On 09/02/2009 07:17 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 10:26 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
As one of the persons involved in dracut and in integrating dracut into the
distribution I'm rather surprised to hear this.
Where has this been discussed ? Were are the bugs for the situations
On 09/02/2009 10:49 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
Also I've attached a patch which should update the Obsoletes handling
to correspond with what we determined in discussion earlier;
Versioned obsoletes is preferable.
Rahul
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
On 02/09/09 22:52, Philip Prindeville wrote:
Seems to be an rpm versioning issue:
[r...@builder SRPMS]# mock -r fedora-10-x86_64 --rebuild
perl-Net-Patricia-1.15_01-1.fc9.src.rpm
INFO: mock.py version 0.9.14 starting...
State Changed: init plugins
State Changed: start
INFO:
Compose started at Thu Sep 3 06:15:07 UTC 2009
Broken deps for i386
--
anerley-0.0.20-3.fc12.i686 requires libmissioncontrol-client.so.0
anerley-devel-0.0.20-3.fc12.i686 requires pkgconfig(libmissioncontrol)
2009/9/3 Rawhide Report rawh...@fedoraproject.org:
PackageKit-0.5.2-0.1.20090902git.fc12
-
* Wed Sep 02 2009 Richard Hughes rhug...@redhat.com - 0.5.2-0.1.20090902git
- Update to a newer git snapshot from the 0.5.x series.
- Should fix some issues with
Hi,
I'm claiming ownership over avrdude. There is a new upstream release
and I'm in progress of packaging software that depends on avrdude.
Any objections?
gr,
Bart
--
Bart Vanbrabant b...@vanbrabant.eu
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
Hans de Goede (j.w.r.dego...@hhs.nl) said:
The fact that it wasn't turned on at Alpha means it really shouldn't be
on now, not without FESCo approval.
That is interesting reasoning, first keep it out of Alpha even though it was
ready as you were afraid it would delay the Alpha further
Hey all,
I packaged up this app I stumbled upon called minitube
(http://flavio.tordini.org/minitube) but it seems a bit unstable and I
don't really want to toss it up to a package review until its stable
enough to be shipped but I wanted to mention it to see if anyone might
find a use for it,
On 09/02/2009 11:39 AM, Jerry James wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Warren Togamiwtog...@redhat.com wrote:
What is the correct behavior? Is this a bug that it changed?
Read up on the --follow-symlinks option to sed.
This is a new option it seems, meaning I can't rely on sed -i at
On 09/02/2009 07:19 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Matthias Clasenmcla...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 17:04 +, Colin Walters wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Matthias Clasenmcla...@redhat.com wrote:
After talking to the abrt guys, I've
On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 08:38:49AM -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
Hey all,
I packaged up this app I stumbled upon called minitube
(http://flavio.tordini.org/minitube) but it seems a bit unstable and I
don't really want to toss it up to a package review until its stable
enough to be shipped but
Hi,
On 09/03/2009 03:36 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Hans de Goede (j.w.r.dego...@hhs.nl) said:
The fact that it wasn't turned on at Alpha means it really shouldn't be
on now, not without FESCo approval.
That is interesting reasoning, first keep it out of Alpha even though it was
ready as you
On 09/03/2009 10:57 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
It really is like having to support gentoo, versus having to support a
distro using pre build packages. And I would really like to move to the
having to
support a pre-build package model for the initrd.
The problem is this:
The kernel binary RPM
On Mon, 2009-08-31 at 02:59 -0700, Alex Lancaster wrote:
CM == Caolán McNamara writes:
CM On Mon, 2009-08-31 at 01:53 -0700, Alex Lancaster wrote:
Rawhide Report writes:
Has something changed in the API/ABI?
CM The name of the .pc file itself, i.e. libnm-glib.pc - libnm_glib.pc, so
On 09/03/2009 11:35 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
The kernel binary RPM contains this pre-built initrd. The kernel source
RPM does not contain the sources necessary to make this pre-built initrd.
This makes me rather uncomfortable from a Licensing perspective.
True, but we do provide SRPMS with
Paul Howarth wrote:
On 02/09/09 22:52, Philip Prindeville wrote:
Seems to be an rpm versioning issue:
[r...@builder SRPMS]# mock -r fedora-10-x86_64 --rebuild
perl-Net-Patricia-1.15_01-1.fc9.src.rpm
INFO: mock.py version 0.9.14 starting...
State Changed: init plugins
State Changed:
On Wednesday 26 August 2009 Jindrich Novy wrote:
Hi,
first off, thanks many people who sent me RFE and bugfix
proposals. I've tried to fix most of them in the current package set
in the testing repository:
OK, I have finally installed texlive on F11. With this update all worked (with
the
Could the root cache be broken?
Incompatible changes in RPM between F9 and F10 ?
BTW, F9 was EOLed in July, so if it's broken now, I doubt it will be fixed.
--
Mathieu Bridon (bochecha)
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Tom spot Callawaytcall...@redhat.com wrote:
On 09/03/2009 10:57 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
It really is like having to support gentoo, versus having to support a
distro using pre build packages. And I would really like to move to the
having to
support a
Paul Howarth wrote:
On 03/09/09 17:07, Philip Prindeville wrote:
Paul Howarth wrote:
On 02/09/09 22:52, Philip Prindeville wrote:
Seems to be an rpm versioning issue:
[r...@builder SRPMS]# mock -r fedora-10-x86_64 --rebuild
perl-Net-Patricia-1.15_01-1.fc9.src.rpm
INFO:
On 03/09/09 17:07, Philip Prindeville wrote:
Paul Howarth wrote:
On 02/09/09 22:52, Philip Prindeville wrote:
Seems to be an rpm versioning issue:
[r...@builder SRPMS]# mock -r fedora-10-x86_64 --rebuild
perl-Net-Patricia-1.15_01-1.fc9.src.rpm
INFO: mock.py version 0.9.14 starting...
State
Hans de Goede (j.w.r.dego...@hhs.nl) said:
It really is like having to support gentoo, versus having to support a
distro using pre build packages. And I would really like to move to the
having to
support a pre-build package model for the initrd.
The problem is this:
The kernel binary RPM
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 18:37 +0200, drago01 wrote:
As long as we (fedora) ship the source code this shouldn't be an
issue, or am I missing something?
See the other messages. We have no facility to ensure that the binaries
used in generation of the initrd during kernel build have matching srpms
On Thursday 27 August 2009 Jindrich Novy wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 03:02:18PM +0200, Jindrich Novy wrote:
Hi,
first off, thanks many people who sent me RFE and bugfix
proposals. I've tried to fix most of them in the current package set
in the testing repository:
rpm -i
Hi,
On 09/03/2009 06:00 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 09/03/2009 11:35 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
The kernel binary RPM contains this pre-built initrd. The kernel source
RPM does not contain the sources necessary to make this pre-built initrd.
This makes me rather uncomfortable from a
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009, Philip Prindeville wrote:
No joy:
[r...@builder SRPMS]# rm -rf /var/lib/mock/fedora-10-x86_64/root
[r...@builder SRPMS]# mock -r fedora-10-x86_64 --init --rebuild
perl-Net-Patricia-1.15_01-1.fc9.src.rpm
Don't run mock as root. That'll avoid the incompatible db
Hi,
On 09/03/2009 06:29 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Hans de Goede (j.w.r.dego...@hhs.nl) said:
It really is like having to support gentoo, versus having to support a
distro using pre build packages. And I would really like to move to the having
to
support a pre-build package model for the
The following is a list of topics to be discussed at tomorrow's FESCo
meeting, at 17:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net
243 New entry of 'Build packages for which Fedora is upstream for all
language translators' review correction' for F12 schedule
238 Can libvdpau go in Fedora?
On 09/03/2009 02:20 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
Regeneration is as easy with dracut as it is with mkinitrd, actually they
have the same cmdline syntax.
The only extra step required with dracut when using pre-generated images
is:
yum install dracut
Okay, so is there any reason why we don't
On 09/03/2009 02:25 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
Note that we have the same problem with any package which does static
linking against an lgpl library (such as glibc).
This is (one of the big reasons) why we only permit static linking with
explicit approval from FESCo.
I'm really very
On 09/02/2009 10:07 AM, Warren Togami wrote:
On 09/02/2009 11:39 AM, Jerry James wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Warren Togamiwtogami redhat com
wrote:
What is the correct behavior? Is this a bug that it changed?
Read up on the --follow-symlinks option to sed.
This is a new
On 09/03/2009 03:22 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 09/03/2009 02:25 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
Note that we have the same problem with any package which does static
linking against an lgpl library (such as glibc).
This is (one of the big reasons) why we only permit static linking with
If we tracked the results of the build process independently of the RPM
itself, we could track much more complicated relationships between
packages (for example, the kernel borrowing bits of the output from the
last glibc build to make its initrd).
Koji's database has that information, sort
On 09/03/2009 04:59 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
Koji's database has that information, sort of. It can tell you exactly
which other packages were installed in the buildroot, so that is the
superset of what-all bits could have been rolled into the output.
Yes, but I do not think we are in good
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 10:53:54 -0600
Philip Prindeville philipp_s...@redfish-solutions.com wrote:
Paul Howarth wrote:
On 03/09/09 17:07, Philip Prindeville wrote:
Paul Howarth wrote:
On 02/09/09 22:52, Philip Prindeville wrote:
Seems to be an rpm versioning issue:
Over the past few months, Fedora Infrastructure has been discussing
having a consistent set of licenses for applications and scripts we
create for Fedora. The goals of doing this were to
* Be able to share code among the various programs that we write.
* Not have our libraries force a specific
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Panu Matilainen wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009, Philip Prindeville wrote:
No joy:
[r...@builder SRPMS]# rm -rf /var/lib/mock/fedora-10-x86_64/root
[r...@builder SRPMS]# mock -r fedora-10-x86_64 --init --rebuild
perl-Net-Patricia-1.15_01-1.fc9.src.rpm
So... run it as whom?
As your normal user. Just add it to the mock group:
# usermod -G mock your user
--
Mathieu Bridon (bochecha)
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On 09/03/2009 05:08 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 09/03/2009 04:59 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
Koji's database has that information, sort of. It can tell you exactly
which other packages were installed in the buildroot, so that is the
superset of what-all bits could have been rolled into the
Yes, but I do not think we are in good faith satisfying the requirement
to distribute the source for those binaries by pointing back to koji
pages and possibly forcing the user to dig into the lookaside cache.
The requirement is to provide a written offer to give someone the source
when
On 09/03/2009 05:46 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
The requirement is to provide a written offer to give someone the source
when they ask.
Well, that's true for GPL. Can someone generate a list of the binaries
used in the generic initrd and the packages that they came from?
~spot
--
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 14:46 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
Yes, but I do not think we are in good faith satisfying the requirement
to distribute the source for those binaries by pointing back to koji
pages and possibly forcing the user to dig into the lookaside cache.
The requirement is
On 09/03/2009 06:14 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
We don't distribute under that clause of the GPL, because the 3 year
timeline on it is entirely too vague and we don't want to fall into that
trap.
Ugh. I had conveniently forgotten about that, thanks for the reminder.
~spot
--
fedora-devel-list
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Adam Millermaxamill...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey all,
I packaged up this app I stumbled upon called minitube
(http://flavio.tordini.org/minitube) but it seems a bit unstable and I
don't really want to toss it up to a package review until its stable
enough to be
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 20:41 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
What would be the point of packaging something which can not operate
without codecs that fedora can not and should not ship?
I don't think that's a valid point here. For one, Fedora already has the
Totem YouTube plugin packaged, which
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Gregory Maxwellgmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
What would be the point of packaging something which can not operate
without codecs that fedora can not and should not ship?
That was the rationale for vagalume ending up in rpmfusion-free: the
code itself is fully free,
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Mathieu Bridon
(bochecha)boche...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
# usermod -G mock your user
# usermod -a -G mock your user
would generally be better (won't blitz your existing group memberships)
--
Iain.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
On Mon, 2009-08-31 at 18:33 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Mani Aa.mani@gmail.com wrote:
http://puredata.info/
is not in the package database.
From the license POV, there are no problems.
I think this is the bug your after. A review is in progress
On Mon, 2009-08-31 at 18:56 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Mani A wrote:
http://puredata.info/
is not in the package database.
From the license POV, there are no problems.
Best
A. Mani
Hi,
Fernando at planetccrma was working on packaging a
Author: steve
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-IPC-Run/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv32724
Modified Files:
.cvsignore perl-IPC-Run.spec sources
Log Message:
Update to 0.84.
Drop IPCRUNDEBUG from make test (bug fixed long ago).
Index: .cvsignore
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=520505
Stepan Kasal ska...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=520505
Stepan Kasal ska...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Author: scop
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-SGML-Parser-OpenSP/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv15273
Modified Files:
perl-SGML-Parser-OpenSP.spec
Log Message:
* Thu Sep 3 2009 Ville Skyttä ville.sky...@iki.fi - 0.994-4
- Filter out autoprovided OpenSP.so (if
On 09/03/2009 04:27 AM, Martyn Plummer wrote:
Thanks for finding this. I passed this message on to the CRAN
maintainers (CRAN also distributes binaries for Windows and Mac OS X)
who also contacted the SparseM package author.
The good news is that Mr. Betten is still at ANL, and he replied
So, I've modified r2spec fairly heavily on my own. Pierre-Yves
suggested I bring conversation straight here, so I'm doing that.
I'll put a SRPM of my r2spec up at the next point when it works. It
worked earlier today, but of course I'm doing more surgery right now.
Here are the most visible
55 matches
Mail list logo
