Re: mpfr soname bump in rawhide

2010-12-03 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 12/03/2010 10:11 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Adam Williamson wrote: Thanks, Bruno! Reply goes for Ivana too. On the topic of Ivana not being 'superuser' (I guess you meant provenpackager?), does it make sense for anyone who maintains a library that other packages build against to be given

Re: mpfr soname bump in rawhide

2010-12-01 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 12/01/2010 07:19 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 09:13 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 10:31:59 +0100, Dodji Seketelido...@redhat.com wrote: Indeed. But just curious, how do one arranges a tag? Is this documented somewhere? Or you just have to

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

2010-11-26 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/25/2010 11:24 PM, Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) wrote: Furthermore, step to reproduce also is very important, and may be we should enforce users fill it? This doesn't seem a clever idea to me, because at least for me, many abrt alerts originate from breakdowns without any obvious

Re: Urgent: today's F14 catastrophe with openldap-servers update

2010-11-24 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/24/2010 10:45 AM, Matej Cepl wrote: Dne 24.11.2010 03:28, Ralf Corsepius napsal(a): No, it's not your fault (Or at least only partially). A functional QA would catch such kind of breakages. Yes, but functional QA would require more manpower than Fedora QA currently has. That's one

Re: The new Update Acceptance Criteria are broken

2010-11-24 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/24/2010 12:22 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 08:31:15AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 11/23/2010 06:51 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: IMO, the real problem is not backports vs. upgrading to fix bugs, it's bugs not getting fixed in Fedora, for a variety of reasons

Re: Urgent: today's F14 catastrophe with openldap-servers update

2010-11-23 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/23/2010 05:30 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: On 11/23/10 5:55 AM, Jan Vcelak wrote: Hi! Currently, the upgrade process in openldap looks like this: * during db4 package upgrade run db_upgrade (%triggerin and %triggerun) * if minor version of openldap changes (e.g. 2.3 - 2.4), export the

Re: Urgent: today's F14 catastrophe with openldap-servers update

2010-11-23 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/23/2010 07:36 PM, Jan Vcelak wrote: On Tuesday 23 November 2010 19:13:09, Panu Matilainen wrote: Another related thing is that Berkeley DB which openldap uses is notoriously picky about getting updated. I'm fairly certain openldap does not update their bundled BDB version to prevent

Re: The new Update Acceptance Criteria are broken

2010-11-22 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/23/2010 05:51 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote: Mike Fedyk píše v Po 22. 11. 2010 v 18:03 -0800: Also security updates should not have any other changes mixed in. In the early days of Fedora, it was explicitly decided that (contra Debian) maintainers are not required to backport patches and that

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

2010-11-08 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/08/2010 01:34 PM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote: On 11/06/2010 02:53 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 11/05/2010 09:46 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 17:56:51 +0100, Ralf wrote: ABRT It doesn't tell the user that core dumps without reproducer are worthless in most cases

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

2010-11-05 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/05/2010 05:41 PM, Matej Cepl wrote: Orcan Ogetbil, Wed, 03 Nov 2010 21:02:02 -0400: Maybe it is time to discuss the usefulness of ABRT to Fedora. I think that it is a great idea for commercial products such as RHEL, but it obviously did not fit Fedora as is. From what I have seen, the

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

2010-11-05 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/05/2010 09:46 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 17:56:51 +0100, Ralf wrote: ABRT It doesn't tell the user that core dumps without reproducer are worthless in most cases but blindly sends out reports Parts of the Fedora user base abuse ABRT in that they refuse to fill

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

2010-11-05 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/05/2010 08:20 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 17:49 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Peter Lemenkov wrote: 2010/11/4 Orcan Ogetbil : Maybe it is time to discuss the usefulness of ABRT to Fedora. I think that it is a great idea for commercial

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

2010-11-05 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/05/2010 10:06 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 23:58:21 +, Jóhann wrote: On behalf of all reporters that have never received a response from a maintainer on a component they have reported against I not only ask the ABRT maintainers to block any reports against those

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

2010-11-04 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/04/2010 07:15 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:05 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: I guess what I'm asking is what actual harm/damage are these reports causing, beyond the time it takes to look at the report and figure out whether you can fix it? Why is the fact that people

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

2010-11-04 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/04/2010 07:55 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 07:41 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: I'm not sure SNR is the be-all and end-all, really. When it comes to efficiency, it is. In other words, as far as I am concerned, abrt has reduced efficiency of bug-hunting by flooding

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

2010-11-03 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 11/04/2010 03:59 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 22:12 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 21:02 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: Maybe it is time to discuss the usefulness of ABRT to Fedora. I think that it

Re: Ubuntu 10.10's installer looks rather nice

2010-10-14 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 10/12/2010 03:56 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: On 10/12/2010 02:52 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 10/12/2010 02:16 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: On 10/12/2010 10:28 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: Hi, Striving for usability and pleasantness for the untechnical users certainly

Re: Ubuntu 10.10's installer looks rather nice

2010-10-12 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 10/12/2010 02:16 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: On 10/12/2010 10:28 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: Hi, Striving for usability and pleasantness for the untechnical users certainly is a good thing. It gets problematic when you choose to make things technically inferior just to please

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-06 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 10/06/2010 02:49 PM, Matej Cepl wrote: Ralf Corsepius, Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:01:09 +0200: Close source school of thinking - Trademarks exist to protect an enterprise's product and to close out copyiers. FLOSS exists to enable people to share. Nonsense, trademarks exists to protect users

Re: trademarks [was: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs]

2010-10-06 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 10/06/2010 04:08 PM, Michal Schmidt wrote: On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 15:26:59 +0200 Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 10/06/2010 02:49 PM, Matej Cepl wrote: Nonsense, trademarks exists to protect users and to avoid living off somebody else brand recognition. I disagree - trademarks exist to protect

Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs

2010-10-04 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 10/05/2010 12:37 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 11:08 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote: That's what i've been saying all day. It's only free software if you change the name, in which case you may loose brand recognition. Imagine if Linus forbid people from calling their OS

Re: Broken dependencies with Fedora 14 + updates-testing - 2010-09-27

2010-09-28 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/28/2010 05:38 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 09/27/2010 10:51 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: Michael Schwendt (mschwe...@gmail.com) said: The following packages in the repository suffer from broken dependencies

Re: Broken dependencies with Fedora 14 + updates-testing - 2010-09-27

2010-09-27 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/27/2010 10:51 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: Michael Schwendt (mschwe...@gmail.com) said: The following packages in the repository suffer from broken dependencies: == The results in this summary consider Test Updates!

Re: Why is Coin3d version 3 and Pivy not in Fedora

2010-09-22 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/22/2010 08:32 AM, Prasad H. L. wrote: Hi, I was trying to find out why is coin3d version 3.1.3 (latest stable version) and its python binding (pivy) not in fedora. All I managed to get was a bugzilla thread https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?format=multipleid=458975 which was

Re: Why is Coin3d version 3 and Pivy not in Fedora

2010-09-22 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/22/2010 10:38 AM, Prasad H. L. wrote: On 22 September 2010 13:29, Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de wrote: On 09/22/2010 08:32 AM, Prasad H. L. wrote: Hi, I was trying to find out why is coin3d version 3.1.3 (latest stable version) and its python binding (pivy) not in fedora. All I

Re: Why is Coin3d version 3 and Pivy not in Fedora

2010-09-22 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/22/2010 11:06 AM, Prasad H. L. wrote: On 22 September 2010 14:24, Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de wrote: On 09/22/2010 10:38 AM, Prasad H. L. wrote: On 22 September 2010 13:29, Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.dewrote: On 09/22/2010 08:32 AM, Prasad H. L. wrote: Hi, I was

Re: Passing arguments into LDFLAGS

2010-09-22 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/22/2010 02:08 PM, Paul F. Johnson wrote: Hi, I know I can do the likes of export CFLAGS=$CFLAGS -blah and it will pass whatever CFLAGS is plus the argument -blah to the compiler. How do I do this with LDFLAGS. Depends on a build-system's internals. I'm trying to pass --build-id

Re: [perl-Test-Smoke] - 630802 filter Mail::Sendmail from provides, require it from RPM

2010-09-07 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/07/2010 08:32 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: commit 913e9f58837c3237bd67804e552732e77bb336e7 Author: Marcela Mašláňovámmasl...@redhat.com Date: Tue Sep 7 08:32:10 2010 +0200 - 630802 filter Mail::Sendmail from provides, require it from RPM perl-Test-Smoke.spec | 11

Re: [perl-Test-Smoke] - 630802 filter Mail::Sendmail from provides, require it from RPM

2010-09-07 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/07/2010 10:57 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: On 09/07/2010 10:51 AM, Paul Howarth wrote: On 07/09/10 07:44, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 09/07/2010 08:32 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: commit 913e9f58837c3237bd67804e552732e77bb336e7 Author: Marcela Mašláňovámmasl...@redhat.com Date: Tue

Re: Putting cross compilers into Fedora

2010-09-01 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/01/2010 12:41 PM, David Howells wrote: Would it be worth our while putting into Fedora basic gcc and binutils rpms for cross compilers for all the Linux arches? I keep finding the need to compile kernels for arches other than the x86_64 boxes I normally use, and I keep borrowing

Re: Putting cross compilers into Fedora

2010-09-01 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/01/2010 01:53 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: On 09/01/2010 12:48 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 09/01/2010 12:41 PM, David Howells wrote: Would it be worth our while putting into Fedora basic gcc and binutils rpms for cross compilers for all the Linux arches? I keep finding the need

Re: Putting cross compilers into Fedora

2010-09-01 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/01/2010 02:21 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 02:06:37PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: - Fedora's rpm and some components the build-infrastructure have serious issues related to cross-building. - A cross compiler alone is not worth it, you need a whole zoo of further

Re: Putting cross compilers into Fedora

2010-09-01 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/01/2010 03:02 PM, Rich Mattes wrote: On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 8:46 AM, David Woodhousedw...@infradead.org wrote: There's a reason the 'crosstool' and similar scripts are so bloody sick. Speaking of which, it looks like there's a stalled review of crosstool-ng in the works [1].

Re: Putting cross compilers into Fedora

2010-09-01 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 09/01/2010 04:37 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: b) To equippe the rpm/yum/mock etc. infrastructure with a mechanism to pull-in foreign binaries into a sys-root (E.g. to install Fedora *.ppc.rpm rpms into /usr/ppc-redhat/sys-root). So far, such mechanism doesn't exist. No need for that eithr.

Re: Question about sane usage of macroses in perl template

2010-08-27 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 08/27/2010 10:28 AM, Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) wrote: $ rpmdev-newspec -t perl produce template where, inter alia we have such lines: %{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor OPTIMIZE=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS make %{?_smp_mflags} I'm wonder why there used mix of macros %{__perl} and

Re: drop default MTA for Fedora 15

2010-08-25 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 08/25/2010 09:08 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Chris Adams wrote: How many users use at or bc (well, I use dc all the time)? Well, at least at is a nice command and some people use it, but… What about ed? … it's time we drop such legacy junk! What you offend as legacy junk is mandated by

Re: Broken dependencies: perl-Config-Model

2010-08-19 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 08/19/2010 06:07 PM, Paul Howarth wrote: On 19/08/10 16:52, build...@fedoraproject.org wrote: perl-Config-Model has broken dependencies in the F-14 tree: On x86_64: perl-Config-Model-1.205-2.fc14.noarch requires perl(YAML::Any)= 0:0.303 On i386:

Re: New bodhi release in production

2010-08-13 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 08/13/2010 05:10 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Ralf Corsepius wrote: I think, for packages that are modified during the testing period, this N should be calculated from the day the last push was made to testing. This would very unhelpful. Yes, this was my initial intention. However, looking

Re: New bodhi release in production

2010-08-13 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 08/13/2010 06:45 PM, Luke Macken wrote: On 08/13/2010 01:57 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 08/13/2010 01:23 AM, Luke Macken wrote: On 08/12/2010 07:12 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Luke Macken wrote: - Minimum time-in-testing requirements

Re: Where can I find the list of all Fedora Git repos?

2010-08-12 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 08/12/2010 10:03 AM, Peter Lemenkov wrote: Hello All! It was easy to build whole list of upstream projects available in Fedora - anyone could just look over the contents of this page: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/ Now it doesn't look that easy. I use

Re: New bodhi release in production

2010-08-12 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 08/13/2010 01:23 AM, Luke Macken wrote: On 08/12/2010 07:12 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Luke Macken wrote: - Minimum time-in-testing requirements - Every day bodhi will look for updates that have been in testing for N days

Re: Orphaning all my packages

2010-08-11 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 08/12/2010 03:34 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Mike McGrath wrote: Luckily Remi got a list: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-August/140708.html Unfortunately, Remi's list only covers php-*, I think there are other affected packages too. He links to pkgdb for the full list,

Re: perl packaging guidelines

2010-07-27 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 07/27/2010 06:49 PM, Iain Arnell wrote: Maybe we should also consider splitting perl-sig mailing list into separate perl-sig-bug-and-cvs-spam and a real discussion list. Please no. a) We already have way too many lists in Fedora. b) perl-sig members already receive many duplicate mails

Re: rawhide perl-5.12 status

2010-07-13 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 07/13/2010 10:33 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: On 07/08/2010 10:13 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: BTW: We are talking about 4 packages, involving these 3 maintainers: perl-DBI-Dumper: Chris Weyl perl-Data-Alias: Chris Weyl perl-Pugs-Compiler: Steven Pritchard. perl-Test-AutoBuild: Daniel

Re: Bug 531464 - why the WONTFIX?

2010-07-12 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 07/12/2010 09:34 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Christoph Wickert wrote: Ask yourself: What do we gain, if we gather all these backtraces in bugzilla and then close them WONTFIX? It's more work for the users, the maintainers and the bugzappers, but we gain nothing. Seems like a bad deal, … and

Re: Licensing Guidelines Update - Please Read

2010-07-08 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 07/07/2010 10:29 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: Hello Fedora! Please take a moment and read this email. There's cake in it for you. Upon the advice of Red Hat Legal, we have slightly amended the Fedora Licensing Guidelines (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines). The

Re: rpms/perl/devel perl.spec,1.273,1.274

2010-07-08 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 07/08/2010 05:07 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: Author: mmaslano Index: perl.spec === RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl/devel/perl.spec,v retrieving revision 1.273 retrieving revision 1.274 diff -u -p -r1.273 -r1.274 ---

Re: rawhide perl-5.12 status

2010-07-07 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 07/07/2010 09:37 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: On 07/03/2010 08:06 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: An update: I filed BZ's on all of those packages which haven't not already been tracked as FTBS. All of these BZs are tagged as F14Target rsp. F14FTBFS (which indirectly blocks F14Target). Thank

Re: rawhide perl-5.12 status

2010-07-07 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 07/08/2010 05:05 AM, Iain Arnell wrote: 2010/7/7 Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de: On 07/07/2010 03:21 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: After I gained so much popularity on fedora-devel, I have no courage to ask rel-eng for another favour like remove package, which is not mine. But surely

Re: rawhide perl-5.12 status

2010-07-07 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 07/07/2010 03:21 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: On 07/07/2010 01:28 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 07/07/2010 09:37 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: On 07/03/2010 08:06 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: An update: I filed BZ's on all of those packages which haven't not already been

Re: Multi-owned perl directories in perl package in F-13

2010-07-03 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 07/03/2010 10:16 AM, Iain Arnell wrote: On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Remi Colletfed...@famillecollet.com wrote: Le 03/07/2010 10:02, Iain Arnell a écrit : How this should be handled nicely ? Exactly as it is at the minute - continue allow perl modules to share directory ownership.

Re: rawhide perl-5.12 status

2010-07-03 Thread Ralf Corsepius
An update: I filed BZ's on all of those packages which haven't not already been tracked as FTBS. All of these BZs are tagged as F14Target rsp. F14FTBFS (which indirectly blocks F14Target). On 06/28/2010 02:19 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: Hi, AFAICT, these packages remain to be looked after

Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?

2010-07-02 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 07/02/2010 09:37 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 07/02/2010 12:57 PM, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote: It's seems to me that you have to be an employee of red hat to get the privilegue to deal arbitrarily with all packages. Incorrect. Anyone in the provenpackagers group has access to almost all

Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?

2010-07-02 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 07/02/2010 10:05 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 07/02/2010 01:23 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: The Petr's are apparent newbies/newcomers. They were granted access to all perl-packages, because they are @RH. Probably because it is their paid job to work on these packages. I am not aware

Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?

2010-07-02 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 07/02/2010 01:58 PM, Dave Airlie wrote: On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 13:55 +0200, Léon Keijser wrote: On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 11:34 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 13:07:45 +0530, Rahul wrote: IMO, there is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone with commit access updating

Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?

2010-07-02 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 07/02/2010 06:00 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 09:53:00AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 07/02/2010 09:37 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 07/02/2010 12:57 PM, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote: It's seems to me that you have to be an employee of red hat to get the privilegue

Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?

2010-07-02 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 07/02/2010 06:07 PM, Richard Hughes wrote: On 2 July 2010 17:00, Toshio Kuratomia.bad...@gmail.com wrote: They were granted access to all perl-packages, because they are @RH. Probably because it is their paid job to work on these packages. Ralf, you need to stop repeating this particular

Re: measuring success [was Re: Bodhi 0.7.5 release]

2010-07-02 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 07/02/2010 06:20 PM, Will Woods wrote: The main reasons we want to perform testing are things like: to avoid pushing updates with broken dependencies, or updates that cause serious regressions requiring manual intervention / emergency update replacements. That sort of thing. Should be

Re: measuring success

2010-07-02 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 07/02/2010 08:12 PM, Till Maas wrote: Btw. on a related issue:How do provenpackagers properly test for broken deps manually? Like ordinary packagers should do ;) The only difference between provenpackagers and ordinary packagers is them having write access to packages they do not own.

Re: concept of package ownership

2010-07-02 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 07/03/2010 03:49 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: David Woodhouse wrote: In the old days of RHL and beehive, I think we had it about right... with the obvious exception that it was Red Hat only, but the attitude to packaging was right, IMHO. There _was_ someone who knew most about a package and was

Re: who is Petr Pisar from redhat ?

2010-07-02 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 07/02/2010 06:43 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 7/2/10 9:18 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: I had to apply and justify the reasons why I wanted to be a provenpackager. I know you did, but the Petr's did not. Their presumable supervisor @RH (Marcella

Re: concept of package ownership

2010-07-01 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 07/02/2010 06:34 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 21:17:38 -0700 Jesse Keatingjkeat...@j2solutions.net wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 7/1/10 6:18 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: I think we need to get rid of the concept of ownership entirely, that'd also

Re: Bodhi 0.7.5 release

2010-06-30 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 06/30/2010 06:18 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 11:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: The proposed policy might be workable if we had a surplus of proventester manpower available, but we obviously have not got that. And you think re-allocating the already scarce manpower to this

rawhide perl-5.12 status

2010-06-28 Thread Ralf Corsepius
Hi, AFAICT, these packages remain to be looked after * BackupPC-3.1.0-14 wants perl-suidperl (Abandoned by perl-5.12.) * gnumeric-plugins-extras-1.10.0-1 Fails to build for reasons outside of Perl. * perl-DBI-Dumper Fails to build - Dead upstream. * perl-Data-Alias Fails to build - Dead

Re: samba4 NVR koji issue

2010-06-28 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 06/28/2010 02:18 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: On Monday, June 28, 2010 12:53:10 am Ralf Corsepius wrote: Hi, The samba4 package in rawhide would need a rebuild for perl-5.12.x. However building fails with strange error message[1]: samba4-4.0.0-23.alpha11.fc14.2 (180065) failed on ppc06

Re: Evolution update in F13

2010-06-28 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 06/29/2010 06:17 AM, Braden McDaniel wrote: Updating F13 now works; Does it? Not for me. ... Resolving Dependencies -- Running transaction check -- Processing Dependency: libedataserver-1.2.so.11 for package: pidgin-evolution-2.7.1-2.fc13.i686 -- Processing Dependency:

Re: Evolution update in F13

2010-06-25 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 06/26/2010 07:33 AM, Adam Miller wrote: Sounds like it might need to be. Maybe push stable requests with -2 karma to some list that requires investigation and possibly a +3 (or other agreed upon number) proventesters karma to go stable? Would you mind to explain how could have happened: #

Re: rpms/thunderbird/devel thunderbird.spec,1.174,1.175

2010-06-24 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 06/22/2010 04:57 PM, Jan Horak wrote: Author: xhorak Index: thunderbird.spec === RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/thunderbird/devel/thunderbird.spec,v retrieving revision 1.174 retrieving revision 1.175 diff -u -p -r1.174 -r1.175

Re: rawhide report: 20100622 changes

2010-06-23 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 06/23/2010 06:50 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: On Wed, 2010-06-23 at 02:25 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote: Can we query what packages were downgraded due to this mass perl-5.12.0-rebuild retag? In most occasions, his would not be sufficient. You would have to rebuild them. Hrm, that's going to be

Re: perl 5.12.1 is in rawhide

2010-06-22 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 06/21/2010 02:22 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: Hello, as you might noticed, perl was pushed into rawhide. Well, ... any ETA for when it rsp. the whole branch will land? So far, all rawhides mirrors I've checked still carry perl-5.10.1-118. Have the packages already been pushed to the master

Re: rpm -q --changelog listing items twice

2010-06-17 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 06/17/2010 03:51 PM, David Timms wrote: Hi, with the recent libcurl/curl updates for F12 I tried a: rpm -q --changelog of each. While curl's changelog looks normal, the information is shown twice for libcurl. Likely you have 2 libcurls installed, libcurl.i386 and libcurl.x86_64. Ralf --

Re: bodhi statistics

2010-06-09 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 06/09/2010 08:54 AM, Luke Macken wrote: On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 08:38 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: Luke Macken wrote: By success I mean that I felt we were successful in drafting, implementing, deploying, and utilizing the mentioned policies as expected, and the results show increased

Re: Package maintainers -- want test results by mail?

2010-06-02 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 06/01/2010 10:43 PM, James Laska wrote: Greetings package maintainers, Want to get notification of any breakage in your just-built koji packages? This includes results of rpmlint [1], Unless rpmlint starts to use a massively cleaned up set of rules, its results are mostly noise. --

Re: Package maintainers -- want test results by mail?

2010-06-02 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 06/02/2010 01:49 PM, James Laska wrote: On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 10:49 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 06/01/2010 10:43 PM, James Laska wrote: Greetings package maintainers, Want to get notification of any breakage in your just-built koji packages? This includes results of rpmlint [1

Re: Package maintainers -- want test results by mail?

2010-06-02 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 06/02/2010 02:36 PM, seth vidal wrote: On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 08:25 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 07:49 -0400, James Laska wrote: On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 10:49 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 06/01/2010 10:43 PM, James Laska wrote: Greetings package maintainers, Want

Re: Package maintainers -- want test results by mail?

2010-06-02 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 06/02/2010 07:25 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote: On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 14:48 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: Well, then lets begin: # rpmlint yum yum.noarch: W: self-obsoletion yum-allow-downgrade 1.1.20-0 obsoletes yum-allow-downgrade [...] yum.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc

Re: Package maintainers -- want test results by mail?

2010-06-02 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 06/02/2010 08:23 PM, seth vidal wrote: On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 10:46 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 19:41 +0200, Till Maas wrote: And I doubt that python scripts in below /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages usually need to be executable. Since yum works without any problems,

Re: Fedora rawhide FTBFS status 2010-05-27 i386

2010-05-31 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 05/31/2010 07:44 PM, Matt Domsch wrote: Fedora Fails To Build From Source Results for i386 using rawhide from 2010-05-27 This is a full rebuild, the first for Fedora 14's rawhide. The builders all have Fedora 13 installed. OpenSceneGraph-2.8.2-3.fc12 (build/make) corsepiu From

FC13 nss-softokn-freebl update issues

2010-05-28 Thread Ralf Corsepius
Hi, ATM, I am observing this: # repoquery -qa 'nss-softokn-freebl*' nss-softokn-freebl-0:3.12.4-19.fc13.x86_64 nss-softokn-freebl-0:3.12.4-17.fc13.i686 nss-softokn-freebl-devel-0:3.12.4-19.fc13.x86_64 nss-softokn-freebl-devel-0:3.12.4-19.fc13.i686

Re: perl 5.12 status

2010-05-13 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 05/11/2010 03:42 PM, Marcela Maslanova wrote: Hello, I'm attaching list of failure. Some of them will be still fixable by simple rebuild. It's 133 build failures. perl-Apache2-SOAP FWIW: this package fails due to a dependency on mod_perl. When having rebuilt mod_perl, perl-Apache2-SOAP

Re: perl 5.12 status

2010-05-12 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 05/11/2010 04:39 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 05/11/2010 03:42 PM, Marcela Maslanova wrote: perl-Gnome2 perl-Gnome2-Canvas perl-Gnome2-GConf perl-Gnome2-Print perl-Gnome2-VFS perl-Gnome2-Wnck [..] perl-Gtk2-Ex-Dialogs perl-Gtk2-GladeXML I rebuilt all of these above in perl-f14

Re: perl 5.12 status

2010-05-12 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 05/12/2010 08:08 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 05/11/2010 04:39 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 05/11/2010 03:42 PM, Marcela Maslanova wrote: perl-Gtk2-Spell This doesn't. This still doesn't build. I've just applied a patch to make it build with perl-5.12.0 This package now also is in perl

Re: perl 5.12 status

2010-05-11 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 05/11/2010 03:42 PM, Marcela Maslanova wrote: Hello, I'm attaching list of failure. Some of them will be still fixable by simple rebuild. It's 133 build failures. perl-FreezeThaw ... builds after having upgraded it (package is in rawhide, but not in perl-f14-perltest, yet). perl-Gnome2

Re: rpms/perl-Date-Simple/EL-6 perl-Date-Simple.spec,1.13,1.14

2010-05-11 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 05/11/2010 04:21 PM, Paul Howarth wrote: Author: pghmcfc Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Date-Simple/EL-6 In directory cvs01.phx2.fedoraproject.org:/tmp/cvs-serv12558/EL-6 Modified Files: perl-Date-Simple.spec Log Message: Minor clean-ups Index: perl-Date-Simple.spec

Re: Fedora 13 continuing the tradition of being an update monster

2010-05-11 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 05/11/2010 06:27 PM, James Antill wrote: As I said in another reply, there are currently no deltarpms for wesnoth-data due to it's size. Then fix this deficiency of your process and provide them. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedora 13 continuing the tradition of being an update monster

2010-05-11 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 05/11/2010 07:03 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 18:44 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 05/11/2010 06:27 PM, James Antill wrote: As I said in another reply, there are currently no deltarpms for wesnoth-data due to it's size. Then fix this deficiency of your process

Re: Blockers via flags?

2010-05-11 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 05/11/2010 07:01 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 10:57 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote: Does that have anything to do with me adding 2 bugs to the blockers the day before the go/no-go meeting? Nope, not at all. It's very important that everybody still be able to propose

Re: Fedora 13 continuing the tradition of being an update monster

2010-05-11 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 05/11/2010 07:12 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 19:10 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 05/11/2010 07:03 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 18:44 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 05/11/2010 06:27 PM, James Antill wrote: As I said

Re: Fedora 13 continuing the tradition of being an update monster

2010-05-11 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 05/11/2010 06:27 PM, James Antill wrote: On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 08:29 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote: , and we now have deltarpms (and a huge thank to to all responsible there), so I really don't think it's that big of an issue. As I said in another reply, there are currently no deltarpms for

Re: Fedora 13 continuing the tradition of being an update monster

2010-05-11 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 05/11/2010 07:33 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 19:20 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 05/11/2010 07:12 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 19:10 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 05/11/2010 07:03 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 18:44 +0200, Ralf

Re: perl 5.12 status

2010-05-11 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 05/11/2010 04:04 PM, Dave Cross wrote: On 05/11/2010 02:42 PM, Marcela Maslanova wrote: Hello, I'm attaching list of failure. Some of them will be still fixable by simple rebuild. It's 133 build failures. perl-Calendar-Simple Already adopted ;) I released version 1.21 of

Re: rpms/perl-Date-Simple/EL-6 perl-Date-Simple.spec,1.13,1.14

2010-05-11 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 05/11/2010 04:21 PM, Paul Howarth wrote: Author: pghmcfc Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Date-Simple/EL-6 In directory cvs01.phx2.fedoraproject.org:/tmp/cvs-serv12558/EL-6 Modified Files: perl-Date-Simple.spec Log Message: Minor clean-ups Index: perl-Date-Simple.spec

Re: Reasons for hall monitoring

2010-05-10 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 05/10/2010 11:18 AM, Matěj Cepl wrote: Dne 10.5.2010 06:54, Ralf Corsepius napsal(a): Have you ever talked to Ubuntu/openSUSE users and listened to their replies when telling them you are using Fedora? You will hear answers along the line of too much inconvenience to get multimedia

Re: Reasons for hall monitoring

2010-05-09 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 05/09/2010 10:27 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: Bottom line is we should have done what we're doing now long ago, so we're suffering the consequences as a result. Lots of people with conflicting views are now here. Our lack of focus has just hurt us. Have you used OSX lately? Have you ever

Re: Reasons for hall monitoring

2010-05-08 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 05/08/2010 01:41 AM, Matěj Cepl wrote: Dne 7.5.2010 16:56, Przemek Klosowski napsal(a): It seemed like the combination of best of being completely independent and maintaining your own repository (what would be now called PPA; I haven't heard the term then yet) and having support and

Re: Why perl-*.i686.rpm on x86_64?

2010-05-05 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 05/05/2010 04:32 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: Ralf Corsepius (rc040...@freenet.de) said: Some languages are distributed for x86_64 with both variant e.g. tcl, because some libraries doesn't work with x86_64 interpreter. We didn't ship perl-5.8.8 for both archs and I don't know about any

Re: Why perl-*.i686.rpm on x86_64?

2010-05-05 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 05/05/2010 04:33 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) said: We certainly did ship earlier perl for both arches; check the F7-F12 releases. (Have't checked earlier, but it's been there forever.) I file a ticket for rel-eng:

Re: Res: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo

2010-05-04 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 05/04/2010 05:55 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 05/04/2010 01:50 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: You must all realize that the ratio of bureaucracy/process burden and quality of maintainers/packagers go hand in hand. The better the maintainers/packagers/components

Re: Why perl-*.i686.rpm on x86_64?

2010-05-04 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 05/04/2010 09:01 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: On 05/04/2010 07:53 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: Hi, Could somebody provide some insight why Fedora ships a perl-*i686.rpm package for x86_64? I don't understand this. My feel is this doesn't make sense and actually is a distro composition bug

Re: Res: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo

2010-05-03 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 05/03/2010 11:12 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 18:51 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: Except karma requirements (which were in force due to the critical path process) did NOT prevent this particular regression, nor would a 1 week minimum in testing requirement have prevented it

<    5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >