Re: f17-gmp and glibc-2.14.90-13
On 10/31/2011 06:02 PM, Jerry James wrote: One of my packages (xemacs) failed the final build in the f17-gmp build target [1], and was marked FTBFS [2]. I see that the f17-gmp builds are now being merged into Rawhide. As I pointed out on that bug, the xemacs build failure was due to building against glibc 2.14.90-13. I don't know the exact cause, but the build is happy again with glibc 2.14.90-15. If other packages in the f17-gmp tag were built against the buggy glibc, we might be merging a bunch of buggy builds into Rawhide. References: [1] https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/4929 [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749236 When I started rebuild, there was some old version, older that the one discussed in F-16 updates. Should I do next rebuild with new glibc or wait for some new well tested glibc release. Or I could it leave for mass rebuild if there will be any. Marcela Mašláňová BaseOS team Brno -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Bug in javac ?
On 10/31/2011 09:49 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote: On 16:48 Mon 31 Oct , Andrew Haley wrote: Am 31.10.2011 17:00, schrieb Deepak Bhole: It looks like a known bug in the 6 compiler related to interface inheritance and covariant return types. I think this is the commit that fixed it in 7: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/langtools/rev/4a3b9801f7a0 If you have code that resembles the above and would like to see the fix backported to 6, please feel free to open a bug. Thanks. Bug is open (#750301) This one should be submitted to the tools people @ Oracle rather than just patched into Icedtea, I think. Their input might avoid us breaking anything. It's worth a try, but they've been pretty unhelpful in the past. The OpenJDK6 toolset is a mess (being some fairly random point in the development of the 7 compiler) and their main contribution has being to break the TCK run. Perhaps, but we really need their input for anything non-trivial on the compiler. The type inference logic is very convoluted, and it is extremely difficult for anyone to look at a patch that fixes one thing and know that it doesn't break something else. It's really easy for a fix to work for, say, building JBoss but not Eclipse. It's arguable whether a patch for something that has been wrong for the whole life of OpenJDK 6 should go in now. On that note, a good initial test for this would be to see if the patched version passes the TCK. Then post to compiler-dev and jdk6-dev. Right. That's the right way to start. Andrew. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
F-16 Branched report: 20111101 changes
Compose started at Tue Nov 1 08:15:35 UTC 2011 Broken deps for x86_64 -- PackageKit-zif-0.6.19-3.fc16.x86_64 requires zif = 0:0.2.5 bibletime-2.8.1-1.fc16.x86_64 requires libclucene.so.0()(64bit) cluster-snmp-0.18.7-1.fc16.x86_64 requires libnetsnmp.so.25()(64bit) comoonics-cdsl-py-0.2-18.noarch requires comoonics-base-py comoonics-cluster-py-0.1-24.noarch requires comoonics-base-py contextkit-0.5.15-2.fc15.i686 requires libcdb.so.1 contextkit-0.5.15-2.fc15.x86_64 requires libcdb.so.1()(64bit) dh-make-0.55-3.fc15.noarch requires debhelper dogtag-pki-9.0.0-7.fc16.noarch requires dogtag-pki-tks-theme = 0:9.0.9 dogtag-pki-9.0.0-7.fc16.noarch requires dogtag-pki-ra-theme = 0:9.0.9 dogtag-pki-9.0.0-7.fc16.noarch requires dogtag-pki-kra-theme = 0:9.0.9 dogtag-pki-9.0.0-7.fc16.noarch requires dogtag-pki-tps-theme = 0:9.0.9 dogtag-pki-9.0.0-7.fc16.noarch requires dogtag-pki-console-theme = 0:9.0.9 dogtag-pki-9.0.0-7.fc16.noarch requires dogtag-pki-ocsp-theme = 0:9.0.9 dogtag-pki-9.0.0-7.fc16.noarch requires dogtag-pki-common-theme = 0:9.0.9 dogtag-pki-9.0.0-7.fc16.noarch requires dogtag-pki-ca-theme = 0:9.0.9 emacs-spice-mode-1.2.25-5.fc15.noarch requires gwave fawkes-plugin-player-0.4.2-6.fc16.x86_64 requires libgeos-3.3.0.so()(64bit) fldigi-3.21.7-1.fc16.x86_64 requires libfltk_images.so.1.1()(64bit) fldigi-3.21.7-1.fc16.x86_64 requires libfltk.so.1.1()(64bit) freeipa-client-2.1.3-5.fc16.x86_64 requires xmlrpc-c = 0:1.27.4 gmediaserver-0.13.0-7.fc15.x86_64 requires libthreadutil.so.2()(64bit) gmediaserver-0.13.0-7.fc15.x86_64 requires libupnp.so.3()(64bit) gnome-pilot-conduits-2.32.1-2.fc15.x86_64 requires libgpilotd.so.5()(64bit) gnome-pilot-conduits-2.32.1-2.fc15.x86_64 requires libgpilotdcm.so.4()(64bit) gnome-pilot-conduits-2.32.1-2.fc15.x86_64 requires libgpilotdconduit.so.3()(64bit) gold-2.1.12.2-7.fc16.noarch requires perl(Data::Properties) gphpedit-0.9.95-0.2.20090209snap.fc15.x86_64 requires libgtkhtml-2.so.0()(64bit) gpx-viewer-0.2.0-3.fc14.x86_64 requires libchamplain-gtk-0.6.so.0()(64bit) gpx-viewer-0.2.0-3.fc14.x86_64 requires libchamplain-0.6.so.0()(64bit) gpx-viewer-0.2.0-3.fc14.x86_64 requires libgdl-1.so.3()(64bit) gscribble-0.1.2-1.fc16.noarch requires gnome-python2-gtkhtml2 gspiceui-0.9.98-3.fc15.x86_64 requires gwave hosts3d-1.13-2.fc15.x86_64 requires libglfw.so.2.6()(64bit) hosts3d-sampler-1.13-2.fc15.x86_64 requires libglfw.so.2.6()(64bit) intellij-idea-9.0.1.94.399-12.fc15.x86_64 requires commons-collections kde-partitionmanager-1.0.3-2.fc15.x86_64 requires libparted.so.0()(64bit) libnatus-V8-0.1.5-2.fc15.x86_64 requires libv8-3.0.0.1.so()(64bit) mediawiki-rss-1.5-4.fc15.noarch requires php-magpierss = 0:0.72 meego-panel-applications-0.2.5-3.fc15.x86_64 requires libgnome-menu.so.2()(64bit) meego-panel-datetime-0.3.2-8.fc16.x86_64 requires libcogl.so.2()(64bit) meego-panel-status-0.3.2-2.fc15.i686 requires libchamplain-0.8.so.1 meego-panel-status-0.3.2-2.fc15.x86_64 requires libchamplain-0.8.so.1()(64bit) meshlab-1.2.2-5.fc14.1.x86_64 requires libGLEW.so.1.5()(64bit) mumble-1.2.3-3.fc15.x86_64 requires libprotobuf.so.6()(64bit) murmur-1.2.3-3.fc15.x86_64 requires libprotobuf.so.6()(64bit) network-manager-netbook-1.8-3.fc15.x86_64 requires libnm-glib.so.2()(64bit) network-manager-netbook-1.8-3.fc15.x86_64 requires libnm-util.so.1()(64bit) pcp-import-sheet2pcp-3.5.0-1.2.fc16.x86_64 requires perl(Spreadsheet::Read) perl-Pugs-Compiler-Rule-0.37-9.fc16.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.3) pida-0.5.1-13.fc15.x86_64 requires gnome-python2-gtkhtml2 pinot-deskbar-0.97-1.fc16.x86_64 requires deskbar-applet pytrainer-1.7.2-2.fc15.noarch requires gnome-python2-gtkmozembed qtgpsc-0.2.3-6.fc12.x86_64 requires libgps.so.18()(64bit) qtparted-0.4.5-26.fc15.x86_64 requires libparted.so.0()(64bit) rubygem-aeolus-cli-0.1.0-5.fc16.noarch requires rubygem(aeolus-image) = 0:0.1.0 rubygem-webmock-1.7.6-2.fc16.noarch requires rubygem(addressable) 0:2.2.5 rubygem-webmock-1.7.6-2.fc16.noarch requires rubygem(addressable) 0:3 rubygem-webmock-1.7.6-2.fc16.noarch requires rubygem(addressable) = 0:2.2 spacewalk-backend-tools-1.4.39-1.fc16.noarch requires spacewalk-admin = 0:0.1.1-0 taoframework-glfw-2.1.0-2.fc15.x86_64 requires libglfw tasque-0.1.9-5.fc15.x86_64 requires mono(evolution-sharp) = 0:5.0.0.0 tasque-0.1.9-5.fc15.x86_64 requires evolution-sharp techtalk-pse-1.0.1-2.fc15.noarch requires perl(Gtk2::MozEmbed)
[Test-Announce] Fedora 16 FINAL Go/No-Go Meeting, TUESDAY, November 1, 2011 @ 21:00 UTC (17:00 EDT/14:00 PDT)
Join us on irc.freenode.net in #fedora-meeting for this important meeting, Tuesday, November 1, 2011, at 21:00 UTC (17:00 EDT, 14:00 PDT). Before each public release Development, QA, and Release Engineering meet to determine if the release criteria are met for a particular release. This meeting is called the: Go/No-Go Meeting. Verifying that the Release criteria are met is the responsibility of the QA Team. For more details about this meeting see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Go_No_Go_Meeting And while you wait, keep an eye on the current F16 final blockers, and help fill out the test result matrices: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Current_Release_Blockers http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Fedora_16_Final_RC_Test_Results ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
rawhide report: 20111101 changes
Compose started at Tue Nov 1 08:15:35 UTC 2011 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Rethinking proventester and critpath
It's a common complaint that it's too difficult to get updates to critpath packages through the update system at the moment. We've been looking into trying to make that easier without just dropping the critpath requirements, and one thing we looked at was whether the requirement for positive karma from proventesters was a net benefit. Thankfully this is the kind of thing that we can actually generate numbers for. Luke pulled some statistics which are available at http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/104084.html . The relevant section here is the set of packages that have (a) sufficient positive karma to be pushed, but (b) negative proventester karma - that is, the packages where negative proventester karma prevented a push. Straight off, we can see that these amount to 1-2% of all critpath updates. It's simply not common for proventester to make a difference to the outcome. If we look at the individual packages, things get even more interesting. Many of the updates receive a mixture of proventester karma, so even with the negative the push would still go ahead. As far as I can tell: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xorg-x11-drv-geode-2.11.9-1.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/system-setup-keyboard-0.8.6-2.fc14 are the only two updates where the proventester karma requirement would have made a difference, out of 1942 critpath updates that made it to stable. That doesn't seem like a great hit rate. So, assuming I'm not grossly misanalysing the data, it seems that we could drop the proventester requirement from critical path updates with a negligable change in the quality of the updates. Thoughts? -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Rethinking proventester and critpath
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote: It's a common complaint that it's too difficult to get updates to critpath packages through the update system at the moment. We've been looking into trying to make that easier without just dropping the critpath requirements, and one thing we looked at was whether the requirement for positive karma from proventesters was a net benefit. Thankfully this is the kind of thing that we can actually generate numbers for. Luke pulled some statistics which are available at http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/104084.html . The relevant section here is the set of packages that have (a) sufficient positive karma to be pushed, but (b) negative proventester karma - that is, the packages where negative proventester karma prevented a push. Straight off, we can see that these amount to 1-2% of all critpath updates. It's simply not common for proventester to make a difference to the outcome. If we look at the individual packages, things get even more interesting. Many of the updates receive a mixture of proventester karma, so even with the negative the push would still go ahead. As far as I can tell: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xorg-x11-drv-geode-2.11.9-1.fc14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/system-setup-keyboard-0.8.6-2.fc14 are the only two updates where the proventester karma requirement would have made a difference, out of 1942 critpath updates that made it to stable. That doesn't seem like a great hit rate. Well this looks like just a coincidence to me that the people finding issues where proventesters in this cases. So, assuming I'm not grossly misanalysing the data, it seems that we could drop the proventester requirement from critical path updates with a negligable change in the quality of the updates. Thoughts? I'd say go for it and I doubt there would be any quality change. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Unreachable maintainer: Adam Miller
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 05:51:10PM +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote: Last three months I cannot reach Adam Miller (aka maxamillion), neither by emails nor by bugzilla ticket (#733030), whereas it seems that during this period he appears sometimes here. Could anybody contact him? I had a chat with him on IRC about Fedora only 1 or 2 days ago. I've just pinged him about this thread. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Rethinking proventester and critpath
On 11/01/2011 01:59 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: So, assuming I'm not grossly misanalysing the data, it seems that we could drop the proventester requirement from critical path updates with a negligable change in the quality of the updates. Thoughts? Agreed flag it as tried and tested stats dont lie... JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Improvements Eclipse Installation
[...] One note, I don't like macros that span multiple scriptlets. Having a macro for each scriptlet (or forgoing a macro if the resulting code is simple enough) seems to be about the right level of indirection. It does not look pretty I agree, but my motivation is to make things simple for plugin packagers. Also, it makes it simple to update the macro when bugs show up without having to update the packages with additional macros. They just get the update when they are rebuilt. Sami -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[perl-Catalyst-Runtime] update to 5.90006
commit 5bdb5301294fa3fcb34b426818bb9e6d2c29d4ac
Author: Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com
Date: Sun Oct 30 11:17:52 2011 +0100
update to 5.90006
.gitignore |1 +
perl-Catalyst-Runtime.spec | 26 +-
sources|2 +-
3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index 1fb0826..bd22994 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -4,3 +4,4 @@ Catalyst-Runtime-5.80021.tar.gz
/Catalyst-Runtime-5.80030.tar.gz
/Catalyst-Runtime-5.80032.tar.gz
/Catalyst-Runtime-5.90002.tar.gz
+/Catalyst-Runtime-5.90006.tar.gz
diff --git a/perl-Catalyst-Runtime.spec b/perl-Catalyst-Runtime.spec
index b9d4248..bdd8457 100644
--- a/perl-Catalyst-Runtime.spec
+++ b/perl-Catalyst-Runtime.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-Catalyst-Runtime
Summary:Catalyst Framework Runtime
-Version:5.90002
+Version:5.90006
Release:1%{?dist}
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ BuildRequires: perl(Carp)
BuildRequires: perl(CGI::Simple::Cookie) = 1.109
BuildRequires: perl(Class::C3::Adopt::NEXT) = 0.07
BuildRequires: perl(Class::Data::Inheritable)
+BuildRequires: perl(Class::Load) = 0.12
BuildRequires: perl(Class::MOP) = 0.95
BuildRequires: perl(CPAN)
BuildRequires: perl(Data::Dump)
@@ -69,25 +70,22 @@ BuildRequires: perl(File::Modified)
BuildRequires: perl(Proc::ProcessTable)
BuildRequires: perl(Test::Harness)
BuildRequires: perl(Test::Pod)
+BuildRequires: perl(Test::Spelling)
BuildRequires: perl(Test::Without::Module)
BuildRequires: perl(YAML)
Requires: perl(B::Hooks::EndOfScope) = 0.08
-Requires: perl(Carp)
Requires: perl(CGI::Simple::Cookie) = 1.109
Requires: perl(Class::C3::Adopt::NEXT) = 0.07
+Requires: perl(Class::Load) = 0.12
Requires: perl(Class::MOP) = 0.95
-Requires: perl(Data::Dump)
-Requires: perl(Data::OptList)
-Requires: perl(HTML::Entities)
Requires: perl(HTML::HeadParser)
Requires: perl(HTTP::Body) = 1.06
Requires: perl(HTTP::Headers) = 1.64
Requires: perl(HTTP::Request) = 5.814
Requires: perl(HTTP::Request::AsCGI) = 1.0
Requires: perl(HTTP::Response) = 5.813
-Requires: perl(List::MoreUtils)
Requires: perl(LWP::UserAgent)
Requires: perl(Module::Pluggable) = 3.9
Requires: perl(Moose) = 1.03
@@ -96,25 +94,17 @@ Requires: perl(MooseX::Getopt) = 0.30
Requires: perl(MooseX::MethodAttributes::Inheritable) = 0.24
Requires: perl(MooseX::Role::WithOverloading) = 0.09
Requires: perl(MooseX::Types)
-Requires: perl(MooseX::Types::Common::Numeric)
Requires: perl(MooseX::Types::LoadableClass) = 0.003
-Requires: perl(MRO::Compat)
Requires: perl(namespace::autoclean) = 0.09
Requires: perl(namespace::clean) = 0.13
Requires: perl(Path::Class) = 0.09
Requires: perl(Plack) = 0.9974
Requires: perl(Plack::Middleware::ReverseProxy) = 0.04
Requires: perl(Plack::Test::ExternalServer)
-Requires: perl(Scalar::Util)
Requires: perl(String::RewritePrefix) = 0.004
-Requires: perl(Sub::Exporter)
Requires: perl(Task::Weaken)
-Requires: perl(Text::Balanced)
Requires: perl(Text::SimpleTable) = 0.03
-Requires: perl(Time::HiRes)
Requires: perl(Tree::Simple) = 1.15
-Requires: perl(Tree::Simple::Visitor::FindByPath)
-Requires: perl(Try::Tiny)
Requires: perl(URI) = 1.35
%{?perl_default_filter}
@@ -179,17 +169,19 @@ make test
make clean
%files
-%defattr(-,root,root,-)
-%doc Changes COPYING*
+%doc Changes COPYING* README
%{perl_vendorlib}/*
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%files scripts
-%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%{_bindir}/*
%{_mandir}/man1/*
%changelog
+* Sun Oct 30 2011 Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 5.90006-1
+- update to latest upstream version
+- remove unnecessary explicit requires
+
* Mon Aug 29 2011 Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 5.90002-1
- update to latest upstream version
diff --git a/sources b/sources
index cd48826..7a8ebdd 100644
--- a/sources
+++ b/sources
@@ -1 +1 @@
-0537a1f3b74a4395bcad74652a742d60 Catalyst-Runtime-5.90002.tar.gz
+1020759c4f0f47095f4b2286e7149833 Catalyst-Runtime-5.90006.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-Catalyst-Runtime/f16] update to 5.90006
Summary of changes: 5bdb530... update to 5.90006 (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
Bug 750566 - qtparted won't install because it is from F15 and requires libparted.so.0, and F16 has libparted.so.1
I installed F16 RC2 Live, and tried to install qtparted. It won't install because the most recent qtparted RPM is from F15 and requires libparted.so.0, and F16 has libparted.so.1 pulled in by F16's parted. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=750566 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[Bug 750039] perl-Module-Runtime-0.11 and perl-Class-Load-0.12 in F16
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=750039 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-01 11:42:10 EDT --- perl-Catalyst-Runtime-5.90006-1.fc16,perl-Class-Load-0.12-1.fc16,perl-Module-Runtime-0.011-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Catalyst-Runtime-5.90006-1.fc16,perl-Class-Load-0.12-1.fc16,perl-Module-Runtime-0.011-1.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
Re: rawhide report: 20111101 changes
On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 13:38:34 + Rawhide Report rawh...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Compose started at Tue Nov 1 08:15:35 UTC 2011 The compose actually ran and synced, but repodiff seems to have failed, so no report or broken deps spams. ;( Looking at the issue to get it fixed for tomorrow. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[Test-Announce] Fedora 16 FINAL Go/No-Go Meeting is WEDNESDAY, not TODAY, sorry!
See below; everything still applies, except: Meeting is Wednesday, November 2, 2011, at 21:00 UTC (17:00 EDT, 14:00 PDT). I'm just, you know, making sure y'all are paying attention. AdamW is the winner today! :D -Robyn On 11/01/2011 05:02 AM, Robyn Bergeron wrote: Join us on irc.freenode.net in #fedora-meeting for this important meeting, Tuesday, November 1, 2011, at 21:00 UTC (17:00 EDT, 14:00 PDT). Before each public release Development, QA, and Release Engineering meet to determine if the release criteria are met for a particular release. This meeting is called the: Go/No-Go Meeting. Verifying that the Release criteria are met is the responsibility of the QA Team. For more details about this meeting see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Go_No_Go_Meeting And while you wait, keep an eye on the current F16 final blockers, and help fill out the test result matrices: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Current_Release_Blockers http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Fedora_16_Final_RC_Test_Results ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[Test-Announce] 2011-11-01 17:00 UTC (in 6 minutes!): emergency F16 blocker review meeting
Hey, folks. Quick heads up: I'm planning an emergency blocker review meeting in #fedora-bugzappers in 6 minutes (top of the hour). Some bugs were newly proposed as blockers overnight and several are likely to be contentious, so we should have a proper meeting to review them and decide on a course of action going forward. Thanks! Anyone who's interested is welcome to attend / vote, votes are weighted and tabulated in a Highly Scientific Manner otherwise known as whoever's running the meeting deciding when we have a consensus. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Vanilla builds guideline?
Hi,
for better automation of our static analysis tools we would like to have
some defined way how to get as close to vanilla as possible build from
Fedora srpms. Based on our statistics ~15% of packages are affected -
you can't simply build them without Fedora patches.
This can also be used for other purposes - if you want to rule out
influence of distro specific patches before reporting problem upstream
in the case that upstream sources are hard to compile/get running on
Fedora system. This could reduce false alarms to upstream lists.
In many cases it is not possible to simply disable all the patches -
some are required to get the rpm built but do not affect program
functionality. We have discussed that problem with rpm guy - to get a
way with the lowest possible impact on the package. As a solution, we
are proposing %{?_rawbuild} conditional.
Note: Some packages already use this %{?_rawbuild} anotation, some use %
global _with_vanilla 0 to give user a chance for vanilla build.
Change in the spec file is very simple - just for the patches required
for vanilla build this conditional should be added.
e.g. from the sudo spec file
%patch3 -p1 -b .m4path
-
%patch3 -p1 -b .m4path %{?_rawbuild}
After this change you can simply create a wrapper for rpmbuild, which
will apply only patches with the %{?_rawbuild} annotation. For more
complicated changes, _with_vanilla global is probably better option.
Our wrapper is available at
http://kdudka.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild-rawbuild .
Is it possible to establish some common rule for Vanilla builds in
Packaging Guidelines? Any other ideas?
Thanks in advance for consideration!
(or pointing me to better place where to ask - I already tried
packag...@lists.fedoraproject.org , but with almost no response (only
suggestion of fedora-devel list :) ))
Greetings,
Ondrej Vasik
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Unreachable maintainer: Adam Miller
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 05:51:10PM +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote: Last three months I cannot reach Adam Miller (aka maxamillion), neither by emails nor by bugzilla ticket (#733030), whereas it seems that during this period he appears sometimes here. Could anybody contact him? Apologies for missing the BZ email, I get CC'd on a lot of bugs and its possible this one slipped through the cracks and that's clearly my fault... however, I am searching through my inbox which I have archives of the last five years and I don't see any direct email from you to me or at least none that actually made it to my inbox. I will address the BZ by the end of the day. -AdamM -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Vanilla builds guideline?
Ondrej Vasik wrote: Is it possible to establish some common rule for Vanilla builds in Packaging Guidelines? IMHO, that would be unhelpful, unneccessary and unsupportable. You already mention that there are patches which need to be applied for the package to build/work at all. It's not always obvious which these are. Plus, where do you draw the line between working and not working? Moreover, in some cases, building against the Fedora libfoo will require a patch, whereas building against the vanilla libfoo won't (and the patch might even make it not build). I think it's hard enough to make things work as is. People who want vanilla upstream software should build it directly from upstream or use Slackware. I'll take software that actually works, thank you very much! Every minute spent on making vanilla builds work is a minute NOT spent on making our default builds work better. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Vanilla builds guideline?
On 11/01/2011 10:22 PM, Ondrej Vasik wrote: Hi, for better automation of our static analysis tools we would like to have some defined way how to get as close to vanilla as possible build from Fedora srpms If you want this change, you should file a request with FESCo https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Unresponsive Package Maintainer - Gary T. Giesen
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:15:20PM +0200, Sven Lankes wrote: I'm following the procedure at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers Does anyone know how to contact Gary T. Giesen? I've sent him an email (also CCed on this one) a few months ago requesting co-maintainer status for daemonize without a response. Gary has two open bugs without a response: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701383 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=746783 His last koji build was in July 2009 - 27 months ago. No change here. I haven't received a reply so I'm requesting his packages to be orphaned. I would like to take daemonize and rancid. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Vanilla builds guideline?
Hi Kevin, On Tuesday 01 November 2011 18:23:25 Kevin Kofler wrote: IMHO, that would be unhelpful, unneccessary and unsupportable. thank you for expressing your concerns. You already mention that there are patches which need to be applied for the package to build/work at all. For the vast majority of Fedora packages, we are already able to do vanilla builds using the aforementioned utility without changing _anything_ in the packages themselves. The other packages (5-10%) require usually a one-line change in the specfile to get this working. It's not always obvious which these are. Please be specific. Are there any patches that you are not sure whether they are required for build? Then give us some examples. Plus, where do you draw the line between working and not working? Moreover, in some cases, building against the Fedora libfoo will require a patch, whereas building against the vanilla libfoo won't (and the patch might even make it not build). Such a patch needs to be improved anyway in order to be accepted by upstream, which is our long-term goal, isn't it? I think it's hard enough to make things work as is. People who want vanilla upstream software should build it directly from upstream or use Slackware. I'll take software that actually works, thank you very much! Every minute spent on making vanilla builds work is a minute NOT spent on making our default builds work better. We are not forcing anybody to work on fixing issues related to vanilla builds. This request is about defining a standardized way for supporting vanilla builds. It will always be maintainer's decision whether to support them or not. Actually many core packages (such as kernel or openjdk) explicitly support vanilla builds for long period already. Kamil -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Unresponsive Package Maintainer - Gary T. Giesen
Am Dienstag, den 01.11.2011, 19:36 +0100 schrieb Sven Lankes: On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:15:20PM +0200, Sven Lankes wrote: I'm following the procedure at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers No really. You should have done this in the bug reports in BZ and not on the mailing list. 2 Attempts in BZ are the first step, then comes the mailing list and (my personal opinion) a personal mail because people tend to ignore lists and BZ. However... Does anyone know how to contact Gary T. Giesen? I've sent him an email (also CCed on this one) a few months ago requesting co-maintainer status for daemonize without a response. Gary has two open bugs without a response: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701383 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=746783 His last koji build was in July 2009 - 27 months ago. No change here. I haven't received a reply so I'm requesting his packages to be orphaned. I would like to take daemonize and rancid. ... in this particular case where a maintainer is has not done anything for more than 2 years, I find it hard to believe he will return. I therefor approve your request as a FESCO member in order to continue with the procedure. Regards, Christoph -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Unresponsive Package Maintainer - Gary T. Giesen
On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 19:50:38 +0100 Christoph Wickert christoph.wick...@googlemail.com wrote: Am Dienstag, den 01.11.2011, 19:36 +0100 schrieb Sven Lankes: On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:15:20PM +0200, Sven Lankes wrote: Does anyone know how to contact Gary T. Giesen? I've sent him an email (also CCed on this one) a few months ago requesting co-maintainer status for daemonize without a response. Gary has two open bugs without a response: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701383 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=746783 His last koji build was in July 2009 - 27 months ago. No change here. I haven't received a reply so I'm requesting his packages to be orphaned. I would like to take daemonize and rancid. I'm following the procedure at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers No really. You should have done this in the bug reports in BZ and not on the mailing list. 2 Attempts in BZ are the first step, then comes the mailing list and (my personal opinion) a personal mail because people tend to ignore lists and BZ. ... in this particular case where a maintainer is has not done anything for more than 2 years, I find it hard to believe he will return. I therefor approve your request as a FESCO member in order to continue with the procedure. I'm Gary's sponsor. I, too, have been trying to contact him for a long time. As nothing has happened, I have revoked my sponsorship. -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Orphaning packages
Hi: I'm orphaning the following packages; I've not given them the proper care and affection that they need. eg -- Git for mere mortals giggle -- A Gtk frontend to git gitg -- GTK+ graphical interface for the git revision control system ipython -- An enhanced interactive Python shell mod_wsgi -- A WSGI interface for Python web applications in Apache python-ZSI -- Zolera SOAP Infrastructure python-elixir -- A declarative mapper for SQLAlchemy python-vobject -- A python library for manipulating vCard and vCalendar files stgit -- Patch stack for Git repositories If you already have any ACLs on these packages, please feel free to grab up ownership. Thanks, -James pgpTJGtipOmyx.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
New build of fedpkg (fedora-packager) coming to updates-testing / rawhide
For f15 through rawhide and epel 6 there is a new update coming for fedpkg (part of fedora-packager). This build is a pretty major rewrite to make use of a shared pyrpkg backend. Coming along for the ride is a new build of GitPython which brings some more deps, python-gitdb, python-async, and python-smmap. There has been a lot of code shuffle in fedpkg so I'm really interested in heavy testing of this. GitPython also has an API change from previous builds so if there are other consumers of GitPython I need to know about them to help with API migration. Please test these updates and let me know if all is good, or if you have other issues. Bodhi karma, email, IRC, smoke signal, just let me know. Thanks! -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: FESCo Meeting Minutes for 2011-10-31
Stephen Gallagher wrote: * #683 - Zif as default PackageKit backend for desktop users - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ZifByDefaultForDesktop (sgallagh, 17:03:32) * AGREED: ZifByDefaultForDesktop is refused as a Feature for Fedora 17 (sgallagh, 17:07:32) IMHO refusing this was a bad idea when the more general rule was originally decided and is still a bad idea now. You're essentially blackmailing zif upstream: Either you fully support command-line users or you will never be the default in Fedora's PackageKit. But command-line users and PackageKit users have different needs, having a requirement that both must use the same default backend can only hurt one or the other group of users. (Currently, we're hurting the PackageKit users, which should be the majority… Though there are still a lot of users using the command line, which I suspect is BECAUSE yum is a poor fit for PackageKit. See also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=748790 .) Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[Test-Announce] Fedora 16 Final Release Candidate 4 (RC4) Available Now!
As per the Fedora 16 schedule [1], Fedora 16 Final Release Candidate 4 (RC4) is now available for testing. Please see the following pages for download links (including delta ISOs) and testing instructions. Serverbeach1 is still available as a mirror (but with approximately a 1 hour lag behind dl), so if you are getting a slow download, try replacing dl with serverbeach1 in the download URL. Installation: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Installation_Test Base: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Base_Test Desktop: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Desktop_Test Security Lab: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Security_Lab_Test Ideally, all Alpha, Beta, and Final priority test cases for Installation [2], Base [3], Desktop [4], and Security Lab [5] should pass in order to meet the Final Release Criteria [6]. Help is available on #fedora-qa on irc.freenode.net [7], or on the test list [8]. Create Fedora 16 Final release candidate (RC) - live and traditional https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/4967 F16 Final Blocker tracker bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=713568 F16 Final Nice-To-Have tracker bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=713566 [1] http://rbergero.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-16/f-16-quality-tasks.html [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Installation_validation_testing [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Base_validation_testing [4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Desktop_validation_testing [5] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Security_Lab_validation_testing [6] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_16_Final_Release_Criteria [7] irc://irc.freenode.net/fedora-qa [8] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ test-announce mailing list test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test-announce-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Making release of KDE LiveDVD spin for Fedora 17
Hi, Fedora-Live-KDE CD's released officially are limited by size 700M so there not much space for various KDE applications. Such space becomes even smaller at every Fedora release because of other non-KDE packages. There was digikam and kipi-plugins on Fedora 15 LiveCD but no space for them Fedora 16 CD's. So is it makes sense to release not only 700M-sized Live-KDE images but also 2G-sized (actual size is 1.5G) along with other Fedora spins? Such 2G images additionally may contain basic KDE applications such as digikam, kipi-plugins, kdeedu, kdegames and other. -- Alexey Kurov nuc...@fedoraproject.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: New build of fedpkg (fedora-packager) coming to updates-testing / rawhide
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote: For f15 through rawhide and epel 6 there is a new update coming for fedpkg (part of fedora-packager). This build is a pretty major rewrite to make use of a shared pyrpkg backend. Coming along for the ride is a new build of GitPython which brings some more deps, python-gitdb, python-async, and python-smmap. There has been a lot of code shuffle in fedpkg so I'm really interested in heavy testing of this. GitPython also has an API change from previous builds so if there are other consumers of GitPython I need to know about them to help with API migration. Please test these updates and let me know if all is good, or if you have other issues. Bodhi karma, email, IRC, smoke signal, just let me know. I used it for the latter part of the day and things seem to work well for my normal workflow. josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: FESCo Meeting Minutes for 2011-10-31
On 11/02/2011 07:54 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Stephen Gallagher wrote: * #683 - Zif as default PackageKit backend for desktop users - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ZifByDefaultForDesktop (sgallagh, 17:03:32) * AGREED: ZifByDefaultForDesktop is refused as a Feature for Fedora 17 (sgallagh, 17:07:32) IMHO refusing this was a bad idea when the more general rule was originally decided and is still a bad idea now. You're essentially blackmailing zif upstream: Either you fully support command-line users or you will never be the default in Fedora's PackageKit. I don't think this is the argument. Having potentially different behaviour between command line dep resolver and gui dep resolver is very problematic and this is a important concern. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
File MooseX-AttributeShortcuts-0.006.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by ppisar
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-MooseX-AttributeShortcuts: ca7d063db9f2a30db655662f50bcfaf7 MooseX-AttributeShortcuts-0.006.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[Bug 749781] perl-MooseX-AttributeShortcuts-0.006 is available
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=749781 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-MooseX-AttributeShortc ||uts-0.006-1.fcf17 Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-11-01 05:04:27 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[Bug 750039] perl-Module-Runtime-0.11 and perl-Class-Load-0.12 in F16
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=750039 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2011-11-01 06:17:14 EDT --- I don't understand why Class-Load-0.12 requires Module-Runtime-0.11 if only change in Module-Runtime-0.11 is compatibility with perl-5.10. However therefore I have no objections to upgrade Module-Runtime to 0.11 in F16. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[Bug 750039] perl-Module-Runtime-0.11 and perl-Class-Load-0.12 in F16
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=750039 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In Version||perl-Module-Runtime-0.011-1 ||.fc16 --- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com 2011-11-01 06:31:28 EDT --- Package built and and in override (available after repository rotation): [ perl-Module-Runtime-0.011-1.fc16 ] * Notes: For Catalyst-Runtime-5.90006 (bug #750039) * Submitter: ppisar * Submitted: 2011-11-01 10:28:45 * Expiration: 2011-11-04 00:00:00 Once you build all needed packages someone should add all of them into one update request. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-Class-Load/f16] Update to 0.12
Summary of changes: 7a438a5... Update to 0.12 (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[Bug 750039] perl-Module-Runtime-0.11 and perl-Class-Load-0.12 in F16
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=750039 --- Comment #4 from Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 2011-11-01 06:47:53 EDT --- Thanks, Petr. Once Class-Load is available, I'll do Catalyst-Runtime and make the update. And you're right, of course. We don't actually need the Module-Runtime-0.11 fix, but Catalyst was affected on other platforms and wants to ensure that the fixed version is used. If it were just Catalyst, I'd probably patch away the version dependency, but I expect that other consumers of Class::Load will also start insisting on = 0.12, so makes more sense to have that available. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-Class-Load] Created tag perl-Class-Load-0.12-1.fc16
The lightweight tag 'perl-Class-Load-0.12-1.fc16' was created pointing to: 7a438a5... Update to 0.12 -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
Broken dependencies: perl-Pugs-Compiler-Rule
perl-Pugs-Compiler-Rule has broken dependencies in the F-16 tree: On x86_64: perl-Pugs-Compiler-Rule-0.37-9.fc16.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.3) On i386: perl-Pugs-Compiler-Rule-0.37-9.fc16.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.3) Please resolve this as soon as possible. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[Bug 750039] perl-Module-Runtime-0.11 and perl-Class-Load-0.12 in F16
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=750039 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Module-Runtime-0.011-1 |perl-Module-Runtime-0.011-1 |.fc16 |.fc16, ||perl-Class-Load-0.12-1.fc16 --- Comment #5 from Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org 2011-11-01 07:20:43 EDT --- Class-Load done: koji wait-repo f16-build --build=perl-Class-Load-0.12-1.fc16 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
File MogileFS-Utils-2.21.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by ppisar
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-MogileFS-Utils: 51740b8b320b087dbe4601ed904f3ce5 MogileFS-Utils-2.21.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-MogileFS-Utils] 2.21 bump
commit 2d04ffa4ebbee88c03dd6bf17c82cd8785a3375a
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Nov 1 12:55:44 2011 +0100
2.21 bump
.gitignore |1 +
perl-MogileFS-Utils.spec | 13 ++---
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index a80e386..f485fd4 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
MogileFS-Utils-2.16.tar.gz
/MogileFS-Utils-2.19.tar.gz
/MogileFS-Utils-2.20.tar.gz
+/MogileFS-Utils-2.21.tar.gz
diff --git a/perl-MogileFS-Utils.spec b/perl-MogileFS-Utils.spec
index cea64aa..a8ed490 100644
--- a/perl-MogileFS-Utils.spec
+++ b/perl-MogileFS-Utils.spec
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
%global libname MogileFS-Utils
Name: perl-%{libname}
-Version:2.20
-Release:3%{?dist}
+Version:2.21
+Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:Utilities for MogileFS
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -18,11 +18,6 @@ Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval `%{__perl}
-V:version`; echo $versi
Requires: perl(MogileFS::Client) = 1.14
# Remove under-specified dependencies
-# RPM 4.8 style:
-%{?filter_setup:
-%filter_from_requires /^perl(MogileFS::Client)$/d
-%filter_setup}
-# RPM 4.9 style:
%global __requires_exclude
%{?__requires_exclude:%__requires_exclude|}^perl\\(MogileFS::Client\\)$
%description
@@ -52,6 +47,10 @@ make test
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Tue Nov 01 2011 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 2.21-1
+- 2.21 bump
+- Remove RPM 4.8 filtering
+
* Mon Jul 25 2011 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com - 2.20-3
- RPM 4.9 dependency filtering added
diff --git a/sources b/sources
index 3e7cd25..f94e8fa 100644
--- a/sources
+++ b/sources
@@ -1 +1 @@
-53b8205ddbc8f0b3232b60a1c0a4e2fc MogileFS-Utils-2.20.tar.gz
+51740b8b320b087dbe4601ed904f3ce5 MogileFS-Utils-2.21.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-MogileFS-Utils] Fix typo (Šílen� žluťou�ký ků� úp�l �áb�lské ódy. ������������)
commit 142cc351c79a689f390a787309e395283019ffcc
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Nov 1 12:58:44 2011 +0100
Fix typo (Šíleně žluťoučký kůň úpěl ďábělské ódy. おはよフェドラ！)
The crazy subject is to test
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/3930.
perl-MogileFS-Utils.spec |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-MogileFS-Utils.spec b/perl-MogileFS-Utils.spec
index a8ed490..9bb93fb 100644
--- a/perl-MogileFS-Utils.spec
+++ b/perl-MogileFS-Utils.spec
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/%{libname}/
Source0:
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/D/DO/DORMANDO/%{libname}-%{version}.tar.gz
BuildArch: noarch
BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
-# These listen in META.yml are needed at run-time only, no tests exist:
+# These listed in META.yml are needed at run-time only, no tests exist:
#BuildRequires: perl(MogileFS::Client) = 1.14
#BuildRequires: perl(Compress::Zlib)
#BuildRequires: perl(LWP::Simple)
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[Bug 750048] perl-MogileFS-Utils-2.21 is available
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=750048 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Fixed In Version||perl-MogileFS-Utils-2.21-1. ||fc17 Last Closed||2011-11-01 08:15:52 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[Bug 711486] Missing dependency (perl-ExtUtils-MakeMaker) in perl-CPANPLUS
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=711486 Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|750145 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[Bug 749157] perl-Dancer-1.3080 is available
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=749157 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Last Closed||2011-11-01 12:22:39 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
File Catalyst-Runtime-5.80033.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by iarnell
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Catalyst-Runtime: 5f7571fbac0cbbaee97a1f3cd5456a91 Catalyst-Runtime-5.80033.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-Catalyst-Runtime/f15] update to 5.80033
commit b0794d99cffc54b7dd3fd7b2ec6abf3d52d6ea9c
Author: Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com
Date: Wed Nov 2 06:21:21 2011 +0100
update to 5.80033
.gitignore |1 +
perl-Catalyst-Runtime.spec |5 -
sources|2 +-
3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index 52a490e..28c0e8d 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -3,3 +3,4 @@ Catalyst-Runtime-5.80021.tar.gz
/Catalyst-Runtime-5.80029.tar.gz
/Catalyst-Runtime-5.80030.tar.gz
/Catalyst-Runtime-5.80032.tar.gz
+/Catalyst-Runtime-5.80033.tar.gz
diff --git a/perl-Catalyst-Runtime.spec b/perl-Catalyst-Runtime.spec
index 2acd99b..1c0cc3d 100644
--- a/perl-Catalyst-Runtime.spec
+++ b/perl-Catalyst-Runtime.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-Catalyst-Runtime
Summary:Catalyst Framework Runtime
-Version:5.80032
+Version:5.80033
Release:1%{?dist}
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -177,6 +177,9 @@ make clean
%{_mandir}/man1/*
%changelog
+* Wed Nov 02 2011 Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 5.80033-1
+- update to 5.80033
+
* Mon Mar 07 2011 Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com 5.80032-1
- update to latest upstream version
- clean up spec for modern rpmbuild
diff --git a/sources b/sources
index 062b627..411b19b 100644
--- a/sources
+++ b/sources
@@ -1 +1 @@
-a44aabbf6c89ed4c26464167d53b6fab Catalyst-Runtime-5.80032.tar.gz
+5f7571fbac0cbbaee97a1f3cd5456a91 Catalyst-Runtime-5.80033.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-Catalyst-Runtime/el6] (3 commits) ...update to 5.80033
Summary of changes: faa343b... - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_15_Mass (*) 39d48e2... update to 5.80032 (*) b0794d9... update to 5.80033 (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
