Re: Boost updated to 1.58.0 in rawhide and f23

On Fri, 2015-07-24 at 19:26 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >> fityk > > Not Boost related: > > app.cpp:12:2: error: #error "Not everything is working with wxGTK3. > Use default wxGTK instead, " "based on GTK+2. If you want to test it, > just remove this #error." So this one does exactly what

Re: Updates push status - 20150725

On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:05:30 +0300 Alexander Ploumistos wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > No. We continue to work on it. > > Thanks for the information, I thought I had done something wrong in > the submission process. Nope. ;) Sorry for the confusion... We _f

Re: Boost updated to 1.58.0 in rawhide and f23

On Fri, 2015-07-24 at 19:26 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >> condor > > Another BuildRequires failure with libpoppler.so In fact you managed to get an attempt through which failed in compilation: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8134/10448134/build.log I've been figuring that on

Re: Boost updated to 1.58.0 in rawhide and f23

On Tue, 2015-07-28 at 14:49 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 28/07/15 14:48 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On 27/07/15 19:35 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > On Mon, 2015-07-27 at 13:31 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > On 23/07/15 14:33 +0200, David Tardon wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > >

Re: About making noarch package arch specific, when contents differ.

Excerpts from Peter Robinson's message of 2015-07-28 18:01 +10:00: > This is completely NOT appropriate, it breaks on secondary arches > where they then end up with no documentation due to the lack of any > x86_64. Please DO NOT do this and please revert the change on any > packages you might have

Schedule for Wednesday's FESCo Meeting (2015-07-29)

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo meeting tomorrow at 18:00UTC (1:00pm EST) in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net. Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9 = Followups = #topic ticket #1427 List of release blockin

Re: Boost updated to 1.58.0 in rawhide and f23

On Mon, 2015-07-27 at 17:35 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 23/07/15 14:33 +0200, David Tardon wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 02:27:33PM +0200, David Tardon wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 12:46:51PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > Any problems rebuil

and legacy software Re: pyorbit

On Ter, 2015-07-28 at 16:48 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/pyorbit.git/plain/dead.package > > > > > last user has been retired, package EOL > > > > Error: nothing provides pyorbit(x86-64) >= 2.0.1 needed by > > gnome-python2-bonobo-2.28.1-16.fc23.x86_64 > >

Re: About making noarch package arch specific, when contents differ.

On 07/28/2015 10:58 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: On 07/26/2015 04:05 PM, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade wrote: Should I make the doc packages arch specific? No, this is not a reason to make them arch-specific. A lot of packages give different results when built twice in a row, on the *same* arc

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On Tue, 2015-07-28 at 14:49 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Just out of curiosity, do you have already any candidates for File > Triggers? I suppose "/sbin/ldconfig" is one of them. Do you plan to > have some F24 feature to get rid of these? Here is a list of candidates: https://fedoraproject.org/

Re: About making noarch package arch specific, when contents differ.

2015-07-28 5:03 GMT-03:00 Peter Robinson : >>> %ifarch x86_64 >>> %package doc >>> BuildArch: noarch >>> ... >>> %endif >> >> This looks like a very wise way of handling it. Actually, while debugging > > It's not, it breaks all secondary architectures. > >> it, I found that the translated docume

Re: About making noarch package arch specific, when contents differ.

2015-07-28 5:58 GMT-03:00 Florian Weimer : > On 07/26/2015 04:05 PM, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade wrote: > >> Should I make the doc packages arch specific? > > No, this is not a reason to make them arch-specific. A lot of packages > give different results when built twice in a row, on the *same*

Re: pyorbit

> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/pyorbit.git/plain/dead.package > > > last user has been retired, package EOL > > Error: nothing provides pyorbit(x86-64) >= 2.0.1 needed by > gnome-python2-bonobo-2.28.1-16.fc23.x86_64 > > What's the full story here? Where has this been discussed/announced?

rawhide report: 20150728 changes

Compose started at Tue Jul 28 05:15:03 UTC 2015 Broken deps for i386 -- [abrt] abrt-2.6.2-3.fc24.i686 requires librpmio.so.3 abrt-2.6.2-3.fc24.i686 requires librpm.so.3 abrt-atomic-2.6.2-3.fc24.i686 requires librpmio.so

Re: Boost updated to 1.58.0 in rawhide and f23

On 28/07/15 14:48 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 27/07/15 19:35 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: On Mon, 2015-07-27 at 13:31 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 23/07/15 14:33 +0200, David Tardon wrote: Hi, On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 02:27:33PM +0200, David Tardon wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Jul 18, 20

Re: Boost updated to 1.58.0 in rawhide and f23

On 27/07/15 19:35 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: On Mon, 2015-07-27 at 13:31 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 23/07/15 14:33 +0200, David Tardon wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 02:27:33PM +0200, David Tardon wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 12:46:51PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely

python-ntplib license change

With the new upstream release python-ntplib-0.3.3 the license was changed from LGPLv2+ to the MIT license. The only package that requires python-ntplib seems to be anaconda which is not affected by the change, but I'm rather letting you guys know. Thanks, -- Vratislav Podzimek Anaconda Rider |

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On 07/28/2015 02:49 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Just out of curiosity, do you have already any candidates for File > Triggers? I suppose "/sbin/ldconfig" is one of them. Do you plan to have > some F24 feature to get rid of these? Well, we do not yet have concrete plans with which scriptlets to start.

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 07:37:05AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Florian Festi wrote: > > Unfortunately there is no consensus among the other packaging formats > > what to use. Right now rpm accepts 3 different styles: > > * AND OR IF ELSE > > * & | ? : > > * && ||

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

Dne 28.7.2015 v 13:37 Neal Gompa napsal(a): > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Florian Festi >wrote: > > On 07/28/2015 09:43 AM, Lubos Kardos wrote: > > Support in rpm is not enough but libsolv supports rich deps > since the version > > 0.6.9 too thus rich

F-23 Branched report: 20150728 changes

Compose started at Tue Jul 28 07:15:03 UTC 2015 Broken deps for armhfp -- [apache-scout] apache-scout-1.2.6-11.fc21.noarch requires mvn(org.apache.juddi:uddi-ws) apache-scout-1.2.6-11.fc21.noarch requires mvn(org.apache.juddi:

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Florian Festi wrote: > On 07/28/2015 09:43 AM, Lubos Kardos wrote: > > Support in rpm is not enough but libsolv supports rich deps since the > version > > 0.6.9 too thus rich deps work also in hawkey and dnf if the version > 0.6.9 or > > a newer version of libsolv

Re: Packaging with hidden strings

On Tue, 2015-07-28 at 10:50 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 07/28/2015 07:33 AM, Jiří Konečný wrote: > No, this is not possible. May be you could create a tool which > simplifies obtaining suitable API keys and ship that instead? > > -- > Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Ok thank you

Re: Updates push status - 20150725

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > No. We continue to work on it. Thanks for the information, I thought I had done something wrong in the submission process. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code

Re: Updates push status - 20150725

On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 08:57:44 +0300 Alexander Ploumistos wrote: > Has the issue been resolved? I have pushed three new packages to f22 > and f21 updates-testing, but they have yet to appear in my usual local > mirrors. No. We continue to work on it. The current issue is some more issues with th

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

On 07/28/2015 09:43 AM, Lubos Kardos wrote: > Support in rpm is not enough but libsolv supports rich deps since the version > 0.6.9 too thus rich deps work also in hawkey and dnf if the version 0.6.9 or > a newer version of libsolv is installed. Right now only AND and OR is supported by libsolv. I

Re: Updates push status - 20150725

On 07/28/2015 07:57 AM, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: Has the issue been resolved? I have pushed three new packages to f22 and f21 updates-testing, but they have yet to appear in my usual local mirrors. I guess no. I am waiting for my updates to get for weeks and am already withholding other fo

Re: About making noarch package arch specific, when contents differ.

On 07/26/2015 04:05 PM, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade wrote: > Should I make the doc packages arch specific? No, this is not a reason to make them arch-specific. A lot of packages give different results when built twice in a row, on the *same* architecture. There is an effort under way to chan

Re: Packaging with hidden strings

On 07/28/2015 07:33 AM, Jiří Konečný wrote: > I have a theoretical question. Is it possible to a create package to > Fedora which is using oauth2 authentication and that means there are > app_id and secret_code strings generated by api provider? These strings > are used in the program but can't be

Re: About making noarch package arch specific, when contents differ.

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:37 AM, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade wrote: > 2015-07-27 22:34 GMT-03:00 Dan Callaghan : >> Excerpts from paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade's message of 2015-07-27 00:05 >> +10:00: >>> Should I make the doc packages arch specific? >> >> Rather than trying to make Sphinx sp

Re: About making noarch package arch specific, when contents differ.

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 2:34 AM, Dan Callaghan wrote: > Excerpts from paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade's message of 2015-07-27 00:05 > +10:00: >> Should I make the doc packages arch specific? > > Rather than trying to make Sphinx spit out bitwise-identical output on > every arch (which sounds like

Re: [HEADS UP] rpm-4.12.90 in rawhide

Support in rpm is not enough but libsolv supports rich deps since the version 0.6.9 too thus rich deps work also in hawkey and dnf if the version 0.6.9 or a newer version of libsolv is installed. Lubos - Original Message - > From: "Vít Ondruch" > To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Sent:

Re: DNF 1.0.2 Released

Dne 28.7.2015 v 08:48 Marcin Juszkiewicz napsal(a): > W dniu 22.07.2015 o 10:49, Honza Šilhan pisze: > >> The resolution configuration hints are printed to the output and user >> is notified which packages were skipped during update in case there >> are conflicts. > No information about skipped upd