On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 12:28:46 -0500 (EST), Christian Schaller wrote:
Hi,
The core principle of the installer is that it operates on an application
level and not a package level. The current way it determines if something is
an application
is by looking for a .desktop file. So in theory you
On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 14:10:19 +0100, Sandro Mani wrote:
Well, a Shell Function would be more readable, for example. It would
accept normal arguments to fill in variables -- instead of global RPM
macros, which are substituted in the entire spec file.
Uhm, how can one this be done? Shell
On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 13:04:39 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
$ file screenshot-soundconverter.png
screenshot-soundconverter.png: PNG image data, 502 x 534, 8-bit/color RGBA,
non-interlaced
ScreenshotSizeWidthMin=624
ScreenshotSizeHeightMin=351
503 is smaller than 624 and the screenshot
On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 18:40:46 +0100, Sandro Mani wrote:
On 02.11.2013 18:18, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Hi,
Sandro Mani wrote:
%define do_build() \
mkdir build_win%{1}_%{2}; \
(cd build_win%{1}_%{2}; \
%{mingw%{1}_qmake_%{2}} 'PREFIX=%{mingw%{1}_prefix}'
'TARGET=quazip-%{2}'
I'm trying to follow what's happening related to gnome-software and the
.appdata.xml files. There is a growing number of mails, but I cannot find
any message that points out what the file
# rpm -qf /usr/share/app-info/xmls/fedora-20.xml.gz
gnome-software-3.10.3-1.fc20.x86_64
does.
For
On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 08:41:12 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 17:30:48 +0400,
Peter Lemenkov wrote:
Hello All!
I'm removing myself from the stratagus maintainers. It has two
co-maintainers but afaik automatic package re-assignment to a new
maintainer never worked. So
On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 19:43:25 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
What is the recommended procedure to test new .appdata.xml files?
Install them to /usr/share/appdata/ -- i've not tested this with
Fedora 20, but I know it works if you're using the rawhide package.
Yes, with Rawhide it works and
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 11:09:28 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
If anyone feels like adding an option to rpmdev-bumpspec, that one could
attempt at cleaning up Release tags -- but note that even least-significant
stuff right of the dist tag could be wanted by the package owner(s), so
simply
This is what I've done [1] for a package to handle the epel '0.'
prefix mentioned in the guidelines.
Where to find that in the guidelines?
Such a prefix sounds questionable and is news to me (not being an EPEL dev).
Ah, probably this special exception:
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 11:41:17 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
The linked spec is an example where rpmdev-bumpspec does _not_ know
what to do because of the %rhel macro in the Release tag. As a result,
the tag will be bumped at the very right side only.
I've tested it yesterday and the
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 13:31:00 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
Now I'm in doubt, I'll double check that this evening. Also, do we
want diverging releases for sub-packages ?
There may be use-cases.
A second Release tag in the spec file redefines %{release} for the
remainder of the spec file, so
On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 01:42:00 +0100, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
I only did a search of BAD use of %{dist} and NO %{dist} tag.
But there is a lot of rubbish:
alpha9.2.fc21
02.6.fc21
0.alpha3.fc21
0.fc20
0.fc21
Starting with 0 instead of 1 is a harmless mistake some packagers do also
during
On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 19:39:38 +0100, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
Kevin Kofler wrote:
Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
BAD use of %{dist} tag(75):
==
afpfs-ng-0.8.1-13.fc21.3.src.rpm 13.fc21.3
[and many similar examples]
NOTABUG:
On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 22:11:19 +0100, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 19:39:38 +0100, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
_rawhide_ is not an *old branch* . And it never was.
To have {?dist}.X in rawhide should be impossible.
It breaks the laws of thermodynamics!!
It looks
An update here, since Bruno has also replied but is not subscribed to devel@.
I've had a look at some of the packages, found a few issues and added
comments in bugzilla.
* Busybox (and mindi-busybox) contain another bundled MD5 implementation
originally by Ulrich Drepper.
* buffer has been
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 11:12:41 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
currently on a x86_64 system distro-sync to F19 is broken
i saw the same in F18 with updates-testing enabled on
a machine with i686 packages some days ago and download
the openssl packages for both archs from koji and
doing a yum
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:56:53 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
currently on a x86_64 system distro-sync to F19 is broken
i saw the same in F18 with updates-testing enabled on
a machine with i686 packages some days ago and download
the openssl packages for both archs from koji and
doing a yum
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:29:18 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Why did you have openssl.i686 installed on x86_64 to begin with?
You have messed up your installation. :-(
Have you use rpm -Uvh instead of rpm -Fvh? Or why have you installed
openssl.i686?
the machine has a long history
Well,
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:10:02 + (UTC), Andre Robatino wrote:
In F16, when I had 32-bit packages (namely Skype and Fedora's wine)
installed, I had both openssl.i686 and openssl.x86_64 installed, so
Indeed. Up to F17, but not anymore since F18:
On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 15:43:44 +0100, Sandro Mani wrote:
In which places have you searched already?
$HOME/.bashrc
$HOME/.bash_profile
/etc/bashrc
/etc/profile
/etc/profile.d/*
Is it the same for a fresh user account?
Is it the same for root?
Logging in from a VT as root resp. newly
/home/sandro/.local/bin in the PATH is not the default.
Or is it new for Rawhide?
$ grep PATH /etc/skel/.bash_profile
PATH=$PATH:$HOME/.local/bin:$HOME/bin
export PATH
Exists for a longer time already, added in of the .fc16 builds:
* Tue Jun 07 2011 Roman Rakus … - 4.2.10-3
- Added
On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 19:44:23 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
Deja vú:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-July/154896.html
Hah! A thread of doom.
[...]
Does any software store files into $HOME/.local/bin/ yet?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Mon, 28 Oct 2013 14:00:54 -0500, Michael Ekstrand wrote:
Does any software store files into $HOME/.local/bin/ yet?
Yes.
pip install --user some python package
The pip user scheme is to use ~/.local as an FHS-ish thing. IMO, this
is much superior to the cabal, gem, etc. notion that
On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 01:54:44 + (UTC), Ben Boeckel wrote:
Well, there is FE-NEEDSPONSOR. Could we add a checkbox to this page[1]
for needing a sponsor? A new packager might not know about
FE-NEEDSPONSOR and getting it right up front would help, I'd think.
On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 02:00:17 +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
your first post is unclear because you speak about two setups
to get rid of all this UsrMove fragments make a strict config
Ah yes, I could have expressed it better. My problem is the following:
[sandro@oldrawhide]$ echo $PATH
On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 13:43:57 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
Or, email not all FE-NEEDSPONSOR tickets but only those which are
deemed too old to be OK.
When would that be?
A recurring problem in the review queue is long response time. That is,
it takes several weeks (or even longer) till the
On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 20:23:22 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
[...] my idea was just that some kind of reminder if no-one
takes the ball , however that is defined (comment from sponsor, assigned
to sponsor, ...) within some time.
That wouldn't be helpful. There would only be a notification about
Account System, user bcornec is not a member of the
packager group anymore. What has happened there?
4) In the review queue, the review requests have been submitted using three
different e-mail addresses.
What's the status/plan with regard to these package review requests?
Regards,
--
Michael
On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 18:23:49 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2013-10-21 at 18:08 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
The intended usage of test list has always been a problem. Once in a
while, somebody points that out, but there's nobody (no leadership) to
work on a change actively
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 16:17:14 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
I would think that if we are in a situation where people who do development
don't subscribe to the devel list because of 'energy' reasons
(disillusionment, feelings of either a) pointlessness b) fait-accompli,
etc.), then just moving
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:40:28 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Ever since I've joined,
which is ohgod nearly five years ago now, the split has seemed
reasonably clear and non-controversial, and I really can't recall anyone
being particularly confused about it, so perhaps this is a problem which
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:54:27 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I'm sure the docs team talks about stuff in Rawhide occasionally too;
Unlike devel, the docs list is related to Documentation only, isn't it?
Could you imagine turning devel into a less general list?
Is devel the catch-all for anything
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:02:44 -0600, Pete Travis wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:54:27 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I'm sure the docs team talks about stuff in Rawhide occasionally too;
Unlike devel, the docs list is related to Documentation only, isn't it?
Could you imagine turning
On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 13:01:18 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
Errr...
I just hope if a packager is also its upstream, we can sponsor him
quickly as well.
Well, people are different, and it may not always happen quickly, if the
package suffers from issues and/or the Fedora specific stuff
See an example of mindi-busybox, packager from HP still can't get
sponsored after 5 years.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476234
It has had fedora-review flag set to '?', which means somebody
is working on it.
I've cleaned up the tickets and their dependencies.
Several
On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 08:11:08 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
Several have not been displayed in the review queue, none has been displayed
on the needsponsor list, and Bruno uses three different submitter email
addresses in bugzilla.
Me Bruno?
No, another Bruno, previously referred to as
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:59:28 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
On 10/21/2013 09:38 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
* Oldest request is from 2008(!) - but there are recent work on this BZ.
Probably the same reasons as with the normal review requests.
Sometimes reviews have stalled because
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:26:18 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
In many cases the values aren't picked up from the environment but
need to be passed in by other means (such as arguments to make etc).
Okay. make -e … could be run in that case as a work-around. But
overriding Makefile variables
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 14:06:33 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
IMHO adding precaution cruft like [ -f configure ] exit -1 [...]
is a sign of the packager doing package updates too carelessly if
(s)he doesn't even trust oneself or others to check if the upstream
build system has changed between
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 04:01:15 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Till Maas wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags
mentions only %optflags to be required for packages but I noticed that
%configure sets LDFLAGS to a value different than
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:52:32 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
A few years ago we've been much better at talking about things and
coming to a conclusion. Nowadays I have the feeling the community
is fragmented too much. With some people avoiding mailing-lists like
the plague, some people
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 16:23:29 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
The intended usage of test list has always been a problem. Once in a
while, somebody points that out, but there's nobody (no leadership) to
work on a change actively. Is it only for Test releases or also for
Rawhide? Its
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 13:07:25 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
As a first step, I suggest clearing up the intended usage of devel list.
There's too much traffic on that list. 792 messages so far in October.
This is way down from the peak 5-7 years ago.
What is the reason? More people avoiding
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:16:53 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/21/2013 06:08 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:52:32 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
A few years ago we've been much better at talking about things and
coming to a conclusion. Nowadays I have the feeling
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 11:57:06 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
I am not saying shut-up but I am saying that I am confused by what you
mean. First you seem to advocate more lists,
That could be a misunderstanding. Have I've phrased something very poorly.
Then please tell and give me a chance
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:47:12 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 10/21/2013 05:44 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
According to some in the QA community ( at least in the past ) any GA
release
test topic ( like update testing ) belongs on the user list.
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 11:02:57 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
On 10/17/2013 05:19 AM, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
I understand each one of us is busy with their life but a simple message
would suffice to let know about the status. Is
there a better way to address this concern to avoid repeating
comment
on all the open bug reports for it for a very long time, unfortunately.
http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/acpi
The non-responsive maintainer procedure has been started and interrupted
before, this year in May: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/963890
That's not good.
--
Michael Schwendt
Fedora
On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 16:22:58 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:31:49 -0600 Ken Dreyer wrote:
If this really is the consensus of the Fedora community, then I would
prefer that the guidelines on the wiki be specifically amended to
require this. IMHO the language in the
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 20:19:11 -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
Hello developers and packagers,
I recently received an email from the reporter[1] from rhbz #913289.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913289
related to the sponsorship. The review was done. One of sponsors
promised
On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 01:50:34 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
I know that, but I haven't permissions sergiomb does not have commit
access to azureus
we need o provenpackager and the question is more how request a Bodhi
update to a provenpackager ?
First find out _why_ those builds
On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:56:00 +0200, مصعب الزعبي wrote:
LOL ^_^
I have 7 review requests , 5 of them ready , but no sponsors !!!
Not true. You've had feedback from a sponsor already, but they are not
marked as such in bugzilla, so you don't know that it is a potential
sponsor for you.
On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:43:21 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
#topic https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/336 Please clarify the General
Naming Guidelines for packages
#info Use lowercase and turn underscores into dashes unless there's a
compelling reason to follow a different upstream
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 15:13:45 -0400, James Antill wrote:
If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can reply to
this e-mail, file a new ticket at https://fedorahosted.org/fpc,
e-mail me directly, or bring it up at the end of the meeting, during
the open floor topic. Note that
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 23:12:11 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Qua, 2013-10-16 at 23:57 +0200, Jochen Schmitt wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 08:59:17PM +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
But since humans fail there , who or how can create Bodhi updates for
them ?
The easies way to create an
On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 13:33:06 +0200, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
Hi,
as some of you already noticed ABRT started filling a private bugs which
are only readable by reporter and assigned developer. This is an
unfortunate UX design together with [1][2]. Fixing those two bugzillas
should help, but
On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 13:09:23 +0200, I wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1017695
Visited http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/mc and noticed several tickets at
the bottom are private, too.
This is a step into a wrong direction.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Sun, 06 Oct 2013 19:11:41 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I now see ... the version in f19 was greater than that in f20+rawhide,
for whatever reasons.
Actually, I wonder why AutoQA did not complain.
There are no AutoQA comments in that bodhi ticket at all. Almost as if
AutoQA has not been
On Sun, 06 Oct 2013 15:09:24 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sun, 06 Oct 2013 19:11:41 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I now see ... the version in f19 was greater than that in f20+rawhide,
for whatever reasons.
Actually, I wonder why AutoQA did not complain
On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 11:44:38 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
[...] But I thought there were issues with doing exclude
arch for a noarch package.
It's an ugly work-around. noarch = no particular arch = any arch.
Hence not publishing a noarch package for some arch is questionable.
Unlike ordinary
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 13:41:48 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
On 01/10/13 10:27, Juan Orti Alcaine wrote:
Hello, I'm trying to contact to Steven Pritchard, maintainer of
amavisd-new, FAS user: steve
Anyone knows anything about him? There are bugs open without response
for years:
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 12:38:25 -0400, Lars Kellogg-Stedman wrote:
[...] what the upstream Makefile
currently produces. I wasn't sure how invasive I should be in terms
of patching the upstream build process.
The build output is silent using '@' command invocations in the Makefile.
Patching that
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 10:35:33 +0300, Oron Peled wrote:
On Sunday 29 September 2013 21:22:24 Lars Kellogg-Stedman wrote:
I went ahead and generated a patch to the Makefile that uses the
package version for the library version.
That's wrong, as library versions represent API/ABI changes
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 11:24:45 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
In GNOME Software, we show a list of applications for each category
that we think are frikin’ awesome. Some have AppData[1], and some
don’t. For the ones that don’t yet have AppData it leaves the
responsibility of writing the long
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 11:59:43 -0400, Lars Kellogg-Stedman wrote:
Hello everyone,
I've just submitted my first package review request to Fedora
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1013363), which is for
libre (http://www.creytiv.com/re.html). This is a dependency for
baresip
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 10:11:12 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006954
The problem is that many (most?) programs won't handle this well. For
example, how does mc handle having its perl scripts installed but
non-functional?
The missing extfs.d script
On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 19:12:41 +0100, Phil Dobbin wrote:
Hi, all.
I was wondering as to why Ananconda has no facility to overwrite a
distro already present on the target machine. I've studied it apart
from destroying the existing partition with GParted there seems to be no
other way
On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 13:51:28 +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
On 13.09.2013 11:48, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 09:54:49 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 09/12/2013 10:40 PM, Sandro Mani wrote:
I just posted a review for avl (the Aerodynamic and flight-dynamic
analysis
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 14:07:08 -0400, James Antill wrote:
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2013-09-19 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.freenode.net.
Links to all tickets below can be found at:
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 10:51:41 +0200, Mike FABIAN wrote:
What is going on in package ibus-typing-booster?
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ibus-typing-booster.git/plain/ibus-typing-booster.spec
It attempts at obsoleting various packages, but since it does that with a
specific dist tag
On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 12:09:21 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
Have you tried to tweak the %setup macro with the -n option ?
Yes, I have to because the source name doesn't match the package name
anymore...
%setup -q -n %{srcname}-%{version}
where srcname is defines at tqsl
I could
On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 14:04:09 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
It could be that you're only confused about what %setup does. You really
just need to tell it which build directory to enter, and that builddir
will be entered automatically for the rest of the %prep, %build, %install
and %check
On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 15:07:58 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
Ok, apparently I've been unintentionally obtuse...
The problem isn't (directly) with %setup. I know how to do that.
The problem is when you have a (-n type) subpackage that is of a different
version from the main source.
Maximum
On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 09:54:49 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 09/12/2013 10:40 PM, Sandro Mani wrote:
I just posted a review for avl (the Aerodynamic and flight-dynamic
analysis of rigid aircrafts package) [1], and the reviewer noticed that
it conflicts with the retired avl package (the
What is going on in package ibus-typing-booster?
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ibus-typing-booster.git/plain/ibus-typing-booster.spec
It attempts at obsoleting various packages, but since it does that with a
specific dist tag and without retiring those packages, it fails entirely,
because
What's the full story here?
php-gettext
php-gettext-0:1.0.11-5.fc20.noarch isn't obsoleted
php-gettext-0:1.0.11-4.fc19.noarch isn't obsoleted
php-gettext-0:1.0.11-3.fc18.noarch isn't obsoleted
php-gettext-0:1.0.9-3.fc15.noarch is oldest
php-gettext 0:1.0.11-3
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 13:54:47 +0200, Petr Hracek wrote:
Hi folks,
I would like to separate emacs-common into more packages (in rawhide
currently).
emacs-common contains all lisp files, info and man pages
Do you think that it is a good idea to separate them into groups like
emacs-org
On Sat, 7 Sep 2013 18:03:48 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
I adopted libeio back when Node.js still bundled it to aid in the unbundling
effort, but upstream fixed the bundling problem here by no longer using
libeio for anything.
That explains a bit more!
libeio is bundled within
On Sun, 8 Sep 2013 17:32:55 +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 12:11:05PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
no idea why the FF maintainer does not try to install his own
package for days or at least replace it with a clean build
On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 12:49:01 +0200, Juerg Haefliger wrote:
Hi,
A long time ago rpmbuild used to have an option --buildarch to
override the arch detection. What is its equivalent nowadays? Sorry,
couldn't figure it out so far.
--target=x86_64
Hmm... That builds a package for
On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 20:11:12 +0400, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
Hello All!
I'm going to update libcue up to 1.4.0 from current 1.3.0, with soname
bump. The following packages are affected by this upgrade:
* audacious-plugins-0:3.4-0.6.beta1.fc19.x86_64
Wherever you've run that query, this is an
On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 09:04:23 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
I've highlighted the %{?dist} tag issue. see if this is better now:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages
Any change like that could help. :) Thanks for the effort!
--
devel
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:57:18 +0200, 80 wrote:
By mere curiosity, why didn't we follow the usual renaming process (and
avoid losing the previous history in git) ?
It was just an upstream rename due to a trademark issue.
The rename process may have been followed, but the renamed packages have
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:52:25 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
I guess you won't get responses to packages that are orphaned, because
then the bug report is assigned to the orphan user.
Only few were orphaned when filing the bugs. I just didn't think about
using the pkgdb API to fetch the list.
Dead
for your interest. It is a reoccuring problem that both the rename
request submitter *and* the reviewer get the Obsoletes tags wrong.
--
Michael Schwendt
Fedora release 20 (Null) - Linux 3.11.0-0.rc7.git0.1.fc20.x86_64
loadavg: 0.36 0.21 0.15
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 07:20:36 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
I don't know what happened with libgssglue.
This was retired for what reason?
It affects too many...
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/libgssglue.git/plain/dead.package
is not helpful and only tells Obsolete package, but that
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 10:30:00 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/libgssglue.git/plain/dead.package
is not helpful and only tells Obsolete package, but that doesn't
seem to refer to RPM Obsoletes:
$ repoquery --whatobsoletes libgssglue
$
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 16:46:23 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
I want to know the reason, why he retired it.
Well, the dead.package file is supposed to tell, but in this case it's
only ambiguous.
If there is a new package, which will replace it?
A _replacement_ would need to follow the
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 13:35:40 -0500, inode0 wrote:
[...] This was just an announcement of the vote and look where it has
gone.
It was the missing announcement that made me start this thread, after I
had learnt late about the almost ended election in the German Fedora forum
and nowhere else. I
On Fri, 23 Aug 2013 13:39:40 +0200, Tomas Radej wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 18:23:39 -0600
Chris Murphy wrote:
snip
I'd back no release name for 20 with 8 points and 0 for everything else, if
it's an option, and in particular if the marketing includes to the effect
of: Fedora
On Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:04:54 -0500, inode0 wrote:
[...] so why do we have to keep going over this?
Dunno whether we _have_ to. The original purpose of this thread has been a
different one.
--
Fedora release 20 (Null) - Linux 3.11.0-0.rc6.git1.2.fc20.x86_64
loadavg: 0.08 0.09 0.07
--
devel
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:27:47 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
In an attempt to test fedora-review we have run it on almost allpackages
in the complete rawhide distribution. Our primary objective is to
certify that fedora-review is stable for all this kind of input. Also,
these test reveals some
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 18:10:12 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
Funny! I'm interested in hearing more about these,
| 347 CheckStaticLibs
|Static libs not in a -static package. Most are haskell packages
|which have an exception not handled by f-r. There are more,
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:27:47 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
The overall results with some comments are at http://ur1.ca/f5xxw .
The CheckSoFiles results might be .so plug-in libs (extension modules),
which are stored in private paths, i.e. outside run-time linker's search.
Or even non-versioned
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/voting/about/relnamef20
Is this thing for real?
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/voting/
says the End Date is 2013-08-23 23:59:59.
Where has it been announced this time?
There's nothing in the archives for announce and devel-announce list.
--
devel mailing list
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 08:57:38 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
I have openssl and fipscheck obsoletes on the list.
They were added because the base openssl (and fipscheck) package was
split into openssl-libs and openssl subpackages where only the
openssl-libs is needed unless something requires the
What's the full story here?
php-gettext
php-gettext-0:1.0.11-5.fc20.noarch isn't obsoleted
php-gettext-0:1.0.11-4.fc19.noarch isn't obsoleted
php-gettext-0:1.0.11-3.fc18.noarch isn't obsoleted
php-gettext-0:1.0.9-3.fc15.noarch is oldest
php-gettext 0:1.0.11-3 obsoleted
The Obsoletes tag for these python-django-foo renames is not high
enough. A systematical error due to not considering the dist tag.
django-extra-form-fields
django-extra-form-fields-0:0.0.1-2.fc17.noarch isn't obsoleted
django-extra-form-fields-0:0.0.1-1.fc16.noarch is oldest
I've split out the code that performs this check (based on an idea
like old RepoPrune), added a brute-force check for dead.package files
(via http and cgit), and the current working-copy is this:
http://mschwendt.fedorapeople.org/obscheck-remote.py
Output for Rawhide:
Dead and all builds
On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 21:01:03 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
I just noticed the mass rebuild on Aug 3 botched up my EVR for
libreswan:
Release: %{?prever:0.}1%{?prever:.%{prever}}%{?dist}.1
The trailing .1 is valid, at least:
601 - 700 of 1404 matches
Mail list logo
