On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 01:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
There are still about half a dozen packages left that failed the recent
mass rebuild because they contain source-code dependencies on obsolete
versions of libpng and/or libtiff. I've filed patches to fix them,
but don't have permissions to do
I have been working for the better part of a year on moving Fedora off
of libpng's obsolete 1.2.x release series and onto the current 1.5.x
series. We are practically there now, and I had hoped to drop libpng
1.2 from the distribution before the F18 branch. However, I find that
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com writes:
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 01:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
There are still about half a dozen packages left that failed the recent
mass rebuild because they contain source-code dependencies on obsolete
versions of libpng and/or libtiff. I've filed patches
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 02:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I have been working for the better part of a year on moving Fedora off
of libpng's obsolete 1.2.x release series and onto the current 1.5.x
series. We are practically there now, and I had hoped to drop libpng
1.2 from the distribution before
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 00:21 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 02:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I have been working for the better part of a year on moving Fedora off
of libpng's obsolete 1.2.x release series and onto the current 1.5.x
series. We are practically there now, and
- Original Message -
Before we branch for Fedora 18, as is custom, we will block currently
orphaned packages and packages that have failed to build since Fedora
16.
The following packages are currently orphaned, or fail to build. If
you have a need for one of these packages, please
On 08/01/2012 01:06 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Well, that's really it. The format of LSB is a bit odd to a lay reader,
but AFAICT, it really does mean: to be technically in compliance with
LSB-desktop, you need to ship a libpng12.so.0 which provides the listed
functions. End of story. I don't
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=782599
--- Comment #1 from hkoba buribul...@gmail.com ---
Created attachment 601701
-- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=601701action=edit
Minimum patch to avoid qw warnings
If you do not have enough time to test newer CGI::Session,
On 07/31/2012 10:41 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Removing: libgtkhotkey
synapse requires libgtkhotkey.so.1
CC'ing Michel Alexandre Salim, synapse maintainer
Ideally the synapse maintainer should own this as well but since I use
synapse, I am going to take ownership of this for now to rescue
- Original Message -
- Original Message -
Before we branch for Fedora 18, as is custom, we will block
currently
orphaned packages and packages that have failed to build since
Fedora
16.
The following packages are currently orphaned, or fail to build. If
you have a
Bill Nottingham wrote, at 08/01/2012 02:11 AM +9:00:
Before we branch for Fedora 18, as is custom, we will block currently
orphaned packages and packages that have failed to build since Fedora 16.
The following packages are currently orphaned, or fail to build. If
you have a need for one of
On 1 August 2012 10:47, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
Fedora is not LSB compatible. Is it? Why do we even care about this at
all?
I think I can speak for most of the core GNOME desktop developers and
state that we don't care about LSB one little bit.
Richard.
--
devel mailing
Le 31/07/2012 19:11, Bill Nottingham a écrit :
Package libgtksourceviewmm (fails to build)
retired, since nobody claimed it.
Package nvi (orphan)
Package torque (orphan)
Both taken and co-maintainers are very welcome !
best regards,
H.
--
devel mailing list
On 8/1/12 5:47 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 08/01/2012 01:06 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Well, that's really it. The format of LSB is a bit odd to a lay reader,
but AFAICT, it really does mean: to be technically in compliance with
LSB-desktop, you need to ship a libpng12.so.0 which provides the
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com writes:
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 00:21 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
A very quick search returns this:
http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_4.1.0/LSB-Desktop-generic/LSB-Desktop-generic/libpng.html
Thanks. The links I was given previously didn't lead me to that.
Adam Williamson wrote:
I'm not sure it makes sense to worry about which approach is best for
the really commonly used core fonts in deciding, because whichever
approach we take, clearly we'll wind up taking care to make sure those
fonts look good.
Of course – for somebody's idea of good. As
On 8/1/12 8:11 AM, Fedora Rawhide Report wrote:
[spring]
spring-88.0-2.fc18.x86_64 requires libGLEW.so.1.6()(64bit)
[toped]
toped-0.9.70.1-3.svn1794.fc17.i686 requires libGLEW.so.1.6
toped-0.9.70.1-3.svn1794.fc17.x86_64 requires libGLEW.so.1.6()(64bit)
I kicked
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote:
Before we branch for Fedora 18, as is custom, we will block currently
orphaned packages and packages that have failed to build since Fedora 16.
The following packages are currently orphaned, or fail to build. If
you
Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com writes:
Before we branch for Fedora 18, as is custom, we will block currently
orphaned packages and packages that have failed to build since Fedora 16.
The following packages are currently orphaned, or fail to build. If
you have a need for one of these
On Ter, 2012-07-31 at 22:42 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I'm looking into these:
Bill Nottingham wrote:
Package komparator (fails to build)
can't resolve this fail
g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -I/usr/include/kde
-I/usr/lib64/qt-3.3/include -I. -DQT_THREAD_SUPPORT -D_REENTRANT -O2
-g
Just an idea I had and wanted to float it out to the group...
I think it would be nice to get an informational (obviously, not a
blocking type check) to get changes in the requires or provides of a
package. It would be a hassle to check it manually but I hope it would
be fairly easy to automate.
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com wrote:
Just an idea I had and wanted to float it out to the group...
I think it would be nice to get an informational (obviously, not a
blocking type check) to get changes in the requires or provides of a
package. It would be
Just an idea I had and wanted to float it out to the group...
I think it would be nice to get an informational (obviously, not a
blocking type check) to get changes in the requires or provides of a
package. It would be a hassle to check it manually but I hope it
would
be fairly easy to
On 08/01/2012 10:03 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
What this means, IMO, is that we need to split out libpng12 as a
separate package. The current hack that I'm using (bundling 1.2 and 1.5
into a single SRPM) was never meant to be more than a very short-term
stopgap; I'm sure it violates all sorts of
commit 0b85f89dee70e9070f4334842497b046d325ce9f
Author: Luis Bazan lba...@fedoraproject.org
Date: Wed Aug 1 11:05:23 2012 -0500
changes root lib
perl-Danga-Socket.spec |7 +--
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Danga-Socket.spec
Nikola Pajkovsky (npajk...@redhat.com) said:
Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com writes:
Before we branch for Fedora 18, as is custom, we will block currently
orphaned packages and packages that have failed to build since Fedora 16.
The following packages are currently orphaned, or fail
Rahul Sundaram (methe...@gmail.com) said:
On 08/01/2012 01:06 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Well, that's really it. The format of LSB is a bit odd to a lay reader,
but AFAICT, it really does mean: to be technically in compliance with
LSB-desktop, you need to ship a libpng12.so.0 which
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Kamil Paral kpa...@redhat.com wrote:
Something like this? [1] [2]
Yup! Something a lot like that! I did look over the AutoQA wiki before
posting but didn't know enough about rpmguard to know that where I
needed to look :)
We already do that in the form of
On 08/01/2012 09:45 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
I can see assorted ways we could theoretically handle a desire to remove
libpng 1.2 from the distribution, but merely dropping the req from
redhat-lsb is the obviously wrong answer.
Right. I was obviously not suggesting it but perhaps
Il giorno mer, 01/08/2012 alle 09.51 -0400, Adam Jackson ha scritto:
Fedora is not LSB compatible. Is it? Why do we even care about this at
all?
It is if you install redhat-lsb.
The only intrinsic reason to care about LSB support is binary
compatibility; Fedora broadly doesn't, but
On 08/01/2012 10:21 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 1 August 2012 10:47, Rahul Sundarammethe...@gmail.com wrote:
Fedora is not LSB compatible. Is it? Why do we even care about this at
all?
I think I can speak for most of the core GNOME desktop developers and
state that we don't care about LSB
Good day all,
This weeks Fedora ARM status meeting will take place today (Wednesday Aug 1st)
in #fedora-meeting-1 on Freenode.
Times in various time zones (please let us know if these do not work):
PDT: 1pm
MDT: 2pm
CDT: 3pm
EDT: 4pm
UTC: 8pm
BST: 9pm
CST: 10pm
Current items on the agenda:
1)
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Paul Whalen pwha...@redhat.com wrote:
Good day all,
This weeks Fedora ARM status meeting will take place today (Wednesday Aug
1st) in #fedora-meeting-1 on Freenode.
Times in various time zones (please let us know if these do not work):
PDT: 1pm
MDT: 2pm
On 08/01/2012 04:48 PM, Nicola Soranzo wrote:
bcfg2-server
I dont think it's necessary for it to depend on redhat-lsb-desktop
anymore since that package has move to using unit files instead..
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840288
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
perlbrew-0.46-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841133
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
perl-DBD-Pg-2.19.2-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Tom Lane t...@redhat.com wrote:
There are still about half a dozen packages left that failed the recent
mass rebuild because they contain source-code dependencies on obsolete
versions of libpng and/or libtiff. I've filed patches to fix them,
but don't have
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845057
Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 11:17 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Kamil Paral kpa...@redhat.com wrote:
Something like this? [1] [2]
Yup! Something a lot like that! I did look over the AutoQA wiki before
posting but didn't know enough about rpmguard to know that where I
Tom Callaway tcall...@redhat.com writes:
On 08/01/2012 10:03 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
What this means, IMO, is that we need to split out libpng12 as a
separate package. The current hack that I'm using (bundling 1.2 and 1.5
into a single SRPM) was never meant to be more than a very short-term
Here are the latest set of changes to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines:
---
A new section has been added to the SysV Initscripts section, discussing
the proper use of subsys locking. Even though Fedora packages should no
longer be using SysV Initscripts as a primary service mechanism, Red Hat
On Qua, 2012-08-01 at 00:36 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I wrote:
I'm looking into these:
Bill Nottingham wrote:
Package komparator (fails to build)
Package krecipes (fails to build)
Package qalculate-kde (fails to build)
Package tesseract (fails to build)
I fixed these 4
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-1/2012-08-01/fedora-meeting-1.2012-08-01-20.01.html
Minutes (text):
- 元のメッセージ -
| Our default font set for most languages, DejaVu, ships carefully
| designed
| hinting bytecode written specifically for FreeType's bytecode
| interpreter,
| and its designers explicitly ask for it to be used rather than the
| autohinter. (Some people dislike the font's look
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844919
Bug ID: 844919
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: unspecified
URL: https://rt.perl.org/rt3//Public/Bug/Display.html?id=11
4220
Version: rawhide
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844953
Bug ID: 844953
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: unspecified
Version: el6
Priority: unspecified
CC: massimo.pala...@gmail.com,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844965
Bug ID: 844965
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: unspecified
Version: rawhide
Priority: unspecified
CC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844966
Bug ID: 844966
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: unspecified
Version: rawhide
Priority: unspecified
CC:
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-No-Worries:
1d8e186e91433869aa98e4d7fdab69ff No-Worries-0.5.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=746941
Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org
changed:
What|Removed |Added
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=746941
--- Comment #73 from Upstream Release Monitoring
upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org ---
Latest upstream release: 3.17
Current version in Fedora Rawhide: 3.15
URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Mojolicious/
Please consult the package
commit 04ba6872c1d2e1cf68175f40b0678a811cdf8b44
Author: Massimo massimo.pala...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Aug 1 13:43:51 2012 +0200
updating to latest upstream version
.gitignore |1 +
perl-No-Worries.spec |7 +--
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 7
perl-PDL has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
On x86_64:
perl-PDL-2.4.10-1.fc17.x86_64 requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.2)
On i386:
perl-PDL-2.4.10-1.fc17.i686 requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.2)
Please resolve this as soon as possible.
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
perl-SOAP-Transport-TCP has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
On x86_64:
perl-SOAP-Transport-TCP-0.715-6.fc18.noarch requires
perl(IO::SessionSet)
perl-SOAP-Transport-TCP-0.715-6.fc18.noarch requires
perl(IO::SessionData)
On i386:
perl-Unix-Statgrab has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
On x86_64:
perl-Unix-Statgrab-0.04-13.fc17.x86_64 requires
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.2)
On i386:
perl-Unix-Statgrab-0.04-13.fc17.i686 requires
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.2)
Please resolve this as soon as possible.
perl-eperl has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
On x86_64:
perl-eperl-2.2.14-19.fc17.x86_64 requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.2)
On i386:
perl-eperl-2.2.14-19.fc17.i686 requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.2)
Please resolve this as soon as possible.
--
Fedora Extras Perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844988
Bug ID: 844988
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: unspecified
Version: el6
Priority: unspecified
CC: perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, st...@silug.org
Summary of changes:
3e887d7... Perl 5.16 rebuild (*)
2aba414... - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Mass (*)
04ba687... updating to latest upstream version (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
Summary of changes:
3e887d7... Perl 5.16 rebuild (*)
2aba414... - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Mass (*)
04ba687... updating to latest upstream version (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
Summary of changes:
3e887d7... Perl 5.16 rebuild (*)
2aba414... - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Mass (*)
04ba687... updating to latest upstream version (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
Summary of changes:
3e887d7... Perl 5.16 rebuild (*)
2aba414... - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Mass (*)
04ba687... updating to latest upstream version (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844953
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
perl-No-Worries-0.5-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-No-Worries-0.5-1.el6
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844953
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
perl-No-Worries-0.5-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-No-Worries-0.5-1.fc16
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844953
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
perl-No-Worries-0.5-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-No-Worries-0.5-1.el5
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844953
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
perl-No-Worries-0.5-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-No-Worries-0.5-1.fc17
--
You are receiving this mail
commit d22dab880db3a6e20a67a51cb757e0352a6407ba
Author: Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com
Date: Wed Aug 1 15:22:10 2012 +0200
Specify all dependencies
perl-B-Keywords.spec | 20 +++-
1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
---
diff --git
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844965
Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||845057
--
You are
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Devel-GlobalDestruction:
2db1c816bb2a5e64fcb47d0bc1c577a7 Devel-GlobalDestruction-0.08.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
commit 792df027036941e3708fb5d7f966aa1e41883713
Author: Luis Bazan lba...@fedoraproject.org
Date: Wed Aug 1 10:50:36 2012 -0500
rebuild again to check log
perl-Danga-Socket.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Danga-Socket.spec
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Mojolicious:
5757e73e2ac84010f741c2c399cc0593 Mojolicious-3.17.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
commit 4567fe3cd398ee9cb4e04b8351ebcbdab9dcdc0f
Author: Yanko Kaneti yan...@declera.com
Date: Wed Aug 1 18:52:04 2012 +0300
Update to 3.17
.gitignore|1 +
perl-Mojolicious.spec |5 -
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841133
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840288
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/407
https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/407/0001-Ticket-407-memory-leak-in-dna-plugin.patch
Thanks,
Mark
--
Mark Reynolds
Senior Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc
mreyno...@redhat.com
--
389-devel mailing list
389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
74 matches
Mail list logo
