On 01/05/2010 12:23 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 12:16:13PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
>> On 01/05/2010 12:08 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>> Not for all packaging policies, but for some I think that would be a
>>> good idea. Pick a s
On 01/05/2010 12:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> But there's a general issue that new things keep getting added
> to the packaging guidelines and there's no very good mechanism to
> detect whether existing packages ever get updated to comply.
You're right. I'm hopeful that the items which can be checked
On 01/05/2010 12:08 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> Not for all packaging policies, but for some I think that would be a
> good idea. Pick a set of policies we think are particularly important
> to enforce & can be automatically checked, and declare any non-compliant
> ones will be dropped in the n
On 01/05/2010 11:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> What exactly do you mean 'no longer work' ? Can we expect to get a formal
> RPM build error for this bogus construct, or will it silently build and
> do the wrong thing ? From your long description, it sounds like the latter,
> which means maintai
On 01/05/2010 11:30 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 11:03 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> On the other hand, with the
>> guideline being so widely ignored, I'm not in a hurry to do work to
>> comply with it ...
>
> Isn't that a chicken/egg problem?
It really is. I mean, we could creat
On 01/04/2010 04:25 PM, Ian Weller wrote:
> I know Gwibber is widely used by Fedora users because there are a
> crapton of abrt reports for it and I just can't keep up with it. :)
>
> Let me know if you have a desire for maintaining Gwibber in Fedora. From
> what I've heard, a release of 2.30 is o
On 12/30/2009 02:15 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> It would be nice if others could join in (be it virtual not necessarily
> physically). So are there any takers for this ?
It might be useful to have a wiki page listing out the specific content
items which need to be replaced.
~spot
--
fedora-devel
On 12/30/2009 05:01 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>> FWIW, I'm pretty sure this is not against current Fedora policies,
>> assuming that the libtommath maintainer signs off on it and there is no
>> conflict between the two packages.
>
On 12/30/2009 03:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Daniel Drake wrote:
>> The upstream library is already in Fedora as a shared library.
>> I guess the approach I will take is to install our audited version as a
>> shared library under a different name (libtommath_olpc?) which the
>> components will the
On 12/23/2009 06:07 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
>> Right, but when I as a releng person need to bump something in an
>> emergency or when a maintainer is out, I expect origin/master to be
>> "live" for rawhide, ditto origin/F-12 for Fedora 12. I don't expect
>> that I'd have to go hunting down where
On 12/23/2009 03:34 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Michael Cronenworth said:
>> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>>> (Yes, the irony of a talk on software patents being offered in MP3
>>> format is not lost on me.)
>>
>> Just think... one m
On 12/23/2009 02:10 PM, Alex Hudson wrote:
> On 23/12/09 18:58, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>> On 12/23/2009 01:56 PM, Alex Hudson wrote:
>>
>>> Can I ask on what grounds? Is the patent license insufficient, or is
>>> there some other problem?
>&
On 12/23/2009 01:56 PM, Alex Hudson wrote:
> On 23/12/09 18:46, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>> With that said, this new "covenant" does NOT change our stance on
>> Moonlight. It is still not permissible in Fedora.
>>
>
> Can I ask on what gro
On 12/23/2009 01:38 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> As the patent license is non-Free, Moonlight still has to be considered non-
> Free wherever software patents apply. So as far as I can tell, this is not
> acceptable for Fedora, sorry. (But of course spot and/or RH Legal will have
> the final word.)
On 12/19/2009 11:03 AM, Christopher Brown wrote:
> 2009/12/15 Adam Goode :
>> On 12/13/2009 06:16 AM, Christopher Brown wrote:
>>> 2009/12/11 Adam Goode :
We should definitely use Debian's key, right? Otherwise some Fedora CLI
libraries would be unnecessarily incompatible with Debian, and
On 11/30/2009 08:42 AM, Pierre-Yves wrote:
> gambas2-2.18.0-1.fc12.src.rpm
Gambas is... special. It needs these .la files to function.
~spot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On 11/24/2009 10:50 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> But I dunno if there's a policy
> requirement that you should anyway.
FWIW, the policy says:
"If a package contains a GUI application, then it needs to also include
a properly installed .desktop file. For the purposes of these
guidelines, a GUI app
On 11/18/2009 08:22 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> [At the risk of letting this get lost in the shuffle of this
> thread...]
>
> Seth Vidal wrote:
>> If there are pkgs which run daemons which are defaulting to ON when
>> installed or on next reboot - then we should be auditing those pkgs.
>> Last I c
On 11/18/2009 10:53 AM, Rick L. Vinyard, Jr. wrote:
> Tom \"spot\" Callaway wrote:
>> On 11/18/2009 10:29 AM, Rick L. Vinyard, Jr. wrote:
>>> Shouldn't I be getting f13 tags with "make tag"?
>>
>> If you run: cvs update -d in the top level ch
On 11/18/2009 10:29 AM, Rick L. Vinyard, Jr. wrote:
> Shouldn't I be getting f13 tags with "make tag"?
If you run: cvs update -d in the top level checkout directory, you will. ;)
~spot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-
On 11/14/2009 05:59 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> Hi folks,
> After getting okays from a few folks I decided to fix the long
> standing libsndfile bugs.
>
> One of these was a request [1] to split the utilities that come with
> libsndfile into a utils subpackage. I did this only for F-13.
>
> Since
On 11/12/2009 01:39 PM, Adrian Reber wrote:
> There is ubuntu bug report against id3lib "libid3 crashes (stack
> smashing) when reading VBR MP3 file"[1]. I am able to reproduce this on
> ubuntu but not on Fedora and I do not understand why. The patch[2] looks
> like it is doing the right thing but
On 11/12/2009 12:06 AM, Ding Yi Chen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've tried to build e-17 by hand.
> When I try to build from eina from e-17,
> however, I found that the package name, eina, is already been taken by eina,
> the media player.
>
> How should I do with them?
Off the top of my head, I'd sug
On 11/04/2009 05:26 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 16:12:40 -0500,
> Tom spot Callaway wrote:
>> On 11/03/2009 03:23 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>>
>> Well, it turned out to be a lot more complicated than that. Alienarena
>> uses
On 11/03/2009 03:23 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On 11/03/2009 02:16 PM, Jerry James wrote:
>> My guess (and it is just a guess) is that this is triggering multiple
>> initializations of portaudio. Try this patch:
Well, it turned out to be a lot more complicated t
On 11/03/2009 02:16 PM, Jerry James wrote:
> This seems to happen only when portaudio is installed. Uninstall
> portaudio and alienarena starts up. I'm not sure exactly what is
> going on here, but it seems that alienarena is both trying to dlopen
> libopenal, and is linked against it. Check it
On 11/03/2009 12:16 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 11:45 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>> I need to rebuild alienarena for all targets due to a security issue, so
>> I decided to update to 7.32, but unfortunately, the 7.32 build segfaults
>> i
I need to rebuild alienarena for all targets due to a security issue, so
I decided to update to 7.32, but unfortunately, the 7.32 build segfaults
immediately on Fedora 12 (x86_64), and gdb isn't much help (gdb output
is at the bottom).
Now, it is worth noting that the alienarena client does dlopen
On 11/03/2009 09:52 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Joerg Schilling said:
>> -Redhat continues to distribute "cdrkit" although there are
>> known legal problems with it and Redhat has been informed more that
>> once about this fact.
>
> it is "Red Hat", not "Redhat" (and
On 11/03/2009 09:13 AM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> Dne 3.11.2009 02:55, King InuYasha napsal(a):
>> The only thing I can figure out from this conversation is that the CDDL
>> is supposed to be incompatible with the GPL. If that's the case, why not
>> simply ask the original creator to kindly dual license
On 11/02/2009 04:26 PM, Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote:
> I did even contact Mr. Chuck Bigelow to find out any
> possibility of licensing Luxi fonts under an open source license, when
> Fedora decided to drop them.
For what it is worth, when we dropped them, I contacted the upstream
copyright holder as w
On 11/02/2009 03:47 PM, Denis Leroy wrote:
> On 11/02/2009 07:18 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
>> That may be true, but since cdrecord is not shippable, it's a pretty
>> vacuous truth.
>
> Out of curiosity, was that just because of the GPL2-CDDL mix ? Or was
> there another reason ? Last I checked, only
On 11/02/2009 05:23 AM, Liang Suilong wrote:
> Thank you for hard work. Crhomium browser in Fedora 12 looks perfect. Is
> there any plan to push chromium into rawhide or updates-testing. I think
> chromium has enough stability to make more users test itself.
Not until Chromium comes out of beta a
On 10/30/2009 12:03 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On 10/30/2009 11:00 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>>> 1:nant-0.85-30.fc12.i686 requires mono(NDoc.Core) = 0:1.3.3498.0
>>
>> This one still needs attention from a Mono person to fix the rebuild. (A
>>
On 10/30/2009 11:00 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> 1:nant-0.85-30.fc12.i686 requires mono(NDoc.Core) = 0:1.3.3498.0
>
> This one still needs attention from a Mono person to fix the rebuild. (A
> rebuild would be all that's needed, but the problem is that it's failing to
> build.
> http://koji.fedo
On 10/29/2009 09:09 AM, Liang Suilong wrote:
> And then, Tom 'spot' Callaway has not pushed a new upgrade for chromium
> browser. But I do not want to disturbing him. I just wait for him
> silently. Haha!
There is a reason for the delay:
http://spot.livejournal.com/311443.htm
On 10/21/2009 12:54 AM, hidenori.is...@avasys.jp wrote:
> A colleague of mine submitted a bug report regarding an infinite loop
> triggered when calling `lsb_start_daemon` with the `-p` option[1]. This
> bug has been around since at least Fedora 9 and is still present in the
> beta for Fedora 12.
On 10/15/2009 10:02 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> Hiyas,
>
> I looked into packaging the nesc compiler
> (https://sourceforge.net/projects/nescc) and I noticed that it uses the
> deprecated intel license for some java files:
> http://nescc.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/nescc/nesc/COPYRIGHT?revision=1.2&view
On 10/06/2009 10:37 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> It is out of scope for this discussion though, the question here is
> about the default value Fedora packages should have. The BUGURL tag
> contents is just a plain old string which is expanded from %bugurl macro
> at build time and currently no furt
On 09/18/2009 02:17 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Given that we are feature frozen, is it wise to bump mono like this at
> this stage in the development cycle?
No. We should be doing this work in the dist-f13 target, especially
given the complexity and pain of doing a proper bootstrap and rebuild.
~
On 09/13/2009 05:21 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
> And you probably mean %{_isa} rather than %{isa} too.
Indeed. Is it Monday yet? :p
~spot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On 09/12/2009 07:05 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> If and when they do so, then (and ONLY THEN) is it appropriate for you
> to have:
>
> Requires: foo%{isa}
Ugh, this should be:
Requires: bar%{isa}
(as I pointed out, foo%{isa} will always work in modern Fedora (
On 09/12/2009 05:45 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> ... it *does* work like I think it works. xulrunner and openjdk are
> broken.
So, here's the deal.
The only Provides which automagically get %{isa} appended to them are
the package name autogenerated provides. So, in this spec snippet:
Name: foo
On 09/10/2009 06:36 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> should get rid of it. The harder question is where to put that
> command...
%post for abrt-gui ? :)
~spot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On 09/08/2009 11:10 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
> There's a related problem here - glibc32 .
I don't think we distribute glibc32.
~spot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On 09/08/2009 01:50 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le mardi 08 septembre 2009 à 09:11 +0800, Yuan Yijun a écrit :
>> Hi,
>>
>> The package wine-fonts is not mentioned, why?
>
> Excellent question, it certainly should have been, and I have no idea
> why. Maybe it was not present in the source repo I
On 09/04/2009 03:06 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Also for there to be a security issue, there needs to be an attack
> vector, and during early userspace, there is very little attack vector, no
> other
> programs are running, no network interfaces are up, etc.
I suppose this would be somewhat diffic
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-lis
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
--
fedora-deve
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 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 uncomforta
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'
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
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 R
On 09/02/2009 11:47 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Michel Alexandre Salim (michael.silva...@gmail.com) said:
Multi-ownership seems *far* preferable to me than using triggers to
move files around, or moving a prelink-specific directory to the base
filesystem package.
>>>
>>> Then the g
Hi folks,
I need this package reviewed so that I can fix the broken dep on
xsupplicant in rawhide:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=501017
I'd be happy to do a review trade, just let me know.
Thanks,
~spot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.
On 09/01/2009 11:53 AM, Iain Arnell wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway
> wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> Yes... this is all correct. Any package that is using commas in the
>> license field should have a bug opened against it.
>
> Un
On 09/01/2009 11:34 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-09-01 at 11:10 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>> On 09/01/2009 09:34 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
>>> rpm could start refcounting directories any day now and that'd be just
>>> fine.
>>
>&g
On 09/01/2009 09:34 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> rpm could start refcounting directories any day now and that'd be just
> fine.
Is there an open trac ticket on this issue with the RPM upstream?
~spot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/list
On 09/01/2009 09:42 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this has recently come up in a discussion about the License tags of gcc and
> mingw32-gcc. The guidelines are very clear here:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios
>
>> If your package
On 08/27/2009 02:18 PM, Alex Hudson wrote:
> I think that's a brilliant idea.
>
> I'll undertake to do this in the next couple of weeks - I'll work on the
> F12 set first, because obviously that's going to be very similar to F13
> anyway.
>
> Am I ok to re-activate the localisation feature for F1
On 08/27/2009 12:11 PM, John J. McDonough wrote:
> Alex Hudson wrote:
>
>> Living in a European milieu I generally prefer my page sizes to be set
>> to the likes of A4. One thing which keeps aggravating me is the myriad
>> places where I keep having to repeat to the computer my preference.
>
> An
On 08/27/2009 01:21 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> What is the policy regarding deletion of individual entries in the
> middle of %changelog?
>
> A developer added a %changelog entry to each of my cloud daemons'
> packages, on the main fedora-cvs devel branch of each.
>
> Then, a day or so later, after
On 08/20/2009 10:10 PM, Jon Stanley wrote:
> Apologies for the late agenda, I completely blanked out today :(. The
> following are the topics for tomorrow's meeting at 17:00UTC on
> #fedora-meeting on freenode:
>
> 244 Reconsider Moblin Feature for Fedora 12
> 238 Can libvdpau go in Fedora?
>
On 08/10/2009 12:15 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> spot:BADSOURCE:chemoelectric_-_Goudy_Bookletter_1.zip:oflb-goudy-bookletter-1911-fonts
Not sure why this failed. I confirmed that the .zip file available from
the site is identical to the one in the lookaside.
> spot:BADSOURCE:daa2iso.zip:daa2iso
Fixe
On 08/06/2009 04:39 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> After requesting status updates, including direct email to the feature
>> > owners, the following feature pages do not have a current status or their
>> > ability to tested during the Alpha is unclear based on the lack of
>> > information provided or
On 08/17/2009 11:49 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> This would make sense to me. Do consumers of openal not make use of the
> pkgconfig files? If not, do they use configure scripts that make it
> easy to do this?
In the case of my package which uses openal (alienarean), it dlopens the
openal libra
On 08/08/2009 06:15 PM, Mike Chambers wrote:
I take it
known problem already? Have anything to do with the boxes on the panel
in the notification area being there instead of the device icons?
Don't assume it is a known problem. Search bugzilla to see if you can
find the same bug already filed
On 08/08/2009 07:52 AM, Frank Murphy (Frankly3D) wrote:
On 08/08/09 12:53, Gregory Hosler wrote:
Frank Murphy (Frankly3D) wrote:
On 08/08/09 12:37, Gregory Hosler wrote:
The printer is attached to a windows box. At the time of running
system-config-printer,
the windows box is on.
This used
On 08/05/2009 07:15 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
So if you create a piece of software that can equally link to X or Y,
and you never use/distribute X yourself you are simply not within
reach of X's licensing terms. If someone else takes your software and
X then sticks them on a CD, then they are
On 08/05/2009 04:11 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
The question is whether Fedora intends to be a distribution suitable for
day-to-day general purpose use by people who are not necessarily that
interested in Fedora per se - whether it's got an aim to be a
general-purpose operating system like other d
On 08/05/2009 03:41 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
The missing bit of the argument from before is whether we actually want
to care about people who only want 'stable' updates, and that tracks
back to the question of what Fedora actually is, which I don't believe
the Board has settled yet. If we don't
On 08/05/2009 02:38 PM, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
Apropos, what's the license in case a GPL package links against OpenSSL?
GPL with exceptions or what? Or is it even allowed?
So, in this specific case, I'm still arguing with Red Hat Legal, and we
have not determined our final stance.
In the inter
On 08/04/2009 05:38 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 12:11 +0100, Tim Waugh wrote:
No, please look more closely. The above is a list of packages that
*use* or *require* ghostscript, not that link to it.
See my most recent contribution to this thread to see the correct list
b
On 07/31/2009 04:19 PM, Tim Waugh wrote:
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 22:47 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
This might cause problems for a bunch of packages.
$ repoquery --repoid=rawhide --whatrequires --alldeps ghostscript ghostscript-
gtk --qf="%{NAME}: %{LICENSE}" | grep -vP '\bGPL(v3|\S*\+)' | sort
On 07/29/2009 11:12 AM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> 2009/7/29 Neal Becker :
>> The link https://admin.fedoraproject.org/community doesn't seem to work with
>> konqueror. Just says 'loading' and nothing happens. Works in firefox.
>
> Confirmed with Konqueror 4.2.98
Hmm. How to put this nicely...
Kon
, I will mute everyone. :)
Questions about the meeting? Email me. Questions about Fedora Community
2.0? Come to the brainstorming session! Can't make it to the session and
want to suggest something? Login to Gobby and add it to our notes before
t
Thanks to everyone who applied for this open seat. We got a lot of very
qualified individuals who were interested in filling the open seat on
the Fedora Packaging Committee. After much
discussion and thought, I've asked Jon Ciesla to fill the open seat and
he has accepted.
I'm sure that we will ha
On 07/23/2009 07:07 PM, Michał Bentkowski wrote:
> kooldock -- Cool dock for KDE with great visual effects and enhancements
Please note this package is dead due to legal reasons. Please leave it
that way.
~spot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.co
On 07/21/2009 12:06 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 20:11 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Orphan: pcmanx-gtk2
>> gnash-plugin requires /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins
>> gnome-chemistry-utils-mozplugin requires /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins
>> java-1.6.0-openjdk-plu
On 07/20/2009 04:24 AM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> You can workaround that multilib/dep issue by installing the
> nss-mdns.x86_64 package. And a dependency isn't a bug by the way. The
> nss-mdns is as well installed when you install the latest wine builds.
No, that dependency actually is a bug becaus
On 07/16/2009 06:36 PM, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:12:30 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>> On Thursday 16 July 2009 03:58:37 pm Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
>>> cld and chunkd built just fine in koji, but tabled does not: it
>>> BuildRequires both cld and chunkd.
>
>> Its not possible
On 07/14/2009 10:33 AM, Dennis Gregorovic wrote:
> In F11 Everything, there are 211 i386 packages without the dist tag and
> just 81 noarch packages without the dist tag. So, it's definitely not
> just the noarch packages that aren't using the dist tag.
I didn't mean to imply that was the case. I
On 07/14/2009 08:48 AM, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
> %dist should be used always.
As the person who invented %dist, I can assure you, this is false.
In the specific situation where a new noarch package with relatively
static content is being introduced, you have a few options:
* Use %dist
* Manually e
On 07/10/2009 05:58 PM, Joshua C. wrote:
> I made a custom x86_64 livecd (f11) and found that the following
> x86_64 packages depend on i586 and i686. Is this an error when
> compiling those packages or they do need the 32 bits?
>
> mesa-libGL-devel.x86_64 needs
>
> glibc.i686
> libdrm.i586
>
The Fedora Packaging Committee has an open seat. Are you interested in
helping to decide the packaging standards and guidelines for Fedora? Are
you familiar with the inner workings of RPM and its spec file magic? Are
you clinically insane? (Well, the last one isn't mandatory, but it helps.)
Member
On 07/08/2009 08:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Sam Varshavchik wrote:
>> Case closed.
>
> No, your argumentation is based on false premises.
Perhaps I wasn't clear in my last post. You two need to take this
offlist, or simply let this thread stop by agreeing to disagree. This is
the last friendly
On 07/08/2009 01:44 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 07:17:38PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> But, once I do that, you'll abandon this reasoning too, once you realize
>>> that it's a non-starter, and change the topic to something else. It'll
>>> probably be line number changes.
>> N
On 07/04/2009 11:16 AM, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:04:44 +, Rawhide Report
> wrote:
>
>> glibc-2.10.90-2
>> ---
>> * Thu Jul 02 2009 Andreas Schwab 2.10.90-2
>> - Update from master.
>>
>> * Fri Jun 26 2009 Andreas Schwab 2.10.90-1
>> - Update from master.
>> -
On 07/02/2009 02:10 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 12:43 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>> I'm not sure how distributable the KJV is or isnt'
>
> It's been out of copyright for some little time, now. Probably.(*)
>
> * Of course, one could potentially make some quite interestin
On 06/28/2009 02:51 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-06-28 at 08:06 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>
>> The only other packages I intend to touch on this issue are:
>>
>> (duplicate directory with filesystem)
>
>> avahi
>
> avahi is
On 06/28/2009 04:32 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> Will I also loose my cla_done membership, once you notice that I removed my
> phone number from FAS after I quit the contract for the telephone connection?
> Or is it only required to provide a valid phone number at the time cla_done
> membership is req
On 06/12/2009 02:11 PM, Ricky Zhou wrote:
> If
> he legitimately only has one name (I'm sure there have been many special
> cases like this), let spot know and he'll make sure to let the CLA go
> through.
I am aware of exactly one legitimate case of a FAS account where the
user had a single word
On 06/28/2009 08:56 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>> kde-i18n-Spanish
>> kde-l10n-Spanish
>
> Is this problem limited to Spanish?
Those were the only subpackages which showed up as having dual directory
ownership, but I was going to look a
On 06/28/2009 07:25 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> I haven't referred to Perl packaging, but the general Packaging and Review
> Guidelines. Unfortunately, you decided to cut off what I've quoted from
> them. The part I find ambiguous.
In my defense, I was focusing on the main guidelines, and the sp
Hi, I'm Scruffy, the Fedora Janitor.
Today (and likely, over the next few days/weeks), I'll be going through
and making minor changes to packages in rawhide (and only in rawhide)
where there are cases of unnecessary duplicate directory ownership.
Please do not be alarmed!
As an example example:
On 06/05/2009 06:57 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Usually running "pulseaudio -v" in a terminal might give you a
> hint what might be going wrong.
Lennart,
Maybe this is a stupid question (you know I am constantly full of them),
but is there any way for pulseaudio to detect this "common" co
On 06/05/2009 06:23 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> Heya,
>
> Yesterday, I was browsing Ubuntu's "Blueprints" for their next release,
> and saw this:
> https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/desktop-karmic-gnomescan
>
> gnome-scan is already packaged by Deji, but I gather that more
> inte
On 06/05/2009 02:30 AM, Jan Klepek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm working on unofficial package review for redmine
> ( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499959 ).
> Redmine is written in ruby and is using rubygem-actionwebservice, which
> is shipped with redmine.
> Rubygem-actionwebservice was
On 06/03/2009 07:48 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> Not necessarily. I don't see why the Fedora Project couldn't qualify
> as a Sponsored Participant on Internet2 [1]. In fact, Red Hat is
> already connected in Raleigh.
I think this is because they're technically on NC State University.
~spot
-
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
