[Bug 808350] Review Request: racket - Racket development system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=808350 david.fe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||david.fe...@gmail.com --- Comment #52 from david.fe...@gmail.com --- Has there been any progress on this issue? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 808350] Review Request: racket - Racket development system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=808350 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl Resolution|DEFERRED|DUPLICATE --- Comment #66 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1301219 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 808350] Review Request: racket - Racket development system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=808350 Miroslav Suchý changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msu...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo? --- Comment #62 from Miroslav Suchý --- Ping! Any progress here? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 808350] Review Request: racket - Racket development system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=808350 Daniel E. Wilson changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo? | --- Comment #63 from Daniel E. Wilson --- So far, I have heard nothing on this issue. I do have version 6.2 and I will upload those files when I have the time. The only problem will be that as near as I can tell there is no way this package is getting into Fedora. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 808350] Review Request: racket - Racket development system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=808350 --- Comment #64 from Miroslav Suchý --- So does it have sense to persuede this review? You may get more attention if you start Copr project at: https://copr.fedoraproject.org and reopen this review when the SElinux issue settle down (if ever). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 808350] Review Request: racket - Racket development system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=808350 Miroslav Suchý changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Resolution|--- |DEFERRED Last Closed||2015-10-20 16:16:33 --- Comment #65 from Miroslav Suchý --- Closing per #63 and #64. If the SELinux issue ever settle down, please reopen. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 808350] Review Request: racket - Racket development system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=808350 Jan Dvořák changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mor...@anilinux.org --- Comment #53 from Jan Dvořák --- Well, Racket builds fine for me with following files: Spec URL: https://anilinux.org/~mordae/racket/racket.spec SRPM URL: https://anilinux.org/~mordae/racket/racket-6.1.0.3-3.fc20.src.rpm It removes the problematic mred binaries and the static library. The only problem with the package is an issue with RPM's /usr/lib/rpm/check-buildroot that excludes Python and Emacs files but not Racket's compiled modules (*.zo). I have not tested the build with enforcing SELinux. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 808350] Review Request: racket - Racket development system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=808350 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(d...@bureau-13.or ||g) --- Comment #54 from Christopher Meng --- Hi D, I will close this review and submit my work to the queue after 1 week(one year after your last comment) because in more than 2 years you still stay in stage NEEDSPONSOR. This is ridiculous if racket can't be included in Fedora as someone can't continue packaging it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 808350] Review Request: racket - Racket development system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=808350 Daniel E. Wilson changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(d...@bureau-13.or | |g) | --- Comment #55 from Daniel E. Wilson --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #54) > Hi D, > > I will close this review and submit my work to the queue after 1 week(one > year after your last comment) because in more than 2 years you still stay in > stage NEEDSPONSOR. > > This is ridiculous if racket can't be included in Fedora as someone can't > continue packaging it. At last someone is as frustrated as I am about this. Among other things, I have been working seven days a week for the last couple of months. This in itself would not have stopped me but evidence has been mounting for some that this was going nowhere. Given the increasing demands on my time and my inability to submit my work to the queue, it is irrational for me to put a high priority on this. There are two things that I am curious about. First, where did you get the idea that removing a program from a system as big as racket is a good idea? Making a users life more difficult strikes me as the sort of thing that Debian would do, one of the reasons I no longer use that distribution. Debian goes out their way to make things hard on their users. Second is what led you to the solution with the *.zo files. Bottom line is that as long as I am unable to submit my build I see no reason to spend any more time working on this. If this changes then I will be happy to continue, otherwise someone else will have to do it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 808350] Review Request: racket - Racket development system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=808350 Orion Poplawski changed: What|Removed |Added CC|or...@cora.nwra.com | --- Comment #56 from Daniel E. Wilson --- Here my latest version of the racket package version 6.1. Here is the the page for the spec file: http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=38337276796836710101 Here is the page to download the source RPM: http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=05827266922974593676 This wasn't my first choice of storage locations. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 808350] Review Request: racket - Racket development system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=808350 --- Comment #57 from Jan Dvořák --- I've successfully built my SRPM in COPR, disabling /usr/lib/rpm/check-buildroot. Spec: http://anilinux.org/~mordae/racket/racket.spec SRPM: http://anilinux.org/~mordae/racket/racket-6.1.0.4-2.fc20.src.rpm COPR: http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/mordae/racket/ I've fixed all relevant rpmlint complaints, but I won't fix the "#!r6rs" and non-executable script complaints (for the resulting binary packages) as these should be consulted with Matthew Flatt and rest of the Racket team. The package is now split into racket, -devel, -doc and -debuginfo. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 808350] Review Request: racket - Racket development system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=808350 --- Comment #58 from Robert Knight --- I have an x86_64 system on which I could test the SELinux aspects of these builds. I'm not sufficiently familiar with Racket to know whether there's a "run all tests" operation that I could just launch, recording the results. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 808350] Review Request: racket - Racket development system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=808350 --- Comment #59 from Daniel E. Wilson --- As I recall the problem with SELinux was a build error. After all, build-checkroot is a tool used in the Fedora build process. For some reason the racket site had their file incorrectly labeled as version 6.1 rather thanthe actual version of 6.0.1 and so I have corrected the spec file. I have updated the build with the correct version number. It would be best to stick with the version that has been officially released from the racket web site. This version among other things maintains the mred and mred-text executables by the use of links since the executables are identical to gracket and racket respectively. Page for the spec file: http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=87323174182019233579 Page for the source RPM: http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=34758987078146269583 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 808350] Review Request: racket - Racket development system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=808350 --- Comment #60 from Jerry James --- (In reply to Daniel E. Wilson from comment #59) > As I recall the problem with SELinux was a build error. After all, > build-checkroot is a tool used in the Fedora build process. The problem with SELinux is described in comment 14 through comment 18. I just downloaded your source RPM to take a look. Nothing has changed in the source code to fix this problem. See http://www.akkadia.org/drepper/selinux-mem.html for more information. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 808350] Review Request: racket - Racket development system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=808350 --- Comment #61 from Daniel E. Wilson --- I have sent an e-mail about this to one of the upstream developers. I copied you so that Eli would know to try to get the details from you since I don't use SELinux. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
