Hi,
On 11/13/2014 08:20 PM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to remove the packages that still have broken dependencies
> in the F21 tree.
>
> This is a followup to
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-October/203411.html
>
> It makes little sense to ship something t
Adam Williamson wrote:
> http://tirfa.com/current-state-of-depcheck-and-paths-forward.html
Sigh. This shows that once again a purported replacement for a working piece
of software was deployed before it was able to perform the allegedly
replaced tool's most important task, even though the proble
On Sun, 2014-11-16 at 01:21 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Kalev Lember wrote:
> > 2) juffed was broken by
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-14301/ . Interestingly
> > enough the update passed the Taskatron depcheck test there, even though it
> > created a new broken dependency
On 11/13/2014 02:20 PM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> To avoid that, I'll file a FESCo ticket next Monday to approve dropping
> the following packages, unless they get fixed first:
I've filed the ticket now: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1368
In addition, 3 broken dependencies have pending fixes.
I wrote:
> The Taskatron depcheck appears to be broken or incomplete: It might be
> effective at checking whether the new package has any broken dependencies,
> but it definitely does not appear to check whether the update breaks OTHER
> packages' dependencies (at least I've seen 2 instances where
Kalev Lember wrote:
> 2) juffed was broken by
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-14301/ . Interestingly
> enough the update passed the Taskatron depcheck test there, even though it
> created a new broken dependency in the repo.
The Taskatron depcheck appears to be broken or inco
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 20:40:07 +0100
Till Maas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 07:40:19PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 03:20:03PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
> >
> > > totpcgi
> >
> > This requires an selinux export to make it build again:
> >
> > | + make NAME=mls -f /usr
On 11/15/2014 11:52 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 03:20:03PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
>
>> To avoid that, I'll file a FESCo ticket next Monday to approve dropping
>> the following packages, unless they get fixed first:
>
> I can do the mass retirement if there is a final list a
On 11/15/2014 03:02 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Kalev Lember wrote:
>> I would like to remove the packages that still have broken dependencies
>> in the F21 tree.
>
> Please check for packages requiring those broken packages, and transitively
> packages requiring packages requiring those broken pac
We're not running the Transifex Server on the Fedora infrastructure. The
Localization group has also decided to move to a self-managed Zanata
instance anyway.
The Transifex Client package is which is what many developers use.
-d
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Kevin Kofler
wrote:
> Matthias R
On 11/13/2014 02:20 PM, Kalev Lember wrote:
Hi,
I would like to remove the packages that still have broken dependencies
in the F21 tree.
This is a followup to
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-October/203411.html
It makes little sense to ship something that cannot even be in
Kalev Lember wrote:
> I would like to remove the packages that still have broken dependencies
> in the F21 tree.
Please check for packages requiring those broken packages, and transitively
packages requiring packages requiring those broken packages etc. Otherwise,
you'll just add more broken dep
Matthias Runge wrote:
> yes, that's the package. But IMHO transifex became closed source, and
> last code change was about 2 years ago; since then, django changed quite
> a bit.
So we now have core Fedora infrastructure depending on a proprietary third-
party web service?
We should never have mov
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 03:20:03PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
> To avoid that, I'll file a FESCo ticket next Monday to approve dropping
> the following packages, unless they get fixed first:
I can do the mass retirement if there is a final list and decision. Did
you check that there are not packa
On 11/14/2014 02:15 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 13.11.2014 v 14:20 Kalev Lember napsal(a):
>>
>> rubygem-linecache19
>> rubygem-ruby-debug-base19
>
> Removing this two will break rubygem-ruby-debug19, so you should remove
> it as well (unless maintainer fixes them, which does not appear to be
> t
Dne 13.11.2014 v 14:20 Kalev Lember napsal(a):
>
> rubygem-linecache19
> rubygem-ruby-debug-base19
Removing this two will break rubygem-ruby-debug19, so you should remove
it as well (unless maintainer fixes them, which does not appear to be
the case).
Vír
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedor
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 07:40:19PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 03:20:03PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
>
> > totpcgi
>
> This requires an selinux export to make it build again:
>
> | + make NAME=mls -f /usr/share/selinux/devel/Makefile
> | Compiling mls totpcgi module
> | tot
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 03:20:03PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
> totpcgi
This requires an selinux export to make it build again:
| + make NAME=mls -f /usr/share/selinux/devel/Makefile
| Compiling mls totpcgi module
| totpcgi.te:55: Warning: miscfiles_read_certs() has been deprecated, please
use
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 6:33 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 03:20:03PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
>> why
>
> This is another OCaml package. For some reason I'm not getting any
> emails about this, but I will try a rebuild now.
I had already rebuilt it, and an update was
On Nov 13, 2014 8:02 AM, "Kalev Lember" wrote:
>
> On 11/13/2014 03:33 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 03:20:03PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
>>>
>>> transifex
>>
>>
>> Huh?? If this is the package I'm thinking of, it's pretty important
>> to many other packages.
>
>
>
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 15:20:03 +0200,
Kalev Lember wrote:
meshmagick
For meshmagick the real isssue is FTBFS due to stricter checking by gcc.
I started working on it a while back but didn't finish and didn't get back
to it. I believe I can get it fixed by Monday.
--
devel mailing list
de
On 11/13/2014 03:33 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 03:20:03PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
transifex
Huh?? If this is the package I'm thinking of, it's pretty important
to many other packages.
It depends on python-django14 that was removed a while back and nobody
seems
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 03:20:03PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
> ocaml-pa-do
This package was rewritten upstream. I've not tried to package the
new version. The version packaged in Fedora Rawhide is orphaned, so I
guess you may as well remove the F21 package too (unless someone else
wants to jump
On 13/11/14 14:33, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 03:20:03PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
>> ocaml-pa-do
>
> This package was rewritten upstream. I've not tried to package the
> new version. The version packaged in Fedora Rawhide is orphaned, so I
> guess you may as well remov
Hi,
I would like to remove the packages that still have broken dependencies
in the F21 tree.
This is a followup to
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-October/203411.html
It makes little sense to ship something that cannot even be installed.
We're about to enter the final freez
25 matches
Mail list logo
