might not go so >> smoothly etc. etc. Yes that was exactly what i meant :) >> Better to do it clearly if we can. > > Better clearly do it cleanly :-) I backported by myself into mga1, and works, i will try it as well into mga2, but the right thing to do is that someone officially asks for it into bugzilla, then let's see what maintainer and our policy can do :) Angelo -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk/bcs0ACgkQqEs9DA4DquBNjgCggqCPFou6mND+DjvuBzJOJgPN dWAAnilUxFrtiOVCGrmx7wcy2DXxyMxB =928z -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Mageia-dev] Skype 4.0 for Linux - Package request
On 15 June 2012 17:54, Colin Guthrie wrote: But for that you have to get the rpm manually from cauldron's repo. >>> it's a noarch, and could be installed easily, but you >>> will have a mga3 package in your mga1 or mga2 distro >>> >>> Angelo >> Well, it's only the tag in name (mga3) that changes. Nothing else. > > In this case yes, but other folks who don't know the package might not > know that and, buoyed by the success of installing this package may be > tempted to install others which might not go so smoothly etc. etc. Indeed > Better to do it clearly if we can. Better clearly do it cleanly :-)
Re: [Mageia-dev] Skype 4.0 for Linux - Package request
'Twas brillig, and Sander Lepik at 15/06/12 16:18 did gyre and gimble: > 15.06.2012 17:59, Angelo Naselli kirjutas: >> venerdì 15 giugno 2012 alle 14:45, Sander Lepik ha scritto: >>> But for that >>> you have to get the rpm manually from cauldron's repo. >> it's a noarch, and could be installed easily, but you >> will have a mga3 package in your mga1 or mga2 distro >> >> Angelo > Well, it's only the tag in name (mga3) that changes. Nothing else. In this case yes, but other folks who don't know the package might not know that and, buoyed by the success of installing this package may be tempted to install others which might not go so smoothly etc. etc. Better to do it clearly if we can. Cheers Col -- Colin Guthrie colin(at)mageia.org http://colin.guthr.ie/ Day Job: Tribalogic Limited http://www.tribalogic.net/ Open Source: Mageia Contributor http://www.mageia.org/ PulseAudio Hacker http://www.pulseaudio.org/ Trac Hacker http://trac.edgewall.org/
Re: [Mageia-dev] Skype 4.0 for Linux - Package request
15.06.2012 17:59, Angelo Naselli kirjutas: > venerdì 15 giugno 2012 alle 14:45, Sander Lepik ha scritto: >> But for that >> you have to get the rpm manually from cauldron's repo. > it's a noarch, and could be installed easily, but you > will have a mga3 package in your mga1 or mga2 distro > > Angelo Well, it's only the tag in name (mga3) that changes. Nothing else. -- Sander
Re: [Mageia-dev] Skype 4.0 for Linux - Package request
venerdì 15 giugno 2012 alle 14:45, Sander Lepik ha scritto: > But for that > you have to get the rpm manually from cauldron's repo. it's a noarch, and could be installed easily, but you will have a mga3 package in your mga1 or mga2 distro Angelo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [Mageia-dev] Skype 4.0 for Linux - Package request
> I think this would be worth a backport to mga2 - a lot of people will look > for it and most don't have a clue how to get stuff from Cauldron and that > it is safe to do so (mixing Cauldron and stable being bad idea in general). Backports are not open yet, they should be soon, at the end of our discussion, next meeting i hope... In any case i believe a bugzilla request should be filled. Angelo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [Mageia-dev] unpackaged files lurking in the weeds
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Colin Guthrie wrote:
> 'Twas brillig, and D.Morgan at 15/06/12 14:38 did gyre and gimble:
>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 3:23 PM, David Walser wrote:
>>> --- On Fri, 6/15/12, Colin Guthrie wrote:
From: Colin Guthrie
Subject: Re: [Mageia-dev] unpackaged files lurking in the weeds
To: "Mageia development mailing-list"
Cc: "David Walser"
Date: Friday, June 15, 2012, 4:53 AM
'Twas brillig, and David Walser at
15/06/12 01:42 did gyre and gimble:
> So, maybe we should do something about this. My
preference would
> have rpm still complain about unpackaged %excluded
files, but not
> die, just give a warning instead.
Personally, I don't see the point in using %exclude to
exclude files
completely from all sub packages. We can just use "rm" in
the the
%install section for that (we typically already do that to
remove *.la
files for example).
So for me %exclude should only operate on subpackage file
list and
should only be useful to undo any wildcard inclusions:
e.g.
%files
%{_libdir}/foo/*
%exclude %{_libdir}/foo/something-in-another-sub-package
%files -n sub
%{_libdir}/foo/something-in-another-sub-package
That kind of thing.
That, to me, seems most logical. I'm not sure what the
upstream
behaviour is, but I would agree that we should follow it all
the same
even if the goal would be to push for upstream changes when
needed.
Cheers
Col
>>>
>>> So, if we want to follow Colin's suggestion, we drop the patch. The patch
>>> changes upstream behavior, and adds the extra usage of %exclude, which as
>>> Colin and I pointed out, you can just rm things in %install (or patch
>>> Makefiles) instead.
>>
>> WE DON'T USE ANY PATCH FOR THIS AND WE USE UPSTREAM %EXCLUDE BEHAVIOUR
>>
>> i wrote in big letters to be sure everybody reads well.
>
>
> :)
>
> Yeah, that patch hasn't existed in our code for a long time it seems.
>
> Both rpm in mga1 and in mga2 don't have it applied. The link David sent
> originally is an old release it seems.
>
>
yes this is only when we first imported rpm in mga from mdv 2010.x rpm.org.
the goal is to be compatible with rpm.org based linux distribution. If
you want to see %exclude behaviour to change provide the patch
upstream.
Re: [Mageia-dev] unpackaged files lurking in the weeds
'Twas brillig, and D.Morgan at 15/06/12 14:38 did gyre and gimble:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 3:23 PM, David Walser wrote:
>> --- On Fri, 6/15/12, Colin Guthrie wrote:
>>> From: Colin Guthrie
>>> Subject: Re: [Mageia-dev] unpackaged files lurking in the weeds
>>> To: "Mageia development mailing-list"
>>> Cc: "David Walser"
>>> Date: Friday, June 15, 2012, 4:53 AM
>>> 'Twas brillig, and David Walser at
>>> 15/06/12 01:42 did gyre and gimble:
So, maybe we should do something about this. My
>>> preference would
have rpm still complain about unpackaged %excluded
>>> files, but not
die, just give a warning instead.
>>>
>>> Personally, I don't see the point in using %exclude to
>>> exclude files
>>> completely from all sub packages. We can just use "rm" in
>>> the the
>>> %install section for that (we typically already do that to
>>> remove *.la
>>> files for example).
>>>
>>> So for me %exclude should only operate on subpackage file
>>> list and
>>> should only be useful to undo any wildcard inclusions:
>>>
>>> e.g.
>>> %files
>>> %{_libdir}/foo/*
>>> %exclude %{_libdir}/foo/something-in-another-sub-package
>>>
>>> %files -n sub
>>> %{_libdir}/foo/something-in-another-sub-package
>>>
>>>
>>> That kind of thing.
>>>
>>> That, to me, seems most logical. I'm not sure what the
>>> upstream
>>> behaviour is, but I would agree that we should follow it all
>>> the same
>>> even if the goal would be to push for upstream changes when
>>> needed.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Col
>>
>> So, if we want to follow Colin's suggestion, we drop the patch. The patch
>> changes upstream behavior, and adds the extra usage of %exclude, which as
>> Colin and I pointed out, you can just rm things in %install (or patch
>> Makefiles) instead.
>
> WE DON'T USE ANY PATCH FOR THIS AND WE USE UPSTREAM %EXCLUDE BEHAVIOUR
>
> i wrote in big letters to be sure everybody reads well.
:)
Yeah, that patch hasn't existed in our code for a long time it seems.
Both rpm in mga1 and in mga2 don't have it applied. The link David sent
originally is an old release it seems.
Col
--
Colin Guthrie
colin(at)mageia.org
http://colin.guthr.ie/
Day Job:
Tribalogic Limited http://www.tribalogic.net/
Open Source:
Mageia Contributor http://www.mageia.org/
PulseAudio Hacker http://www.pulseaudio.org/
Trac Hacker http://trac.edgewall.org/
Re: [Mageia-dev] unpackaged files lurking in the weeds
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 3:23 PM, David Walser wrote:
> --- On Fri, 6/15/12, Colin Guthrie wrote:
>> From: Colin Guthrie
>> Subject: Re: [Mageia-dev] unpackaged files lurking in the weeds
>> To: "Mageia development mailing-list"
>> Cc: "David Walser"
>> Date: Friday, June 15, 2012, 4:53 AM
>> 'Twas brillig, and David Walser at
>> 15/06/12 01:42 did gyre and gimble:
>> > So, maybe we should do something about this. My
>> preference would
>> > have rpm still complain about unpackaged %excluded
>> files, but not
>> > die, just give a warning instead.
>>
>> Personally, I don't see the point in using %exclude to
>> exclude files
>> completely from all sub packages. We can just use "rm" in
>> the the
>> %install section for that (we typically already do that to
>> remove *.la
>> files for example).
>>
>> So for me %exclude should only operate on subpackage file
>> list and
>> should only be useful to undo any wildcard inclusions:
>>
>> e.g.
>> %files
>> %{_libdir}/foo/*
>> %exclude %{_libdir}/foo/something-in-another-sub-package
>>
>> %files -n sub
>> %{_libdir}/foo/something-in-another-sub-package
>>
>>
>> That kind of thing.
>>
>> That, to me, seems most logical. I'm not sure what the
>> upstream
>> behaviour is, but I would agree that we should follow it all
>> the same
>> even if the goal would be to push for upstream changes when
>> needed.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Col
>
> So, if we want to follow Colin's suggestion, we drop the patch. The patch
> changes upstream behavior, and adds the extra usage of %exclude, which as
> Colin and I pointed out, you can just rm things in %install (or patch
> Makefiles) instead.
WE DON'T USE ANY PATCH FOR THIS AND WE USE UPSTREAM %EXCLUDE BEHAVIOUR
i wrote in big letters to be sure everybody reads well.
Re: [Mageia-dev] Skype 4.0 for Linux - Package request
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Sander Lepik wrote: > It should be possible to run it on mga1 and mga2 too (i'm using it on > mga2). But for that > you have to get the rpm manually from cauldron's repo. > > I think this would be worth a backport to mga2 - a lot of people will look for it and most don't have a clue how to get stuff from Cauldron and that it is safe to do so (mixing Cauldron and stable being bad idea in general). Regards, Jan
Re: [Mageia-dev] unpackaged files lurking in the weeds
--- On Fri, 6/15/12, Colin Guthrie wrote:
> From: Colin Guthrie
> Subject: Re: [Mageia-dev] unpackaged files lurking in the weeds
> To: "Mageia development mailing-list"
> Cc: "David Walser"
> Date: Friday, June 15, 2012, 4:53 AM
> 'Twas brillig, and David Walser at
> 15/06/12 01:42 did gyre and gimble:
> > So, maybe we should do something about this. My
> preference would
> > have rpm still complain about unpackaged %excluded
> files, but not
> > die, just give a warning instead.
>
> Personally, I don't see the point in using %exclude to
> exclude files
> completely from all sub packages. We can just use "rm" in
> the the
> %install section for that (we typically already do that to
> remove *.la
> files for example).
>
> So for me %exclude should only operate on subpackage file
> list and
> should only be useful to undo any wildcard inclusions:
>
> e.g.
> %files
> %{_libdir}/foo/*
> %exclude %{_libdir}/foo/something-in-another-sub-package
>
> %files -n sub
> %{_libdir}/foo/something-in-another-sub-package
>
>
> That kind of thing.
>
> That, to me, seems most logical. I'm not sure what the
> upstream
> behaviour is, but I would agree that we should follow it all
> the same
> even if the goal would be to push for upstream changes when
> needed.
>
> Cheers
>
> Col
So, if we want to follow Colin's suggestion, we drop the patch. The patch
changes upstream behavior, and adds the extra usage of %exclude, which as Colin
and I pointed out, you can just rm things in %install (or patch Makefiles)
instead.
Re: [Mageia-dev] Skype 4.0 for Linux - Package request
15.06.2012 15:24, John kirjutas: >>> Eh? All I can see is version 2.2.0.35 ?? >>> >>> John >> Are you using cauldron? Is your mirror synced? > Opps!! Goes back to hole - looking in wrong box :-) > > John It should be possible to run it on mga1 and mga2 too (i'm using it on mga2). But for that you have to get the rpm manually from cauldron's repo. -- Sander
Re: [Mageia-dev] Skype 4.0 for Linux - Package request
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 15:16:09 +0300 Sander Lepik wrote: > 15.06.2012 15:14, John kirjutas: > > On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:40:48 +0200 > > D.Morgan wrote: > > > >> this is in nonfree already > > Eh? All I can see is version 2.2.0.35 ?? > > > > John > Are you using cauldron? Is your mirror synced? Opps!! Goes back to hole - looking in wrong box :-) John
Re: [Mageia-dev] Skype 4.0 for Linux - Package request
Le 15/06/2012 14:14, John a écrit : Eh? All I can see is version 2.2.0.35 ?? Read again "I run Mageia Cauldron 64bit mostly - would be great to get a package in Cauldron for our Distro!"
Re: [Mageia-dev] Skype 4.0 for Linux - Package request
15.06.2012 15:14, John kirjutas: > On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:40:48 +0200 > D.Morgan wrote: > >> this is in nonfree already > Eh? All I can see is version 2.2.0.35 ?? > > John Are you using cauldron? Is your mirror synced? -- Sander
Re: [Mageia-dev] Skype 4.0 for Linux - Package request
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:40:48 +0200 D.Morgan wrote: > this is in nonfree already Eh? All I can see is version 2.2.0.35 ?? John
Re: [Mageia-dev] Skype 4.0 for Linux - Package request
On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 10:40 +0200, D.Morgan wrote: > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Robert Fox wrote: > > I don't know about you guys, but I've been waiting for this release for > > some time - unfortunately, they only offer it for the "other" > > distributions: > > > > Select your Linux distribution > > Ubuntu 10.04 32-bit > > Ubuntu 10.04 64-bit > > Debian 6.0 32-bit > > Debian 6.0 64-bit > > Fedora 16 32bit > > OpenSUSE 12.1 32bit > > > > > > I run Mageia Cauldron 64bit mostly - would be great to get a package in > > Cauldron for our Distro! > > > > Thanks and have a nice weekend. > > > > R.Fox > > this is in nonfree already Sorry - missed that! Disregard last message. Cheers, Robert
Re: [Mageia-dev] unpackaged files lurking in the weeds
On 15 June 2012 12:20, Pascal Terjan wrote: >> see with upstream. We won't change the behaviour of rpm for this "only >> in mageia" and be inconsistent with fedora/opensuse/... > > Isn't it the upstream behavior already that he is describing? He's basically complaining that mdv's rpm behavior differs from most of all other rpm distro => /dev/null Quite a lot of people complained about that. That's mdv's issue, not ours.
Re: [Mageia-dev] Fortune Cookies Collections Policy
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012, Shlomi Fish wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to prepare Mageia packages for more UNIX fortune cookies' > collections (see the fortune-mod program and > http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/fortunes/ ), but I'm wondering when it is > acceptable to package them and when it wouldn't be, given that fortune files > often contain texts and quotes from heterogeneous sources, and licensed under > various licences (including "All-Rights-Reserved" ones). > > For example, can I package the collection here - > http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/fortunes/ - which is by me and which its > blanket licence is the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike licence > (CC-by-sa), but which contains text by many authors and under many licences? I think it is almost the same as wikiquote : http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Copyrights Most countries have laws that allows publishing short quotes of copyrighed work. So if done within limits, it should be ok. Maybe we can use the same limits as wikiquote : http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Limits_on_quotations
[Mageia-dev] Fortune Cookies Collections Policy
Hi all, I would like to prepare Mageia packages for more UNIX fortune cookies' collections (see the fortune-mod program and http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/fortunes/ ), but I'm wondering when it is acceptable to package them and when it wouldn't be, given that fortune files often contain texts and quotes from heterogeneous sources, and licensed under various licences (including "All-Rights-Reserved" ones). For example, can I package the collection here - http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/fortunes/ - which is by me and which its blanket licence is the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike licence (CC-by-sa), but which contains text by many authors and under many licences? I will appreciate any insights. Regards, Shlomi Fish -- - Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ My Public Domain Photos - http://www.flickr.com/photos/shlomif/ In Soviet Russia, XSLT codes you. Badly! Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .
Re: [Mageia-dev] unpackaged files lurking in the weeds
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:38 AM, D.Morgan wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Colin Guthrie wrote:
>> 'Twas brillig, and David Walser at 15/06/12 01:42 did gyre and gimble:
>>> So, maybe we should do something about this. My preference would
>>> have rpm still complain about unpackaged %excluded files, but not
>>> die, just give a warning instead.
>>
>> Personally, I don't see the point in using %exclude to exclude files
>> completely from all sub packages. We can just use "rm" in the the
>> %install section for that (we typically already do that to remove *.la
>> files for example).
>>
>> So for me %exclude should only operate on subpackage file list and
>> should only be useful to undo any wildcard inclusions:
>>
>> e.g.
>> %files
>> %{_libdir}/foo/*
>> %exclude %{_libdir}/foo/something-in-another-sub-package
>>
>> %files -n sub
>> %{_libdir}/foo/something-in-another-sub-package
>>
>>
>> That kind of thing.
>>
>> That, to me, seems most logical. I'm not sure what the upstream
>> behaviour is, but I would agree that we should follow it all the same
>> even if the goal would be to push for upstream changes when needed.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Col
>
> Hi,
>
> see with upstream. We won't change the behaviour of rpm for this "only
> in mageia" and be inconsistent with fedora/opensuse/...
Isn't it the upstream behavior already that he is describing?
[Mageia-dev] [PATCH]: fix %setup with ruby gems for rpmbuild
Hi! Attached you'll find an updated version of the patch that gives %setup special behaviour for ruby gems. This takes care of automatically extracting the data.tar.gz as well so that it's no longer necessary to manually extract it after %setup in %prep. It also replaces use of the obsolete rindex() function with strrchr(). Also worth mentioning is that this will fix "incompatibilities" with Mandriva ruby gem rpms as well. -- Regards, Per Øyvind rpm-4.10.0-setup-rubygems.patch Description: Binary data
Re: [Mageia-dev] unpackaged files lurking in the weeds
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Colin Guthrie wrote:
> 'Twas brillig, and David Walser at 15/06/12 01:42 did gyre and gimble:
>> So, maybe we should do something about this. My preference would
>> have rpm still complain about unpackaged %excluded files, but not
>> die, just give a warning instead.
>
> Personally, I don't see the point in using %exclude to exclude files
> completely from all sub packages. We can just use "rm" in the the
> %install section for that (we typically already do that to remove *.la
> files for example).
>
> So for me %exclude should only operate on subpackage file list and
> should only be useful to undo any wildcard inclusions:
>
> e.g.
> %files
> %{_libdir}/foo/*
> %exclude %{_libdir}/foo/something-in-another-sub-package
>
> %files -n sub
> %{_libdir}/foo/something-in-another-sub-package
>
>
> That kind of thing.
>
> That, to me, seems most logical. I'm not sure what the upstream
> behaviour is, but I would agree that we should follow it all the same
> even if the goal would be to push for upstream changes when needed.
>
> Cheers
>
> Col
Hi,
see with upstream. We won't change the behaviour of rpm for this "only
in mageia" and be inconsistent with fedora/opensuse/...
cheers
Re: [Mageia-dev] unpackaged files lurking in the weeds
'Twas brillig, and David Walser at 15/06/12 01:42 did gyre and gimble:
> So, maybe we should do something about this. My preference would
> have rpm still complain about unpackaged %excluded files, but not
> die, just give a warning instead.
Personally, I don't see the point in using %exclude to exclude files
completely from all sub packages. We can just use "rm" in the the
%install section for that (we typically already do that to remove *.la
files for example).
So for me %exclude should only operate on subpackage file list and
should only be useful to undo any wildcard inclusions:
e.g.
%files
%{_libdir}/foo/*
%exclude %{_libdir}/foo/something-in-another-sub-package
%files -n sub
%{_libdir}/foo/something-in-another-sub-package
That kind of thing.
That, to me, seems most logical. I'm not sure what the upstream
behaviour is, but I would agree that we should follow it all the same
even if the goal would be to push for upstream changes when needed.
Cheers
Col
--
Colin Guthrie
colin(at)mageia.org
http://colin.guthr.ie/
Day Job:
Tribalogic Limited http://www.tribalogic.net/
Open Source:
Mageia Contributor http://www.mageia.org/
PulseAudio Hacker http://www.pulseaudio.org/
Trac Hacker http://trac.edgewall.org/
Re: [Mageia-dev] unpackaged files lurking in the weeds
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012, David Walser wrote: > > So, maybe we should do something about this. My preference would have rpm > still complain about unpackaged %excluded files, but not die, just give a > warning instead. My preference would be to keep upstream behaviour. And I see that the patch has been removed from Mageia 2 and Cauldron, so this is good. We shouldn't patch the software we package unless really necessary, especially not for changing somethings like this. If we want to change this, it should first be submitted to and accepted by rpm.org developers.
Re: [Mageia-dev] Skype 4.0 for Linux - Package request
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Robert Fox wrote: > I don't know about you guys, but I've been waiting for this release for > some time - unfortunately, they only offer it for the "other" > distributions: > > Select your Linux distribution > Ubuntu 10.04 32-bit > Ubuntu 10.04 64-bit > Debian 6.0 32-bit > Debian 6.0 64-bit > Fedora 16 32bit > OpenSUSE 12.1 32bit > > > I run Mageia Cauldron 64bit mostly - would be great to get a package in > Cauldron for our Distro! > > Thanks and have a nice weekend. > > R.Fox this is in nonfree already
[Mageia-dev] Skype 4.0 for Linux - Package request
I don't know about you guys, but I've been waiting for this release for some time - unfortunately, they only offer it for the "other" distributions: Select your Linux distribution Ubuntu 10.04 32-bit Ubuntu 10.04 64-bit Debian 6.0 32-bit Debian 6.0 64-bit Fedora 16 32bit OpenSUSE 12.1 32bit I run Mageia Cauldron 64bit mostly - would be great to get a package in Cauldron for our Distro! Thanks and have a nice weekend. R.Fox
Re: [Mageia-dev] Proposed Feature:Backports_update_applet
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 01:07:20 -0400, andre999 wrote: If the fact it is a backport is ignored, then every backport would be, by definition, an update. Even packages newly imported to Mageia. It depends on whether the user has set the backport repsository as an update repository, or not. Backports are considered separately because they are much more at risk to not function properly, since they weren't tested with the rest of the release, being added afterwards. So we have to be much more careful Thats why qa will be testing backports, to ensure they install cleanly, and the main features work. As a qa member, I will not validate a backport that either requires --allow-force, or that doesn't at least run. Regards, Dave Hodgins
