On 2012-11-07 15:47, tim.laurid...@gmail.com wrote:
Sound very strange, it is not some kind orphan package, there have
been out of Fedora and has to re-enter.
It it an active maintained package in F17, there just have not worked
with latest version for gnome-shell, because they change the way
On 2012-11-07 16:53, tim.laurid...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com
mailto:leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote:
No top-posting in fedora-devel :)
Sorry :)
Besides that, I can just agree with Tim. The oldest package was
reviewed less
As I understand it, we have a policy handling unresponsive submitters or
reviewers. However, there is a third case when the complete process is
stalled.
The situation then becomes problematic if the stalled process handles a
package you want that much that you are willing to package it
On 12/27/2012 07:35 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 06:55:01 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
As I understand it, we have a policy handling unresponsive submitters or
reviewers. However, there is a third case when the complete process is
stalled.
The situation then becomes
On 12/27/2012 10:48 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 09:48:45 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
Continue talking to the other people,
[snip]
Yes, this is the correct action. But it's hard to talk to people if
they don't reply at all or not in a meaningful way. I'm not talking
On 2012-12-29 17:01, Ken Dreyer wrote:
I noticed our package review process doesn't explicitly say After you
make an update to the package, bump the 'Release' number and post a
new link each time. This is a popular convention, but it doesn't seem
to be formally documented.
On 2012-12-29 19:45, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 18:23:35 +, Jamie Nguyen wrote:
I've seen on a few occasions reviewers mention that they can't tell what
has changed in the spec since the previous version, as the new packager
has overwritten the previous spec.
If the
On 2012-12-30 11:42, Mamoru TASAKA wrote:
Ken Dreyer wrote, at 12/30/2012 01:01 AM +9:00:
I noticed our package review process doesn't explicitly say After you
make an update to the package, bump the 'Release' number and post a
new link each time. This is a popular convention, but it doesn't
On 2013-01-17 14:30, Jochen Schmitt wrote:
Hallo,
during my last build of inn on rawhide I have got the following odd
error messages:
RPM build errors:
bogus date in %changelog: Wed Jan 13 2009 Ondrej Vasik ova...@redhat.com
- 2.4.5-7
bogus date in %changelog: Fri Jul 7 2008 Ondrej
On 2013-01-24 17:44, David Malcolm wrote:
Michael Hrivnak and I spent some time at FUDcon Lawrence looking at
static code analysis.
We hacked on the proposed common format for analysis tools (aka
firehose).
[cut]
The plan is that the interchange format can be uploaded into a web
On 2013-01-24 23:39, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 2013-01-24 22:03, David Malcolm wrote:
On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 18:11 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 2013-01-24 17:44, David Malcolm wrote:
Michael Hrivnak and I spent some time at FUDcon Lawrence looking at
static code analysis.
We hacked
Answer below :)
On 2013-01-29 15:20, Martin Sivak wrote:
Hi,
yes, all the screens are shared with the Anaconda installer and the internal
data structure is closely tied to kickstart. This allows us to configure almost
everything using kickstart and then dump the final kickstart for the admin
On 2013-01-29 19:35, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Jan 29, 2013, at 10:39 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com
wrote something about learning to read like the rest of the world.
Indeed, I did learn, like most of the rest of the world today, to simply reply.
And I learned to occasionally
On 01/31/2013 01:13 AM, M A Young wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013, Mátyás Selmeci wrote:
This may be a long shot, but I am interested in repackaging some RPMs
(for
example, some of the Globus packages in EPEL, as well as grid
software that
my group builds) such that the software in them may be
On 2013-08-28 18:09, Dave Johansen wrote:
I'm trying to make a spec file that uses the devtoolset in RHEL 5/6 (
rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2013-0175.html ) but I haven't been able
to figure out how to enable devtoolset in the spec file. If I run 'scl
enable devtoolset-1.1 bash' before doing
So, I need somehelp with getting 957339 reviewed, and is willing to make
a review (possibly two simple) in return.
The package might look daunting, but it's just a rename.
--alec
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora
On 2013-09-03 07:21, Richard Vickery wrote:
I used to do this by scrolling up through the commands, but it's no
longer there: I don't know if I remember it correctly:
sudo yum upgrade updates.testing R
Do I have this correct, or am I missing something? I don't want to
forge ahead fearing that
On 2013-09-03 07:21, Richard Vickery wrote:
I used to do this by scrolling up through the commands, but it's no
longer there: I don't know if I remember it correctly:
sudo yum upgrade updates.testing R
Do I have this correct, or am I missing something? I don't want to
forge ahead fearing that
On 2013-09-10 23:11, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 10.09.2013 22:58, schrieb Heiko Adams:
Am 10.09.2013 22:07, schrieb Peter Oliver:
Empathy's People Nearby feature doesn't work out of the box because
the required ports are blocked by default by the firewall
On 2013-09-11 11:11, Heiko Adams wrote:
Am 11.09.2013 10:41, schrieb Ankur Sinha:
- These software inform and take permission from the user before opening
ports in the firewall.
IMHO it should be the job of the firewall to inform the user about an
application that want's to open one or more
On 2013-09-11 12:02, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Mer 11 septembre 2013 11:23, Alec Leamas a écrit :
On 2013-09-11 11:11, Heiko Adams wrote:
Am 11.09.2013 10:41, schrieb Ankur Sinha:
- These software inform and take permission from the user before
opening
ports in the firewall.
IMHO it should
On 2013-09-11 15:20, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 09/11/2013 02:46 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/11/2013 06:35 AM, Heiko Adams wrote:
Am 11.09.2013 12:30, schrieb Alec Leamas:
That said, I see your point. Seems to boil down to that only
On 2013-09-11 15:41, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 09/11/2013 03:32 PM, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 2013-09-11 15:20, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 09/11/2013 02:46 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Asking her Do you want to make security changes to share directory
/home/phyllis
On 10/03/2013 11:35 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
[cut]
leamas:BADURL:xlwt-0.7.4.tar.gz:python-xlwt
[cut]
These are pypi urls which looks just fine to me (spectool -g works OK)
--alec
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora
On 2013-10-07 13:56, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
Hi Jóhann,
I do agree with you that the interaction between Red Hat and Fedora
needs to be clearer, and that currently it is a bit vaguely defined and
thus it gives ground to conspiracy theories and feelings of
disenfranchisement.
On 2013-10-06 15:13, Rave it wrote:
Am Wed, 02 Oct 2013 11:59:20 +
schrieb devel-requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org:
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 19:50:45 +0200
From: Till Maas opensou...@till.name
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Cc:
On 2013-10-01 19:50, Till Maas wrote:
Hi,
Jarod Wilson, the current lirc maintainer, announced that he wants
someone else to maintain lirc due to lack of time/interest[0]. Probably
his other four packages need a new maintainer as, well[1]:
[cut]
Please respond here, if you want to take a
On 10/12/2013 09:55 AM, Till Maas wrote:
[cut]
The packages are now orphaned, so please pick them up.
Regards
Till
I have picked lirc.
--alec
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct:
is the
commit log at https://github.com/leamas/lirc-pkg. Otherwise, here is the
changelog:
%changelog
* Thu Oct 10 2013 Alec Leamas leamas.a...@nowhere.net - 0.9.0-15
- Actually use sysconfig files (881976)
- Modify lirc.service to not fork.
- Add support for iguanaIR driver (#954146).
- Add
On 2013-10-17 04:30, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 10/16/2013 07:15 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
If your package uses the %configure macro, I would feel free to close
them as either invalid or fixed as that macro handles it. If your
package doesn't, you have more checking/work to do.
Thanks for
On 2013-10-17 08:18, Frank Murphy wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 08:16:40 +0200
Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for replying- this slipped through my inbox. You can also
see if your package was built successfully by visiting
http://arm-temp.ausil.us/pub/fedora-arm/stage4/http
On 2013-10-25 01:13, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2013-10-12 at 11:51 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 10/12/2013 09:55 AM, Till Maas wrote:
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 07:50:45PM +0200, Till Maas wrote:
cx18-firmware -- Firmware for Conexant cx23418-based video capture
devices
libcrystalhd
On 10/27/2013 12:46 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 01:54:44 + (UTC), Ben Boeckel wrote:
I also wouldn't mind seeing a list of FE-NEEDSPONSOR bugs be emailed to
devel@ (similar to the ownership change email). Open reviews might be
nice as well, but maybe just FE-NEEDSPONSOR
On 10/27/2013 07:43 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
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
On 10/28/2013 07:08 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Seg, 2013-10-28 at 11:28 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Mon, 28 Oct 2013, Michael Schwendt wrote:
/home/sandro/.local/bin in the PATH is not the default.
Or is it new for Rawhide?
$ grep PATH /etc/skel/.bash_profile
On 2013-10-29 10:56, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/29/2013 08:07 AM, Matthias Runge wrote:
On 10/28/2013 09:05 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:28:01AM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
* Tue Jun 07 2011 Roman Rakus … - 4.2.10-3
- Added $HOME/.local/bin to PATH in .bash_profile
On 2013-10-29 11:44, Alec Leamas wrote:
[cut]
BTW, don't we also lack a default, user-controlled directory for
manpages? Shouldn't ~/.local/share/man be part of user's default
MANPATH? Same usecase, basically same solution...
[Answering myself...] We, we don't lack that. As of f20
On 2013-10-30 10:23, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 02:03, schrieb Chris Adams:
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net said:
[root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ mkdir test
i could rm -rf ~/ here
[root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ cat /usr/local/bin/mkdir
#!/bin/bash
echo i could rm -rf ~/ here
If I
On 2013-10-30 10:58, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 10:53, schrieb Alec Leamas:
On 2013-10-30 10:23, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 02:03, schrieb Chris Adams:
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net said:
[root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ mkdir test
i could rm -rf ~/ here
[root
On 2013-10-30 11:23, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 11:20, schrieb Alec Leamas:
On 2013-10-30 10:58, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 10:53, schrieb Alec Leamas:
On 2013-10-30 10:23, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 02:03, schrieb Chris Adams:
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald h.rei
On 2013-10-30 11:46, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 11:27, schrieb Alec Leamas:
On 2013-10-30 11:23, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 11:20, schrieb Alec Leamas:
On 2013-10-30 10:58, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 10:53, schrieb Alec Leamas:
On 2013-10-30 10:23, Reindl Harald
On 2013-10-30 12:25, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 11:55, schrieb Alec Leamas:
On 2013-10-30 11:46, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 11:27, schrieb Alec Leamas:
On 2013-10-30 11:23, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 11:20, schrieb Alec Leamas:
On 2013-10-30 10:58, Reindl Harald
On 2013-10-30 13:08, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 13:00, schrieb Alec Leamas:
On 2013-10-30 12:25, Reindl Harald wrote:
i gave you a starting point to learn about security and the reason
for sftp-chroot doing so is that someone could use race-conditions
to bypass the security
if you do
On 2013-10-30 15:05, Christopher wrote:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2013-10-30 11:23, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 11:20, schrieb Alec Leamas:
On 2013-10-30 10:58, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 10:53, schrieb Alec Leamas:
Some kind
On 2013-10-30 15:50, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/30/2013 03:36 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 15:29, schrieb Ralf Corsepius:
On 10/30/2013 01:08 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Besides that, what and where users put things underneath of $HOME is
not a distro's busness
[cut]
Is it really
On 2013-11-01 11:14, Reindl Harald wrote:
[cut ]
on multi-user systems it is *intentional* that the user does *not* install
software at it's own and if this should be the case the admin *one time*
will add a directory to PATH and say there you go
[cut]
Not necessarily (or even most often)
On 2013-11-01 13:16, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 01.11.2013 13:00, schrieb Petr Viktorin:
In both cases, everything the user had access to is compromised, including
.bash_profile itself. What other
*security* impact did you have in mind?
when i learned something about security than that the
On 11/14/2013 11:12 AM, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
On Thu, 2013-11-14 at 05:01 -0500, Jan Lieskovsky wrote:
Hello guys,
I have one source which has the form of (in the last part of it's URI):
checklist-cce-feed?id=295 (the source doesn't seem to be available
otherwise
than via
On 2013-11-18 16:54, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Here's attached another run of my sources/patches url checker.
Please fix any packages you are responsible for in rawhide, and other branches
as other changes permit.
[cut]
leamas:BADURL:lpf-0-d18db6d.tar.gz:lpf
[cut]
Hm... That url is
Source0:
On 2013-11-18 17:15, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:08:56 +0100
Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2013-11-18 16:54, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Here's attached another run of my sources/patches url checker.
Please fix any packages you are responsible for in rawhide, and
other
On 2013-12-14 15:00, Mattia Verga wrote:
Il 14/12/2013 12:55, Dridi Boukelmoune ha scritto:
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Mattia Vergamattia.ve...@tiscali.it wrote:
Hello,
I'm trying to give a user access rights to X with xhost command.
I've created a script named
On 2013-12-14 15:31, Mattia Verga wrote:
Il 14/12/2013 15:12, Alec Leamas ha scritto:
I really wonder if $DISPLAY is defined within systemd's execution
context. IMHO, it shouldn't E. g., try adding
exec /tmp/boincxhost.log
set -x
at the top of your script. That should give debug
On 2014-01-04 21:31, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
On 01/04/2014 08:56 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
* yum remove kernel vs dnf remove kernel difference (unfiled? )
I found 976704, closed with 'Resolution: --- → UPSTREAM' in August.
Not sure what that means, but removing all kernels seem a bit odd
Yes, still it's an interesting issue... perhaps one count how many which
actually are installed, but many problems also here: users privacy/opt-in,
easily spoofed, infrastructure.
In any case it would be great to have some estimate on this.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Michael Schwendt
I have come to understand that for yum, commands like clean only applies to
the actual buildroot. So without a -r argument, the cleaning is done on the
default root, whatever this might be(?).
Actually, there is probably nothing wrong with this - it works fine when
using the -r option. Problems
Well, IMHO the docs are actually quite clear on that 'all' refers to all
metadata rather than all repositories.
That said, perhaps enough people has been confused by this to make some
kind of improvement motivated.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
' as a legal option? Personally, I tend to
think this might make things a little clearer.
Just my 5 öre
--alec
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Alec Leamas wrote:
Well, IMHO the docs are actually quite clear on that 'all
Yes, sorry, forget what I wrote. I messed up mock with yum, that's why.
It's too late for me to chime in here. Sorry for the noise.
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:49 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.netwrote:
Am 13.01.2014 00:43, schrieb Alec Leamas:
First of all, this is not, and have
If you continue reading the thread you'll see what happened (short story:
too late fo rme)
--alec
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 00:43:13 +0100
Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote:
First of all, this is not, and have never
Still a newbie I have repeatedly been running into apps which stores
private, unversioned libraries into /usr/lib*. The usual symptom is
'invalid-soname' errors rpmlint errors. One example is [3]
The proper way is to store these libs outside of ld.so's search path (in
which case rpmlint can
On 04/20/2012 05:09 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 04:32:59PM +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 04/20/2012 04:08 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
As far
as I know, invalid-soname does not match any requirement in our packaging
guidelines.
To my understanding, this is not really clear
On 04/20/2012 06:16 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 05:59:44PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
* Private unversiond libs in %{_libdir}. -- I would consider this a
blocker unless shown that they have to be there (and I would patch the
build scripts to fix
On 04/23/2012 03:11 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 17:20 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
Thanks again. Following this advice when packaging makes perfect sense
to me. Still, when reviewing, my question is how hard I should push
it. If I understand Kevin correct I shouldn't push
On 04/26/2012 01:18 PM, Nelson Marques wrote:
No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 01:08, Stephen Gallagher
sgall...@redhat.com escreveu:
On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 22:43 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Why not just drop the sponsorship process and just raise the barrier of
entry for the packaging
On 04/26/2012 02:30 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Alec Leamasleamas.a...@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/26/2012 01:18 PM, Nelson Marques wrote:
No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 01:08, Stephen Gallagher
sgall...@redhat.comescreveu:
On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 22:43 +, Jóhann B.
On 04/26/2012 03:02 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:59:30 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote:
[cut]
What I'm talking about is to tell these great people that there are two
ways to get their app packaged. One way is to become a packager, and so
far this discussion is about that path,.
On 04/26/2012 04:58 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:17:09 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote:
[cut]
And for the second part, that somebody has a good connection with
upstream, I'm not sure how that will help, *if* not even one packager
is available. Worse if the single person with
I got the trailing link wrong, here is same message with link OK (no
punctuation )
On 04/26/2012 04:58 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:17:09 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote:
[cut]
And for the second part, that somebody has a good connection with
upstream, I'm not sure how that
On 04/26/2012 05:49 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:32:17 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote:
OT? The question here isn't really what submitters do or don't, isn't
it what we could do to improve the process?.
The point is that not all submitters are collaborative, and others don't
On 04/27/2012 11:32 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:01:16 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote:
You
I am am a newbie, and although the overall wiki rule is Be Bold this
is not really the place for me to be that IMHO. So, I have prepared a
draft in
On 05/02/2012 05:34 AM, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
VÃt Ondruchvondr...@redhat.com wrote:
Dne 26.4.2012 18:13, Alec Leamas napsal(a):
On 04/26/2012 05:49 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:32:17 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote:
[...]
I am thinking about some dumping repository
This is about BZ 817268, python-faces. The faces library is bundled in
openerp-server, and the request is about unbundling this library.
Faces is basically two python packages and a binary application. The
upstream is dead. The library cannot be used or even installed in
current upstream
On 05/14/2012 10:46 PM, Thomas Moschny wrote:
2012/5/14 Toshio Kuratomia.bad...@gmail.com:
Automating of the package's checksum won't work for many VCS's . git, for
instance, does not preserve timestamps. So the tarball created from a git
snapshot will have a different checksum for each
On 05/15/2012 10:19 AM, Tomas Radej wrote:
On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:31:08 +0200
Remi Colletfed...@famillecollet.com wrote:
Le 14/05/2012 16:22, Toshio Kuratomi a écrit :
What do you think?
I personally prefer to have the checkout instructions in comments.
+1
Except for some very complex
On 06/20/2012 06:59 PM, Sergio Belkin wrote:
Hi Fedora community,
I know that I can fix the new address of sources files with sed
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Wrong_FSF_address). I
think that timestamp should not be preserved because it's a change, a
really small change, but
I raised this issue on rpmfusion-devel. However, I think it's general
enough to seek advice also here on fedora-devel. since it's really about
how to understand the filtering guidelines.
Hi!
I'm reviewing a package 2300 which at a glance seems to need filtering:
it both Requires: and
On 06/21/2012 04:04 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
On 06/21/2012 10:18 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
I raised this issue on rpmfusion-devel. However, I think it's general
enough to seek advice also here on fedora-devel. since it's really about
how to understand the filtering guidelines.
Hi!
I'm reviewing
On 06/21/2012 05:16 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
On 06/21/2012 03:53 PM, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 06/21/2012 04:04 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
[cut]
The filtering page on the wiki is rather out of date as it pre-dates
rpm 4.9 (F-15 onwards), which includes a native filtering mechanism
and doesn't require
This is about a package BZ #787713. It's standard, C++ library with a
base and -devel package.
The devel package contains both arch-dependent stuff (*.so) and noarch
headers.
Now, Ralf Corsepius raised the issue that package-devel.i386 and
package-devel.x86_64 cant be installed in
On 07/19/2012 09:22 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 13:20 -0600, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
Thanks Pierre,
Unfortunately there is no such file .config/fedora-review there is
however a .config/fedora-create-review.
I went a little bit too fast, the file is
On 07/22/2012 10:33 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 21:28:28 +0100
Peter Robinsonpbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Kevin Fenzike...@scrye.com wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 07:39:31 -0500
Dennis Gilmoreden...@ausil.us wrote:
it was requested in
On 07/24/2012 12:08 PM, José Matos wrote:
On 07/22/2012 10:09 PM, Alec Leamas wrote:
First time on this list; I try to handle adobe-source-libraries which
failed. It's just I don't know what to do.
The build failed because recent gcc update revealed a bug in current
boost. This bug is fixed
On 08/02/2012 06:15 PM, José Matos wrote:
On 07/11/2012 06:23 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
Dear all,
A new fedora-review is being brought to you.
For me it fails like this:
$ fedora-review -v -n octave-odepkg
Exception down the road...
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
Back from holidays, I have five feature branches. This is somewhat
insane, and I need to come to conclusions to trash, merge or update
these. Here we go:
koji: Use koji scratch builds. This is just a manpage update, and a
separate script to download koji scratch builds. I could commit this
hm.. previous message with this heading was aimed for the fedora-review
mailing list (fedorarev...@lists.fedorahosted.org). If anyone still
wants to reply , please reply to that list. Otherwise, just ignore.
--alec
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 08/21/2012 05:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I'd like to see these macros back-ported into F17 and F16 RPM to remove
this objection. If that doesn't happen, I'm going to resist using them
in my spec files until they are in all active Fedora branches.
regards, tom lane
+1
On 08/21/2012 04:22 PM, Kamil Paral wrote:
hi,
i need help, because the AutoQA DepCheck fails on the package
speed-dreams,but the package was pushed anyway.
AutoQA DepCheck log:
http://autoqa.fedoraproject.org/results/418027-autotest/virt04.qa/depcheck/results/speed-dreams-2.1.0-1.html
the
On 08/21/2012 07:57 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On 2012-08-21 9:36, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 08/21/2012 04:22 PM, Kamil Paral wrote:
hi,
i need help, because the AutoQA DepCheck fails on the package
speed-dreams,but the package was pushed anyway.
AutoQA DepCheck log:
http
On 08/22/2012 10:53 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
Following this track: if I look into the build log for the 64-bit f17
build [1], it seems that the package doesn't require anything but
the
libenet-1.3.3(64-bit). So; in my simple eyes, this looks like AutoQA
doesn't really understand the situation
On 08/22/2012 10:53 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
Following this track: if I look into the build log for the 64-bit f17
build [1], it seems that the package doesn't require anything but
the
libenet-1.3.3(64-bit). So; in my simple eyes, this looks like AutoQA
doesn't really understand the situation
Trying to package a simple perl-only module from CPAN I get message
above when running rpmlint on the installed package. I have
%{?standard_perl_filter} according to the template.
I have noted that quite a number of existing perl modules (~10 on my
machine) have the same rpmlint warning. Can
On 02/18/2012 03:35 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 15:06:49 +0100
Alec Leamasleamas.a...@gmail.com wrote:
Trying to package a simple perl-only module from CPAN I get message
above when running rpmlint on the installed package. I have
%{?standard_perl_filter} according to the
I've tried to package Adobe Source Libraries, (BZ:790628). Once again,
I'm running into bundling issues.. The situation is basically that ASL
build system expects a boost source tree to be available. This is not
just to include and link, it's for the complete build process. I've
dealt with it
Thanks all for a remarkable set of advice including what not to do
(Petr M), a hint about what to do (Ralf E) and another hint how it
could be done (Aleksandra B).
I have been able to update the packaging to only bundle the boost tools
subdirectory. I presume that this should make everyone
On 03/13/2012 07:21 AM, Amit Saha wrote:
Hello:
I am in the process of building my first package [1], and have got
most of it sorted. 'rpmbuild -ba' executes successfully with the
current SPEC file[3].
However, the SRPM [2] fails in Mock with the error:
RPM build errors:
File not found
On 03/13/2012 08:43 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 03/13/2012 07:21 AM, Amit Saha wrote:
Hello:
I am in the process of building my first package [1], and have got
most of it sorted. 'rpmbuild -ba' executes successfully with the
current SPEC file[3].
However, the SRPM [2] fails in Mock
On 03/13/2012 08:58 AM, Amit Saha wrote:
Hello:
On 03/13/2012 06:50 PM, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 03/13/2012 08:43 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 03/13/2012 07:21 AM, Amit Saha wrote:
Hello:
I am in the process of building my first package [1], and have got
most of it sorted. 'rpmbuild -ba' executes
On 03/13/2012 10:10 AM, Amit Saha wrote:
On 03/13/2012 07:48 PM, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 03/13/2012 08:58 AM, Amit Saha wrote:
Hello:
On 03/13/2012 06:50 PM, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 03/13/2012 08:43 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 03/13/2012 07:21 AM, Amit Saha wrote:
Hello:
I am in the process
On 03/13/2012 11:55 AM, Amit Saha wrote:
On 03/13/2012 09:17 PM, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 03/13/2012 10:10 AM, Amit Saha wrote:
On 03/13/2012 07:48 PM, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 03/13/2012 08:58 AM, Amit Saha wrote:
Hello:
On 03/13/2012 06:50 PM, Alec Leamas wrote:
On 03/13/2012 08:43 AM, Alec
On 03/19/2012 12:50 PM, Nikos Roussos wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to build a package. It's an update on SparkleShare
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/search/sparkleshare package.
I build it locally with mock and everything seems ok. Package is built
successfully. But when I try to build it
1 - 100 of 295 matches
Mail list logo
