On 06/07/2012 05:29 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>
> Do we really need to create a feature page for that and follow the
> approval process?
>
> Seems too heavy weight to me for effectively rebasing a package...
It is certainly not required. Feature process is a marketing and
coordination tool. Not
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 11:30:57AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On 6/4/12 9:52 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
> >We merged the upstream udev repository entirely into the systemd
> >repository. There is no standalone upstream udev project anymore.
> >
> >The version of systemd which includes udev has landed
On Qua, 2012-06-06 at 14:03 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd
BTW ,
we don't have an %{_initrddir} for systemd ?
--
Sérgio M. B.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Hi,
On Qua, 2012-06-06 at 14:03 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
>
> In Fedora, you can assume that the default shell (/bin/sh) is bash.
> Thus, all scriptlets can safely assume that if they are running in
> shell
> code, they are running within bash.
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scrip
On Qui, 2012-05-24 at 11:51 -0300, Adrian Alves wrote:
>
>
> Am about to package this:
> grive open source client for google drive
> http://match065.github.com/grive/
>
>
> Just wondering in case if somebody else is working on it
>
http://koji.russianfedora.ru/koji/taskinfo?taskID=35570
fed
On 06/06/2012 07:56 AM, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
On 05/30/2012 02:23 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
Yes, for the Fedora side of things I think gluster 3.2 is the best
strategy with a fed
Good day all,
Thanks to those who were able to join us for the weekly status meeting today.
For those that were unable, the minutes are posted below:
Minutes:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2012-06-06/fedora-meeting-1.2012-06-06-20.00.html
Minutes (text):
http://meetbot.fedo
Here is the latest set of changes to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines:
---
In Fedora, you can assume that the default shell (/bin/sh) is bash.
Thus, all scriptlets can safely assume that if they are running in shell
code, they are running within bash.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scri
2012/6/6 drago01 :
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
> wrote:
>> 2012/6/6 drago01 :
>>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
>>> wrote:
2012/6/5 Kevin Kofler :
> Tomas Mraz wrote:
>> That's a total nonsense unless the restricti
As suggested in bug 829219; another option could be to explicitly
check the state of the user's preferences, e.g.:
if readlink /etc/alternatives/libbaccats.so | grep --silent mysql; then
# set up for mysql backend
elif readlink /etc/alternatives/libbaccats.so | grep --silent sqlite; then
#
Hello,
I need an advice on how to push an update without impacting users too much.
There's a problem in the current shipped Bacula in Fedora 17 related to
shared libraries.
This is related to the fact that upstream changed things so many times to
remove the multiple builds in the past 6 months.
I
06.06.2012 03:09, Tadej Janež написал:
On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 13:55 +0400, Pavel Alexeev wrote:
I'll plan unpush that update and work on patching ImageMagick to handle
these issues locally. But I'm not security expert and can't guarantee
something except mentioned patch apply (contrary leave it
On 06/06/2012 07:25 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> We will split out a systemd-libs subpackage to be more multilib-friendly.
> That said, we are not aware of any specific issues with having both
> systemd.{x86_64,i686} installed.
As long as systemd.rpm has content that is platform-dependent, then
On 06/06/2012 05:52 PM, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
Does rpm handle binaries' "colors" everywhere, or just in selected
locations? I'm especially curious about /usr/lib.
I don't know the answer in the general case, but it definitely works for
binaries in /usr/lib/systemd/. No conflicts are reporte
On 06/06/2012 05:39 PM, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
Come to think of it... shouldn't the rules that come with a package be
in /lib/udev/rules.d?
Yes, but add the /usr prefix: %{_prefix}/lib/udev/rules.d/
Michal
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/
commit 8e76c05a07ab7562946ed129fac9644e42ba9b85
Author: Petr Písař
Date: Wed Jun 6 18:11:47 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 rebuild
perl-Carp.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Carp.spec b/perl-Carp.spec
index 3731b24..6a1a397 100644
--- a/perl-
commit 169540b257ff5215b37116df546da96ec04cd80c
Author: Petr Písař
Date: Wed Jun 6 18:11:47 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 rebuild
perl-Socket.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Socket.spec b/perl-Socket.spec
index 1cea97b..f3d6027 100644
--- a
commit 3ff71c948eff2c3c9319f8c8789fda1b8af523e3
Author: Petr Písař
Date: Wed Jun 6 18:11:47 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 rebuild
perl-threads.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-threads.spec b/perl-threads.spec
index 833e519..4080b49 100644
--
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
wrote:
> 2012/6/6 drago01 :
>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
>> wrote:
>>> 2012/6/5 Kevin Kofler :
Tomas Mraz wrote:
> That's a total nonsense unless the restriction is by-license and not
commit ac5edd59c1036670d81b6376fe1821b061e55ccb
Author: Petr Šabata
Date: Wed Jun 6 17:53:49 2012 +0200
0.11 bump
.gitignore |1 +
perl-IO-Socket-IP.spec |7 +--
sources|2 +-
3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/.gi
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-IO-Socket-IP:
0a6d1743d32d08a33a1e4ebf543e255a IO-Socket-IP-0.11.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mai
On 2012-06-06 6:26, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 01:12 +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
After having had some funny issues in the past due to there being two
systemds (x86_64, i686) installed for some reason, something tells me
that it's a bad idea to proceed with the update. Or am I wrong
On 06/05/2012 09:30 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On 6/4/12 9:52 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
We merged the upstream udev repository entirely into the systemd
repository. There is no standalone upstream udev project anymore.
The version of systemd which includes udev has landed in rawhide a
couple of days
2012/6/6 drago01 :
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
> wrote:
>> 2012/6/5 Kevin Kofler :
>>> Tomas Mraz wrote:
That's a total nonsense unless the restriction is by-license and not
just technical obstacle. If it is just a technical obstacle in the code,
Hello,
I'm starting with perl 5.16 rebuild.
All changes will be comitted into `master' git branch and built into separate
`f18-perl' build-root. That means standard rawhide will be unaffected
(including the perl_bootstrap macro) until we merge the f18-perl build-root
back to f18.
I use special s
>
>
> We discussed it recently with Kay. We will split out a systemd-libs
> subpackage to be more multilib-friendly. That said, we are not aware of any
> specific issues with having both systemd.{x86_64,i686} installed.
>
> Just to elaborate: The issues I was referring to happened during a
F16->raw
On 06/06/2012 12:15 PM, Benny Amorsen wrote:
3. yum *if you follow the instructions carefully*
Those instructions include dracut doing unspecified magic. For other
releases I'd agree with you and do a yum upgrade, but I must admit I
don't dare try this time.
Upgrading with Anaconda causes the
On 06/06/2012 03:26 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
But if there's not going to be a systemd-libs subpackage, any issues you
do have with this scenario are systemd bugs.
We discussed it recently with Kay. We will split out a systemd-libs
subpackage to be more multilib-friendly. That said, we are not a
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
wrote:
> 2012/6/5 Kevin Kofler :
>> Tomas Mraz wrote:
>>> That's a total nonsense unless the restriction is by-license and not
>>> just technical obstacle. If it is just a technical obstacle in the code,
>>> you can remove it and run t
On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 01:12 +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
> #yum update mesa-libgbm
> [...]
> ---> Package mesa-libgbm.i686 0:8.1-0.5.fc18 will be updated
> ---> Package mesa-libgbm.x86_64 0:8.1-0.5.fc18 will be updated
> ---> Package mesa-libgbm.i686 0:8.1-0.6.fc18 will be an update
> --> Processing
2012/6/5 Kevin Kofler :
> Tomas Mraz wrote:
>> That's a total nonsense unless the restriction is by-license and not
>> just technical obstacle. If it is just a technical obstacle in the code,
>> you can remove it and run the software on any crippled machine at your
>> will. So no, making your softw
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 17:47:20 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>
>> >> I'll take this if none of the co-maintainers steps up soon.
>> >>
>> > Hi Jon,
>> > As one of the comaintainers, I have been doing the actual maintaining of
>> > Hydrogen for the
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 02:11:36PM +0200, Thomas Moschny wrote:
> > Just sharing my fedpkg(1) completion for zsh :-) Put this file
> > somewhere in your $fpath as usual.
> You might want to add it here:
> https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-packager/ticket/81
I've added it here:
https://bugzilla.redha
2012/6/6 Alexey I. Froloff :
> Just sharing my fedpkg(1) completion for zsh :-) Put this file
> somewhere in your $fpath as usual.
You might want to add it here:
https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-packager/ticket/81
Regards,
Thomas
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.
Hi,
Just sharing my fedpkg(1) completion for zsh :-) Put this file
somewhere in your $fpath as usual.
--
Regards,--
Sir Raorn. --- http://thousandsofhate.blogspot.com/
#compdef fedpkg
(( $+functions[_fedpkg_targets] )) ||
_fedpkg_targets()
{
local expl
_wanted koji-targets expl 'tar
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 12:46 PM, jonathan wrote:
> Dear,
>
> I search to know for which reason th build fail through koji:
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4131995
>
> I have try to build with mock:
> wget
> http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/ldc-2-20.20120605git6ad085a.fc1
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Benny Amorsen wrote:
> Adam Williamson writes:
>
>> 3. yum *if you follow the instructions carefully*
>
> Those instructions include dracut doing unspecified magic. For other
The magic was quite specified. You rebuild the initramfs with the
convertfs module inclu
Dear,
I search to know for which reason th build fail through koji:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4131995
I have try to build with mock:
wget
http://bioinfornatics.fedorapeople.org/ldc-2-20.20120605git6ad085a.fc17.src.rpm
mock -r fedora-17-x86_64 rebuild
ldc-2-20.20120605git6
Adam Williamson writes:
> 3. yum *if you follow the instructions carefully*
Those instructions include dracut doing unspecified magic. For other
releases I'd agree with you and do a yum upgrade, but I must admit I
don't dare try this time.
Preupgrade is a bit higher priority for this release.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/01/2012 06:53 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jon Ciesla wrote:
>> For all available firmware vendors and models?
>
> For the ones that end users are actually likely to have, which
> aren't that many. There are much fewer BIOS vendors than hardware
>
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 17:47:20 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> >> I'll take this if none of the co-maintainers steps up soon.
> >>
> > Hi Jon,
> > As one of the comaintainers, I have been doing the actual maintaining of
> > Hydrogen for the last few years. Do you mind if I take the ownership?
>
> Certain
On 06/05/2012 04:33 PM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
On 06/05/2012 03:52 AM, Kay Sievers wrote:
Systemd includes libudev.so.1, while the old libudev.rpm provided
libudev.so.0. Therefore, all packages using udev need to be rebuilt.
Here's a list of owners with packages that currently require
libudev.s
> We could of course aim for a dual-solution: Let
> wine-tahoma-fonts put the fonts in the wine font dir (mandatory for
> wine) and add a wine-tahoma-fonts-system package (names suggestions
> welcome) which also puts the fonts in the system wide font path
> (optional).
I believe this would be the
Hi,
On 06/05/2012 11:53 PM, Anthony Green wrote:
> raptor -- Raptor RDF Parser Toolkit for Redland
I just noticed that there are vulnerabilities reported against raptor
packages in Fedora and EPEL 5 -- if they have they been resolved, that's
not reflected in Bugzilla:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/
Le Mar 5 juin 2012 19:58, Kevin Kofler a écrit :
> Can we make the font available as "Tahoma" to WINE only and as "Wine Tahoma"
> or something like that (with font substitutions for plain "Tahoma" NOT
> configured by default) to systemwide fontconfig?
At the fontconfig level all kinds of renamin
45 matches
Mail list logo
