On 2013-06-17 21:17, Jerry James wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't the proper solution then to patch the config files to get rid of the
obsolete macros? Such patches should certainly be acceptable upstream.
If I have some other reason
Anyone interested in swapping reviews with my two pending requests?
- 972943 lpf
- 956134 mnmlicons-fonts
Both looks in my eyes simple. All offers welcome!
--alec
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 2013-06-13 11:40, Ankur Sinha wrote:
On Thu, 2013-06-13 at 10:29 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
- 956134 mnmlicons-fonts
I can take this one.
Fine!
Would you take either anka-coder fonts[1] or lifeographer[2] in return
for this one Alec?
Both are *simple* reviews :)
[1] https
On 06/04/2013 05:50 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2013-06-04 at 12:51 +0530, Kalpa Welivitigoda wrote:
Hi,
I am willing to and already have done package reviews specially in
sugar activities. I am using fedora-review tool and there, mock needs
to download a number of packages which will
On 2013-05-08 09:32, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 09:34:15AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 05/07/2013 09:14 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
Hey list,
In the course of review of owfs (#927237) I was pointed that
shipping directory in /mnt is prohibited. FHS seems to agree.
On 05/03/2013 09:50 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Ven 3 mai 2013 21:06, Alec Leamas a écrit :
Still hesitating a here: if upstream has decided to support the widest
possible set of browsers (including IE): should we really just drop the
formats required by IE? From a user perspective, I
On 05/05/2013 11:40 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Dim 5 mai 2013 10:19, Alec Leamas a écrit :
This seems to mean that we force web applications to exclude IE version
8 (and older) clients. As this seems to be a widely used IE version
today, is this really the way to go?
It seems to be a case
On 05/03/2013 04:15 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Mar 23 avril 2013 19:10, Toshio Kuratomi a écrit :
There will probably be more of this, fedora-review is updated with a
new test looking for bundled font files.My gut feeling is also that
there are some other bundled fonts in existing
On 05/03/2013 09:50 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
[cut]
I'm truly a font newbie. That said, is there really a meaningful
fallback for a font such as sozial
(https://github.com/adamstac/zocial)? I. e., is there a reasonable
fallback for a Facebook button?
I think spot will agree there is no way
On 05/03/2013 03:51 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Lun 29 avril 2013 11:22, Alec Leamas a écrit :
The reply makes me feel a little more confused, on a higher level. How
does that reply translate to the packaging of a web application with
some bundled webfonts ? scratching my head.
That means
On 04/29/2013 08:59 AM, Matthias Runge wrote:
On 04/28/2013 01:48 PM, Christopher Meng wrote:
There are many review requests here.
Can someone help do a review(even only one of them)?
It'll be way easier for you to find a reviewer, when you'd be reviewing
other packages yourself.
Matthias
On 04/29/2013 09:12 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 04/29/2013 08:59 AM, Matthias Runge wrote:
On 04/28/2013 01:48 PM, Christopher Meng wrote:
There are many review requests here.
Can someone help do a review(even only one of them)?
It'll be way easier for you to find a reviewer, when you'd
On 04/29/2013 11:04 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
On 04/27/2013 01:49 PM, Alec Leamas wrote:
I'm trying to package a web application with bundled fonts. These fonts
are used by the web clients (browsers), and just served from the Fedora
webapp. The case is similar to javascript .js files.
Trying
Hi!
I'm trying to package a web application with bundled fonts. These fonts
are used by the web clients (browsers), and just served from the Fedora
webapp. The case is similar to javascript .js files.
Trying to package the webfonts as dependencies I have run into problem
together with my
Hi,
I have three pending review requests for font packages: 956120, 956127,
and 956134. I'm willing to exchange reviews for those.
These are my first font packages, so I'd prefer to review something
else in return.
Cheers,
--alec
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
In a large package (openerp7) I have found some bundled .ttf and .otf
font files. One of these (Inconsolata) seems to exist in Fedora as
levien-inconsolata-fonts, the others (see below) I cannot find with a
quick search.
The fonts are parts of specific addons (a. k. a. plugins). They are
On 2013-04-23 16:17, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 03:37:03PM +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
In a large package (openerp7) I have found some bundled .ttf and
.otf font files. One of these (Inconsolata) seems to exist in Fedora
as levien-inconsolata-fonts, the others (see below) I
On 2013-04-23 18:19, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 04/23/2013 12:05 PM, Alec Leamas wrote:
Just a double check: whether I symlink or patch the css files, the
system path must be accessible for the web app. Is this really true in
general, isn't it depending on the web server configuration?
Hmm. I
On 2013-04-23 22:26, Rave it wrote:
From: Richard Marko rma...@redhat.com
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Subject: ABRT, Faf and current state of bug reporting
Message-ID: 51768c56.2080...@redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 2013-03-12 12:45, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com wrote:
I would love to see F19 make a good first impression. The first time you see
something Fedora-related on the screen currently is the graphical grub screen,
followed by the
On 2013-03-11 18:49, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 11.03.13 12:58, Matthias Clasen (mcla...@redhat.com) wrote:
Hi,
I would love to see F19 make a good first impression. The first time you see
something Fedora-related on the screen currently is the graphical grub screen,
followed by the
On 2013-02-23 16:09, Tom Hughes wrote:
Attempts to run fedora-review seem to be failing today (it was working
a couple of days ago) when it tries to query pkgdb to see if there is
already a package with the same name:
02-23 14:44 requests.packages.urllib3.connectionpool DEBUG POST
On 2013-02-23 16:09, Tom Hughes wrote:
Attempts to run fedora-review seem to be failing today (it was working
a couple of days ago) when it tries to query pkgdb to see if there is
already a package with the same name:
I'm not quite sure if this is a bug in fedora-review, python-fedora,
or
On 02/16/2013 05:16 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 13:47:13 +0200
Panu Matilainen pmati...@laiskiainen.org wrote:
I think Kevin was talking about normal, ie non-debuginfo packages
like the example case of nacl-devel owning /usr/lib/debug, which
indeed is a (trivial) packaging bug.
On 02/15/2013 11:58 PM, Till Maas wrote:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:50:28AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
- make a script to identify all the packages that are broken and
shipping debug stuff.
AT least for the directory a simple yum call should suffice:
yum --disablerepo '*' --enablerepo
On 02/15/2013 09:47 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:03:50 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 02/14/2013 11:19 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 16:36:03 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
Running some automated tests I stumble over the debug directories. E. g
On 02/16/2013 11:41 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On 02/16/2013 11:44 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 02/15/2013 11:58 PM, Till Maas wrote:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:50:28AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
- make a script to identify all the packages that are broken and
shipping debug stuff.
AT least
On 02/16/2013 12:41 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 11:59:08 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
According to Kevin,
this is a bug and should be fixed by having filesystem to own
/usr/lib/debug (like /usr/src/debug), and also having packages only to
own their own directories. Are saying
On 02/16/2013 12:47 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On 02/16/2013 01:33 PM, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 02/16/2013 11:41 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On 02/16/2013 11:44 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 02/15/2013 11:58 PM, Till Maas wrote:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:50:28AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
- make
On 02/14/2013 11:19 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 16:36:03 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
Running some automated tests I stumble over the debug directories. E. g.,
$ repoquery -qf /usr/lib/debug
shows 45 owners on current F18. Other directories under /usr/lib/debug
have
Running some automated tests I stumble over the debug directories. E. g.,
$ repoquery -qf /usr/lib/debug
shows 45 owners on current F18. Other directories under /usr/lib/debug
have a similar situation with many owners..
I note that /usr/src/debug is owned by filesystem, but filesystem does
Running some automated tests I stumble over the debug directories. E. g.,
$ repoquery -qf /usr/lib/debug
shows 45 owners on current F18. Other directories under /usr/lib/debug
have a similar situation with many owners..
I note that /usr/src/debug is owned by filesystem, but filesystem does
On 2013-02-05 20:06, Reindl Harald wrote:
[cut]
what makes me rellay angry (as one who never used and will use GNOME
and i knew GNOME 1.0 and KDE 1.0 as well where most users of today not
heard about linux at all) is that the GNOME developers did NOT learn
ANYTHING by the KDE4.0 disaster and
On 2013-02-05 21:46, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 02/05/2013 09:31 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
On 5 February 2013 20:10, Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote:
I wouldn't say Fedora follows blindly but rather chooses an
upstream from
some alternatives (their ability to handle feedback from us beeing
On 01/31/2013 01:13 AM, M A Young wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013, Mátyás Selmeci wrote:
This may be a long shot, but I am interested in repackaging some RPMs
(for
example, some of the Globus packages in EPEL, as well as grid
software that
my group builds) such that the software in them may be
Answer below :)
On 2013-01-29 15:20, Martin Sivak wrote:
Hi,
yes, all the screens are shared with the Anaconda installer and the internal
data structure is closely tied to kickstart. This allows us to configure almost
everything using kickstart and then dump the final kickstart for the admin
On 2013-01-29 19:35, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Jan 29, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com
wrote something about learning to read like the rest of the world.
Indeed, I did learn, like most of the rest of the world today, to simply reply.
And I learned to occasionally
On 2013-01-24 23:39, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 2013-01-24 22:03, David Malcolm wrote:
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 18:11 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 2013-01-24 17:44, David Malcolm wrote:
Michael Hrivnak and I spent some time at FUDcon Lawrence looking at
static code analysis.
We hacked
On 2013-01-24 17:44, David Malcolm wrote:
Michael Hrivnak and I spent some time at FUDcon Lawrence looking at
static code analysis.
We hacked on the proposed common format for analysis tools (aka
firehose).
[cut]
The plan is that the interchange format can be uploaded into a web
On 2013-01-17 14:30, Jochen Schmitt wrote:
Hallo,
during my last build of inn on rawhide I have got the following odd
error messages:
RPM build errors:
bogus date in %changelog: Wed Jan 13 2009 Ondrej Vasik ova...@redhat.com
- 2.4.5-7
bogus date in %changelog: Fri Jul 7 2008 Ondrej
On 2012-12-30 11:42, Mamoru TASAKA wrote:
Ken Dreyer wrote, at 12/30/2012 01:01 AM +9:00:
I noticed our package review process doesn't explicitly say After you
make an update to the package, bump the 'Release' number and post a
new link each time. This is a popular convention, but it doesn't
On 2012-12-29 17:01, Ken Dreyer wrote:
I noticed our package review process doesn't explicitly say After you
make an update to the package, bump the 'Release' number and post a
new link each time. This is a popular convention, but it doesn't seem
to be formally documented.
On 2012-12-29 19:45, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 18:23:35 +, Jamie Nguyen wrote:
I've seen on a few occasions reviewers mention that they can't tell what
has changed in the spec since the previous version, as the new packager
has overwritten the previous spec.
If the
On 12/27/2012 07:35 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 06:55:01 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
As I understand it, we have a policy handling unresponsive submitters or
reviewers. However, there is a third case when the complete process is
stalled.
The situation then becomes
On 12/27/2012 10:48 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 09:48:45 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
Continue talking to the other people,
[snip]
Yes, this is the correct action. But it's hard to talk to people if
they don't reply at all or not in a meaningful way. I'm not talking
As I understand it, we have a policy handling unresponsive submitters or
reviewers. However, there is a third case when the complete process is
stalled.
The situation then becomes problematic if the stalled process handles a
package you want that much that you are willing to package it
On 2012-11-07 15:47, tim.laurid...@gmail.com wrote:
Sound very strange, it is not some kind orphan package, there have
been out of Fedora and has to re-enter.
It it an active maintained package in F17, there just have not worked
with latest version for gnome-shell, because they change the way
On 2012-11-07 16:53, tim.laurid...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com
mailto:leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote:
No top-posting in fedora-devel :)
Sorry :)
Besides that, I can just agree with Tim. The oldest package was
reviewed less
On 08/22/2012 10:53 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
Following this track: if I look into the build log for the 64-bit f17
build [1], it seems that the package doesn't require anything but
the
libenet-1.3.3(64-bit). So; in my simple eyes, this looks like AutoQA
doesn't really understand the situation
On 08/22/2012 10:53 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
Following this track: if I look into the build log for the 64-bit f17
build [1], it seems that the package doesn't require anything but
the
libenet-1.3.3(64-bit). So; in my simple eyes, this looks like AutoQA
doesn't really understand the situation
On 08/21/2012 05:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I'd like to see these macros back-ported into F17 and F16 RPM to remove
this objection. If that doesn't happen, I'm going to resist using them
in my spec files until they are in all active Fedora branches.
regards, tom lane
+1
On 08/21/2012 04:22 PM, Kamil Paral wrote:
hi,
i need help, because the AutoQA DepCheck fails on the package
speed-dreams,but the package was pushed anyway.
AutoQA DepCheck log:
http://autoqa.fedoraproject.org/results/418027-autotest/virt04.qa/depcheck/results/speed-dreams-2.1.0-1.html
the
On 08/21/2012 07:57 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On 2012-08-21 9:36, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 08/21/2012 04:22 PM, Kamil Paral wrote:
hi,
i need help, because the AutoQA DepCheck fails on the package
speed-dreams,but the package was pushed anyway.
AutoQA DepCheck log:
http
Back from holidays, I have five feature branches. This is somewhat
insane, and I need to come to conclusions to trash, merge or update
these. Here we go:
koji: Use koji scratch builds. This is just a manpage update, and a
separate script to download koji scratch builds. I could commit this
hm.. previous message with this heading was aimed for the fedora-review
mailing list (fedorarev...@lists.fedorahosted.org). If anyone still
wants to reply , please reply to that list. Otherwise, just ignore.
--alec
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 08/02/2012 06:15 PM, José Matos wrote:
On 07/11/2012 06:23 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
Dear all,
A new fedora-review is being brought to you.
For me it fails like this:
$ fedora-review -v -n octave-odepkg
Exception down the road...
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
On 07/24/2012 12:08 PM, José Matos wrote:
On 07/22/2012 10:09 PM, Alec Leamas wrote:
First time on this list; I try to handle adobe-source-libraries which
failed. It's just I don't know what to do.
The build failed because recent gcc update revealed a bug in current
boost. This bug is fixed
On 07/22/2012 10:33 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 21:28:28 +0100
Peter Robinsonpbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Kevin Fenzike...@scrye.com wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 07:39:31 -0500
Dennis Gilmoreden...@ausil.us wrote:
it was requested in
On 07/19/2012 09:22 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 13:20 -0600, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
Thanks Pierre,
Unfortunately there is no such file .config/fedora-review there is
however a .config/fedora-create-review.
I went a little bit too fast, the file is
This is about a package BZ #787713. It's standard, C++ library with a
base and -devel package.
The devel package contains both arch-dependent stuff (*.so) and noarch
headers.
Now, Ralf Corsepius raised the issue that package-devel.i386 and
package-devel.x86_64 cant be installed in
I raised this issue on rpmfusion-devel. However, I think it's general
enough to seek advice also here on fedora-devel. since it's really about
how to understand the filtering guidelines.
Hi!
I'm reviewing a package 2300 which at a glance seems to need filtering:
it both Requires: and
On 06/21/2012 04:04 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
On 06/21/2012 10:18 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
I raised this issue on rpmfusion-devel. However, I think it's general
enough to seek advice also here on fedora-devel. since it's really about
how to understand the filtering guidelines.
Hi!
I'm reviewing
On 06/21/2012 05:16 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
On 06/21/2012 03:53 PM, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 06/21/2012 04:04 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
[cut]
The filtering page on the wiki is rather out of date as it pre-dates
rpm 4.9 (F-15 onwards), which includes a native filtering mechanism
and doesn't require
On 06/20/2012 06:59 PM, Sergio Belkin wrote:
Hi Fedora community,
I know that I can fix the new address of sources files with sed
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Wrong_FSF_address). I
think that timestamp should not be preserved because it's a change, a
really small change, but
On 05/15/2012 10:19 AM, Tomas Radej wrote:
On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:31:08 +0200
Remi Colletfed...@famillecollet.com wrote:
Le 14/05/2012 16:22, Toshio Kuratomi a écrit :
What do you think?
I personally prefer to have the checkout instructions in comments.
+1
Except for some very complex
On 05/14/2012 10:46 PM, Thomas Moschny wrote:
2012/5/14 Toshio Kuratomia.bad...@gmail.com:
Automating of the package's checksum won't work for many VCS's . git, for
instance, does not preserve timestamps. So the tarball created from a git
snapshot will have a different checksum for each
This is about BZ 817268, python-faces. The faces library is bundled in
openerp-server, and the request is about unbundling this library.
Faces is basically two python packages and a binary application. The
upstream is dead. The library cannot be used or even installed in
current upstream
On 05/02/2012 05:34 AM, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
VÃt Ondruchvondr...@redhat.com wrote:
Dne 26.4.2012 18:13, Alec Leamas napsal(a):
On 04/26/2012 05:49 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:32:17 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote:
[...]
I am thinking about some dumping repository
On 04/27/2012 11:32 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:01:16 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote:
You
I am am a newbie, and although the overall wiki rule is Be Bold this
is not really the place for me to be that IMHO. So, I have prepared a
draft in
On 04/26/2012 01:18 PM, Nelson Marques wrote:
No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 01:08, Stephen Gallagher
sgall...@redhat.com escreveu:
On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 22:43 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Why not just drop the sponsorship process and just raise the barrier of
entry for the packaging
On 04/26/2012 02:30 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Alec Leamasleamas.a...@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/26/2012 01:18 PM, Nelson Marques wrote:
No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 01:08, Stephen Gallagher
sgall...@redhat.comescreveu:
On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 22:43 +, Jóhann B.
On 04/26/2012 03:02 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:59:30 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote:
[cut]
What I'm talking about is to tell these great people that there are two
ways to get their app packaged. One way is to become a packager, and so
far this discussion is about that path,.
On 04/26/2012 04:58 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:17:09 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote:
[cut]
And for the second part, that somebody has a good connection with
upstream, I'm not sure how that will help, *if* not even one packager
is available. Worse if the single person with
I got the trailing link wrong, here is same message with link OK (no
punctuation )
On 04/26/2012 04:58 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:17:09 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote:
[cut]
And for the second part, that somebody has a good connection with
upstream, I'm not sure how that
On 04/26/2012 05:49 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:32:17 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote:
OT? The question here isn't really what submitters do or don't, isn't
it what we could do to improve the process?.
The point is that not all submitters are collaborative, and others don't
On 04/23/2012 03:11 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 17:20 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
Thanks again. Following this advice when packaging makes perfect sense
to me. Still, when reviewing, my question is how hard I should push
it. If I understand Kevin correct I shouldn't push
Still a newbie I have repeatedly been running into apps which stores
private, unversioned libraries into /usr/lib*. The usual symptom is
'invalid-soname' errors rpmlint errors. One example is [3]
The proper way is to store these libs outside of ld.so's search path (in
which case rpmlint can
On 04/20/2012 05:09 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 04:32:59PM +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 04/20/2012 04:08 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
As far
as I know, invalid-soname does not match any requirement in our packaging
guidelines.
To my understanding, this is not really clear
On 04/20/2012 06:16 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:59:44PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
* Private unversiond libs in %{_libdir}. -- I would consider this a
blocker unless shown that they have to be there (and I would patch the
build scripts to fix
On 04/10/2012 07:01 PM, pinto.e...@gmail.com wrote:
Messaggio originale
Da: Horst H. von Brand
Inviato: 10/04/2012, 16:31
A: Development discussions related to Fedora; Kevin Kofler
Oggetto: Re: Primary Architectures: Another Proposal (RFC)
12, and counting... time for post-graduate
On 04/10/2012 07:17 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 19:10:46 +0200
Alec Leamasleamas.a...@gmail.com wrote:
I've moderated them... sorry it took me a few minutes to notice. ;)
kevin
Hey, no need to apologize, it was actually fixed in a couple of minutes.
Just a break in the
On 04/04/2012 01:36 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 12:23:17PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:23:16 +0200, FMDN (Fabio) wrote:
Hi all,
with one of the latest updates of corosync, we had to break some
API/ABI. All packages have been rebuilt and
My problem is about possible ways to form the version-release fields for
a git post-release.. My example involves a version like 1.1.0 and a git
release like 20120329git1234567
Reading [1], all examples of post-release updates are on the form
foo-1.1.0-1.20120328git1234567.fc16. Obviously,
On 03/30/2012 09:28 AM, Eric Smith wrote:
I'm working on packaging HP's LTFS filesystem (which uses fuse), and
it has binaries only in /usr/sbin. rpmlint complains that there are
no binaries, and the debuginfo package is empty.
[cut]
hpltfs.x86_64: E: no-binary
hpltfs.x86_64: E:
On 03/19/2012 12:50 PM, Nikos Roussos wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to build a package. It's an update on SparkleShare
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/search/sparkleshare package.
I build it locally with mock and everything seems ok. Package is built
successfully. But when I try to build it
On 03/19/2012 02:32 PM, Nikos Roussos wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com
mailto:leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/19/2012 12:50 PM, Nikos Roussos wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to build a package. It's an update on SparkleShare
https
On 03/13/2012 07:21 AM, Amit Saha wrote:
Hello:
I am in the process of building my first package [1], and have got
most of it sorted. 'rpmbuild -ba' executes successfully with the
current SPEC file[3].
However, the SRPM [2] fails in Mock with the error:
RPM build errors:
File not found
On 03/13/2012 08:43 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 03/13/2012 07:21 AM, Amit Saha wrote:
Hello:
I am in the process of building my first package [1], and have got
most of it sorted. 'rpmbuild -ba' executes successfully with the
current SPEC file[3].
However, the SRPM [2] fails in Mock
On 03/13/2012 08:58 AM, Amit Saha wrote:
Hello:
On 03/13/2012 06:50 PM, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 03/13/2012 08:43 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 03/13/2012 07:21 AM, Amit Saha wrote:
Hello:
I am in the process of building my first package [1], and have got
most of it sorted. 'rpmbuild -ba' executes
On 03/13/2012 10:10 AM, Amit Saha wrote:
On 03/13/2012 07:48 PM, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 03/13/2012 08:58 AM, Amit Saha wrote:
Hello:
On 03/13/2012 06:50 PM, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 03/13/2012 08:43 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 03/13/2012 07:21 AM, Amit Saha wrote:
Hello:
I am in the process
On 03/13/2012 11:55 AM, Amit Saha wrote:
On 03/13/2012 09:17 PM, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 03/13/2012 10:10 AM, Amit Saha wrote:
On 03/13/2012 07:48 PM, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 03/13/2012 08:58 AM, Amit Saha wrote:
Hello:
On 03/13/2012 06:50 PM, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 03/13/2012 08:43 AM, Alec
Thanks all for a remarkable set of advice including what not to do
(Petr M), a hint about what to do (Ralf E) and another hint how it
could be done (Aleksandra B).
I have been able to update the packaging to only bundle the boost tools
subdirectory. I presume that this should make everyone
I've tried to package Adobe Source Libraries, (BZ:790628). Once again,
I'm running into bundling issues.. The situation is basically that ASL
build system expects a boost source tree to be available. This is not
just to include and link, it's for the complete build process. I've
dealt with it
Trying to package a simple perl-only module from CPAN I get message
above when running rpmlint on the installed package. I have
%{?standard_perl_filter} according to the template.
I have noted that quite a number of existing perl modules (~10 on my
machine) have the same rpmlint warning. Can
On 02/18/2012 03:35 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 15:06:49 +0100
Alec Leamasleamas.a...@gmail.com wrote:
Trying to package a simple perl-only module from CPAN I get message
above when running rpmlint on the installed package. I have
%{?standard_perl_filter} according to the
201 - 295 of 295 matches
Mail list logo
